Everyday Life in Fascist Society - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14488651
starman2003 wrote:It's stupid to satirize totalitarianism. People should ridicule democracy. A more authoritarian regime could rectify overpopulation and environmental degradation etc. Nothing could be worse than the longterm consequences of democracy, apart from the stupidity of human equality, as in one man one vote. Extolling a system which is killing us, while mocking a vitally needed solution can be likened to masochism.


So instead of collectively screwing up and making progress at the same time, we should entrust all of our freedoms to one dictator, and hope that he does something good instead of turning the country into North Korea?

could rectify overpopulation and environmental degradation

How exactly would we do that? Shooting people in the face sounds like a pretty good idea if they don't follow the party's rule, right?

Rei Murasame wrote:This was a moment of actual genius, because it is actually true. When the human is atomised, left adrift in a sea of infinite possibility but with no power to act, defeat follows from that. But when people come together for a common agenda, then human beings gain power over everything and can decide everything.


Screw common agendas. I'm a hedonist and im proud of it. Power comes from the acceptance of the transience of life, and with that comes the will to surmount any challenge given. Personal achievements are a lot better than some intangible goal designed to benefit an overweight dictator.

Nothing could be worse than the longterm consequences of democracy


Nothing can be worse than the longterm consequences of totalitarianism
Image

But hey, its all for the benefit of the people, right?
Image
#14488733
Yeah, okay, left-liberal. Watch this video:

The Miracle of the Han River - Park Chung Hee (South Korea)
[youtube]UA92mb3d3x0[/youtube]

Usually I don't argue using videos, but since you've decided to argue using pictures, I figure I might as well use video.

TLDW: The military coup was the best thing that ever happened to South Korea.
#14488751
In 1960, a popular movement in South Korea overthrew US-backed Syngman Rhee's government and a democratic government was established, against which General Park Chung-hee led a coup d’etat. Perhaps the CIA was behind the coup to install a pro-American government once again in Korea and Park was picked as the figurehead to fight the Cold War in Asia. But Park’s dictatorship began facing criticism from the US over his nuclear ambitions by the 1970s and he was assassinated by KCIA director Kim Jae-kyu in 1979. The CIA may also have been behind the assassination as the KCIA was a creation of the CIA, engaging in anti-Communist activities with the frequent detention and torture of dissidents who were sympathetic towards North Korea. Park was a controversial figure but he was one of many pro-Japanese collaborators in Korea and South Korea was a close ally of Japan while he was in power. The special law to redeem pro-Japanese collaborators' property was passed by the National Assembly in 2005 but this anti-Japanese law did not affect his daughter, who has become the first female president of South Korea. In a way, today's South Korea is as oppressive as it was under Park's dictatorship which lasted for two decades. In this political environment to systemically suppress pro-Japanese views, someone who may know the truth about Korean comfort women cannot come forward without risking losing everything he owns.

In June 1965 Park signed a treaty normalizing relations with Japan which included payment of reparations and the making of soft-loans from Japan and led to increased trade and investment between South Korea and Japan. In July 1966 South Korea and the United States signed a Status of Forces Agreement establishing a more equal relationship between the two countries. With its growing economic strength and the security guarantee of the United States, the threat of a conventional invasion from North Korea seemed increasingly remote. Following the escalation of the Vietnam War with the deployment of ground combat troops in March 1965, South Korea sent the Capital Division and the 2nd Marine Brigade to South Vietnam in September 1965, followed by the White Horse Division in September 1966. Throughout the 1960s, Park made speeches in which he blamed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and the British Empire generally for Japan's takeover of Korea.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee
#14489106
Rei Murasame wrote:Yeah, okay, left-liberal. Watch this video:

The Miracle of the Han River - Park Chung Hee (South Korea)
[youtube]UA92mb3d3x0[/youtube]

Usually I don't argue using videos, but since you've decided to argue using pictures, I figure I might as well use video.

