Proposal: New names for the political ideologies

[unmerged(123225)]

My friend en.wikipedia.org, does not agree with you on that one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



Fascism isn't, although portrayed in such a light in this day and age for various reasons, any better than national socialism. They are identical.

The only reason why HOI2 makes a distinction between the two, is to portray "soft-core fascists" such as Franco and Salazar who didn't ruthlessly opress and kill enough people to make it to the A-list.

Due to the American media at the time calling the Nazis 'German fascists' over and over again people have generally forgotten about the difference between the two. For many people today National Socialism is synonymous with Fascism because of that. It's true that Hitler modeled NSDAP closely to the Italian fascists but their ideologies are quite different especially regarding race. The friction between the two countries that started with Hitler in power continued throughout the war.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

The changes would likely be easily modded anyway (I imagine it could be done with notepad when opening up the appropriate file).

RE fascism: National socialism does not equal fascism. Furthermore, fascism does not promote violence against other nations, it promotes returning to 'old days of glory'; irredentism, if you will. These territorial ambitions may be aimed at current residing population of an area, or through historical significance of an area, but they do not have to be gained through violent means, but often through peaceful means (look at the Anschluss, etc...).

 

[unmerged(110676)]

The changes would likely be easily modded anyway (I imagine it could be done with notepad when opening up the appropriate file).

Exactly. Anything moddable in HOI2 will of course be moddable in Hoi3, which is apparently going to be a far more moddable game.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Exactly. Anything moddable in HOI2 will of course be moddable in Hoi3, which is apparently going to be a far more moddable game.

Indeed. This means, for example, that those of us who wish to play past 1948 can simply open a .txt file and change the date. No patches or anything should be needed.

 

[Evie HJ]

National Socialist is about as country-dependant as Stalinist: both are strongly associated with one country at one point in history, and both had (and, in some cases, have) their adherents to these days. There certainly were plenty of National Socialist party (called such) that looked to Berlin for ideological inspiration outside germany, and unfortunately there are still to this day parties that look to Mein Kampf for inspiration.

National Socialist is a legitimate ideology name.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

It's true that Hitler modeled NSDAP closely to the Italian fascists but their ideologies are quite different especially regarding race. The friction between the two countries that started with Hitler in power continued throughout the war.

The only difference is that Germany bordered the Baltic sea and Italy the Mediterranean. When Italy went to Ethiopia and engaged in crimes against humanity in Libya it was "colonialism", when the Germans entered Poland and made plans for Ukraine it was "genocide".

There is no escaping of social darwinism in fascism. You start by being patriotic, but in the end you need to have some reason for all the attrocities you commit in the name of your people and at that point a flag doesn't cut it. You need "race" and "history".

 

[unmerged(123225)]

The only difference is that Germany bordered the Baltic sea and Italy the Mediterranean. When Italy went to Ethiopia and engaged in crimes against humanity in Libya it was "colonialism", when the Germans entered Poland and made plans for Ukraine it was "genocide".

There is no escaping of social darwinism in fascism. You start by being patriotic, but in the end you need to have some reason for all the attrocities you commit in the name of your people and at that point a flag doesn't cut it. You need "race" and "history".

We're treading close to banned topic so I'll make this simple: There were couple of democratic societies in the West with colonies, but it doesn't make them fascist. Plus the ideological difference between Germany and Italy go beyond expansionism and nationalism.

 

[Bullfrog]

Fascism isn't, although portrayed in such a light in this day and age for various reasons, any better than national socialism. They are identical.

The only reason why HOI2 makes a distinction between the two, is to portray "soft-core fascists" such as Franco and Salazar who didn't ruthlessly opress and kill enough people to make it to the A-list.

No one has really defined fascism as a comprehensive government type, as each example has quite a few differences. To say that fascism is identical to national socialism is quite odd. Even your wiki article compares the differing views, which are something to concern yourself with if you are taking a stance on something.

If you want to get technical, since good ole Benito started it, fascism should probably be considered purest in the Italian form. As each nation to embrace fascist ideals altered the Italian example, perhaps none were true fascist governments.

And national socialism was around years before fascism, with the Czech National social Party, which was an early model for the German version. Indeed the NSDAP used it and Italian fascism as a base. Therefore National Socialism and Fascism are not necessarily identical.

For HoI3, each nation should get a flavor name for its government type, regardless of the similarities to other nations. Just as marxism was perverted into the Russian and Chinese versions of communism, fascism should follow. Even democracies are different, there is no standard way to run a liberal nation. When certain laws are enacted and particular parties are in power in a nation, their government type should reflect those particular and peculiar differences. So for example, we keep NS and the Italian fascist party but there is no "fascist" government type. We keep Social liberal or constitutional republic and there is no democratic government type. The terms are far too general.

 

[Galaahd]

The only difference is that Germany bordered the Baltic sea and Italy the Mediterranean. When Italy went to Ethiopia and engaged in crimes against humanity in Libya it was "colonialism", when the Germans entered Poland and made plans for Ukraine it was "genocide".

