|
Are You Leaning Far Enough to the Right to be Considered a Neo-Fascist?
WHAT HAPPENED TO US?
I am asking because I am probably just to the left of center, politically, but I am aware that I am extremely more left leaning than some of the others who post here. The abuses of our constitutional rights have been so extreme in this era, and the response to it by our representatives in congress, so accomodating, the existing provisions of FISA law, first passed in 1978, and "modernized" at least 50 times in the last 30 years, have started to look reasonable to me. Keeping the terms of the present FISA laws, sans the revisions of last summer which have expired, and without the addition of the president's push for telecom immunity, seemed to be the most we could hope for. Supporting this, 30 years ago, was a right leaning postion. Since I am just as resolute in defending my rights against elected leaders' attempts to infringe and reduce them, reading the following gave me pause. We have sunk very low, and conceded very much. What was "to the right", in 1978, advocacy for the FISA laws, as they were passed then, is considered "extreme left" today. Is your advocacy for even more transfer of unchecked/unbalanced power to the president (the state) than what the FISA law already cedes to him, symptomatic of your neo-fascist bent, politically? Why wouldn't it be considered that? Why would many of us, and our congress move so alarmingly far to the right, in just 30 years? Is it due to fear and manipulation? One senator, Russ Feingold, voted agains the Patriot Acts in Sept., 2001? Is he the sole "left" representation in the senate? What does this all say about the attraction for Obama's "unity" message? "United" to do what....descend into neo-fascism? Wouldn't "unity" consist of bringing together the "near" left and "near" right? It appears we are already "unified", very, very, far to the right..... .....or, do the right and left principles actually move? If say, we devolved to a point where only one right of the bill of rights remained, would an unwavering position in favor of restoring just one other right to the list, be an "extreme left" position? Why wouldn't supporting the idea that preservation of all the rights in the bill, unaltered, is the only acceptable status quo, be now and always a moderate, neither right nor left leaning position to hold? Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I just want to make sure my sarcasm detector wasn't malfunctioning here. Do you seriously think you are 'just left of center'? |
Quote:
I think we ALL think that all right-thinking people think the way we do. I mean, I'm right, after all. I wouldn't have deeply held opinions that were WRONG, god knows. So everyone who's right--and I'm an optimist, so I think most people are probably fairly smart and thoughtful, despite daily evidence to the contrary--must clearly think the way I do. I think I'm moderate. I think host is way left of me. I think you're WAY WAY right of me. But I think I'm in the middle. I think the political center-of-gravity has been right of the mainstream for the last many years. But I think I'm in the middle, and I think most Americans pretty much feel the same way I do. What I'm realizing is that most people actually think this way about their own views. I'm clear I do, it's clear from what host said here that he does, and I think you certainly do. |
Host - Fascism is inherently a liberal/socialist concept. Centralized government, industry, and social management. The guys that gave fascism a bad name were totalitarians like Mussolini (the fascist party), Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
Right wingers are characterized as being conservative, small government, free enterprise. Don't confuse global industrialists with conservatism. If you want a good laugh, scare, check out George Bernard Shaw and the "Fabian Society". Guys like George Orwell and Woodrow Wilson. Sorry, but you've totally got this one backwards. |
Host, without commenting on your own political self-assessment, let me just say that to make your point cogent you really would have to define what you mean by "fascist." I understand it to mean -- historically, and roughly speaking -- an all-powerful state, driven by nationalism, with large dollops of militarism, and insistence that the individual is submerged to the will of the whole. I don't think anyone here supports anything that matches that description. Of course your definition might be different. But if it is, you may want to consult the words of George Orwell, as far back as 1946, lamenting the distortion of words for political purposes: "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."" He had more to say about accusations of fascism here (good quote: "it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.").
The term is not an all-purpose catch-all that means "political things I disagree with." It has a specific historical context, meaning and practice, originating in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, originally in Italy under Mussolini, who invented the term. I'm unaware of any American who subscribes to Mussolini's tenets, and I certainly have not seen anyone here who does. |
Isn't this more about the military-industrial complex than fascism?
