Fascism is awful

submitted by DragonerneJesus is white from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

So the argument is that fascism is better because jews didn't see it as a threat as much as national socialism. Isn't this a condemnation of fascism as not being truly a liberation of the people, opposing the plutocracies etc?

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The argument is that Italian fascism is better because that wasn't as unstable as Nazism. You can't just blame everything on the Jews. The war was obviously pushed by England, but you can't say that Hitler didn't have a big deal in make this happen.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The argument is that Italian fascism is better because that wasn't as unstable as Nazism.

It would seem the opposite is true, because the Italian state tore itself apart in a civil war upon being subjected to external pressure, whereas the German state endured until the very end. The fact that Italian fascism was older than the National Socialist government is a point against its stability rather than a point for it, because it collapsed more easily despite the additional time of solidification and consolidation in comparison with Germany.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So how did that have anything to do with National Socialism supposedly being unstable? How does destruction through warfare mean the political system is faulty? There's no correlation there.

By this logic liberalism is superior to both of them, and so is feudalism which are both obviously untrue unless you're a powerful person within those societies.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

1) nazi elite was clearly eager to start a big war, which was a bad idea to start with, and that's a reason of the instability of nazism. 1.5) years in power are a quantitative measure and you asked for that

2) even without taking that in account, nazism itself was heavily inclined to over-racialize any political problem. Racial distinctions were promoted even between germans at the academic level. There was a useless focus on eugenics over social and spiritual factors. Maybe Hitler himself held different ideas, but there were surely influential parts of the nazi establishment that promoted ideas of disunity among their own nation. That's an extremly unstable situation.

3) the nazis were unable to identify a common religion for their people, unlike fascism in spain, austria, italy, romania and so on, and ended up half-heartedly promoting a butchered version of the bible.

You can claim that those were minor factors and that toward the end of the war the nazis embraced a broad definition and the religious stuff wasn't important anymore. But those factor eventually would end up being very important. Except for that, however, the differences between fascism and nazism are extremly tiny and mostly related to the different level of industrialization of both countries. Fascism, as political, social and spiritual system, was absolutely sustainable in my opinion. Nazism, on the other hand, not so much. For how long the germans would have accepted to be categorized as hierachically distinct races?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

1) So they should have just not prepared and let the 4 empires slaughter them? The only way they would have avoided the war is if they didn't oppose the plutocracies. You're just condemning them for actually being real nationalists lol.

1.5) I meant quantitative in terms of economics and such, IE quantifiable metrics of material prosperity for the average person.

2) Was it though? The German people were more unified than ever.

3) Had no perceivable negative effect, this is just your personal preference for religious homogeneity. Sure it would be nice to have one church rather than multiple but doesn't matter politically or socially if there are no negative outcomes. It's not like Ireland where they were having civil wars during the Third Reich or something.

Nazism, on the other hand, not so much. For how long the germans would have accepted to be categorized as hierachically distinct races?

Where's the evidence of anything to do with separating between Nordics, Alpines, Dinarics etc in policy? This was just a hobby of racial scientists and was already out of fashion in the Third Reich with Hitler dismissing it. I very much doubt he would have morphed into some spergy Lothrop Stoddard type character and randomly create a caste system based on phenotypes. Do you really think the man who erased class boundaries and turned Germany into one people would randomly bring an even shittier caste system into place? I don't see why you would assume such a thing, sounds retarded.

You're just making wild assumptions/strawmen of irrelevant things and saying in a theoretical abstract future that didn't actually happen National Socialism would become extremely gay and retarded for no reason at all. I much prefer analysing what their policies actually were and comparing the two.

Again, my example. 5 years, you get to be the average ordinary working class person in any country throughout history, do you think Italy was superior to Germany? Germany had better art, architecture, music, culture, working conditions, wages, family policies, environmental policies, buying power etc etc. The only reason you think Italy was better is simply that you're an Italian, if you had the exact same personality and soul but happened to be born in Germany you would be saying Germany was better lol. It's not based on any evaluation of the internal policies or philosophy.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am making assumptions and stating opinions, indeed, and my very first post was I think Italian fascism was better. I have no conclusive argument on the matter, but I shared what makes me think so, take it or leave it. Edit: I think as opposed to "I know for a matter of facts"

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

lol right, nobody said it had to be 'factual', just backed up with any real reasoning rather than Build-A-Reich Workshop made up bullshit

If I said Italy was worse because they would force everyone to be atheist and gay, import a bunch of foreigners and sell out the country to capitalists you would rightly say I'm just making shit up based on literally nothing. That's pretty much what you did lol.

Your only 'real' criticism was that Germany wasn't religiously homogeneous and even that one was absurd if you think about it for one second. It's not as if Hitler had the power to time travel and stop the reformation, or do you expect him to outlaw everything except Catholicism and somehow not end up in a ridiculously unstable situation? They handled the religious stuff as well as they possibly could.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But there was for sure a scientific consensus about the micro-racialization, and saying that this was an hobby is like saying that, just because intersectionality is not part of the official political US agenda, it is just an hobby and no one cares. A lot of people cares.

There was surely a focus on eugenics.

There was surely a push for the war.

You can indeed downplay those points, and i can focus on them. I don't have any conclusive arguments, but you neither, because we can't simply factually check the Reich 50 years into the Nazi government. My points remain perfectly valid.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There was a useless focus on eugenics over social and spiritual factors.

And they were 100% right to focus on eugenics.

Richard Dawkins once said we are already accustomed to breeding better Cows, or better vegetables. Yet why is raising healthier humans somehow taboo?

Spirituality sucks. Religion sucks. The only legacy you can have on Earth is passing on your genes. The universe doesn't care that you bob your head every Sunday to some Church music. If you never had children before you pass away, your whole existence never mattered.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Not spirituality, but genes.

    A group of 30 IQ sub-retarded Humans would never have advanced past the stone age, no matter how "spiritual" they were. Genes would have prevented them from speaking a language, building architecture, creating inventions, etc.

    [–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah sure

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    "World Jewry has been, for sixteen years, despite our policy, an irreconcilable enemy of Fascism. In Italy our policy has led, in the Semitic elements, to what can today be called a true rush to board the ship. " 1938

    He came around later