[Mustang1]

mapleleafsnation mapleleafsnation:

Mustang corporatism is the equivalent of a government that is a 'capitalist paradise'. A market liberal government would adopt a form (not a pure form) of corporatism.

Corporations goal is to gain power in their own fields of society. That completely goes against fascism as it splits power among corporations (and away from the state). Fascism means unity I would like to remind you. I'm not sure if you understand this concept. However you seem to make a huge of a good logic (but faulty concept) so what are your sources?

Are you kidding me? Look up any standard history/political science book and you'll find that corporatism (I noticed you convientally ignored my HISTORICAL examples that were manifested in Italy) is a defining characteristic. Both Flanagan and Rourke (again, I ALREADY LISTED THEM) make reference to it, Gentile (the philosophical framer of Fascism - it's curious you didn't pick up on that one) makes reference to it and countless historians list its manifestations - both Mussolini's Charter of Labor or the National Council of Corporations as examples. Unless you can demonstrate these scholars are indeed wrong (which they're not) and that the history is erronous, then you're simply wrong. Sorry, one first-year political science presentation doesn't seem to have prepared you to actually understand the particulars of fascism and corporatism.

$1:

"fascists tend to think of hierarchy not as social transmission through legal inheritance, but as a biological transmission of racial qualities" -Mustang1



Here you specifically said fascists, not nazis. This is outlined in your text. This comment makes an assumption that fascists generally behave like Nazis because what you mentioned is a quality (as something that describes) of nazism, not fascism.

In that quote, i'm referencing fascism, but your original quote was, "Nazism does not equal fascism, they are different movement." You claimed I suggested they were interchangeable. I never wrote that or inferred it - I specifically added "variant" to differentiate the two subsets of an ideology. Next time, concede your error, but all this does is suggest you're a disingenuous poster. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt one last time.

$1:

Standard form:
1. Mustang1 and Mapleleafsnation agree that Nazis believe that social classes are defined biologically. "Hitler DID see social systems based on race criteria" -Mustang1. Mapleleafsnation agrees to that

Don't care. I don't need your endorsement to establish independent objectivity.

$1:

2. Mustang1 said 'Fascists tend to think of hierarchy [...] as a biological transmission of racial qualities'.

Yep. In fact, here's the direct quote from Dickerson and Flanagan's "Left, Right and Centre" chapter in Government and Politics: A conceptual Approach - "fascists tended to think of hierarchy not as social transmission...but as a BIOLOGICAL [emphasis is mine] transmission of racial qualities." I then furthered that concept by suggesting that National Socialism put a specific emphasis on the Herrenvolk. I've yet to see anything from you to call both these political scientists into question or the history. Until then, you're still wrong and won't accept any accountability for your missteps.

$1:

3. Premise two and premise 1 can't both be right.

Argumentatively fallacious - you made the assumption, but that doesn't make it valid

$1:

4. 'racism+fascism=Nazism' (Ball, 2006).

Didn't disagree with that. Sorry, these cheap tactics won't wash with me

$1:

Conclusion: Premise one is right and premise two is false because fascism isn't related to racism but nazism is. (why do you think some groups referred to as 'neo-nazis' don't actually hate jews but other minorities?)

Actually both groups subscribed to this line of thinking, but it clearly manifested itself in a more pronounced manner in Nazi Germany as race-based theories were grafted onto fascist ideology. Sorry, history's a little more complex than a one hour presentation. Again, if you don't like it, address the historical examples, but so far, you've dodged them with aplomb.

$1:

Now read what you said again. 'Fascists tend to think of hierarchy [...] as a biological transmission of racial qualities' -Mustang1

Do you know what a caste (I made a spelling mistake, sorry) is? 'A system in which class is ascribed by birth' (Mitchell, 2008). What you said is exactly this. Classes are a social hierarchy. Castes are transmitted through blood (biological transmission) lines. This is a caste. I'll put this in standard form so it's clear.

1. A caste is a system in which class is ascribed by birth (Mitchell, 2008).
2. Classes are a social hierarchy.
3. Castes is transmitted through birth.
4. Mustang1 said hierarchy is transmitted biologically.
5. Mustang1 said Fascists think of hierarchy as transmitted biologically.
Conclusion: Mustang1 thinks 'fascists tend to' (mustang1) believe in caste.

