Why Fascism? - Page 4 - 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 One Degree
#14825248
@starman2003

They rose to power because the previous system failed badly and they convinced enough people they could do better. The Democrats btw weren't an all-black party. :lol:

The Democratic party's base is minorities and white people who believe they are the cause of minorities problems.

Authoritarian regimes offerred hope and promised a better life and a stronger nation etc.


Based upon fear of the evils of the current system.

Authoritarianism often addressed real issues much more effectively than democratic government e.g. China's one child policy and Stalin's crash industrialization, which saved the whole slavic group from annihilation.

Fear of overpopulation and starvation. Fear of the West.
By Pants-of-dog
#14825327
Saeko wrote:Other party members will keep them in check.


Unless they are in on it.
Or they think it is good for the state.
Or the selfish party member has more clout and kills their accuser first.
Or the selfish party member has the judges on his side.

No, they've been educated about this fascist ideology. That doesn't mean "just do whatever we tell you to do."


In practice, they seem to be the same.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14825582
One Degree wrote:Based upon fear of the evils of the current system.


You can't gain support just by bashing the previous system; no use change unless a new regime can do better. Support is based on hope not just fear. Actually most people support the current system and fear a nondemocratic one, which is why crises will be necessary to force change.


Fear of overpopulation and starvation. Fear of the West.


If the masses had had their way there wouldn't have been a one child policy; the masses don't fear overpopulation; an informed regime elite does. As for fear of the West, that too was on the part of the regime--which was right of course. If the Russian masses, like the American ones, had really had their way, there would've been consumption not investment or militarization, down to 1941. They didn't really fear the west; the informed leadership did.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14825697
starman2003 wrote:You can't gain support just by bashing the previous system; no use change unless a new regime can do better. Support is based on hope not just fear. Actually most people support the current system and fear a nondemocratic one, which is why crises will be necessary to force change.


Many small crises will do the trick just as well. That is, historically, how change happens. You just need to be there at every little crisis to steer things slightly in your direction.
By mikema63
#14825772
I'm sure this question has already been addressed but I'm curious how you think the "ruling class" should operate? Can anyone get in based purely on meritocratic worth? Does one guy hold ultimate power or are things controlled evenly across a group of people?

Basically, what is your ideal government organized like and how does it make decisions?
User avatar
By starman2003
#14825900
Saeko wrote:Many small crises will do the trick just as well. That is, historically, how change happens. You just need to be there at every little crisis to steer things slightly in your direction.


I don't think so. The present system is so ingrained, I've always felt it'll take not just a major crisis but a series of them to break it and keep the new regime going. There have been small crises already, but little if any perceptible change in people's attitudes. I do think, however, that technical and scientific advances, which take decades, will provide much of the basis for a new system.

@mikema63 Meritocracy is the basic idea but a person must be devoted to the regime, as well as capable. Just as in the past, one man will have absolute power, but he'll have advisors.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14826020
mikema63 wrote:I'm sure this question has already been addressed but I'm curious how you think the "ruling class" should operate?


I'm not exactly sure.

Can anyone get in based purely on meritocratic worth?


Yes.

Does one guy hold ultimate power or are things controlled evenly across a group of people?


I think we need a very strong executive, but one person does not hold all the power.

Basically, what is your ideal government organized like and how does it make decisions?


I don't know.
By B0ycey
#14826024
Saeko wrote:I'm not exactly sure.

I think we need a very strong executive, but one person does not hold all the power.

I don't know.


There is alot of uncertainty in your ideology. The premise to it could easily be abused (and this is highly likely actually) by a single governing body. Even more so if the governing body doesn't know what it stands for or how it would achieve simple goals.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14826029
B0ycey wrote:There is alot of uncertainty in your ideology. The premise to it could easily be abused (and this is highly likely actually) by a single governing body. Even more so if the governing body doesn't know what it stands for or how it would achieve simple goals.


