The Right is Giving Up on Democracy - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14728979
Trump's 'elections-are-rigged' strategem plays upon a pre-existing (and growing) perception among all levels of the Republican Party.

https://newrepublic.com/article/138019/ ... -democracy

"According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday, Republicans have an “unprecedented” level of “concern and mistrust in the system.” Roughly 70 percent of Republican voters believe that if Hillary Clinton wins the election, it’ll be due to fraud. In both this poll and an NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, only half of Republicans say they’d accept a Clinton victory. (In the latter poll, by contrast, 82 percent of Democrats said they would accept a Trump victory.)...

...As conservative writer Byron York noted in the Washington Examiner in May, there’s been an upsurge on the right of calls for “a test for voting, limited-participation elections, condemnations of democracy in general.” The anti-democratic measures have been taken up with especial fervor by anti-Trump writers like David Harsanyi, Jonah Goldberg, and Keven D. Williamson, all frequent contributors to The National Review."

The anti-democratic upsurge is strongly represented among all factions on the right, including the neo-conservatives, the alt-right, and establishment regulars.

From the anti-Trump wing: "Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist and author of the book The People Have Spoken (And They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy, is one of the most forthright voices. In a May 2016 op-ed in the Washington Post, he called for “weeding out millions of irresponsible voters who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary workings of the Constitution, or their preferred candidate’s proposals or even their history.” That way, he said, “we may be able to mitigate the recklessness of the electorate.”

From the pro-Trump wing: "Writing in the Cato Unleashed blog in 2009, Thiel lamented the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the vote. “The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics,” Thiel wrote. “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”

None of these tendencies are new, of course. What is new (or finally becoming obvious) is that such attitudes are now the orthodoxy of the US right.
#14728989
Good post.

I believe this.

I believe the reason why is that there is a large sector of the population raised on American exceptionalism that can't bring themselves to believe that they are on the receiving end of an economic takeover by the wealthy. They can't bring themselves to see that Trump (for example) is the very personification of their enemy.

The "Republican Right" has devolved to a rough coalition of racists, disenfranchised white males, and fanatical evangelical Christians.

Ironically we can see in Utah what might happen. A new right has emerged there. One should not look at Utah by what others say about it or even what it "says" about itself. One should look at what they "do".

•Utah Medicare. Click the link above to see the Medicare details above.
•Utah Chip Program. ...
•Utah Family Employment Program. ...
•Utah Food Stamp Program. ...
•Utah Head Start. ...
•Utah Home Energy Assistance Training (Heat) Program. ...
•Utah Medicaid. ...
•Utah School Breakfast And Lunch Program.
Housing first model for homelessness relief

While maintaining a socially conservative message they have simultaneously maintained a robust social safety net. They are very progressive in their actions while understanding that these progressive ideas serve well the conservative value of fiscal responsibility. (7th best in full employment with an unemployment rate under 3.5%. Safe schools and quality education.)

It will be interesting to see what the Republican strategy will be after the election. If Clinton is elected, will they double-down on the far right wing rhetoric and obstructionism or will they look to the mid-terms to recapture at least some of their former position as a center-right party.

If they lose the Senate they will no doubt face a more liberal supreme court for two to three decades. Hillary will appoint at least two justices. They could stand in obstruction to this but my feeling is that the American people would not reward this.

WWRD What would Ryan do.

I hope one thing above all others. Take abortion off of the table. Quietly. It is killing the party and it will only get worse. If he can do that he may be able to finagle some more moderate justices. If he sticks to it he may well lose the people he most needs while pushing Clinton to the left in her choices. The republicans have done quite enough to turn off women. I hope he realizes that he is about the only congressman who can take his shirt off and get a vote.
#14729029
Dr Lee

Thank you for this post.

For my entire life, the American right has vilified socialism, while demanding less government and lower taxes. Socialism can solve problems, and sometimes be more efficient and cheaper.