TLDW: The military coup was the best thing that ever happened to South Korea.


Nice propaganda video.

South Korea's development under a dictator does not necessarily imply that an authoritarian form of government is inherently superior. You're ignoring the billions of dollars that America pumped into Korea's economy, as well as the strong economic relation with the United States that created a market for Korean exports. The Park Chung Hee era isn't evidence that Fascism works, it's evidence that American influence, advising and guidance works.

West Germany encountered challenges that were similar to that of South Korea, and yet they still managed to rebuild their nation without a dictator. Both benefited greatly from a relationship with the US/NATO, with the difference that Germany established a government that respected civil discourse and the process of democracy while encouraging economic growth. It doesn't take a dictator to invest in industry and education, as long as the ruling government is competent in economic affairs.
#14489119
The government was incompetent, therefore a coup was needed.

I don't debate these issues with left-liberals because it's a waste of my time to even bother with you. People who are receptive to what I'm saying will hear me. Those who are not receptive will complain in my general direction like you have just done. I don't care. You are proposing 'what if', and I am proposing what actually happened.

You people are simply allergic to success, and that's why it's incredibly annoying to talk to you.
#14489123
DrSteveBrule wrote:
Nice propaganda video.

South Korea's development under a dictator does not necessarily imply that an authoritarian form of government is inherently superior. You're ignoring the billions of dollars that America pumped into Korea's economy, as well as the strong economic relation with the United States that created a market for Korean exports. The Park Chung Hee era isn't evidence that Fascism works, it's evidence that American influence, advising and guidance works.

West Germany encountered challenges that were similar to that of South Korea, and yet they still managed to rebuild their nation without a dictator. Both benefited greatly from a relationship with the US/NATO, with the difference that Germany established a government that respected civil discourse and the process of democracy while encouraging economic growth. It doesn't take a dictator to invest in industry and education, as long as the ruling government is competent in economic affairs.


I think you're forgetting about an important dictator who managed to rebuild the German economy without any help from the outside.
#14489284
Rei Murasame wrote:The government was incompetent, therefore a coup was needed.

I don't debate these issues with left-liberals because it's a waste of my time to even bother with you. People who are receptive to what I'm saying will hear me. Those who are not receptive will complain in my general direction like you have just done. I don't care. You are proposing 'what if', and I am proposing what actually happened.

You people are simply allergic to success, and that's why it's incredibly annoying to talk to you.


1) I am not a "left-liberal". I'm more of a libertarian with pro regulation tendencies for vital services that cannot be performed by an independent free market.

2) How is a "liberal" society a precursor to failure? As I have pointed out, West Germany was rebuilt with a democracy that respected individual liberties.

3) Are you saying that West Germany (and the rest of Europe's success) is a what if scenario?

Saeko wrote:
I think you're forgetting about an important dictator who managed to rebuild the German economy without any help from the outside.


Are you seriously advocating Hitler's economic plan? His strategy only worked because it focused solely on the militarization of Germany, and a large chunk of their resources came from conquered nations and slave labor.
Last edited by DrSteveBrule on 20 Nov 2014 16:12, edited 1 time in total.
#14489287
DrSteveBrule wrote:1) I am not a "left-liberal". I'm more of a libertarian with pro regulation tendencies for vital services that cannot be performed by an independent free market.

Which I suppose is just as bad.

DrSteveBrule wrote:2) How is a "liberal" society a precursor to failure? As I have pointed out, West Germany was rebuilt with a democracy that respected individual liberties.

3) Are you saying that West Germany (and the rest of Europe's success) is a what if scenario?

In the Korean peninsula is it a 'what if' scenario, yes.
#14489331
DrSteveBrule wrote:Are you seriously advocating Hitler's economic plan? His strategy only worked because it focused solely on the militarization of Germany, and a large chunk of their resources came from conquered nations and slave labor.


What nations and what slaves were those? The economy crashed in 1930. Hitler became Reich Chancellor in 1933. The economy grew by leaps and bounds through 1939, which is when Germany invaded Poland.

