[Daktoria]

Also known as the left hand side of liberalism.

Also known as the representative side of liberalism.

Fascists such as Antonio complained the ballot box doesn't mean anything (since elites oligopolize power). Participatory (free market) democracy gets around this through freedom of association in contracts and property rights. It also allows people a right to bear arms to defend themselves.

Since the liberal state was a servant of [Rousseau] it became not just the trustee of a nation's destiny but also the spectator of electoral contests. What alone mattered to the liberal state was that a certain number of gentlemen be sitting at the polling station, that the voting start at eight o'clock and end at four, that the ballot boxes not get smashed—when being smashed is the noblest aspiration of all ballot boxes—and then to respect the outcome of the voting, as if the outcome was a matter of complete indifference to it. In other words liberal governments did not even believe in their mission, that theirs was a respectable duty, but rather they believed that anyone who disagreed with them and decided to attack the state, whether with good or ill intentions, had the same right as they did to defend it.

And in closing, that if what we want must in some circumstance be attained through the use of violence, that we demur not before the prospect of violence. For who has said, when they say, "Every available means except violence," that the supreme hierarchy of moral values resides in kindness? Who has said that when our feelings are insulted, rather than react like men, we are called upon to reply amiably? Dialogue as a first step of communication is well and good. But there is no option left except fists and guns when someone offends the precepts of justice or the fatherland.

Last I checked, Rousseau wasn't an advocate of the center-right either.

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.

I don't want to be annoying. I want you to realize that yes, the State is an obvious institution. If you want real exploration, you need a peaceful society where people can rely on the rule of law to prevent exploration from being sabotaged.

See my sig? Art, science, industry? These are endeavors which cannot be subject to bullying. A militant society doesn't protect these things. It sees no problem with oppressing the weak and unimpressive just because it's sadistically fun.

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.

Actually, I think you're more risk averse because you want to hide behind the State's economic planning. You don't want to go out in the private sector and take your own chances. You just want to force everyone together while hiding behind bureaucracy...

...which brings us back to the iron law of oligarchy, particularly when you make statements such as even your life can be sacrificed for the nation. Of course you're willing to make statements like that as an entrenched, well-connected bureaucrat. Your life isn't the most exposed, yet if you lead a troop of soldiers to victory, as an officer, you get all the glory.

There's another saying about bureaucracy. Credit always goes up to the top, and blame always goes down to the bottom.

[Wolfman]

Hence my point, then.

Is your point that a Union led mass movement will cause needed reforms to the existing system, and then a hundred years later will be co-opted by business leaders?

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

In terms of your positions, I'd like something detailed with specific points regarding various issues. As is, I'm getting things thrown at me one at a time. And as for Japan, I generally prefer neutral sources.

I seriously cannot imagine why not.

Minority position on economics (so far as I can tell), minority position on governmental structure, minority position on social issues, and you're probably in the minority on issues of how to attain power and on international politics. At the very least, you're an incredibly fucking weird Fascist.

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

There's more of them, and they have similar positions. And from what I've gathered about the policy desires of Fascists here, they want similar things as on that non-existent forum.

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.

I imagine not. Maybe you should ask the Fascists here?

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.

1. They were as international as Pofo is, with dedicated sections to a dozen countries
2. They mostly wanted some reform of the economic policy of Fascist Italy, Germany, or Spain, not Market Liberalism
3. My understanding of Corporatism is independent of that forum, being informed by my readings on it before them.
4. Your economic views are Neo-Corporatism. Assuming you're using the standard definition, that's not far from Capitalism

[Rei Murasame]

Publius, I have no idea how to satisfy you then, since I think there is no level of explanation I can give, that would make you accept that I know what I am talking about and that I've actually done the research on the thing that I'm promoting.
_________________________

Also known as the representative side of liberalism.

And?

Fascists such as Antonio complained the ballot box doesn't mean anything (since elites oligopolize power).

What a coincidence that this thread happens to be about exactly that.

Participatory (free market) democracy gets around this through freedom of association in contracts and property rights. It also allows people a right to bear arms to defend themselves.