The army will always be expensive, full stop, but other programmes can save you money and supply you with a superior product or service. Consider your prisons. Private prisons are extending prisoners' sentences to make more money and the taxpayers are picking up the tab. In the UK the number of lawsuits against privatised prisons skyrocketed. Again, the tax payers picked up the bill. Government facilities are superior and cheaper.

At one time, all liquor here was bargained for, distributed and sold by the government with the single exception - pubs. Publicans could resell cases of beer, at least at closing time. Basically it was all profit for the government and with the profits going to general coffers, the people.

Imagine if the Republicans would pass a bill allowing you to negotiate for the country all drugs, including foreign drugs. Big cha-ching. Now set up a state or national pharmacutical chain, not to put Walmart out of business, just to fairly compete. Pay the staff well, put all the drugs and the prices online, and let folks know that the profits go to general coffers. Where would you shop?

Make the buses free. You'll clean up the air which will reduce respiratory disorders, reduce global warming, reduce the ongoing highway maintainance, reduce accidents and hospital/physio claims, which is so expensive it will pay for the buses, especially if you can get university students on side.

So, if the right is giving up on democracy, try socialism.
#14729039
quetzcoatl wrote:The anti-democratic upsurge is strongly represented among all factions on the right, including the neo-conservatives, the alt-right, and establishment regulars.

People like me are anti-democratic in the sense that we do not believe in universal suffrage. However, I'm in no way representative of a majority opinion.

However, most Trump supporters do believe in democracy and mass suffrage. Their problem with the system is that in spite of holding a majority opinion (e.g., secure the nation's borders), the elected officials of this country are not responsive to the demands of the electorate. On the contrary, the elected officials and bureaucrats seem to know what the people want, but they disagree with the majority and even try to marginalize them as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and the like.

quetzlcoatl wrote:From the anti-Trump wing: "Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist and author of the book The People Have Spoken (And They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy, is one of the most forthright voices. In a May 2016 op-ed in the Washington Post, he called for “weeding out millions of irresponsible voters who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary workings of the Constitution, or their preferred candidate’s proposals or even their history.” That way, he said, “we may be able to mitigate the recklessness of the electorate.”

These elites are who are unpopular, and they do not exist exclusively in the Republican party. Their largest faction is center-left. Obama and Clinton are of that ilk.

quetzlcoatl wrote:From the pro-Trump wing: "Writing in the Cato Unleashed blog in 2009, Thiel lamented the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the vote. “The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics,” Thiel wrote. “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”

While I agree with Thiel on the 19th Amendment, you have to remember that Thiel is gay--so you can't call him a misogynist.

Drlee wrote:I believe the reason why is that there is a large sector of the population raised on American exceptionalism that can't bring themselves to believe that they are on the receiving end of an economic takeover by the wealthy. They can't bring themselves to see that Trump (for example) is the very personification of their enemy.

Trump is not their enemy. Hillary is. Who else makes $100M by giving speeches? Nobody. It's pay-to-play corruption and it's obvious on its face.

Stormsmith wrote:For my entire life, the American right has vilified socialism, while demanding less government and lower taxes. Socialism can solve problems, and sometimes be more efficient and cheaper.

Socialism only works well for very simple services. Roads, sewers, water works, etc. are examples of effective collective institutions. However, these quasi-public institutions often become corrupt. For example, in our area we have a mass-transit system called BART. It used to be the best in the country. Now it has the oldest fleet of cars in the country, and it's one of the most expensive. To go from the suburbs to San Francisco and back is about $10 a day. You can go from Los Angeles to Long Beach and back for only $4. What happens is that labor unions get in there and drive wages sky high. I have a friend who works for BART. Do you know what he does? He empties garbage cans. He makes over $80k a year. He has a masters degree in psychology, but he makes more money at a union shop emptying garbage cans than he would as a psychologist.

Stormsmith wrote:Government facilities are superior and cheaper.

They could be, but they are not. Try using a public restroom and let me know how that goes. Very often this is due to corruption between labor unions and politicians. Labor unions compel dues of workers and buy politicians. This is why privatization almost always initially is more efficient, because it breaks the tie between unions and politicians.