|
Quote:
I don't pretend I'm in the center, if I was in the center the US wouldn't be slipping slowly into socialism. I will say I'm more to the center than host is, but thats not saying I'm the 'norm'. Personally I don't see what the attraction of 'the center' is. If its the philosophical center, then it means pretty much nothing. Thats just an arbitrary a little of column A a little from B. If its the national 'vibe' of what the average is, then the only appeal is that people like when others agree with them. My personal saying is average sucks, and while I applied mostly scholastically, I think it has applications outside of ones GPA as well. I do think you are correct in your assessment of how people like to see themselves, but I always try to be honest with myself in all my opinions. |
Quote:
And this explains why right-wingers like Nixon and Bush were dead set opposed to the FBI & CIA spying on Americans and chopped the gummint down to the proper, night-watchman size. Yep. |
Quote:
A couple of things...I tried to change the title moments after first posting the thread, to "neo-fascists" because I don't want to distract from the core issue I've put up for discussion. I also tried to make it clear that, for the purposes of the one issue of FISA "reform", I find myself far to the right of where I would have been on the issue in 1978, and where I should be, based on my core beliefs now. Compared to the folks desrcribed below, two aged and recently deceased veteran's of the 1930's Lincoln Brigade, and Corliss Lamont, my political leanings put me clearly much to the right of theirs. In a recent historical context, I am, compared to the three of them, of a center-left political persuasion, and they are "leftists". Almost all of you who claim to be "moderates", are probably of a political bent that puts you to the right of 50s center-right republican president, Dwight Eisenhower. From the standpoint of their avowed "militarism" and "corporatism", Clinton and Obama are positioned to the right of Eisdenhower, as well. The tax policy Eisenhower accepted and presided over for 8 years was dramatically to the left of anything Clinton or Obama would advocate. Eisenhower's foreign policy was less "hawkish" than Clinton's or Obama's. On the issue of what should be done now about FISA, and on the idea that America is moving "towards socialism", and on a host of issues involving tax, social, foreign, military, and domestic security policy, some of you who consider yourselves center-right or right, are so far to the right of Eisenhower ans the historical idea of "center", that you embrace, wittingly or not....neo fascist postures, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Those who think they are "centrist" are predominately significantly to the right of the republican president in office 50 years ago, and the majority of the congress are positioned to the right of this "centrist" group. But "the right", and the "center-right" is far to the right of "left-lite", perceived by them to be folks like me, and I am someone who, in the 50s would be regarded as center-left establishment. Neo-fascist is where it was on the spectrum, in the early 30s....the peculiarities of it are "same old", "same old", the difference now is that lots of folks on the right have drifted over to it, are happy with the neighborhood, but just haven't yet glanced up at the street sign. They all perceive a "liberal bias" in the press, though! |
Quote:
There are certainly many flavors of fascismo, but it is primarily identified as the enemy of civil liberties, civilian governance, and nationalized industry. |
Johnny, this "tome" has been edge-umacating the faithful, as of late:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0385511841/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/104-6597636-4273548?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1">Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning</a> |
Quote:
The OP is associating global industrialism and the "military industrial complex" with conservatism in an attempt label right-wingers as fascists. Like when people call GW a Nazi or labeling Democrats as socialists and communists. If you really feel the need to use the term fascism, then Globalism and Orwellian-style (1984) philosophy is more than likely the new and improved fascism. The powerful from all political stripes can be found here. You may want to change the meaning of fascism to demonize a political group, but it would be more accurate to use a term based on historical accuracy. |
well, comrades there are a couple problems with now the thread is set up. i almost put something up about this yesterday but figured that'd kill it. so i'll do it now.
on the fascism thing: the only reason this: Quote:
1. political positions are relational. this is a sociological question--you can make a grid of the range of political options---but it's an analytic construction---you can map terms/labels onto the grid and you can use it to talk about relative ideological power--so if the apparatus particular to conservativeland and its willing resonating chamber in the amurican "freepress" has been able to shift the way folk label political position to the right significantly, it follows that the apparatus has ALOT of ideological power because all (or most) other groups define themselves in the same terms--even against the right. the point here is that the grid shifts. personally, i think that the conservative media tactic (compulsion?) of projection has worked pretty well for them--you project qualities onto others to disable naming--if you disable naming, you disable orientation--and so and so a function emerges for this Quote:
2. if the grid that folk rely on to say what their positions are moves around, and if a term like "fascism" is--without speculating as to why--an element within that grid (as a term of abuse even) and you want to make it do something other than be a term of abuse within that grid, then you kinda have to say how you mean the term. 3. the op does offer a de facto definition--but it's limited and strange--it reduces fascism to illegal surveillance. how does that work? the rhetorical effect of the move is evident enough (if you support this, you're a fascist)...but in a strange way. so what to do? |
Actually, if you're going to be scrupulously honest you'll need to recognize that socialism and fascism have far more in common with each other than either one does with classically liberal capitalism. Both rely heavily on state power and both depend on the wisdom and authority of the person or group running the government to make decisions for the polity. Both (in their pure forms) are all-encompassing, making decisions for individuals for their own good. Both claim to be revolutionary. The differences are primarily in the justifications invoked. To an individual living in a society governed by either system, that's a negligible difference.
