I forgot Republican Spain and Portugal was more a military dictatorship (of which it is nice to see another person remembers the events then), vassals counted as either Axis powers previously stated. The problem with Fascism is that it is so new and so rare it is hard to classify on any level. There is not Martial Law of Nations or Fascist Manifesto to say yep that is fascism. We have to constantly revise who was and was not a fascist state.
Actually San Marino had a fascist government for 20 years. So it was 2, because (personal opinion) nazis aren’t fascist, I think it is a side ideoligy of fascism.
Yes I shouldn’t talk about what if there is diffrence between the fascist and nazi ideoligy.
there’s some debate on how we should engage with the far-right, but i think it depends on the situation. on one hand, punching them could make them look like victims, which is what they want, but on the other hand, debating with them could legitimize their viewpoints. the far right is very broad too. it is not always clear which person is a nazi and which is just a dumb conservative (like jordan peterson, who heavily criticized the alt-right, but has been taking pictures with them).
like i said, it depends on the situation. if it is clear as day that someone is a nazi, waving a swastika flag shouting sieg heil, then punching them would result in the public being on your side. but if it is some weirdo like jordan peterson, then punching him would only prove the right-wingers correct, that the SJWs are violent towards people who disagree with them and the right are always attacked for their freeze peach. the public would turn against you.
instead, if it is not clear that someone is a nazi, then debating them could work, but i wouldn’t debate jordan peterson (for example) to change HIS mind, i would debate him to change the minds of the audience. also, one should only debate jordan peterson if they know what they are doing. the far right is very manipulative when it comes to debate, so you should know what to expect from them, and be sharp enough to defend yourself. someone like noam chomsky would absolutely be able to go against peterson, for example.
I din’t know San Marino had a fascist dictatorship. Also there is a debate on fascism and the Nazi party it lead to the invention of the term Nazism. Nazism is a form of fascism that revolves around martial, national AND racial supremacy.
Of what i’ve heard, Benito wasn’t that conserned with race until Hitler rose to power. The same with his anti semetic views and laws. Correct me if i’m wrong
Why would anyone even argue this point? It’s not up for debate - Naziism was a form of Fascism. There’s no way around it.
Correct he had a mistress who was a Jew and his personal biographer was Jewish as well. Benito made a lot of concessions to the Nazi Party and Hitler
Yeah Benito had a jewish mistress, and I think Hitler had a docter who was jewish (I think I have read that somewhere)
I never understood that idea. When I did my A-levels at the second-chance education I asked my philosophy teacher, my politics teacher and my sociology teacher. All said that discussing with someone is not meaning automatically to legitimize their viewpoints.
Those who shared that idea never could really explain it either.
True, the whole world hates pineapple on pizza but Domino’s still advertises them. The world still hates pineapple on pizza. Plenty of politicians are not validated simply by discussing issues, Trump was not validated due to the media. He was validated because a broke system full of greedy people needed a stoolie
the point is debating with these right-wingers can actually help them look normal to the public, if you are not careful.
But the Milo whatever-the-fuck-his-last-name-is appears normal but everyone I know hates hos guts my country has out-right banned him on character grounds even political parties with seeming normal people are expelled due to hate speech and extremism.
I think discussing with them is the best way to point out why the ideas are bad.
Well I said it was a personal opinion. I think the nazi ideoligy is based on fascism and has roots in it(never interested me that much in ideoligy to really look into it).
History is a interest of mine, but ideoligys just aren’t interesting for me. So you may be right, you may be wrong,I really don’t want to argue more about if fascism is or isnot naziism.
I could be convinced that liberalism was conservatism, if you tried.
Depends on the type of liberalism.
Please tell me what liberalism is, I really haven’t a good bace on ideoligys
Liberalism typically applies to two main forms Economic and Social.
Conservative values align economic liberalism. It means the de-regulation of industry, spreading and bolstering a free-market economy and things like that. IT IS DIFFERENT TO CAPITALISM (emphasis)
Social liberalism is the spreading of the rights of all peoples through proactive means and government over sight. It is closely tied to Liberal governments
Technically Hungary was an independent member of the Axis for most of WW2, they were still fascist and were only occupied in 1944 after Hitler discovered Horthy’s armistice talks with the United States and the UK. Same with Romania
Ah… Yes the world renovned evil guy Benito Chinolini, the inventor of toy’s painted with lead paint
Early quote of Benito:
“We will restore the Roman Empire!..Somehow.”