Stormsmith wrote:Imagine if the Republicans would pass a bill allowing you to negotiate for the country all drugs, including foreign drugs. Big cha-ching. Now set up a state or national pharmacutical chain, not to put Walmart out of business, just to fairly compete. Pay the staff well, put all the drugs and the prices online, and let folks know that the profits go to general coffers. Where would you shop?

Big government factions in the Democratic Party set that system up. They have their acolytes in the Republican party too--e.g., George W. Bush. That's why you have Trump now. See, Al Gore runs around talking about his imaginary friends who eat cat food so they can afford their prescription drugs. He loses the race, because he's too ridiculous for words. But that doesn't matter, because along comes George W. Bush--supposedly a conservative--and implements prescription drug coverage for Medicare. That's what people are tired of.

Stormsmith wrote:So, if the right is giving up on democracy, try socialism.

Why don't you move to Venezuela and tell me how you like it, provided you can get electricity and an internet connection... :roll:
#14729067
blackjack21 wrote:Their problem with the system is that in spite of holding a majority opinion (e.g., secure the nation's borders), the elected officials of this country are not responsive to the demands of the electorate. On the contrary, the elected officials and bureaucrats seem to know what the people want, but they disagree with the majority and even try to marginalize them as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and the like.

But that is the system, and always has been. The constitution is a control on both the power of the government and the power of the representatives that the people elect to government. The foundation of liberalism is that there are certain rights that no matter how much you want to mute, are immutable. I think that we can both agree on this. The electorate can believe whatever it wants to believe, but the system only allows for certain positions. The wall isn't even a matter of legality under the constitution, it's about the feasibility of the extent of the proposed law. The talk of mass deportation is certainly a violation of the fourth ammendment, whatever the fourth stands for these days.

And there's the other problem. The same electorate that wanted to take away our right to privacy has flip flopped and believes that the government has too much power and wages too many wars. It's crazy to me that Hillary gets blamed for war hawking that became necessary because of the bungling of foreign policy under the Bush administration.
#14729072
Translation of @quetzalcoatl's post: it was acceptable for the left to accuse the DNC of rigging the primaries through the electoral college, but unacceptable when Donald Trump criticizes the contest for the exact same reason.

One of many examples of how the left has arrived at a dialectical dead end and cannot proceed without entering hubris and hypocrisy.
#14729082
Hubris and hypocrisy is the lynchpin of reactionary thought.

At least in the primaries there is evidence of impropriety in terms of they did actually favor the establishment candidate. There's no evidence that there was any primary rigging, but certainly DWS didn't resign for no reason.

The problem is that the media is not rigging the election against Trump; quite the contrary, they are the ones that propped up his bullshit campaign by giving him tens of millions (if not more) in free advertising. Now that they are actually doing their due dilligence against Trump, people are getting mad. Also, given how little evidence there is that Clinton is any more corrupt than any other politcian, they really have given too much credence to the conspiracy theories around her, which have been debunked time and time again or amount to non-stories that the right has made a big deal of for political expedience.
#14729096
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Hubris and hypocrisy is the lynchpin of reactionary thought.


Not really. Hubris as an epistemological event is something that specifically occurred with Hegel's great synthesis and it still continues to plague modern political discourses.

At least in the primaries there is evidence of impropriety in terms of they did actually favor the establishment candidate. There's no evidence that there was any primary rigging, but certainly DWS didn't resign for no reason.


The left was still describing the electoral college as a rigged system long before Wikileaks exposed DWS. It's not as though it is some kind of conspiracy theory that the electoral college is designed to keep anti-establishment candidates out of high office.

The problem is that the media is not rigging the election against Trump; quite the contrary, they are the ones that propped up his bullshit campaign by giving him tens of millions (if not more) in free advertising. Now that they are actually doing their due dilligence against Trump, people are getting mad.


There is not a shred of evidence to support "the media created Trump" theory besides a one-off remark made by the Don about Fox News. Somehow this soundbite has evolved into the world's most dodgy PhD thesis.

Also, given how little evidence there is that Clinton is any more corrupt than any other politcian, they really have given too much credence to the conspiracy theories around her, which have been debunked time and time again or amount to non-stories that the right has made a big deal of for political expedience.


