The psychology of fascism

[butterfly]

How do we differentiate or draw the line between facists and the psychologically traumatised.
Lynchings or intense psychotherapy?

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm not sure I appreciate the distinction. Fascism, and fascist thought, regardless of how repugnant we find it here is a school of political thought, not a form of mental illness.

As for how we should 'punish' them, well i'm guessing some sort of custodial measure would be appropriate, in rather the same way that the current beourgioise establishment advocates against extremist islamists.

[butterfly]

You're right, I just had my first fascist experience a few days ago so it's fairly biased, but quite frankly, the guy needed to see someone...a stint wouldn't have done him or anyone else any good.
His best friend was Somalian for christ sake.

[redSHARP]

I think Dr. Marten has what he needs right here....
but yeah interestingly enough, the old fashion way to get rid of political opponents was to send them to asylums or convents, maybe that is a more "humane" form of punishment.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think Dr. Marten has what he needs right here....
but yeah interestingly enough, the old fashion way to get rid of political opponents was to send them to asylums or convents, maybe that is a more "humane" form of punishment.

what you mean 're-education'? Sound a bit 'clockwork orange' to me. I'm not a fan of such insidious means, as a humanist i support unfettered thought (not to confused with gratituous irresponsible 'freedom of speech') even if not means cyphoning it off into a cell so as to prevent certain dangerous individuals being a threat to the rational, egalitarian society.

[Holden Caulfield]

I'm not a fan of such insidious means, as a humanist....


some sort of custodial measure would be in appropriate, in rather the same way that the current beourgioise establishment advocates against extremist islamists.

do you ever hold a consistent line?

[Dr Mindbender]

do you ever hold a consistent line?

I think fascists exclude themselves from the benefit of humanist mercy with their total contempt for most of the human species.

[bcbm]

Fascism should be dealt with as it always has been: in the streets. No need to send people to "asylums" or put them in "custody," christ.

[Dr Mindbender]

Fascism should be dealt with as it always has been: in the streets. No need to send people to "asylums" or put them in "custody," christ.

I think the point is, post revolution, fascists arent going to 'magically go away'. The question is, how do we deal with them when the revolutionary movement becomes the authoritive entity as opposed to the rebellious cause?

[bcbm]

If some wingnuts want to be racist morons "after the revolution," I don't really care, as they'll have no power and little support. If they are a threat, ie planning or engage in violence, then the community/soviet/whatever will decide how to deal with them depending on what they've actually done.

[Dr Mindbender]

If some wingnuts want to be racist morons "after the revolution," I don't really care, as they'll have no power and little support. If they are a threat, ie planning or engage in violence, then the community/soviet/whatever will decide how to deal with them depending on what they've actually done.

what if its a pre-emptive measure, ie they've been caught planning to orchestrate something as opposed to have actually done it. I think the community will need to be actively engaged in weeding out these scumbags, and as such putting forward a consistent measure against them.

[Holden Caulfield]

well personally i think you are both wrong (oh ye whom 'lead' thy forum) and i intend to get round to pointing out why... tomorrow,

[Dr Mindbender]

well personally i think you are both wrong (oh ye whom 'lead' thy forum) and i intend to get round to pointing out why... tomorrow,

I suppose you still think we should let BNP members on the forum.

[ComradeG1967]

I think the best way is to give them a taste (or should I say a whiff?) of their own medicine... :D

[bcbm]

what if its a pre-emptive measure, ie they've been caught planning to orchestrate something as opposed to have actually done it.

I included planning in my earlier post.


I think the community will need to be actively engaged in weeding out these scumbags, and as such putting forward a consistent measure against them.

I'm not interested in punishing people for "thought crime." And, really, I don't think it will be a huge issue. People are the product of their material conditions and if we actually succeed in taking down class society, the extremist faction of the bourgeoisie is unlikely to be tooling around. You don't see many feudalist militant today, do you?

[bcbm]

well personally i think you are both wrong (oh ye whom 'lead' thy forum) and i intend to get round to pointing out why... tomorrow,

No need to be bitter. :rolleyes:

[Iowa656]

Anyone who does not agree 100% with the revolution must be lined up and shot. Any fascist thought of any kind will be met with instant execution. Any sympathy shown to any execution of a criminal will also be met with instant execution.

