Why Fascism? - Page 2 - 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
#14824045
B0ycey wrote: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.


You can find lots of Rei's posts by clicking on her username and searching for her posts. You can even find a lot of them on this subforum.
By B0ycey
#14824052
Saeko wrote:You can find lots of Rei's posts by clicking on her username and searching for her posts. You can even find a lot of them on this subforum.


I'm sure I could. But as she is no longer an active user I have no interest in immortaling her memory and understanding who she was or what she believes in today. After all, if she wanted to engage still she wouldn't have left in the first place. Nonetheless when you get a member like Decky (who also supports Stalin) call her a 'crazy psychopath' then I would question whether we would agree on anything anyway. I would just read her posts and shake my head in disapproval.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14824070
Dave wrote:Who is going to start restaurants for instance? The party?


:lol: I don't think the party would start restaurants. Many existing ones would probably fold since in a State dominated system the emphasis would be on State power not individual gratification.



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


:lol: Those whose original and natural orientation is material self aggrandizement wouldn't make great party members.
By Pants-of-dog
#14824110
Saeko wrote:What?


If the only method of accountability requires the masses to ignore their education and ignore their superiors, and find one of them guilty of selfishness, then all the elite have to do to maintain their selfish agenda is to tell everyone it is for the good of society.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14824141
Why do you believe central planning to be superior to free enterprise despite the historical record? Why will future fascists do it so much better than Communists, Nazis and Japanese Imperialists?
User avatar
By Nat Turner
#14824145
AFAIK wrote:Why do you believe central planning to be superior to free enterprise despite the historical record? Why will future fascists do it so much better than Communists, Nazis and Japanese Imperialists?


It is BECAUSE of historical record, that Central Planning is superior to free enterprise. The Russians turn from a shithole akin to Africa to a superpower in less than 50 years. Meanwhile USA had more than 100 years to be a Super. And it was only due to FDR policies of planning that made USA a superpower and supported free enterprise. Do these republicans today even support competition or markets?
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14824257
The Soviet Union collapsed due to internal problems. The OP wants to submit to something greater than herself. If it all turns to shit after 50 years her sacrifice will have been in vain.
User avatar
By ThirdTerm
#14824264
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.




Japanese fascists were counter-elites who attempted to reform the unequal society modelled on Great Britain (i.e. aristocracy) and they did not hesitate to use force to achieve this goal. Imperial Japan in the 1930s was an era of political assassinations by these counter-elites, which was how negotiations between counter-elites and the state were arranged in a brutal manner. Leading up to Pearl Harbor, Hirohito appointed Tojo as the prime minister because he was the leading figure of a fascist faction, thus co-opting counter-elites. America significantly reduced the class problem in Japanese society by handing out rich farmers' land to poor peasants in the immediate aftermath of World War II.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824293
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the only method of accountability requires the masses to ignore their education and ignore their superiors,


I don't understand what you mean by this.

and find one of them guilty of selfishness, then all the elite have to do to maintain their selfish agenda is to tell everyone it is for the good of society.


What selfish agenda?
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824294
AFAIK wrote:Why do you believe central planning to be superior to free enterprise despite the historical record? Why will future fascists do it so much better than Communists, Nazis and Japanese Imperialists?


This question was already asked. Please read the thread.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14824338
You claim central planning works well when not done by commies and then point to the USA as an example, a country with no universal healthcare, minimal public transport and decaying infrastructure. You also failed to address the complete failure of centrally planned fascist societies, which were thoroughly humiliated following their defeat in WWII.

I don't see the point in submitting to an institution that is incapable of maintaining itself.
User avatar
By starman2003
#14824341
AFAIK wrote:You also failed to address the complete failure of centrally planned fascist societies, which were thoroughly humiliated following their defeat in WWII.


First, the defeat of fascism was due more to geopolitical accident--the vastly greater human and material resources if enemies--than internal faults (although there were some). Second, the bulk of the work of defeating fascism was done by another Statist system, the USSR.
By mikema63
#14824364
Sorry I've been sick so I've been mostly off line the last few days.

My first question would be how you created this sense of unity. Not only within the party membership but eventually you plan to subordinate the whole world into it. Obviously military and policing would go into controlling dissent but it's no small task to unify so many different groups of people into one ideology well enough to prevent wide scale distabilization. I suppose sufficient bread and circuses would help but I don't know that you could control that many people without sublimating their disagreements through the political system rather than just raw violence.

