Can you be fascist and hippie? I mean fascism in the philosophical sense, not the pejorative that is commonly used to insult someone as a 'fascist'.
short answer, FUCK NO! the basic tentes of fascist philosophy are: 1. repressive. 2. totalitarian. 3. tyrannical. the basic tentes of hippie philosophy are: 1. unconventionality. 2. free love. 3. peace. yeah, charile manson was a "fascist hippie." of course he was a poiser and not a real hippy.
I think those values are consistent. Fascism doesn't necessary mean those things but often leads to them. By definition, it means a banding together of the people, which is a central tenet of the hippies too. Fascism is not repressive but strongly anti-conservative, so pushing ahead the consciousness of man instead of repressing it would be a priority with a hippie fascist, rather than conserving old, stale and hateful values. True, fascism it is sometimes against liberalism, but fascists accuse liberalism as being the cause of despiritualization of human beings and transforming them into materialistic beings in which the highest ideal is moneymaking. In other words it is against liberalism for capitalistic tendencies. Doesn't that sound hippie-ish to you? And it often embraces social darwinism, so that it would discourage the production of 'inferior' and 'weak' people like George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman. I think hippies would approve of this. Umberto Eco said of fascism that it is a system of government where the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. So tyranny is not an essential aspect of fascism. If a leader decides the people's will is to open people's mind to bring peace, he may decide to put LSD in the water supply. Jimi Hendrix or Noam Chomsky as the fascist leaders of the US might hold a big concert for everyone's benefit to bring peace and love, but only if the people wish it. If they don't wish it they won't do it.
You clearly have a different definition of fascism than many people. I think when asking a question like that, it is best to state a strict definition to avoid confusion. Here is what the dictionary has to say: fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/Noun 1. An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. 2. (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice By this definition, the answer is most definitely, to quote blackcat, FUCK NO! How would you define fascism, Walsh? You tried to define it a bit above, but if you were to define it in very concise, clear terms, what would you say?
nah dude, fascism is a policy of officially enforcing a certain viewpoint upon the public. that can only be done by authoritarian ways. both the authoritarian and the forcing people to believe in one way are both anti-hippie. ? inferior? those people are not inferior, you may disagree or even hate them but they're not inferior. on the contrary, everyone you named has MUCH more power than you.
I'm not sure how to define it, but those definitions aren't helpful to me. Let's have a look: Authoritarian: What is this? All governments are authoritarian, in that those with authority have power to make decisions. Not helpful. Intolerant - again, what is it? Intolerance against what? Intolerance against violence, oppression, racism, hate? Those sounds like hippie values to me. The government SHOULD be intolerant, against what people like George Bush and McCain are preaching. Right wing - really? The fascist governments passed have been right wing but that doesn't mean they have to be. So on reflection, my definition is the people in authority having certain power to tell others what to do in order to achieve an agreed upon end by means which may be controversial or disagreed upon by the minority. Now, if we are to bring peace and love to the world and decide the only means to do that are to make sure people like George Bush etc don't have any decision-making power, then it seems consistent with hippie goals.
Authoritarian means the government is controling and patrolling everything in everyones life, and that would be needed in a fascist country. intolerant means close-minded, unaccepting of anything else. once again, fits right in into what fascism is. the government needs to be tolerant because it supports a huge amount of people, not one idea as if one or a few people are living there. you're oversimplifying things in a duality way. what makes Bush and McCain so evil to you? were they born evil? are they just greedy? i think we need to talk about the root of the problem before introducing an idea that'd only create more conflict than success. there are better ways of coming to a collectivist ideal rather than forcing everyone to believe in one opinion (which is what facism is).