Oh course not you fools.

Any authoritarian government is destined to fail.

You may not agree with their views, but that does not mean they are mentally unstable and that does defiantly not mean they should be removed. Removing fascism with more fascism will only make the problem worse.

[bcbm]

Removing fascism with more fascism

Fascism describes a specific political ideology with specific goals; it isn't a catch-all term for "authoritarian." Using it as such takes away from the reality of what fascism is.

[Holden Caulfield]

Dear Ulter Socialist



I suppose you still think we should let BNP members on the forum.


My position, which i was able to hold, was that users should not be banned from the forum for their political affiliations but for what they say and the manner in which they say it, even if that means merely restricting BNP voters, supporters and in some cases (as i will outline) even members. The board policy is to ban fascists, and fascists should rightly be banned as is inline with a No-platform policy, they should not be allowed to be on this forum and to spread their bullshit ideology or to make other users feel uncomfortable.

However my point was that not everybody who has voted BNP or supports the BNP is a fascist, many are disillusioned labour voters from the working class who are looking for any alternative from the two main bourgeois parties, and looking for a party to represent them (wrongly they give their suppport to the BNP). This act of support does not make them fascists. Now here is the catch, as both Desru and myself stated if these individuals are fascists they will enevitably show themselves to be such, either through prejudices, ideological discussions, or some other channel, and then they will be banned. Do you see where I am going here... We don't ban for the label, we ban for the actual breach of forum rules and convention.

As most will have picked up your beef is with my slight mention of 'BNP members', but why not, same applies if they are not fascists then why ban the user simply for party affiliation. If they are not fascists they are likely to be just another right-wing capitalist trying to use libertertarian arguements to justify fucking over the working classes, and personally I think i can meet these chaps arguments just as I will be able to with capitalists. Now here is the real kick in the balls, remember Ships-Cat? I started the thread myself that got them restricted, me the one who wants to let BNP members roam all over our forum according to you. Nobody knew they were BNP at the time, many users liked them, I consistantly argued with them met all the points they raised, realised they weren't on the left through these discussions and got them restircted. Now Ships-Cats was in the BNP, and I didnt see you (US) or anybody else call them a fascist, deduce they were a fascist from what they said, consistantly meet their points in defence of anti-fascism, or kick start any action against them.

Now do you see the inconsistancy here? When we did have a BNP member (a 'fascist') you didnt even notice, they were banned much later when we found out they were on the BNP list. Users like Ships-Cat should be restricted, regardless of part affiliation as the name they give themselves doesn't change their political line, if they say something 'fascist' (which if they are they will) then they should be banned, all fascists should be banned from revleft.

It seems like a tiny difference but since you keep trying to use this again me I though I best explain it to you, if this isn't sufficient i can try to draw a picture explaining my view but that could be a while coming since I don't own any crayons.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I agree but im not really bothered about shits cat getting banned hes a ****.

That said though i can see where ulster socialist is coming from. I think if any disillusioned BNP members start complaining about how "white people are going to be a minority" or any other shite (such as homophobia)we should ban their arses.

[Holden Caulfield]

I agree but im not really bothered about shits cat getting banned hes a ****.

so are most of the users in OI, but the rules should be applied consistantly or changed

I also think Ships was a **** but I am not going to run away shreiking 'fascist' just because somebody attacks my ideals of what anti-fascism is, and should be.


I think if any disillusioned BNP members start complaining about how "white people are going to be a minority" or any other shite (such as homophobia)we should ban their arses.This is exactly my point, but Ships-Cat didnt, so why ban them. If they do say something fascist or rascist ban them, if they dont restrict.
Simple as:
We ban fascists,

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

so are most of the users in OI, but the rules

Yeah but most of the OI users dont ban be from UK debate on a bi-monthly basis.

:lol:

I dont think ships cat should have being banned but i think we need to have a clear policy on this. I agree with you when you say we should ban people for what they say not what organization they belong too.

