Fascism, my new favorite word. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Halx · 06-06-2004, 09:07 PM

Suddenly, I like using this word. I like applying it to various causes that seem to be popping up lately. I may be throwing it about a little too lightly, but I can justify it in most cases. You see, all governments fall along a scale from *anarchy* to *fascism* and the justifier is LAW. Anarchy is 0 law. Fascism is total law.

I personally believe in a society with 3 criminal laws in place: Do not kill, do not abuse, do not steal. In essence, if it does not hurt your neighbor or family, you are free to do it. On the A-to-F scale, this system is one of the most basic forms of government above anarchy. My justification in using the word fascism is this: every criminal law put in place beyond those three drags us further and further towards fascism.

Paranoid? No, not really. I'm not panicking or anything here, however, I think it's time for me to give some examples.

Every day people are being sent up the river for years because they have been convicted of victimless crimes. They were caught on their third strike with some drugs, perhaps. What good does this do for society? Sure, it's another buyer off the street, but what does that solve? There are still dealers, shippers, smugglers and the trail of dead in their wake BECAUSE such things as drugs are illegal in the first place. This is just an example of how extra criminal laws beyond those 3 basic tenets throw things out of balance and create more room for perceived injustices.

Now, onto examples of fascism. When we look back at the last century, we can point out a few governments that have been considered as fascist. Take Nazi Germany for example, they're the easiest for people to recognize. One characteristic of their fascist government was nationalism. Nationalism is pretty much blind patriotic pride in support of one's country. So basicly, we are looking at strict rules and blind devotion.

There is an organization that recently contacted my favorite radio station to complain about their selection of music. Here is the email they sent to the administrator:

Quote:

It has come to my attention that people from the Skinny Puppy fanbase are requesting songs from the new album. One fan has created a list of stations for people to contact in their area.

http://www.spv.de/board/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=68

Recently, this band has been speaking out against the Bush administration's justified war against Iraq. Because of these treasonous actions the organization known as PABAAH ( http://www.pabaah.com ) is fighting back. We will not tolerate this treason and as a proud American I am requesting you not to play their music. Also, I will contact local stores and request them not to sell this album. We will not stand around and allow bands such as this to use their fame as a platform to spew their hatred against our country. Thank you. I hope you make the right decision. If you don't then we have no choice but to boycott your station.

Constitution be damned. Fascism all the way. Recognize the exclusion of the 1st amendment's influence and realize that the purpose of this organization is to blindly support the government and attempt to undercut perceived opposition. This is the very definition of the F word.

Now, this may seem like a tirade once you come to my next sentence, but I'm thinking by the book here; not necessesarily on a platform. Organized religion falls close to fascism on the scale. Blind devotion. Strict rules.

The common opinions and values that come from someone of deep faith would, if incorporated into our government, push us into a fascist state. If you observe, nowhere in this nation are Christian churches arguing for less restriction. Their platform lies on *criminalizing* abortion, euthanasia, drugs, prostitution, and pornography. They *oppose* gay marriage, free speech and free dress. For all of you who have no problem with any one thing that I've listed, just think for a moment what life would be like if organized religion had a firmer grip on the government.

I guess we can equate big government to the F-word as well. While criminal laws are not so much a defining part of big government, lots and lots of restrictions and beaurocracy are. Do this, don't do that. Creating laws whose punishments are fines and further sanctions is like ghosting criminal laws. It's still influencing order through force, which is fascism.

I know some people, if they've actually had the patience to carefully read this post, are following along and thinking, "Then what ISN'T fascism and how else can order be influenced if not through laws?"

My answer is this: Any action to relieve the pressure on the people to "behave or else" is anti-fascism. Those who believe that only chaos would come of a population with less rules are missing something very valuable about human nature: we form order and structures naturally amongst ourselves. One very important thing to also remember about humans is that they WILL resist when pushed against. This loosely trickles up to the mechanism that something is only a crime BECAUSE it is illegal. Furthermore, crime begets poverty.

Once again, humans naturally form into social structures based on their social restrictions. Example: a person who sells drugs in the US *typically* lives in the ghetto and is a criminal. A person who sells drugs in Amsterdam *typically* lives in the middle class and is a valid business man.

There you have it. We love what keeps us busy. Fascism. It's my favorite word.

Asuka{eve} · 06-06-2004, 10:28 PM

Facism is strong emotion without logical reason. And in the cause of your radio station example the pabaah just shout and moan because they dont like it and thats it. Your words ring true Halx. There used to be no way like the American way but is the new American becoming more fascist, like a disease that is degrading our true, actual freedoms? Is patriotism being used as thinly veiled fascism to spit at those who might just have a little to say?

hammer4all · 06-06-2004, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Halx
Suddenly, I like using this word. I like applying it to various causes that seem to be popping up lately. I may be throwing it about a little too lightly, but I can justify it in most cases. You see, all governments fall along a scale from *anarchy* to *fascism* and the justifier is LAW. Anarchy is 0 law. Fascism is total law.

Good post, just one minor quibble. Anarchy is not necessarily "0 law" where people can get away with anything, it can be communal law where crimes are investigated and dealt by the community, usually using rehabilitation instead of punishment or revenge.

Anarchist FAQ

Spartak · 06-06-2004, 11:11 PM

I thought Facism was extreme Nationalism with a strong racist ideology ?

And the racist ideology part was rather important...

Halx · 06-07-2004, 12:58 AM

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Racism is an optional enforcement of fascism, but it's not included standard.

