Why Fascism? - 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
#14823944
ITT I explain most of my core political views.

First of all, I believe in political realism which is:

Political realism is a theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. It takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage, nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-interest.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/

As a slight refinement of political realism, I believe in a kind of Social Darwinism; specifically, that organizations (which I define as any group of people knowingly working towards a common set of goals) in pursuit of their goals, by the very nature of the reality we live in, must first acquire the means to achieve those goals (i.e. power over other organizations, people, and nature). This leads to a form of natural selection whereby the organizations that are the most successful in obtaining power are the most likely to survive. Hence, human societies tend to evolve in a way that increases their power over nature, their members, and other societies.

Also check out Elite Theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory

In political science and sociology, elite theory is a theory of the state which seeks to describe and explain the power relationships in contemporary society. The theory posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite and policy-planning networks, holds the most power and that this power is independent of a state's democratic elections process. Through positions in corporations or on corporate boards, and influence over the policy-planning networks through financial support of foundations or positions with think tanks or policy-discussion groups, members of the "elite" are able to exert significant power over the policy decisions of corporations and governments. An example of this can be found in the Forbes magazine article (published in December 2009) entitled The World's Most Powerful People, in which Forbes purported to list the 67 most powerful people in the world (assigning one "slot" for each 100,000,000 of human population).[1] The basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the elites are unified, the non-elites are diverse and powerless, elites interests are unified due to common backgrounds and positions and the defining characteristic of power is institutional position.[2]

Even when entire groups are ostensibly completely excluded from the state's traditional networks of power (historically, on the basis of arbitrary criteria such as nobility, race, gender, or religion), elite theory recognizes that "counter-elites" frequently develop within such excluded groups. Negotiations between such disenfranchised groups and the state can be analyzed as negotiations between elites and counter-elites. A major problem, in turn, is the ability of elites to co-opt counter-elites.

Elite theory opposes pluralism, a tradition that assumes that all individuals, or at least the multitude of social groups, have equal power and balance each other out in contributing to democratic political outcomes representing the emergent, aggregate will of society. Elite theory argues either that democracy is a utopian folly, as it is traditionally viewed in the conservative Italian tradition, or that democracy is not realizable within capitalism, as is the view of the more Marxist-compatible contemporary elite theory permutation.


Among the Elite Theorists I particularly agree with Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills, G. William Domhoff and James Burnham. Of those, the idea of the iron law of oligarchy in particular appeals to me:

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.[1]

Michels' theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.


Also worth checking out is Galbraith's The New Industrial State.

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

My main political goal is the establishment of a political party whose sole goal is to obtain, maintain, and extend its power, first over a country, and then the world. Its main ideology should be extremely collectivist, that is, its members must be completely subordinate to the party in that they psychologically identify with the party, seeing themselves as mere cells in its body.

Here are some quotes from Orwell that explain this concept:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" (3.3.14, O’Brien)


"You are thinking," he said, "that my face is old and tired. You are thinking that I talk of power, and yet I am not even able to prevent the decay of my own body. Can you not understand, Winston, that the individual is only a cell? The weariness of the cell is the vigor of the organism. Do you die when you cut your finger-nails?"
He turned away from the bed and began strolling up and down again, one hand in his pocket.
"We are the priests of power," he said. "God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan 'Freedom is Slavery." Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone-free-the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body-but, above all, over the mind.


Meritocracy is also an important concept here:

In principle, membership of these three groups is not hereditary. The child of Inner Party parents is in theory not born into the Inner Party. Admission to either branch of the Party is by examination, taken at the age of sixteen. Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party […] Its rulers are not held together by blood-ties but by adherence to a common doctrine […] The Party is not a class in the old sense of the word. It does not aim at transmitting power to its own children, as such; and if there were no other way of keeping the ablest people at the top, it would be perfectly prepared to recruit an entire new generation from the ranks of the proletariat. In the crucial years, the fact that the Party was not a hereditary body did a great deal to neutralize opposition […] The essence of oligarchic rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life, imposed by the dead upon the living. A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. (2.9.58, Goldstein’s Manifesto)


This is pretty much the essence of it. If you need me to clarify anything or are curious about my opinions on any present-day issues, feel free to ask.