Trump, from the beginning of his campaign, was running against the Beltway establishment. Hillary Clinton's nomination doesn't change that.
#14729103
Socialism only works well for very simple services. Roads, sewers, water works, etc. are examples of effective collective institutions. However, these quasi-public institutions often become corrupt. For example, in our area we have a mass-transit system called BART. It used to be the best in the country. Now it has the oldest fleet of cars in the country, and it's one of the most expensive. To go from the suburbs to San Francisco and back is about $10 a day. You can go from Los Angeles to Long Beach and back for only $4. What happens is that labor unions get in there and drive wages sky high. I have a friend who works for BART. Do you know what he does? He empties garbage cans. He makes over $80k a year. He has a masters degree in psychology, but he makes more money at a union shop emptying garbage cans than he would as a psychologist. 


1. What is the frequency?
2. I see no instance of corruption
3. The age of the fleet, if the vehicles are well maintained point to value for the money.


BJ 21
They could be, but they are not. Try using a public restroom and let me know how that goes. Very often this is due to corruption between labor unions and politicians. Labor unions compel dues of workers and buy politicians. This is why privatization almost always initially is more efficient, because it breaks the tie between unions and politicians. 

Evidence please

BJ21:
Big government factions in the Democratic Party set that system up. They have their acolytes in the Republican party too--e.g., George W. Bush. That's why you have Trump now. See, Al Gore runs around talking about his imaginary friends who eat cat food so they can afford their prescription drugs. He loses the race, because he's too ridiculous for words. But that doesn't matter, because along comes George W. Bush--supposedly a conservative--and implements prescription drug coverage for Medicare. That's what people are tired of.

And where would :lol: you shop?


Bj21
Why don't you move to Venezuela and tell me how you like it, provided you can get electricity and an internet connection... 

We have the above, and hydro electricity is also a crown corppration. Provides us with v cheap electrity. The rest we sell to you at fair market value, with the profit going to general coffers.
Last edited by Stormsmith on 25 Oct 2016 06:23, edited 3 times in total.
#14729106
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:And there's the other problem. The same electorate that wanted to take away our right to privacy has flip flopped and believes that the government has too much power and wages too many wars. It's crazy to me that Hillary gets blamed for war hawking that became necessary because of the bungling of foreign policy under the Bush administration.

They are the same political faction: neoconservatives. The "regime change" policy for Iraq was implemented in 1998 by Bill Clinton. It was executed by George W. Bush, and voted for by Hillary Clinton. Think the intelligence was wrong? The CIA was run by Tenet--a Clinton appointee. That's part of what has people pissed off; namely, that it is just an illusion that we have a choice. Donald Trump scares them, because they thought it would be Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.

LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:The problem is that the media is not rigging the election against Trump; quite the contrary, they are the ones that propped up his bullshit campaign by giving him tens of millions (if not more) in free advertising.

They are now. They liked him in the primaries, because they thought he'd be easy to beat. They are freaked out that nobody cares about the October sex scandal--all information that they had for a long time and decided to dump it all in October before the election. Sometimes these surprises are true, like George W. Bush didn't disclose his DWI. However, it didn't work.

LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Now that they are actually doing their due dilligence against Trump, people are getting mad.

Not really. The sex scandal has Billy Bush's fingerprints on it too. NBC would have run that video in the primaries if they were doing their due diligence. They held it back, because they thought that Trump would be the weakest candidate and they could blow him up in October. That's actually not happening, as his supporters will not abandon him. He's still drawing huge crowds.

LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Also, given how little evidence there is that Clinton is any more corrupt than any other politcian, they really have given too much credence to the conspiracy theories around her, which have been debunked time and time again or amount to non-stories that the right has made a big deal of for political expedience.