And that's why Friedrich Hayek was 100% right. Well, maybe not 100% but a lot more than 50-50. If you believe in human rights you have to believe in both civil AND political freedom AND economic freedom. Otherwise you're on the road to serfdom. Oh, and Roachboy, you're right about needing a definition of fascism. That was my point above. And I also maintain that if you set up a grid based on characteristics of the system (as opposed to platitudinous justifications - and maybe even then), you'll see that communism and fascism are very, very, very close - not at all on opposite ends. |
loquitor---yeah, i have heard these arguments before. i'm assuming that you're repeating them, so what follows is about the argument, not your repeating of it:
classically "liberal capitalism" is an affair of political economy fantasy novels like "wealth of nations"---in actually existing systems, the nation-state, which is a PRODUCT of capitalism--has been engaged in various modalities of repression in DEFENSE of capitalism from the outset. so following your logic, and not straying outside its narrowness, the "conclusion" would be liberal capitalism as it actually exists=stalinism=fascism. which is useless. it says nothing. on the flipside: capitalist metaphysics....funny stuff. |
Quote:
Fascism can fit into basically any political structure, including but not limited to conservatism and libertarianism. Any time that authority by not just a government but any organization opposes freedom and equality you have fascism to some degree. It's marked by great power with a singular authority. We can see clearly in the Bush Administration the degenerate marriage of conservatism and fascism. How do those find themselves as bed-fellows? Simple. Conservatism enjoys ideals like patriotism, militarism, corporatism, and populism. Those ideals happen to be shared by fascism, which makes the transition less uncomfortable. Much like putting a frog in slowly boiling water. In addition to this, conservative ideology in it's current state actually seems to want authority. This, of course, is a contradiction with traditional conservatism and is probably the most important point of this thread. A few years ago I created a thread which basically asked: what is conservatism? I posted what I know to be traditional conservative ethics, beliefs, and ideals... but they didn't look anything like conservatism today. In fact, conservatism today is not conservatism of yesterday at all, it's a new beast: neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism isn't just far right, it's far right, up and towards fascism. That marriage makes neo-conservatism extremely far from center, so far in fact that it manages to change the entire scale of where the center is. In a country where liberalism lies on the left and traditional conservatism lies on the right, Host is very much correct that he lies just to the left of center. I'd lie a bit more left, and probably towards socialism a bit more, but I don't know of any radical liberals on TFP in the traditional scale. Now that neo-conservatism is on the board, it's thrown off the scale completely. So yes, compared to neo-conservatism (conservative-fascism), Host is far left. Compared to traditional conservatism, host is just left of center. Just an aside, those who wish to discuss what conservatism means probably shouldn't do it in this thread but rather in the old thread, located here |
roachboy, that is positively staggering in its ipse dixit circularity. Nice little ju-jitsu to try to show that individualism (classic liberalism) equals fascism (submergence of the individual into the state-driven mass). I understand why you want to make that argument but it makes no sense.
|
Quote:
Like fascism, the concepts of liberalism and socialism are not BAD or EVIL. Only the application of these concepts haven't been too successful (or humane) to date. To claim that associating fascism accurately with liberal or socialist concepts as a "sublimbaugh bit of nonsense", sounds a bit like an argument I've heard before and I'm assuming that you're just repeating it. Your comment is probably an amusing one-liner among the faithful, but it doesn't make it true. |
Quote:
One interesting phenomenon that occurred during the debate of the Patriot Act was the odd coalition that came together to oppose it....the ACLU and the American Conservative Union....the National Rifle Association and the American Library Association. Unfortunately, it was short-lived when it came to FISA reform and other constitutional threats. The problem is that the guy in the White House with the greatest access to the bully pulpit to spew whatever furthers his ideological agenda always has the advantage to influence those not on either extreme. Roosevelt did it with the New Deal (many considered these programs unconstitutional), LBJ did it with Vietnam (an undeclared war), Reagan did it with Iran/Contra (an illegal act to "promote democracy in Central America), and Bush has done it for the purpose of expanding the powers of the President but in the guise of national security And I am just left of center too. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you look at Bush, though, you can't call him liberal or socialist. He cut spending on libraries, cut spending on pediatric training for doctors, cut spending on renewable energy, stopped research into cleaner automobiles, reduced the CAP program budget by 86%, cut funding for the Boys and Girls club by $60m, cut $200 million from workforce training programs for dislocated workers, eliminated prescription contraceptive coverage (cept viagra), cut $700m in funds for public housing repairs, cut $500m from the EPA, and cut $15m from programs dealing with child abuse and neglect... just in his first year. He's a conservative through and through, but he's also a fascist. He's been a VERY strong purporter of nationalism, he's actively worked against human rights, he's named phantom enemies as a unifying cause, he's created a much stronger military and executive, we've seen clear evidence of the government controlling a great deal of media, an obsession with national security, we've seen the reemergence of religion in government, corporate power is protected, labor is suppressed, obsession with crime and punishment, etc. |
a type of radical nationalism.
