What's wrong with fascism?
So, what's wrong with fascism? I've been told it's the most efficient form of government and most productive of all possible. Most people who lived under fascism (without the idolatry of a raving meth addict, racism, discrimination, and outright genocide) seemed to benefit from that form of government in the past dramatically.
Obviously when I say "fascism" I have in mind something very different from what the Nazis perverted into their own ideology.
Obviously when I say "fascism" I have in mind something very different from what the Nazis perverted into their own ideology.
Comments (164)
My understanding is that the trains didn't run any more 'on time' in Italy when Mussolini was in power than when he wasn't in power.
If by fascism you mean authoritarian government operating a command economy, it doesn't appear that the fascist economy is far more productive than any other, and maybe less so. Authoritarian governments do tend to get their way within their own borders, and if their objectives have any merit, they tend to be achieved. But at what cost? Mussolini carried out a fairly extensive urban renewal project in Rome (employing some early midcentury modern style) which was fairly good, by standards of the day.
What is wrong with fascism is that it is authoritarian, dictatorial, intensely nationalistic (or ethnically focused) and militaristic. Pig-headed, in other words. It tends to create the social circumstances that encourage authoritarian, violent behavior among followers. It tends to idolize the strong male figure in the form of a ruling general.
Obviously? Most scholars take Nazism to be an exemplary case of 'Fascism.' What do you mean when you say fascism?
Who told you that and what kind of tattoos did he have?
Quoting Question
Maybe you better make clear what that is. Which fascist regimes would fall under your definition? And since radical nationalism, aggression and human rights abuses are part and parcel of fascism, how was the Nazis employment of it in principle perverse?
[Cross-posted with csal]
That's enough to persuade me.
Just needed someone else to give me some idea what they think.
I always thought fascism was socialism taken to the extreme. The most efficient use of public funds has always been in my understanding spent through infrastructure and the military along with 'taking care of the population'.
I'm still less than halfway through it, but my impression is that, in Paxton's view, 'fascism' is something that flourishes by exploiting blind-spots in the State. It sets up de-facto mini-governments and police forces in order to garner the support of marginalized folk. A 'fascist' organization makes a name for itself, first, by violently maintaining order in places beyond the scope of a limited state. Then, having gained recognition, the organization (and/or its leaders) begin to cut political deals with the establishment, slowly getting their foot in the door. It comes closer to the mainstream while keeping its alternate force in reserve.
What makes fascism feasible, then, is that it is capable of providing an alternative state to those marginal regions and groups who fall through the bureaucratic gaps. But its weakness is that it wants to remain that kind of alternative state, even while in power. It has to maintain a sense of being a movement separate from the state, even when it is the state.
Fascism's roots do, indeed, lie in socialism (as well as nationalism, militarism, futurism). It wants to be a radical, unified, overthrowing, restoring movement. But it also wants to be in power. And that doesn't really work (unless you have a war deferring the realization of that essential contradiction.)
One way to look at fascism is as a movement that wants to make Mobilization, a necessarily provisional state of affairs, something permanent.
"Socialism" used properly is a form of economic democracy. The workers -- the great majority of the people -- run the economy. Can democracy be carried too far? I suppose it can; then one would end up with a kind of anarchic society. That might work on a small scale, for hundreds of people. Millions? probably not.
The Nazi state intended to take care of the general population, and initially it was able to improve the quality of life of Germans (the good, pure Germans, anyway). Once full scale war got under way, however, the needs of the military took precedence over everything else. The daily calorie quota of the typical German was reduced. Initially the reduction was noticeable, but as the war ground on, the reduction became more severe.
You should check out Moussolini's rather lucid writings on fascism, where he explicitly ditinguishes fascism from socialism along the lines of the emphasis on economics, as well as the primacy of class warfare:
"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of the so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various sodal groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production ... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. ... And above all Fascism denies that class war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society. These two fundamental concepts of Socialism being thus refuted. nothing is left of it but the sentimental aspiration-as old as humanity itselftowards a social convention in which the sorrows and sufferings of the humblest shall be alleviated."
The differences become sharpest however, where Moussolini discusses the function of the state, which is totally alien to any socialist conception of it:
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. ... 'For us Fascists, the State is not merely a guardian, preoccupied solely with the duty of assuring the personal safety of the citizens; nor is it an organization with purely material aims, such as to guarantee a certain level of well-being and peaceful conditions...
The State, as conceived of and as created by Fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact in itself... The State is the guarantor of security both internal and external. but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people. as it has grown up through the centuries in language, in customs, and in faith. And the State is not only a living reality of the present, it is also linked with the past and above all with the future, and thus transcending the brief limits of individual life, it represents the immanent spirit of the nation." (Mussolini,The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism; this particular document is only a couple of pages long. Well worth the read if you're interested).
But it does seem like a good opportunity to bring up one of Paxton's big talking points: the self-explanations offered by fascists should be taken with a grain of salt. What they said isn't always in line with what they did (in fact, it usually wasn't.) It's a familiar historicist point, but one that is somehow often overlooked in this particular case. We're eager to deconstruct the self-narratives of the guardians of western democracy, but willing to take the statements of fascists at face value.
Strangely enough, I don't see that as a distinct from of socialism. Like I said it is socialism taken down to its most extreme and logical form.
But, I would wager that nowadays fascism has no enemy to fight or at least to fight and win, of course, if you aren't the dominant power in the world already. The weapons of the past are absolutely nothing compared to what is available nowadays.
Furthermore, it seems fascism is exclusive to homogenous societies where division and differing views are not common.