Halx · 06-07-2004, 12:59 AM

And a dictionary definition of anarchy to balance it out:
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

This is what I was going off of, hammer.

apeman · 06-07-2004, 01:07 AM

I'd agree with most of that... however I think "cryptofascist" is an even better word because it means hidden fasiscm. Also sounds slightly better.

FoolThemAll · 06-07-2004, 04:53 AM

Well, I think PABAAH has every right to make threats like the one you quote. It's your typical boycott. But that may have not been your argument.

People, such as myself, can be for criminalizing abortion and yet fall far closer to anarchy than fascism on your scale. Why? Because it harms one's neighbors. You'll probably disagree with that, but that's the rationale myself and others employ.

I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm for the criminalization of abortion, leaning towards criminalization of euthanasia, and undecided on hard drugs (above alcohol and marijuana). Otherwise, your characterization doesn't fit me. And I think there's plenty more that it doesn't fit. I know that there's entire groups of pro-choice Christians out there, for instance. I'll conceed that your characterization of religion is often accurate, but I think it's also often inaccurate.

Other than those quibbles, I agree. Abortion aside, I suppose I'm just a bit closer to fascism than you.

roachboy · 06-07-2004, 06:31 AM

the difficulty with defining fascism comes from the fact that it has been nothing but a series of variations--spain was not like prtugal was not like italy was not like germany, etc....and bushworld, which does share many features of the general ideology, may at some point end up being seen as another variant. the similarities are obvious---

fascism operates within a state of emergency. it is about the ability of a Leader to react in situations when "democracy" (the american versions requires the scare quotes) is understood as inefficient. that bushworld has used the sense of a state of emergency, and created a scale that would make it easier to slide into a legal state of emergency are both evident. bush did not create this relatively cavalier attitude toward the state of emergency, however--this is a legacy of ronald reagan. that bushworld has contempt for democracy (not the word, but the reality) is evident---the idea shared by bush and ashcroft and maybe others that they are on a mission from god grounds this contempt.

fascism articulates itself around a nationalism embodied in the figure of the Leader; arguments about a national destiny get wrapped in military symbols; the nation is defined around predicates that do not admit of conflict, of history (bush is all about this, but then so are a lot of american politicos, whence the problem with the term fascism...)....

fascism is about war against an enemy that is both within and without (it seems to me that the present situation with reference to islam in the states is a weak variant of the more extreme and systematic model--but given features like the legal black hole into which "enemies of the state" can be tossed, it is a matter of degree rather than of kind...).

endless war is a device to unify the people.

that the core constituency for this ideology is petit bourgeois (lower middle class) is another parallel--witness the audience for the limbaughs of this world---this kind of nationalism becomes a surrogate community that allows for a sublimation of anxiety about social and economic status. i would argue that neocon ideology in the broad sense is about little more than anxiety provoked by globalizing capitalism and its implications for the (increasingly obsolete) category of the nation-state---and that the iraq war is the theater of the conflict as the neocons see it between transnational mechanisms for steering capitalism and the nation-state.

the suppression of dissent had been largely rhetorical so far. the slide from rhetoric to reality is worrying at moments of real or manufactured crisis. on the other hand, i do not see the transition from rhetorical to real violence, from arguments that systemtically work to delegitimate dissent to the reality of actual suppression of dissent as being automatic. sometimes i find this comforting, other times not....

i wonder about how a future analysis of bushworld will deal with the role of television in all this. remember that fascism in general has used the leading edge of mass media to package itself and its vision of the nation....

divergences include the creation of a parallel state (in the german case)--the absence of an organic theory of the division of labour (the italian case). also, i think that regardless of how close bush and his minions have drifted to fascism since 911, a big difference is that the slide has been largely ad hoc, seat of the pants--the implications of some elements of conservative ideology have emerged across the response to bush's manner of framing the attacks. if bush were really a fascist, the ideology would have been clear from the start.

on a more historical note, fascism made the americans really nervous after 1945---they worried about it discrediting nationalism altogether (which of course it should have) you can see the conflicts play out if you look at the history of denazification==which is instructive to do. one symptom of this discomfort, which does not require a conspiracy theory to explain, is the way nazism in particular has been staged in films about the war--not as a function of an ideology, but rather in terms of a western film, fascists being the bad guys designated by their black hats, funny accents, evil intentions, unseemly affec tion for leather for straight men and ability to die in great numbers at the hands of the grizzled everyman american soldiers.

to freak yourself out, if this is possible, watch reifenstahl's "triumph of the will" and the framing programming shown around the 2001 super bowl one after the other.

roachboy · 06-07-2004, 06:36 AM

btw, the dictionary definitions of anarchism say almost nothing about the varity of positions that have been elaborated by anarchists--most of them really are, as was said earlier, about democratic control, often direct democratic. it is not about the absence of order, but about the question fo who controls order. it is not about the absence of law, but about the absence of formal law that reverses the relation between the people and the state--for anarchism in general, organizations should be subordinated to the people. this would require an informed polity and minimal distortion of information. which is one reason why these kinds of arguments about social/political form seem so abstract to americans in 2004.

Halx · 06-07-2004, 07:51 AM

roachboy, the use of divergent definitions of keywords does nothing but slow down the realization that things are fucked. Now, pay attention carefully. I used a scale: from the dictionary definition of anarchy, to the dictionary defintion of fascism. My assertation was that governments that lie nearer to fascism on this scale are bad and those that lie farther are good. All of your examples of different kinds of fascism are on the scale and thus are all still fascism and therefore fucked.