typically at the ideological level, fascism works around a continual re-definition of the national body-politic through the definition of an internal Other: in germany of the 1930s, the Other was the Left, homosexuals, the physically or mentally impaired, and, obviously, the jews. the Other enables a sense of purification of the body politic, which in turn enables that body to become healthy and in turn embark upon its Historical Mission, which is generally expressed in military terms. legally, you have a dictatorship which takes shape in the context of a state of emergency or exception: generally this legal situation dovetails with the ideological formation, makes it operational. the ideological form in turn enables the state of exception. sound familiar? at the level of state structure, there is considerable variation between types of fascism--the german example hinged around the fabrication of a "dual state" one formal, the other less formal--relations between the healthy body politics and the state were directed toward the informal institutions--the formal ones became instruments of repression--the spanish state structure was different, the italian, the argentine, the portugese--all different one from the other. none of this has any relation to stalinism---even if both ended up being a kind of genocidal regime, the parallels between them at the level of ideology are so shallow as to make then analytically worthless, and the relations between the state and outside the state were also entirely different. there are multiple pathways to genocide--the american system is itself another (remember the extermination of the native americans?)---often you read that "analysis" on this level is linked to and justified by a concern about massacre or genocide--but if you think about it, these arguments don't even start: they basically serve a therapeutic function--genocide is a possibility that arises from Outside the "center" which is the viewpoint from which the analysis departs. so if you want to talk about anything--really--using the term fascism, you end up being pushed back onto its characteristics as an ideological formation first of all--and that ideological formation looks a whole lot like the post 9/11/2001 worldview of the american political right. then you have to think in terms of the various usages of the state of emergency or exception--another post 9/11/2001 parallel. does that mean the american system has **been** fascist since 9/12/2001: no. it means that it has slid dangerously close to it. that's all. parallel, not identity. why? the state of emergency has remained largely rhetorical. and then there was iraq, which crumbled the regime politically. now the bush people couldnt be fascist if they wanted to be: they dont have the consent. conservatives might not like that, but it's of no consequence to me. as far as the argument i made against you, above, loquitor, its easy peasy: if you work off the op as a "definition" of fascism, it comes down to illegal surveillance. i dont think that's a defining characteristic of fascism at all, so i think it a red herring. insofar as captialism cannot possibly be fascist, i think that's idiotic. actually existing capitalism has depended and will continue to depend on the functionality of the state, on its repressive arm--but generally, capitalism also requires the procedural legitimacy of the state to remain intact because its own procedural legitimacy to some extent derives from that of the state. |
Quote:
Moving on, I would contend that no form of government is "good" or "evil." It would be more accurate to say that every form of government is "good or evil." What we can tell from fascism at a glance is that, no matter its approach to private industry or military strength, what all branches of it have in common is the reduction of civil liberties, to the point of elimination. Historically, fascism has been the doctrine of so many violent dictatorships that it can't really be argued as a viable approach, in comparison to other governmental forms. Take Argentina, for example, whose despot is serving time in prison for murder and whose regime is officially responsible for the murders of 35,000 people and the torture of thousands more. Take East Timor, where 200,000 died and whose government was accused of genocide. You may think I'm cherry-picking, so I'll put this a different way: Can you think of a single fascist regime that has worked? I would have to resort to Wikipedia -- and to say that these bloody cabals are well-known by sheer sensationalism is not a strong defense. By and large, the concentration of forceful power that fascism represents drives inevitably to bloodshed; remember how often it's said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. |
roachboy, I'll have more to say when I'm home and can devote to your last post the time it deserves, but let me just say this: any kind of big institution will have certain fascistic impulses, and that includes big corporations as well as big government. How they translate into practice may vary. But you can't just equate big business with capitalism in making your argument, which I think is one of the main premises of your post. Big business may or may not operate in a classically liberal/capitalist way. In regulated economies it often doesn't.
|
actually, loquitor, that wasn't my intent at all--i didn't mention corporations or corporate structures--->i talked only about the state--and that only because of the op.
my last post was mostly a quick-and-exapserated outline of a defintion of fascism. the short tag at the end was aimed more at you. i was trying to erase the space this sternhell left=right move, mostly. it's crap. but please, we should continue so post more when you've a chance. i'm in the middle of stuff as well. |
roachboy, in an attempt to "shore up" the example of the "shift" in political reaction since 1978 to a shift towards neo-fascism in the US, there is this to consider, a Dec., 2007 opinion piece by former CIA man Ray McGovern:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Indeed, by that definition you're absolutely right. Of course, by your definition you cannot even begin to account for the 20th century's most significant events. Small price to pay for being "right". Carry on! I spent some time after 2001.9.11 thinking about what to call the Bush regime. At the time, the Bush cabal was being compared to the Nazis, even in the mainstream press. After kicking the idea around for a while, i decided that the label "fascist" didn't really help define our current situation. Whereas in classical fascist regimes (fascist Italy, say, or Japan from 1931-45) the body politic as imaginary incorporation of the national-totality mattered, in contemporary America, it doesn't. It mattered to Hitler that you brushed your teeth, because you could bite a Russian on the ass if it came to that. Women mattered, workers mattered, and what they did mattered because the entire population was engaged in a total war. This is no longer true. Our connection to the war is mediated by money and television. It's not coporeal, not even in an imaginary sense. The war is no less real for that, and we are no less connected to it. People are sick and can't pay for health care? Their teeth are falling out? Bush & Cheney couldn't care less. People are opposed to the war? So what? We'll have it anyway, with Blackwater! |
Quote:
->edit<- looks like you added more to your post... uhh, this has nothing to do with what I've been saying. Sorry. Do you want to break it down as it applies to the topic? |
It's called tyranny. It's a combination of corporatism, fascism, and a few other things.
|
Quote:
|
deleted
|
I'm left wondering what fascism really means in 2008.
|
exactly
seems i'm surrounded by media writers... being a repub, i'm repulsed by my party and going obama... i'm sick of the repub arrogance i can't stand that whiney spoiled brat bitch so i'm going the lesser of the evils but to get edited because someone doesn't like my approach to a user's non-stop abuse... yes, abuse... of this forum, after having been warned more than once upsets me... seems the liberal party travels far and wide |
Quote:
I admit purposely bringing up the historical association of fascism to counter the supposition that fascism is relative to right-wing conservatism. I'm not saying my doing so was inaccurate, but it also illustrates how associating inflammatory language (correctly or not) incites such strong reactions... and that we should be careful about applying destructive labels with devisive intent. |
Everyone read Baraka's post. It's pretty good. :thumbsup:
|
Doesn't anyone use Wikipedia anymore?
Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. --Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism. Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." ...a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination." --Robert O. Paxton, former professor at Columbia University. Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism; anti-conservatism. Basically, fascism is a monstrosity of an entity that has all but completely been left behind in the 20th century. Neither neo-liberalism nor neo-conservatism resemble fascism as we should know it.--Wikipedia: Fascism. This is not to say that some government practices don't infringe on rights and freedoms. In doing so does not a fascist make. China isn't fascist. Russia isn't fascist. America isn't fascist. They might be militaristic and/or expansionist. They might be lured through capitalist channels to partake in rampant globalization at an unsavory cost. They might also do unjust things protecting these interests. But, seriously, none of this is fascism. If it were, we'd be more mobilized to put a stop to it. Perhaps a period of hyperinflation and a reactionary fallout will once again lead to this, but for now, let's keep perspective. |
Quote:
wait... was that response for me? If not, I'd like to buy a vowel. Let us know how the protest goes. |
|
Scroll down the linked page about 52% to view this excerpt:
Quote:
An explanation for invading Iraq, in the first place, with no adequate post invasion planning as "icing on the cake" for this comparison: Quote:
|
Perhaps this is a good example of observer bias.
If the observer is 6'8" tall and thinks this is slightly taller than average, then almost everyone else will be in his opinion abnormally short. He may be worried something is wrong with these people, perhaps they had poor nutrition as children, or were poisoned, after all how could they be so short compared to his only slightly taller than average height. If the observer is extremely far left, and thinks he is only slightly left of center, then almost everyone else will be in his opinion, right wingers and right wingers will be far right wingers. I'll love to comment more but I have to go to my Bund meeting. |
Quote:
Perhaps it's the oversimplification of what center really means that has everyone confused. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
will, you're a civil libertarian, but not a libertarian. A socialist can't recognize the sort of strong economic and property rights that libertarians do and still be a socialist.
|
Quote:
Spoil sport. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I thought I smelt something awry...
|
Will's a kipper, not a fryer.
|
nice red herring there, roachboy. gut it, scale it, put some salt on the fillets, grill them and you'll have something tasty.
actually, in Amsterdam they sell it raw at street kiosks, with chopped onions. Yum. |
i thought it was nice too.
but truth be told, it reproduced as a much bigger fish than i imagined. a reverse fish story. so it's kinda like following with alot of exclamation points!!! a point that didn't need them!!! anyway: you gots to get your head out of american paranoia about the old left. socialists (democratic socialists, french socialists etc.) aren't terribly radical politically, particularly not in terms of property claims/rights. they just work with a different conception of capitalism--a (to my mind) sane(r) one that assumes that markets left to themselves cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds and that the state should adjust for these effects. some of these adjustments involve wealth transfers---but these are matters of political consent and the arguments for them are utilitarian as well. there's a debate to be had about this--an old school one---but it's about how actual markets function and whether it makes sense for their long-term functioning that the social system be maintained. to turn it onto "respect for property rights" is the red herring. you must have been arguing on libertarian grounds---arthur darby nock and all that---but those grounds are at best eccentric. aside: it's a tiresome quirk of tfpolitics that anyone can say just anything about words like socialism. over and over and over it happens. i call it the ustwo effect, when i bother to call it anything. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As for socialists being property disrespecters? As rb said, we're not all extremists. We simply believe in economic equality of a certain degree. |
Quote:
Libertarian ideals are not compatible with western democratic socialism. Quote:
Libertarianism, not yours. |
Quote:
1) Education and study 2) Business Each person would have a vocation and an area of study, be it scientific, artistic, historical, philosophical (etc...). The hierarchy of labor would be similar to council communism, or a worker's democracy, and the educational hierarchy would be determined by levels of expertise. Labor would assist study and study would assist labor. I can't tell you what this system is called, because it's my last name. Do you see any redistribution of goods there? Edit: Oh, and it's also a work in progress. |
Quote:
your paraphrase doesn't capture it, ustwo. |
will, a form of what you described did actually exist in history. It was tribalism. You're apparently advocating a non-blood-based variant of tribalism. The big difference is that your'e positing its existence without hierarchy. But the basic community you're advocating is similar to a tribe. Good luck.
Roachboy, please don't attribute paranoia to my understanding of socialism; I'm not attributing any nonpositive attributes to your view of free market capitalism. Paranoia has nothing to do with it; I just don't understand socialism as anything other than the preference to use government to regulate economic behavior and plan economic activity, rhetorically supported by platitudes about the masses and equality. It's a preference for centralization and uniformity, backed by government power (i.e., from my point of view, coercion). It can be used with a heavy hand or not; it can be benevolent (and in most Western countries it is); but there is no denying it necessarily involves restriction of the economic liberties of its citizens, and replacing them with mandates from above, nor is there denying that it involves some serious circumscription of property rights. If you believe, as I do, that humans should be free to follow their individual muses, so long as it does not harm others, then that should logically include their economic muses. Pecunia non olet. |
loquitor: again if i strip away the libertarian eccentricites that shape your rhetoric, i can see that we're maybe not so far apart--but why should i have to do that if the idea is to have a debate or discussion? over and over it comes to the same thing--a little fight over who gets to control the rhetoric. we can agree that socialism departs from an understanding of capitalist markets--and maybe even that this understanding derives from the history of actual markets as opposed to their self-regulating floating-all-boats metaphysical duplicates (see? there it is already.) more neutrally--we have no agreement about which capitalism to look at in these debates---i prefer looking at historical capitalism, you know, the stuff that happens and that happened in the 3-d world---i dont know if you do--from your arguments here it doesn't sound like that.
