Would you live in a fascist state? - Page 12 - 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.
#14798476
It's impossible under any system (democracy, capitalism) which exists to cater to the individual. It can exist only when the goal is to benefit the nation as a whole-- what a totalitarian system wants to do.


Nonsense, there is no such thing as benefiting a nation as a whole. Different people in the nation have totally opposed interests. What makes Britain better for working class Brits makes it worse for rich Brits and vice versa.

People claiming to represent the national interest are always representing the interests of the half a percent or so at the top of the nation and are just claiming to represent the whole nation to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else. The Nazis are the classic example, representing the interests of Germans by declaring war on the rest of the developed world and sending German teenagers out to die in the Nazis genocidal crusade.

You would have to be a complete fool to believe that was in the national interest.

The best you can do is represent the interests of the working class (the vast majority of the nation) but that will still mean fucking over some people (the idle rich).
#14798484
Leftists always struck me as funny, but not in a humorous way, the way they bash the rich and others. Take for example those leftists on this forum who obviously have a computer. Bill Gates who is one of the world's richest men, probably made a few bucks off you if your computer has Windows. Do you curse Bill Gates every time you turn on your computer and the Windows operating system enables you to type a post on here? Is your computer an HP? Do you curse that corporation who made money off you by manufacturing the machine? The distributor who made money off you selling you the computer, printer, ink, etc...do you curse them as well?

Ask any waitress out there who are the cheapest tippers. All of them, every single one of them, will say liberals. It's as if liberals/leftists want that waitress to wait on them hand and foot for the extreme pleasure of bringing them food and drink. They want society to give them everything for free just for the sheer enjoyment of them being alive. The behavior of leftists is so immature and childish, and the sad part is most times they don't even realize it.
#14798486
stephen50right wrote:I presumed everyone knew that I meant "today's" leftists. Today's leftists in 2017, are every bit as fascist as the Nazis of pre-1945 in how they wish to organize a society. Today's leftists desire socialism and big government tyranny in which the elitist rich rule over the rest of what they consider their minions - this is exactly the way the Nazis wanted it.

This is a bizarre and just incorrect caricature of modern leftism, and it honestly does a disservice to the millions who were victims to the Nazi regime to even begin to conflate the pair of movements. Both the degree and extent of intervention into society desired by both camps is radically different; the left also, quite manifestly, want to reduce the power of the rich through both increases in taxation and a reduction in their capacity to influence politics.

I apologize for how flippant my earlier remarks were, however; even if I don't think the point is any more accurate when applied to modern leftist movements.

- Centrist, BTW, with no intention of defending modern leftism either.
#14798490
Leftists would want the waitress to earn a decent wage so she does not have to go through the pathetic ritual of having beg for charity from the people she is serving. Tipping is a barbaric third world custom.

As for liberals why would I care? They are on the centre right they have nothing to do with the left.
#14798494
Decky wrote:Leftists would want the waitress to earn a decent wage so she does not have to go through the pathetic ritual of having beg for charity from the people she is serving. Tipping is a barbaric third world custom.

As for liberals why would I care? They are on the centre right they have nothing to do with the left.


I stated it that way because waitresses may not fully understand what is a leftist...but they do understand liberal. They are the ones who bring in their bratty kids who disrupt the whole restaurant, they scream at the waitress for faster service, always a complaint about the food, and leave little or no tip.

Perhaps waitresses are more politically astute than I think. I am always a good tipper, way more than 15%, so the subject of poor tipping never comes up for me.

A hard working waitress can make some pretty good money, and I have the utmost respect for them. All part of our wonderful country whereby working men and women have made America great again and will continue to do so. Unlike the unpatriotic, parasitic left who wish to tear America down and rebuild it into their nonsensical utopia image that cannot exist in reality.
#14798568
stephen50right wrote:Leftists and fascism go together like birds of a feather.


...which is why the socialists support anti-immigration platforms along with the fascists!

Oh wait....

