Fascist/Corporatist in theory, but not in practice? - 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.
#14523454
I had a hard time coming up with a title for this post to draw people in, I would like some input from people here.

Fascism/Corporatism is not a mainstream ideology in western democracies, I myself do not adhere to it. These things being said lately I've been focusing on envisioning how certain theoretical states would work in their idealized form. I can see to some extent how a fascist or state corporatist society might work (outside the pejorative connotation) although I do not agree with it.

This being said a common theme among far-rightists on this forum is how the current neo-liberal political order is morally bankrupt. Thus it might be reasoned some policies that are in place in a theoretical corporatist/fascist state could be opposed in the current context simply because the current political system would ensure they were screwed up.

I hope some fascists/corporatists can answer this question: how do you feel about temporary alliances with their theoretical opponents in terms of favoring seemingly counter-intuitive policies because the current political environment does not allow them to be implimented in accordance with the fascist vision? In other words would you oppose creating a total state if the right people were not in charge and if one were created how would you prevent that from happening later?
#14523466
I'm not a fascist but it is an interesting question and an interesting point. It certainly seems an inherent contradiction within the whole doctrine of totalitarianism, at first glance.

If the state's moral code is to be enforced absolutely, then it makes sense to imagine that that moral code must be absolutely correct.

However, I keep coming back to this quotation from Mussolini, which seems to make things a lot clearer...

"From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable."

...

Perhaps, you're asking something different. Are you wondering as to their position on the liberal state adopting their platform? Doesn't liberalism cease to be liberalism at that point, and become fascism?
#14523504
I'm not at all certain what it is you're trying to ask, since your post is so awkwardly worded but I will try to answer your last question.

Yes I would oppose the formation of a total state if thought criminals are going to end up in charge of it. This is because they will most likely end up doing great damage to the nation while they try to use the power of the state to attain whatever narrow and shortsighted goals they're likely to have.
#14524212
I must confess I'm trying to decipher and ascertain what the general thrust of this question is but I find it a little opaque. Would fascists support tactics used for the wrong reasons by people and interests they don't wish to see further empowered? I'd imagine the answer to that would be self-apparent. Why would we support empowerment of the tools of a hostile entity which can and doubtlessly will be utilized against us? It isn't the tactics alone which are praiseworthy or fit for glorification, but what ends they are used for.
#14524219
Far-Right Sage wrote:I must confess I'm trying to decipher and ascertain what the general thrust of this question is but I find it a little opaque. Would fascists support tactics used for the wrong reasons by people and interests they don't wish to see further empowered? I'd imagine the answer to that would be self-apparent. Why would we support empowerment of the tools of a hostile entity which can and doubtlessly will be utilized against us? It isn't the tactics alone which are praiseworthy or fit for glorification, but what ends they are used for.

I found the OP opaque as well. I think he conflates the tactics with the aims. That is he presumes that the aim is a "total state" rather than a tactic to achieve an aim.

What would you say are the ends of fascism for which the tactics are employed?
#14534198
Corporatism will never work because class conflict is a fact of life. The capitalism will always want an inexpensive and compliant workforce, and will only collaborate with labour if under pressure like the post-war consensus in the West. There's no reason to suggest that corporatism will never revert back to regular capitalism once they have the upper hand again, like Spain after Franco, for example.
#14534311
Quantum wrote:Corporatism will never work because class conflict is a fact of life. The capitalism will always want an inexpensive and compliant workforce, and will only collaborate with labour if under pressure like the post-war consensus in the West. There's no reason to suggest that corporatism will never revert back to regular capitalism once they have the upper hand again, like Spain after Franco, for example.

The technology is already here and developing everyday such that human labour is nearly obsolete. Entrepreneurs can have a cost effective and reliable workforce just by buying AI robots. Some variant of corporatism could enable the former working class a seat at the table of the goodies produced by the new armies of robots.

Anyway leftists wildly exaggerate and obsess over class conflict when in fact the full weight of history shows the most numerous and sharpest points of conflict erupt over ideological, genealogical and political fault-lines. It takes massive agitation and a lot of lying to persuade the hoi-polloi to hate fellow nationals and co-religionists who are wealthier than them more than foreigners and heathens even those of comparable status. So it is and so it always will be.
#14536673
taxizen wrote:The technology is already here and developing everyday such that human labour is nearly obsolete. Entrepreneurs can have a cost effective and reliable workforce just by buying AI robots.