if there is no agreement about what is even meant by capitalism--in that i talk about historical forms and you talk about "self-regulating markets" or whatever---but in general, you seem to like ideal-types--then there is no argument, there's just a differend. i say that most democratic socialist arguments about wealth redistribution follow from the way they see markets working historically and the implications of this for the social context they operate in---you don't acknowledge the premise and then repeat stuff about "violation" or "circumscription" of property rights. this is metaphysics. but even in mideval metaphysics, debate was possible because there would be agreement that there is a debate because people would be talking about the same thing. term switching--which is all that is happening here--i go one way, you another--isn't debate. we keep doing this too. it isn't interesting--and it cant be much more interesting for you. so what are we talking about? i am not interested in fictions like hayek's markets--simply because in hayek's work THEY'RE FICTIONS. so if you want to talk about socialism==or democratic socialism---you have to abandon talking in terms of fictions as your point of departure. or we can just do something else. the world is big, this is small. |
Liq, what I described IS a form of socialism. Do you see centralization? Do you see government? Did you see anything about economic liberties?
Of course not. |
no, I don't see that as socialism at all. I understand you call it socialism, but you could call it "binky" just as easily. I don't know anyone who would recognize that as socialism. It's a tribal-style organization, and I don't see how it could help but be nontechnological (but that's a discussion for another day).
Will, if you want to call that socialism, you end up with anything communitarian being called socialism, including religious war parties, fascist dictatorships, Shakers, the Jim Jones group, etc etc........ It's like what Orwell said in the piece I linked up above - the word ceases to have a meaning by being applied indiscriminately. |
Quote:
It is ironic that you post "seems the liberal party travels far and wide". The following describes and documents "abuse". If anything, I have posted too feebly and infrequently in protest and opposition to this law breaking, unprecedented failure of leadership, and betrayal of this oath: Quote:
Quote:
Don't Rockefeller, Reid, and Pelosi seem like people who are acting as if they have sold out to this "putsch" or been co-opted by yet undisclosed threats of violence against themselves and their families? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
what you just described is similar to Marx's end-state communism.
|
Yes, it is, but have you ever told someone you were a communist? How did they look at you?
It's a flavor of socialism, though, which is undeniable. Just as communism and socialism are very closely related, end state (or the final step) of Marxism and my evolving idea of what things should be like share many attributes with socialism. It's why I used the term libertarian socialist. I'm a socialist who doesn't believe in big government. :thumbsup: |
Goodness, me...thank god for our own corporatist government, they'll save us! What a wonder it is to live in the greatest country on God's green earth, where we enjoy free and unfettered markets, unless they go in the wrong direction of where the oligarchy have placed their bets....
If you know you know what you're talking about, and you've been posting on this thread, raise your hands! Quote:
....a new police state update: Quote:
Nothing in the above article addresses a means for individuals to attempt to remove inaccurate information about themselves from the data banks. Most of you won't see a grave problem with the emerging neo-fascist, corporatist police state we're already living in, until you are too afraid of your government to post your concerns on a public forum like this. |
Reading through this thread has reminded me of the philosophy the head of the Pol Sci department had when I was in college. He considered the political spectrum less linear in nature and more horseshoe shaped. In this fashion, the more one moves to either extreme, the closer one actually comes to the opposite extreme.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Marx noted, however, that socialism would have two phases: the lower phase, also known as "socialism," and a higher phase, "communism." The latter would be the ultimate good society benefiting all mankind. In the lower, socialist phase, the whole society would own its productive forces, or the economy, but work would still be valued and paid differentially and distribution of the society's goods and wealth would not yet be equal. To reach the higher, communist phase, two requirements had to be met. First, the productive forces of society, restricted by the capitalists in a vain attempt to prop up their profits, would be liberated, and the economy, hugely expanded by modern scientific and technological inputs, would become capable of producing "a superabundance of goods." This enormous output would permit everyone to have whatever they needed. Second, in counterbalance, an individual's needs would be limited and sensible, because society would develop, through education and by example, "a new-type socialist person." Reoriented individuals would desire only what was truly necessary to sustain life, eschewing ostentation and waste. They would also contribute to the socialist society altruistically, applying their work and varied talents to the common welfare. With the superabundance of goods and the new socialist individual, society could then be organized on the principle: "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." Thus, communism would mark an end to coercion, want, and inequality. -From "Communism," Russian History Encyclopedia. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
at the risk of being pedantic, the splitting of democratic socialism off from more revolutionary-oriented ways of thinking about/using the term happened just before world war 1 within the German SPD--the debate was basically over how important the creation of stock was for marxian economic theory, that it meant for the idea of concentration of wealth/increasing immiseration of the working class as the overall dynamic of capitalism and by extension whether revolution was a short-term possiblity or not. the SPD position (edouard bernstein) argued that revolution was an eventual goal but wasn't going to happen any time soon so tactically that meant integrating into the normal operation of capitalism and working to improve the material lives of working people was a good idea. the revolutionary wing didnt think that a good move, so they (around rosa lumxbourg) didn't go along with any of it. that's how the spd and kpd split. that's the big dividing line between democratic socialist and revolutionary areas of the workers movement.