Yeah, well I'm not fucking magic, alright? I can't know things in advance! >:
By B0ycey
#14826040
Saeko wrote:Yeah, well I'm not fucking magic, alright? I can't know things in advance! >:


So you can't know what your ideology is in advance? If this is true how can you be such you're a facist? With the amount of anarchism you want, I would suggest you're more an anarchists.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14826216
Saeko wrote:I'm not exactly sure.


The ruling class must be prepared to do what it must to accomplish vital goals.

Yes.


Meritocracy is the ideal but it would be foolish to let in someone who's capable but antagonistic toward the regime.

I think we need a very strong executive, but one person does not hold all the power.


Any ruler must delegate a lot of authority; he can't supervise literally everything. But the final say in all broad policy matters must be made by one man or ruler. That's the way it's been in the real world and for good reason--coherence, and a strong sense of direction (whereas many decision makers could be at cross purposes resulting in indecision and drift just like under democracy....)..
By pugsville
#14832224
"meritocratic worth" - how do you propose to evaluate this? It's a very nebulous concept.

Facism just tends to attract thugs, psychopaths, idiots , morons and cretins.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14832255
pugsville wrote:"meritocratic worth" - how do you propose to evaluate this? It's a very nebulous concept.


It's tough to implement in practice but if the principle is established the result is likely to be an improvement.

Facism just tends to attract thugs, psychopaths, idiots , morons and cretins.


Present government has no shortage of them. "Leaders" chosen by the masses, who vote for those they can relate to best, aren't great. Fascist leaders were far from morons or cretins. Hitler, Goering, Speer, etc had high IQs. As for brutality, it must be seen in context. A totalitarian system seeks to serve the state or some higher purpose, not satisfy individual desires. Being rather unpopular but still convinced it is right, the regime must be coercive. It is easy to focus on just coercive and brutal actions without understanding the reason for them. Past fascism may have been misguided but authoritarian methods are still needed, more than ever. I doubt the masses will voluntarily agree to have just 1-2 kids, give up their benefits or reduce their standard of living to save the environment. Nor will they voluntarily sacrifice much to ensure a great future in space. In one recent year, Americans spent over quadruple on tobacco alone than they did on space. :roll: The key to a better world is to put joe blow in his place and only authoritarianism (I don't really like the word "fascism") can do it.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14832262
I agree 'benevolent dictatorship' is ideal, but a reasonable selection process has never been devised. :D
By pugsville
#14832321
starman2003 wrote:It's tough to implement in practice but if the principle is established the result is likely to be an improvement.

Present government has no shortage of them. "Leaders" chosen by the masses, who vote for those they can relate to best, aren't great. Fascist leaders were far from morons or cretins. Hitler, Goering, Speer, etc had high IQs. As for brutality, it must be seen in context. A totalitarian system seeks to serve the state or some higher purpose, not satisfy individual desires. Being rather unpopular but still convinced it is right, the regime must be coercive. It is easy to focus on just coercive and brutal actions without understanding the reason for them. Past fascism may have been misguided but authoritarian methods are still needed, more than ever. I doubt the masses will voluntarily agree to have just 1-2 kids, give up their benefits or reduce their standard of living to save the environment. Nor will they voluntarily sacrifice much to ensure a great future in space. In one recent year, Americans spent over quadruple on tobacco alone than they did on space. :roll: The key to a better world is to put joe blow in his place and only authoritarianism (I don't really like the word "fascism") can do it.


Fascism and authoritarianism have along history of attracting less than bright people. They rely of mindless violence for their authority as blind thuggery is what they relay as a regime for the legitimacy, and thugs tend to awfully corrupt, as the history of authoritarianism and fascist societies show they have a ;lot of corruption and tend top repel and alienate intellectuals and thinkers. Hitler , Goring may have had high IQs but as leaders they were incredibly poor, they were dumb-smart guys, unable to effectively apply their intelligence to make even half way reasonable decisions. The Third reich had poor leadership, promoted yes men and cronies and repelled a awful lot of pretty gifted scientists.

Cohesive and Brutal actions promote violent unthinking thugs who are corrupt. the Means *IS* the ends, the means throughly shapes what can be achieved with it. Brutal violences requires thugs and repells the intelligent.

