Fascism

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

First thing that comes to mind is that people like to label and compartmentalise themselves according to one umbrella ideology or another - yet those labels often tend not to reflect the positions themselves.

Even so as far as fascism goes - probably the fairest thing to say is that there are a lot of people out there with extremist views, and that's a trend that has gathered pace somewhat post 9/11 (IMHO of course). Only thing I really have a problem with is people who advocate casual and savage violence - as that really blurs the line between us and the general scum of reprobate humanity that we are apparently opposed to.

Its also somewhat disturbing to consider that some people incensed and appalled at the activities of islamic extremism, or even that of regular criminals in our own country, tend to respond to this incident or other with statements of sheer sadistic viciousness - calling for people to be hung drawn and quartered or otherwise mutilated and torn apart. I can understand that a lot of this is merely anger talking (and that its only said in the spirit of that - as opposed to a statement of real intent), but it always worries me somewhat to hear complaints, for example that the justice system doesn't mete out medieval punishments on offenders. As far as basic morality goes - that rather undermines our ability to be outraged at say Saudi Arabia, which still practices public stoning and dismemberment.

The US constitution is pretty robust and it would take a lot to overturn it, the way the Weimar constitution was done away with in the 1930s - but still... We live in an age where our national constitution can be sidestepped for reasons of political expediency, allowing atrocities like Guantanamo Bay to take place and be excused from the national constitution merely by a technicality. Sort of the letter of the law being used to undermine the spirit of the law.

Posted this Hitler quote yesterday - and it does provide some food for thought.

The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hmm . . . I've noticed in this and at least one other thread that you seem to have an interest in fascism. By inference, I've concluded that you:

1). Are an amateur or professional political philosopher, or;

2). Are intimating that the US government is either becoming or is currently based upon fascist principles, or;

3). Have another yet undisclosed agenda.

Please, do explain yourself. No need to be coy.

Don't mind Steven. He is one of our more liberal members. He thinks that conservatism is the next thing to fascism. But he is a nice guy though.

Oh, I don't mind him at all. In fact, I often enjoy his posts and sardonic wit. I'm sincerely curious. Any time an "ism" is tossed about, I always wonder what wisdom is behind it. I certainly have no intention of debating the merits or drawbacks of any particular philosophical system . . . did my time in the dorm room debate club long ago, and have resigned myself to accepting things as they are, not as I think they should be. Larger forces than I are at work in the universe.

Everything has context. I've been often infered to as being a communist here, even though I am not. If people can draw parallels to such social programs as universal healthcare with communism, is it far fetched to draw parallels between speciific attitudes/views (see this post) among some Americans as fascist? Par for the course. Either you've got one eye covered not to see that or you haven't been reading enough posts on this site to recognize that, but thanks for singling me out.

you're a socialist, not a communist. and I'm a freedom loving Libertarian.

Actually, I believe that a good mix of capitalism with socialism works best as in most Western European countries, which BTW are NOT socialist countries. The profit motive doesn't always work with every avenue of social life - health care as an example. However, I firmly support the right for ownership.

[carabao 0]

Hmm . . . I've noticed in this and at least one other thread that you seem to have an interest in fascism. By inference, I've concluded that you:

1). Are an amateur or professional political philosopher, or;

2). Are intimating that the US government is either becoming or is currently based upon fascist principles, or;

3). Have another yet undisclosed agenda.

Please, do explain yourself. No need to be coy.

Don't mind Steven. He is one of our more liberal members. He thinks that conservatism is the next thing to fascism. But he is a nice guy though.

Oh, I don't mind him at all. In fact, I often enjoy his posts and sardonic wit. I'm sincerely curious. Any time an "ism" is tossed about, I always wonder what wisdom is behind it. I certainly have no intention of debating the merits or drawbacks of any particular philosophical system . . . did my time in the dorm room debate club long ago, and have resigned myself to accepting things as they are, not as I think they should be. Larger forces than I are at work in the universe.

Everything has context. I've been often infered to as being a communist here, even though I am not. If people can draw parallels to such social programs as universal healthcare with communism, is it far fetched to draw parallels between speciific attitudes/views (see this post) among some Americans as fascist? Par for the course. Either you've got one eye covered not to see that or you haven't been reading enough posts on this site to recognize that, but thanks for singling me out.

I persued your linked thread, and I do see what you mean -- specifically, as the issue in question deals with matters of culture, ethnicity, and national identity. The "for us or against us" mantra, however, is certainly not one that is droned only by groups that were/are truly fascist. No particular slice of the political (or religious, as has been pointed out) spectrum can be identified solely by this mindset; but it's awfully tempting to classify folks based upon what have become perjorative labels over the years.

You a communist? I think not. But neither do I think that a forum such as this -- wherein men and women of different nationalities, races, cultures, religions, etc. -- are striving to be together would ever be frequented by anyone holding truly fascist convictions.

As for "singling you out . . ." Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease

[carabao 0]

First thing that comes to mind is that people like to label and compartmentalise themselves according to one umbrella ideology or another - yet those labels often tend not to reflect the positions themselves.

Hmm . . . I'd say that people would prefer to label and compartmentalize others according to one umbrella idology or another. Most people aren't that fond of truly looking at themselves

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

First thing that comes to mind is that people like to label and compartmentalise themselves according to one umbrella ideology or another - yet those labels often tend not to reflect the positions themselves.

Hmm . . . I'd say that people would prefer to label and compartmentalize others according to one umbrella idology or another. Most people aren't that fond of truly looking at themselves

Well that's true also and probably more pertinent to this discussion.