How'd that work out for you?

...which brings us back to the iron law of oligarchy, particularly when you make statements such as even your life can be sacrificed for the nation. Of course you're willing to make statements like that as an entrenched, well-connected bureaucrat. Your life isn't the most exposed, yet if you lead a troop of soldiers to victory, as an officer, you get all the glory.

Actually, we are all exposed because modern weaponry can hit you almost anywhere.

There's another saying about bureaucracy. Credit always goes up to the top, and blame always goes down to the bottom.

But in reality, the blame inevitably travels to the top.

_____________________________

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.

Well, firstly, Fascism isn't a tactic it's an idea, and it is not merely violence, but unity.

Secondly, on the issue of being working-class-friendly, that's like half the point of it, and as I've described in this topic it was part of what they were trying to do. The fact that you see me as friendly to the working class, despite the fact that I am middle class, means that I am ideologically on the correct track.

I don't understand why people act so surprised at the fact that we actually care about our own people. I'm surprised by your surprise. Addressing these issues is essentially the point of the folk-state. Japan in particular was very explicit about that. I feel very often like I'm perpetually repeating myself on this issue, but I wouldn't be a very good fascist if I weren't actually interested in helping people.

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?

The liberal value set basically exists to serve the interests of a certain class of people who are not interested in allowing that amount of social or economic control, so what is called "muscular liberalism" would never help anyone anyway, since that would be a case of people simply asking the government very nicely to enforce certain cultural mores more strongly, without actually addressing any of the deep structural problems at all.

[Wolfman]

Publius, I have no idea how to satisfy you then, since I think there is no level of explanation I can give, that would make you accept that I know what I am talking about and that I've actually done the research on the thing that I'm promoting.

I didn't say this. On the contrary, I suspect you know what you're talking about very well. What I am saying however is:
1. I don't know what your actual positions are, which makes it hard for me to understand completely where you're coming from, but
2. From what I have seen about you with regards to economic, political, and social issues, I doubt you're a Fascist, instead
3. You seem to be a reformer, and are inspired by reformist movements and organizations
4. I doubt Fascist Japan was anything like any other Fascist state or movement not inspired by Fascist Japan, and thus highly unorthodox Fascism, if even Fascism
5. I had something else, but I cannot remember what it was.

[Rei Murasame]

How can you classify me as a reformer when this whole topic involves posts with me explicitly arguing against reformist tendencies?

My exchanges with Grassroots1 were very clear on that.

Plus, you say you don't know what my actual positions are, but I don't know why you don't know.

[grassroots1]

Rei the point about OWS and the Tea Party wasn't that they should join together, but that both movements stem from the same sense of disenfranchisement that is felt throughout he country towards our politics. I don't think we should rely on the vote or on the electoral process, I think we should use our collective energy to establish a superior democracy. You talk about bringing financial institutions under the control of the state but I'm not sure exactly what that means, or what it says about the structure of your desired state. If it is anti democratic then I can't support it.

[Wolfman]

How can you classify me as a reformer when this whole topic involves posts with me explicitly arguing against reformist tendencies?

Because all you've talked about doing is adopting the modern German and Asian Corporatist Economic Models, which are reforms of modern Capitalism, and changing what the subordinate political entities are that are represented in legislature.

Plus, you say you don't know what my actual positions are, but I don't know why you don't know.

We both know there's a lot more to your positions on various issues then those quotes.

[Rei Murasame]

Rei the point about OWS and the Tea Party wasn't that they should join together, but that both movements stem from the same sense of disenfranchisement that is felt throughout he country towards our politics. I don't think we should rely on the vote or on the electoral process, I think we should use our collective energy to establish a superior democracy.

How, and what would that look like?

You talk about bringing financial institutions under the control of the state but I'm not sure exactly what that means, or what it says about the structure of your desired state. If it is anti democratic then I can't support it.

But neither of you can seem to tell me what you'd do instead, though.

