Post: #101

(03-04-2013 09:49 PM)Blaster Wrote:  I suspect British people are reflexively anti-fascist

That's now. They were not reflexively anti-fascist when fascism was new. If you look at, say, a newspaper from the 1920s talking about Mussolini a bit after his rise to power, they're all pretty indifferent to any danger - some are adoring, some are skeptical, but rather few people had some reflexive worry that fascism is dangerous. The Daily Mail actually declared itself fascist aligned (gotta love the Daily Mail). Mussolinis bombastic dictator cult was mostly just seen as an Italian thing and not taken very seriously.

Fascism started gaining a bad reputation only well into the 1930s when the German regime got ever more repressive and it got ever more obvious that they were dragging the world to war.

Quote:because they associate fascism with authoritarianism and suppression of individual rights and racist nationalism.

The kind of racial ideology that today looks unique to Naziism was more or less the norm in Britain and the Germanic countries, it was the "diversity" and "multiculturalism" of the day. Everyone just buried it after WWII. In fact, most of this stuff originated in Britain and that's why Hitler thought he'd find the British sympathetic - the racial nationalism was adopted precisely because Hitler thought it would bring Germany closer to Britain.

Quote:Do you really think the Nazi influence would have been able to overcome Britain's commitment to enlightenment ideals?

Uhwhat?

Oswald Mosley wrote a book about developing a British kind of fascism centered around the monarchy, with the aim of transforming the state to a parliamentary type of fascism, and he quickly gained a pretty large follower base for his fascist party. Of course it all evaporated pretty quick since he was an idealistic moron who let just about everyone in and the British Union of Fascists soon became a refuge for thugs but really, nothing in fascist ideology itself turned off people before it became associated with the violent fringe.

Of course, everyone today who thinks that fascism just means a strong dictator should re-read their history. Actually, much of what used to be called fascism was integrated into Western societies under a different name after World War II or even before (eg New Deal)... I think most fascist ideology is rather disastrously wrong even though I don't much care for today's democracy.

Post: #102

Quote:Uhwhat?

Yeah I was summarizing.

The English constitutional monarchy evolved with relative stability for centuries, with codified limits on the monarchy existing as early as the 13th century, and by the 20th century its Parliament was several centuries old. This is in contrast to central Europe which was far less stable even before considering the massive consequences the region suffered due to World War I.

It would take a lot more than a political fad like Fascism to have a major influence on English politics.

Quote:Of course, everyone today who thinks that fascism just means a strong dictator should re-read their history.

Another alternative is for people saying otherwise to offer some arguments.

Quote:Actually, much of what used to be called fascism was integrated into Western societies under a different name after World War II or even before (eg New Deal)

Sure, but how much credit is really due to the fascist philosophy and not just pragmatic adaptation of useful ideas? Certainly, the New Deal was a response to emergent flaws in capitalism while stopping well short of the communism of Eastern Europe, and FDR is said to have been inspired by Mussolini early on.

Post: #103

(03-05-2013 10:09 PM)Blaster Wrote:  Another alternative is for people saying otherwise to offer some arguments.

A third alternative is for the people saying otherwise to reside in their understanding, until you exhibit a minimum willingness to, say, observe the Wikipedia entry on fascism.

When I take an interest in something I look up the main respected scholars on that topic, look into their books, dig into footnotes and references, and so on.

When I'm not interested in something I don't passively-aggressively pretend I'm interested.

Post: #104

(03-05-2013 10:09 PM)Blaster Wrote:  The English constitutional monarchy evolved with relative stability for centuries, with codified limits on the monarchy existing as early as the 13th century, and by the 20th century its Parliament was several centuries old.

Yet, in the 1930s Britain actually went through going through a dire constitutional crisis and King Edward was forced to abdicate. The British Union of Fascists gained a surge in popularity for their support for the King when most of the political establishment was against them. The King and the leader of the British Union of Fascists Sir Oswald Mosley knew each other and talked about Mosley's ideas on modernizing the monarchy as a symbol of a fascist state.