Simple as that.

roachboy · 06-07-2004, 08:14 AM

actually, halx, i might have misunderstood the whole situation and foolishly thought that something from my professional function as historian of europe in the 20th century might help with the matter of thinking about fascism.

the problem with ideological forms is that they are messy. dictionary definitions are not---they frequently traffic in bland lists of common features that get you nowhere once you shift into looking at the world. if you are interested in ideological problems, it might make sense for you to consider what that might entail analytically. but maybe you find dictionaries more useful if what you are interested in is an x is good, y is bad kind of thing. it spares you having to think about much in the way of annoying complexity. i understand.

your choice, your world.
carry on as you like.

Yakk · 06-07-2004, 08:42 AM

From "do not kill" do more laws than you can believe fall.

From "do not steal" do most of the rest.

And "do not abuse" can justify the rest.

Do not kill. Do not provide the imlements of killing. Do not aid in killing. Do not sell drugs that kill people, or make people more likely to kill others. Do not sell weapons designed solely for killing. Do not kill fetuses.

Do not rob. Do not take that which is not yours. Do not steal ideas. Do not walk on land you do not own. Obey those who you owe debt to or pay back the debt. Go to jail if you fail to pay back debt.

Do not abuse. Do not abuse images of people, do not...

We live in an anarchy in which people have organized into a government.

Kadath · 06-07-2004, 09:30 AM

EDIT: This section was not important to my point, and I'm taking it out.

All you do by dropping all laws but those three is take all power from the legislative branch and put it in the hands of the judicial. Judges will have to interpret those three laws as they apply to everything.

EDIT: My final statement was similarly unnecessary.

Halx · 06-07-2004, 11:08 AM

I feel I must explain that I REALIZE that a quick, clean mutation from what we are today as a society into my proposed ideal is completely unrealistic. Peoples arguments seem to revolve around how incompatible such ideals are with todays world - and I agree.

Now, what I am an advocate of is the *progression* into the ideal. The public can adjust to systematic introduction of freedoms better than it can adjust to a swift change of ideals and freedoms. Release law after law that restricts our human rights as people. While the ideal may never be reached, the very act of retreating from fascism is enough to free the minds of the people and make them happy and more free.

MSD · 06-07-2004, 04:33 PM

I agree completely with you about the fascist tendencies of modern governments and religions.

A simple rule of thumb (terms used indicate the most extreme form of each philosophy, not intermdediate degrees,) Authoritarian Conservatism is fascism, Authoritarian Neo-Liberalism (not classic liberalism) is Socialism/Communism

It seems that you would fall in the same category as me, Libertarian (Classic) Liberalism. Your statements regarding the three laws we need are the fundamental beliefs of the Libertarian Party

Halx · 06-07-2004, 07:48 PM

Forgive me if I reject being associated with any political party. I want my mind free to make decisions about issues on it's own.

apeman · 06-09-2004, 01:12 AM

what was the basic difference between fascism and communism/Stalinism? I'm not talking about theoretical communism here, just the brand they used in the USSR. Not a lot, in my opinion.

I think if you go far enough to the left or right you end up in same place.

MSD · 06-09-2004, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman
what was the basic difference between fascism and communism/Stalinism? I'm not talking about theoretical communism here, just the brand they used in the USSR. Not a lot, in my opinion.

I think if you go far enough to the left or right you end up in same place.

There was no difference. Nobody has made an attempt that ended up even close to true communism on a large scale. It has been used time and time again to exploit and trick people into supporting a fascist government by dangling the concept of utopia in front of their faces.

roachboy · 06-11-2004, 09:02 AM

actually, mr self-destruct, there we enormous differences between the systems. on the context of a conversation like this one, however, those differences are not that relevant, i guess.

what i meant by the previous post was that you can use fascism to talk about bushworld in a technical sense--with some reservations--it does not have to be a term that functions as a synonym for bad.....

whocarz · 06-20-2004, 03:29 AM

Think of political systems in terms of a circle. Too far left or right and you end at the exact same point, thus the similarities in Communism and facism. There may be differing reasons for arriving at the conclusion, but the results are the same. I personally don't believe true communism can work in the modern age on a large scale. A small, isolated, tight-knit community is, in my mind, what is required if such a system is to work. I might be wrong, but perhaps the best example of of true communism at work is Amish communities?

fuzyfuzer · 06-20-2004, 11:21 AM

i would love to be thrown into that world with only three rules but all the liberals out there have to remember that conservatives will be taking more power. think of these giant corporations we have now immagine if there were no more rules to stop monopolies do you think these people are going to go by the honar system i sure don't.

just remember to play devels advocate before you endorse somthing i guess that is waht the PABAAH people are not doing.

so bring it on i bet before i die i could amass a fine empire political or financial it doesent really matter to me

not everyone's heart is true

Tman144 · 06-27-2004, 12:23 AM

The only problem with this is that without a system of laws, I believe that people would gravitate towards a feudal type system. Where the people with guns and money dominte those without them and offer protection against other people with guns. People do form a system to organize themselves, unfortounately, the new system is much worse than what we have. We need laws to keep democracy in place.

In places where laws dissapear and there are large numbers of people, this system always crops up. It is in parts of Africa and now even in Afganistan now that we have destroyed the hard-line government that was keeping these powerful people down.

Facism doesn't appear when you make too many things illegal, it appears when someone wants power. Making things illegal is just a method of keeping power. The similarties between Russia and Germany were not going "too far left or right" but that a group of people wanted power. The communism and racist philoshphies were just a means to an end.

That is the problem with Bush and his friends. They attack dissidents because it undermines their power.

