Fascists, I am curious - Page 8 - 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.
#14540923
Saeko wrote:So fascist leaders don't want to be fascist? :?:


I meant that it makes no sense to assume that the party members and their leader are all of incorruptible moral fibre.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14541096
Pants-of-dog wrote:
I meant that it makes no sense to assume that the party members and their leader are all of incorruptible moral fibre.


No one is assuming that the party members and their leader are all of "incorruptible moral fibre", just that they are required to meet certain standards.
#14541099
Actually, I have explained to you how that assumption is woven into the very system of fascism, which is why I called it a systemic flaw. Would you like me to explain it again?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14541101
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, I have explained to you how that assumption is woven into the very system of fascism, which is why I called it a systemic flaw. Would you like me to explain it again?


Yes, I would.
#14541302
Saeko wrote:Yes, I would.


The stated goals of fascism are to create a cohesive society that acts collectively in order to make the world a wonderful and happy place for all. They drew their inspiration from the way the gov't was able to mobilise the entire society during WWI. The motivation is to make society act that way all the time.

To do this, the society gives a huge amounts of power to the gov't, so that the gov't can impel people to act in a unified manner, even when the people do not want to. In order to give gov't that much power, certain checks and balances against gov't power must be either thrown out or never put in place.

This lack of checks and balances creates an impunity for gov't officials.

This systemic flaw of impunity leads to corrupt politicians and officers abusing their position because they know they can get away with it. The same mechanisms that are supposed to empower the state end up empowering the people who supposedly work for the state. And they are simply people, with the same flaws as anyone else.

They become corrupted, they abuse their power.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14541439
Pants-of-dog wrote:
The stated goals of fascism are to create a cohesive society that acts collectively in order to make the world a wonderful and happy place for all. They drew their inspiration from the way the gov't was able to mobilise the entire society during WWI. The motivation is to make society act that way all the time.

To do this, the society gives a huge amounts of power to the gov't, so that the gov't can impel people to act in a unified manner, even when the people do not want to. In order to give gov't that much power, certain checks and balances against gov't power must be either thrown out or never put in place.

This lack of checks and balances creates an impunity for gov't officials.


This systemic flaw of impunity leads to corrupt politicians and officers abusing their position because they know they can get away with it. The same mechanisms that are supposed to empower the state end up empowering the people who supposedly work for the state. And they are simply people, with the same flaws as anyone else.

They become corrupted, they abuse their power.


It seems to me that you are confusing fascism with despotism. Giving total power to the state does not mean giving every (or even any) state official wholly arbitrary powers over everyone else. It just means that there is no area of life that the state cannot touch.
#14541558
Saeko wrote:It seems to me that you are confusing fascism with despotism.


Fascism is a form of despotism. This is like saying I am confusing bananas with fruit.

Saeko wrote: Giving total power to the state does not mean giving every (or even any) state official wholly arbitrary powers over everyone else. It just means that there is no area of life that the state cannot touch.


From a practical perspective, it does mean that, because there is no way to stop the official for exercising wholly arbitrary powers over everyone else now that you have given total power to the state.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14541625
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Fascism is a form of despotism. This is like saying I am confusing bananas with fruit.


In some sense yes. In the way I'm using the word "despotism", no. I just can't think of a better word for describing a government where the power of individual state officials is absolute and arbitrary.

From a practical perspective, it does mean that, because there is no way to stop the official for exercising wholly arbitrary powers over everyone else now that you have given total power to the state.


That is a non-sequitur.
By Quantum
#14541692
Fascism is about caring for your fellow nationals. Dictatorship and elimination of social "undesirables" is just something that comes with the package. Fascism is the political equivalent of the id, where decadence and arbitary bouts of primeval violence occur because of the particular mood of the leader. It's no wonder why fascism tends to become unstable after conflict or a change of leader. The most stable systems is where institutions rather than personalities rule, which prevents any extreme changes in society depending on the leader in charge.
#14541718
Saeko wrote:In some sense yes. In the way I'm using the word "despotism", no. I just can't think of a better word for describing a government where the power of individual state officials is absolute and arbitrary.


The power of individual state officials in a fascist government is more likely to be absolute and arbitrary than in other systems.