Look, we all know that half the reason why Germany was so easily taken over was because the state that was created after World War I was weak. Yes, Britain had much stronger and much more established institutions. But you keep talking about the British instinctively recognizing the very name fascism as evil and dangerous when the leader of the British fascist party was having tea with the fucking King.

Quote:It would take a lot more than a political fad like Fascism to have a major influence on English politics.

Yeah it really does seem like eternal, ancient and unmoving British politics is immune to today's political fads like global warming or gay marriage or... (and for the record, I'd vote yes for gay marriage if I could be bothered to vote, but the whole thing is obviously a ridiculous fad)

Fascism before WWII was very much like one of those political fads, a controversial but pretty popular idea that people freely talked about. You were no pariah for supporting fascism back then.

Quote:

Quote:Of course, everyone today who thinks that fascism just means a strong dictator should re-read their history.

Another alternative is for people saying otherwise to offer some arguments

If someone is going to claim that tomatoes are cucumbers, do I have any interest in "offering arguments" to the contrary? If you want to continue this discussion, can you please try to get it in your head that long before the war when Hitler hadn't even started on the repression "fascism" was not the swear word that it is today, it was not associated at all with the idea of "tyranny", it was a new ideology that was not in any way popularily considered evil or tyrannical.

Fascism idolizes strong, individual leaders over committees and parliaments. Whether or not these leaders are to be elected isn't the big point. Prominent British fascists like Mosley did not wish to abolish democracy, they wished to reform it towards having more elected individuals with strong powers in direct charge of sectors of society instead of leaving so much to the free market or parliamentary deal making (eg he argued that heads of corporations should be elected). The Nazis tried to organize all of society with the same Führer-principle: everything from the small boy scout squad to a corporation would have its own little Hitler, a leader that would have absolute power over his own little domain, and they really went around replacing school boards and such with mini-Führers.

Fascism does not simply idolize a dictator. Most dictatorships end up being the opposite of fascism: the strong man at the top will make sure to get rid of potential competitors so in the end you have one strong man and a lot of committees since the dictator sees any other individual with power as a threat. This is because most dictators are just in it for the best palace and the best pussy their country has to offer so they don't give a shit about the inefficiency. A group like the Nazis on the other hand mainly cares about mobilizing the population for war and fascism is indeed good for that - so good that modern democracies have emergency plans for war time that effectively turn the states more fascist.

Post: #105

Quote:If someone is going to claim that tomatoes are cucumbers, do I have any interest in "offering arguments" to the contrary?

If people were claiming tomatoes were cucumbers, instead of just saying "tomatoes aren't cucumbers, go look it up," repeatedly like a child throwing a tantrum, I would offer up a quick definition of what I mean by tomato. For example: Tomatoes are red when ripe, have a soft skin, have a tangy taste when eaten raw and are frequently cooked and made into sauces. Cucumbers have a tough, dark green skin and are shaped like a phallus. They're commonly sliced up and used in salads or low-budget porn.

Quote:But you keep talking about the British instinctively recognizing the very name fascism as evil and dangerous when the leader of the British fascist party was having tea with the fucking King.

I'm not saying they recognized it as evil and dangerous, especially not the parts that aren't evil and dangerous. Until your last post I've had to guess what definition of fascist you were using.

As I recall, the original point was about a hypothetical alternate reality where the Nazis did not lose the war and made peace with England, that English government would be dramatically different than they are today because of fascist influence. My point is that it seems likely that it would not be much different at all except that people would not be afraid to give credit to the Italians and Nazis.

The "go look it up" position appeared to be far more concerned with teasing out emotional biases against giving credit to Hitler than actually moving beyond it for the sake of the debate.

Quote:Yeah it really does seem like eternal, ancient and unmoving British politics is immune to today's political fads like global warming or gay marriage or... (and for the record, I'd vote yes for gay marriage if I could be bothered to vote, but the whole thing is obviously a ridiculous fad)

Global warming and gay marriage aren't issues that are likely to affect the political system at a fundamental level. Even if there is a constitutional modification, such a change won't dramatically affect basic individual freedoms, election rules, or governing authority. Fascism, depending on how you define it, is something that could result in fundamental changes to the system.