I would also like to mention that any state that treats defense and security as a national goal (The US for example) is very prone to any form of fascism in any degree. The US is committed to maintaining its budget to maintaining its military force and comparative advantage contra other nations. This has proven, contrary to what others think, beneficial to its national interest.
Yeah, that's fair enough. It's probably a matter of distinguishing between fascism-as-idea and fascism-in-practice, depending on the kind of discussion at stake. The notion of fascism as a kind of permanent mobilization is very interesting - it seems to resonant very strongly with Trotskyist or even Maoist strains of communism (permanent revolution...), while making the state a kind of kind of permanent Vanguard (a la Lenin without the 'withering away'). But again, it's this focus on the state which I think really distinguishes the two, where, to paint it broadly, the state works for the people, and not the people for the state.
Quoting Question
What do you understand by socialism?
I understand socialism to be placing the interests safety and welfare of the citizens by a nation above all other concerns. That's about as concise as I can present the concept without idiotizing it.
Yeah, that's legit. I was also very unclear in my post above, when I said Fascism wants to remain separate from the state despite being the state. It would be more accurate to say that, on an ideological and ideal level, it totally wants to be the state, but, since that doesn't really pan out (it always finds itself forced to cater to - or at least cut deals with- entrenched powers) there ends up being a de facto dual state. The fascists fail to live up to their fantasy. That's where the mobilization thing comes in. If things settled, it would become clear the fascist state was not the unified absolute-everything it's claimed to be. But if everything's running at a high-pitch, it's easier to delude oneself and others, that there's a unified fascist state growing stronger every day, heading toward perfection.
It's all just words, I suppose, so if that's what socialism means for you --
Quoting Question
, then I can keep track in this discussion. But it wouldn't be how I'd put things, and it's a pretty confusing way of talking, considering that it excludes what we usually term fascist Germany.
But then. . . I don't know what's wrong with that. I don't think it's in the interests of the citizenry to be murdered for belonging to unclean categories, or for those in the clean categories to be mobilized into war machines for the domination of other countries. I don't think that the trenches of the losing side of World War I are in the interests of anyone to replicate within a bureaucratic machine. I don't believe that the suspension of democratic practices and the suppression of the press and the usage of propaganda are in the interests, safety, or welfare of the citizens -- even as the final and ultimate value.
But these are features of actual states that at least claimed to be fascist.
It would be useful to use different words, I think.
And if they didn't like it - then what? And how do you judge what will benefit 'most people' when they're given no say in the matter?
Hitler borrowed prodigiously from Western bankers who were financing him as a bulwark against the Soviet Union.
By 1939 Germany was super-deep in debt, which it incurred building its war machine.
To get itself out of debt, it simply started killing tens of millions of people, invading and taking over countries, so that it could loot their resources and take over their land.
Fascism is about as productive as the Mongol Empire, and other colonial empires that depend upon mass killing, stealing, subjugation, and slave/ultra-cheap labor to maintain a debt-driven, economy.
How else would you talk about this?
Quite interested in your input.
Not necessarily, though that would be a sine qua non if the guiding premise for the existence of such a dire state of affairs would be for the need for security from a threat. And, nothing speaking to people like fear.
I mean, communism just doesn't make sense when presented with fascism and in many ways, I can see (devil's advocate!) why fascists thought communism was inferior to fascism. This is why in many ways Soviet Russia resembled more a fascist state (during certain periods) in my view than a communist one. A communist state is just economically unfeasible.
The
Quoting Question
taken to its logical extreme?
It would have the merit of not alluding to already well-used terms which have relatively entrenched meanings just because of historical and academic usage. Plus, it seems you're taking something of a theoretical approach anyways, so it would avoid referencing actual states which will run counter to what it is you want to say in the first place (as you already noted).
Well that sure is 'damning with faint praise'.
Mm, but I would say that fascism inverts this formula: it's about the interests of the State over and above the welfare of individual citizens. Exactly how to articulate the limits of both the state and its citizens (along with other interests) is, I think, the very political problem that is grappeled with in both instances.
Quoting csalisbury
This is great. Just thinking with regard to the cultural revolution - which I'm more farmilar with - I feel like there's the same mechanics at work here but in the oppositite direction as it were; where Mao wanted to decalcify the Party so that it wouldn't become an entrenched, all-too-comfortable state apparatus - to set the people (the 'Mass Line' as he called it) in motion, Fascism wants instead to set the State in perpetual motion; and in both cases this motion - revolution and mobilisation, respectively - encounters it's limit in what 'drags behind' - The Party for the Chinese Communists, and everything-that-isn't-The-State for the Fascists. The neatness of this symmetry makes me suspicious, but it's a fun thought to have.
Fascism solves problems in a direct, if unimaginative, fashion: by pretending they are not there.
That's the key point I think, the good of the state is given priority over the good of the individuals. The problem is that there is no such thing as the good of the state, it's just an idea, a fantasy ideal, fictitious, just like how an atheist would receive the ideal of God. In reality, the good of the state is just whatever the leaders of the state designate as the good of the state, like a church designates the good of God.
Quoting csalisbury
In actuality, "the state" exists only as a concept, it's an evolving idea, as Hegel described. The fascist has to create the illusion that the state is a real existing entity, in order to talk about what's good for the state. So the fascist state is separated out, individuated, and opposed to, that which is not the fascist state. This creates the logical illusion that the state has properties, what is of the state, and what is not of the state, supporting the illusion that the state is a real entity. It is only by conceiving of the state as an actual living entity that we can talk about the needs, and therefore "goods", of the state. In our real, natural condition, "the state" just refers to the mechanisms set up to serve the needs of the people. That "the state" even has an existence as a clearly defined idea, is highly dubious, and that's the Hegelian notion that Marx attacked. "The state" does not even exist as an idea, its just some vague notion that we have, concerning the human condition.