Again with the argumentative fallacies. I never suggested caste nor did the quote resemble that line of reasoning. You misinterpreted it and even after I clarified it, you still rationalized your faulty supposition. As previously stated, "Hitler DID see social systems based on race criteria and furthermore, these Social Darwinist principles should see "desired" races in control functions instead of "undesirables". You'll notice that I used the historical manifestation of Herrenvolk master race usurping its rightful societal status instead of biological misfits, the Untermenschen"

In no terms did I ever claim Nazism=Fascism. You messed up with your critique and now you're merely trying to salvage a crumbling point. That's certainly your prerogative, but i'm not the one suggesting that corporatism isn't a component of historical fascism. That's your mistake, but you won't accept the sources or the history, so you're either a dogmatist or you don't know much about fascism beyond a first-year political science course.

[Mustang1]

Oh...and while we're at it, John Rourke's "International Politics on the World Stage" claims the following regarding fascism in "Transnational Ideas, Ideology and Morality",

"There were some differences between Italian Fascism and German Nazism, but they were similar enough so that, one study commented, it is not too difficult to state the basic elements of the fascist outlook" Conceptually, these include, "(2)a belief (especially for Nazis) in superiority of some groups and inferiority of others;...(4)a rejection of rights of individuals in favor of a "corporatist" view that people are "workers" in the state; (5)gearing all economic activity to the support of the corporatist state..."

I've posted that before (complete with source), but it seems some here have an inability to recognize their own intellectual gaps. Want more sources? Try Ebenstein, Ebenstein and Fogelman, "Today's Isms"

Done.

[mapleleafsnation]

"Don't care. I don't need your endorsement to establish independent objectivity." -Mustang1,the fact that you actually took time to answer to it is proof enough to show that you actually care. Were you trying to refute that? I doubt so because I cited you. I stated that I agree. That is a premise. If you don't care, why are you debating at all?

My second premises went like this "
2. Mustang1 said 'Fascists tend to think of hierarchy [...] as a biological transmission of racial qualities'."

I don't see why you felt the need to agree with something you said. However I did do some research into Flanagan and Dickinson. Both have written some interesting stuff, I'll probably go around to buying their books when I have time (and a bit more money). You could have cited on the first try, it could have held a bit more weight.

My third premise, how is it fallacious? My working definition of a fallacy is an argument that is psychologically convincing but logically wrong. I don't see how this is an assumption, only one can be right since we disagree. I'm looking at it again and think perhaps I could have rephrased it by removing this premise and adding that I disagree to premise two. You can't say it's fallacious, it makes perfect sense that one of us is wrong, this is why we're having an argument about it, no?

Fourth premise, I don't get why you say cheap tactic? You don't need to disagree with that, it's a premise. Something that can be taken as true or false. The goal of putting things into standard form is so that the logical links are more clear. I'm not counter-arguing, I'm making my logical path clear. If we agree on a point, than I'm glad.


'Actually both groups subscribed to this line of thinking, but it clearly manifested itself in a more pronounced manner in Nazi Germany as race-based theories were grafted onto fascist ideology. Sorry, history's a little more complex than a one hour presentation. Again, if you don't like it, address the historical examples, but so far, you've dodged them with aplomb.'

I agree that both can subscribe to it, and also that it 'clearly manifested itself in a more pronounced manner in Nazi Germany,' however don't you think that it's over-generalizing to say that racism is part of the fascist ideology? I'm not an expert of Stalin, or of the Soviet Union for that matter, but I believe that we can define his rule as fascist, right? Either way, I don't think that Stalin's ideology was racist. If you disagree and your argument isn't 'I think Stalin ideology is racist' I'll concede that I'm wrong in this example without any problem.

However we do agree that saying that fascism is racist is an over-generalization?


My second argument that I've put in standard form. How is this a fallacy? Saying 'this is a fallacy' doesn't prove that it is one.

The main idea we had a problem about was the concept that fascists believe that social status is passed through blood. At least that's how I understand it, and I disagree with it because I feel it's an over-generalization.

I didn't dismiss your historical example, but I instead preferred to remain quiet about them because I do not know enough to talk in an intelligent manner about them, would you prefer I went on wikipedia and copy pasted what I read there?

And the idea of corporatism, I was rethinking about it and perhaps I didn't understand what you mean. Do you mean that the state is in itself the corporation, the one and only that governs everything? If yes then I'll say you were right about corporatism, however I'm more used to hear about corporatism being used to relate to governments that seem to pick favorites among groups (often businesses).