The real soultion to oppose a facist government is to make laws that protect the minorty from the majority. That way, no one can use hatred of a group to consolidate power (the Jews, the rich, blacks, ect.). Bush is trying to do the same thing with Arabs. If he can convince people that the Arabs are evil and we need to take special action against them, then it's all over. Next he can attack people who he claims work with the Arabs. That would lead to facisism, not making abortion illegal.

wonderwench · 06-27-2004, 07:19 AM

Leonard Peikoff wrote an excellent book on this topic called "The Ominous Parallels" in which he compares and contrasts the developments which led to Nazi Germany to America today.

IMO, we can thank the do-gooder philosophy of those who promote positive rights for the thousands of laws which make us all criminals. If we expect the government to take care of us, then we must all expect that it can regulate our private behavior. It's rather like bringing one's lover home for the holidays - mom and dad have every right to put the two in separate bedrooms; after all, it is their house.

Halx · 06-27-2004, 01:02 PM

Those of you arguing that a state with 3 laws would become a rogue state are spot-on.. that is, if you take today's society and thrust it into that situation. However, again, I am not proposing this as a solution. I am an advocate of the progression towards such a state.

In other words, let's start dropping a few 'social' laws here and there that restrict peoples' behavior. Free the people to be who they want to be.

roachboy · 06-27-2004, 02:07 PM

halx--if you want to avoid fascism in principle, the problem is not so much law as it is nationalism. fascists in practice were all for the reduction of the number of operational laws--not written ones so much as the number that functioned--to get there, the germans at least created something like a parallel state. a system of two or three laws (which i think would be a problem, but lets assume that it would be otherwise) in a situation of persistent nationalism would land you in the same place you are trying to argue against.

SinisterMotives · 06-27-2004, 02:29 PM

It's interesting that this discussion of fascism has barely touched on one of the major components of fascism as practiced by both Mussolini and our own government, and that is corporatism, or the collusion of government with corporate interests. This is an understandable omission in that corporatism is so ingrained in the political mindset of liberal and conservative Americans alike that we accept it as part and parcel of our sociopolitical system.

For example, we seldom question whether stimulating economic growth is a proper function of government, or whether the gross domestic product or some similar economic index is a valid indicator of the country's well-being. Similarly, such things as industry lobbying and corporate campaign donations - not to mention outright cronyism among government officials and their friends in the corporate sector - are taken in stride by persons of every political stripe. In cases where corporate interests come into conflict with environmental concerns, big business invariably wins. And how often do the people get a say in whether a new product should be introduced into our culture, or whether decisions made by some board of directors reflect the public interest?

I submit that corporations, and not government, are the real policy makers in America, and that the only people whose votes count are those who own a substantial amount of stock in those corporations. And since we all toe the corporatist party line, so to speak, when we succumb to the constant bombardment of corporatist propaganda in the form of advertisement and buy their products in an attempt to correct some deficiency in our lives, lifestyle, or self-image that the corporations themselves have thoughtfully invented for us without questioning whether we really need them in order to be healthy or happy, or to get along in society, we are tacitly consenting to be governed by them.

In effect, most of our partisan and ideological disagreements are rather pointless when viewed from a distance because we are all devout adherents to the one state religion, which we may variously call capitalism, corporatism, or consumerism depending on which aspect you want to examine.

roachboy · 06-27-2004, 03:02 PM

corporatism is the idea that there is a natural division of labor---it derives from the idea of the division of labor in ephesians i think---it is totally opposed to the idea of trade unions, which from a corporatist viewpoint would be abstract/horizontal and therefore bad bad bad---it is a reactionary corruption of older forms of trade organization--to the extent that contemporary conservatism opposes unions, opposes the idea that working people should mobilize to represent their interests against capital--and to the extent that the right uses a moralizing, atomizing view of the social to impose what amounts to a vision of a natural division of labour--in this case not stated as such, but rather through the reduction of poverty, for example, to matters of "character"--then the americans are already well on the way to this kind of space.

SinisterMotives · 06-27-2004, 03:19 PM

Roachboy, I avoided explicit use of the term "conservatism" in connection with fascism in my post because I wished to avoid triggering a defensive posture on the part of political conservatives and turning this into a typical "lefty vs. neo-con" argument, which I find tiresome. In other words, I was concerned that some may get hung up on specific words and thus miss my larger point. However, it is as you say.

roachboy · 06-27-2004, 03:33 PM

sorry if i messed about with a tactic--its always hard to distinguish such things on a board....

wonderwench · 06-27-2004, 03:51 PM

End corporate welfare and dismantle regulatory agencies which are the minor leagues for industry lobbyists and we will go a long ways towards reducing the cronyism between corporations and the government. Additionally, we should enact real campaign finance reform: eliminate federal funding of campaigns, allow only direct contributions that are immediately publicly disclosed of any amount, and get rid of PACs which enable large donors to hide their identities.

SM - your comments about the public being able to have a say in what products are introduced neglect to key concepts: Property Rights and Voluntary Transactions. Products fail when nobody buys them - the public does have an important voice in what is produced via their pocketbooks. The owners of capital have property rights thereof - which means they get to decide what to produce with it.

Personal liberty and private property go hand in hand. It is a feature of fascism to have state control of private property. To advocate for the political process to determine how private capital is used is a direct violation of the Constitution.

As an aside, I see the biggest threat of burgeoning fascism to be China. As the Communist Party manages the privatization of businesses to its loyal members and cronies, China is at risk of moving from Communism directly to Fascism.

SinisterMotives · 06-27-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
SM - your comments about the public being able to have a say in what products are introduced neglect to key concepts: Property Rights and Voluntary Transactions. Products fail when nobody buys them - the public does have an important voice in what is produced via their pocketbooks.