Were Mussolini's theories as quoted here all that far from the reality fascism?
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Ironically, that's almost spot-on Soviet-style socialism as it really existed (as opposed to the far-fetched communist and socialist theories). The "class warfare" as such was only a socialist feature at the outset. But historically, both socialism and fascism find some out-groups to terrorize and discriminate against (that's where mobilization comes in).
One old definition would be the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. While there are a zillion interpretations of this, as an old socialist I would divide the interpreters of such a definition into two strands:
- voluntarists, bottom-up socialists who believe in various mutual forms of organisation, whose 19th century origins would lie in Owenite communities and at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries as those who originally built up socialism through unions and the workplace, and took the parliamentary route
- Statists, Communists whose origins would lie in Marx and Engels, and by the early 20th century would be with leaders of the Second International, which at least notionally excluded anarchists, and who advocated and took the revolutionary route to power
I think these broad differences have remained, with socialist feminism, initially named I think by Marx's daughter Tussy in the 1890's, emerging as a whole new strand of thought in the West in the 1970's. Many of the parliamentarians became 'social democrats' who made their peace with capitalism while capitalism accommodated itself to the vote, workers' rights and pensions. The socialists of South America have had a foot in both libertarian and Statist camps.
It's fascism.
Right, exactly. Fascism only works (well?) when there's conflict and strife. The fascist state runs on fumes and always has to expand and consume to make up for this deficiency.
It depends on the presumption you want to assert here. Is it that citizens are capable of making decisions that are in their own best interest or that the State can decide what is best for the individual.
Quoting StreetlightX
In fascism, the State has no limits. Its power is absolute and made so-so that the best interests of the individual can be fulfilled. If you remove any authoritarian doctrine that 'everyone must be happy because we (the State) say it so' then you have the utopia many fascists dreamed about. Which sort of brings me to my next line of thought as to whether fascism is necessarily authoritarian or can it exist without such shortcomings?
I would say in the past issues were projected as having causes separate from their actual causes. Germans thought their sorry state of affairs was due to the outcome of WWI, Italians believed that corruption (I think?) was dragging the country down.
Insightful essay on Facism on Aeon. It points out that during the 1930's - before WWII - the appeal of fascism was that it offered employment, growth and hope to millions of people who had been severely traumatized in the aftermath of WWI and the Depression:
More here.
Many things, but I'll mention two: anti-intellectualism and violence. WW1 and socio-economical unrest pushed people to embrace fascism. But where did fascism come from? The ideas of the ideology didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere: they have a history, and they appear elsewhere too, in philosophy even.
Quoting Wikipedia
This is true. For instance, National Socialist ideas had a history. Eugenics, for example, wasn't invented solely in Nazi Germany. The US and UK both had a eugenics movement which was a part of the progressive platform. Antisemitism, of course, wasn't invented by Hitler (but it was implemented with a hitherto unprecedented severity and extremity). Hitler wasn't the first ruler to think of expanding territory at his neighbors expense.
On a Marxist note, 20th century fascism was implemented using the means of production at hand--electronic communication, industrialized production, and much improved data processing facilities (like Hollerith punch cards and fast punch card readers and sorters). In an earlier time it would have been far more difficult and time consuming for fascism to organize itself. Germany and Italy got their fascist act together with stunning rapidity.
Well, Germany, in particular, because they had lots of Germans to implement it. X-)
Low-blow!
Oh, well then look at Japan for the matter. Nothing unique of Germans. I wonder why Japan became part of the axis circa WWII?
What do you mean to say by that?
Surely, democracy would tell us something about that.
I want to be clear that I, personally, have very little knowledge of fascist-era Italy, but, according to Paxton, the answer is yes.
[quote=Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism, p. 120)]The composite nature of Fascist rule in Italy was even more flagrant [than the composite nature of Fascist rule in Germany.] The historian Gaetano Salvemimi, home from exile, recalled the 'dualistic dictatorship' of Duce and King. Alberto Aquarone, the preeminent scholar of the Fascist state, emphasized the 'centrifugal force' and 'tensions' Mussolini confronted in a regime that still, "fiteen years after the March on Rome," had "many features derived directly from the Liberal State." The prominent German scholars of Italian Fascism Wolfgang Schieder and Jens Petersen speak of the "opposing forces" and "counter-weights"...Even Emilio Gentiles, most eager to demonstrate the power and success of the totalitarian impulse in Fascist Italy, concedes that the regime was a 'composite' reality in which Mussolini's "ambitions of personal power" struggled in "constant tension" with both "traditional forces" and "Fascist Party intransigents," themselves divided by "muffled conflict" among factions.[/quote]
All of which is to say that the hyper-unified state Mussolini waxes ecstatic about in the text Street quoted was, at best, a kind of regulative ideal, something to work toward and, at worst, an utter politcal-rhetorical fiction. (In truth, it was probably somewhere between the two.)
Socialism treats all men as equal, Marx's notion is not about equality per se, he says
Fascism is all about the state. Men are not equal, their role in society is given to them by the state, the motherland. The state is an 'organic' whole (see interesting note about historic German geostrategy here) which is not totalitarian. Men's roles in such a society are similar to the role of a man as part of a medieval trade guild, at least as I understand it.
