[Andropov]

In the same way that people are loyal to both their family and to their nation, people should have a strong connection to both their nation and to the species. Germany was once made up of dozens of small city-states and provinces and now is a singular country; the same should be done on a greater scale, with the planet as a whole. Why not? "A house divided against itself cannot stand." -Abraham Lincoln

[Benjamin Noyles]

- this word house = implies a basis for unity.

Germans are Germans - they share alot of things - they think the same way, have common history, have the common culture, etc.

The only thing that people have in common the world over is their humanity - that has never been a basis for social unity ever.

The most obvious flaw is that the mentality is suicidal so it is not part of anybodies nature. To begin with it would have to entail a complete destructuon of group mentality because if humanity becomes a collective what is in the interest of one group may not be in the interest of another. entire cultures may have to simply accept dissapearing off the face of the earth because they are useful in self destruction or because they need to be replaced with migrents, and so on. Therefore it is not an extension of patriotism it is the destruction of.

[Rilzik]

Could you define pan human fascism?

Sounds as impossible as communism to me.

[Preston Cole]

- Where is the common blood?
- Where is the common culture?
- Where are the common traditions?

Human Fascism sounds like a good idea, but you simply can't unite the human race fully along the aforementioned lines. You require a different approach, and the only one left is materialism, thus Marxist, thus completely unfascist.

You would be required to teach history from a planetary, not a national, point of view, for one thing. Then you would fabricate the theory that humans have always had common blood, which is just untrue. Then you would have to invent common traditions that do not exist. You can't fabricate spiritual ideas. So what is there left to unite us? Common interests in the long run, maybe (we share a common planet and common environment).

[telluro]

The usual arguments are strutted forward... the Germans are Germans, the Chinese are Chinese, assuming wrongly that the basis for unity always existed, and were not in fact CREATED by the state which politically unified them.

The argument for a pan-human fascism is a "progressive" one. Identity has always, perhaps necessarily and maybe even technologically, progressed from small tribal identities to larger more abstract identities. Why not push to the final identity? There are several reasons why we should. Now whether the bases for unity have to be created or have to be awaited is the more valid argument.

[Amanita]

It would not be a good idea to implement world government before any major external challenges (say, extraterrestrial contact) present themselves. That would only lead to stagnation and last man mentality. I don't quite agree with the given responses so far. The notions of common identity are created by states after unification.

Edit: telluro beat me to the last part.

[starman2003]

It would not be a good idea to implement world government before any major external challenges (say, extraterrestrial contact) present themselves.

ETs could be here already, but proof was covered up. But even without them, there is already ample reason for world government--dealing with environmental and economic issues of global extent, and ensuring peace and disarmament in an age of too-lethal WMD. Btw did Alexander and Caesar etc require ET to initiate unification of humanity?

[Fitzcarraldo]

Btw did Alexander and Caesar etc require ET to initiate unification of humanity?

Please define by what you mean 'unification of humanity'.

[Amanita]

Btw did Alexander and Caesar etc require ET to initiate unification of humanity?

You don't need anything to unify humanity. That's the natural tendency. The problem lies in what happens after unification. I think history, including the examples you mentioned, is replete with examples of victorious, hegemonizing powers becoming stagnant until replaced by younger, more vigorous ones.

[Rei Murasame]

Pan-human fascism.

How many more of the core principles of fascism-in-the-interregnum are you planning to try to question?

Usually I am very open to new suggestions, but this one is just way too much. I can't see what how you are going to pull all those people together except by - and I'm just going to come up with a guess here - claiming that all humans are bound together by a common Indo-European earth goddess religion from pre-history, and that everyone 'should come back together' as one planetary civilisation under her auspices.

You would immediately have to go to a war of conquest over most of the middle east, since they won't want to be in such a world order at all, and you want it to be pan-human so you won't be able to just exclude nations that object to it.

That whole thing seems to be getting way ahead of itself, it's more ambitious than any presently-existing fascistic ideology (if I can call it that, since it might not even be fascism - it may well immediately collapse into a front for neoliberalism if the religious stipulation is dropped, and believe me when I say that if you leave the global finance groups in charge, they would kick the cultural and religious issues to the curb immediately upon encountering resistance from a target population, in favour of raw profit-making. It would just be a neoliberal abomination.).

It also cuts against all the core ideas that Nouvelle Droite and just Far Right groups in general have been seeding across Europe the last few decades, so you are really asking everyone to change course and rewrite a core part of the ideology just as it's now starting to finally catch on?

[Andropov]

I don't actually believe in the aliens -> whites theory, I posted it as a thought experiment and as something interesting to think about.

The basis for human unification is that we are all human, just like the basis of German unification was that the Germans were all German; meaning, they spoke the same language and had relatively similar cultures, even though, for example, Pommerania was a bunch of Germanized slavs, and Prussia likewise was ethnically Baltic. Human beings are far more similar to each other than to other animals, much more so than Germans were to other Germans compared to, say, Italians.