Because all you've talked about doing is adopting the modern German and Asian Corporatist Economic Models, which are reforms of modern Capitalism

I have gone much further than that, even in this very topic, and I rarely even mention Germany. I appeal to Asian corporatism as an example in some threads, an example that I consistently exceed in my own recommendations.

and changing what the subordinate political entities are that are represented in legislature.

Which, incidentally, is not something that can be accomplished by reform.

We both know there's a lot more to your positions on various issues then those quotes.

But is it relevant to the topic at hand? I can't think of anything important that I haven't already mentioned. Unless you'd like some boring details about co-operatives, or guaranteed annual income? Exactly, no one needs me to actually talk about that stuff.

[Wolfman]

I have gone much further than that, even in this very topic, and I rarely even mention Germany. I appeal to Asian corporatism as an example in some threads, an example that I consistently exceed in my own recommendations.

Your interests in your profile includes "Neo-Corporatism" a term I think you've used here as well. Unless I'm mistaken in what you mean, Neo-Corporatism generally refers to the MacroEconomic Policy of Post-WWII Germany and Reunified Germany. Between your affection of Rhine Capitalism and Asian Corporatism (not too far removed from Capitalism) I suspect you're a bit less of an anti-capitalist then you claim.

Which, incidentally, is not something that can be accomplished by reform.

What makes you think it can be accomplished by force?

But is it relevant to the topic at hand? I can't think of anything important that I haven't already mentioned. Unless you'd like some boring details about co-operatives, or guaranteed annual income? Exactly, no one needs me to actually talk about that stuff.

It would make you seem more of an anti-capitalist then I have reason to suspect based on your posts here.

[Rei Murasame]

Your interests in your profile includes "Neo-Corporatism" a term I think you've used here as well.

Yes, and that can refer to any reworking of corporatism in the post-war era.

I suspect you're a bit less of an anti-capitalist then you claim.

Is there a scale of anti-capitalism?

What makes you think it can be accomplished by force?

I feel like you are asking me to recap the topic again.

It would make you seem more of an anti-capitalist then I have reason to suspect based on your posts here.

Well have I not run long and boring topics about this before? There's that topic where I just blatantly promoted one of the core aspects of Social Credit, the Guaranteed Annual Income.

You might be the only one on PoFo that seems unaware of the extent of the things that I've been calling for.

[Wolfman]

Yes, and that can refer to any reworking of corporatism in the post-war era.

I've only heard it really referred to Post-WWII Germany.

Is there a scale of anti-capitalism?

Communism---Socialism---State Capitalism---Corporatism---Democratic Socialism---Social Democracy---Neo-Corporatism---Capitalism with Social Programs---Regulated Capitalism---Capitalism

You might be the only one on PoFo that seems unaware of the extent of the things that I've been calling for

I don't see your posts very often.

I also think we're getting to a point where this discussion cannot go on anymore.

[Daktoria]

The discussion became diverted when the topic shifted from bureaucracy to economics.

I think we're all still waiting to see how Rei proposes a fascist society/state would organize itself. The iron law of oligarchy remains uncontested.

[Rei Murasame]

The iron law of oligarchy remains uncontested.

There's a very good reason that I don't contest the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Obviously there will always be those who rule and those who are ruled.

The question is by what interest groups and for what purpose. Everything I've been saying seems to point to that way of seeing things, which should be expected. Why would you expect me to rail against that tendency?

What makes you think it can be accomplished by force?

I don't think I covered this properly before. Basically it's like this: It's because force or the threat of force is the only thing that will cause entrenched powers to change themselves.

Earlier in this topic, you tried to categorise the unions as peaceful reform. Perhaps what resulted from their actions was only reform, because they stopped short, yes. But there's another lesson in it as well. After all, from what does a union derive its bargaining power?

That's right, force or the threat of force. It's only a question of how far some group is willing to go with that and for what purpose, and what sort of IO that group uses to justify their actions in the eyes of their target constituency. So when I speak of force, I mean it in this sense, where the political wing leads, and force is applied as a means to the political ends.

