Fascism

[Ben No.3]

 

The term "fascist" is very broad today. In its original sense it comes from Italy and was implemented by Mussolini. Mussolini himself was surprisingly left, but mixed this with extreme nationalism, which is classically considered more of a right wing ideology. More obvious is this for the Nazis. Hitler had the same spin, and this is obvious in the term "National Socialism"; more so he even added extreme beliefs concerning race (classically another right wing topic). Stalin and Mao also did a somewhat similar thing, combining Communism with extreme nationalism. Now all of the previously mentioned ended up in tyrannical, totalitarian dictatorships; therefore I feel the need to express how alienated this is form the original socialism, which is a very international and egalitarian movement. This can be pointed out in countless ways; but as an example, the most famous socialist song is even called "The Internationale". However, it should also be pointed out that indeed the nationalisation of all industries, a classicaly left topic, especially in combination with the one party state is an extremely slippery slope.

 

in short you get back to what i say: fascism is a totalitarian ideology and totalitarians are all about silencing those who disagree (be they left or right that silence the other... but it is true that usually the left are more keen to act this way)

I didn't feel like further penetrating the comedy thread. But I sense a lot of misconceptions here.

 

The term "left" and "right" originate, at least in my country, from the provisional parliament erected in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt during our very own Revolution (which, of course, failed). For better orientation, the members that were supposed to outline a constitution were seated according to political orientation. The right side was given to more conservative forces, that seemed to implement a parliamentary monarchy, but to keep the king as a strong political force. The further you went to the left, the more revolutionary the demands became, with advocates calling for the complete abolishment of the monarchy and the institution of a complete democracy. Of course, these appealed to different audiences, with the left appealing mostly to the common man and seeking his empowerment; while the right wing mostly appealed to the elites that wished to retain their power. It is easy to see why socialist and communist movements are considered left wing, since they are ultimately a workers movement. More extreme, it is also easy to see why anarchism is considered a left winged ideology: it seeks the ultimate freedom (and thus empowerment) of the individual, and seeks to do so through the abolition of the state. In turn, we can more easily understand why nationalism, racism, sexism etc. are classically associated with the right wing: They empower the respective elite, and they retain a status quo.

 

All of this considered, we can see one pattern emergin: classically, the left wing seeks to institute a more egalitarian society, be it through peaceful means of reform or violent means of revolution, while the right wing seeks to maintain a authoritarian society.

 

Mussolini's fascims, Hitler's National Socialsm and Stalinism as well as Maoism and Juche (North Korea's official political ideology) are therefore historically very interesting: while they do either truly originate in left winged thought (such as Mussolini and Mao) or hijack left winged thought to appeal to a wider audience (such as Hitler and Stalin), they quickly assume very right winged positions of building up extremely authoritarian (thus non egalitarian) societies. Hitler took this to the extreme by building up his extremly race based society. In contrast, some "true" left winged policies: the communist party of the US was a heavy supporter of the black movement, Lenin made women in all senses equal to men and even legalised homosexuality (which interestingly Stalin illegalised again), the GDR (German Democratic Republic, a one party state with a socialist planned economy), even though heavily influenced by its Stalinist origins, allowed abortion as early as the 70s, while the (now still existing) FRG (Federal Republic of Germany, a parliamentary representative democracy with a capitalist economy) only allowed this after the reunification.

 

So it really pretends on what you associate with "left" and "right". Classically, the left is associated with egalitarianism and internationalism while the right is associated with conservativism, authoritatism and nationalism. Note I excluded patriotism, since this can be an element of both (for example, every revolution, communist or not, always has strong patriotic elements). So to say that "the left" is usually the one keen on dismissing other opinions is a controversial topic. While certainly some left winger might be keen on a revolution, which necessarily dismisses conservative views, authoritarianism and the associated limits on for example free speech is a right winged view.

[Guard Dog]

It is an funny thing how all the "----cisms" have real and consistent definitions but in reality mean different things to different people in different places. I used to hear it here about how Obama was a socialist. I'd reply they should probably look words up in the dictionary before using them in a sentence.The word Liberal has a very different meaning in the US than in Europe or elsewhere. By the real definition I'm one of the biggest liberals around but by the US definition I'm far from it. It's also ironic and in Europe and Asia the right wing is the authoritarian faction. The the US and Canada too it's the left wing.

 

The biggest problems with political discussions is sometimes we're not even all speaking the same language and don't even realize it!

