21st Century Fascist

I'm Watermark

I'm Watermark

Diabetic
If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

hitler.gif
 
Rose said:
If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

hitler.gif
Click to expand...

We are living with that right now and most people seem pretty cool wit it
 
Rose said:
If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

hitler.gif
Click to expand...

I would not support it, I would be joining the revolutionary forces to overthrow the fascists.
 
Rose said:
If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

hitler.gif
Click to expand...

That's not Hillary Clinton/Chris Christie....

And I would clearly support our obviously superior leader who is fairly democratically elected, and would never suggest or even have subversisve thoughts. Never.
 
Sardonic said:
I would not support it, I would be joining the revolutionary forces to overthrow the fascists.
Click to expand...

Then what? Would you establish a temporary dictatorship to purge the country of those forces which would've elected a fascist? Or just hold another election and hope for the best?
 
Fascism need not be autocratic, so long as the collusion of government and business is peaceful and the public is content. Mussolini took power via a political coup and cemented his control with oppression.

One could argue that the Auto and Financial bailouts were fascism, and the public largely supported them.
 
Unicron said:
That's not Hillary Clinton/Chris Christie....

And I would clearly support our obviously superior leader who is fairly democratically elected, and would never suggest or even have subversisve thoughts. Never.
Click to expand...

Even modern liberal democracies have power centres removed from the demos. So "fairly democratically elected" is typically a pipe dream. Then you have to recognize that elected leaders can be violent and oppressive as well. Elections don't protect you once the leader's in power.
 
Rose said:
Then what? Would you establish a temporary dictatorship to purge the country of those forces which would've elected a fascist? Or just hold another election and hope for the best?
Click to expand...

Hold an election, but most likely, I would be dead because a majority would have elected the fascists.

I hold to my ideals of democracy or a democratic republic. I could not live where I had to fear my thoughts and words.
 
The 12th Man said:
Fascism need not be autocratic, so long as the collusion of government and business is peaceful and the public is content. Mussolini took power via a political coup and cemented his control with oppression.

One could argue that the Auto and Financial bailouts were fascism, and the public largely supported them.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, but expecting successful fascism puts too much faith in the people it delegates responsibility to. Wouldn't you also say it lends itself to a strong hegemony?
 
Agreed, and I think that the same has proven true of socialism. People have a pipedream of democratically elected communal socialism, but just as with fascism, the people will most likely wind up squandering their political power and voting away their control over the economy to experts and demagogues.
 
The 12th Man said:
Agreed, and I think that the same has proven true of socialism. People have a pipedream of democratically elected communal socialism, but just as with fascism, the people will most likely wind up squandering their political power and voting away their control over the economy to experts and demagogues.
Click to expand...

In the case of socialism, it's a bit different. Socialism is what I was getting at with this thread. Historically, to prevent their opponents from becoming elected, socialists have seized power and established a dictatorship. While operating the dictatorship, they tried to convince the public of their ideas. Once this was completed, they could open up elections which their constituency (workers) would win. But before (or when) that happened, a string of capitalist-bloc-influenced reformists began transitioning away from socialism. The social question for fascists is how to maintain power. The social question for socialists is how not to have to.
 
Rose said:
Even modern liberal democracies have power centres removed from the demos. So "fairly democratically elected" is typically a pipe dream. Then you have to recognize that elected leaders can be violent and oppressive as well. Elections don't protect you once the leader's in power.
Click to expand...

I see you haven't read enough of my posts to detect the inherent meaning behind them.

Anyways, systems can become so entrenched and stagnated a purge is required on them. Something like a modern Sulla.
 
So far, I would say that the only economic system which can work is welfare/mixed capitalism. Within a republican or parliamentary democracy, the forces of fascism, socialism, etc. will all fight for power, but none will prevail long-term, and we avoid the problems of autocracy.
 
Sulla tried to manage the instability that had come about, but there was no reason for him to try and establish a long term dictatorship. It set everything up. Remember, back then it was all about establishing precedent. Assassinating Gaius Gracchus got people assassinating one another when not a single one had occurred in the Republic's history. Establishing a dictatorship that lasted set another.
 
The 12th Man said:
Sulla tried to manage the instability that had come about, but there was no reason for him to try and establish a long term dictatorship. It set everything up. Remember, back then it was all about establishing precedent. Assassinating Gaius Gracchus got people assassinating one another when not a single one had occurred in the Republic's history. Establishing a dictatorship that lasted set another.
Click to expand...

He also gave it up after 2 years. But the idea that the Constitution should be discarded for every 'crisis' that arises was too entrenched, even for Sulla to completely root out.
 
Sardonic said:
I would not support it, I would be joining the revolutionary forces to overthrow the fascists.
Click to expand...

No you wouldn't you are supporting it now, Obamas actions are no less authroritarian yet you give him a pass at every turn.

He has ZERO authority to by applying these changes to Obamacare and you know it. The words MuSt mean something. He is acting lawless and authoritarian and you excuse it.

Spare me the revolution talk
 
Sardonic said:
Hold an election, but most likely, I would be dead because a majority would have elected the fascists.

I hold to my ideals of democracy or a democratic republic. I could not live where I had to fear my thoughts and words.
Click to expand...

But you don't mind your fellow citizens having to fear their thoughts and words?
 
Rose said:
If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism? ]
Click to expand...

This argument is incredibly stupid; but no one will ever have to worry about being smarter having read any of your posts Rose.

Fascism is a near impossibility for a nation guided by Constitutional laws and free elections. To shed further light on such an incredibly stupid premise, how would our military be compromised to support a fascist dictator?

That is the beauty of the division we see in our politics and political institutions; it makes it nearly impossible for a singe entity to be able to take over or convince enough sheeple to support such efforts.

Only dunces want Government to actually work; our founders were intelligent enough to ensure they would not.

But who knows; give the Liberal educational establishment enough time and even they might make it possible to graduate enough dunces to make this happen. After all, look at Obamas election; it is proof that there are enough uninformed clueless dunces voting to win a Presidency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top