For example, leftists simply adore socialism and big government tyranny in every way, shape and form. It is fact that Nazi stood for National Socialist German Workers' Party. Notice of course the word "socialist" in the name. Leftists would have made mighty fine Brown Shirt members back in the 1930's. Hitler would have given them an order and they would have said, "Ja Mein Fuhrer" with enthusiasm.


...and this is why the Soviet Union supported the Nazis!

Oh, wait......
#14798590
Decky wrote:Nonsense, there is no such thing as benefiting a nation as a whole. Different people in the nation have totally opposed interests. What makes Britain better for working class Brits makes it worse for rich Brits and vice versa.


Ironically the original emphasis on investment over consumption ("exploitation of the working class") was ultimately in the interest of all classes. It meant industrialization, more material things and strengthened the nation vis a vis others.

People claiming to represent the national interest are always representing the interests of the half a percent or so at the top of the nation and are just claiming to represent the whole nation to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else.


Classic counterexample here in the US--those who oppose the pro-Israel lobby. Our present government is inordinately influenced by a small minority (which includes many wealthy people) whose principle concern is a foreign power. They don't care if the US becomes a target for retaliatory terror, or gets bogged down in horrifically costly adventures, as long as their favorite little foreign country benefits. The anti-israel lobby group, Council for the National Interest, is appropriately named, since a much different policy would be in the best interest of the vast majority of people here.



The Nazis are the classic example, representing the interests of Germans by declaring war on the rest of the developed world and sending German teenagers out to die in the Nazis genocidal crusade.

You would have to be a complete fool to believe that was in the national interest.


:lol: The nazis bit off more than they could chew, hence failed, but they were after all, only emulative of much earlier, successful hegemons. The early Romans emphasized the State or common good above the individual, who was expected to obey, fight and endure hardship without complaint. It was no fun, but ultimately the results were great.


The best you can do is represent the interests of the working class (the vast majority of the nation) but that will still mean fucking over some people (the idle rich).


:lol: The worst you could do is represent the interests of the working class. Ordinarly folks aren't renowned for their understanding of problems, or reality...Grave economic and environmental problems call for sacrifice hence suppressing the masses not catering to them.
#14798633
When the working class ran a nation it went from a backwards agricultural shithole to the first country the send a man into space in a handful of decades. The proof of the pudding is in the eating you see. Fascism on the other hand just leads to this sort of thing.

Image

When the working class are in charge of society it improves, when the rich are in charge they waste the money of champagne fountains and diamond studded swimming pools and other wasteful bollocks.
#14798796
Decky wrote:When the working class ran a nation it went from a backwards agricultural shithole to the first country the send a man into space in a handful of decades.


:lol: The USSR was not run by the working class, but by an elite which just paid lip service to it to gain power (and some nice amenities too). Under Soviet rule, the working class i.e. those who actually worked were treated essentially no differently from those in earlier industrializing states. They had to work long hours for minimal pay to ensure investment over consumption, hence make industrialization possible. Even more importantly, even after industrialization was complete Soviet workers, unlike those under capitalism, were still kept in subjection. They got "pay" but it was a joke because there was nothing to buy in the stores other than bare necessities. Western workers had cars and TV sets etc they didn't. Essentially for all its rhetoric, the Soviet system was little different from a fascist one in that its top priority was the State, not the individual. The bulk of individuals had to keep sacrificing for the State and its agenda. You're right Decky, the USSR was first to put a satellite and man in space. How did it do that? By keeping working class dopes in their place and thereby ensuring better priorities than those they wanted. :lol:


The proof of the pudding is in the eating you see. Fascism on the other hand just leads to this sort of thing.


No as I pointed out before the failure of fascism mainly stemmed from geopolitical accident--insufficient resources relative to enemies. As Rome showed, a bigger state could do it.


When the working class are in charge of society it improves,


:lol: :roll: No, society improves when an elite is in charge. If or where the real working class has its way, the bulk of wealth is wasted in the form of booze, bubble gum, popcorn, tobacco, porn, dopey entertainment.....


when the rich are in charge they waste the money of champagne fountains and diamond studded swimming pools and other wasteful bollocks.