Quoting Ashwin Poonawala
Quoting Ashwin Poonawala
We can make the distribution of wealth more just, and greed can be restrained (not eliminated). But it will require government meddling in the economy. Tax law has aided and abetted the maldistribution of wealth and tax law will need to be changed to amend the maldistribution of wealth.
In the first place, business benefits a great deal from government meddling --
establishing fair trade practices
regulating trade (rationalizing it)
establishing something like a sort-of-level field
regulating competition
providing protection from foreign interference
providing essential infrastructure (ports, railroads, canals, airports, highways, etc.)
and so on. As Marx put it, "The government is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie.
Perhaps there was something just "German" or Northwestern European about the torchlight parades at Nuremberg, presided over by Herr Hitler; maybe it wasn't all fascist. Germanic and Scandinavian people seem to like bonfires and nighttime rituals. It's difficult to imagine a Nuremberg kind of event in Washington. Similarly, I can't quite see British troops goose-stepping in front of the Queen.
Marches have a lot in common wherever they are written, but the Germans excelled at it. What does a movement's flag look like?
upper, Italian Fascist Party flag (the 'thing' on the flag is the 'fasces" -- a bundle and an axe)
The Nazi flag was red, black, and white, with the swastika. Is there something more threatening about red, black, and white than green, white and orange? Or red, white, and blue? Or red and yellow?
Red, white, and blue, of course, isn't exactly a Quaker color combination. Lots of military adventures have been undertaken under those colors.
How about the totenkopf on SS uniforms? (The SS wasn't the first to use the death head.)
Items 7-9 of the futurist manifesto:
[quote=Marinetti]7.Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.
8.We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.
9.We want to glorify war — the only cure for the world — militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.[/quote]
G r i m.
Germans seem to have cultural knack for order & efficiency, and the Italians a flair for design. [which do you think is more likely to get you laid, driving: a Porsche vs a Lamborghini, a Mercedes vs a Ferrari, a VW vs an Alfa Romeo?]. Germans & Italian fascists both shared a fascination for the color black.
Pax romana lasted approximately 206 years, the longest period of relative peace the Western world has yet experienced was achieved under totalitarian rule. How is rule by the mob better than rule by the boss?
I felt the need to say this much, even though the thread can be considered as good as dead.
(@Bitter Crank, saw your comments here, so thought this thread is currently relevant and could use a bump. (Or maybe not, who knows!)
Good points about Trump riding the ragged edge of fascism. Even many of his supporters would say so. They might respond to any such accusations with a reply like “you say fascism like it’s a BAD thing! This is the NEW AND IMPROVED FASCISM. Now with WIFI and 30% less brutal violence!”
When I hear that word “fascism” the first word association for me is the word “power”. That comes from the whole Roman leader bundle of rods association. The concept that there is strength through the unity of the rods, seems more utilitarian than egalitarian (ie. we get to be “another brick in the wall”). The connotations of fascism are also the related concept of some mutant type of social Darwinism (In the jungle, might makes right for the survival of the fittest). Fascism seems to focus on the basic factors (brute force?) of society/civilization. All else above a certain frequency is cut, like some kind of YouTube compression algorithm. Because they would claim that all that fancy stuff (art, politeness, comparative religion, even certain scientific research) is distracting, effeminate, unproven, inefficient, and most of all... a waste of taxpayers money, folks! (that tired refrain)...
Some questions that occurs to me (and don’t have a definitive answer for):
Is (one type or another of) fascism the unavoidable destination or end result of Capitalism?
Or is it at least so in “our” Capitalism in the current world situation?
If you ask this question again, we'll immediately take you outside, push you up against the wall and shoot you. What the heck, your family too, bullets are cheap.
I see what you did there. Irony.... erm, at least I hope it is! :sweat:
What did Zizek say about the Nazi's; the problem with them, was not that they went too far, but rather that 'they did not go far enough'. I think what he meant was, that they did not go the philosophical distance that would have allowed them to 'hate the hatred'.
Of course he is being his usual inflammatory self here, but there are things that should be hated, and fascism is the perfect vehicle for directed hatred. For example unless the world becomes ecologically and environmentally fascist, very very soon. There is a good argument that asserts that we are all doomed as a consequence of the democratic and capitalist 'ownership' of the current environmental 'issue'.
Arguably democratic-capitalism, contains its own fascism. It has its own built in set of edicts... fashion, materialism, pointless accumulation of material superfluity, both parents, to be working, status anxiety... and so on and on.
If one considers how capitalism has perverted 'women's rights' and has them working AND being mothers, one can see how democracy is just as fascist as fascism. If one considers the genocide that is effected by consumption and materialism: obesity, drug use, diabetes, suicide etc,... democracy arguably and observably contains more 'fascism' and more genocide than the Nazi's could have dreamed of. It (democracy/capitalism) also contains the potential for the end of humanity through ongoing ecological collapse.
Bring on the evolution of a 'new' and better Fascism (perhaps thats what Trump represents)... Any philosophers out there willing to start a club and get the ball rolling?
M
You dare accuse President Jake of irony??? To the gallows with you!!!
Funny, that. :wink: I always thought that socialism was a left-wing political movement, while fascism exists at the other, right-wing, end of the political spectrum. But I also think that socialism is a mainstream view, like, say, capitalism. While fascism is a more extreme position. There are extreme left-wing positions too, of course, but does socialism describe them? I don't think so.
The extremes of political opinion seem to be authoritarian, each in their own way. They constrain the individual to act as a member of the pack, and follow their rules. This is their main failure: to neglect the necessary balance that must be found between the individual and the society they belong to. All workable (left- and right-wing) political movements achieve a balance of this kind. The extreme ones substitute authority for freedom, sometimes even when freedom would not oppose the views of the ruling, er, dictators.
