Fascists, I am curious - Page 7 - 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.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14540384
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not know. I can muse about possible motives, but I feel that might end up being less than polite for our fascist forum members.


Oh no. Please do. In fact, I promise ahead of time not to be offended.
#14540428
No, thank you.

I would not enjoy it, I would most likely be wrong, fascists would know better than I, and I do not see the relevancy of my unverifiable opinion.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14540438
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, thank you.

I would not enjoy it, I would most likely be wrong, fascists would know better than I, and I do not see the relevancy of my unverifiable opinion.


Your "unverifiable opinion" is relevant because you can't criticize fascism without knowing what motivates fascists.
#14540446
Saeko wrote:Your "unverifiable opinion" is relevant because you can't criticize fascism without knowing what motivates fascists.


Sure I can. I do it all the time.

For example, I can criticise it as a system by noting that it has systemic flaws, such as impunity for gov't officials.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14540457
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Sure I can. I do it all the time.

For example, I can criticise it as a system by noting that it has systemic flaws, such as impunity for gov't officials.


Not justifiably. If you don't know why fascists support fascism, then you don't understand fascism.

Without that understanding your criticisms are as relevant as your unverifiable opinions.
#14540458
You do not understand my motivations. Does that mean that you are unable to criticise me?

Back to the topic:

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.

You may have heard the term "power corrupts", which is not quite correct. In truth, power attracts those who are easily corrupted. Without a reliably effective system to keep people like that in check, you end up with a kleptocracy.
#14540459
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.

This has been happening in my country since 1974 (more accurately 1976) - And we're a secularist, human rights abiding liberal multiculturalist tolerant democratic republic based on the people's will My point here is that what you're describing can easily happen in a democracy as long as the laws are made with the elite in mind - And if I'm not mistaken the USA has a history of not punishing corporate leaders for crimes.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14540470
Pants-of-dog wrote:You do not understand my motivations. Does that mean that you are unable to criticise me?


People aren't ideologies, so the two cases are not comparable.

A political ideology has three major components. A set of beliefs about the world, a set of goals, and a set of means for achieving those goals.

Without understanding all three components, you don't understand the ideology, and if you don't understand it, you are not fit to criticize it.

Back to the topic:

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.

You may have heard the term "power corrupts", which is not quite correct. In truth, power attracts those who are easily corrupted. Without a reliably effective system to keep people like that in check, you end up with a kleptocracy.


Yes, if a "fascist" state was run by bourgeois-liberals, I'm sure they would use the state for their bourgeois-liberal goals and rob the people blind. All the more reason to get these idiots out of power ASAP and put a fascist party in power.

You may have heard the term "power corrupts", which is not quite correct. In truth, power attracts those who are easily corrupted. Without a reliably effective system to keep people like that in check, you end up with a kleptocracy.


The solution is simple. Kill all the bourgeois-liberals corrupt people.
#14540587
Saeko wrote:Yes, if a "fascist" state was run by bourgeois-liberals, I'm sure they would use the state for their bourgeois-liberal goals and rob the people blind. All the more reason to get these idiots out of power ASAP and put a fascist party in power.


It may be true that some fascists like Goering were corrupt....

The solution is simple. Kill all the bourgeois-liberals corrupt people.


.....but what statistics prove fascist regimes are more corrupt than democratic ones? Fascist regimes are established by those who think the State , the Whole, the common cause should be above all personal or individual interests. They have their share of rotten apples. But by and large fascistic regimes--or at least the most serious ones--aren't conducive to personal enrichment. Corrupt officials can be shot without trial, whereas in a democracy anybody with enough money for good attorneys can literally get away with murder. It's not true btw that power invariably corrupts, as Gibbon indicated.
#14540590
Dystopian Darkness wrote:In my opinion of the best traits humans can have in fascist regimes is the idea of doing what's best for the State and not for your own self, even if that includes sacrifices - This may seem terrible at first but if you think about it the biggest flaw of liberalism is that everyone does what's best for himself and eventually our interests collide and ruin everything.


John F. Kennedy wrote:"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."


OMG Kennedy was a fascist! That's why he was assassinated!!!1!!11 Now everything is becoming clear....

[/sarcasm] just in case...
#14540596
Dystopian Darkness wrote:This has been happening in my country since 1974 (more accurately 1976) - And we're a secularist, human rights abiding liberal multiculturalist tolerant democratic republic based on the people's will My point here is that what you're describing can easily happen in a democracy as long as the laws are made with the elite in mind - And if I'm not mistaken the USA has a history of not punishing corporate leaders for crimes.