EDIT: Also, with regard to economics, I think that we need a centrally planned economy.
By Pants-of-dog
#14823949
At some point, people will use this system to try and advance their own interests rather than the interests of the collective.

How does the system hold these people accountable if they are part of the power structure?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14823953
Pants-of-dog wrote:At some point, people will use this system to try and advance their own interests rather than the interests of the collective.

How does the system hold these people accountable if they are part of the power structure?


The death penalty for high-ranking party members who fail to maintain sufficient ideological purity.
By Pants-of-dog
#14823956
So, in order to get away with it, they just tell the peoole that this is for the good of the collective.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14823961
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, in order to get away with it, they just tell the peoole that this is for the good of the collective.


What?
User avatar
By Dave
#14823982
@Saeko,

Why do you support central planning?

What do you envision a fascist, centrally-planned economy looking like?

What's to become of businessmen like me? Do we become government bureaucrats?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14823999
Dave wrote:@Saeko,

Why do you support central planning?


A whole number of reasons. Obviously, the first is to keep economic power from falling into the hands of private interests, or worse, foreign interests. The second is that central planning is more effective than decentralized planning (just like in military affairs).

What do you envision a fascist, centrally-planned economy looking like?


In what way?

What's to become of businessmen like me? Do we become government bureaucrats?


Yes, but the top positions of all industries are held by party members. So you either get with the program or you gtfo.
User avatar
By Dave
#14824004
Saeko wrote:
A whole number of reasons. Obviously, the first is to keep economic power from falling into the hands of private interests, or worse, foreign interests. The second is that central planning is more effective than decentralized planning (just like in military affairs).

1. Why does this objective require central planning?

2. How do your square your claim that central planning is more effective with the actual negative record of centrally planned economies?

Saeko wrote:

In what way?

What does the economy actually look like?

Who is going to start restaurants for instance? The party?

Saeko wrote:

Yes, but the top positions of all industries are held by party members. So you either get with the program or you gtfo.

Understandable, but again why does this require central planning?

Can't you simply force the capitalists to join the party on pain of expropriation?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824006
Dave wrote:1. Why does this objective require central planning?


How could it be otherwise? :?:

2. How do your square your claim that central planning is more effective with the actual negative record of centrally planned economies?


Pretty much the only examples of entirely centrally planned economies we have were run by dumb commies. Nonetheless, there are more examples of successful economic planning in non-communist countries than people realize. For instance, most people have no idea of the enormous degree to which the American economy is planned by the government. This is especially true of the war-time economy during WWII.

What does the economy actually look like?

Who is going to start restaurants for instance? The party?


Yes. All economic activity is controlled by the party. People get paid what they need to do their work effectively. Nothing more nothing less. All economic surplus is re-invested. Furthermore, this economy has to be autarky. International trade would be limited to non-essentials.

Understandable, but again why does this require central planning?

Can't you simply force the capitalists to join the party on pain of expropriation?


You can't force someone to join the party. They can do that only of their own free will. I doubt many capitalists will be fans of giving up all their wealth and luxuries.
User avatar
By Dave
#14824011
Saeko wrote:How could it be otherwise? :?:

The state already has enormous power to control the economy in a market economy, starting with its powers to tax and create money.

Why is central planning needed when the state can tax, lend, coin, regulate, expropriate, etc.?

Saeko wrote:

Pretty much the only examples of entirely centrally planned economies we have were run by dumb commies. Nonetheless, there are more examples of successful economic planning in non-communist countries than people realize. For instance, most people have no idea of the enormous degree to which the American economy is planned by the government. This is especially true of the war-time economy during WWII.

Do you think the people employed at GOSPLAN and GOSBANK in the USSR were stupid?

