Traditionalism vs. Fascism - 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.
#14637308
quetzalcoatl wrote:From this perspective, you could view capitalism not as a formal ideological system
Precisely my objection to the term Capitalism. It conflates a technological revolution, beginning in the late eighteenth century with exactly as you put it: "a formal ideological system." So capitalism seems to mean the set of industrialised societies minus the set of industrialised societies that are categorised as socialist. The latter can be defined to include no societies to every modern society depending on the ideological or any proportion in between depending on your ideological needs.

Capitalism was a pejorative term created by Marxists, designed to deny or least invalidate or de-legitemise the democratic, social and economic advances of more market based industrialised societies. To Marxists it means dictatorship of the bourgeois. Libertarians have chosen to embrace the term for the very opposite ideological agenda. the rest seem to have accepted it uncritically. there are number of these empty signifiers or at least largely or substantially empty signifiers that confuse and delay the debate.

Terrorism is another empty signifier, but I don't put energy into challenging that because its a useful term to evade the Liberal thought police. You can call for mass killing, torture, ethnic cleansing, anything really as long a you always remember to add the term terrorist - Love it. The Ukrainans against the Russians, the Syrians and of course Putin in Syria have all jumped on the bandwagon. Our Western leaders have no one to blame but themselves.
#14637313
The implication that civilization is evolving toward something is unclear.


It can only be unclear if you are living in it which we are. It becomes clear when later generations study it. Globalization has not run its full course when it does, something else will have developed to replace it. However our dispositions now will make the difference for the future.
#14637610
starman2003 wrote:
Here we are in the space age so why be so archaic? What is needed is a new secular ideology based on modern science, which picks up where fascism and communism left off.


I was referring to cultural paganism, which is a term that can be applied regardless of religion. I mostly use the term to describe a view that denies the existence of absolute truth, or at least the existence of a single truth. I also use it for communitarianism since most pagan religions were not individual experiences but community experiences.

It would be better to just have special schools to train the inherently brightest or best in terms of leadership ability as Plato envisaged.


This only works in a society where most exist as slaves, and can't be resurrected. Moreover all it would do is create alienation from the rest of society by separating them from the system, no one would have any real reason to defend the system. This idea would maybe last for a generation and degenerate into a nepotistic aristocracy. I used to believe in a similar system, but I ultimately concluded that it would degenerate far too quickly, and probably wouldn't even perform well to begin with. The potential for corruption would be absolutely massive.

Additionally selecting the "best and brightest" is inherently problematic, many have great potential that isn't revealed until later in life, this system would be needlessly restrictive and would cut out people who if given the opportunity would perform better than the insiders.


In other words break the zionist lobby!! Couldn't agree more with the above but there's no hope of it without a radical transformation.


I hate seeing foreign interests dominate so much of the establishment, its basically treason.


I'd prefer to see the name dumped altogether--too much historical baggage-- and too diverse or vague anyway.


Agreed.



RiceNaydon wrote:Could you elaborate on this because I'm not quite understanding what you mean? Do you mean that there is a rising anti-immigration, anti-capitalist feeling?


Exactly. The key to power is shaping the narrative and the way that events are understood.




Your ideal society sounds very similar to the Terran Federation in Starship Troopers.


I haven't actually read the book. I just find such a system to be better than the current voting system, and encouraging communitarian values is a bonus. Its a good fit for including popular participation in a left nationalist society.
#14637846
warsmith17 wrote: I mostly use the term to describe a view that denies the existence of absolute truth, or at least the existence of a single truth.


That's the current democratic or libertarian position. Modern authoritarian/totalitarian systems stood for a single truth, based not on religion, but science or rationality. IMO they were flawed and failed, not because the basic approach is wrong but because they appeared too early.

This only works in a society where most exist as slaves, and can't be resurrected. Moreover all it would do is create alienation from the rest of society by separating them from the system, no one would have any real reason to defend the system. This idea would maybe last for a generation and degenerate into a nepotistic aristocracy. I used to believe in a similar system, but I ultimately concluded that it would degenerate far too quickly, and probably wouldn't even perform well to begin with. The potential for corruption would be absolutely massive.


A meritocratic system would definitely be best. Modern totalitarian systems notably the USSR had some semblance of it. There were always elites that saw themselves as separate from and above the masses yet the latter still identified with the system.

Additionally selecting the "best and brightest" is inherently problematic, many have great potential that isn't revealed until later in life, this system would be needlessly restrictive and would cut out people who if given the opportunity would perform better than the insiders.


Sure, it would be tough to put into practice. Someday maybe cloning the proven best, or genetic engineering of all classes a la Brave New World may be the solution.


I hate seeing foreign interests dominate so much of the establishment, its basically treason.


Couldn't agree more. How unfortunate that so few have the intelligence to realize this unfortunate reality and fewer still the courage to question or oppose it.

Agreed.


I've long considered it odd, even ridiculous, that after so many years and so much progress after fascism, people still copy the name and ideology instead of coming up with something original or up to date. Here we are in a new century, with vastly greater scientific and technological knowledge etc and people can't devise anything new?
#14638504
starman2003 wrote:That's the current democratic or libertarian position. Modern authoritarian/totalitarian systems stood for a single truth, based not on religion, but science or rationality. IMO they were flawed and failed, not because the basic approach is wrong but because they appeared too early.


No it isn't. Attempts at regime change to propagate liberal democracy prove you wrong. There is a messianic worldview within US policy making circles that see the US as the city on the hill, having achieved the height of economic and political perfection. They attempt to spread this system as part of a historical destiny.