I am discussing systemic flaws; flaws built directly into the system that allow the corrupt to be rewarded. You are discussing corrupt people who managed to circumvent the systemic checks and balances that are meant to keep the corrupt from getting too far.

All political systems can be co-opted by the corrupt. The problem with fascism is that there is nothing on fascism to stop this, while more democratic systems have ways of keeping corruotion in check.

Saeko wrote:People aren't ideologies, so the two cases are not comparable.

A political ideology has three major components. A set of beliefs about the world, a set of goals, and a set of means for achieving those goals.

Without understanding all three components, you don't understand the ideology, and if you don't understand it, you are not fit to criticize it.


Then there must be some confusion, because I thought you asked me to explain what motivated fascists, but now it seems you are asking me to tell you the stated goals of fascist movements, which I can address.

Yes, if a "fascist" state was run by bourgeois-liberals, I'm sure they would use the state for their bourgeois-liberal goals and rob the people blind. All the more reason to get these idiots out of power ASAP and put a fascist party in power.

The solution is simple. Kill all the bourgeois-liberals corrupt people.


But your system only works if all the self-proclaimed fascists are actually very moral and incorruptible people. Human nature is such that it is illogical to assume that all the people who share your ideology just happen to be of incredibly strong moral fiber.
#14540684
I am discussing systemic flaws; flaws built directly into the system that allow the corrupt to be rewarded. You are discussing corrupt people who managed to circumvent the systemic checks and balances that are meant to keep the corrupt from getting too far.

Those systemic flaws you are discussing also exist in liberal-capitalist democracies, the system is not only circumvented but built with the elite in mind.
All political systems can be co-opted by the corrupt. The problem with fascism is that there is nothing on fascism to stop this, while more democratic systems have ways of keeping corruotion in check.

If democracies have ways to keep corruption in check then they need to show how it's done instead of showing us how easy it is to be corrupt and get away with it.

But your system only works if all the self-proclaimed fascists are actually very moral and incorruptible people. Human nature is such that it is illogical to assume that all the people who share your ideology just happen to be of incredibly strong moral fiber.

[/quote]
Everyone has personal interests, no one is morally perfect - But I don't see how any of your arguments are not applicable to liberal-democracies nowadays
#14540685
Dystopian Darkness wrote:Those systemic flaws you are discussing also exist in liberal-capitalist democracies, the system is not only circumvented but built with the elite in mind.


No. Liberal democracies have checks and balances that fascist gov'ts do not. It is these systemic checks and balances that make it possible for the citizens to keep their gov't accountable. Fascism does not have these checks and balances because they would weaken the gov't and therefore would make it difficult for the gov't to unify the state.

If democracies have ways to keep corruption in check then they need to show how it's done instead of showing us how easy it is to be corrupt and get away with it.


They do, but you need to pay attention. No one is going to come along and force you to notice how judges throw unconstitutional laws out of court and explain how that is how the judicial branch of gov't acts as a check against the power of the legislative branch.

Everyone has personal interests, no one is morally perfect - But I don't see how any of your arguments are not applicable to liberal-democracies nowadays


As I already explained many times, fascism has these flaws that reward human greed, while liberal democracies try to make it hard for politicians to reward their own greed.
#14540688
No. Liberal democracies have checks and balances that fascist gov'ts do not. It is these systemic checks and balances that make it possible for the citizens to keep their gov't accountable. Fascism does not have these checks and balances because they would weaken the gov't and therefore would make it difficult for the gov't to unify the state.

Who told you that? In some ways a fascist State would be more effective at preventing corruption - Since corruption usually involves harm done to society and by consequence to the State, in a fascist government it would be easy to get rid of threats by simply executing or eliminating corrupt people instead of waiting for a long impossible to fulfil prosecution & trial with lots of appeals where the corrupt side has the best lawyers

They do, but you need to pay attention. No one is going to come along and force you to notice how judges throw unconstitutional laws out of court and explain how that is how the judicial branch of gov't acts as a check against the power of the legislative branch.

explain better. You are starting on the premise that modern constitutions are correct and well written


As I already explained many times, fascism has these flaws that reward human greed, while liberal democracies try to make it hard for politicians to reward their own greed.

It's the other way around. In liberal-capitalist democracies greed is what matters - Politics isn't an ideological job anymore, it's about gaining votes even if that means changing your ideological position to gather support. I don't see the greed part and how it would work according to your beliefs because, to some extent, a Fascist state is socialistic and would prevent what we modernly call the corporate dictatorship and wealth privilege by constructing a more meritocratic society and enjoying everyone's potential to contribute to the State's well being and sustainability
#14540709
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Liberal democracies have checks and balances that fascist gov'ts do not. It is these systemic checks and balances that make it possible for the citizens to keep their gov't accountable. Fascism does not have these checks and balances because they would weaken the gov't and therefore would make it difficult for the gov't to unify the state.