There is a considerable difference between a market economy employing planning and abolishing the market economy entirely. The American government during World War Two engaged in quite a bit of planning, but it still allowed businessmen to both manage and invest as they saw fit provided that they did not engage in prohibited activities (for instance selling steel for construction of new apartment buildings--prohibited during the war).

Actual fascist states likewise did not engage in central planning.

The only states which actually engaged in central planning were the communist ones. Their record is not compelling. How will you improve on it?

Saeko wrote:

Yes. All economic activity is controlled by the party. People get paid what they need to do their work effectively. Nothing more nothing less. All economic surplus is re-invested. Furthermore, this economy has to be autarky. International trade would be limited to non-essentials.

So the state is going to run restaurants, dry cleaners, landscaping companies, daycare services, law firms, spas, plumbing, etc.

If someone tries to go into enterprise himself, then what? You're going to arrest him?

Saeko wrote:

You can't force someone to join the party. They can do that only of their own free will. I doubt many capitalists will be fans of giving up all their wealth and luxuries.

Of course you can force someone to join the party. You can force people to do just about anything unless they're willing to die (and allow their families to be killed).

But yes, we don't want to give up our wealth and luxuries.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824017
Dave wrote:The state already has enormous power to control the economy in a market economy, starting with its powers to tax and create money.

Why is central planning needed when the state can tax, lend, coin, regulate, expropriate, etc.?


Well, because, that's not enough. I don't see any compelling reasons why the state shouldn't have more powers than it does.

Do you think the people employed at GOSPLAN and GOSBANK in the USSR were stupid?


No, but they did employ a dumbass ideology which their plans were required to conform to.

There is a considerable difference between a market economy employing planning and abolishing the market economy entirely. The American government during World War Two engaged in quite a bit of planning, but it still allowed businessmen to both manage and invest as they saw fit provided that they did not engage in prohibited activities (for instance selling steel for construction of new apartment buildings--prohibited during the war).


Yes, there is a difference, I don't think I said otherwise, just that centralized planning does go on outside of communist countries and does work.

Actual fascist states likewise did not engage in central planning.

The only states which actually engaged in central planning were the communist ones. Their record is not compelling. How will you improve on it?


In what ways do you think that they fell short?


So the state is going to run restaurants, dry cleaners, landscaping companies, daycare services, law firms, spas, plumbing, etc.


Yes.

If someone tries to go into enterprise himself, then what? You're going to arrest him?


Yes.


Of course you can force someone to join the party. You can force people to do just about anything unless they're willing to die (and allow their families to be killed).


No, you can't. You can make someone ape a party member and quack on command, but you can't force him to actually believe.

But yes, we don't want to give up our wealth and luxuries.


And there's the rub.

This is also why the capitalist class is weak and doomed to failure. A focus on anything but power creates an exploitable weakness. Sort of like a chess player who cares more about capturing pieces than forcing checkmate and actually winning.
Last edited by Saeko on 16 Jul 2017 07:14, edited 2 times in total.
By B0ycey
#14824018
Saeko wrote:As a slight refinement of political realism, I believe in a kind of Social Darwinism; specifically, that organizations (which I define as any group of people knowingly working towards a common set of goals) in pursuit of their goals, by the very nature of the reality we live in, must first acquire the means to achieve those goals (i.e. power over other organizations, people, and nature). This leads to a form of natural selection whereby the organizations that are the most successful in obtaining power are the most likely to survive. Hence, human societies tend to evolve in a way that increases their power over nature, their members, and other societies.


You do realise that your ideology is just capitalism right? But you actually want extreme capitalism. No competition and greater dominance for suviving businesses that conquer the market.

My main political goal is the establishment of a political party whose sole goal is to obtain, maintain, and extend its power, first over a country, and then the world. Its main ideology should be extremely collectivist, that is, its members must be completely subordinate to the party in that they psychologically identify with the party, seeing themselves as mere cells in its body.


All hail Oceania! But seriously, this is just US foriegn policy. But more extreme - In the sense you want brainwashing and wish your party members to be cogs in a wheel of obedience.