Yes, but only after the product has been released. That's fine in most cases, but let's say, for example, that my cornfield is adjacent to yours (or even a few miles away) and you decide to plant genetically engineered corn - which you indeed have the right to do because you presumably own the property on which you planted it. However, the genetically engineered pollen will inevitably come into contact with my plants and eventually contaminate my entire crop - perhaps for many seasons to come. Is that not a violation of my property rights? If I am vehemently opposed to genetically engineered foods, does it not undermine on my right to self-determination? This is the type of thing I'm talking about when I say that the citizens have no say in what corporations foist onto society and the environment. In short, while people may vote with their wallets on whether the product remains on the market, they are more or less powerless to prevent its seeing the light of day in the first place.

wonderwench · 06-27-2004, 04:16 PM

Yes, I would call it a violation of your property rights to have your land and crops contaminated by bio-engineered pollen. You are using a rather extreme example - and one with which the law has not kept up.

My comment about property rights has to do with how capital is employed within reason. Just because someone may not like a product for aesthetic, environmental or whatever reasons, unless they can show a real impact upon their own liberty or property rights, then the owners of the capital should be able to proceed with production.

roachboy · 06-27-2004, 04:57 PM

fascism in the real world had no problem with private property.

wonderwench · 06-27-2004, 04:59 PM

Fascism in the real world allows for ownership of private property, but control of the use of that property is dictated by the state. In other words, the owners bear the expense of maintaining said property, but the productive use of it is in the hands of the government.

SinisterMotives · 06-27-2004, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
Yes, I would call it a violation of your property rights to have your land and crops contaminated by bio-engineered pollen. You are using a rather extreme example - and one with which the law has not kept up.

My comment about property rights has to do with how capital is employed within reason. Just because someone may not like a product for aesthetic, environmental or whatever reasons, unless they can show a real impact upon their own liberty or property rights, then the owners of the capital should be able to proceed with production.

Okay, let's use a universally accepted, presumably inocuous product as an example. I don't drive a motor vehicle, yet those who do drive pollute the air I breath, thus creating a potential health threat that undermines the steps I might take (as a matter of personal liberty) to protect my health. Moreover, since what goes up must come down, the acid rain is once again contaminating my organic cornfield. Granted, that probably wouldn't affect the marketability of my produce now that the current corporatist administration has rendered the "organic" food label all but meaningless, but let's say for the sake of argument that these are both valid concerns.

SinisterMotives · 06-27-2004, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
Fascism in the real world allows for ownership of private property, but control of the use of that property is dictated by the state. In other words, the owners bear the expense of maintaining said property, but the productive use of it is in the hands of the government.

True. And city, state, and federal governments in the US place many stipulations on how one may develop one's own property.

wonderwench · 06-28-2004, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Okay, let's use a universally accepted, presumably inocuous product as an example. I don't drive a motor vehicle, yet those who do drive pollute the air I breath, thus creating a potential health threat that undermines the steps I might take (as a matter of personal liberty) to protect my health. Moreover, since what goes up must come down, the acid rain is once again contaminating my organic cornfield. Granted, that probably wouldn't affect the marketability of my produce now that the current corporatist administration has rendered the "organic" food label all but meaningless, but let's say for the sake of argument that these are both valid concerns.

First, there is not universal scientific agreement regarding air pollution (re: The Skeptical Environmentalist). Second, there are always going to be economic vs. environmental trade-offs. For example, if we suddenly outlawed the internal combustion engine, what would happen to our economy? How many people's lives would be harmed due to lack of employment? How many would die due to lack of ambulance service?

The horse is out of the barn on autos. The best we can do is to transition towards higher fuel efficiency and cleaner alternative energy solutions.

In a societal context, the best we can do is to assess a valid cost-benefit of the solution to the problem, and act in the greater good.

To address the more general issue of property rights, I would prefer that we had less "commons" and more individual owned property. Air quality is a problem because air is viewed as being part of the "commons". If you owned the air above your property, then you would have more of a legal standing to protect it.

SinisterMotives · 06-28-2004, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
For example, if we suddenly outlawed the internal combustion engine, what would happen to our economy? How many people's lives would be harmed due to lack of employment? How many would die due to lack of ambulance service?

I'm not arguing for the elimination of automobiles. It was an admittedly facetious example. As you know, I do that a lot just for the sake of argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
The horse is out of the barn on autos.

And that's my point right there. The product has drastically and irrevocably changed society, the landscape, and the lives of every single individual on earth, and not once did anyone ever question the necessity nor the presumed benefits of introducing it into either society or the environment prior to doing so.

wonderwench · 06-28-2004, 07:31 AM

Do you really think when the first autos were introduced that anyone at that time could have predicted the current state of the world?

You are also neglecting the enormous benefit that many people have received from autos.

06-06-2004, 10:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
Asuka{eve} Addict Location: Oh God, the rain!	Facism is strong emotion without logical reason. And in the cause of your radio station example the pabaah just shout and moan because they dont like it and thats it. Your words ring true Halx. There used to be no way like the American way but is the new American becoming more fascist, like a disease that is degrading our true, actual freedoms? Is patriotism being used as thinly veiled fascism to spit at those who might just have a little to say? Last edited by Asuka{eve}; 06-06-2004 at 10:40 PM..

06-06-2004, 11:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
Spartak Bang bang Location: New Zealand	I thought Facism was extreme Nationalism with a strong racist ideology ? And the racist ideology part was rather important... __________________ I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

06-07-2004, 12:58 AM	#5 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control Racism is an optional enforcement of fascism, but it's not included standard. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-07-2004, 12:59 AM	#6 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	And a dictionary definition of anarchy to balance it out: 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority This is what I was going off of, hammer. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-07-2004, 01:07 AM	#7 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	I'd agree with most of that... however I think "cryptofascist" is an even better word because it means hidden fasiscm. Also sounds slightly better. __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy Last edited by apeman; 06-07-2004 at 01:12 AM..