Clinton isn't corrupt all by herself. The email scandal illustrates it very clearly. She set it up to conceal--not for convenience. When she was under a Congressional subpoena to hand over the emails, she deleted over 30k of them. That is criminal and there is no doubt about it. However, there was clear collusion with Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on that plane in Arizona. There is also evidence that Terry McAuliffe--who is very close to the Clintons--donated quite a lot of money from his political PAC to the senate campaign of the wife of the person investigating Hillary's email server. It's absolutely incredible. Nixon wasn't even close to this corrupt.
#14729109
Donald wrote:Translation of @quetzalcoatl's post: it was acceptable for the left to accuse the DNC of rigging the primaries through the electoral college, but unacceptable when Donald Trump criticizes the contest for the exact same reason.

One of many examples of how the left has arrived at a dialectical dead end and cannot proceed without entering hubris and hypocrisy.


Primaries are a bit different from general elections, in that they are conducted by the parties themselves with only limited interference from the state. The idea of superdelegates would never fly in the general election, for instance. I know of no one (no one who is actually sane, that is) who alleges actual vote fraud on the part of the DNC. What happens is that the DNC allots money and support to its favored candidates. This may or may not be ethical, but it is not fraud. It is not "rigging" either, except in some kind of Trumpian vague-speak.

Party progressives start at a disadvantage magnified by Clintoncrat control of Party money and ground troops. The only way to counter that is through hard work, organization, and long-term thinking. It may be irritating that Clintoncrats are able to promote themselves and their friends, but that is no excuse for whining or inaction. The same critique, naturally, should be applied to the Trump insurgency.

If they want to win, they have to work harder.
#14729117
Stormsmith wrote:2. I see no instance of corruption

You obviously don't see the economic disconnect from a low-skill job that requires no education paying out $80k a year for a job that should pay no more than $50k a year. Since you are an obvious left-wing hack, let me give you an example you might believe: Is BART The Most Corrupt Government Agency In California?.

However, it's not just a Republican like Fang. It's throughout the system.

BART’s top-paid worker of 2012 never worked a day
So Fang gets someone fired, but she still collects a salary for doing absolutely nothing. It's so utterly corrupt. That's why socialism doesn't work. You're not even slightly troubled by someone making $80k+ a year to empty garbage cans. I understand my buddy's motivation--money--but his ethics and the ethics of people throughout the system are shockingly corrupt. A lot of these people just belong in a prison work camp.

Stormsmith wrote:Yes, but where would you shop?

The gun store. It's time to prepare for civil unrest in the future. The rule of law is breaking down.
#14729170
You obviously don't see the economic disconnect from a low-skill job that requires no education paying out $80k a year for a job that should pay no more than $50k a year.


I see. So you are quibbling over the extra $30K. I will agree with you. A janitor ought to be paid $25.00 per hour for emptying the trash as you have suggested. Perhaps you would agree with me and set the minimum wage at $20.00 per hour and still give him/her the ability to strive for an additional $5.00 per for good performance.

Your gun store comment is childish.

Your article about the "highest paid worker" is also absurd and you posted it in an attempt to deceive. That is the thing though Blackjack. Sometimes people read your links.
#14729183
BJ21

You obviously don't see the economic disconnect from a low-skill job that requires no education paying out $80k a year for a job that should pay no more than $50k a year. Since you are an obvious left-wing hack, let me give you an example you might believe: Is BART The Most Corrupt Government Agency In California?.


I didn't respond to the issue because it hadn't anything to do with the topic nor my opinion on the topic, which is on a change of direction by the right. I was arguing that socialism can be a useful tool to solve social problems, which, by virtue of their lowering of taxes are not incompa table with core party values. I didnt see anything in your reply that addressed the point, so I re-asked in the follow up post "where would you shop". That was your opportunity to discuss the merits, or lack of, of my opinion.

OK so is your friend walking around emptying waste paper bins or driving a large vehicle with air brakes?

As to wages, are the benefits part of the calculation to earn 80K or is it 80K plus benefits?

Considering wages have been flat, at best, for 25 years and considering how arsingly expensive housing is in SF and LA, I don't begrudge him it. A shockingly large amount will wind up as tax and he's one less person for whom you'll have to find pension dollars.