I see the whole "liberal and conservative thing as a bit of a red herring in that sense - as those terms really only describe general attitudes to individual issues rather than an overall statement of absolute belief.

I agree though that there are few 'real' fascists, as much as a few people with extreme beliefs on certain hot-button issues.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Number 6

[carabao 0]

First thing that comes to mind is that people like to label and compartmentalise themselves according to one umbrella ideology or another - yet those labels often tend not to reflect the positions themselves.

Hmm . . . I'd say that people would prefer to label and compartmentalize others according to one umbrella idology or another. Most people aren't that fond of truly looking at themselves

Well that's true also and probably more pertinent to this discussion.

I see the whole "liberal and conservative thing as a bit of a red herring in that sense - as those terms really only describe general attitudes to individual issues rather than an overall statement of absolute belief.

I agree though that there are few 'real' fascists, as much as a few people with extreme beliefs on certain hot-button issues.

We agree to agree Your point about the "red herring" is well taken. I wonder what might happen if we stopped calling each other names and actually had an objective look at what's happening. Just as an aside, what would you consider "extreme" as regards beliefs?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just as an aside, what would you consider "extreme" as regards beliefs?

For one, when violence is rationalised as a reasonable solution to social and political problems.

[carabao 0]

Just as an aside, what would you consider "extreme" as regards beliefs?

For one, when violence is rationalised as a reasonable solution to social and political problems.

Hard to disagree with that, and sadly the rationalization of violence knows nothing of political leanings. As an adjunct to my question . . . I've been puzzling over the difficulties of a "relativistic" world view for many years now. Hmm . . . how best to explain . . . Certainly history will belie the notion that "I'm OK, you're OK," because clearly some historical movements/figures have been decidedly not OK given their behavior toward their fellow man (notable fascists for example). At what point (say, against the Nazi movement in WWII) does one adopt the absolute moral authority that is also claimed by the opposing "side?" On what does one base this authority? At what point is violence unavoidable?

Questions to ponder . . . but I'm off to heal the sick for 12 hours.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just as an aside, what would you consider "extreme" as regards beliefs?

For one, when violence is rationalised as a reasonable solution to social and political problems.

Hard to disagree with that, and sadly the rationalization of violence knows nothing of political leanings. As an adjunct to my question . . . I've been puzzling over the difficulties of a "relativistic" world view for many years now. Hmm . . . how best to explain . . . Certainly history will belie the notion that "I'm OK, you're OK," because clearly some historical movements/figures have been decidedly not OK given their behavior toward their fellow man (notable fascists for example). At what point (say, against the Nazi movement in WWII) does one adopt the absolute moral authority that is also claimed by the opposing "side?" On what does one base this authority? At what point is violence unavoidable?

Questions to ponder . . . but I'm off to heal the sick for 12 hours.

That's a good question - unfortunately I think when it becomes clear that violence is a necessary solution, its generally born out of sheer survival.

Certainly I'd say the issue we face today is not so much whether or not violence should be used in response to a direct threat, but whether it is moral/ethical to use it to counter things that may become threats in the future.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Certainly I'd say the issue we face today is not so much whether or not violence should be used in response to a direct threat, but whether it is moral/ethical to use it to counter things that may become threats in the future.

Yup. This is more so an issue today than ever because in todays world, if you wait for an initial provocation to take place before you use violence in response, the initial provocation may be so severe as to make retaliation impossible or unmeaningful (because x million are already dead, for example).

Edited September 16, 2007 by VJ Troll

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The analysis in my post was perhaps rather simple, but I think its about a little more than meeting or anticipating violence related to national security threats. That's certainly an issue in the current climate - but so too is the history of US foreign policy. I mentioned Iran elsewhere - Iran being considered very much a 'current' threat to US security interests; but what was the thinking years ago when Iran was merely considered an economic threat?

[dalegg 143]

Don't mind Steven. He is one of our more liberal members. He thinks that conservatism is the next thing to fascism. But he is a nice guy though.

I don't think so. He's more of one of a "Progressive" which as far as I can tell if very far from liberal.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Don't mind Steven. He is one of our more liberal members. He thinks that conservatism is the next thing to fascism. But he is a nice guy though.

I don't think so. He's more of one of a "Progressive" which as far as I can tell if very far from liberal.

What is a progressive and what is a liberal...

and while you're at it, what's a conservative and how does it differ from a statist?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Don't mind Steven. He is one of our more liberal members. He thinks that conservatism is the next thing to fascism. But he is a nice guy though.

I don't think so. He's more of one of a "Progressive" which as far as I can tell if very far from liberal.

What is a progressive and what is a liberal...

and while you're at it, what's a conservative and how does it differ from a statist?

I think that's really an open question - without getting into too much detail - Liberalism and Conservatism (and really Progressivism as well) are extremely broad umbrella terms with different relative meanings in different countries, and their proponents tend to be defined by specific local issues pertaining to those countries.

Statism is really the one that is actually a specific term - basically its economic socialism.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Don't mind Steven. He is one of our more liberal members. He thinks that conservatism is the next thing to fascism. But he is a nice guy though.

I don't think so. He's more of one of a "Progressive" which as far as I can tell if very far from liberal.

What is a progressive and what is a liberal...

and while you're at it, what's a conservative and how does it differ from a statist?

I think that's really an open question - without getting into too much detail - Liberalism and Conservatism (and really Progressivism as well) are extremely broad umbrella terms with different relative meanings in different countries, and their proponents tend to be defined by specific local issues pertaining to those countries.

Statism is really the one that is actually a specific term - basically its economic socialism.

I see, I had no idea statism had a specific meaning. I had always thought it meant preserving the power of the state... kind of the opposite of libertarianism.