06-07-2004, 04:53 AM	#8 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Well, I think PABAAH has every right to make threats like the one you quote. It's your typical boycott. But that may have not been your argument. People, such as myself, can be for criminalizing abortion and yet fall far closer to anarchy than fascism on your scale. Why? Because it harms one's neighbors. You'll probably disagree with that, but that's the rationale myself and others employ. I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm for the criminalization of abortion, leaning towards criminalization of euthanasia, and undecided on hard drugs (above alcohol and marijuana). Otherwise, your characterization doesn't fit me. And I think there's plenty more that it doesn't fit. I know that there's entire groups of pro-choice Christians out there, for instance. I'll conceed that your characterization of religion is often accurate, but I think it's also often inaccurate. Other than those quibbles, I agree. Abortion aside, I suppose I'm just a bit closer to fascism than you. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

06-07-2004, 06:31 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the difficulty with defining fascism comes from the fact that it has been nothing but a series of variations--spain was not like prtugal was not like italy was not like germany, etc....and bushworld, which does share many features of the general ideology, may at some point end up being seen as another variant. the similarities are obvious--- fascism operates within a state of emergency. it is about the ability of a Leader to react in situations when "democracy" (the american versions requires the scare quotes) is understood as inefficient. that bushworld has used the sense of a state of emergency, and created a scale that would make it easier to slide into a legal state of emergency are both evident. bush did not create this relatively cavalier attitude toward the state of emergency, however--this is a legacy of ronald reagan. that bushworld has contempt for democracy (not the word, but the reality) is evident---the idea shared by bush and ashcroft and maybe others that they are on a mission from god grounds this contempt. fascism articulates itself around a nationalism embodied in the figure of the Leader; arguments about a national destiny get wrapped in military symbols; the nation is defined around predicates that do not admit of conflict, of history (bush is all about this, but then so are a lot of american politicos, whence the problem with the term fascism...).... fascism is about war against an enemy that is both within and without (it seems to me that the present situation with reference to islam in the states is a weak variant of the more extreme and systematic model--but given features like the legal black hole into which "enemies of the state" can be tossed, it is a matter of degree rather than of kind...). endless war is a device to unify the people. that the core constituency for this ideology is petit bourgeois (lower middle class) is another parallel--witness the audience for the limbaughs of this world---this kind of nationalism becomes a surrogate community that allows for a sublimation of anxiety about social and economic status. i would argue that neocon ideology in the broad sense is about little more than anxiety provoked by globalizing capitalism and its implications for the (increasingly obsolete) category of the nation-state---and that the iraq war is the theater of the conflict as the neocons see it between transnational mechanisms for steering capitalism and the nation-state. the suppression of dissent had been largely rhetorical so far. the slide from rhetoric to reality is worrying at moments of real or manufactured crisis. on the other hand, i do not see the transition from rhetorical to real violence, from arguments that systemtically work to delegitimate dissent to the reality of actual suppression of dissent as being automatic. sometimes i find this comforting, other times not.... i wonder about how a future analysis of bushworld will deal with the role of television in all this. remember that fascism in general has used the leading edge of mass media to package itself and its vision of the nation.... divergences include the creation of a parallel state (in the german case)--the absence of an organic theory of the division of labour (the italian case). also, i think that regardless of how close bush and his minions have drifted to fascism since 911, a big difference is that the slide has been largely ad hoc, seat of the pants--the implications of some elements of conservative ideology have emerged across the response to bush's manner of framing the attacks. if bush were really a fascist, the ideology would have been clear from the start. on a more historical note, fascism made the americans really nervous after 1945---they worried about it discrediting nationalism altogether (which of course it should have) you can see the conflicts play out if you look at the history of denazification==which is instructive to do. one symptom of this discomfort, which does not require a conspiracy theory to explain, is the way nazism in particular has been staged in films about the war--not as a function of an ideology, but rather in terms of a western film, fascists being the bad guys designated by their black hats, funny accents, evil intentions, unseemly affec tion for leather for straight men and ability to die in great numbers at the hands of the grizzled everyman american soldiers. to freak yourself out, if this is possible, watch reifenstahl's "triumph of the will" and the framing programming shown around the 2001 super bowl one after the other. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-07-2004, 06:36 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	btw, the dictionary definitions of anarchism say almost nothing about the varity of positions that have been elaborated by anarchists--most of them really are, as was said earlier, about democratic control, often direct democratic. it is not about the absence of order, but about the question fo who controls order. it is not about the absence of law, but about the absence of formal law that reverses the relation between the people and the state--for anarchism in general, organizations should be subordinated to the people. this would require an informed polity and minimal distortion of information. which is one reason why these kinds of arguments about social/political form seem so abstract to americans in 2004. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-07-2004, 07:51 AM	#11 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	roachboy, the use of divergent definitions of keywords does nothing but slow down the realization that things are fucked. Now, pay attention carefully. I used a scale: from the dictionary definition of anarchy, to the dictionary defintion of fascism. My assertation was that governments that lie nearer to fascism on this scale are bad and those that lie farther are good. All of your examples of different kinds of fascism are on the scale and thus are all still fascism and therefore fucked. Simple as that. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-07-2004, 08:14 AM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	actually, halx, i might have misunderstood the whole situation and foolishly thought that something from my professional function as historian of europe in the 20th century might help with the matter of thinking about fascism. the problem with ideological forms is that they are messy. dictionary definitions are not---they frequently traffic in bland lists of common features that get you nowhere once you shift into looking at the world. if you are interested in ideological problems, it might make sense for you to consider what that might entail analytically. but maybe you find dictionaries more useful if what you are interested in is an x is good, y is bad kind of thing. it spares you having to think about much in the way of annoying complexity. i understand. your choice, your world. carry on as you like. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-07-2004, 08:42 AM	#13 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	From "do not kill" do more laws than you can believe fall. From "do not steal" do most of the rest. And "do not abuse" can justify the rest. Do not kill. Do not provide the imlements of killing. Do not aid in killing. Do not sell drugs that kill people, or make people more likely to kill others. Do not sell weapons designed solely for killing. Do not kill fetuses. Do not rob. Do not take that which is not yours. Do not steal ideas. Do not walk on land you do not own. Obey those who you owe debt to or pay back the debt. Go to jail if you fail to pay back debt. Do not abuse. Do not abuse images of people, do not... We live in an anarchy in which people have organized into a government. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