The most obvious flaw is that the mentality is suicidal so it is not part of anybodies nature. To begin with it would have to entail a complete destructuon of group mentality because if humanity becomes a collective what is in the interest of one group may not be in the interest of another. entire cultures may have to simply accept dissapearing off the face of the earth because they are useful in self destruction or because they need to be replaced with migrents, and so on. Therefore it is not an extension of patriotism it is the destruction of.

As I said, there is no reason to wipe out pre-existing cultures; although we live in nation-states, we still have families, towns, and provinces that we feel a varying amount of loyalty towards.

Could you define pan human fascism?

Sounds as impossible as communism to me.

Fascism with the subject being the species instead of a particular nation. An authoritarian, militaristic, ultra-nationalist global state. It would combine traditional and progressive values, the former in areas of family, gender, loyalty, and honor, and the latter in most other areas. Traditional morality will be discarded; since we evolved moral values as a tool to help the species survive, it is nonsensical to rely on it during a time of great evolutionary change, biological, societal, and otherwise. Thus, the state will do things considered unethical in modern society like euthanize the mentally retarded and sterilize people with low IQs to better the species. The death penalty would be used liberally. At the same time, drugs will be legal to anyone over a certain age and free speech will have no limitations; basically, you will be able to do whatever you want unless it affects someone else negatively without their consent or affects their ability to do the same. Although science and technology will given as much funding as possible, materialist values will be rejected in favor of stressing and acknowledging perennial truths and the intractable connection people have with the universe. This might be different from what most people consider fascism, but it's what I consider to be the definition of the term (pan-human fascism, meaning), which I made up in the first place anyway.

- Where is the common blood?
- Where is the common culture?
- Where are the common traditions?

Human Fascism sounds like a good idea, but you simply can't unite the human race fully along the aforementioned lines. You require a different approach, and the only one left is materialism, thus Marxist, thus completely unfascist.

You would be required to teach history from a planetary, not a national, point of view, for one thing. Then you would fabricate the theory that humans have always had common blood, which is just untrue. Then you would have to invent common traditions that do not exist. You can't fabricate spiritual ideas. So what is there left to unite us? Common interests in the long run, maybe (we share a common planet and common environment).

There are certain archetypal values that transcend nationality and ethnic group. Still, I agree that it will be difficult to foster human identity without some sort of extraterrestrial species. Even then, unification will continue until all life in the universe is part of a union.

Humans do have common blood, in the literal sense; our blood is made of the same material. Surely this is more important than some lousy chromosome lineage.

Common interests, as you said, are the main force for unification. Everything else will come after that. I agree that there is something transcendent about group identity, but surely the history of the human species is far more cosmically important than of some petty tribe, wouldn't you agree?

The usual arguments are strutted forward... the Germans are Germans, the Chinese are Chinese, assuming wrongly that the basis for unity always existed, and were not in fact CREATED by the state which politically unified them.

The argument for a pan-human fascism is a "progressive" one. Identity has always, perhaps necessarily and maybe even technologically, progressed from small tribal identities to larger more abstract identities. Why not push to the final identity? There are several reasons why we should. Now whether the bases for unity have to be created or have to be awaited is the more valid argument.

Agreed.

[Andropov]

dp

[Rei Murasame]

Well hold on then:

As I said, there is no reason to wipe out pre-existing cultures; although we live in nation-states, we still have families, towns, and provinces that we feel a varying amount of loyalty towards.

However, what's happening here is that you are just furthering the neoliberal economic project then? The only thing you'd have harmonised is trade tariffs and implementing a de jure world government but the world would be de facto ruled by who? The same global multinational companies that are causing us such trouble now?

I'm not sure what you'll have accomplished there.

[Andropov]

No. Economically, I am a syndicalist and a corporatist with socialist sympathies. Corporate capitalism destroys culture and weakens communities. Local businesses will always be given benefits when competing with multinational chain stores, for example. Still, this is not really the fault of the corporations; people would rather spend 13 cents less on a mop than let their neighbor who owned a shop for 5 generations since 1843 not go out of business; this is a value problem and requires a paradigm shift in the common man's worldview, that could only be brought on by a totalitarian world state.

The world would be ruled by engineers, economists, biologists, etc, i.e. people who actually how things work and how to improve them.

[Rilzik]

An authoritarian, militaristic, ultra-nationalist global state.

This doesn't equal fascism as I understand it. Mind you, I am not a fascist and am pretty ignorant about it. My general fascism test is "the state above all else". In that respect it would pass, I think it was Mussolini who wanted to create a 'new man', not an Italian state but a greater state. I still don't see how a fascist state could survive not having a boogie man, a competitor. An authoritarian state sure but a global fascist state...

Put simply I don't think fascism is the word your looking for.

[Andropov]

How about cancer, global warming, liberals, rapists, etc? Far more rational and useful boogymen than another tribe, I think.

