Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

Let's also keep in mind that the Democrats don't have a lot to gain by trying to preserve convention. At this point it's like bringing out the rulebook while playing chess against a pigeon.

As long as this batch of Republicans remain in power (and the old school isn't coming back this century, that's for sure), convention means nothing. And when the Democrats get in power again, what use does convention serve?

[wierd]

If the thought of "division on party lines, and party lines only" disturbs you, then you need to be the change you want to see in the world, and need to convince others to join you. (this is not aimed explicitly at you though Misko.)

By that, I mean you need to stop looking at rank and file republicans or rank and file democrats, and seeing only the media presented cliches of them, and need to contemplate the reasons behind the ideas they hold.

This whole "But---- THEM!! *THEY* support X! Our nation would be GREAT if it werent for THEM and their supporting X!!" chicanery needs to stop.  Divisive politics is how you get facism.

Look, I get that politics is about power, first and foremost.  To that end, the fascist easy-button is very hard to resist as far as politicians go.  However, pressing it is bad, M'kay?  Inventing boogey men so that you can try to dictate history and reality to suit a narrative that empowers is wrong.  It always has been, and always will be.

This is one of the reasons I really hate career politicians.  (like, REALLY hate them. Politics should be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.)  As long as we keep making it desirable to present boogey men, point fingers, and make wild accusations to whip up angry mobs, we are not working in the interests of the nation we are a part of-- and we should not accept such behavior from our leaders.

At all.

[Kagus]

Facism: The exertion of power by pretty people over their ugly inferiors.

I forgot the other thing I was gonna bring up.

[wierd]

No--

Simultaneously:

A system of government in which a supreme power controls both regulation and all economic/social activity. (Synthesis of Government and Corporate powers)

A method of governance in which a supreme power accompishes the former, though the use of a fictional "ideal narrative" involving an equally fictional version of events that invents a supreme evil that must be vanquished at all costs.



The vox article linked covers this latter aspect.  The former is well studied, and should be well known here.


In the context of historic Nazi propaganda, the mythical "Aryan Master Race" was the "ideal narrative" that was, as stated, mythical and totally fictional.  The equally fictional evil incarnate, was the systemic perversion caused by jewish impurities.  This was the MEANS by which the former definition--- a synthesis of government and corporate powers--- came to be established.



Why is this relevant?


On the right, you have the MAGA morons.  'Nuff said.

On the left, you have "--But PENCE! --EVIL, GAY HATING PENCE!" and the whole "Identity Politics" clusterfuck, each vying for what should be the fictional "ideal", each with their own bogeymen. ("Patriarchy", et al.)


Fascism is what happens to either side, when they resort to extreme isolationism and divisiveness of their political rhetoric, and they attempt to seize power. 

[SalmonGod]

Identity politics has a lot of problems, including the abuse of bogeymen as an excuse for bad behaviors.  But those bogeyman aren't exactly constructed from a fictional narrative, either.  I get really tired of the left's passion for wanting to end the criminalization of certain people's existence being equated with the right's passion for criminalizing the existence of others.  It's fine to point out that both sides have problems.  But some care should be taken to make sure that, say, a Unite the Right type can't feel vindicated when their ilk plows into a crowd with a car, and the follow up talk they're exposed to is all "violence on both sides".  If you want to mitigate extremist division, you have to genuinely dole out reward/punishment in measure to good/bad behaviors.  Else there's no reason for anyone to care about rising above the mess, if they're going to get lumped in with literal murder for getting overzealous with labels and such.

[wierd]

True enough, but it is just as wrong to fictitiously state that the left's view is perfect roses and sunshine, and totally grounded in abject reality. (Reelya has been quite good at pointing out the outright fantastical nature of many modern feminist scholarly articles, for instance.) Or that they are any less dangerous than the more visibly dangerous extreme right.

Again, the message was to be the change you want to see in the world;  If you want to see more inclusive politics, you have to be more inclusive in your politics.

I just lamplit why this was, in pretty grisly terms.

[Reelya]

"Getting over zealous with labels" is kind of a straw man. We're talking more Antifa here, not PC language. Some of that language policing is to be mocked, but it's not what people are saying is comparable to violent neo-Nazi actions.

Spoiler: Antifa (click to show/hide)

There was that incident where Antifa people pepper sprayed and beat up a girl for having a "make bitcoin great again" hat. Firstly, they just saw the red hat and assumed she's a Trump supporter without dialogue, and secondly, wearing a hat of a rival political party isn't an excuse to beat people up.