Given that in these sorts of situations, Marxists are also often present in the situation, it's important to treat it in the same way that one might treat a COIN operation against the Marxists: which is that to restore stability and security for the future, it would be necessary for us to subdue and manacle the capitalists, and to also deprive the Marxists of their support base as well by taking the working class as part of our support base.

There's nothing disingenuous about it either, since we are indeed genuinely vying for the loyalty of the same group of people - and if we don't show that we are willing to fight for their sake, they won't take us seriously.

Really, realistically, there is no way that anything can be accomplished entirely over a conference table, unless the financial groups and the Marxists both suddenly become total cowards overnight.

Late response, I know, so I will have to re-read the topic and see what I haven't yet said that I should have said, if anything.

EDIT: Grammar fixes!

[Rei Murasame]

I don't think we should rely on the vote or on the electoral process, I think we should use our collective energy to establish a superior democracy.

Well:

• What do you mean by 'collective energy'? That sounds to me very much like the same use of force or threat of force that you were against previously. I can't imagine what else it could be.
  
  
• And regarding this 'superior democracy', what is the exact definition of that?

You talk about bringing financial institutions under the control of the state but I'm not sure exactly what that means, or what it says about the structure of your desired state. If it is anti democratic then I can't support it.

'Under the control of the state', when I say it here, means - most simply - that new political leaders, technocrats, and trade union groups all make an input into where money is invested, and into the shaping of public policy.

That's why I keep emphasising (a lot in this topic, now that I look back at it) the importance of empowering unions and incorporating them into the state along the way, because that has a tendency to make their influence felt, and its an influence that is sorely needed.

[Daktoria]

There's a very good reason that I don't contest the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Obviously there will always be those who rule and those who are ruled.

The question is by what interest groups and for what purpose. Everything I've been saying seems to point to that way of seeing things, which should be expected. Why would you expect me to rail against that tendency?

The Iron Law isn't about natural hierarchy. It's about incompetence.

As the saying goes, it isn't "what you know", but "who you know", that matters. Bureaucratic leaders aren't the best at what they do. They're the best at convincing others they're the best at what they do.

There's a reason we call progressive feminists feminazis in America. They understand democracy is a facade no less than Hitler.

[Rei Murasame]

As the saying goes, it isn't "what you know", but "who you know", that matters. Bureaucratic leaders aren't the best at what they do.

Maybe so, but is there any system that you think would give you the best person for the job in all cases? Exactly, it's a bit odd that anyone expects to always get the best person every single time.

[Daktoria]

Maybe so, but is there any system that you think would give you the best person for the job in all cases?

No, there is not. That's the point.

In order to get the best people, you need a method, not a system. You have to spontaneously improvise on an organic level to relate. That way, people can subjectively evaluate merit on their own judgment and decide to share experiences with those we trust.

I'm not just talking about economics or bureaucracy here either. This is life in general.

Exactly, it's a bit odd that anyone expects to always get the best person every single time.

I agree. Getting the best person is something which takes place over time, not in any given moment.

[Eran]

There's a very good reason that I don't contest the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Obviously there will always be those who rule and those who are ruled.

Why is that obvious? Why can't we have a system in which people rule over property (by owning it), but never over each other?

[SpaciousBox]

I forgot about this topic...

I don't understand why people act so surprised at the fact that we actually care about our own people. I'm surprised by your surprise. Addressing these issues is essentially the point of the folk-state. Japan in particular was very explicit about that. I feel very often like I'm perpetually repeating myself on this issue, but I wouldn't be a very good fascist if I weren't actually interested in helping people.

Can you name me a single fascist state in history that has given two shits about it's people? And I do mean its people, not the people of the fascist party, but all the people of the state itself. Fascism is an ideology that revolves around slavery - nothing more. Follow the rule of the state or die as an enemy of the people. It is always about supporting the imposed elite at the expense of the lower classes. They tend to have some nationalistic image of what is best for the nation. But what's best for the nation is not always what is best for the people of that nation, and what's best for that nation is very rarely what is best for other nations around it as well. So fascism seems to always end in war - which isn't very good for the people of that nation who end up dying, or going hungry, either. Sure, it works if you are successful - fascists in history have shown us that you can build a "lovely" nation out of it for at least 3/4 of the population. But at what expense? How many thousands need to die so your great leader can have cakes with his tea? How many of the working classes have to give their lives, or their bread, or their rights, for the same purpose. Sickening ideology to be honest. Exploitation and oppression in a smiling national flag - nothing more.