[Ben No.3]

It is an funny thing how all the "----cisms" have real and consistent definitions but in reality mean different things to different people in different places. I used to hear it here about how Obama was a socialist. I'd reply they should probably look words up in the dictionary before using them in a sentence.The word Liberal has a very different meaning in the US than in Europe or elsewhere. By the real definition I'm one of the biggest liberals around but by the US definition I'm far from it. It's also ironic and in Europe and Asia the right wing is the authoritarian faction. The the US and Canada too it's the left wing.

 

The biggest problems with political discussions is sometimes we're not even all speaking the same language and don't even realize it!

Agreed. Although when I say "authoritarian", I mean socially; so basically supporting the existence and perhaps even strengthening of social hierarchies. Your left wing supports this?

 

As for people calling Obama a socialist, I always assumed that "socialist" is for many in the US an insult for someone on the left (or rather, left from themselves)?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

No, enforcement of social (or moral) hierarchies is the US is more of a conservative position. But the left well, really the Democrats because I would not apply this as much to the Greens,  are by far the party of government control and authoritarianism here.

[Ben No.3]

No, enforcement of social (or moral) hierarchies is the US is more of a conservative position. But the left well, really the Democrats because I would not apply this as much to the Greens, are by far the party of government control and authoritarianism here.

As in, regulations on the economy? That I think is a left winged topic everywhere

[Guard Dog]

Economics certainly. But that isn't all of it. The Democracts are pro-gun control, advocating not just regulation but confiscation and prohibition. They are opponents to private property rights, proponents of imminent domain seizures, and their politicians are usually behind all efforts at Federal land use restrictions and lease terminations. They are opponents of free speech with the Democrat member on the FEC actively trying to sensor web sites, news programs, etc. Their attempts to keep a movie from being made and shown were the cause of the landmark Supreme Court Case FEC vs Citizens United. The Democrats were so angry about that Barack Obama called out the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address. No President has ever done that. They are absolute opponents of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution which defers all powers not listed in the Constitution to the State governments. Since the days of FDR they have been working dilligently to undermine this and consolidate political power at the Federal level. The do seem to favor a more liberal position on gay marriage and adoption but that is a fairly new position for them. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton were firmly against both in 2008.

 

I would not call the US Democrat Part socialist by any means. Although they do favor some ideas associated with socialisim. I'd best describe them as the anti-liberty party. The thing they seem to oppose the most is real freedom. They are the Oligarchs of the US political system. Absolute rule by elietes. They attract the kind of people who believe they are better, smarter, more moral than the common folks who should do as they say. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect personified in a political party.

 

Now, that the Democrats are anti-liberty does not make the Republican party pro-liberty I'm sorry to say. They are not opposites. They are more pro liberty than the Democrats but the choice between the two often ends up being the equivalent of kissing a tiger or kissing a lion.

 

Only one political faction in the US is consistently pro-liberty in all areas economic and social. The one I am a dues paying member of myself:  https://www.lp.org/

Edited April 8, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Ben No.3]

https://www.lp.org/

Damn, that's a cool logo your party has. Although I'd argue these guys have a cooler one http://www.cpusa.org

 

On a more serious note: Since you seem like a somewhat more... sophisticated guy, I would be interested to know what you think about socialism, communism, anarchism and the whole (far) left bunch. Just out of interest

Edited April 8, 2017 by Ben No.3

[majestic]

 

https://www.lp.org/

Damn, that's a cool logo your party has. Although I'd argue these guys have a cooler one http://www.cpusa.org

 

On a more serious note: Since you seem like a somewhat more... sophisticated guy, I would be interested to know what you think about socialism, communism, anarchism and the whole (far) left bunch. Just out of interest

 

Most likely the same thing you think about pure laissez-faire capitalism. Think of a group that would make your FDP look like a bunch of socialists whiners and there you go, libertarians.

Edited April 8, 2017 by majestic

[Ben No.3]

 

 

https://www.lp.org/

Damn, that's a cool logo your party has. Although I'd argue these guys have a cooler one http://www.cpusa.org

 

On a more serious note: Since you seem like a somewhat more... sophisticated guy, I would be interested to know what you think about socialism, communism, anarchism and the whole (far) left bunch. Just out of interest

Most likely the same thing you think about pure laissez-faire capitalism. Think of a group that would make your FDP look like a bunch of socialists whiners and there you go, libertarians.

