[Wolfman]

And how did that work out?

Worked fairly well for the UK from what I've seen, same with Germany (after being co-opted by the Nazis), various other places in North and West Europe (minus a few places), and modern Japan. Oh, and how did the revolutionary union movement work out for you in Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, Greece, and Romania?

What? You are aware that Fascism never came to power anywhere without first disseminating its views and forming social groups to organise people, right? To again re-use the Japanese example, they were propagating their material in door-to-door visits and through civic groups, as early as 1910. It would take twenty years or more of seeding ideas in order to gather the sort of momentum necessary to be swept into a position where they could take power in the late 1930s.

My point is that you're talking about getting rid of Representative Democracy with political campaigns to shift what the subordinate organizations represented are. Again, you're not doing a very good case of disproving that you like Democracy.

[Rei Murasame]

Worked fairly well for the UK from what I've seen

Except for that problem of the UK being "run by investment bankers, for investment bankers", as one writer put it, with absolutely everything being lined up on the chopping block for cuts.

The Financial Times (actual mouthpiece of finance) even ran a gloating article about exactly that.

My point is that you're talking about getting rid of Representative Democracy with political campaigns to shift what the subordinate organizations represented are. Again, you're not doing a very good case of disproving that you like Democracy.

Well, if you are claiming that any form of fascism is democratic in any commonly-understood sense of the word, then that's pretty amazing, but I doubt that anyone other than you would think so.

Oh, and how did the revolutionary union movement work out for you in Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, Greece, and Romania?

Pretty well in Japan, actually. After getting 40%, and then 85% of the public into it, wages continued to rise to hit their peak at what was then a 30 year high, and wage differences between males and females actually - astoundingly - narrowed to around 0%. Suddenly people who had never seen that sort of equality before, were mysteriously finding that they were experiencing the beginnings of it.

Yes, not joking. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 6 graphs and tabulates it, and refers to it as the beginnings of "a remarkable social revolution". It was really a complete break from the liberal narrative of history, linear progression was irrationally suspended in that time - it wasn't just nationalist unions that went on strike in 1939, it was the liberal view of history that also was placed on strike.

Liberals in the present day just pretend that none of this ever happened. It is this which has led to the enormous legendary shadow of that event in the fascist mind, but beyond that it is eclipsed by the stark light of the tactical nuclear weapons which have effectively obliterated it from popular history.

[Wolfman]

Except for that problem of the UK being "run by investment bankers, for investment bankers", as one writer put it, with absolutely everything being lined up on the chopping block for cuts.

The Financial Times (actual mouthpiece of finance) even ran a gloating article about exactly that.

Its on the chopping blocks for cuts because the Unions couldn't run a country post-Thatcher.

Well, if you are claiming that any form of fascism is democratic in any commonly-understood sense of the word, then that's pretty amazing, but I doubt that anyone other than you would think so.

Actually what I'm saying is that you're not much of a Fascist. Incase you didn't figure it out yet, I'm half-trolling you right now.

Liberals in the present day just pretend that none of this ever happened. It is this which has led to the enormous legendary shadow of that event in the fascist mind, but beyond that it is eclipsed by the stark light of the tactical nuclear weapons which have effectively obliterated it from popular history.

One success among a dozen failures. Big deal. And I doubt very highly that what Japan did was anywhere near any what other fascist movements did, and what modern fascist movements want.

[grassroots1]

Rei,

"It is far from clear that the alternatives are sensibly to be posed as "reform or revolution." There is also the possibility of working towards what Andr? Gorz calls "structural reform": namely, "a decentralization of the decision-making power, a restriction on the powers of State or Capital, an extension of popular power, that is to say, a victory of democracy over the dictatorship of profit" (his italics). As Gorz argues, such reforms may have a potentially revolutionary content. It is impossible to predict whether an attempt to extend democratic decision-making will, if it ever develops on a mass scale, face such repressive force that it leads to a revolutionary confrontation, or whether it will be able to proceed peaceably. The goal of a movement for social change should be to introduce meaningful structural reforms, in this sense, avoiding unnecessary confrontations but remaining committed to the defense of democratic values against repression, if it arises."