I'm not going to address the rest as its not topical and I've given you enough of my day

Too bad you didn't address my posts
#14731361
POD wrote:I do not think the right is giving up on democracy so much as returning to their original, anti-democratic roots.


I would agree with this.

Though I think much could be done to contextualize this into the ancient world, there wasn't really a right-left as we know it now. That term and thinking comes from the great French Revolution, which absolutely defined what we think of as, "right," and, "left," as the people against extending further democracy sat on the right; the people that wanted to extend democracy further sat on the left.

In rhetoric, even the Jacobins (who ran a tyranny) did so in the name of democracy. Their constitution, which was by far the most democratic, was to be implemented when the internal and external war was finished.

The reaction, again explicitly called the right, objected not as much to the tyranny (though in fairness to do so would have been suicidal) as against the democracy.

Hence, first Napoleon, and then the conservative founding fathers (like him) went out of their way in the Vienna System to make sure that another democracy could never rise again in Europe. This was, explicitly, right-wing in name and rhetoric and political theory and everything.

Those that pushed more equality were always on the left, both in the US and Europe.

The seeds of this are reflected still in the DNA of the extreme and more moderated right. I've posted this before, so forgive me.

Fascism is the ideology of the petite-bourgousie in decay. When confronted by the haute-bourgousie on the one hand, and the proletariat on the other, they have little to do. But, when conditions are correct; when the haute-bourgousie are in serious danger, when the proletariat are rising, than the haute-bourgousie has a purpose for the use of fascism:

Trotsky wrote:The bourgeoisie is incapable of maintaining itself in power by the means and methods of the parliamentary state created by itself; it needs fascism as a weapon of self-defense, at least in critical instances. Nevertheless, the bourgeoisie does not like the 'plebian' method of resolving its tasks....The big bourgeoisie likes fascism as little as a man with aching molars likes to have his teeth pulled. The sober circles of bourgeois society have followed with misgivings the work of the dentist Pilsudski, but in the last analysis they have become reconciled to the inevitable, though with threats, with horse-trades and all sorts of bargaining. Thus the petty bourgeoisie's idol of yesterday becomes transformed into the gendarme of capital.


This is, incidentally, exactly what the libertarian Founding Fathers said was great about fascism:

Hayek wrote:At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.


Hoppe wrote:There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.


Rothbard wrote:Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.


Ludwig von Mises wrote:The deeds of the Fascists and of other parties corresponding to them were emotional reflex actions evoked by indignation at the deeds of the Bolsheviks and Communists. As soon as the first flush of anger had passed, their policy took a more moderate course and will probably become even more so with the passage of time.

This moderation is the result of the fact that traditional liberal views still continue to have an unconscious influence on the Fascists...

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.


The Von Mises institute today continues the interpretation:

Grandin wrote:Like Friedman, Hayek glimpsed in Pinochet the avatar of true freedom, who would rule as a dictator only for a "transitional period, " only as long as needed to reverse decades of state regulation. "My personal preference, " he told a Chilean interviewer, "leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." In a letter to the London Times he defended the junta, reporting that he had "not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." Of course, the thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured by Pinochet’s regime weren’t talking.


As does the CATO Institute that keeps fascists on its staff.

Milton Friedman's grandson concluded that the future of capitalism could not be democratic:

CATO wrote:Democracy Is Not The Answer

Democracy is the current industry standard political system, but unfortunately it is ill-suited for a libertarian state. It has substantial systemic flaws, which are well-covered elsewhere, and it poses major problems specifically for libertarians:

1) Most people are not by nature libertarians. David Nolan reports that surveys show at most 16% of people have libertarian beliefs. Nolan, the man who founded the Libertarian Party back in 1971, now calls for libertarians to give up on the strategy of electing candidates! Even Ron Paul, who was enormously popular by libertarian standards and ran during a time of enormous backlash against the establishment, never had the slightest chance of winning the nomination. His “strong” showing got him 1.6% of the delegates to the Republican Party’s national convention. There are simply not enough of us to win elections unless we somehow concentrate our efforts.