Yeah those who think mainly in terms of personal aggrandizement are a detriment too. What is needed is rule by an elite which thinks in terms of civilization or the planet as a whole.
#14799656
The elite don't respect civilisation, they don't even know what civilisation is. The money gets wasted on booze, coke and mail order brides. Look at Trump. :lol:
#14799794
Decky wrote:The elite don't respect civilisation, they don't even know what civilisation is. The money gets wasted on booze, coke and mail order brides. Look at Trump. :lol:


Trump is not my idea of an elite. I meant people devoted to a higher cause than self-aggrandizement, or motivated by a secular ideology.
#14799856
Yes, in the mythical reality inhabited by fascists, world leaders are smart, kind, giving, and devoted to the lower classes.

In reality, if the US were to become fascist, you would be lucky to get Trump.
#14800047
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, in the mythical reality inhabited by fascists, world leaders are smart, kind, giving, and devoted to the lower classes.


:lol: Did I ever say that?? They're not "kind, giving" or "devoted to the lower classes" except as a propaganda position. The mission of a true, serious fascist is to strengthen the State or nation as a whole vis a vis others. That may involve educating capable but poor kids--so they can better serve the State.


In reality, if the US were to become fascist, you would be lucky to get Trump.


You'd be unlucky to get a dope like that. Trump is a product of present society and present values.
#14800087
You may not have used those exact words, but like most fascists, your ideal leader is imaginary and real leaders never quite meet the standard required for fascism to actually work.
#14800329
Trump is not my idea of an elite. I meant people devoted to a higher cause than self-aggrandizement, or motivated by a secular ideology.


The elite are foolish, drug taking, rich, suit wearing, soft handed bunch of idiots.

This imaginary "philosopher king" elite you are talking about don't actually exist. You ideology is all about giving power to your imaginary friends rather than people who actually exist.

The best leader in the history of the world was not a member of the elite but came from humble origins as a shoe makers son.

Image
#14800331
Decky wrote:The elite are foolish, drug taking, rich, suit wearing, soft handed bunch of idiots.


Assuming you mean the elite of present society I'd have to concur.

This imaginary "philosopher king" elite you are talking about don't actually exist. You ideology is all about giving power to your imaginary friends rather than people who actually exist.


Well, there were times in history when "philosopher kings" did exist for example the era of the Good Emperors 96-180 CE. The Ottoman Empire and modern authoritarian systems tended to be fairly meritocratic.

The best leader in the history of the world was not a member of the elite but came from humble origins as a shoe makers son.


Let me clarify something. By "elite" I don't mean anybody who happens to be at the top. I mean those with the best innate ability. And I agree, Stalin was among the best leaders in world history. He came from a humble background but was inherently capable, and deserved to be at the top, where he was vitally needed at the time.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
...real leaders never quite meet the standard required for fascism to actually work.


Mussolini and Hitler were very effective in establishing their power and implementing their programs. Basically, ultimate failure wasn't due to leadership issues but geopolitical accident--their enemies happened to be much bigger.
#14800340
Mussolini and Hitler were very effective in establishing their power and implementing their programs. Basically, ultimate failure wasn't due to leadership issues but geopolitical accident--their enemies happened to be much bigger.


:lol:

Now I know that you are a parody account. No one would ever call Mussolini effect at anything apart from in jest.
#14800378
@Pants-of-dog
The old image of fascism where a leader holds power constantly representing the ruling entity and never changing is now gone.
In the modern day, fascism is pretty much the rule, simply in a modern softer image where the ruling entity -being corporates and the wealthy just as it was in the old form- while remaining in power simply holds it from behind a false democratic image where the representing image (i.e the acclaimed leader) is picked by a vote of the public from a pre-selected pool of candidates along with a media veil to keep the commoners in line in what they believe and know and controlling the stream of information.

The ruling order remains the same.
The authoritarianism remains the same.
The class structure and the ruling class remains the same.
The characteristics of a fascist order remains the same.
Everything remains the same, simply with a more user- friendly interface.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 18

Doesn't he have billions in Truth social (you pos[…]

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[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]