Post: #106

(03-05-2013 11:04 PM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 10:09 PM)Blaster Wrote:  Another alternative is for people saying otherwise to offer some arguments.

A third alternative is for the people saying otherwise to reside in their understanding, until you exhibit a minimum willingness to, say, observe the Wikipedia entry on fascism.

I've read the Wikipedia entry on fascism. It's useless. Fascism is described in terms of hodgepodge of different ideologies and in particular its economic philosophy is defined as "third position" which is defined as "not capitalism, not communism" which is not a definition at all. I actually looked up the American third position party and that appears to be a white supremacy party.

The only thing I got out of Wikipedia is what I posted earlier in the thread.

Quote:When I'm not interested in something I don't passively-aggressively pretend I'm interested.

Haha that's exactly what you are doing. If I was interested in calling out a troll I would not passive-aggressively mention that I have a personal rule of not calling out trolls.

Post: #107

(03-06-2013 09:18 AM)Blaster Wrote:  I've read the Wikipedia entry on fascism. It's useless. Fascism is described in terms of hodgepodge of different ideologies and in particular its economic philosophy is defined as "third position" which is defined as "not capitalism, not communism" which is not a definition at all. I actually looked up the American third position party and that appears to be a white supremacy party.

Alright, so off the top of my head from last night I recall that the Wikipedia entry begins by bringing up the nationalist quality of fascism.

So right there you have something to go on and explore. Let's say for the sake of argument that fascism is totalitarianism--fine. But Wikipedia is saying that calling it totalitarianism won't suffice--it has, at least, certain elements apart from the totalitarian form that make it what it is. It is nationalist, whereas other ideologies like communism aspire to internationalism.

So there's a whole thread to go through--what distinguishes nationalism and internationalism, the conflicts and currents that led to those differing schools of thought, how fascism incorporates nationalism, what it has to say about internationalism, blah blah.

So it took about two seconds and two sentences of reading into the Wikipedia entry to find one deep and complex topic outside of the plain, "Fascism is totalitarianism, period, the end" meme. I wonder what would happen if we continued to read, explore, and think about it.

Post: #108

I'd say Britain's system of government between the end of the English Civil War post Oliver Cromwell (Return of the monarchy) and the start of World War 1 was the best system in place. Even though power was held in the hands of few family dynasties and those landowners, a common man could still make his money and make his way to the top. However the actual qualities that were passed down in families were great as they all aspired to certain roles that their families had achieved before. It's a bit difficult for me to explain right now as I've just come off a long course but I'll expand further on another day and explain how the Empire expanded so fast because of this form of government and how this form of government enabled it to keep a hold of the majority of it's conquests.

Post: #109

(03-06-2013 05:55 PM)bojangles Wrote:  I'd say Britain's system of government between the end of the English Civil War post Oliver Cromwell (Return of the monarchy) and the start of World War 1 was the best system in place. Even though power was held in the hands of few family dynasties and those landowners, a common man could still make his money and make his way to the top. However the actual qualities that were passed down in families were great as they all aspired to certain roles that their families had achieved before. It's a bit difficult for me to explain right now as I've just come off a long course but I'll expand further on another day and explain how the Empire expanded so fast because of this form of government and how this form of government enabled it to keep a hold of the majority of it's conquests.

Looking forward to hear more about this. One of my favourite periods in history without doubt.

Quote:But you keep talking about the British instinctively recognizing the very name fascism as evil and dangerous when the leader of the British fascist party was having tea with the fucking King.

Not sure what you mean by this. The King had not had any power over the country for a hell of a long time before the mid 20th century. Also you earlier state this:

Quote:Yet, in the 1930s Britain actually went through going through a dire constitutional crisis and King Edward was forced to abdicate. The British Union of Fascists gained a surge in popularity for their support for the King when most of the political establishment was against them.

Which side are you arguing? Fascism would or wouldn't be an influence in Britain?