There is no escaping of social darwinism in fascism. You start by being patriotic, but in the end you need to have some reason for all the attrocities you commit in the name of your people and at that point a flag doesn't cut it. You need "race" and "history".

Italian fascism wasn't not racist until 1938. Invasion of Ethiopia was an invasion by a fascist nation who did mass killings and used poison gas to suppress rebellions. Yeah, fascism allowed the use of brute force and violence (other european nations, though, were not very kind too with its colonies).

They wanted to assimilate the Ethiopians (and other ethnic groups like in the Balkans) rather than exterminating them all (and it's the difference with the Lebensraum). They wanted to recreate the Roman Empire, and the Romans tried to assimilate its subjects, and when their subjects rebelled they suppressed the revolts.

As an example there is one old fascist song that I know. "Black face, you will become Italian".

 

[unmerged(135152)]

The difference between fascism and national socialism can be explained by comparing it to communism and stalinism. National socialism is just as much a version of fascism as stalinism is a version of communism.

The only reason why we have the two split up in the game is to make a distinction between a country like Hungary before and after the coup. Likewise communist countries are called stalinist, because that is how Finland would have perceived in the west if the Soviets had won the winter war.

That doesn't make fascism distinctively different or better from nazism, not by a long shot. It simply fits a purpose in the game. The reason for the designers to make the fascism and nazism separate have to do with the aforementioned aspects of the game, but also with politics. In this day and age it is more socially acceptable to call yourself a leninist or trotskyist compared to a stalinist, and the same thing goes for fascism vs nazism. There are a number of people to whom fascism, embodied by Franco or Salazar or even Mussolini, simply meant "getting the country back on its feet" (Which, again, is something that some people would say about Stalin). On the philosophical side however, especially considering what generally leads to what (and if your starting chips are national pride, corporatism, militarism, perceiving non-fascists to be weak and all that, it is mighty hard to avoid playing the God or race card to justify your expansion) you have to accept national socialism as a form of fascism, not as something completely different.

In these days most people have this exact same debate when comparing the realities and ideas of communism in the Soviet Union under the regime of Stalin. However the difference is, of course, that there is no definition of fascism, but there are elaborate views of what is communism (And the pretense of Stalin of actually having something to do with Marx or Lenin in the practise of his politics). As such it would be quite impossible for me to establish that nazism is fascism, but quite easy to show enough similarities to establish that there is nothing fundamentally different between the two. Some people would argue that Stalinism isn't communism. If that is true, and considering how far from the ideas of Marx and Lenin his successors were as well, you would have to say that there has never been a communist government. Likewise for Fascism. Or democracy. As long as we are discussing the fundamental imperfection that is reality, I find it more suitable to treat fascism and nazism under the same category.

 

[Bullfrog]

Categorizing them is fine, as we see the game is doing with the ideology triangle, where each nation is shown as being different by its location.

Of course NSDAP is under the fascist category, just as Japan and Italy will be, but the governments do not equal fascism. The same goes for all nations, democracy and communism are ideologies, however in actual practice there is no perfect example. It is a theory or a principle. Not easy to define.

So, as long as each nation gets its own version of its ideology (and a corresponding name), I will be happy.

 

[unmerged(134131)]

The only difference is that Germany bordered the Baltic sea and Italy the Mediterranean. When Italy went to Ethiopia and engaged in crimes against humanity in Libya it was "colonialism", when the Germans entered Poland and made plans for Ukraine it was "genocide".

There is no escaping of social darwinism in fascism. You start by being patriotic, but in the end you need to have some reason for all the attrocities you commit in the name of your people and at that point a flag doesn't cut it. You need "race" and "history".

you're totally false,
italy was like france and UK: thinking they're better than african or asian so they can rule and teach them better way to live. There was no more place in africa, so they invade the last free african state. They did what france and UK made less 1 century ago (and about war crime of italian army, look at french decolonisation war, i guess it's not worst).

nazi was different, thinking they're superior so they can destroy other population to make place for aryan people.

About left wing ideology,
where can you put anarchist in the triangle (perhaps can they win the spanish civil war, despite stalinist )????

 

[unmerged(132658)]

My friend en.wikipedia.org, does not agree with you on that one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



Fascism isn't, although portrayed in such a light in this day and age for various reasons, any better than national socialism. They are identical.

The only reason why HOI2 makes a distinction between the two, is to portray "soft-core fascists" such as Franco and Salazar who didn't ruthlessly opress and kill enough people to make it to the A-list.

Wikipedia? That is your source?

As I mentioned, the biggest difference between Fascism and Nationalist Socialism is racial purity. Germany conquered to spread the aryan race, to purify Europe, while Italy conquered to expand its borders, not exterminating anybody. You use Italy's war conduct in Ethiopia to label them as exterminators. Well, what did all the "democratic" and "liberal" nations do with the indians in their colonies? When Italy invaded Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania, etc., it certeanly did not invade them with the plans to exterminate them.