06-07-2004, 09:30 AM	#14 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	EDIT: This section was not important to my point, and I'm taking it out. All you do by dropping all laws but those three is take all power from the legislative branch and put it in the hands of the judicial. Judges will have to interpret those three laws as they apply to everything. EDIT: My final statement was similarly unnecessary. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 06-07-2004 at 11:58 AM..

06-07-2004, 11:08 AM	#15 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I feel I must explain that I REALIZE that a quick, clean mutation from what we are today as a society into my proposed ideal is completely unrealistic. Peoples arguments seem to revolve around how incompatible such ideals are with todays world - and I agree. Now, what I am an advocate of is the progression into the ideal. The public can adjust to systematic introduction of freedoms better than it can adjust to a swift change of ideals and freedoms. Release law after law that restricts our human rights as people. While the ideal may never be reached, the very act of retreating from fascism is enough to free the minds of the people and make them happy and more free. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-07-2004, 04:33 PM	#16 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I agree completely with you about the fascist tendencies of modern governments and religions. A simple rule of thumb (terms used indicate the most extreme form of each philosophy, not intermdediate degrees,) Authoritarian Conservatism is fascism, Authoritarian Neo-Liberalism (not classic liberalism) is Socialism/Communism It seems that you would fall in the same category as me, Libertarian (Classic) Liberalism. Your statements regarding the three laws we need are the fundamental beliefs of the Libertarian Party

06-07-2004, 07:48 PM	#17 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Forgive me if I reject being associated with any political party. I want my mind free to make decisions about issues on it's own. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-09-2004, 01:12 AM	#18 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	what was the basic difference between fascism and communism/Stalinism? I'm not talking about theoretical communism here, just the brand they used in the USSR. Not a lot, in my opinion. I think if you go far enough to the left or right you end up in same place. __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-11-2004, 09:02 AM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	actually, mr self-destruct, there we enormous differences between the systems. on the context of a conversation like this one, however, those differences are not that relevant, i guess. what i meant by the previous post was that you can use fascism to talk about bushworld in a technical sense--with some reservations--it does not have to be a term that functions as a synonym for bad..... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-20-2004, 03:29 AM	#21 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Think of political systems in terms of a circle. Too far left or right and you end at the exact same point, thus the similarities in Communism and facism. There may be differing reasons for arriving at the conclusion, but the results are the same. I personally don't believe true communism can work in the modern age on a large scale. A small, isolated, tight-knit community is, in my mind, what is required if such a system is to work. I might be wrong, but perhaps the best example of of true communism at work is Amish communities? __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

06-20-2004, 11:21 AM	#22 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	i would love to be thrown into that world with only three rules but all the liberals out there have to remember that conservatives will be taking more power. think of these giant corporations we have now immagine if there were no more rules to stop monopolies do you think these people are going to go by the honar system i sure don't. just remember to play devels advocate before you endorse somthing i guess that is waht the PABAAH people are not doing. so bring it on i bet before i die i could amass a fine empire political or financial it doesent really matter to me not everyone's heart is true __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

06-27-2004, 12:23 AM	#23 (permalink)
Tman144 Tilted	The only problem with this is that without a system of laws, I believe that people would gravitate towards a feudal type system. Where the people with guns and money dominte those without them and offer protection against other people with guns. People do form a system to organize themselves, unfortounately, the new system is much worse than what we have. We need laws to keep democracy in place. In places where laws dissapear and there are large numbers of people, this system always crops up. It is in parts of Africa and now even in Afganistan now that we have destroyed the hard-line government that was keeping these powerful people down. Facism doesn't appear when you make too many things illegal, it appears when someone wants power. Making things illegal is just a method of keeping power. The similarties between Russia and Germany were not going "too far left or right" but that a group of people wanted power. The communism and racist philoshphies were just a means to an end. That is the problem with Bush and his friends. They attack dissidents because it undermines their power. The real soultion to oppose a facist government is to make laws that protect the minorty from the majority. That way, no one can use hatred of a group to consolidate power (the Jews, the rich, blacks, ect.). Bush is trying to do the same thing with Arabs. If he can convince people that the Arabs are evil and we need to take special action against them, then it's all over. Next he can attack people who he claims work with the Arabs. That would lead to facisism, not making abortion illegal. __________________ "Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

06-27-2004, 07:19 AM	#24 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	Leonard Peikoff wrote an excellent book on this topic called "The Ominous Parallels" in which he compares and contrasts the developments which led to Nazi Germany to America today. IMO, we can thank the do-gooder philosophy of those who promote positive rights for the thousands of laws which make us all criminals. If we expect the government to take care of us, then we must all expect that it can regulate our private behavior. It's rather like bringing one's lover home for the holidays - mom and dad have every right to put the two in separate bedrooms; after all, it is their house.