Post: #110

The empire's wealth was derived from mercantilism, even though Adam Smith debunked quite a bit of it (a lot of his debunking was criticism of things that did not actually exist). The empire ensured that London became the financial centre of the world by using mercantilism. Other large nations were not seen as states to trade with but as competitors, the government worked side by side with merchants to ensure that gold and silver flowed into the kingdom from colonies, whilst subsidising domestic industries and of course the primary function financing the powerful Navy and Armies. Each colony would finance it's own army which would be under the command of the centralised government in London.

Couple of things which ensured the political structure in the country to get to it's powerful aristocratic stage was the English Restoration, William of Orange invading England (at the behest of Parliament) and the Union of the crowns of England and Scotland which had until that point been held under a personal union of the monarch. In comparison, the powerful French and the huge Spanish empires at the time were run under absolute monarchies with administration handled by hand picked ministers and armies headed by generals who were from the royal family.
The Restoration got rid of hated military rule and brought all three kingdoms back under a monarchy. William of Orange invading led to the Glorious Revolution which brought Parliament powers and sent the three kingdoms on their way to a more constitutional monarchy. Another effect of this was that it removed the incumbent Roman Catholic ruler who was easily influenced by Rome and France and brought a Protestant back onto the throne. The Bill of Rights was made effective in 1689, which meant a monarch could never hold absolute power. A standing army under the control of Parliament was created (however the Crown has executive power within the army, it's weird), the monarch had to take a Coronation Oath to ensure that laws created by Parliament were adhered to. The Act of Settlement created the 3 elements of parliament, the crown, Lords and Commons. Finally the Union of 2 of the 3 kingdoms created the start of the political structure that exists today in UK. One single parliament in London was created, the Lords was the more powerful house with the Commons making legislation the Lords acted as check on government laws. Of course the King/Crown was involved in this procedure by being able to put peers into the house of Lords. The King would chose a group of ministers and these ministers needed the support of the Commons and Lords to run the country, the prime minster eventually came from these group of ministers.

Of course the real dominance came because of the aristocracy I talked about before, the ministers were some of the most intelligent men in the land and governance of the country from Walpole to the two Pitt's were some of Britain's greatest. We'll find it difficult now to replicate the power of the army due to the generals who were in charge. These men were trained from birth to be admirals/generals and learned the ways of war throughout the ages before leading an army. The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) learned his trade in India, practically running over the whole subcontinent before his Napoleonic engagements. Admiral Nelson, Admiral Anson (who supplied armies worldwide during a period in 1760's when the British were involved in wars everywhere). Admiral Parker who captured Nanking and many others were all trained in the naval arts at the Royal Navy. The Duke of Marlborough was the premier general at his time ahead of contemporaries such as Prince Eugene, his knowledge and military strategies were passed on to others like Wellington and Robert Clive within the British Army.
The aristocracy fueled the army and navy with great leadership, this was a constant within both the military institutions which guaranteed supremacy around the world.

I'm a bit exhausted so will continue later on the common man and how his life improved under this government which was not really a democracy nor a monarchy.

Post: #111

A democracy is only as good as its participants.

In the United States, voting did not start out as a right. It was a privilege bestowed upon landowners. So what you had was essentially those who were the most invested in society making the decisions on its behalf.

Now, the majority of the voting public doesn't even marginally contribute to the tax revenues the federal government raises. In fact, the top 5% of income earners contribute over 50% of the revenues that the government brings in. I think that it only makes sense that they have more say in the discussion on public expenditure allocation, but that will never happen under our current system of law.

When you have a government that produces nothing (is that not the very definition of government?) coupled with a majority populace that produces nothing for it, the only losers are those who are forced to contribute to such a system. Eventually, it becomes a rat race to the bottom.

It's sort of symptomatic of our culture, like "player" shaming to a certain extent. The more you hate on players, the hungrier the sluts are going to get because there is now a fewer supply of players on the market. Only the top players will survive, and for how long?

We're facing this problem economically now. The cries of the weak and incapable are being rewarded by punishing the productive and successful. The middle class is being squeezed out, and income inequality in this country is rising to an unprecedented rate. (as measured by the gini coefficient) The demand for increased taxes and regulation is not going to go away, it's just going to get worse. It is going to pull down those few who can produce and disincentivize those who WANT to produce.