Years ago, I thought the great machine takeover would occur by 2010. I still think it's coming but maybe not really for decades.

Some variant of corporatism could enable the former working class a seat at the table of the goodies produced by the new armies of robots.


I don't think the obsolete masses will get much more than subsistence.
#14536793
I also don't consider myself a fascist, but I find the problems you present interesting in a general context.

nucklepunche wrote:This being said a common theme among far-rightists on this forum is how the current neo-liberal political order is morally bankrupt. Thus it might be reasoned some policies that are in place in a theoretical corporatist/fascist state could be opposed in the current context simply because the current political system would ensure they were screwed up.
I would think so, but not because the current system would screw them up, but because they wouldn't work in my favour. Take state surveillance, for example. In a fascist state, that would be an approved policy, because it would monitor and remove dissenters. But in a non-fascist state, total surveillance would also monitor and remove dissenters, only this time the dissenters would be you.

I hope some fascists/corporatists can answer this question: how do you feel about temporary alliances with their theoretical opponents in terms of favoring seemingly counter-intuitive policies because the current political environment does not allow them to be implimented in accordance with the fascist vision? In other words would you oppose creating a total state if the right people were not in charge and if one were created how would you prevent that from happening later?
A total state with the wrong people in power would have altogether too much power to prevent my faction from relieving them of it So of course I would oppose it. I would support any measures that would weaken and destabilize the system as well as anything that makes the masses revile the ruling elites. That's just the smart thing to do.
#14536813
taxizen wrote:Anyway leftists wildly exaggerate and obsess over class conflict when in fact the full weight of history shows the most numerous and sharpest points of conflict erupt over ideological, genealogical and political fault-lines. It takes massive agitation and a lot of lying to persuade the hoi-polloi to hate fellow nationals and co-religionists who are wealthier than them more than foreigners and heathens even those of comparable status. So it is and so it always will be.

The nation-state is a relatively new phenomenon. Furthermore it only exists because of the exploitation of hierarchy. In fact many are not preoccupied by hierarchy only because they believe in spirits and gods. Tell a man he only has one life to live and suddenly he does become obsessed with hierarchy. Tell a man that rich people find it more difficult in the afterlife and suddenly he does not care as much about the money that he has. Yet most of the world feels the great loss of wanting for a need, yet are not in a state in which to express their disdain or any type of ideological thought because the need to be fulfilled encompasses the entire spirit. And when the need leaves the spirit is too tired to sacrifice more to attempt to change the circumstance.

The bondage of life follows most people from birth to death and they have no awareness that it could change because it feels as if it is their whole identity. In old society, the slave would want to be free but they would not condemn their master because hierarchy was something you were born to. But it is not a fact that it is difficult to hate fellow nationals. You do it by the very conditions with which you are given. Does the serf love his master for bringing order and food to the kingdom, or does he wall himself off at the first chance he gets and tries to claim property for his own? Revolts over taxation and hierarchy certainly happened. They are the reason that any revolution takes place. It is not because the subject suddenly sees his master for what he is, but because he always sees the master for what he is but sees no way to change it or indeed would like to be the master one day.

The wage slave always sees the future where he can own other wage slaves, until the day he dies he sees that notion even if he never acts on it. Ask any worker if he thinks he could do a better job than his superior and you can probably guess the answer. It is only the great brainwashing and constant threat of violence that keeps the subject in line.

As for the OP, if you do not consider your nation as the guiding light for which the world should follow, you are probably not a fascist. If you do not believe in expansion, militarism, and the state as an intermediary between the worker and the owner to end class conflict, you are probably not a fascist. If you believe that class conflict does not exist and capitalism is the best way to organize industry, fascism might seem like a lesser of two evils between communism and fascism. That is the reason why the liberals would support the fascists over the leftists. Liberals can at least work with fascists because their goals are not too dissimilar and their penchant for bureaucracy is one in the same.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

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

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

I (still) have a dream

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