[Holden Caulfield]

here is one thing bcbm said

Fascism should be dealt with as it always has been: in the streets.
here is another

then the community/soviet/whatever will decide how to deal with them depending on what they've actually done.
they dont seem to match, on the street means direct action to me, fighting, attacks, protests, the second makes sense, those who break laws must be put on trial, not beaten to death in the streets on the way to the court.


I suppose you still think we should let BNP members on the forum.this i have answered elsewhere.:closedeyes:


I think the best way is to give them a taste (or should I say a whiff?) of their own medicine... personally I don't think genocide is the best way to solve our ideological differnaces, but hey if you want to live in a massively authoritarian state be my guest to try and make it, just dont expect any sane communists to be running along side you


No need to be bitter.
there is every need, and I will be for a long time yet...

As for what Iowa656 and bcbm have just said, it think bcbm is using definiton jousting to shield the fact Iowa is right, okay so not fascist but authoritatian system but for fucks sake the guy has 10 posts try to help him along instead of shoot him down. What if we came to power now in the UK or in Germany in the mid 30's? Do we kill them off in their thousands, do we send them all to camps like US suggested? Or do we form a consistution that safeguards the gains of the revolution and deal with the fascists (or capitalists) who try attack these freedoms and lead by example for the 'rank and file' who were fooled into blindly following fascist or capitalist ideologies. I think the second idea is better than revenge killings, which is pretty much what most of what has been said amounts to

on a side note

the extremist faction of the bourgeoisie is unlikely to be tooling around. You don't see many feudalist militant today, do you?I think the international bourgeois have shown they will fight tooth and nail against our classless society, as seen in all revolutions and uprisings. But as for feudalist militants there was a lot of support for various right-wing Monarchist groups in Spain at the time of the civil war.

[Holden Caulfield]

I dont think ships cat should have being banned but i think we need to have a clear policy on this.
I was once foolish enought to try and start a (entirely hypothetical) debate on this matter and the admin team and various other dicksheads tried to label me as some kind of fascist lover unable to mod this forum.

Turns out revleft is only for debates pre-approved by admins

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Shame you were a decent mod aswell.

[bcbm]

they dont seem to match, on the street means direct action to me, fighting, attacks, protests, the second makes sense, those who break laws must be put on trial, not beaten to death in the streets on the way to the court.

There was a post in-between clarifying that the question was referring to a hypothetical post-revolution situation, not the present, which is why I had two different answers.


there is every need, and I will be for a long time yet...

Well I will still love you, regardless.


As for what Iowa656 and bcbm have just said, it think bcbm is using definiton jousting to shield the fact Iowa is right, okay so not fascist but authoritatian system but for fucks sake the guy has 10 posts try to help him along instead of shoot him down.

Why would I shield that fact when I clearly agree that an authoritative and bloody way is not the correct response? And I was "helping them along" by correcting them and explaining why I did so. Shooting them down would be saying "Thats not fascism, stupid." or something of that sort.


What if we came to power now in the UK or in Germany in the mid 30's? Do we kill them off in their thousands, do we send them all to camps like US suggested? Or do we form a consistution that safeguards the gains of the revolution and deal with the fascists (or capitalists) who try attack these freedoms and lead by example for the 'rank and file' who were fooled into blindly following fascist or capitalist ideologies. I think the second idea is better than revenge killings, which is pretty much what most of what has been said amounts to

Yes, I agree with the sentiment expressed here, if not the exact wording.


on a side note
I think the international bourgeois have shown they will fight tooth and nail against our classless society, as seen in all revolutions and uprisings.

Obviously, who said otherwise? Again, this was reference to a "post-revolution" situation which I was imagining further in the future I guess. In the immediate aftermath though, we should obviously hold the same position.


But as for feudalist militants there was a lot of support for various right-wing Monarchist groups in Spain at the time of the civil war.

And Spain still had many feudal elements to it at that point. I'm referring to modern capitalist nations without such conditions, obviously.

[Holden Caulfield]

threads have been merged so the debate don't really flow but i trust you kids have the brains to follow the 2 intertwined discussions

[bcbm]

Yeah, sorry about the confusion but it didn't seem proper to delete everything except the main post, so I left it all in.