Fascism and authoritarianism are unlikely to result in a Meritoancy there very nature works against it.
User avatar
By fuser
#14832342
@starman2003

It seems that the very things that you despise masses for have been the core features of historical fascism like anti-intellectualism, lynch-mobs etc.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14832353
starman2003 wrote:I doubt the masses will voluntarily agree to have just 1-2 kids, give up their benefits or reduce their standard of living to save the environment. Nor will they voluntarily sacrifice much to ensure a great future in space. In one recent year, Americans spent over quadruple on tobacco alone than they did on space.

Plenty of countries have fertility rates below 2.0 despite gov't attempts to encourage overpopulation and almost all environmental protections are enacted due to public pressure being placed on gov'ts and business rather than from the top down.

I don't know what you mean by 'great future in space'. The ISS has been permanently inhabited for over 15 years, we have HD photography of the moon taken from the surface and from orbit, ditto for Mars.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14832372
pugsville wrote: They rely of mindless violence for their authority as blind thuggery is what they relay as a regime for the legitimacy,


Like I said, totalitarians emphasize the State over the individual, so of course they're not really popular hence have to resort to coercion and violence to put joe blow in his place. But no regime can survive without substantial popular support and the nazis had it. Their ideology is their source of legitimacy.


and thugs tend to awfully corrupt, as the history of authoritarianism and fascist societies show they have a ;lot of corruption and tend top repel and alienate intellectuals and thinkers.


Like Heisenberg and Speer?

Hitler , Goring may have had high IQs but as leaders they were incredibly poor, they were dumb-smart guys, unable to effectively apply their intelligence to make even half way reasonable decisions. The Third reich had poor leadership, promoted yes men and cronies and repelled a awful lot of pretty gifted scientists.


The nazis were only human. They were misguided, notably in their racial doctrines and made mistakes. Two key points though. First, this group of people you say was so worthless propelled Germany from weakness and bankruptcy to veritable superpower status, in under a decade, in the process routing all European democracies combined, but met their match in another totalitarian power. Second, while the reich was ultimately defeated, that owed much to geopolitical accident not inherent faults. Basically fascism was an ideal system for strengthening the state vis a vis others, but the odds against the reich were too great.

Fascism and authoritarianism are unlikely to result in a Meritoancy there very nature works against it.


The top nazis were capable people who tended to be from the middle or lower classes in a society usually run by aristocrats. Their system would've reflected their point of view.

fuser, the fascists weren't against intellectuals just those who opposed them. Goebbels and Rosenberg were intellectuals, as were early fascist thinkers.
AFAIK World population continues to grow and the environment continues to be degraded due to an inability under democracy to impose sacrifices necessary to solve the problems. Same for ballooning deficits. As for public pressure for environmental protection, it was undoubtedly the result of the more intelligent segment of the electorate. In any case it's not sufficient because the dummies don't want the sacrifices essential for real solutions.
By pugsville
#14832443
starman2003 wrote:Like I said, totalitarians emphasize the State over the individual, so of course they're not really popular hence have to resort to coercion and violence to put joe blow in his place. But no regime can survive without substantial popular support and the nazis had it. Their ideology is their source of legitimacy.

What are you a Marxist? A fundamentalist religious type? ideology is the source of legitimacy. Rubbish IT's thugs and violence. The Nazi took and maintained power by force, authorities regimes rely of the military or para military thugs to beat people up and murder people. Thats how the get power thats how they maintain power.

starman2003 wrote:Like Heisenberg and Speer?

Exceptions do not prove rules. Many top scientists fled Nazi Germany. We're talking about book burners here. The Nazis were against intellectuals, scientists , thinkers. They imposed arbitrary dictates about books, culture and learning. Authoritarianism is opposed to thinking by it's very nature.

starman2003 wrote:The nazis were only human. They were misguided, notably in their racial doctrines and made mistakes. Two key points though. First, this group of people you say was so worthless propelled Germany from weakness and bankruptcy to veritable superpower status, in under a decade, in the process routing all European democracies combined, but met their match in another totalitarian power. Second, while the reich was ultimately defeated, that owed much to geopolitical accident not inherent faults. Basically fascism was an ideal system for strengthening the state vis a vis others, but the odds against the reich were too great.