06-27-2004, 01:02 PM	#25 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Those of you arguing that a state with 3 laws would become a rogue state are spot-on.. that is, if you take today's society and thrust it into that situation. However, again, I am not proposing this as a solution. I am an advocate of the progression towards such a state. In other words, let's start dropping a few 'social' laws here and there that restrict peoples' behavior. Free the people to be who they want to be. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-27-2004, 02:07 PM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	halx--if you want to avoid fascism in principle, the problem is not so much law as it is nationalism. fascists in practice were all for the reduction of the number of operational laws--not written ones so much as the number that functioned--to get there, the germans at least created something like a parallel state. a system of two or three laws (which i think would be a problem, but lets assume that it would be otherwise) in a situation of persistent nationalism would land you in the same place you are trying to argue against. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-27-2004, 02:29 PM	#27 (permalink)
SinisterMotives Junkie	It's interesting that this discussion of fascism has barely touched on one of the major components of fascism as practiced by both Mussolini and our own government, and that is corporatism, or the collusion of government with corporate interests. This is an understandable omission in that corporatism is so ingrained in the political mindset of liberal and conservative Americans alike that we accept it as part and parcel of our sociopolitical system. For example, we seldom question whether stimulating economic growth is a proper function of government, or whether the gross domestic product or some similar economic index is a valid indicator of the country's well-being. Similarly, such things as industry lobbying and corporate campaign donations - not to mention outright cronyism among government officials and their friends in the corporate sector - are taken in stride by persons of every political stripe. In cases where corporate interests come into conflict with environmental concerns, big business invariably wins. And how often do the people get a say in whether a new product should be introduced into our culture, or whether decisions made by some board of directors reflect the public interest? I submit that corporations, and not government, are the real policy makers in America, and that the only people whose votes count are those who own a substantial amount of stock in those corporations. And since we all toe the corporatist party line, so to speak, when we succumb to the constant bombardment of corporatist propaganda in the form of advertisement and buy their products in an attempt to correct some deficiency in our lives, lifestyle, or self-image that the corporations themselves have thoughtfully invented for us without questioning whether we really need them in order to be healthy or happy, or to get along in society, we are tacitly consenting to be governed by them. In effect, most of our partisan and ideological disagreements are rather pointless when viewed from a distance because we are all devout adherents to the one state religion, which we may variously call capitalism, corporatism, or consumerism depending on which aspect you want to examine.

06-27-2004, 03:02 PM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	corporatism is the idea that there is a natural division of labor---it derives from the idea of the division of labor in ephesians i think---it is totally opposed to the idea of trade unions, which from a corporatist viewpoint would be abstract/horizontal and therefore bad bad bad---it is a reactionary corruption of older forms of trade organization--to the extent that contemporary conservatism opposes unions, opposes the idea that working people should mobilize to represent their interests against capital--and to the extent that the right uses a moralizing, atomizing view of the social to impose what amounts to a vision of a natural division of labour--in this case not stated as such, but rather through the reduction of poverty, for example, to matters of "character"--then the americans are already well on the way to this kind of space. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-27-2004, 03:19 PM	#29 (permalink)
SinisterMotives Junkie	Roachboy, I avoided explicit use of the term "conservatism" in connection with fascism in my post because I wished to avoid triggering a defensive posture on the part of political conservatives and turning this into a typical "lefty vs. neo-con" argument, which I find tiresome. In other words, I was concerned that some may get hung up on specific words and thus miss my larger point. However, it is as you say.

06-27-2004, 03:33 PM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sorry if i messed about with a tactic--its always hard to distinguish such things on a board.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-27-2004, 03:51 PM	#31 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	End corporate welfare and dismantle regulatory agencies which are the minor leagues for industry lobbyists and we will go a long ways towards reducing the cronyism between corporations and the government. Additionally, we should enact real campaign finance reform: eliminate federal funding of campaigns, allow only direct contributions that are immediately publicly disclosed of any amount, and get rid of PACs which enable large donors to hide their identities. SM - your comments about the public being able to have a say in what products are introduced neglect to key concepts: Property Rights and Voluntary Transactions. Products fail when nobody buys them - the public does have an important voice in what is produced via their pocketbooks. The owners of capital have property rights thereof - which means they get to decide what to produce with it. Personal liberty and private property go hand in hand. It is a feature of fascism to have state control of private property. To advocate for the political process to determine how private capital is used is a direct violation of the Constitution. As an aside, I see the biggest threat of burgeoning fascism to be China. As the Communist Party manages the privatization of businesses to its loyal members and cronies, China is at risk of moving from Communism directly to Fascism.

06-27-2004, 04:16 PM	#33 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	Yes, I would call it a violation of your property rights to have your land and crops contaminated by bio-engineered pollen. You are using a rather extreme example - and one with which the law has not kept up. My comment about property rights has to do with how capital is employed within reason. Just because someone may not like a product for aesthetic, environmental or whatever reasons, unless they can show a real impact upon their own liberty or property rights, then the owners of the capital should be able to proceed with production.

06-27-2004, 04:57 PM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	fascism in the real world had no problem with private property. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-27-2004, 04:59 PM	#35 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	Fascism in the real world allows for ownership of private property, but control of the use of that property is dictated by the state. In other words, the owners bear the expense of maintaining said property, but the productive use of it is in the hands of the government.

06-28-2004, 07:31 AM	#40 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	Do you really think when the first autos were introduced that anyone at that time could have predicted the current state of the world? You are also neglecting the enormous benefit that many people have received from autos.