Just my two pennyworth. :smile:
Well, yes. But, fascism is national socialism. So, logical conclusion? Maybe, maybe not.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Penny's are welcome. :_)
I rather think it isn't (irony). That's the joy of an extreme ideology: every perceived problem is solved with an application of authoritarian brutality. [N.B. My use of "joy" was ironic. :wink:] If you disagree with me, you will be hurt or killed. That's the underlying philosophy of all extreme political viewpoints, I think. :chin: :worry:
I don't think their choice of name reflected their ideology as well as we might hope. Perhaps they intended to disguise their true aspirations? :chin: :wink:
Well, if you eliminate the warmongering, the idolatry or cult of the leader, and all those nasty things that Nazism was associated with, you're left with a fairly liberal and likable ideology. Yes?
Only the teachers pet could get away with that one! If that were to come offa my keyboard the hounds would be yelping already!
M
Yes. If you remove all the authoritarian aspects of an authoritarian political position, what's left (next to nothing?) is more or less acceptable. Your joke is in dubious taste, I suggest? :wink:
Well, I am a Piglet. So, maybe that helps. :blush:
It was a bad attempt at summarizing a book I bought a while ago, called Liberal Fascism. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yes we will have to wait until you grow up into a fully fledged fascist pig (like myself).
Then, the bacon loving hounds will find you.
M
:scream: :fear:
*Piglet runs away*
Socialism can also be seen as very similar to christianity (small "c"), in terms of care and concern for others less fortunate than ourselves, and so on. I think the bad press that socialism still gets is down to the 'reds under the bed' McCarthy-ist approach in 1950s America. They were referring to Soviet communism anyway, and just wanted to be sure that all left-wingers were tarred with the same brush, whether extreme or moderate. The intention, I think, was to make it so that only right-wing ideologies could even be considered for general acceptance. America is still a very (very, very) right-wing nation.
It appears to me that the left right divide is an illusion. It is simply a line that separates those who think that wealth should be shared to a greater degree, from those who think it should be shared to a lesser degree.
The fascist and or the democrat seem to get it right when both insist that there is no need and or philosophical basis for its 'private or personal accumulation'.
Philosophy is the only wealth that counts, at least thats what all the wise men and women have told us, again and again and again and again......
People are stupid and materialism seems the most sensible way to accommodate them/us.
M
And I think it is anything but illusory, because (as you say) "It is simply a line that separates those who think that wealth should be shared to a greater degree, from those who think it should be shared to a lesser degree". :smile: :up: There is also the social/individual balance, where the left give a little more emphasis to society while the right concentrate more on individual freedom. [N.B. Only the extreme (authoritarian) ideologies favour only society (left) or only individual freedom (right).]
Yes indeed, however for every dollar invested into 'socialism' another dollar will be required to ameliorate the 'dependence-effect' caused by the preceding dollar.
Social welfare is essential but it creates wasters and dependents. Medical care is essential, but increased availability creates more need for it. (read Ivan Ilyich: Medical Nemesis)
Socialism is essential and is the best solution to social problems (compare Ireland or New Zealand's social function to that in the US), However I still believe in the 'American Dream'; the only problem with that dream is the fact that Henry David Thoreau was the only man in America who had a sound knowledge of what that dream actually is.
M
I know this view is prevalent in America, a country that has never had, or even aspired to, a socialist government. Some countries who have actually tried it have had better, if not perfect, results. :wink:
Agreed Socialism is the best state. However the beauty that is America is that it preserves and attempts to foster the attributes of freedom before those of dependence.
If it is still around in 100 years, the best society will be 'American' or at least the perfect society will be dreamed up, or invented in America, but probably manufactured somewhere else, more cheaply.
M
There are too many decrepits in America for it NOT to eventually evolve into a socialist state.
Freedom is wasted on Americans, like youth is wasted on the young.
M
Fascism = national socialism in Germany, but not in France, Italy, Ireland, the US, etc.
How can fascism not be the same thing in different countries?
Fascism isn't an ideology, it's a method first. The fascism of the US (embodied in the KKK) was quite different than it's manifestation in Italy or Spain, Ireland or France. "Uniforms" (brown shirts, black shirts, blue shirts, white robes...), antagonisms highlighted by deteriorating conditions (extreme social upheaval, for instance, pauperization (during the Great Depression), and the like; a search for a strong leader (Grand Imperial Wizard, Fuhrer, Emperor, some "Maximum Leader" etc.). Intense (usually fatherland) nationalism is usually a part of it. Prioritizing anti-semitism isn't essential (the KKK was against blacks, Catholics, and Jews, among others) but sometimes is. Fascism usually requires disorder to come into existence -- before it can even use the disorder.
The Nazi's were "national socialists" because the small weak party that Hitler took over in 1922 was the "National Socialists" and by that, the previous founders didn't mean "fascist". The Nazis weren't very good socialists -- a matter of internal dissent. Unlike Communists, fascists don't have a clear ideology. Whether steel was produced by Krupp and Thyssen or The People's Steel Plant #10 didn't make any difference to the Nazis. It did to the communists--they expropriated the expropriators.
The Nazis, like most of the fascist groups, were not really "mass movements" either. The only vote the Nazis won was in Schlesweg-Holstein, just south of Denmark. They won because the Nazis promised stable price supported prices during the agricultural depression in the 20s (caused by a glut of world-wide production). They won by something like 51% to 49%. The Nazis put on huge mass rallies in Nuremberg and elsewhere, to which they charged admission -- gate receipts were an important piece of party income before they gained state power. But those were staged--not ground-up demonstrations.