[Dr Mindbender]

I've gotta go to work now but i'll answer HC's points when i get a chance, later.

[butterfly]

I don't think political affiliation is necessarily a reflection of individual thought.

[Dr Mindbender]

Dear Ulter Socialist



My position, which i was able to hold, was that users should not be banned from the forum for their political affiliations but for what they say and the manner in which they say it, even if that means merely restricting BNP voters, supporters and in some cases (as i will outline) even members. The board policy is to ban fascists, and fascists should rightly be banned as is inline with a No-platform policy, they should not be allowed to be on this forum and to spread their bullshit ideology or to make other users feel uncomfortable.

However my point was that not everybody who has voted BNP or supports the BNP is a fascist, many are disillusioned labour voters from the working class who are looking for any alternative from the two main bourgeois parties, and looking for a party to represent them (wrongly they give their suppport to the BNP). This act of support does not make them fascists. Now here is the catch, as both Desru and myself stated if these individuals are fascists they will enevitably show themselves to be such, either through prejudices, ideological discussions, or some other channel, and then they will be banned. Do you see where I am going here... We don't ban for the label, we ban for the actual breach of forum rules and convention.

As most will have picked up your beef is with my slight mention of 'BNP members', but why not, same applies if they are not fascists then why ban the user simply for party affiliation. If they are not fascists they are likely to be just another right-wing capitalist trying to use libertertarian arguements to justify fucking over the working classes, and personally I think i can meet these chaps arguments just as I will be able to with capitalists. Now here is the real kick in the balls, remember Ships-Cat? I started the thread myself that got them restricted, me the one who wants to let BNP members roam all over our forum according to you. Nobody knew they were BNP at the time, many users liked them, I consistantly argued with them met all the points they raised, realised they weren't on the left through these discussions and got them restircted. Now Ships-Cats was in the BNP, and I didnt see you (US) or anybody else call them a fascist, deduce they were a fascist from what they said, consistantly meet their points in defence of anti-fascism, or kick start any action against them.

Now do you see the inconsistancy here? When we did have a BNP member (a 'fascist') you didnt even notice, they were banned much later when we found out they were on the BNP list. Users like Ships-Cat should be restricted, regardless of part affiliation as the name they give themselves doesn't change their political line, if they say something 'fascist' (which if they are they will) then they should be banned, all fascists should be banned from revleft.

It seems like a tiny difference but since you keep trying to use this again me I though I best explain it to you, if this isn't sufficient i can try to draw a picture explaining my view but that could be a while coming since I don't own any crayons.


It doesnt require a BNP member to say they are a fascist to deduce that this. We all know that the BNP's tactic to tone down it's language is a ploy to convince the electorate that the leopard has changed it's spots, and i still think anyone thats comitted enough to contribute funds and sign their lives away should be treated the same as the rest of them.

If you cant see that, then more fool you. Thank goodness the core of revleft hasnt been fooled. I dont care if Ships cat said anything banworthy, just by being a member implies that he has the same idealogical fantasies as the leadership.

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't think political affiliation is necessarily a reflection of individual thought.

i disagree. I think being a member of a party implies some great degree of commitment and political empathy. As has been correctly said many times, its a massive leap between voting for a party and joining it. Which is why IMO, members of fascist parties are correctly banned regardless of any posts they may have made.

[Holden Caulfield]

It doesnt require a BNP member to say they are a fascist to deduce that this. We all know that the BNP's tactic to tone down it's language is a ploy to convince the electorate that the leopard has changed it's spots, and i still think anyone thats comitted enough to contribute funds and sign their lives away should be treated the same as the rest of them.

If you cant see that, then more fool you. Thank goodness the core of revleft hasnt been fooled. I dont care if Ships cat said anything banworthy, just by being a member implies that he has the same idealogical fantasies as the leadership.