The state is simply a channel through which to acheive progress. To maximize this progress, the power of the state should be limitless, providing it is run by competent people and there is some soft of "checks and balances" type mechanism to make sure corrupt people or idiots don't take charge. Maybe if a point comes when all people become competent and understand what's good and what's bad, there could be implemented some sort of democracy.

[Rei Murasame]

The problem is that even though you say that you are about syndicalism and corporatism, that would mean that you would need to basically support international workers movements becoming enmeshed in a tripartite arrangement with a global government and international companies.

That structure would of course immediately set about using their influence to make sure that that international companies have bigger clout than local employers groups, and they'd have the spare capital to blow on doing it too. Developing regions would basically be placed on halt at whatever stage they are presently at, and they'd remain subordinate to those who are already developed.

And then the other thing is that you say that you'd have to create a paradigm shift to get people to still buy local, using the instructions of a totalitarian state, but that is the same state that you just said would not impose a religion or social ideology:

basically, you will be able to do whatever you want unless it affects someone else negatively without their consent or affects their ability to do the same.

This isn't exactly totalitarian in the way that people usually think of it as, it sounds almost like it's taking a page out of the books of libertarians. Won't they just just argue that they are 'not harming anyone' by preferring Tesco over the Polish corner shop?

[Andropov]

Why would it be set about in such a way? I certainly wouldn't make it so. The state should side with workers in almost all cases, unless something like the Wisconsin's teacher strike happened, in which case they would side with the employer.

Control of developing regions will be handed over to competent people instead of warlords. With enough time, they will not be "developing" any longer. They will be given aid in terms of infrastructure, health services, and the like by the global state; I don't understand why you think they will remain in some sort of perpetual poverty.

A totalitarian state will be used to impose personal freedom, as people all too often naturally form coercive institutions. If the government collapsed tomorrow, you'd have kings and lords all over again; part of the function of a state is to squash these things, for the betterment of either the nation or, in this case, the species as a whole.

They are harming people by choosing corporate over local, in a very long term causal way that thus would not be considered a subset of "as long as you don't harm anyone else." What the state should do is not limit people's freedoms, as this almost never works and often increases the problem, but rather alter their imperatives.

[Rilzik]

Why would it be set about in such a way? I certainly wouldn't make it so. The state should side with workers in almost all cases, unless something like the Wisconsin's teacher strike happened, in which case they would side with the employer.

Control of developing regions will be handed over to competent people instead of warlords. With enough time, they will not be "developing" any longer. They will be given aid in terms of infrastructure, health services, and the like by the global state; I don't understand why you think they will remain in some sort of perpetual poverty.

A totalitarian state will be used to impose personal freedom, as people all too often naturally form coercive institutions. If the government collapsed tomorrow, you'd have kings and lords all over again; part of the function of a state is to squash these things, for the betterment of either the nation or, in this case, the species as a whole.

They are harming people by choosing corporate over local, in a very long term causal way that thus would not be considered a subset of "as long as you don't harm anyone else." What the state should do is not limit people's freedoms, as this almost never works and often increases the problem, but rather alter their imperatives.

Because you seem and sorry if I am mistaken, to have the idealism of youth. The world just doesn't work that way. You can dream up whatever efficient system you want or fair system in the case of liberals, but because of human nature people will resist regardless of your intentions. The best system to squash kings has so far been democratic systems. If you take what you said and what Rei said in your last two posts, capitalistic democratic systems have succeed more in doing that then fascist or authoritarian regimes have combined.

[Preston Cole]

The problem is that even though you say that you are about syndicalism and corporatism, that would mean that you would need to basically support international workers movements becoming enmeshed in a tripartite arrangement with a global government and international companies.

International workers' movements are solely dedicated to their socialism. Corporatism requires the formation of corporatist labor unions not tied to their class interests; basic fascist ideology. Yes, Andropov's idea is basically internationalist (though not left-internationalist, but patriotic), but his idea of a world corporatism is not dissimilar from the Italian Fascist model which implements corporatism to serve the Nation, an organic community. Consequently, Pan-Human Fascism would consider the planet to be a nation and its labor unions, companies and government would act in a patriotic totalitarian fashion. International socialism would be discouraged just as international neoliberalism would because both prey on singular interests.

You're right about the way it would turn out, though. International liberal capitalists would be given the tools to choose which regions to develop further in a global state. Likewise, labor unions would internationalize themselves. Everyone would be international and even though I sympathize with planetary unification, this spirit of internationalism bugs me a lot. As Benjamin said, humanity has never been a unifying factor, and the only people getting all hyped about it these days are centrist liberals/socialists and extreme left pacifists.

Why would it be set about in such a way? I certainly wouldn't make it so. The state should side with workers in almost all cases

Siding with one class is a breach of corporatism.

A totalitarian state will be used to impose personal freedom, as people all too often naturally form coercive institutions.

Sounds like Heinleinism--conservative libertarianism. Fascism is a mass regimentation ideology. You could give more rights and freedoms to the people, but the basic militarist spirit must remain.