I am not trying to co-opt anything. Far from it. I'm promoting moving forward with activism under the banner of structural reform that upsets the dictatorship of profit. I'm doing so partly because it is attractive to people who are understandably apprehensive about revolutionary politics, and because above all I do believe in democracy. But what do you think that revolutionary energy should be used for? How can I get an idea of what an alternative to representative democracy could be that is not also oppressive?

[Rei Murasame]

Its on the chopping blocks for cuts because the Unions couldn't run a country post-Thatcher.

It's not surprising, seeing as their influence was not there. If you think that the Labour Party UK is run by trade unions, then I can't imagine where you got that idea from.

It was quite openly run by bankers.

Actually what I'm saying is that you're not much of a Fascist. Incase you didn't figure it out yet, I'm half-trolling you right now.

I can't tell which part of your post is the trolling part, though, so there lies the problem.

One success among a dozen failures. Big deal. And I doubt very highly that what Japan did was anywhere near any what other fascist movements did, and what modern fascist movements want.

I can't speak for what the others did since I don't have their information on hand, but what makes you doubt that modern fascists want this? It would kind of defeat the point if they didn't want to support what is almost half the point of the ideology.

I get the impression, particularly recently, that you are measuring me against someone else, but I don't know who. I don't know what so-called fascists you've been talking to, but I would say that whoever you've talked to is wrong, and I am right.

I am not trying to co-opt anything. Far from it. I'm promoting moving forward with activism under the banner of structural reform that upsets the dictatorship of profit.

Both yourself and Chomsky make that sound very pretty, but there is nothing in there I can find that shows me how you plan to actually get your way without threatening anyone with anything. He talks about defending against oppression if it arises, but obviously they are not going to send riot police to your house, they will just ask you to keep voting for Democrats so that they can turn every single bill into Swiss cheese.

I'm doing so partly because it is attractive to people who are understandably apprehensive about revolutionary politics, and because above all I do believe in democracy.

In other words, it's attractive to liberals who seem not to want to actually abandon their moral precepts for any reason. It baffles me how anyone can actually believe in the voting process after all that has happened. I've even seen you guys calling for the merger of OWS and the Tea Party into a united front which would then magically apply pressure to congresspeople.

Not withstanding the fact that the Tea Party is a filthy and grotesque abomination, and even leaving aside the fact the two movements shared nothing between them at all, the idea that congresspeople are susceptible to pressure from anything other than financial groups and their dependants, is - in my view - some sort of rather optimistic and bold delusion.

But what do you think that revolutionary energy should be used for? How can I get an idea of what an alternative to representative democracy could be that is not also oppressive?

Well, I explained that in my quote-festival post on page one of this topic. But as you can clearly see from that, my solution involves actually being quite deliberately oppressive. The oppression is absolutely necessary because unless financial groups are brought under the yoke of the state as soon as a movement's people get into seats, and unless resources are confiscated or controlled by the state, the financial groups will simply undermine anything that said movement tries to do.

[Daktoria]

I'm sure that many of you have had to do this on some occasion.

The method I tend to go for, is to point out that democracy is just a fig leaf that is used to convince people that what the ruling faction is doing was somehow carried out with the 'consent' of the public who 'participated' in the election process.

However, I usually do not talk about an abolition of parliament or anything to that effect. Instead, I point out that by creating new institutions for having the thoughts and needs of the public represented (eg, corporatism institutionalises the power of labour, consumers, business groups, etc, etc), that the relevance of the electoral process would fade to the point where elections would only become important when they are about issues of deep structural significance.

Day-to-day administration and surface-level policy adjustments, would over time have found themselves shifted into the new institutions.

In my view, this seems to be the smoothest way to go about making the case against representative democracy. Do you agree, disagree?

The OP seems to believe politicians will just be willing to hand over strategic decision making to bureaucrats, and bureaucrats won't destroy the country.

First off, politicians want to make careers for themselves, so that strategic decision making handover isn't going to happen. If anything, politicians want inefficient bureaucracy so "deep structural significance" has to constantly reform.

