*claps*
The shear fact that the normal trolls aren't impeding discourse here is a sign of qualitative improvement.
I am happy that this thread has remained relatively civil and intellectual so far. Reminds me of the early days when discussions were mainly academic and indepth instead of petty racist insults that are common these days.
Now I want to give my personal view on what I think fascism is, the full-fledged version. Let me know if you see any holes or flaws with my descriptions (Poli-Sci is not my AOS).
---------------------------
But before I do that, I want to quickly summarize what was discussed previously to make it easier to understand where I’m coming from and in case some readers were wondering what the fuss was all about in the previous pages:
So obviously the discussion was mainly about what constitute fascism.
@tranquilium further explained what caused fascism.
Fundamentally, tranquilium’s explanation was using the method of identifying some variables (let’s call it “A”) and asserting that variable(s) “A” causes variable “B”. So my friend tranquilium argued in post #16 that variable “B” (fascism, or the rise of fascism) was caused by variable “A” (having your core/base necessities threatened or perceiving it to be so, and being in chaos/turmoil and on the brink of starvation).
But tranquilium’s explanation and argumemt has 3 major flaws. First, he seems to have committed a logical fallacy by ignoring the principle “Correlation does not imply causation”. He tried to identify two variables A and B that seems to be correlated, and then argued that A causes B. But this is not necessary true because “correlation does not imply causation”.
The second flaw is that there are no strong correlation between variable A and variable B in the first place. There are cases where have we observed variable B without having observed variable A. Imperial Japan became fascist but they were not going through chaos/turmoil, on the brinks of starvation, perceived their base necessities being threatened, etc. Basically variable A is not necessary for variable B. Also, we often observe variable A without observing variable B (countries in chaos, starvation, perceiving their core necessities threatened, etc. but didn’t become fascist). Basically, variable A is not sufficient for variable B. Variable A is not necessary nor sufficient for variable B. There are no strong correlation between A and B.
The third flaw in my friend tranquilium’s explanation and argument is that his description of variable A is unclear amd ambiguous. In the second half of post #16, my friend seems to argue that having your “core/base necessities” threatened (or perceiving it being threatened) is the fundamental element of variable A.
However, my friend later changed his argument by talking about “core interest” instead of “core/base necessities”. But core “interests” and core “necessities” are two different things. For example, he asserted in post #16 that even if Vietnam loses the South China Sea, it won’t turn fascist because Vietnam would only loses it sea interests while its core necessities are still not in danger. I agree with my friend that the SCS is not a core “necessity” (VN can still survive without it). But just like China, the SCS
is in fact officially a core “interest” of VN. So core “interest” and core “necessities” are different concepts. Furthermore, the notion of “core interest” are vague and what each different countries consider its core interest is arbitrary (like how securing mainland China was Imperial Japan’s core interest, the SCS are core interest of China/VN). So basically, tranqilium’s description of variable A is quite vague and ambiguous (and if “core interest” is part of variable A, then it is a variable that is arbitrary). So trying to identify a correlation between variable B and variable A where variable A is ambiguous, vague and arbitrary is unsound. And arguing variable B is caused by that variable A is simply, in my opinion, absurd.
So that’s the summary of what we were arguing/discussing in the previous few pages.
@tranquilium my friend, please correct me if you think I’m wrong or have misrepresented you.
So leaving this debate aside, I would now like to move on and give my own description/theory of what constitute fascism or what causes it. I have previously mentioned, what I believe to be, the core elements of fascism. Now I want to give a full description of it:
------------------------------
First of all, the principle “correlation does not imply causation” will also applies for me. So my description/theory should be regarded more like a hypothesis. But I will try to argue for and describe variables (conditions or characteristics) that are both necessary and sufficient for fascism (or necessary and sufficient to produce fascism).
Actually, I need to go soon so I will just list out what I think these conditions and characteristics are that constitute fascism (or produces fascism). I will then come back and describe them later when I have time. Here are the conditions or characteristics:
- Strong desire to become great and powerful (become a superpower). Along with this is a sense of entitlement to it.
- Sectarian outlook: making a clear distinction between one’s own group and the “others” (this distinction can be along the line of ethnicity, nationality, etc.)
- Disregard for the dignity, worth and wellbeing of the “others”. The dignity, worth and wellbeing of the “others” has no priority over the task of fulfilling the desire mentioned above.
- Expansionist policies in order to achieve that desire.
- Authoritarian and structural (similar to what John Weeks described in the first article).
- Brainwashing or shaping citizen’s opinion in an authoritarian method so that the thoughts and actions of the citizens align with the characteristics described above.
- Suppresing the voice of citizens who wants to give an alternative view to the above.
So each and every one of these characters are necessary to constitute fascism (or produce it). And
together, they are sufficient for it, or sufficient to produce it.
I will come back and explain these characters more in details in case there are some misunderstandings. But
@Nihonjin1051, I think you can already see how Cambodia does not fit this description (contra to tranquilim’s claim that Cambodia is most likely to turn gascist). Also you can see that modern Japan also does not fit this description.
...to be continue.