The most forgivable of vices (according to Karl himself) is gullibility, I personally think that those sucked into false ideologies when searching for the same thing we are (primarily) are neither 'evil', nor fascists, nor are they 'lost hopes'. I still stand for what I said, and what barely barely adressed, that empathy with, support for, voting for and even on some cases membership of the BNP doesn't make one a fascist, and ergo they should not be treated as such. Be that on internet forums, politically (although communication with the party would be a different matter than with a supporter/voter/member), or on the streets. But since your materialist view on things is clearly on the rather hit & miss on issues I don't expect you to agree with me. Your view is narrow minded, is not every member of the Labour party a clone of Blair, an active pro-capitalist by the same logic? Both parties lie and mislead to the working class, both parties play on working class sentiment, both advocate and would carry out attacks on the working class, both are opportunist, etc etc; and have both set themselves up as the party for the working class.

Can you actually pull an argument together in response this time, if I am such a fool for having this view then it won't be hard for you to refute it as the arch-materialist and 'leader of the forum'.

[Dr Mindbender]

The most forgivable of vices (according to Karl himself) is gullibility, I personally think that those sucked into false ideologies when searching for the same thing we are (primarily) are neither 'evil', nor fascists, nor are they 'lost hopes'. I still stand for what I said, and what barely barely adressed, that empathy with, support for, voting for and even on some cases membership of the BNP doesn't make one a fascist, and ergo they should not be treated as such. Be that on internet forums, politically (although communication with the party would be a different matter than with a supporter/voter/member), or on the streets. But since your materialist view on things is clearly on the rather hit & miss on issues I don't expect you to agree with me. Your view is narrow minded, is not every member of the Labour party a clone of Blair, an active pro-capitalist by the same logic? Both parties lie and mislead to the working class, both parties play on working class sentiment, both advocate and would carry out attacks on the working class, both are opportunist, etc etc; and have both set themselves up as the party for the working class.

Can you actually pull an argument together in response this time, if I am such a fool for having this view then it won't be hard for you to refute it as the arch-materialist and 'leader of the forum'.

Firstly, the labour party was once an albeit lukewarm voice of socialism, so i don't accept that your analogy is a fair one, 'Blairism' in the grand scope of things is a relatively recent phenomenon, the BNP has always been, and remains a fascist party.
Secondly, the BNP is for the most part a one trick pony, for which it has gained its notirety. You'd have to be a hermit living under a rock to not know what the BNP is about, given the publicity that its had. So i don't accept that ignorance is an excuse.

Again, if we allowed any BNP members here it creates a precedence. If we did, why not let in KKK members under whatever auspice they claim bar racism ''Uh, i didnt know they were racist, i just thought the robes were quite nice''?

[Holden Caulfield]

Part II: the materialist strikes again,


Firstly, the labour party was once an albeit lukewarm voice of socialism, so i don't accept that your analogy is a fair one, 'Blairism' in the grand scope of things is a relatively recent phenomenon, the BNP has always been, and remains a fascist party.
Secondly, the BNP is for the most part a one trick pony, for which it has gained its notirety. You'd have to be a hermit living under a rock to not know what the BNP is about, given the publicity that its had. So i don't accept that ignorance is an excuse


Yes the Labour party is seen as the lukewarm voice of socialism traditionally, but the fact is they are, and have many times before betrayed the working classes, be it the 1926 strike, the dealing with Militant, or the recent Blairite face of New Labour. The BNP to the uneducated and unfortunately easily impressionable (now) working person is a party that carries the same line as the Labour party yet uses scapegoats more, the bourgeois press reinforce this view, and the economic crisis intensifies it. The BNP have taken up Liberal appearacne, and leftist terminology, they can and have rebuked attacks by people like you who think the word 'fascist' is an argument on its own. As for the 'hermit thing' alot of people think as socialism as Stalinism, alot of people equate socialism with new Labour, both are things played on by the likes of the BNP. I am not defending the BNP as a party, they are, at higher levels, a bunch of neo-nazis, but their opportunist methods, 'changing their spots' etc have gained them support from people who are neither fascists nor nazis.

You portray 'fascism' as something concrete, something that simply exists with clear lines and which people embrace in full knowledge of what it is and what its goals are, as if there is some sort of switch in peoples heads that is either 'fascist' or 'not fascist'. This is dispite the fact fascism is difficult to define (not impossible obviously), and that you cannot muster a decent arguement away from generalisations to support your claims. Also your arguments against fascism and about fascism have shown terrible errors and UAFesque points of debate i.e. 'they are fascists' as a fully formed polemic.