Second off, bureaucracy is vulnerable to cliques. If you have a bunch of bureaucrats, the ones who are going to secure organizational culture are those who promise each other excuses for not having to work hard. This conspiracy alienates committed workers, and the organization falls apart.

A good understanding of these two virtues can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

The instant you oppress the private sector is the instant bureaucracy begins to cannibalize its own. I'd wager that if the Axis won WW2, we'd see this just as much as we saw in Franco's Spain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_h ... 2C_1939-75

The years from 1951 to 1956 were marked by much economic progress, but the reforms of the period were implemented irregularly, and were poorly coordinated. One large obstacle to the reform process was the corrupt, inefficient, and bloated bureaucracy. By the mid-1950s, the inflationary spiral had resumed its upward climb, and foreign currency reserves that had stood at US$58 million in 1958 plummeted to US$6 million by mid-1959. The growing demands of the emerging middle class—and of the ever greater number of tourists—for the amenities of life, particularly for higher nutritional standards, placed heavy demands on imported food and luxury items. At the same time, exports lagged, largely because of high domestic demand and institutional restraints on foreign trade. The peseta fell to an all-time low on the black market, and Spain's foreign currency obligations grew to almost US$60 million...

...Such administrative changes were important steps in eliminating the chronic rivalries that existed among economic ministries. Other reforms followed, the principal one being the adoption of a corporate tax system that required the confederation of each industrial sector to allocate an appropriate share of the entire industry's tax assessment to each member firm. Chronic tax evasion was consequently made more difficult, and tax collection receipts rose sharply. Together with curbs on government spending, in 1958 this reform created the first government surplus in many years.

Another good source on Franco's bureaucratic corruption can be found here:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/spanishmiracle.htm

[Rei Murasame]

The OP seems to believe politicians will just be willing to hand over strategic decision making to bureaucrats

No I don't, hence why I call for revolution.

Franco's Spain

Francisco Franco was able to collapse Spain into bureaucratic capitalism by deliberately letting Jose Antonio get killed and then by undermining the labour basis of the movement and installing himself as the guardian of the movement that he had subverted.

The Spanish situation was always one of the Falangists struggling to overcome the liberals and the socialists as well as struggling to overcome the reactionary conservative parasites at the same time, while simultaneously having to fight against moronic idiots like Eric Blair (AKA: George Orwell) who travelled all the way to Spain to volunteer to help the liberals and the socialists, only for a Falangist to shoot him in the neck with a grazing-shot and send him packing back to the UK.

Spanish Falangists were facing particularly uphill battle against multiple opponents. Ultimately, in Spain's case, the reactionaries got control and the revolution was aborted.

I discussed the risk of that a few posts ago, and it's safe to say that there are ways to avoid that outcome which have already been described.

It's almost like you didn't read the whole topic before jumping in.

[Daktoria]

No I don't, hence why I call for revolution.

Your revolution doesn't engage politicians or bureaucrats.

Francisco Franco was able to collapse Spain into bureaucratic capitalism by deliberately letting Jose Antonio get killed

You're saying the fate of fascist bureaucracy came down to one man who didn't even live to the Civil War?

and then by undermining the labour basis of the movement and installing himself as the guardian of the movement that he had subverted. The Spanish situation was always one of the Falangists struggling to overcome the liberals as well as struggling to overcome the reactionary conservative parasites at the same time, while simultaneously having to fight against moronic idiots like George Orwell who travelled all the way to Spain to volunteer to help the liberals and the left, only for a Falangist to shoot him in the neck with a grazing-shot and send him packing back to the UK.

I'm not sure what liberalism you're talking about. The Republican movement was decisively socialist.

The reactionaries were also a decisive minority by that point as well. People grew tired of the protracted unresolved Carlist Wars, and they had no problem with expropriating Church property. The right just wanted a militarist autocracy.

Spanish Falangists were facing particularly uphill battle against multiple opponents. Ultimately, in Spain's case, the reactionaries got control and that was the end of the revolution.

I discussed the risk of that a few posts ago, and it's safe to say that there are ways to avoid that outcome which have already been described.