I obviously can't judge wether the libertarian party is genuine or wether it's a bunch of billionaires trying to further reduce tax and regulation. Assuming they are genuine, I have somewhat sympathy for them. I think socialistd and libertarians alike try to answer the same question: How can we guarantee a maximum freedom to te people? They just came up with very different answers. Guard Dog likes the quote (something along the lines of) "A society that puts equality before liberty will get none, a society that puts liberty before equality will archieve both". I think liberty and equality can only and exclusively coexist, and I see socialism as a way to arcueve this. But ultimately, I am only some person with opinions, and so I respect anyone with different opinions who seeks the same goals. I think I'd be dumb to dismiss anyone's views if he seeks such a goal. Edited April 8, 2017 by Ben No.3

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

[Guard Dog]

I'm sorry Ben but I'm afraid I have to agree with KP here. What you are asking for is a regurgitation of literally thousands of words of text I've posted here in the last 13 years of posting (can't believe it's been that long). And some of that recently in exchanges with you. I'm not sure I have anything to say that would not be repetitive. The pro's and con's of all the differing socio-economic systems have been argued to death and we are all pretty immovable on them.

 

So with that said let's focus on something a little more specific that you have brought up; the dichotomy between freedom and equality. You stated liberty & equality can only exclusively co-exist. I disagree. Suppose I have three cows and you have one. I'm selling three times more milk than you are so I'm probably doing a little better than you are. What then is the solution then? Have the government take one of my cows and give it to you? Increase the tax I pay on the sale of milk and give you the difference? In either case I'm losing something I worked to produce or have and you are gaining something you didn't earn. It might be equal... it sure ain't liberty.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Ben No.3]

I'm sorry Ben but I'm afraid I have to agree with KP here. What you are asking for is a regurgitation of literally thousands of words of text I've posted here in the last 13 years of posting (can't believe it's been that long). And some of that recently in exchanges with you. I'm not sure I have anything to say that would not be repetitive. The pro's and con's of all the differing socio-economic systems have been argued to death and we are all pretty immovable on them.

 

So with that said let's focus on something a little more specific that you have brought up; the dichotomy between freedom and equality. You stated liberty & equality can only exclusively co-exist. I disagree. Suppose I have three cows and you have one. I'm selling three times more milk than you are so I'm probably doing a little better than you are. What then is the solution then? Have the government take one of my cows and give it to you? Increase the tax I pay on the sale of milk and give you the difference? In either case I'm losing something I worked to produce or have and you are gaining something you didn't earn. It might be equal... it sure ain't liberty.

Since you make much more money than me, you can lobby local politicians to further decrease taxes and regulations. You succeed due to te money you can offer him for his campaign, so regulations go down. You can expand much more quickly because you have more to start with, you become the dominant force on the local farmers market. At some point, I have no choice but to sell you my cow and seek employment at your farm. You make me milk your now four cows, pay me minimum wage, and live a wealthy life of the milk I (and the cows) produce for you. I dislike the conditions I work under, but you through your monopoly made it practically impossible for a low skilled farmer like me to find a job anywhere else.

 

See what I mean?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

 

I'm sorry Ben but I'm afraid I have to agree with KP here. What you are asking for is a regurgitation of literally thousands of words of text I've posted here in the last 13 years of posting (can't believe it's been that long). And some of that recently in exchanges with you. I'm not sure I have anything to say that would not be repetitive. The pro's and con's of all the differing socio-economic systems have been argued to death and we are all pretty immovable on them.

 

So with that said let's focus on something a little more specific that you have brought up; the dichotomy between freedom and equality. You stated liberty & equality can only exclusively co-exist. I disagree. Suppose I have three cows and you have one. I'm selling three times more milk than you are so I'm probably doing a little better than you are. What then is the solution then? Have the government take one of my cows and give it to you? Increase the tax I pay on the sale of milk and give you the difference? In either case I'm losing something I worked to produce or have and you are gaining something you didn't earn. It might be equal... it sure ain't liberty.

Since you make much more money than me, you can lobby local politicians to further decrease taxes and regulations. You succeed due to te money you can offer him for his campaign, so regulations go down. You can expand much more quickly because you have more to start with, you become the dominant force on the local farmers market. At some point, I have no choice but to sell you my cow and seek employment at your farm. You make me milk your now four cows, pay me minimum wage, and live a wealthy life of the milk I (and the cows) produce for you. I dislike the conditions I work under, but you through your monopoly made it practically impossible for a low skilled farmer like me to find a job anywhere else.

 

See what I mean?

 

 

Another way to go would be to borrow money from someone, lease one of my cows to breed with yours, start raising the calves, get out of the dairy business and corner the steak market. And if taxes were non-existent or limited to a fixed rate (as the libertarians want)  and the local government limited in scope and size (as the libertarians want) there would be no point in me bribing the local politicians for anti-competitive regulations that favor me because in the world I envision the government is to small to help me screw over my neighbors.