I'll also admit that i don't know much more about fascism beyond a first-year political science. Me stating anything else would be quite foolish. However I feel that this knowledge sets me above (in the political science field) the average in the population.


As a sidenote: Sasquatch, I'm pretty sure we can affirm that teachers probably know better than the average citizen about what they teach.

If you don't think so, I believe that when you hurt yourself you don't go to the hospital, because you wouldn't want to have possibly bias intellectual apply what they learned from bias lecturers on you, right?

[xerxes]

sandorski sandorski:

xerxes xerxes:

What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!

That was my reaction the first time i saw that too.

I instantly thought of Mustang1.

[Mustang1]

mapleleafsnation mapleleafsnation:

I don't see why you felt the need to agree with something you said. However I did do some research into Flanagan and Dickinson. Both have written some interesting stuff, I'll probably go around to buying their books when I have time (and a bit more money). You could have cited on the first try, it could have held a bit more weight.

Well...I usually don't when the point is objective. Corporatism is a component of fascism - I was under the impression this was hardly esoteric information

$1:

My third premise, how is it fallacious? My working definition of a fallacy is an argument that is psychologically convincing but logically wrong. I don't see how this is an assumption, only one can be right since we disagree. I'm looking at it again and think perhaps I could have rephrased it by removing this premise and adding that I disagree to premise two. You can't say it's fallacious, it makes perfect sense that one of us is wrong, this is why we're having an argument about it, no?

Easy, you committed the fallacy of extension, special pleading and a false dichotomy. That's how it's fallacious.

$1:

Fourth premise, I don't get why you say cheap tactic? You don't need to disagree with that, it's a premise. Something that can be taken as true or false. The goal of putting things into standard form is so that the logical links are more clear. I'm not counter-arguing, I'm making my logical path clear. If we agree on a point, than I'm glad.

And yet you resorted to false dichotomies. It was problematic from the outset as you wrongly assumed things, created extreme positions and then formulated erronous conclusions on those questionable parameters. You were wrong about corporatism - maybe next time, take a less adversarial position.

$1:

I agree that both can subscribe to it, and also that it 'clearly manifested itself in a more pronounced manner in Nazi Germany,' however don't you think that it's over-generalizing to say that racism is part of the fascist ideology? I'm not an expert of Stalin, or of the Soviet Union for that matter, but I believe that we can define his rule as fascist, right? Either way, I don't think that Stalin's ideology was racist. If you disagree and your argument isn't 'I think Stalin ideology is racist' I'll concede that I'm wrong in this example without any problem.

I'm glad you conceded a point, thank you, it's refreshing to see someone who doesn't suffer from chronic intellectual self-esteem issues. In terms of "fascism", racism is clearly a central theme in Germany, but some neglect the fact that Mussolini did in fact enact anti-Semitic legislation in Italy (although i will concede that this may be due to Hitler's influence) and many scholars identify racial overtones in the anthropomorphic concept of the state where the "new man" was envisioned.

I've always looked at the USSR's totalitarian regime as an ideological sub-set, Stalinism (as opposed to Lenism or Trotskyism) This is characterized as a one-party state, an attempt to remake society, an all-powerful leader, bureaucratized degenerated workers' state (this is usually a derogatory term leveled by contemporary critics) and the goal to socialize one state. In many respects, it somewhat represents a type of government, but it does need to be removed from Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist philosophies.

$1:

However we do agree that saying that fascism is racist is an over-generalization?

Nazism is racist and fascism does share a penchant for characterizing groups as "superior" and "inferior" but Italian fascist certainly isn't as racist as Hitler.

$1:

My second argument that I've put in standard form. How is this a fallacy? Saying 'this is a fallacy' doesn't prove that it is one.

The main idea we had a problem about was the concept that fascists believe that social status is passed through blood. At least that's how I understand it, and I disagree with it because I feel it's an over-generalization.

It's hardly an over-generalization, it's merely a succinct means of conveying an objective truth. Is it more complex than that? Of course, but i'm not writing a treatise that covers every single aspect of Fascist social theories. At the end of the day, my point was correct, but it was intellectually shallow

$1:

I didn't dismiss your historical example, but I instead preferred to remain quiet about them because I do not know enough to talk in an intelligent manner about them, would you prefer I went on wikipedia and copy pasted what I read there?

That's fine, but you erroneously called my understanding into question based largely on your knowledge gap. You didn't readdress your salient points as new information was brought to the forefront, you ignored it and thus, you severely hindered an inquiry model. If you don't know, say it, but don't continue blissfully along with an adversarial manner and expect it go unchallenged.