2) Democracy is rigged against libertarians. Candidates bid for electoral victory partly by selling future political favors to raise funds and votes for their campaigns. Libertarians (and other honest candidates) who will not abuse their office can’t sell favors, thus have fewer resources to campaign with, and so have a huge intrinsic disadvantage in an election.

Libertarians are a minority, and we underperform in elections, so winning electoral victories is a hopeless endeavor.

Emergent Behavior

Consider these three levels of political abstraction:

Policies: Specific sets of laws.
Institutions: An entire country and its legal and political systems.
Ecosystem: All nations and the environment in which they compete and evolve.

Folk activism treats policies and institutions as the result of specific human intent. But policies are in large part an emergent behavior of institutions, and institutions are an emergent behavior of the global political ecosystem.


Then you have the fascists themselves that set themselves up as the defenders of a natural hierarchy (that is, opposed to democracy) to which the market is part, and a way to defend this "natural" way against the democratic hordes:

Mussolini wrote:Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism.


Mussolini wrote:...Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism. . . .


Hitler wrote:...And it is the greatest source of pride to us that we have been able to carry through this revolution, which is certainly the greatest revolution ever experienced in the history of our people, with a minimum of loss and sacrifice. Only in those cases where the murderous lust of the Bolsheviks, even after the 30th of January, 1933, led them to think that by the use of brute force they could prevent the success and realization of the National Socialist ideal—only then did we answer violence with violence, and naturally we did it promptly...

...I mean here that if Europe does not awaken to the danger of the Bolshevic infection, then I fear that international commerce will not increase but decrease, despite all the good intentions of individual statesmen. For this commerce is based not only on the undisturbed and guaranteed stability of production in one individual nation but also on the production of all the nations together. One of the first things which is clear in this matter is that every Bolshevic disturbance must necessarily lead to a more or less permanent destruction of orderly production. Therefore my opinion about the future of Europe is, I am sorry to say, not so optimistic as Mr. Eden’s. I am the responsible leader of the German people and must safeguard its interests in this world as well as I can. And therefore I am bound to judge things objectively as I see them.

I should not be acquitted before the bar of our history if I neglected something—no matter on what grounds—which is necessary to maintain the existence of this people. I am pleased, and we are all pleased, at every increase that takes place in our foreign trade. But in view of the obscure political situation I shall not neglect anything that is necessary to guarantee the existence of the German people, although other nations may become the victims of the Bolshevic infection.

...But I believe that nobody will question the sincerity of our opinions on this matter, for they are not based merely on abstract theory. For Mr. Eden Bolshevism is perhaps a thing which has its seat in Moscow, but for us in Germany this Bolshevism is a pestilence against which we have had to struggle at the cost of much bloodshed. It is a pestilence which tried to turn our country into the same kind of desert as is now the case in Spain; for the habit of murdering hostages began here, in the form in which we now see it in Spain. National Socialism did not try to come to grips with Bolshevism in Russia, but the Jewish international Bolshevics in Moscow have tried to introduce their system into Germany and are still trying to do so. Against this attempt we have waged a bitter struggle, not only in defence of our own civilization but in defence of European civilization as a whole.

In January and February of the year 1933, when the last decisive struggle against this barbarism was being fought out in Germany, had Germany been defeated in that struggle and had the Bolshevic field of destruction and death extended over Central Europe, then perhaps a different opinion would have arisen on the banks of the Thames as to the nature of this terrible menace to humanity. For since it is said that England must be defended on the frontier of the Rhine she would then have found herself in close contact with that harmless democratic world of Moscow, whose innocence they are always trying to impress upon us. Here I should like to state the following once again: —

The teaching of Bolshevism is that there must be a world revolution, which would mean world-destruction. If such a doctrine were accepted and given equal rights with other teachings in Europe, this would mean that Europe would be delivered over to it. If other nations want to be on good terms with this peril, that does not affect Germany’s position. As far as Germany itself is concerned, let there be no doubts on the following points: —

(1) We look on Bolshevism as a world peril for which there must be no toleration.

(2) We use every means in our power to keep this peril away from our people.

(3) And we are trying to make the German people immune to this peril as far as possible.