so democratic socialists are different---it is not the same understanding of the word that you see in, say, pannekoek or the council communist tradition. they---the two understandings of the term "socialism"---have nothing really to do with each other. not since 1910 or so. that split is also a reason why the russian revolutionaries started calling what they were trying to instituted "communism" which had nothing to do with what marx had in mind--to the extent that he spelled it out (which he kinda hinted at, but didnt really spell out---there were a riot of others--especially early, like 1848, who spent all their time working out alternative possible arrangements--utopian socialists, saint-simonians, blah blah blah.) one of the problems with the left as it turned out is that terminologies were tossed about in a closed universe and everyone tried to elaborate their positions by taking over the same words. but its 2008. the democratic socialist tradition is huge everywhere except in the political backwater of the united states. it isn't new, it isn't a surprise: the nonsense you see here about the term is a simple reflection of parochialism. ============================================ note: baraka--that reads like old-school diamat. that is a particularly crude understanding of marx, not that it matters any more. |
Quote:
|
Baraka hit on why I'm a socialist. The only way to get from capitalism to communism is via socialism. I support socialism now and call myself a socialist because eventually I will be a communist.
SirSeymour: there are no leaders in communism. Not really. That's why it's failed before. Some weak people can't let go of capitalism; they're unable to live by what they preach. Me? It is, in my opinion, a more perfect way of being, therefore it seems reasonable to me that I would help to try and bring it about. I bring it about, and then I become just another worker. I'll answer questions if people ask, but I won't hold any place of power, nor do I want it. Mao, Lenin, and Castro were flim-flam men. They used the promise of what I seek in order to herd the sheep. |
Quote:
I guess it might be ok if everyone's motives are pure and everyone is giving the same effort but if that were not the case I would stop trying as there would be no incentive to work as hard as I do. |
Quote:
If one is a doctor under a capitalist system, one receives a lavish salary. If one is a fruit picker in a capitalist system, one receives barely enough to live on. Communism is, simply, that all contribution is rewarded with adequate means to live and pursue happiness (unless happiness is being better off than people around you). I've read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" about a hundred times. I do believe, though, that living counter to our baser instincts is the key to overcoming things like war and poverty; things that seem to come with a capitalistic system. Basically: we're stronger than our more visceral, animalistic natures. Therein lies the path to real equality. |
No logging....no record of what "the authority" is taking from our communications or our billing records.... no constitutional protections, anymore. But, they "promise" not to use what they've stolen from us, "abusively":
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um...nG=Search+News So few of you will actually read this telecom consultant's 2/29/08 affadavit: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...t-BP-Final.pdf What information is required to raise levels of concern? |
Quote:
This is the problem with socialism and communism at its core. Its attempting to force human nature into what its not. |
i like little logic exercises.
Quote:
because of the way you choose to oppose what you imagine socialism to be, it follows that you are yourself therefore a full manifestation of human nature. because human nature and you coincide in your mutual opposition to what you imagine socialism to be. so human nature is both parochial and smug. well played. |
It almost seems as if we can't bear to do this....to get things back on track, here is a definition of "fascism":
Quote:
Or do you disagree with the definition? How so? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would ask the board communists and the curious alike a question: if communism - any classless society - is the answer to mankinds ills, why hasn't it spread across the world at anytime in recorded history? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Socialism in genetic terms is group selection. Group selection does not exist in nature, human or otherwise, it is unstable as cheaters will make the system unstable. I oppose socialism because its fundamentally flawed. If it were not than you would see like minded socialists creating thriving socialist communities, you need not tanks and the IRS to be a socialist, and almost all have failed completely. It doesn't even work on a small scale on a voluntary basis, yet people like you want to see it enforced under penalty of law. It would be laughable if it wasn't so disgusting. Quote:
Worker social insects do not reproduce, only the queens/drones. The workers sacrifice their own reproduction, selves, for the good of their mother. This is a mathematically stable relationship in genetic terms (your mother is as related to you as your own children would be). Its completely alien to all but one mammal species, the naked mole rat, which has evolved a lifestyle very much like a social insect. When chimps band together it is for protection, defeating rival males, and mating. Three weaker male chimps can beat one stronger male, and then all three get to mate. Its not socialism, but closer to capitalism. A contract between the males of a group that they will work together and share the food and mating, but they are not equal in the group. Sex and food are the currencies of their societies. |
Quote:
"Are You Leaning Far Enough to the Right to be Considered a Fascist? " I found this comparison extremely distrubing. Doesn't it seem to reinforce the argument about creeping and creepy fascism in the US these last several years? I always thought that the necessary trade off of limiting the power of government via the US Constitution was an accepted inevitable increased risk to safety and security. President Bush has acted and communicated as if that premise is no longer valid, that security trumps the long held principle of the priority limiting government power: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