Fascism could happen here, but it is highly unlikely that it will look like German, Italian, or Japanese fascism. It will be "our fascism". Philip Roth's novel The Plot Against America. pub. 2004 imagines American fascism.
All hail Posty,mc postface.... fascist dictator of an evolved socio-philosophical republic!
Where do we sign up?
Do we bring our own doughnuts and espresso, or will these be provided?
:cool:
For a small fee of your civil liberties, everything vill vee provided.
Safety valves that you find in a justice state/democracy that starts from the individual don't exist or aren't as important.
Government being close to industry creates a fertile ground for corruption.
The authoritarianism creates a fertile ground for dictators and a dysfunctional police state.
Present example of a fascist state would be China in my view.
That seems to be the case. Interesting.
I don't think China might be considered as Fascist. For starters it is too big to be considered in any single context.
The Chinese government must manage one seventh of the worlds entire population. If the entire world were 'free' to live as we whiteys do in the west... there would not be a tree left in the Amazon.
White westerners can 'thrive' BECAUSE of the fascism and oppression that exists in someone else' backyard.
Fans of democracy should be careful what they wish for.
M
The vocabulary mandated (by all Americans) for discussions of this type requires that you call it "dependence", I know. But "support" would do as well, without picturing the recipient as a scrounger and a drain on the resources of decent people. Welfare concerns are like an insurance policy. We all take part, not knowing which of us will need help, and which will not. But those of us who need a helping hand, get it. From each according to their means; to each according to their needs. Can such a common sense statement really be opposed? :chin: :smile: :up:
Support first (and for all); freedom later. :up: [The freedom's for all, too. :wink:]
The problem is however, that many abuse the 'support' and become dependent upon it rather than independent of the state and truly free. The 'support' ultimately creates both scroungers and dependents.
'Don't give the man 'free' fish; give him a rod and teach him to fish.' This (I think) is the logic of most fair minded republicans, and in fairness to the fair-minded America has an abundance of rivers and an abundance of fish.
M
It's approach to economics is very much close to fascism. The socialist planned economy has morphed into a more capitalist planned economy, hence it can be argued that China is fascist. The Communist Party and the state claim the sole right to represent the “universal interest" of the people. Furthermore, Xi Jinping looks more and more like a leader for life (as with the removal of term limits for the President).
Nationalism has a very important role in China while Communism is only basically left to speeches. All these look very much like fascism, even if fascism is a derogatory word reserved for the enemy in China.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
I disagree with the idea that if the Chinese would live as wealthily as we in the West, there wouldn't be any trees in the Amazon. Global povetry has dramatically been reduced in our lifetime (a thing we forget in the West). Actually middle-class people are environmentally friendly: they can think about the environment, they are not trying to get their daily food in order to survive. Rich countries can take care of the environment, if they want to. Besides, never forget the impact of technology. For example, the productivity of agriculture is going up. And one can imagine if the majority of countries, China included, would be as technologically advanced and productive as the Netherlands is now in agriculture, feeding the World would be possible even with higher living standards.
Well, if you are OK with a cult of tradition, rejection of modernism, action for the sake of action, persecution of criticism, fear of difference, appeals to frustration, conspiracy theories, an enemy who is too powerful but whom we can defeat, life as struggle, hero-worship, machismo, and populism, then I suppose Fascism is fine.
Please keep in mind that I'm playing devil's advocate with the concept of fascism here. Not to be taken too seriously despite the atrocities that have happened despite the good intents of whoever may have been an actual proponent of fascism in the past, if anything good can be gleaned from fascism itself... So, just making that clear as it should be.
This is interesting. So you would say that fascism rejected modernism?
Nazi Germany was ahead of it's time in terms of exploiting science, technology, and engineering to build a whole list of wonder-weapons. Is this not some technomodernism in practice?
This is why China is not a fascist nation.
I am a nationalist. That is, I am one who strongly believes that a nation's top priority is it's own citizens' best interest.
I'm wondering - honestly wondering - what's wrong with a nation's government that puts the interest of it's own citizens as a top priority?
In terms of economics, fascism always sought to minimize costs and maximize utility on a national scale. So, modernism is a de facto necessity to enhance and embrace such an ideal. So, we disagree on that front at least.
Nothing; that's what a government is for. But see Honig's essay.
Cooperation leads to far more good than does competition That's a fact that is perverted by the mythology, though less so the reality, of capitalism.
Nations succeed when they appear to be gracious global citizens. Watch China to learn how this works.
How?
Well, as long as it's not at the detriment of someone or some other nation, then there's nothing wrong with that. Fascism proved otherwise, however.
By appealing to enhanced efficiency or betterment of living standards through modernism? Standard economics I suppose.
This is a pretty standard interpretation, I think?
Weren't the early fascists not all or mostly motivated positivists?
Nice. I see that as well.
I'm thinking in general terms about the best interest of citizens. In particular, I'm thinking about when it comes to conflicts of interest between corporate interests and the citizens(workers'). Now I am not against spreading wealth and opportunity around the world... I just think that there's acceptable and unacceptable means to achieve this. In one word "outsourcing"... American jobs and formerly good paying ones to other countries(well the company generally moves it's entire operations overseas only to ship the same products back to the US to sell to the folk who lost their job.) Prices don't go down. Cost certainly does.
There are all sorts of problems with this...
A government putting necessary regulations in place, but allowing a company to skirt all of it, and incentivizing doing so to boot - all in the guise of the greater good...
Interested in what others think about this.