There are cases of Antifa people beating up unrelated people out of a mistaken belief that those people were nazis, or, some cases of single Antifa-types telling a crowd that one guy who's a youtuber who is critical of SJW policies is a Nazi, and a crowd coming over and beating that guy up.

Another incident I heard about was a Young Republicans meeting on a campus stormed by black-clothed hooded Antifa types, the Republicans said they'd be willing to debate them, but the mob shouted back "no, you're fascists". This is kind of surreal. Storming opposition political events in black clothes and wanting to label everyone as the "other" and beat them up is what the actual Nazi SA did back in the 1920s. Just replace "fascist" with "communist".

Spoiler: PC stuff (click to show/hide)

I'd argue the biggest problem with all the little stuff is that it's a hindrance to actually achieving progressivist outcomes. As Churchill never actually said "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results". The problem with a lot of activist things is that they don't follow evidence-based approaches. What I mean by that is, yes, they do quote evidence to back up some "need for change" but then they demand it change a certain way, without actually allowing any feedback as to whether the specific change they're adoption is actually helping to achieve the thing in question. If evidence comes about that their desired form of action isn't working, then they use confirmation bias to either dismiss the work, or outright label the people who did the study as Nazis / Patriarchy / The enemy.

Cynically, the ways that they advocate change are all in fact ways that actually advanced the political control of the "activist" groups themselves. That's why you get figures from say the UK, where a survey shows only 4% of men and 7% of women self-identify as feminists, while 86% of men say women and men should be equal, yet only 74% of women agree with the same thing. Men don't feel any threat from the "women and men are equal" thing because we don't have skin in that game, however women are more aware that any advance comes with inherent trade-offs. For example, the "choice to work" doesn't stay a "choice" for long. It becomes the "requirement to work", so those 26% of women who outright reject "women being equal to men" are taking that kind of thing into account. Feminists are advocating a type of "boosterism" where every potential unintended consequence of their platform is to be attacked, belittled or ignored. But real women understand that with increased rights comes increased responsibility. Financial independence for women involves women being forced to take on more responsibilities.

The feminist groups aren't interested in actually representing women, they're a cult-like group who have their minority of followers who have minority views and demand 100% adherence to those views. The immediate goal is in fact maintaining their grip on their followers, which is why you hear "I was an SJW and the SJWs turned on me" for quite slight infringements, like talking to non-SJWs. Talking to non-SJWs is taboo for the same reason that cults often don't let their members watch TV.

Where the cognitive dissonance lies is here: consider that 86% of men agree that women should be equal in opportunity to men. But only 4% of men call themselves "feminists". Feminists see this as cognitive dissonance: "those men are really feminists and they don't know it". But ... this is just false. Say 4% of people identify as buddhists, yet 86% of people say they believe in some "spiritual dimension of life". Then the 4% says "those people are really Buddhists, but they just don't know it!" This is where the cognitive error comes in. Feminists claim to "own" the idea of equality and that nobody who's not a feminist can believe in equality, in a similar sense to how those buddhists in my example claimed to "own" the idea of "spiritual". It's just a basic logical fallacy called "Affirming the consequent": "all feminists believe in equality" does not, if fact, imply the inverse that "no non-feminists believe in equality", any more than "all buddhists are spiritual" implies that "all non-buddhists are non-spiritual". There quite an argument to be made about how we create "secular religions". Gods are not real, therefore religions are human constructs that derive from human psychology. Hence, other belief systems even "non-religious" ones, are also derived from human psychology. And, guess what? It's the same psychology. Thus, it's no surprise that a range of ideologies also have characteristics and mechanisms that strongly resemble how a religion works.

When the vast majority of people say they want equality, yet they're not feminists, the way to understand that without the cognitive dissonance is that most people believe in equality but they're not members of the ideological "feminist club" that includes all the extraneous beliefs and rules that come with it, the same as you can say you're spiritual without being a Buddhist. It's exactly the same. "but feminism only means equality" is clearly bullshit, if you look at the number of people who've been "excommunicated" from feminism for far smaller "wrongthink" than that. They can't have that both ways: Either it's an all-encompassing thing that includes the diversity of thought of all people who say they want equality, or it's a narrowly-defined belief system where to belong, you need to accept all the supplementary beliefs, terminology and language-policing that comes with it. From their own actions, feminist groups are much closer to the exclusionary definition of feminist vs the inclusionary one. e.g. they won't let the 50% of women who are pro-life be part of their club.
 
