[Far-Right Sage]

What is your definition of a poor country?

There were strong Fascist movements in Brazil, Mexico, and, to a lesser extent, Lebanon.

There have been movements ideologically aligned with Fascist thought on almost every continent.

[starman2003]

..to a lesser extent, Lebanon.

I despised the christian phalange.

There have been movements ideologically aligned with fascist thought on almost every continent.

But no good or really strong ones here in the US. Btw the AFM hardly seemed aligned with fascist thought to me.

[TheEconomist]

The best fascist is a dead fascist.

[Preston Cole]

The best liberal is a starving liberal dressed in fancy clothes.

[TheEconomist]

Feminism is for frustrated women and fascism is for frustrated men in liberal economies.

When a women finds a good husband = feminism ends.

When a fascist or a commie finds some money/success = fascism and communism ends.


You know I'm right.

[TheEconomist]

Fascism and communism are basically two sides of the same coin: they both encourage weakness. That is why liberal market oriented economies will always triumph over fascist and communist economies.

[starman2003]

When a fascist or a commie finds some money/success = fascism and communism ends.

Hitler and Mussolini enjoyed some success in business before gaining power. Fascists/communists/wholists want political power, to further some great ideal. Why did Adolf want power--so he could just live it up? He could've done that if he wanted to. He didn't have to launch risky wars. But he did because for him and others what mattered was some ideal above anyone's personal interest.

..they both encourage weakness.

The reich didn't seem very weak in 1940 ie. as long as it confronted democracies which weren't too much luckier in terms of greater population and resources. Not until the reich attacked the USSR did it face a really worthy opponent.

...liberal market economies will always triumph over fascist and communist economies.

Exactly why US jobs go overseas, to less democratic countries... As for "always," technology may turn the present economic system on its head in just a few decades.

[Rei Murasame]

You know I'm right.

You couldn't be more wrong, as Fascism is a collectivist phenomenon that is usually thought-through and enacted by the middle class. Feminism is a collectivist phenomenon that happens when women decide to actually engage in politics seriously.

No matter how much money you throw at it, it won't go away.

[Dave]

When a women finds a good husband = feminism ends.

I couldn't agree more. A feminist woman is just one who hasn't fallen in love with a strong man and therefore desires to be a man.

[Rei Murasame]

It's not really possible to be a feminist in isolate, without contact with actual other women in her life who are politically-minded, the chances are there that could will regress into becoming subordinate to the present system.

Since feminism is a collectivist ideology, those who don't work toward building it are excluding themselves from that process and acting as a dead-weight, but feminism would only end for that person. The few gains that the ideology has made so far (society has not implemented many of its prescriptions yet, nor has it done so correctly on many of those that it has, but I will not delve into that here) would remain in effect so long as the society at large does not challenge it, and so long as the state does not reverse what few policies it has already implemented.

TheEconomist's comments are based on a misunderstanding of feminism, since he seems to think that it's purely an individualistic and personal 'self-help' ideology, but feminism does not accept that 'personal' makes any sense in the first place and it rejects individualism.

It's interesting that TheEconomist wanted to minimise both Feminism and Fascism by trying to falsely portray them as transient self-help ideologies, when he is a subscriber to Liberalism, the one and only premier 'personal self-help' bullshit dressed up as ideology:

[...]To safeguard the hegemony of the employing class and to create a subordinate and efficient workforce, a new managerial ideology was formulated which legitimized the employers' authority by ascribing to them the role of economic and moral leadership over the working classes. This new concept was in sympathy with the mentality of the Victorian community, and therefore was complemented and further developed by the theories of social moralists and political economists.

The social value of capitalist enterprise was buttressed by numerous arguments which equated capitalism with prosperity. Samuel Smiles was perhaps the most effective propagandist for the employers' cause. His books, especially Self-Help, were important distributors of ideas which were in harmony with the capitalist vision of social order and progress. Smiles emphasized that the capitalists' success was based on self-denial, perseverance, thrift and hard work. Having established the relation between entrepreneurial initiative and prosperity, it naturally followed that possession of these qualities of business skill made the employer the natural leader of the working classes. Those who had achieved positions of authority could legitimately control employees on the grounds of moral superiority.

The optimistic appeal of self-help also settled the ideological conflict between the employer's authority and his denial of responsibility, by altering contemporary attitudes towards the workers' opportunities for personal success. The 'gospel of work' offered the workers a guide to self-improvement and concluded that the solution to working-class problems lay primarily with the workers themselves. The condition of the workers was, therefore, not dependent on the employer as in the traditional theory of dependence but completely reliant on their own efforts. In this manner, the social roles of the two parties were arranged: the middle class would establish self-help projects, while the workers would co-operate with and accept the bourgeoisie as their superiors.

This denial of social responsibility was further reinforced by the 'iron laws' of political economy, which evaluated labour as a factor of production to be used in a manner similar to any raw material.

liberal market oriented economies will always triumph

Until people (especially the lower class) figure out that you are full of bullshit, and then that all comes to an end. If they come demanding someone's head on a platter, I'll just point them in your general direction and run, since it is Liberals like you who are at fault.

[Dave]

Am I reading you wrong, or are you seriously denigrating self-help?

[Rei Murasame]

I am denigrating it because what is called self-help is actually just everyone in society abdicating their responsibilities. This topic happened before, so for the full context you'd have to look at this link here. It develops into quite a storm later on down.

[Dave]

Are you kidding me?



What is wrong with this book?

[Rei Murasame]

I don't mean stuff like that, since that's not being deployed as the reasoning behind a political ideology, that sort of book is certainly not what I meant.

[Dave]

I don't mean stuff like that, since that's not being deployed as the reasoning behind a political ideology, that sort of book is certainly not what I meant.

Self-improvement is not a political ideology per se, it is a social movement to aid men in bettering themselves. It is one of the noblest things about English civilization, particularly the American branch which more fully embraced it.

As for the article, frankly I think it's true that employers tend to be morally superior to workers. However, from this it does not follow that they have a moral right to oppress workers or that such oppression is socially desirable. Instead, workers deserve compassion and support.

[starman2003]

...or that such oppression is socially desirable.

"Oppression" in the sense of keeping the living standards of the proles or masses fairly low, can be in the best interest of the State, man's future in space and the environment.

[Dave]

"Oppression" in the sense of keeping the living standards of the proles or masses fairly low, can be in the best interest of the State, man's future in space and the environment.

Of course it can be, but oppression in the sense of capitalists and landlords treating workers and peasants savagely is certainly not in the interests of the state, because it produces social instability.

[starman2003]

But that's not the problem now anyway; this isn't the early 19th century. Btw if by "treating workers savagely" you mean making them work long hours for little pay, that's what all major industrial powers did, to ensure capital investment instead of consumption.

[Dave]

But that's not the problem now anyway; this isn't the early 19th century. Btw if by "treating workers savagely" you mean making them work long hours for little pay, that's what all major industrial powers did, to ensure capital investment instead of consumption.

Given that Rei posted something from the 19th century, that is what was on my mind. Today in the advanced industrial nations treatment is certainly not savage, though worsening inequality, unemployment, and ethnic strife are now increasing social instability for no discernible purpose.

Not all industrial powers industrialized on a low-wage model at all.

[starman2003]

Of course treatment is different now and has been for some time, because capital investment was achieved. Sure, instability may increase for a variety of reasons, including, perhaps, mass unemployment if human workers become obsolete in more fields. But I do discern a longterm "purpose" or redeeming feature--the ultimate cracking of the democratic system.