That is a non-sequitur.


I don't agree. Would you like to expand on that, please?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14541726
Pants-of-dog wrote:
The power of individual state officials in a fascist government is more likely to be absolute and arbitrary than in other systems.

I don't agree. Would you like to expand on that, please?


It is a non-sequitur because properties of a whole are not necessarily properties of its parts. For example, Congress has the authority to pass laws, but individual congressmen don't.

Fallacy of division.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14541737
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does that apply to what I said?


It shows why what you said is a non-sequitur. Just because the state has absolute power, it does not follow from that that any of its members do.
#14541970
Saeko wrote:It shows why what you said is a non-sequitur. Just because the state has absolute power, it does not follow from that that any of its members do.


If we assume that the state actually requires a gov't that is run by actual people who exercise the power of the state, it does mean that the gov't officials wield the power we give to the state.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14541996
Pants-of-dog wrote:
If we assume that the state actually requires a gov't that is run by actual people who exercise the power of the state, it does mean that the gov't officials wield the power we give to the state.


Nice try, but you're just playing word games.
#14542001
You can phrase it any way you want, but my claim is still consistent with reality: politicians have power, and in a fascist system, they can more easily wield this power with impunity.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14542021
Pants-of-dog wrote:You can phrase it any way you want, but my claim is still consistent with reality: politicians have power, and in a fascist system, they can more easily wield this power with impunity.


Your claim is not even consistent with logic. As I've said before, your argument is a fallacy of division.

And since you aren't a fan of logic, I will just continue to point out the absurdity of your reasoning for those who are.

POD-sylogism:

P1. An elephant is made of atoms.
P2. A human is made of atoms.
P3. An elephant is bigger than a human.
C1. Therefore, an elephant's atoms are bigger than a human's atoms.
#14542032
Saeko wrote:Your claim is not even consistent with logic. As I've said before, your argument is a fallacy of division.


Yes, you said that. However, you have yet to show that.

EDIT:

I understand that you are trying to say that just because a whole exhibits a certain behaviour or has a certain trait, it does not necessarily mean that the parts do. This is true. But let's look at it more conretely:

We are discussing limits of governmental power. Governmental power is wielded by politicians. It is not wielded by the state. The state is an abstract concept and not an agent of action. It cannot wield power.

You think I am saying that the state has power and therefore the politicians have power because they are part of the state. that is not what I am saying. The state has no power.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14542117
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Yes, you said that. However, you have yet to show that.

EDIT:

I understand that you are trying to say that just because a whole exhibits a certain behaviour or has a certain trait, it does not necessarily mean that the parts do. This is true. But let's look at it more conretely:

We are discussing limits of governmental power. Governmental power is wielded by politicians. It is not wielded by the state. The state is an abstract concept and not an agent of action. It cannot wield power.

You think I am saying that the state has power and therefore the politicians have power because they are part of the state. that is not what I am saying. The state has no power.


I think I see where you're coming from better now, but I still strongly disagree with this belief.

"Abstract concepts" and "agents of action" are not at all mutually exclusive.

For example, a human "agent of action" is simply an abstract collection of neurons connected to a body (which executes the brain's decisions). A human agent cannot make decisions independently of his neurons. So, by your logic, we would have to conclude that humans agents don't make decisions, only their individual neurons do. But this is absurd.
#14542124
Saeko wrote:I think I see where you're coming from better now, but I still strongly disagree with this belief.

"Abstract concepts" and "agents of action" are not at all mutually exclusive.


Yes, they are.

To be an agent of action requires volition. Abstract concepts do not have volition.

For example, a human "agent of action" is simply an abstract collection of neurons connected to a body (which executes the brain's decisions). A human agent cannot make decisions independently of his neurons. So, by your logic, we would have to conclude that humans agents don't make decisions, only their individual neurons do. But this is absurd.


This does not compare to the situation we are discussing. I suggest you stop using comparisons and examples and focus on the mechanics of gov't power.

In concrete terms of gov't power, the position of Prime Minister has power associated with it, but it has no power in and of itself. The person who fills the role of PM is the person who actually wields the power.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

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[…]