 

Another idea would be a slick ad campaign prominently featuring a picture of your cow and the healthy food you give her and the quality milk she produces that is superior to my three sweat shop cows and you can charge double what I am. You might not catch me that way but you'll more than get by. People will pay for quality real or perceived. Case in point. I went grocery shopping yesterday. Budweiser cost's $5.99 a six pack. Goose Island IPA costs $8.99 a six pack. I bought the Goose Island. But hey, they are both beer. You see, it works.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Guard Dog

[JFSOCC]

There is this experiment they did recently in Stanford University. They rigged a game of monopoly one player would get three times as much as the other whenever they passed Go.

Despite knowing of their advantage, when they started winning the game, they started telling the losing player what they were doing wrong. Why didn't you do this? why not try that?

If there was food or snacks left nearby in a communal bowl, the "winner" would appropriate it, start eating as if they owned it, started chewing loudly, speaking more loudly, hanging over the game board, speaking loudly about the great decisions they were making and the good math they were doing.

But not once acknowledging the fact that they got three times as much money whenever they passed Go.

 

The narrative automatically became "I succeeded because of my own ability" Ye olde I pulled myself up by my own bootlaces narrative that the political right loves so much, and that strong-man populist dictators love so much.

 

You, having the advantages of having more cows to milk, have gained enough income to invest in these things you're proposing the losing player to do. The player with one Cow however is behind the curve, and incapable of making these choices. They worry about getting enough cheese to feed the family, let alone bringing any to market. There is not enough opportunity to get into a leasing agreement, which no doubt wouldn't favour them, they might have to indenture themselves in order to repay such loans in order to do this. The risk is not guaranteed to pay off, fine if your investment comes from disposable income, not fine if lives depend on it. So the losing player is forced into risk-averse decision making.

 

Let's not forget where your three cows came from. You assume it's because you're a better farmer, and you got to three all on your own. Maybe you inherited the three, maybe someone gave them as a bridal gift. You know it's because you know everything about cows, and wanted to be the best cow farmer in the world. But in order to bring your cheese to market you travelled over a road built by someone else, maintained by someone else, someone taught you everything there is to know about cow maintenance, maybe in a school of some sort. This is usually a service supported by the government, and it is paid for by taxes.

You get to keep your three cows, but part of the cheese they make goes to feed the losing players homes, they can now bring their own cheese to market, and compete. Now they too have the resources to go and do all those things you suggest, like leasing cows, or buying sperm to increase the herd.

And now your success helps to foster their success as well. You can't rest on your laurels because you got real competition. This drives you to seek to differentiate yourself from the others, for instance by letting the cheese rest longer before bringing it to market, creating a new type of cheese.

 

You're still doing better than most, but at least they're not doing too poorly.

 

And then because they have more disposable income after selling their cheeses to market, they try some of yours, because they can now spend some of that good cheese money they earned on your special cheese.

And then the government earns more taxes\

and bridges get built

and then suddenly the goat farming nations of goatania has access to your local market, and the local cheeses get sold long distance, and you earn some goatania cash.

With which you buy some goat cheese, since you're a connoisseur and want to expand your palette, and you're wealthy enough that you can afford it.

 

That's the thing with taxes, they help everyone, even yourself. Just because someone is in a poor position doesn't mean they failed to make the right decisions. What we do know is that the poorer the position you're in, the less likely you are of making the right decisions. So it pays to help those in a poor position to get a better position. And it seems perfectly ok to require to broadest shoulders to carry the heaviest burden. If you have 30 cows because of your great decisionmaking someday, and you have to sell 12 cows worth of cheese to pay for taxes, that still leaves you miles ahead in production of the competition with 10 cows who has to pay 3 cows worth of cheese.

You still have the production of 18 cows, whereas they have the production of 7. So even though you paid ten percent more taxes, you still get to be richer than the rest.

 

You can see it as giving back to a society which has helped you become successful, because if you truly believe your successes all came from your smart decision making or hard work, and not from your advantages from the outset, like beginning with more cows, well, you need to ask why is it that the others who worked hard, made the right decisions, but started with one cow seem not to do as well.

 

When you take part in society, any society, you willingly give up some freedoms. You take part in a social contract: I won't kill you and you won't kill me, even though you are a stranger to me, because by choosing to adhere to these rules we've come to understand that we can achieve more. So you gave up your liberty to murder anyone from Cowsania or Goatania, because they are trade partners with Cowsania.

 

Now I vote pirate party, I'm all about not giving up my civil liberties, but somehow I'm ok with losing the right to murder people from Goatania, I like their cheese.

I understand that yes, Goatanian cheese has to cross that bridge cowsania constructed, so I willingly pay my taxes.

Edited April 9, 2017 by JFSOCC

[Hurlshort]

Whoa whoa, Budweiser and Goose Island are not anywhere near the same thing. I object!