2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Buce]

I'm pretty sure you can't use "pertain" in that way.

Mrs Malaprop could...

[Guest MattP]

How would you define fascism Matt?

In a far longer answer I could give on a mobile now

I think the main aspect of it would be it's total dominance over society and it's people, complete state intervention into everything, a combination of Nazism, Communism with extreme Nationalism.

Totalitarian and controlling with a people fearful of it's government if they behave in a wrong way.

[Guest MattP]

Wikipedias definition is actually quite perfect....

People shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking it's left/right. Fascism comes from all sides.

Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radicalauthoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italyduring World War I, combining more typically right-wing positions with elements of left-wing politics,[3] in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, andtraditional conservatism. Although fascism is often placed on the far-rightwithin the traditional left–right spectrum, several academics have said that the description is inadequate.[4][5]

[ADK]

I don't think the Greens are aiming for fascism, they are aiming for something new. The trouble is it's not politics based on realism but on idealism.

[SMX11]

The Green are just socialists and frankly why anyone would consider voting for more state control is beyond me.

[Guest MattP]

I don't think the Greens are aiming for fascism, they are aiming for something new. The trouble is it's not politics based on realism but on idealism.

Reading their manifesto they want to control where I go, how I do it, what I eat, what sports I can watch and play, how many children I have (actually one of the few things I agree with) and openly want my business to fail as it doesn't fit the way they feel society should behave.

That's a pretty good example of fascism.

I know how the lefties feel now wanting UKIP to take Tory votes, you want it for an immediate damage to Labour, but you also really fear the long term consequence.

[ADK]

That isn't really fascism it's more like totalitarianism. But I do feel like we have 3 conservative parties and two progressive ones with completely opposite views. It's fair to say the Greens and UKIP are complete opposites.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Crisis is usually the core mechanism of fascism, usually in the past this has been the crisis nationalism. It's just for these days its the greens and climate change, in fact I do believe there was an ecofascist arm of the Nazis.

Fascism is totalitarian which is exactly what the Greens propose, the fact that any action by the state is justified to achieve common good and everything is political so the state should intervene.

If you read some of Caroline Lucas' interviews after 2010, it's clear to see their policy is fascist by nature

[ADK]

They aren't fascists in the true sense.

[Strokes]

They aren't fascists in the true sense.

What do you mean true sense?

[SMX11]

Fascism, socialism, nazism, communism they are all collectivists.

The needs of many are more important than the few. Complete lack of individual liberty and things like trial by jury and the presumption of innocence.

The only major difference between the 'left' and 'right' forms are economically. Socialism/communism removes property rights of the individual and state owns everything. Fascism has state control of production and a lot of crony capitalist features.

[leicsmac]

Fascism, socialism, nazism, communism they are all collectivists.

The needs of many are more important than the few. Complete lack of individual liberty and things like trial by jury and the presumption of innocence.

The only major difference between the 'left' and 'right' forms are economically. Socialism/communism removes property rights of the individual and state owns everything. Fascism has state control of production and a lot of crony capitalist features.

 

Really? Most of Scandinavia would beg to differ with you throwing in socialism with those other three. The last time I checked the legal system in those countries wasn't half bad.

[Guest MattP]

Really? Most of Scandinavia would beg to differ with you throwing in socialism with those other three. The last time I checked the legal system in those countries wasn't half bad.

Yet we won't extradite Assange there?

[Sir Fynwy]

Yet we won't extradite Assange there?

The UK will start to extradite Assange to Sweden as soon as he sets foot on UK territory so I don't see where that statement comes from.

[leicsmac]

Yet we won't extradite Assange there?

 

As Fynwy says, the moment he sets foot back on British soil I'm sure the matter will arise again.

 

Of course, I'd offer decent odds that if and when that happens he'll have a black bag over his head and be flying westward (or eastward) within a week or two but that's a different matter.

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with the legal system of Sweden, however - it seems more like an international thing to me.

[SMX11]

Really? Most of Scandinavia would beg to differ with you throwing in socialism with those other three. The last time I checked the legal system in those countries wasn't half bad.

They are social democratic? I wouldn't call them socialist. Just like I wouldn't call the Lib dems 'liberal'.

[leicsmac]

They are social democratic? I wouldn't call them socialist. Just like I wouldn't call the Lib dems 'liberal'.