Now hold on just a second, there. That's a little bit of an oversimplification. The Grand Council of Fascism in Italy did, quite notably, serve as a check on Mussolini's power.

There were also fascists, Otto Strasser being the prime example, who were intensely critical of the Führerprinzip.

You could make the argument that liberal democracies have greater checks and balances but not that fascism is totally lacking any system of checks and balances.
#14540715
Dystopian Darkness wrote:Who told you that?


Everyone who understands how fascist gov'ts differ from liberal democracies. This is Poli.Sci. 101 stuff.

In some ways a fascist State would be more effective at preventing corruption - Since corruption usually involves harm done to society and by consequence to the State, in a fascist government it would be easy to get rid of threats by simply executing or eliminating corrupt people instead of waiting for a long impossible to fulfil prosecution & trial with lots of appeals where the corrupt side has the best lawyers


And what happens in a fascist society when the gov't is the corrupt side?

explain better. You are starting on the premise that modern constitutions are correct and well written


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... d_balances

    To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the "opulent minority" from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the United States Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Both bipartite and tripartite governmental systems apply the principles of the separation of powers to allow for the branches represented by the separate powers to hold each other reciprocally responsible to the assertion of powers as apportioned by law.

It would be more correct to say that I am starting on the premise that modern constitutions are correct and well written enough that we can have a functional and free society, and I also accept that there will be changes in the future so there must be a system to allow for such changes.

It's the other way around. In liberal-capitalist democracies greed is what matters - Politics isn't an ideological job anymore, it's about gaining votes even if that means changing your ideological position to gather support. I don't see the greed part and how it would work according to your beliefs because, to some extent, a Fascist state is socialistic and would prevent what we modernly call the corporate dictatorship and wealth privilege by constructing a more meritocratic society and enjoying everyone's potential to contribute to the State's well being and sustainability


You are making the assumption that fascism actually behaves exactly like the theory says it should, and not how human nature actually suggests it would unfold.

People will not always act in the collective good. In fact, most people won't if they can get away with it. Fascism seems to depend on everyone wanting to always act in the collective good. This is where it fails.

----------------

Cromwell wrote:Now hold on just a second, there. That's a little bit of an oversimplification. The Grand Council of Fascism in Italy did, quite notably, serve as a check on Mussolini's power.

There were also fascists, Otto Strasser being the prime example, who were intensely critical of the Führerprinzip.

You could make the argument that liberal democracies have greater checks and balances but not that fascism is totally lacking any system of checks and balances.


Yes, it is a simplification. You are completely correct when you say that liberal democracies have more checks and balances. It is more correct to say that than to imply that one system always has a perfect system of checks and balances while the other does not, as my simplification suggests.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14540734
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Then there must be some confusion, because I thought you asked me to explain what motivated fascists, but now it seems you are asking me to tell you the stated goals of fascist movements, which I can address.


Your lame attempts to dodge questions are really annoying. You know full well what I'm asking you.

But your system only works if all the self-proclaimed fascists are actually very moral and incorruptible people. Human nature is such that it is illogical to assume that all the people who share your ideology just happen to be of incredibly strong moral fiber.


It's not an assumption. In a fascist society it's a fact. If you don't have what the party says it takes to be a leader, then you don't get to be a leader.
#14540739
Saeko wrote:Your lame attempts to dodge questions are really annoying. You know full well what I'm asking you.


You asked "Why do fascists do fascism?". I hope you can understand why I was confused and thought you were asking me about the motivations of fascist individuals rather than the stated goals of fascist movements.

If you are asking me what the stated goals of fascism are, they 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.

It's not an assumption. In a fascist society it's a fact. If you don't have what the party says it takes to be a leader, then you don't get to be a leader.


I do not believe that this is a correct or logical assumption to make about a fascist leader, or any other member of a fascist gov't.
#14540907
Cromwell wrote:Now hold on just a second, there. That's a little bit of an oversimplification. The Grand Council of Fascism in Italy did, quite notably, serve as a check on Mussolini's power.


Not really. It didn't meet during the war, the most crucial period and it only got rid of him when he was washed up anyway.

You could make the argument that liberal democracies have greater checks and balances but not that fascism is totally lacking any system of checks and balances.



Again, in the real world, any leader who screws up is likely to fall, or be assassinated.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Trump, Oh my god !

It was never in reference to Epstein's suicide(Au[…]

And if we use someone’s past history as an indica[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Yes, and thank you for defining which things are […]

Is it true Sima Qian's Records Of The Grand Histo[…]