It's almost like you didn't read the whole topic before jumping in.

If you want to prove "reactionaries got control", go for it.

[Rei Murasame]

Your revolution doesn't engage politicians or bureaucrats.

I don't know what that sentence is supposed to mean.

You're saying the fate of fascist bureaucracy came down to one man who didn't even live to the Civil War?

That's Spain for you, yes. Franco's behaviour toward Jose Antonio is a rather important indicator of what he would later go on to do.

I'm not sure what liberalism you're talking about. The Republican movement was decisively socialist.

Are we living on the same planet? I feel like you just make these authoritative-sounding statements just to troll people, since they are statements that are completely and utterly wrong. I can't believe that you are asking me to recap commonly-known history for you. I refuse to do that.

The reactionaries were also a decisive minority by that point as well.

Interesting how they were such a minority yet ended up running the place, isn't it?

If you want to prove "reactionaries got control", go for it.

I don't need to prove it, it's really obvious that Franco and his reactionary friends subverted Jose Antonio and Manuel Hedilla's Falange movement.

What point are you trying to make, other than getting me to waste keystrokes?

[Daktoria]

Are we living on the same planet? I feel like you just make these authoritative-sounding statements just to troll people, since they are statements that are completely and utterly wrong. I can't believe that you are asking me to recap commonly-known history for you. I refuse to do that.

You know the word "liberal" isn't even on that page, right?

I don't need to prove it, it's really obvious that Franco and his reactionary friends

Franco was authoritarian, not reactionary. He even suppressed Spanish culture to preserve his authority.

subverted Jose Antonio and Manuel Hedilla's Falange movement.

Mmmm...

Although nominally the Falangist leader in Santander, Hedilla was based in A Coruña when the northern uprising began. He thus took charge of securing this city and was responsible for the bloody repressions. Despite this Hedilla, who was on the left wing of the Falange and emphasised the proletarian and syndicalist nature of the movement soon became a critic of the indiscriminate violence being perpetrated by the Nationalists. [8] Following the death of José Antonio Primo de Rivera Hedilla was nominated as his successor but he was soon at the centre of a power struggle between himself and the legitimistas led by Agustín Aznar and Sancho Dávila y Fernández de Celis.[9] Hedilla's pro-social reform position won the support of the German ambassador General Wilhelm Faupel and, although Hedilla was not directly involved, his followers took the initiative in Salamanca on April 16th 1937 by attempting to wrest control of the Falangist headquarters from rightist leader Sancho Dávila.[10]

Antonio and Hedilla seem to be populists, not fascists. They were betrayed by more authoritarian elements within the fascist movement.

I don't know what that sentence is supposed to mean.

What point are you trying to make, other than getting me to waste keystrokes?

My point is when you create a culture of oppression, it continues to oppress everyone.

[Rei Murasame]

Now you're just being deliberately ridiculous and playing games with words. Don't bore me.

You know the word "liberal" isn't even on that page, right?

Fucking hell man, read and interpret what it is actually saying. What the fuck do you think a left-wing bourgeoisie republican element inside the Popular Front is?

For fuck's sake.

Franco was authoritarian, not reactionary.

Are you joking? Stop making up non-existent dichotomies. He was a reactionary and not a revolutionary, end of story.

Antonio and Hedilla seem to be populists, not fascists.

If Antonio and Hedilla were not fascists, then there have never been any fascists.

My point is when you create a culture of oppression, it continues to oppress everyone.

I'm almost 100% sure that you are trolling.

[Daktoria]

Fucking hell man, read and interpret what it is actually saying. What the fuck do you think a left-wing bourgeoisie republican element inside the Popular Front is?

For fuck's sake.

Social democrats.

Are you joking? Stop making up non-existent dichotomies. He was a reactionary and not a revolutionary, end of story.

Authoritarianism is the most primitive form of government. There's nothing revolutionary about it.

If Antonio and Hedilla were not fascists, then there have never been any fascists.

Probably. It wouldn't be surprising to see the Republican movement succeed instead.