The problem here is that institutions exist to promote the continued existence of that institution. It's like how the light bulb industry didn't make longer-lasting light bulbs until they were basically forced to. It's more lucrative to make cheap and often-replaced bulbs. Similarly, a social movement that doesn't actually advance the issue that it claims to be advancing can last a lot longer than one that actually promotes things that would realistically address the problems. The real problem isn't "PC labeling" it's that "victimhood culture" keeps people feeling like victims. And stereotype threat is a thing. If you constantly tell people they are victims, they internalize the victimhood narrative and start to act like victims. There are some studies showing that the types of "these groups are victims" diversity training in fact holds those groups back, because they become paranoid. For example back in the Mary Koss days of campus rape surveys, she was putting out results that suggested 50% of the girls were rape victims. This made her a darling of the movement. However, there is evidence that this sparked massive unwarranted paranoia among girls, who started to feel that threats were around every corner. This of course was a fucking goldmine for the campus advocates. Who, exactly is supporting "rape culture" to control women? The people who try and tell women that there's no need to be paranoid, and that stranger-rape is uncommon? Or the people who exaggerate that there's a threat around every corner?

[George_Chickens]

No--

Simultaneously:

A system of government in which a supreme power controls both regulation and all economic/social activity. (Synthesis of Government and Corporate powers)

A method of governance in which a supreme power accompishes the former, though the use of a fictional "ideal narrative" involving an equally fictional version of events that invents a supreme evil that must be vanquished at all costs.

(...)

Fascism is what happens to either side, when they resort to extreme isolationism and divisiveness of their political rhetoric, and they attempt to seize power.

This is both an extreme oversimplification and wholly incorrect. What you describe as Fascism is closer to a misguided definition of totalitarianism (as the Fascists have shown, you do not need to strictly control every aspect of the economy to have a totalitarian state), and the definition of fascism as an "either side" ideology is also incorrect, as that only describes dogma and authoritarianism. Effectively, it's lowering a calamitous ideology into a buzzword.

What you have said about Fascist economics is, in fact, a misconception from a quote that was never actually said ("Fascism is more adequately described as a merger of corporate power and the state") and is a misunderstanding of Fascist theory and practice all together. Fascism never directly professed a merger of corporate power and the state, but rather a merger of classes via class collaborationist organizations (business cartels and syndicates, state controlled trade unions, etc) under a totalitarian state.

In practice, however, the "class collaborationism" was wholly tilted to the rich industrialists and factory owners and the Fascists embarked on massive privatization and deregulation campaigns, effectively allowing them to have free reign. The very opposite of the "merger of corporate power and the state".

Additionally, Fascism is inherently ultraconservative and ultranationalist. It is in their very philosophy that that which does not coincide with the traditions (the traditions they want to uphold, at least) of the nation should be slaughtered. This was pushed to its logical extreme by Mussolini, who banned "unitalian" words and letters, replacing some of the Italian language with literal gibberish. This is one of the things that makes Fascism Fascism, not being mean to other people.

Likewise, Fascism is social-darwinistic by philosophy. Those deemed "weak", be it by birth, race, socioeconomic status, or nation, do not deserve to live freely, and should only live to serve a greater power, if not just outright be slaughtered. This is represented in the mass euthenasia programs, the Fascist view of war and imperialism, and the Nazis treatment of the homeless, impoverished and jobless, who were all deemed to be work-shy subhumans by genetics and given black triangles in the camps.

The two things outlined above place Fascism on the furthest echelons of the extreme right wing, not as a term which can be applied to any authoritarianism or dogma.

What you are doing by saying these things is lessening the horror of an ideology which inherently supports crimes against humanity, by reducing it to a caricature that is so vague it can be applied to anything bad. I am not trying to insult you, but I wish such things would end and people could read up on the actual Fascist states and their actual philosophy. 

[wierd]

I appreciate what you are saying, george-- but the assertion that "It is inherently a thing of the right, ultraconservative" is patently false.

There has only been two such states in recorded history, which were both ultra-conservative, but the basic features of the hows behind those two states are what I lamplit.  A totalitarian left state is entirely possible, and using the features that were inherent in fascism (eg, the narrative of "We can once more return to X pinnacle ideal, IF ONLY----" ) can be applied to left philosophy and practice as well.