EDIT:

His strategy only worked because it focused solely on the militarization of Germany


Yeah, it's pretty obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
#14489355
Saeko wrote:What nations and what slaves were those? The economy crashed in 1930. Hitler became Reich Chancellor in 1933. The economy grew by leaps and bounds through 1939, which is when Germany invaded Poland.

EDIT:

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.


http://www.dw.de/the-myth-of-hitlers-ro ... a-16144981

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tr ... ermany.htm

"Between 1933 and 1939, the wages paid out to those in the GLF actually dropped a little. The cost of living rose during the same time by 25%."

"An individual had no choice about a job placement as anyone labelled ‘work shy’ was sent to prison"

These workers were often treated poorly and were constantly under the threat of disappearing if they voiced dissent or decided to strike. This technically isn't slave labor, although its pretty close.

"The construction itself was marked by sickness, death, hunger and misery. There were strikes, and the strike leaders were sent to concentration camps"

"During the war years, more and more prisoners and Jewish forced laborers were sent to work in autobahn construction because the regular workers were fighting in the war."

http://gdc.gale.com/archivesunbound/arc ... 31944-the/

"While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, almost led to full employment during the 1930s"

http://www.nathaninc.com/sites/default/ ... %20One.pdf

"Forced labor1 sustained the German economy of the Third Reich during World War II. As many as 12 million people2 were forced to work for little or no pay. They came from Poland, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, and other countries, including neutral countries or those allied with the Third Reich"

Hitler's economy was supported by enormous amounts of debt and military spending. Proof?

http://www.academia.edu/4736105/Economi ... _1933-1945

"While government income increased from 7.8 billion reichsmark in 1933 to 28.8 billion reichsmark in 1939, government spending had increased from 8.1 billion reichsmark to 31.8 billion reichsmark in 1939. In 1939,government debt stood at 27.4 billion reichsmark"

See Table 3 : Budget of the Reich (1933-1939)
#14489363
First of all, in your previous post, you said that Hitler's economic policies that revitalized the German economy worked only because of slave labor, resources from conquered nations, and rearmament policies.

The relevant time period here is 1933-1939. The war years are irrelevant because the economy had long since recovered by then. Before the war, it is not possible for resources to have come from conquered nations.

The second part of your claim is that the rearmament policies were the sole foundation of the Nazi economy, but this is contradicted by your own source:

Schacht was one of the few finance ministers to take advantage of the freedom provided by the end of the gold standard to keep interest rates low and government budget deficits high, with massive public works funded by large budget deficits. The consequence was an extremely rapid decline in unemployment—the most rapid decline in unemployment in any country during the Great Depression. Eventually this Keynesian economic policy was supplemented by the boost to demand provided by rearmament and swelling military spending.


The last part is the slave labor. While it is true that the Nazis did use lots of slave labor during the war in occupied territories, before that, the only thing your frantic googling could apparently find was something that is "pretty close".

If this is a point against dictatorship, then how many points is it against democracies like the US, who used slave labor for a large part of its history and as a major component of its labor force?

Hitler's economy was supported by enormous amounts of debt and military spending. Proof?

http://www.academia.edu/4736105/Economi ... _1933-1945

"While government income increased from 7.8 billion reichsmark in 1933 to 28.8 billion reichsmark in 1939, government spending had increased from 8.1 billion reichsmark to 31.8 billion reichsmark in 1939. In 1939,government debt stood at 27.4 billion reichsmark"


Oh no. Spending money. The most unforgivable of all sins...
#14489387
Saeko wrote:First of all, in your previous post, you said that Hitler's economic policies that revitalized the German economy worked only because of slave labor, resources from conquered nations, and rearmament policies.

The relevant time period here is 1933-1939. The war years are irrelevant because the economy had long since recovered by then. Before the war, it is not possible for resources to have come from conquered nations.