The fact that you see me as friendly to the working class, despite the fact that I am middle class, means that I am ideologically on the correct track.

I've never quite understood this; why would being middle class ever prevent someone from looking out for the working? There does seem to be a fairly large acceptance of this however, which is a big shame in my opinion. What class you come from shouldn't have any impact on the validity of your points.

Maybe so, but is there any system that you think would give you the best person for the job in all cases? Exactly, it's a bit odd that anyone expects to always get the best person every single time.

Well as pointed out, it is not about getting the best person, it's about getting closer to the best person. This really isn't an argument against democracy either, as there is absolutely no guarantee your third position dictator will be the best person for the job either. All we know, is they can command people, which clearly our politicians can do also - so neither side has any innate superiority that will assure the ability to lead a country. The benefits of democracy here is that we can get rid of our leaders with ease, where as in your system we cannot, and may even be tortured or executed for daring to suggest the great leader is wrong.

On a slightly different note, I actually share your interest in Japanese culture, though can't quite see where it reflects your beliefs and values. Which parts do you identify with most?

Why is that obvious? Why can't we have a system in which people rule over property (by owning it), but never over each other?

Ruling over property can be as good as ruling over people. Ever had a landlord? ever tried to rent property in an area where their are very few of them? - You probably get where I'm going with this.

[Preston Cole]

can you name me a single fascist state in history that has given two shits about it's people?

I think the more relevant question is what does "giving two shits about your people" mean to you? That people be given democratic rights doesn't necessarily mean giving two shits about them, as they will misuse, abuse and misunderstand that right, leading to the misery of the entire community - basically the 21st century in the West as we know it today.

How many of the working classes have to give their lives, or their bread, or their rights, for the same purpose. Sickening ideology to be honest. Exploitation and oppression in a smiling national flag - nothing more.

Dirty Stalinist propaganda. Let's use some of your leftist tenets and apply them to fascism.

Women's rights: Iraq, Fascist Italy and Oswald Mosley's Fascist Union have all given women far more weight and importance in the fascist state than democracy has.

Working class: How have the working classes fared under fascism, again? Kraft durch Freude, the National Recreation Program of Italy, the introduction of minimum wage by Mussolini, the state socialism of Iraq. Not to mention the misery that is Marxist class warfare being eradicated in all fascist states, giving the workers their freedom and better living conditions and tying them to the land - two concepts that aren't contradictory as Marxist retards like to claim. It's also worth mentioning that a lot of support was given to Hungarian National Socialism, German National Socialism and Romanian fascism by the urban working classes as well as the peasants.

Where's the exploitation? I bet you can't find any without resorting either to Marxism or Social Liberalism.

Racial equality: It's true that fascism believes in a degree of racialism for the sake of the ethnic natives. But this picture speaks for itself.

All we know, is they can command people, which clearly our politicians can do also - so neither side has any innate superiority that will assure the ability to lead a country.

Superiority in leading a country is developed by understanding the nation, loving it, and living and dying for the nation. Clearly liberals and most communists haven't done that because their creeds oppose such values.

The benefits of democracy here is that we can get rid of our leaders with ease where as in your system we cannot, and may even be tortured or executed for daring to suggest the great leader is wrong.

lol @ the with ease part Degenerating regimes and politicians can only be removed by force - their behavior and essence are scummy in such a way that they'll never quit the delights of power without a bullet.

That so-called benefit comes at the price of central authority and a patriotic spirit, so we can delude ourselves that we're "free" and autonomous. Basic personal liberty should indeed be preserved (one of the only points of liberalism I agree with and the reason I admire the American Revolution to an extent) but not at the expense of communitarian goals.