But lets be honest about the Nature of that Regime. The Nazis relied of violence . thuggery and murder to stay in power. They were opposed to thinking in general. And they were corrupt to the core.


starman2003 wrote:The top nazis were capable people who tended to be from the middle or lower classes in a society usually run by aristocrats. Their system would've reflected their point of view.

Capable. Goring? Really? The fact is the nazi regime tended too promote yes man and non entities, sure they weren't all useless, but they were corrupt. like look at the Gaultiers. Corrupt cronies.

starman2003 wrote:fuser, the fascists weren't against intellectuals just those who opposed them.

they were opposed to thinking. The Nazis you had to for them, there was no middle ground either you submitted and were compliant and complicit in the regime, or you were out.

starman2003 wrote:Goebbels and Rosenberg were intellectuals, as were early fascist thinkers.

thats the best you got? How many Nobel prize winners fled Germany? Nazi germ nay was against free thinking and science or culture that wasn't approved.

The fact is fascist regimes, rely of thugs, brutal people who don't mind killing, torture and beating people. They are core group which defines these regimes.

Fascist regimes are not accountable. Dumb decisions are opposed from above. People are appointed for ideological or crony reasons rather than being the best person for the job. Non entities, yes man, corruption these are the effects on fascism on administration.

German High command in ww2 was populated with yes men, non entities who agreed with the leader. They told him what he wanted to hear. The Nazi administration was corrupt form top to bottom. cronyism and empire building.

These regimes attract these sort of people. They repel thinkers.

You simply cannot have an authoritarian regime without corruption, thugs and anti intellectualism. They are core parts of the program.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14832554
pugsville wrote:What are you a Marxist? A fundamentalist religious type?


No a secular authoritarian, closest to fascist.

ideology is the source of legitimacy.


Of course it is. Why do you think a regime elite is willing to be coercive when need be? They strongly believe their ideology and program is right.

Rubbish IT's thugs and violence. The Nazi took and maintained power by force,


No, the nazis rose to power because the depression induced people to support them. They relied on the ballot not an armed coup, and they enjoyed very substantial support.


authorities regimes rely of the military or para military thugs to beat people up and murder people. Thats how the get power thats how they maintain power.


Again no regime can survive without considerable support. Of course a nondemocratic regime must be coercive to eliminate its enemies and ensure its program is carried out even if unpopular.

The nazis were enthusiastically supported by the bulk of Germans. Note the big difference between their regime and the Kaiser's. Just a few months of bad news finished the latter; support evaporated so it had to give up. The former clung to power until it was completely overrun. The July 19444 lot fizzled almost immediately; even after all the disasters to then, the people didn't support it at all.





Goering helped with rearmament even if he wasn't a capable warrior. You don't overrun half a continent with nonentities. Military leadership was brilliant. The regime saw the worth of Doenitz, Guderian and Manstein.




Even heard of Marsailles "the star of africa" or Henke, commander of U-515? Neither were nazis and both were mavericks yet incurred no serious problems.




So is much of our society or any other. If we had real "free thinking" here, people could openly slam the pro-Israel lobby or christian doctrine.

No, the core group is formed of visionaries who founded the worldview or regime based on it. The coercive elements are an adjunct and as I've stressed repeatedly already, do not abuse for its own sake but to further an agenda considered vital. Any government is capable of covert (or overt) brutality.

Doenitz, Rommel, Guderian, Manstein appointed for political reasons.... :roll:

Saddam shot corrupt officials. I think you can't have a democracy without two out of three at least.
The Popular Vote...

1. Wrt cleaning up pollution; espec re prohibitin[…]

Election 2020

Thanks for the confirmation. I didn't say what I[…]

I watched Gretas address to Congress. There is s[…]

I do not think Gene was a communist. He was a p[…]