People are ignorantly pulled into fascist parties, do you think the SPD membership millions strong simply turned into fully fledged Nazis over night because they all remembered they were secretly rascist? Do you think the 10,000 BNP members, and voters (most of whom can be assumed to be former Labour voters) simply became more rascist and so moved into the bosom of the BNP?


Again, if we allowed any BNP members here it creates a precedence. If we did, why not let in KKK members under whatever auspice they claim bar racism ''Uh, i didnt know they were racist, i just thought the robes were quite nice''?Again, brilliant arguements, you clearly cannot see the difference between peop,ke you think are 'bad'. You have in the past said a BNP supporter was the same as a BPP supporter, this is simply not true and it is not hard to see why. A BNP supporter is not the same as an american NSM supporter, and it is clear why not when appearance, and behaviour are considered. Same applies for the KKK there is difference if you want i can explain this out to you as well.

I don't defend rascists, I said over and over again rascists aren't welcome, fascists aren't welcome. But where is the line between the shared ideas of the Labour and Conservative Parties in regards to immigration and 'British Jobs for British people' and your 2D view of those who support the BNP? There isn't a massive gap between them.

As for you making that last point, this entire debate was kicked off because, you, amongst others, who couldnt see what i was getting at when I said, we should take action for the views of a member not the name of their party, which they could just as easily lie about. In the same way we take action against various stripes of cappie and even some on the left who step out of line.

[Dimentio]

Most fascists which I have debated with have seemed to be mentally ill to some degree, from the ususal every-day paranoia to paedophilia and pro-ana values. The worst case I know about is a guy who is sexually attracted to eleven year-old anorectic girls, who cut himself with razors and dreams to be a female prison guard in Treblinka so he could "ravish" some beautiful Jewesses.

[Dean]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_Freedom

[Dr Mindbender]

Most fascists which I have debated with have seemed to be mentally ill to some degree, from the ususal every-day paranoia to paedophilia and pro-ana values. The worst case I know about is a guy who is sexually attracted to eleven year-old anorectic girls, who cut himself with razors and dreams to be a female prison guard in Treblinka so he could "ravish" some beautiful Jewesses.

This isnt 'proof' though that fascism and mental illness are mutually inclusive. I think it is anti-scientific, and counter productive to our argument to take this line of reasoning.

[Holden Caulfield]

Most fascists which I have debated with have seemed to be mentally ill to some degree, from the ususal every-day paranoia to paedophilia and pro-ana values. The worst case I know about is a guy who is sexually attracted to eleven year-old anorectic girls, who cut himself with razors and dreams to be a female prison guard in Treblinka so he could "ravish" some beautiful Jewesses.
I think that might just the circles you move in...:unsure:


This isnt 'proof' though that fascism and mental illness are mutually inclusive. I think it is anti-scientific, and counter productive to our argument to take this line of reasoning.
Indeed, but it is the logical conclusion of your own un-materialist, and therefore un-scientific, line of thinking,

[Melbourne Lefty]

I'm not interested in punishing people for "thought crime." And, really, I don't think it will be a huge issue. People are the product of their material conditions and if we actually succeed in taking down class society, the extremist faction of the bourgeoisie is unlikely to be tooling around. You don't see many feudalist militant today, do you?

Bingo.

I am quite disturbed by some of the attitudes here.

Creating a new system of Gulags is not really the best argument.

When the social conditions that fan racism and fascism are dealt with then it will fade away.

Its like Christianity today, a religion that because of technological and social changes has no real place and is fading accordingly.

"fascism" has already faded. They are gone, kaput. And the last few fascists have to disguise themselves and change their views in completely different directions to even get an audience.

The real threat is what they might turn into.

the 'lega noord' model is something to be frightened of, not the pathetic and tiny remnants of neo-fascism.

So heres the real question...

If Right populist groups like LN in Italy, Wilders in Holland and the Danish peoples party begin to offer socialistic economic solutions to world economic problems while pushing a nationalist line...

what to do then?

Im pretty sure that would be a much bigger problem than anything LePen is likely to offer.