The second part of your claim is that the rearmament policies were the sole foundation of the Nazi economy, but this is contradicted by your own source:


The last part is the slave labor. While it is true that the Nazis did use lots of slave labor during the war in occupied territories, before that, the only thing your frantic googling could apparently find was something that is "pretty close".

If this is a point against dictatorship, then how many points is it against democracies like the US, who used slave labor for a large part of its history and as a major component of its labor force?


Schacht was one of the few finance ministers to take advantage of the freedom provided by the end of the gold standard to keep interest rates low and government budget deficits high, with massive public works funded by large budget deficits. The consequence was an extremely rapid decline in unemployment—the most rapid decline in unemployment in any country during the Great Depression. Eventually this Keynesian economic policy was supplemented by the boost to demand provided by rearmament and swelling military spending.


1) Harsh working conditions with low pay, and the alternative is prison. If you don't want to call that slave labor, thats fine by me. We can call it "productivity enhancement" or "low cost human resource utilization".

2) The rearmament was not the entire budget of the German economy, but it was a massive one. According to the source above, the lowest is 18.3%, while the highest was 57.9%. That puts it out to an average of about 34%.

3) For the 1933-38 period, construction expenditures average out 19%. Transportation averaged out to 9%. However, some of these public works projects also had military applications as well.

4) Records were not well kept. Some sources estimate military expenditures to be much higher than the figures shown due to the fact that the transfer of funds in Nazi Germany was often shadowy.

https://sample-22ec8903a4bdb6f8fb120948 ... estruction

P 257-261

"In April 1934 the secret financing system for rearmament was set in full swing. Mefo bills flowed in their billions. The bookeeping was not precise. However, in 1934 military spending came to at least 4 billion Reichsmarks, of which less than half appeared in the official Reich budget."

"In 1935, the military's share rose sharply to 73 percent"

Of course, the public expenditures are quite significant. However, as seen by the charts, military spending was the primary budgetary expenditure. Should I clarify my statement then?

Germany's prewar economic growth was primarily fueled by military expenditures, but public works programs that utilized "productivity enhancement" techniques also created economic success.

If this is a point against dictatorship, then how many points is it against democracies like the US, who used slave labor for a large part of its history and as a major component of its labor force?


The difference is that a democracy (America) actually moved past slavery and took steps to rectify the mistakes made. Fascists would tell people to deal with it, and proceed to "erase" anyone who tried to talk about it.

Saeko, are you Rei?
#14489408
DrSteveBrule wrote:Of course, the public expenditures are quite significant. However, as seen by the charts, military spending was the primary budgetary expenditure. Should I clarify my statement then?

Germany's prewar economic growth was primarily fueled by military expenditures, but public works programs that utilized "productivity enhancement" techniques also created economic success.


Saying that military expenditures are the "primary" component of the budget is very different from saying that it is the only part of the budget. As you've now backpedaled sufficiently far enough to actually agree with me, I guess we can dispense with the idea that dictatorships can't have successful economic policy without help from the outside or whatever.

The difference is that a democracy (America) actually moved past slavery and took steps to rectify the mistakes made. Fascists would tell people to deal with it, and proceed to "erase" anyone who tried to talk about it.


America "moved past" slavery only after its economy had been greatly benefiting from it for more than a century. The only difference is that Hitler didn't live long enough to build up Germany using slave labor, then to end the practice and play remorseful afterwards.

Saeko, are you Rei?


I am Rei. You are Rei. We are all Rei.
#14489431
The difference is that a democracy (America) actually moved past slavery and took steps to rectify the mistakes made.