Eugenics isn't dead brother/sister... not by a long shot!
Were they? If so, they weren't very good ones.
:lol:
Hmm, where is it still in practice, I mean on a national scale?
What do you mean?
I'm thinking more along the lines of the intelligentsia and where they drew their inspiration from to envision a fascist society.
Would it need to be on a national scale out in the public domain in order to be taking place under a different guise? The knowledge for eugenics has never been more complete.
Positivists would've called Hitler's notion of Arian heritage nonsensical.
Yeah, but CRISPR is making all that nonsense obsolete. Just watch what new gene therapies will come about to the public in the coming years.
Yeah, well, I don't disagree with that. I just thought that the intelligentsia and other thinkers of fascism thought that to be some perversion of their ideology. Again, I might have to read up on the origins of fascism, any handy books anyone cares to recommend?
He did come pretty late on the scene. There were others closer to the actual formalization of fascism in Italy. Like, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Tommaso_Marinetti
Am I mistaking fascist futurism for modernism here?
Would you count the Futurist Manifesto as a work of modernism?
As Eco suggests, it's a superficial fascination with the power of technology, but without the critical individualistic spirit that underpins it. It's loving fast cars while hating thermodynamics.
Then we invent electric cars!
:vomit:
Posty.. you can do better than that... :vomit:
Hit me with an enlightened contradiction!
Perhaps America is making you lazy.
A more thorough response or we'll deport you to Putin-land... the New Land of the 'Almost' Free.
M
If you are interested in the topic in respect of contemporary Facism, there are far better examples than China. Putin for example has all the trappings, behaviors and psychology of the historical Fascist dictator.
M
No, it's just depressing that you believe such things. Nothing to address here.
Compare and contrast, if you will, fascism with imperialism. Some periods of ancient Rome seem to exemplify some levels of both. Is imperialism necessarily bad, or can its negative side be lessened? Has it spread civilization, helping modernize many countries? Or is it a mixed blessing? It appears to me that the USA is an empire that disavows its own nature, after picking up somewhat where the British Empire left off. Thoughts?
And that's the only comment I have for you.
Unless they lead by example. Think China...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/199457
I think that's pretty accurate...
The foremost reason I have for rejecting the idea that China is a Fascist state is that China is fr form rejecting modernism. Indeed, it is the greatest advocate for technical solutions, internationally, as is shown by the Belt and Road. But given that you have reservations about anti-modernism as a Fascist characteristic, that's not going to hold much weight with you.
China does not act for the sake of acting. It's actions in the South China Sea show considerable forethought; they won the was before players such as the US, Australia and Indonesia noticed that there was even a battle going on.
China does not appeal to a frustrated middle class. Instead it's the growth of the middle class that let out the pressure expressed in Tiananmen Square.
Hero worship, Machismo, and populism have a part in Chines life, but to no where near the extent they do in Fascist states - look at the Machismo and hero worship around Putin.
But the best argument against calling China Fascist is simply that Fascism shares nordic mythology; it is inherently European. That is, calling China Fascist is applying a Eurocentric standard to an asian country.
Russia is the better example.
China has its own long political development. In many ways it is now returning to it's own ancient government structure, which features a class of academicians who problem solve fairly independently of the prevailing politics.
You keep on treating fascism as if it were an exclusive thing to Nazism, which it isn't. Nobody mentions it but Japan was fascist in the past too, not just Nazi Germany and Italy for example.
Actually in taking Eco's definition I'm taking Italian Fascism as the epitome.
Japan under Tojo featured most of Eco's criteria. Unlike China today.
Edit: But having said that, Tojo's association with Fascism comes from his association with Germany, more than his political philosophy.
Philosophy is not about getting into a strop. Make your point and back it up with evidence and reason.
It appears you are applying for employment. Gulag general, perhaps.
Quoting raza
Don't recall submitting an application for any particular post.
I would love someone to come up with an alternative to facism as a practical and real solution to the biggest crisis that humanity has faced since some of us descended from the trees.. (This was the general gist of my initial point which appears to have bruised some philosophical ego's)
Have a go at the idea....,rather than the old fool who has suggested it.
:yawn:
M
After they cleared a previous generation of academicians out during and around Tiananmen Square.
"Climate change" politics itself is a fascist creation. Climates have always changed.
Pollution is catastrophic, or will become so. But this does not necessarily correlate to temperature change.
But "climate change" doctrine, just like terrorism, is a great tool towards people control (otherwise you would not, presumably, had assumed fascism to be some cure).
Ahhhhh.
Now this is an interesting insight into your thought.
'Pollution does not correlate with temperature Change?'
WOW!
Climate change doctrine is: "like terrorism".
Double WOW!
Here in these ideas (plus the usual assertion that technology will save us from itself) we see the true Fascism that is contained behind the veil of the ostensible lovers of freedom and democracy. This is the Facism that is the enemy.
These assertions are Trumpisms!
Perhaps Trump is a Fascist of sorts. We presently enjoy temporary 'improved' international relations, because all the Fascists are presently getting on so well together... at least for the moment.
I contend that the only practical solution to all these Fascists, is a mega-Fascist with a big stick. (I even nominated Posty for the job) But I am open here to LOGICAL alternatives!
Indeed if democracy were to evolve and contain within itself a Fascist response to the subliminal (and arguably fascist) ideals behind Trumpism (racism, climate denial, capitalism etc)
Democracy might survive itself and freedom might be preserved. The cause of this catastrophic failure is (arguably) the failure of Philosophy. Philosophy may have begun to fail when it lost its own Fascist dictator... the guy with the beard who lives in the clouds......., but that's another days work!