A meritocratic system would definitely be best. Modern totalitarian systems notably the USSR had some semblance of it. There were always elites that saw themselves as separate from and above the masses yet the latter still identified with the system.


The very elites within the USSR lost confidence within the system and their right to rule, not to mention mass ineffeciency and corruption. The elite literally produced its own destroyers, and you hold this up as an example of what you want? The technocratic nature of the system in fact retarded development. The technocrats refused to see resources allocated away from their specialty (thus reducing their power) and towards projects that would bring actual gains.


Sure, it would be tough to put into practice. Someday maybe cloning the proven best, or genetic engineering of all classes a la Brave New World may be the solution.


So you don't have a solution that would work without future technology. Genetics aren't everything, while they are certainly important research on epigenetics has complicated the picture.




I've long considered it odd, even ridiculous, that after so many years and so much progress after fascism, people still copy the name and ideology instead of coming up with something original or up to date. Here we are in a new century, with vastly greater scientific and technological knowledge etc and people can't devise anything new?


Third Positionism seems to be gaining ground as a term. Though something better should be happening


I think one of the biggest differences between us is your belief in a one world government with absolute authority. While I find that it only has a few benefits, most of which could be achieved with a much weaker international organization.

We have other key differences but I think this has the most bearing on the current conversation.
#14638591
warsmith17 wrote:No it isn't. Attempts at regime change to propagate liberal democracy prove you wrong. There is a messianic worldview within US policy making circles that see the US as the city on the hill, having achieved the height of economic and political perfection. They attempt to spread this system as part of a historical destiny.


Oh sure especially after the "end of history" nonsense of c 1989 propagating democracy has been a US goal. Recent Mideast events, however, doused a lot of cold water on the wisdom of deposing dictators. But that's another story...Democracy may still be naively thought to be the best system of government. It does not however, represent an ideological truth. Quite unlike the reich and USSR, which wanted people to adhere to just one Worldview or truth, democracy encourages pluralism. Nazis believed in the supremacy of the aryan race and fuhrer, communists in a worker's paradise. What do Americans believe in? The right of everybody to believe anything they want. That's anything but a truth in the sense of a definite established worldview.

The very elites within the USSR lost confidence within the system and their right to rule, not to mention mass ineffeciency and corruption. The elite literally produced its own destroyers, and you hold this up as an example of what you want?


The problem wasn't a meritocratic authoritarianism but socialism. China combines an authoritarian political system, which I assume is reasonably meritocratic, with a capitalist economic system, and has done rather well.


So you don't have a solution that would work without future technology.


It can work now and to an extent it has worked but future technology has the potential to greatly bolster what I call a Wholistic system--one in which the State or greater Whole has precedence over the individual. It's not just genetic engineering. Automation should also help.


Third Positionism seems to be gaining ground as a term. Though something better should be happening


I think as an initial facade something like New American patriots may be needed. I like Ultimate Wholism. But that's likely a long way off...


I think one of the biggest differences between us is your belief in a one world government with absolute authority. While I find that it only has a few benefits, most of which could be achieved with a much weaker international organization.


It'll take a very strong planetary government to really enforce reductions on CO2 output, or sufficient disarmament to allow sufficient emphasis on solving urgent environmental problems and real progress in space.
#14641201
A Fascist State must be rooted in tradition.

It is the tradition of a nation, of a people, that differentiates it from the global masses. And it is to the good and glory of a people to hold itself and it's own traditions in the highest possible esteem.

Look upon yourself! Love oneself. This is Fascism. Love your people! You are a great people!

If we disregard tradition, internationalism and decadence follows. This is to the detriment of a nation, and more specifically a people.

A Fascist State is a traditionalist State. If anyone says otherwise then they are not Fascist.

Of course, the church (and religion in general) is, by and large, a tool for evil and must be made to fall in line (or be crushed utterly).
#14641351
Stormvessel wrote:A Fascist State must be rooted in tradition.

It is the tradition of a nation, of a people, that differentiates it from the global masses. And it is to the good and glory of a people to hold itself and it's own traditions in the highest possible esteem.


Given all the accelerating change, driven by science and technology, any system rooted in tradition or the past is doomed to failure. We're in the space age when Earth is finally seen as just a dot in the cosmos. In light of that, ethnic and cultural differences appear so petty, and they're disappearing anyway due to mass communications and migration.

If we disregard tradition, internationalism and decadence follows. This is to the detriment of a nation, and more specifically a people.


As I've said before, any really great fascist or Statist system is hegemonistic. If the raisin d'etre of fascism, whatever you want to call it, is to strengthen the State vis a vis others, hegemonization is the logical or desired outcome. The model for fascism was ancient Rome, which established an Empire composed of many diverse peoples. Any successful hegemon must be internationalist. (Even the reich, had it succeeded, inevitably would've had to accomodate different groups, see Mazower Hitler's Empire.) All races and ethnicities have capable individuals. Just like the USSR, a future State must be based not on one group, but a secular ideology applicable to all (though not communism of course).

A Fascist State is a traditionalist State. If anyone says otherwise then they are not Fascist.


The term is so obsolete, so 20th centuryish, so loaded with baggage...good riddance.


Of course, the church (and religion in general) is, by and large, a tool for evil and must be made to fall in line (or be crushed utterly).


Yes of course!! I see we don't disagree on everything. But there's only one way this essential task can be accomplished and that is through modern progress--greater scientific understanding, eliminating any need for the "god" myth, and supertechnology making the State allpowerful. Progress, not silly old tradition, can get us somewhere.
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[…]