I'm almost 100% sure that you are trolling.

Antonio's death proves my point. People who advocate oppression can be oppressed just as much as their labeled opponents.

[Rei Murasame]

Social democrats.

Also known as the left hand side of liberalism.

Authoritarianism is the most primitive form of government. There's nothing revolutionary about it.

If you would stop comparing apples to oranges that'd be awesome.

Within the lexicon we are using here, authoritarianism is the opposing tendency to totalitarianism.

Revolutionary is the opposing tendency to reactionary.

You know this, but you just wanted to be annoying and make me waste time explaining the obvious.

Probably.

Probably what?

Antonio's death proves my point. People who advocate oppression can be oppressed just as much as their labeled opponents.

Why does this even matter? Next you'll claim that boiling water is hot as though it were a profound revelation? Goodness, you are the most risk-averse person on the entire forum.

[Fasces]

The only democratic action of any value is hyper-localized, and I support it in these instances. The individual voter counts for less and less as the scope of democratic activity is expanded, helping to incentivise and legitimise the creation of political action groups, concentrating power and money into private movements that cannot be publicly controlled. Centralism is incompatible with democratic activity.

I am of the opinion that democracy best captures the zeitgeist of the people, at this hyper-local level, provided sufficient autonomy is provided - especially on social and cultural issues. This is desirable, and I favor local democratic techniques, especially those popularized in the United States, like town hall meetings. That being said, I would still limit enfranchisement to those who have a proven history of service and community participation.

This difficulty emerges in how power distributes from that point. Having these individuals then in turn elect representatives higher up, and those in turn doing the same does absolutely nothing. It institutionalized political factionalism. The ideal system would be meritocratic.

This leaves us with the option of an autocratic bureaucracy or autocratic military. Both have their obvious and long explained difficulties, but key among these is their dependence on pre-existing institutions on which to build the regime. This is contrary with the ideals of revolutionary fascism, which seeks to dismantle and rebuild problem institutions, raising the question of how these institutions are first developed.

[Wolfman]

It's not surprising, seeing as their influence was not there. If you think that the Labour Party UK is run by trade unions, then I can't imagine where you got that idea from.

The Labor Party was formed by a coalition of different Unions from different industries. From my understanding the Unions lost real power in the Labour Party around when Thatcher happened.

I can't tell which part of your post is the trolling part, though, so there lies the problem.

Most of it is serious commentary with an undertone of trolling. I don't know enough of your positions and the structure and economy of Fascist Japan to really comment. But, you don't really strike me as a Fascist, since you don't (I hope) support Fascist Corporatism and you just stated your support of democracy.

I can't speak for what the others did since I don't have their information on hand, but what makes you doubt that modern fascists want this? It would kind of defeat the point if they didn't want to support what is almost half the point of the ideology.

In order for me to explain where I'm getting my understanding of Modern Fascist Economics, I'd have to talk about another non-existent forum. To be short, however, it amounts to the failed economic programs of Fascist Italy, Germany, and Spain.

I get the impression, particularly recently, that you are measuring me against someone else, but I don't know who. I don't know what so-called fascists you've been talking to, but I would say that whoever you've talked to is wrong, and I am right.

You're in the minority when it comes to issues of economic and political structure. You're also in the extreme minority when it comes to social issues involving the rights of women, homosexuals, and others with an alternative sexual lifestyle.

The only democratic action of any value is hyper-localized, and I support it in these instances. The individual voter counts for less and less as the scope of democratic activity is expanded, helping to incentivise and legitimise the creation of political action groups, concentrating power and money into private movements that cannot be publicly controlled. Centralism is incompatible with democratic activity.

Cellular Democracy?

[Fasces]

Not quite. The community would be organic, not artificially constrained on the basis of population. It would reflect local identity, culture, and needs. Think more like city-states.

[Wolfman]

I think I remember you talking about something similar to Cellular Democracy, in that people elect the legislature and executive at the lowest level (city in your case), who then vote for county level officials of the same positions (city council elects county commission, city mayors elect county executive), who then do that state officials, and then federal. Still true? Because aside from the lowest level being the Cell and everything being regimented, that is very similar to Cellular Democracy.