how about this game, then. you seem to imagine that genetics determines the contents of human capabilities, not merely the capacities to acquire capabilities---which is functionally the claim that genetics determines how you will use language--what you will say---and not just your capacity to acquire language and something of the boundary conditions that may limit that acquisition. that means that you understand human beings as a type of thing and their genetic makeup as a type of essence. human beings perform their essence. that means that human beings are not free in any meaningful way--they are repetition machines whose primary function is the performance of system characteristics given in advance by their genetic makeup--a kind of zip file, i take it. so you oppose socialism, which you do not understand at all, in the name of a conception of "freedom" based on an "understanding" of genetics that functionally erases all possibility of freedom. way to go. but it gets better: you also have made it clear that you understand this essence as unevenly distributed--you understand human beings to be naturally hierarchical and you understand capitalist hierarchies as an expression of these natural hierarchies--presumably because you like to imagine yourself as atop them. so communities are groups which array themselves along natural hierarchies. communities themselves are "natural" or "organic"--you know, pure, with a clear inside and outside. like human beings, they are closed systems the primary function of which is the performance of their own characteristics, the implications of their "essence" deployed across time. if communities are closed, self referential systems, then they are amenable to contamination. contamination would disrupt the orderly repetition of natural hierarchies in the context of organic communities, and so would be threats to the organic nature of the community. contaminants would have to be eliminated. they are disease. welcome to fascism. in this case, your "genetic theory" is a kinda of corporatism, so you probably would have been a perfectly content italian fascist and maybe would have objected to the bluntness of german fascism--unless you felt that the body politic was under threat from some disease from within or without, in which case you'd maybe have been ok with a little bluntness. or not, it's hard to say: but at the ideological core of things, there is little distinction between your "genetic" views and those of some of the corporatist theorists that appealed to mussolini and which drew the catholic church into supporting him through the 1920s and early 30s. you too would have no problem with jailing the entire political left as disease carriers. it follows. |
Quote:
But roachboy, why hasn't communism ever worked out in the real world, you know, like outside of books? |
Quote:
and this after the post directly above you, which you obviously did not read. you must be dreaming. |
Quote:
|
What does what I commented to ustwo have anything to do about the existence of communism in the real world?
Can you, or anyone here, answer the question: why hasn't communism caught on as a major political ideology in the world, at anytime in history? I really am curious to know. |
Quote:
It was developed by Marx only relatively recently and since then it's few incarnations have been artificial; not genuine. Marxism was replaced quickly by Leninism, which is actually a form of fascism (to tie this back into the thread). |
And it should be noted that predominantly capitalist systems aren't exactly working either.
|
in deference to host, who is trying to steer the thread in the direction that he set it into motion to go in, please start another thread for this, powerclown.
but if you do, could you try to be clear about what you're asking about? communism as the determinate negation of capitalism? communism as a synonym for direct democracy? communism as a meme thrown about by conservatives to designate anything they dont like? it isn't obvious. |
I think will gave a pretty decent overview actually.
|
Quote:
If I take a dump in a box of Kellog's finest, seal it up and put it on the shelf - you may pick up a box that says "Corn Flakes", but I doubt you'll get to the crunchy bits before realising something is amiss in the nomenclature. |
Quote:
You don't need me. You and roachboy and host and whoever else can do it all on your own. You don't need the power of government even, go set up that communist society right here in the US and show us how its done. As your success grows so will your membership, more and more will want to join your system which is better than the unmitigated disaster of neo-liberalism. It only takes the right people after all! |
I am not sure why anyone wouldn't want pure communism *or* pure capitalism... BOTH sound great on paper.
The problem is that both are utopian in their pure forms. Utopian ideals are (so far) impossible to implement. To my mind, the ideal is, as always, a balance between the two. |
If we are sitting in a chair while leaning just a little to the right, say reaching for a napkin,
and the chair leg broke causing one to fall completely to the right, sprawled out on the floor ... possibly injured, would one immediately become a fascist? Would the 5 second rule apply? |
Quote:
Communism works against it. It doesn't work small scale for long, its a police state large scale, prone to genocide. The two don't even belong together in a conversation. Evolution is to creationism as capitalism is to communism. They get brought up together because they are polar opposites but that doesn't make communism more valid. A pure capitalism society would be harsh, but it could function as one. A pure communism society would simply collapse into a totalitarian police state. I don't know how many examples of this are needed before the trend becomes clear to the armchair communists. Regulated and unregulated capitalism is something worth looking into and I in general favor regulated, thats where the yin and yang is here. If you want to argue that state funded schools or even roads are 'communist' I'd counter they are an investment. If you want to bring up welfare and the like as communist I'd agree with you and ask how well thats all been working out, is the war on poverty 'winnable' and when can we pull out. The programs themselves create far more poverty then they cure. |
Quote:
What the hell are you talking about.....just spouting on here, over coffee, between patient appointments? We're the ones who have posted arguments displayed alongside your own on this thread. The "human nature" references you post, trigger affirmative nods from people who will agree with anything that you post here. But, what about the rest of us? Can you clue us in, at all? Is there any acceptance by you that the idea of "human nature", is too broadly contested to be the basis of any coherent argument? That is the status of that phrase. Look it up....it's meaningless....why use it, except to provoke, or to have your own "coded" conversation here with others who nod in the affirmative everytime you post anything? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project