Slavery was not a "mistake". It was done quite deliberately, and it was, in fact, highly lucrative and economically successful, at least for a time. The slave trade kick-started the Industrial Revolution in Britain (by providing huge amounts of capital which needed to be invested), and therefore created our modern world. When it ceased to be economically profitable, due to the changing nature of the capitalist mode of production, it was abandoned.
#14489451
Potemkin wrote:When it ceased to be economically profitable, due to the changing nature of the capitalist mode of production, it was abandoned.
Slavery was still highly profitable when it was abolished, some argue it was more profitable than it had ever been. One of the antagonisms that led to the civil war was the Northerners desire to subsidise northern industry with profits from the slave plantations. There is still much agricultural work that is labour intensive there is no reason why slavery could not still be profitable in certain areas. And then there's niche areas like domestic servants and prostitution where slavery would be highly commercially desirable. Slavery was abolished because it was considered morally repugnant. This is not to deny that there was and still is much hypocrisy with the dominate ideological currents.

We must never forget for example the brave men of Texas who laid down their lives so as slavery could be reintroduced after the high handed "liberal" authoritarian, high handed moralistic government of Mexico abolished it. I don't think any one has tried to argue that slavery was un profitable in 1772 with Somerset vs Stewart. The industrial revolution had barely begun. No it was a moral issue. It was Somerset vs Stewart and the Americans desire to retain the plantation slave terror regime that fuelled the united State independence movement.
#14489482
Saeko wrote:
Saying that military expenditures are the "primary" component of the budget is very different from saying that it is the only part of the budget. As you've now backpedaled sufficiently far enough to actually agree with me, I guess we can dispense with the idea that dictatorships can't have successful economic policy without help from the outside or whatever.

I am Rei. You are Rei. We are all Rei.


1) 73% may not be ALL of the economy, but it was a large enough share of the economy to dictate that a recovery would not have occurred at all without an investment in the armed forces. You're trying to imply that a recovery could be possible without an absurd investment in their military, which I have proved is false. My original statement also did not say that it was the only part of the budget. My original statement argued that the recovery was made only because of military spending.

2) I consider the 1939-1945 war period as relevant. Of course, their economic success declined as they lost the war, but the German economy did benefit greatly from conquered nations during the stages where Europe was under Nazi occupation.

3) Hitler's economy was barely sustainable. As evidenced by Reagan, a large military industrial complex only grows and leeches funds from other essential services of a nation. The low cost labor came at the expense of the people who were forced to work under less than ideal conditions. In fact, this excess spending caused their debt to grow at an uncontrollable rate. It might be successful on the surface, but the relative lack of quality of life improvements when compared to a democracy negates those gains. Of course, Fascism is always superior if you choose to disregard individual quality of life and civil liberties.

Rei Murasame wrote:It's almost like no one can agree with me on anything, without being accused of being me. Why is that?


The similarities are quite unnerving.

Potemkin wrote:Slavery was not a "mistake". It was done quite deliberately, and it was, in fact, highly lucrative and economically successful, at least for a time. The slave trade kick-started the Industrial Revolution in Britain (by providing huge amounts of capital which needed to be invested), and therefore created our modern world. When it ceased to be economically profitable, due to the changing nature of the capitalist mode of production, it was abandoned.


It was still profitable when America abolished it. However, a few issues arose.

1) Slaves occupied labor that the North wanted to be reserved for blue collar white workers.
2) Slavery gave the South immense political influence, which the North distrusted.
3) Many Northerners found it morally unacceptable, although racial inequality was still perpetuated by some abolitionists.
#14489506
DrSteveBrule wrote:The similarities are quite unnerving.

Similarities such as what? We write differently (evidently educated in different countries), spell differently (this is because I'm in Britain, and Saeko is evidently somewhere in North America), carry a different tone, organise posts differently.

The posts that Saeko has written on this page could never be written by me, because the way that she organises her posts is completely different. Even if you blanked out the names of who was posting, it should be possible to differentiate our posts with ease.

The only similarity you are seeing is an ideological overlap.

If you look at posts by me like:


I think no one else writes the way that I do on PoFo at all. I've chosen those links because they are 'typical', and because they don't contain long sections of me quoting other people, so that way you get a sense for what my writing looks like.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]