[Fasces]

No. As I pointed out, that process only hides special interests behind closed doors, and does nothing to eliminate them. I'd prefer transparency of nation-level democracy to that.

My own preference is for some method of meritocratic ascension into leadership positions, with local politics being decided on a democratic basis.

[Rei Murasame]

The Labor Party was formed by a coalition of different Unions from different industries. From my understanding the Unions lost real power in the Labour Party around when Thatcher happened.

Hence my point, then.

I don't know enough of your positions and the structure and economy of Fascist Japan to really comment.

You keep saying that, although I am expending no small effort describing it.

But, you don't really strike me as a Fascist

I seriously cannot imagine why not.

In order for me to explain where I'm getting my understanding of Modern Fascist Economics, I'd have to talk about another non-existent forum.

That non-existent forum actually is the problem here. Why do you perceive them as more authoritative on these issues than me?

You're in the minority when it comes to issues of economic and political structure.

No I am not. It's just that compared to the people you are talking to on that non-existent forum, I know how to actually do it, and I have actually paid attention to developments in the ideology in the post-war era as well, and this is why I am actually in the majority.

It also helps that I am not from America, whereas they are, which is why I am not infected with the market-liberal affectations which they have taken on. Your view of corporatism is almost entirely coloured by their distortion of it, so it's not surprising that you think I am unorthodox.

[SpaciousBox]

Could I start by saying this is probably the most interesting thing I've seen by you Rei. Although having spent a few months here, I've never quite grasped exactly what form of ideology you support, and I'm not sure if you'll be happy or sad to hear I find it far less disturbing than I thought I would. I would in fact join the voices challenging your assumed fascism - you come across far more proletariat to me (if I'm allowed to say that without being shot). You do seem to be interested in actually creating a state to benefit everyone - something Fascists groups historically have not. Your authoritarianism appears to come more from a wish to protect the culture, than a wish to control it (or maybe protect through control?) - which I applaud, even if I don't support the tactic. I do have a few follow ups, whilst I watch the continued discussion:

The crisis of liberal-democracy is that crisis where it becomes 'so open' (it was actually always that absurdly open, just you didn't know it) that it actually cedes control of its evolution to outside forces who are not the demographic that it was supposedly designed to cater to. At that point - if it wasn't already working against your interests before that - it begins to earnestly work against you.

This is a very fair criticism of modern liberals, especially those on the more socialistic left. What about forms of more aggressive Liberalism though? There are many ideologies (including my own) that would never allow the continued mixed value systems. The defence of liberal values requires governments to act on their behalf after all, rights don't just assert themselves.. - in fact we were just in a thread on this very notion. Is it more the fact you don't believe democracy can ever bring us such change? Due to the self-interested nature of many politicians? Or do you not consider the liberal value set to not allow any form of social control anyway?

Our leaders will always be self-interested assholes and power-hungry psychopaths, that's just the way it is. Good people rarely go into politics, and even more rarely do they survive for long in such a ruthlessly cut-throat environment. Democracy doesn't ensure good leadership (in fact it seems to promote mediocrity) but it DOES prevent the kind of decades-long autocratic hell scenarios non-Democratic regimes periodically suffer from. I see it as the least terrible system, rather than a "good" system per say.

This would be a summation of my thoughts also, though slightly less hostile. In the defence of the system though, Democracy is in a constant state of evolution. It evolves slowly, yes, but all things in politics are slow. Our biggest issue, is a cultural one, not a political one. Democracy would work fine in a world where everyone was smart enough to understand the policy in full. However no system guarantees that the ruling elite will understand the policy any more than their citizens. You just need to look at the grand world of economics to realise how easy it can be for two very intelligent individuals to substantially disagree. I'm not sure how exchanging our democracy for your revolution would guarantee that the elected elite have the right answers, and I still feel there is an unanswered question on how the next generation will be as benevolent as the first. So overall, it seems better to keep a system where we can at least guarantee the removal of those with the "wrong" answer, even if not everyone can tell yet which one of them is right.