My second question is while power as the ultimate goal is fine, it still leads to the question of what you'll do with it. Increase your power is a pretty obvious response but I'm wondering what you would do with the citizenry and economy. Would there be a minimum standard of living? Education? Entertainment? Obviously their lives would be to serve the state but under what conditions would you actually just kill of a section of the population or leave them in direct poverty? What would your economy produce beyond weapons and other tools to maintain power? Would improving the general standard of living be considered?

My third question would be how this is substantially different that a political system where it's a republic but both parties largely agree on the expansion of power. Say one that has slowly evolved from a decentralized agrarian nation to one that dominates the whole world militarily and economically? If a republic is ultimately not that much different than what you propose then why not have a republic?
By Pants-of-dog
#14824371
Saeko wrote:I don't understand what you mean by this.

What selfish agenda?


Please see my initial post in this thread. Thank you.
By Oxymandias
#14824469
@Saeko

I have several questions:

1. What would your ideal fascist state look like?

2. How would it be organized?

3. If you had the ability to create a fascist state in America what would it be like and how would you hypothetically achieve it?

4. What would be the culture of your fascist state?

5. What would be your nation's thoughts on art?

6. What artstyle would your nation favor the most?

7. How would you go about creating a shop or running a business?

8. How would public housing be like?
User avatar
By MememyselfandIJK
#14824471
Oxymandias wrote:3. If you had the ability to create a fascist state in America what would it be like and how would you hypothetically achieve it?
Please! No!
By Oxymandias
#14824473
@MememyselfandIJK

It'll be a fun thought experiment. Also Saeko probably won't know anything about how to make a fascist state in any other country other than the US.

Of course we all know that Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism is the final frontier of America.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824565
AFAIK wrote:You claim central planning works well when not done by commies and then point to the USA as an example, a country with no universal healthcare, minimal public transport and decaying infrastructure.


Yes, a lot of central planning makes the US economy.

You also failed to address the complete failure of centrally planned fascist societies, which were thoroughly humiliated following their defeat in WWII.


Fascism only maximizes one's chances of success, but nothing can guarantee it.

I don't see the point in submitting to an institution that is incapable of maintaining itself.


Which institution are you talking about?
By anasawad
#14824566
I actually agree with this point as it is a fact whether many liked it or not.
Fascism does produce large industrial economies that are incredibly successful and much more stable because economically, fascism takes the best of both socialism and capitalism.
The major problem with Fascism however is the fact that oppositional nationalism is a huge part of it. And thats a dangerous trap to fall in, with pretty much all fascist states falling exactly because of it.
The second problem which also causes a lot of problems with Fascism is the fact that its too Patrimonialistic which makes it vulnerable to internal instability and political chaos.
Remove those 2 and fascist states would be ruling the world right now.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14824567
mikema63 wrote:Sorry I've been sick so I've been mostly off line the last few days.

My first question would be how you created this sense of unity. Not only within the party membership but eventually you plan to subordinate the whole world into it. Obviously military and policing would go into controlling dissent but it's no small task to unify so many different groups of people into one ideology well enough to prevent wide scale distabilization. I suppose sufficient bread and circuses would help but I don't know that you could control that many people without sublimating their disagreements through the political system rather than just raw violence.


Education.

My second question is while power as the ultimate goal is fine, it still leads to the question of what you'll do with it. Increase your power is a pretty obvious response but I'm wondering what you would do with the citizenry and economy. Would there be a minimum standard of living? Education? Entertainment? Obviously their lives would be to serve the state but under what conditions would you actually just kill of a section of the population or leave them in direct poverty? What would your economy produce beyond weapons and other tools to maintain power? Would improving the general standard of living be considered?


The goal is to provide everyone with what they need to be as useful to the state as possible. Once economic autarky and stability are achieved, the goal would be to invest surplus into new technologies and scientific research. A highly educated populace would be necessary to take the country further than the basics.

under what conditions would you actually just kill of a section of the population or leave them in direct poverty?


Umm... I wouldn't?

My third question would be how this is substantially different that a political system where it's a republic but both parties largely agree on the expansion of power. Say one that has slowly evolved from a decentralized agrarian nation to one that dominates the whole world militarily and economically? If a republic is ultimately not that much different than what you propose then why not have a republic?


I don't see why there needs to be more than one party.
Syrian war thread

@Zionist Nationalist Don't give yourself too […]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEe7_zgZbuI/ma[…]

Obese Donald's "cabinet" is a aspect of […]

Election 2020

quite frankly I was not aware of her. She was los[…]