Not all governments are authoritarian. An authoritarian government would be a government that doesn't allow basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of peaceful assembly. Ideally, those in power are only given power by the people who elect them. In an ideal democratic government, the authority and power comes from the people and not the elected officials. Ideally, elected officials in a democratic, non-authoritarian government are merely extensions of the voice of the people. you're changing the definition of intolerant to fit your hypothesis. Intolerence means you don't tolerate people who are different from you or whose views, politics, religion, lifestyle you don't agree with. Yes, you can not tolerate things like racism, violence, oppression, but that is not what intolerence means in this case. extreme left-wing and extreme right wing are more similiar than many would think. If you think of the political compass as a circle instead of a line, this makes sense. It would be possible to have a left-wing fascist government, but this would come at the expense of liberal ideals. It would be more like communism than democracy. I don't think any form of government in which the people in authority have the power to tell others what to do would fit hippie ideals. When one thinks of hippies, they generally think of people who are free to do whatever they wish in life and allow others to also experience that same sense of freedom. This applies to the portion of the population that disagrees with them as well.
i strongly suggest, if this is what you want, you can live in that kind of society today; it already exist. it is called, the democratic people's republic of korea (north korea) kim jun sun, and his son kim jun ll are "great leaders" of the people's will indeed! uke: walsh, everything you said above is one of the best cases of sophistry i have ever seen! dude, i strongly suggest you get hold of a copy of a book entitled, "the art of deception." your being mindfuck with. you need to learn critical thinking skills to recognize fallacious arguments. man, walsh, i hope your just playing the role of devil's advocate with us here, and you really are not this badly mindfucked as you appear to be.
I agree with this. Authoritarian governments would differ from democratic in the sense you've described. But authoritarian governments like fascist ones would still be considered the will of the people, just not enacting the will of the people in a democratic manner. Then according to your definition, intolerance of people whose views, politics, religion, lifestyle would be indeed both fascist and hippie. Denying those with certain extreme views on politics (like military imperialism or extreme libertarianism) decision-making power is fascism and upholds hippie values. Agreed. Infinite freedom is not possible. One woman's sphere of freedom extended far enough will eventually interfere with another woman's. The freedom to live without being murdered interferes with the freedom to kill. All governments have restricted some sort of freedom, which is why the freedom to murder has rarely been allowed in any government. That is the people in authority telling other people what to do, yet I don't think many hippies would object to laws against murder.
That's a pretty broad question. I think there are lots of youth today that dress like hippies, etc. But they have some real extreme redneck ideologies in their heads. Sadly many of the hippies of today are not the hippies of my day.
please define your opinion of what hippie values are then. if you think that hippies are just people that are against politicians like George Bush, you're terribly mistaken. you're extending the words 'intolerance' and 'hippie' too far. just because someone is intolerant to certain things doesnt make them a facist, and just because someone believes in peace doesnt make them a hippie.
I don't, but we're talking about hippies in relation to politics and decision-making not in a general sense. If I make a thread asking what drugs hippies use I don't expect a description of what brand of shoes they wear and what gum they chew. I know, but that's what we're talking - about whether the two are compatible. If they're not, you could point out what makes them incompatible.
Forget the law, thats a moral code I think everyone would do well to live by...enjoying freedom to its fullest extent, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same thats all I have to add. bye bye you fascist hippie
Something to ponder. I keep hearing people talking about tolerance but there are actions and words that follow that don't support what they are saying. If you only tolerate people who agree with you than you aren't being tolerant. Think about it like this if you are a pot smoking, Prius driving, vegan, peacenick, but think that Michael Savage should be taken off the air then you really aren't tolerant. You are putting on the right act but you are just as intolerant as the Klansman that lives in the trailer park on the outside of town (ok I'm exaggerating to make a point). I generally consider myself fairly progressive but here is one place I disagree with most progressives on. Guns. I grew up on a farm. I got to pet the cow that I ate. I watched my dad cut the head off a chicken and pluck him before we ate him. I watched the garden get planted and harvested. We had guns. Guns to me are a tool. We used guns to keep foxes and raccoons out of the hen house. We had friends who hunted deer and traded us venison for things that we had and they needed. So when I see Volvo's with stickers on them that say "If guns were outlawed then only outlaws would accidentally shoot their kids," I think what an ignorant intolerant asshole. But that person believes themselves to be "progressive" and "tolerant". I accept their views as their own. I disagree with them. I even respect their right to have that opinion. But to me real progress doesn't mean to completely throw out the past in favor of a new future. Then there are voices of the "Progressive" left that are just as much loud mouthed intolerant bigots as their right wing counterparts. I've already ranted as much as I care to about Bill Maher being just as bad as Bill O'Reilly. Stay Brown, Rev J
But they are labelled nonetheless. Nothing 'has' any property when you think about it. Or at least, when Bishop Berkeley thinks about it