 

Yeah, they're a socialist democracy....the second word there and the fact that it is executed successfully by a successful group of nations in todays society being a clear reason why socialism cannot be thrown in with Nazism, Communism or Fascism or other totalitarian regimes.

[Webbo]

Sweden is a  parliamentary, constitutional monarchy the same as us. There are right wing and left wing parties, same as us.

[The God Emperor]

Scandinavian countries are difficult to class as socialist. Yes they have a welfare state and the high taxes that come with that but the last time I did some reading on them, they have few regulations and the people there have a great deal of economic freedom, I'd say more so than here.

But it's splitting hairs really, Liberals, Socialists, Conservatives etc all believe the same thing. That people are inherently immoral and incompetent and need a coercive monopoly to run their lives for them, they just want to be then ones running it.

[leicsmac]

Sweden is a  parliamentary, constitutional monarchy the same as us. There are right wing and left wing parties, same as us.

 

I think their policies are a fair bit further to the left than most other leading nations, though. I think there's a lot of economic freedom as TGE mentioned but they also have the responsibility to go with it and it's backed by a high tax rate that everyone actually pays. Well, mostly. Their military, education and transportation policies all seem reasonably left wing too. 

Scandinavian countries are difficult to class as socialist. Yes they have a welfare state and the high taxes that come with that but the last time I did some reading on them, they have few regulations and the people there have a great deal of economic freedom, I'd say more so than here.

But it's splitting hairs really, Liberals, Socialists, Conservatives etc all believe the same thing. That people are inherently immoral and incompetent and need a coercive monopoly to run their lives for them, they just want to be then ones running it.

 

This is true. Power corrupts and attracts the corruptible.

[SMX11]

Yeah, they're a socialist democracy....the second word there and the fact that it is executed successfully by a successful group of nations in todays society being a clear reason why socialism cannot be thrown in with Nazism, Communism or Fascism or other totalitarian regimes.

Socialism and social democratic are not the same. You cannot be a free democracy and be socialist.

[leicsmac]

Socialism and social democratic are not the same. You cannot be a free democracy and be socialist.

 

Then it appears our interpretation of the terminology differs, because I believe you can, and the Nordic states are exactly that. There's a wealth of difference between socialism and communism, but then you seem smart enough to know that.

[MooseBreath]

I can't see much that is particularly socialist about Scandinavia relative to the UK, other than a larger welfare state that more likely works for cultural rather than economic reasons. Small, homogeneous populations with a strong work ethic, it's more like buying a beer for your mate who just lost his job, you can't apply that a country with a much larger, diverse population and expect it to have the same impact.

There is also no real evidence that high public spending has helped Scandinavia. In Sweden for example, public spending peaked at nearly 70% of GDP in the early 90s, which caused the Swedish banking crisis where banks were bailed out and led to a severe recession, much like ours. Much like us they implementated austerity, and public spending as a percentage of gdp has been falling pretty much ever since. Meanwhile the per capita gdp has been rising ever since. If anything, Scandinavia provides strong evidence of a correlation between lower public spending and increased prosperity. The socialist aspects of their economy are declining and they're benefitting as a result.

[SMX11]

I can't see much that is particularly socialist about Scandinavia relative to the UK, other than a larger welfare state that more likely works for cultural rather than economic reasons. Small, homogeneous populations with a strong work ethic, it's more like buying a beer for your mate who just lost his job, you can't apply that a country with a much larger, diverse population and expect it to have the same impact.

There is also no real evidence that high public spending has helped Scandinavia. In Sweden for example, public spending peaked at nearly 70% of GDP in the early 90s, which caused the Swedish banking crisis where banks were bailed out and led to a severe recession, much like ours. Much like us they implementated austerity, and public spending as a percentage of gdp has been falling pretty much ever since. Meanwhile the per capita gdp has been rising ever since. If anything, Scandinavia provides strong evidence of a correlation between lower public spending and increased prosperity. The socialist aspects of their economy are declining and they're benefitting as a result.

 

This.

[SMX11]

Then it appears our interpretation of the terminology differs, because I believe you can, and the Nordic states are exactly that. There's a wealth of difference between socialism and communism, but then you seem smart enough to know that.

 

We can agree to disagree then. Socialism can have such a wide meaning, even if you simply looked a simple source like wikipedia it has massive variety of sub groups and many disagreements between each.