If we're going place faith in a solution to these problems, I think that we must realize that the solution is not going to be democratically solved. You have the vested interests of the poor and disenfranchised coupled with the hyper-competitiveness of the well off who would rather cannibalize their competitors and constituents for personal gain, than come to a general consensus on how a solution/compromise can be made for all. (The Dark Triad may not be long-term net positive, remember...)

Would fascism work here? There is a day and time for everything, I suppose, but I think there are systems of government that are far more efficient and long-term effective than that.

Post: #112

A friend asked me to explain exactly what fascism was. And it kinda' stumped me.

Every time I thought of an explanation - it seemed as if that explanation could apply to communism as well.

Am I missing something?

Anyone got a nice description that helps define it?

Also - do fascism and racism go together?

Post: #113

The best government is an All Male elected and run government.

Strip a woman's hamster from the right to vote, and almost everything in society would be a lot better.

Before a woman got the right to vote here, we had a strong American family, the best economy in the world and very low taxes.

The average person's life was definitely a good deal tough then, but comparitively, living in the US was bar none the very best place to live during that time.

Post: #114

I've heard fascism defined as the union of biz and gubmint. A well-read history expert ought to think it's just lovely after what happened 70 years ago.

The only thing you can learn from history is you can't learn anything from history.
--Chief Justice Earl Warren (paraphrased)

Just find the right people to slaughter, everything will be great for ya.

Post: #115

Didnt Europe experience growth and development monarchical rule? Isnt monarchy the most natural form of government since it is everywhere in the world?

Post: #116

(03-04-2013 07:34 AM)Icarus Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:26 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  As someone (Churchill?) once said, "Democracy is awful, but we don't have anything better."

The same guy responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign. The same guy who happily burned to death 10,000s of German civilians in Hamburg and Dresden, despite the fact that war with Germany was avoidable. Luckily for him, history is written by the victors...

I believe that's actually one of his quotes: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #117

I liked it how one of the posts here praised monarchy. Have a certain soft spot for fascism, but I'm not sure that that feeling would still be there if I actually lived in one.

Democracy is broken, it used to be just land-owning gentry who could vote but nowadays with everyone voting for benefits etc, MSM and social media manipulating the people like never before, all number of behind the scenes groups sponsoring parties, journalists etc. Democracy has quite a bad smell about it nowadays, although it is bringing some slow changes for the better, eg Trump.

Under fascism, would the feelings and wishes of minorities with stability destroying tendencies be given the priority that they are in our broken democracy?..

Post: #118

If I don't bang a girl because her face is ugly, am I a facist?

Post: #119

(03-03-2013 10:18 PM)bacon Wrote:  if facism is the blending of government and corporate interests how is that not what the US is?

The modern meaning of corporation in US English is completely contrary to what a corporation meant to a Fascist. This cannot be emphasised enough because a huge amount of internet disinformation has come from this faux-ami of a translation.

To the Fascist, the corporate state was a national syndicalist state. This was in essence the modernised medieval guild system which attempted to reduce the exploitation of the working class in the industrial age and to stop them joining anarchist, international socialist and Communist materialist trade unions (often under Jewish and/ or Atheist leadership).

Just before the Fascist era and just before crisis of fin-de-siècle Marxism, Pope Leo XIII commissioned Roman theologians to study corporatism and to come up of ways that it could be implemented in the industrial era which followed the materialism of the Enlightenment. The French Revolution oversaw the destruction of the guild system as it was sponsored by the Roman Church.

His commission defined corporatism as a: "system of social organisation that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labour and capital in matters of common interest"

During the Fascist era, Pope Pius XI advocated Christian corporatism as a an alternative to capitalist individualism and socialist totalitarianism whereby people would be organised into workers' guilds or vocational groups that would cooperate under the supervision of a neutral state.

On a practical basis, men would vote for a representative to sit in national assemblies who were from their profession, vocation or trade as opposed to the British system which sees men vote for someone who represents their geographical areas and who tend to be bankers and lawyers who put their political parties and the interests of finance first.