$1:

And the idea of corporatism, I was rethinking about it and perhaps I didn't understand what you mean. Do you mean that the state is in itself the corporation, the one and only that governs everything? If yes then I'll say you were right about corporatism, however I'm more used to hear about corporatism being used to relate to governments that seem to pick favorites among groups (often businesses).

Here was one of your problem areas - you didn't understand the concept. That's fine, but why create your own definition while simultaneously accusing others of not comprehending the idea? A little disingenuous, don't you think? Corporatism is a system of interests representation in which the constituent units are organized into a limited number of singular, compulsory, hierarchically ordered categories, recognized or licensed by the state. For the left, it was syndicalist, for the Fascists, it was to be a revival of guilds - in any event, it was theorized to do away with the anarchy and class conflict engendered in free capitalism and not mirror a proletariat dictatorship. So, in essence, the state isn't the corporation, but it does have a decisive role in economic planning.

$1:

I'll also admit that i don't know much more about fascism beyond a first-year political science. Me stating anything else would be quite foolish. However I feel that this knowledge sets me above (in the political science field) the average in the population.

That's fine. As long as you admit it, and don't assume that everyone falls for appeals to false authorities, then you'll have no problems from me. Do you know more than the average person? Sure, and i'll be looking forward to seeing your informed posts in the future here at CKA

[Mustang1]

xerxes xerxes:

sandorski sandorski:

xerxes xerxes:

What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!

That was my reaction the first time i saw that too.

I instantly thought of Mustang1.

Damn, I'd never sleep if I had to constantly correct samsquantch.

[stemmer]

Ever hear the responses from Al Gore or David Suzuki when a person challenges them on global warming? Their responses is a fine example of liberal fascism....

If they can't shout you down, they will attempt to embarrass, name call and intimidate you into their beliefs....

[sandorski]

stemmer stemmer:

Ever hear the responses from Al Gore or David Suzuki when a person challenges them on global warming? Their responses is a fine example of liberal fascism....

If they can't shout you down, they will attempt to embarrass, name call and intimidate you into their beliefs....

You're trying too hard.

[Blue_Nose]

stemmer stemmer:

Ever hear the responses from Al Gore or David Suzuki when a person challenges them on global warming? Their responses is a fine example of liberal fascism....

If they can't shout you down, they will attempt to embarrass, name call and intimidate you into their beliefs....

So now arguing with people is fascism?

[Blue_Nose]

mapleleafsnation, please tell me you learned about logic from the back of a soda cracker box, because what you've been putting out here would make Aristotle puke.

[Mustang1]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

mapleleafsnation, please tell me you learned about logic from the back of a soda cracker box, because what you've been putting out here would make Aristotle puke.

Ouch!

[Dayseed]

stemmer stemmer:

Ever hear the responses from Al Gore or David Suzuki when a person challenges them on global warming? Their responses is a fine example of liberal fascism....

If they can't shout you down, they will attempt to embarrass, name call and intimidate you into their beliefs....

Say Stemmer, seems like you MISSED the entire thrust of this thread where actual fascist theory, definition and hallmarks were amplified in review. That's okay, somewhere there's a Burger King where you can read the Toronto Sun and get vocally pissy over the editorial. Try not to spill you Whopper when it happens.

[romanP]

Dayseed Dayseed:

stemmer stemmer:

Ever hear the responses from Al Gore or David Suzuki when a person challenges them on global warming? Their responses is a fine example of liberal fascism....

If they can't shout you down, they will attempt to embarrass, name call and intimidate you into their beliefs....

Say Stemmer, seems like you MISSED the entire thrust of this thread where actual fascist theory, definition and hallmarks were amplified in review. That's okay, somewhere there's a Burger King where you can read the Toronto Sun and get vocally pissy over the editorial. Try not to spill you Whopper when it happens.

This seems to be a running theme everywhere stemmer posts. He doesn't read and then vocalises his profound ignorance, not only of the subject matter but also of what has been discussed.

[mapleleafsnation]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

mapleleafsnation, please tell me you learned about logic from the back of a soda cracker box, because what you've been putting out here would make Aristotle puke.

And the fact you failed to support this idea with any arguments at all tells us what about your logic?

[romanP]

It tells us you're a first-year university student who just learned how to write a paper and thinks that makes him a genius.