EDIT: Also, with regard to economics, I think that we need a centrally planned economy.


Now this you need to explain. You want a centrally planned economy but you also want a party to take over the entire world? In other words you want a global economy where only a single party has all the power so is likely to dominate and exploit the poor? This utopian dream of yours sounds like a nightmare.
User avatar
By Dave
#14824021
Saeko wrote:
Well, because, that's not enough. I don't see any compelling reasons why the state shouldn't have more powers than it does.

I'm not arguing against the state having more economic power. I support more economic power for the state as well. In particular, I don't think private banks should have the power to create money--this should be exclusively reserved for the state.

Saeko wrote:

No, but they did employ a dumbass ideology which their plans were required to conform to.

Let's talk specifics.

What, in particular, was wrong with the economic plans developed by the Soviet Union or her satellites in Eastern Europe?

How were these flaws caused by communist ideology?

How would your fascist party improve upon economic planning?

Saeko wrote:

Yes, there is a difference, I don't think I said otherwise, just that centralized planning does go on outside of communist countries and does work.

Which non-communist countries had centrally planned economies?

Which centrally planned economies functioned better than economies which preserve market elements?

Saeko wrote:

In what ways do you think that they fell short?

I am grilling you, not the other way around.

But since you asked, the primary problem of centrally planned economies is the lack of firm entry and exit. There is no mechanism for new firms to enter the market, and there is no mechanism for failed firms to exit the market. Thus the economy ossifies. Only sectors given high priority by the state develop successful products (e.g. the military and space sectors in the USSR).

Saeko wrote:

Yes.

Lovely.

I can't wait to place my order with the Department of Dry Cleaning. :roll:

Saeko wrote:

Yes.

Great. You're opposed to enterprising men and ambition. :knife:

Saeko wrote:

No, you can't. You can make some ape a party member and quack on command, but you can't force him to actually believe.

This might be true, but you have no way of knowing if people who join the party freely actually believe either. Many toadies will join the party, just as happens in China today.

Saeko wrote:

And there's the rub.

This is also why the capitalist class is weak and doomed to failure. A focus on anything but power creates an exploitable weakness. Sort of like a chess player who cares more about capturing pieces than actually winning.

We capitalists are in fact focused on power. What do you think money is?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824022
B0ycey wrote:You do realise that your ideology is just capitalism right? But you actually want extreme capitalism. No competition and greater dominance for suviving businesses that conquer the market.


No.

All hail Oceania! But seriously, this is just US foriegn policy.


This is the foreign policy of any country where everyone isn't completely retarded.

But more extreme - In the sense you want brainwashing and wish your party members to be cogs in a wheel of obedience.


Now you're getting it.

Now this you need to explain. You want a centrally planned economy but you also want a party to take over the entire world? In other words you want a global economy where only a single party has all the power so is likely to dominate and exploit the poor? This utopian dream of yours sounds like a nightmare.


Sounds like you get it. What do I need to explain?
By B0ycey
#14824025
Saeko wrote:
Sounds like you get it. What do I need to explain?


Why you support it perhaps? You do realise that unless you are within the elite you too will be exploited? Party membership is unlikely going to result in a privileged lifestyle. There have been novels written of such a dream. I see you have cited an author of one of those books. Can I ask, in your eyes is Hitler a visionary? Or perhaps it's Stalin? Or Napoleon? Your ideology is capitalism to determine who gets the power, followed by communism to destroy the competition and nationalise everything, then WWIII to gain global dominance which is then completed with anarcism to dominate the poor and exploit the non elite.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824031
Dave wrote:I'm not arguing against the state having more economic power. I support more economic power for the state as well. In particular, I don't think private banks should have the power to create money--this should be exclusively reserved for the state.


Ok, but then at what point do you think state control of the economy goes too far? Personally, I don't think such a point exists.

Let's talk specifics.

What, in particular, was wrong with the economic plans developed by the Soviet Union or her satellites in Eastern Europe?