Salazar and Franco aren't even labeled as Fascists in the game. Italy was Fascist in the game and in real life. Did they kill ruthlessly to make it to the A-list? Did Hungary? Romania? Bulgaria?

 

[Galaahd]

Italy was Fascist in the game and in real life. Did they kill ruthlessly?

Well, yes. But not for racial reasons.

 

[unmerged(132658)]

Well, yes. But not for racial reasons.

Thats what I tried to explain to him.

EDIT: Actually at first I misunderstood your post. Italy killed people because it was a time of war. They did not plan on exterminating anybody. I guess by this logic, we can assume that the Americans and British are Fascists as well because of all the Germans they killed in the later stages of WWII? And what about the Communists? They would need to be ultra-ultra Fascists...100 million dead.

 

[Galaahd]

Actually Italy did use some pretty cruel means to suppress revolts in its dominions, like using gas against civilians in Ethiopa civilians and overall retailation on civilians in Greece and Yugoslavia, many villages were burned, all the males slain because they were suspected of supporting the partisans. Italians war criminals never paid because of the political situation after the war but they did something that democratic western countries would have never done. The british and americans who left them unpunished are no better, though.

 

[Nikolai]

The ideology names from HoI2, which are in the current screenshots, are potentially confusing if you aren't familiar with them. I'd propose to replace them with names which show their relations to each other more clearly.

I think changes similar to these lines would be sufficient:

National Socialist -> Fascist
Fascist -> Reactionary
Paternal Autocrat -> Right Wing Traditionalist
Social Conservative -> Social Conservative
Market Liberal -> Market Liberal
Social Liberal -> Social Liberal
Social Democrat -> Social Democrat
Left Wing Radical -> Left Wing Radical
Leninist -> Socialist
Stalinist -> Communist

These changes seem like they would take five minutes to implement, and I don't see any reason not to implement them other than nostalgia.

Incredible. You managed to get almost all wrong.

 

[Nikolai]

Btw people, some here are heading in a dangerous direction. I advise you to read the rules of this forum closely to not get an unpleasant surprise. Just a friendly tip.

 

[Mrdie]

Trotsky and his supporter would never have called themselves "Trotskyists", but Marxist-Leninists or Bolshevists.

Wrong. They called themselves Bolshevik-Leninists. Marxist-Leninists were the 'Stalinists.' Show me a single source that says they called themselves M-L.

...Left-wing Radicals, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists - that seems perfectly OK to me.

This model actually makes sense (sorta) if we were to start after 1956, since Khrushchev and co were essentially like "we are upholding the glorious tradition of Marxism-Leninism against the Stalinists" and such, and M-L could signify the pro-Soviet line whereas 'Stalinist' signifies the pro-Chinese line. For World War II however this... doesn't work. At all.

 

[unmerged(105411)]

The strength in using terms like Stalinist and Leninist over Communist and Socialist is that of practical government versus theoretical government.

In Marxist theory communism and socialism are abstract economic ideas about the distribution of goods and services and the ownership of the means of production. I might be getting this backwards, but socialism is the step a capitalism society takes after the clash between the owners of capital and the owners of labor. Marx did not invent some constitutional grounds for what socialism is other than that workers would own the means of production, namely land and capital, and become their own managers. As society adjusted itself to this government would be necessary for social cohesion, but would eventually dissolve into what he called communism. If socialism was undefined enough, communism barely has a word on itself. Basically society is in a perfect equilibrium without conflict between the owners and the laborers because they are the same thing.

So when someone calls a nation "socialist" no one even knows what it means. Are they socialist in the manner that Marx implied? Or like Sweden? Or Bolivia? It is simply a name, perhaps buzzword, thrown around to imply that they provide a lot of government welfare or have confiscated foreign property (or as my comp econ professor liked to say, "Socialism means that the US doesn't like you."). When we say "communist" we usually imply that a nation was under the sphere of CCCP, but I believe Marx would be appalled at the misuse of this definition (not to mention they entire skipping of the most important step towards communism, namely capitalism).

But when someone says that a state is "Stalinist" I can imagine a practical government. Stalinist governments are totalitarian, own all or most industries and services in a nation, attempt to maximize production through statistical and mathematical formulation, form communal everything (from farms to steel mills), usually are quite militaristic and are ruled by the iron fist of a single infallible (sometimes deity-like) leader. Basically post-Lenin Russia, Mao's China, and North Korea.

Leninist does not convey the same imagery. Leninist governments are much less totalitarian and are concerned with building wealth and properly distributing it. A good example is Tito's Yugoslavia, where workers, not the government, actually owned and managed the factories and businesses. Unfortunately Lenin was only around until 1923 (don't quote me on that), more than half of it involved in a bloody civil war with monarchists (paternal autocrats). We never had a chance to experience a real Leninist Russia, so we often affiliate Lenin with Stalin's Russia (especially because Stalin turned Lenin into a deity-like figurehead).

So I guess my point is, socialist and communist, eh not so good at conveying an idea of government. In America we sometimes call Canada socialist, or France. Marx would scoff at us!