M
I've looked into these matters from years before the current Trump phenomena.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
To clarify. "Terrorism" as orchestrated by others other than those accused of it or those that become the patsies.
I think many a Muslim has been utilized as a patsy by someone more of Western origin. But also there are influential Islamic partners of Western banker interests.
This is getting as interesting as it is becoming predictable. 'Influential Islamic partners of Western Bankers'
WOW X3
I should have known that the Muslims were next on the list.
Trumpism has been around long before Trump. To define it properly: Trump (the president) is the manifest democratic exuberance of the worst elements of human thought: greed, materialism, self interest, racism, jingoism etc...
These qualities (the horrible side of mankind) are not unique to Trump they are to a greater or lesser degree the base instinctual, or animal lusts/imperatives of all trousered apes (man). They are the enemy of Philosophy and the enemy of reason and the true enemy of Humanity.
Trumpism therefore is the private de-facto cherishing of Trump like ideals, beneath the surface of an ostensible or professed democratic or freedom morality.
You have declared antifascist stance, and yet you adhere (WOW's 1, 2 & 3) to Fascist ideals, pretty much to the letter:
Climate change denial, and the notion that there are externals, you use the usual Trumpian example of Muslims... who are an 'enemy' by virtue of them being Muslim. (that is kinda gross)
I suggest a bit of introspection to see the enemy/facist within. Not just for you, but all of us. But particularly yourself in the context of the 3 WOWS.
M
And
Quoting Marcus de Brun
I didn't introduce Islam or Muslim into anything terrorism. Have you forgotten the often referred to bogeyman "Isis"?
In fact I defend Muslims against an automatic characterization of them as organizers of terrorist plots.
I don't blame you. It is merely a condition you may one day overcome.
Apologies Raza
But the climate change denial, and the Muslim stuff, and the tchnology will save us stuff.. all of it certainly does trigger a hyperventialtion of sorts. I am getting used to it as it is more common now since the election in 2016.
Hopefully it might one day trigger a little bit of anti-fascist introspection. However, I suspect the only thing that will accomplish that, is the old devil of 'consequence'. Most rhetoric (thanks to freedom) is apparently immune to consequence.
M
That wasn't me.
And I don't deny changes in climate.
Quoting raza
?
Forget global warming, worry about the MAGNETOSPHERE: Earth's magnetic field is collapsing and it could affect the climate and wipe out power grids
Earth's magnetic field has weakened by 15 per cent over the last 200 years
Could be a sign that the planet's north and south poles are about to flip
If this happens, solar winds could punch holes into the Earth's ozone layer
This could damage power grids, affect weather and increase cancer rates
Evidence of flip happening in the past has been uncovered in pottery
As the magnetic shield weakens, the spectacle of an aurora would be visible every night all over the Earth.
Deep within the Earth, a fierce molten core is generating a magnetic field capable of defending our planet against devastating solar winds.
The protective field extends thousands of miles into space and its magnetism affects everything from global communication to animal migration and weather patterns.
But this magnetic field, so important to life on Earth, has weakened by 15 per cent over the last 200 years. And this, scientists claim, could be a sign that the Earth’s poles are about to flip.
Experts believe we're currently overdue a flip, but they're unsure when this could occur.
If a switch happens, we would be exposed to solar winds capable of punching holes into the ozone layer.
The impact could be devastating for mankind, knocking out power grids, radically changing Earth’s climate and driving up rates of cancer.
‘This is serious business’, Richard Holme, Professor of Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences at Liverpool University told MailOnline. ‘Imagine for a moment your electrical power supply was knocked out for a few months – very little works without electricity these days.’
The Earth's climate would change drastically. In fact, a recent Danish study believes global warming is directly related to the magnetic field rather than CO2 emissions.
The study claimed that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
Radiation at ground level would also increase, with some estimates suggesting overall exposure to cosmic radiation would double causing more deaths from cancer.
Researchers predict that in the event of a flip, every year a hundred thousand people would die from the increased levels of space radiation.
'Radiation could be 3-5 times greater than that from the man-made ozone holes. Furthermore, the ozone holes would be larger and longer-lived,' said Dr Colin Forsyth from the Mullard Space Science Laboratory at UCL.
The magnetosphere...... And then there's asteroids, and super bugs, and solar flares, and the immanent eruption of Yellowstone, fluoride in the drinking water, decreased fertility of white people, alien invasion, aliens already here,...
No end to the list of potential diversions from reality. Did I mention China.....
Check out the current US federal deficit, and any recent stats on global ecology if you want a little glimpse of the real.
M
Nutty.
Any more nutty than putting the magnetosphere "issue " before that of the ongoing environmental crisis, or the Trump crisis?
M
Yeah, but which plot? The plot to make you believe there was a plot, or the plot to make you believe there was no plot? Or perhaps, the plot was about making us so sure that there could never be a plot so that anyone could plot whatever plotting they wanted.
Conspiracy theory are self-realizing endless mazes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg
Watched the clip... a half hour of my life that is lost for ever. I suspect that the Climate Change denier in the clip may well be suffering from a mental disorder.
The clip would do well in its own thread as an example of how people have beliefs first, and then look for the reasons for their beliefs... rather than hold belief's that are deduced from reason.
Our fate is sealed and no amount of reason is going to change that.
M
Nothing surprising about that. Nothing special.
My point exactly. At last the same page!
M
Indeed.
You can't distill the positives from National Socialism any more than you can distill a soft drink from arsenic. Anything that's left that isn't abominable isn't National Socialism and needs a new name.