Take for instance, the often misapplied conception that equality of genders == complete 50% engagement of both sexes-- IN EVERY FUCKING THING.  Sure, we can uphold that totally false narrative to the detriment of everyone, but that is not what equality in vocation for gender *MEANS*.  It means that if X gender person WANTED to get a job, there is no barrier other than their own desire.  (Or lack thereof.)   A non-uniform distribution is therefor not a signal that there is defacto sexism-- it is a sign that there is ununiform distribution in desire for that kind of employment.  Sure, the state can get involved, mandate a fictitious reality, and fuck everything up for everyone by enforcing a fictional ideal for an equally fictional ideal nation.  But to get there, they have to actually SUBSIDIZE a single gender over the other, (specifically, the one not fully represented as a 50 50 split) in order to obtain that distribution, which is the exact opposite of what they set out to accomplish. (Gender equality in vocation.) This follows the narrative of "We can return X ("Gender Equality", in the form of 50-50 distribution) If ONLY (we give incentives to women in sciences/Men in nursing/ etc)" with the subsequent "And we must do WHATEVER IT TAKES to accomplish this noble goal!

In the left version of events, people that want a job (since *want* is what is not distributed evenly) are excluded, and people who dont want are forced to perform, by state fiat--  rather than people getting murdered or what-have you---  But that could also happen in a different way if you go full batshit and start considering things like mandatory social reprogramming (Oh, you DONT want to be a nurse Mr Smith?  But you would make a GREAT nurse-- we have a shortage of male nurses!  We have these amazing drugs that will help put you in touch with your obviously burried nurturing side, and we INSIST that you take them!  etc.) and since we are talking *Extreme* leftism here, that is certainly on the table of consideration, which would be in the same ballpark of horror that was done to Alan Turing for being gay. People really are that evil, and if your guiding force is a fantastical ideal, you will perform atrocities to attain it--- so says voltaire at least.


So, NO.. The excuse that "Fascism is only a conservative thing!" is a lie. 

[George_Chickens]

There has only been two such states in recorded history

What are you talking about? There was Francoist Spain, who self described his nation as a totalitarian Fascist state and killed countless Spainards in concentration camps before somewhat liberalizing under the USA's guiding hand, Fascist Hungary, Iron Guard Romania, Italy, Nazi Germany, Ustache Croatia, etc. The list is countless. How can I trust you on the other things you say if you haven't even read the basic history of what you are trying to debate?

A totalitarian left state is entirely possible

This is... exactly what I am stating. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism, it is not inherent to Fascism and has sprung up all across the political wings. Fascism is an extremely specific type of totalitarianism.

and using the features that were inherent in fascism (eg, the narrative of "We can once more return to X pinnacle ideal, IF ONLY----" ) can be applied to left philosophy and practice as well.

Again, this is not only extremely vague, it also is not a thing which can only be found in Fascism. You are once again conflating all authoritarianism with Fascism, and simplifying the ideology as to apply it to anything.

Take for instance, the often misapplied conception that equality of genders == complete 50% engagement of both sexes-- IN EVERY FUCKING THING.  Sure, we can uphold that totally false narrative to the detriment of everyone, but that is not what equality in vocation for gender *MEANS*.  It means that if X gender person WANTED to get a job, there is no barrier other than their own desire.  (Or lack thereof.)   A non-uniform distribution is therefor not a signal that there is defacto sexism-- it is a sign that there is ununiform distribution in desire for that kind of employment.  Sure, the state can get involved, mandate a fictitious reality, and fuck everything up for everyone by enforcing a fictional ideal for an equally fictional ideal nation.  But to get there, they have to actually SUBSIDIZE a single gender over the other, (specifically, the one not fully represented as a 50 50 split) in order to obtain that distribution, which is the exact opposite of what they set out to accomplish. (Gender equality in vocation.) This follows the narrative of "We can return X ("Gender Equality", in the form of 50-50 distribution) If ONLY (we give incentives to women in sciences/Men in nursing/ etc)" with the subsequent "And we must do WHATEVER IT TAKES to accomplish this noble goal!

In the left version of events, people that want a job (since *want* is what is not distributed evenly) are excluded, and people who dont want are forced to perform, by state fiat--  rather than people getting murdered or what-have you---  But that could also happen in a different way if you go full batshit and start considering things like mandatory social reprogramming (Oh, you DONT want to be a nurse Mr Smith?  But you would make a GREAT nurse-- we have a shortage of male nurses!  We have these amazing drugs that will help put you in touch with your obviously burried nurturing side, and we INSIST that you take them!  etc.) and since we are talking *Extreme* leftism here, that is certainly on the table of consideration, which would be in the same ballpark of horror that was done to Alan Turing for being gay. People really are that evil, and if your guiding force is a fantastical ideal, you will perform atrocities to attain it--- so says voltaire at least.