It is in accordance with this attitude of ours that we should avoid close contact with the carriers of these poisonous bacilli. And that is also the reason why we do not want to have any closer relations with them beyond the necessary political and commercial relations; for if we went beyond these we might thereby run the risk of closing the eyes of our people to the danger itself.

I consider Bolshevism the most malignant poison that can be given to a people. And therefore I do not want my own people to come into contact with this teaching. As a citizen of this nation I myself shall not do what I should have to condemn my fellow-citizens for doing. I demand from every German workman that he shall not have any relations with these international mischief-makers and he shall never see me clinking glasses or rubbing shoulders with them. Moreover, any further treaty connections with the present Bolshevic Russia would be completely worthless for us. It is out of the question to think that National Socialist Germany should ever be bound to protect Bolshevism or that we, on our side, should ever agree to accept the assistance of a Bolshevic State. For I fear that the moment any nation should agree to accept such assistance, it would thereby seal its own doom.


Hitler wrote:I aimed from the first at something a thousand times higher than being a minister. I wanted to become the destroyer of Marxism. I am going to achieve this task and, if I do, the title of minister will be an absurdity as far as I am concerned. . . .

At one time I believed that perhaps this battle against Marxism could be carried on with the help of the government. In January, 1923, I learned that that was just not possible. The hypothesis for the victory of Marxism is not that Germany must be free, but rather Germany will only be free when Marxism is broken. At that time I did not dream that our movement would become great and cover Germany like a flood.]Hitler[/url]"]I aimed from the first at something a thousand times higher than being a minister. I wanted to become the destroyer of Marxism. I am going to achieve this task and, if I do, the title of minister will be an absurdity as far as I am concerned. . . .

At one time I believed that perhaps this battle against Marxism could be carried on with the help of the government. In January, 1923, I learned that that was just not possible. The hypothesis for the victory of Marxism is not that Germany must be free, but rather Germany will only be free when Marxism is broken. At that time I did not dream that our movement would become great and cover Germany like a flood.


Hitler wrote:IN NOVEMBER, 1918, Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of the Reich and of the States removed from office, and thereby a breach of the Constitution was committed. The success of the revolution in a material sense protected the guilty parties from the hands of the law. They sought to justify it morally by asserting that Germany or its Government bore the guilt for the outbreak of the War.

This assertion was deliberately and actually untrue. In consequence, however, these untrue accusations in the interest of our former enemies led to the severest oppression of the entire German nation and to the breach of the assurances given to us in Wilson's fourteen points, and so for Germany, that is to say the working classes of the German people, to a time of infinite misfortune....

The splitting up of the nation into groups with irreconcilable views, systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism, means the destruction of the basis of a possible communal life.... It is only the creation of a real national community, rising above the interests and differences of rank and class, that can permanently remove the source of nourishment of these aberrations of the human mind.


Fascism and libertarianism aren't the same thing, but they come from the same people with the same impulse. It's the cry of the doomed petite-bourgousie, stuck firmly between two historic classes, with nothing to sustain itself but populist visions of destroying its enemies and creating a fanciful utopia. But it is not a class of historic relevance, and its cries are always in vain. This is the opposite, in the words of both fascists and libertarians, of the the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

Even in this very modern conflict against the Marxists, for both the fascist and the libertarian the main thrust of the argument was against the democracy that they represented.

Note that this is not exactly the same as the social-democrats that object not to the (real) left's tactics (both Jacobin and socialist) in order to secure a perfected democracy, but democracy itself as a conception.
#14731377
I find it difficult to accept the thesis that social democrats object to democracy as a conception. Perhaps the program of Eugene Debs was doomed from the start, due to some flaw of historical understanding. This does not mean he was anti-democratic in any conceptual sense.

At worst, the social democrats haven't failed any more profoundly than anyone else, when it comes to forming humane democratic institutions.
Last edited by quetzalcoatl on 01 Nov 2016 04:14, edited 1 time in total.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yale course on Ukrainian history: https://www.you[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Find Someone Who Loves You Like Israel Loves Att[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]