How were these flaws caused by communist ideology?

How would your fascist party improve upon economic planning?


In my opinion, most of their problems were attributable to the failure to achieve true unity and self-sacrifice. Their ideology was officially aimed at improving the living-standards of all soviet citizens. This results in an economy that is skewed toward unnecessary and wasteful consumption. Of course, with the rise of the nomenklatura, in practice, the economy (with the exception of the military sector to some extent where their hand was forced by necessity) became merely a means to reward loyal communists by showering them with luxuries. Everything else, including the living standards of ordinary citizens, became irrelevant.

On the other hand, a fascist party, where mere loyalty to the state is rewarded with the mere permission to live, where no decision is ever made by one person, and where nothing can be legitimately owned by someone unless it is absolutely necessary, whose members are trained from birth to give away rather than take, cannot fall prey to such dysfunction.

Which non-communist countries had centrally planned economies?

Which centrally planned economies functioned better than economies which preserve market elements?


None and none, but this isn't a controlled experiment.


I am grilling you, not the other way around.


Grill away, but in order to answer your questions, I need to be clear on what it is that you're asking.

But since you asked, the primary problem of centrally planned economies is the lack of firm entry and exit. There is no mechanism for new firms to enter the market, and there is no mechanism for failed firms to exit the market. Thus the economy ossifies. Only sectors given high priority by the state develop successful products (e.g. the military and space sectors in the USSR).


I disagree. There is no need for firm entry or exit, because a failed firm is merely a successful firm with failed policies and leadership. You just need to replace those, and it will be successful again.

Great. You're opposed to enterprising men and ambition. :knife:


Of course not, such people will become party members.

This might be true, but you have no way of knowing if people who join the party freely actually believe either. Many toadies will join the party, just as happens in China today.



Matthew 7:16-20King James Version (KJV)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

We capitalists are in fact focused on power. What do you think money is?


Not power.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824032
B0ycey wrote:Why you support it perhaps? You do realise that unless you are within the elite you too will be exploited?


What do you mean by exploitation?

Party membership is unlikely going to result in a privileged lifestyle.


I certainly hope not.

There have been novels written of such a dream. I see you have cited an author of one of those books. Can I ask, in your eyes is Hitler a visionary? Or perhaps it's Stalin? Or Napoleon?


Yeah I'd say all those people were visionaries, especially Stalin, who was possibly the most perfect human being who ever lived (except Rei).

Your ideology is capitalism to determine who gets the power, followed by communism to destroy the competition and nationalise everything, then WWIII to gain global dominance which is then completed with anarcism to dominate the poor and exploit the non elite.


That's pretty close.
By B0ycey
#14824035
Saeko wrote:What do you mean by exploitation?


Perhaps in your case it might not be. Especially if you regard Stalin as the most perfect person in history except someone who I have heard much of but never had the privilege to read. But you will be relinquishing your thought process to a higher power and will have to accept their opinion even if it doesn't serve in your best interest. Not my idea of a utopian society. I quite like my freedom.
User avatar
By MB.
#14824036
Saeko wrote:As a slight refinement of political realism, I believe in a kind of Social Darwinism; specifically, that organizations (which I define as any group of people knowingly working towards a common set of goals) in pursuit of their goals, by the very nature of the reality we live in, must first acquire the means to achieve those goals (i.e. power over other organizations, people, and nature). This leads to a form of natural selection whereby the organizations that are the most successful in obtaining power are the most likely to survive. Hence, human societies tend to evolve in a way that increases their power over nature, their members, and other societies.


Well this really is the typical boring biological imperative we hear trotted out again and again. For some reason the young republican authoritarians are drawn to this philosophy. Corporations and states and other human constructs are not biological entities, however. And the survival struggle of nature is at any rate not a thing for human endeavours to emulate. It is a very raw pointless primitive phenomena in which power does not really exist. Power is a political construct, and can be expressed in many forms, one of which is indeed capital.
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[…]