Again, this is all vague authoritarianism and has extremely little to do with the makeup of what makes Fascism, well, Fascism, and not just any remotely authoritarian ideology. You are taking the ultraconservative return to an idealized, golden past of Fascist philosophy, divorcing it of its content and context and place within the ideology, and then stretching it as to make it applicable to anything. It makes the term, as I have stated, meaningless and extremely broad, which runs contradictory to the actual Fascist states and what their followers wrote or did. It is an absurd statement that can be used to call anything Fascism from any perspective.

Take a libertarian perspective, for example. The state needs taxes to survive, and the liberal government has raised taxes. But if I don't pay taxes despite making income, I will be arrested by the state. Therefore, the state is Fascist, as they believe they can return to stability via the raising of taxes and return to their idealized liberal utopia, and will use violent force to detain those who betray their ideals via tax evasion.

I strongly advise you to read up on the Fascist states and also read their philosophy. Giovanni Gentile, whose works were falsely attributed to Mussolini is a good start, as he was one of the more influential figures of the movement, and the writer of the Fascist Doctrine.

[wierd]

O, Since we are going to quibble, let's quibble.  I will use YOUR EXACT LANGUAGE, and just fill in some blanks. The ONLY thing I will not take at face value, is the assertion that Fascism is ultraconservative. (It most certainly is ultranational.)

So, let's begin.

You state this:

It is in their very philosophy that that which does not coincide with the traditions (the traditions they want to uphold, at least) of the nation should be slaughtered.

I pointed out how a leftist fascist regime could systematically perform "Forced realignments" (in the same vein as was done to gay people in the past), since the actual natural status of vocational desire does not "Coincide with the traditions of the nation"-- EG, the enforcement of the 50-50 vocational split, and the false narrative that this is defacto sexism if left unaddressed.

Yet, somehow, that is "Just totalitarianism", and not Fascism. 
Really, the ONLY difference is the nature of what constitutes the nature of "Traditions".  Or, what constitutes the nature of "slaughtered."  (Since I guess being forcibly changed into something you are not, and do not desire to become, is somehow not a death of personhood.)




As for your edit--

The example you have cited, does not follow the pattern defined, despite claiming to.

The pattern, again, is:

We can return to X (A fantastical, fictitious ideal that never existed to begin with), IF ONLY---


In the case of Nazi Germany this was "We can return Germany to the glorious days of our Aryan ancestors,  IF ONLY we can exterminate the impurities from within our ranks!"

Those Aryan ancestors, NEVER EXISTED, and the impurities likewise, were simply political rivals, or those that held differing viewpoints, or worse-- knew that the aryan myth was in fact a myth.

So, now better informed about what the structure of the statement *IS*, let's examine your counter argument, and see why it does NOT fit that pattern.

Take a libertarian perspective, for example. The state needs taxes to survive, and the liberal government has raised taxes. But if I don't pay taxes despite making income, I will be arrested by the state. Therefore, the state is Fascist, as they believe they can return to stability via the raising of taxes and return to their idealized liberal utopia, and will use violent force to detain those who betray their ideals via tax evasion.

"return to stability via raising taxes, and return to their idealized liberal utopia, and will use violent force to detain those who betray their ideals via tax evasion."

This, after IMMEDIATELY opening that taxes are indeed a REAL necessity, and not a totally fictitious narrative.


Yes-- THOSE ARE TOTALLY THE SAME THING. /s

[George_Chickens]

But all you've done is once again claim that any extreme authoritarianism is Fascism whilst ignoring the philosophy of Fascism and the defining features of the many Fascist nations. You have once again removed a statement from its context and twisted it to become so broad that it can apply to anything.

This conversation is very quickly becoming meaningless, and in the interest of the thread, I see no point in continuing.

[wierd]

If you had read the linked Vox article, you would see that it is not really my opinion on the matter, but that of the philosopher/historian cited.  It is actually a reprinted interview with said individual.

They make the exact statement I expressed.  The guy even wrote a book.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511830

He is a professor at Yale.  (and yes, I know that is just an appeal to authority argument, but it's there all the same.)



Really, the crux of your argument is "But it does not fit the same stated goals of the fascist nations, therefor not fascist!"

When the counter argument is "There is something that all of the fascist nations had in common, and that is the pattern of achieving and maintaining power:"


This is qualitatively like saying strawberries are not red, because they do not look like roses. (Implying that only roses can be red, and that redness can only apply to roses. )

[Kagus]

facism

Facism

Stop derailing this thread with rants about dumb ol' fascism. We were talking about facism, which is a system of government defined by the physical attractiveness of the ruler's face.

The Byzantines did it!

[wierd]

*face-slap*

The good ol 'misspelling pedantry joke' routine, and I totally missed it!

*snaps fingers*
Damn.