Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Embracing Exploitation: Fascism vs Capitalism and Socialism in the Industrial Age


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Tywin Lannister

Tywin Lannister

    The Future is Order

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,685 posts
  • Nation Name:Kingdom of Pakalolo
  • Alliance Name:The Order of Ivan

Posted 07 January 2014 - 02:21 PM

Although I find Marxism interesting in concept and far more advanced intellectually than most ideologies and political philosophies, I have found that it suffers from the same issues that most ideologies do. Marxism provides a useful way to analyze history in a materialist manner, but its solution to the so-called exploitation of the workers is contradictory: an inner-party of non-proletariat intellectuals is necessary to guide revolutionary efforts, meaning that the communist vanguard politically exploits the workers themselves. Lenin himself, an advocate of an agrarian form of communism, was from the city and was robbed by the peasants when living amongst them.

 

Similarly, any form of democratic-capitalism ends in another form of political exploitation: the dual exploitation of the taxpayer and the voter. Despite the rhetoric of democratic societies exhorting the values of freedom and egalitarianism, a ruling class develops nonetheless: comprised of the bourgeoisie, lawyers, lobbyists, bureaucrats and other exploiters of a democratic system. In the United States, the founders intended to avoid this with a constitution, but even from it's conception the United States was based upon the exploitation of black slaves and Indian lands.

 

Unlike today, exploitation was openly practiced and endorsed by earlier societies. Imperialism, feudalism, religion, the city-states of Greece, all exploited one group of people or another. Indeed, there was little effort to conceal such efforts: the Roman citizenship openly supported imperialism and the festivals that celebrated it, the Catholic Church suppressed heretics and exploited Christians via tithes and the selling of indulgences, feudal lords exploited peasants to support their political and military ambitions, the city states invaded rival city states when not united against outside threats.. Although arguably this was because of the ignorance and illiteracy of commoners and even the nobility of the periods, this made deception less necessary and thus governance less convoluted and confusing.

 

The 20th century trends towards either capitalism or socialism (or both) is heavily influenced by the literacy and self-awareness of the masses. With industrialization, the machine has reduced the importance of human labor in development, meaning an improvement of the living standards of the average human. With the struggle for survival reduced in severity for more and more people, it has given people more time to advance their self-interests politically. This tendency has advanced even more radically with the increase in lifespan and possibility of retirement. It meant that though the masses could no longer be exploited directly, they could still be exploited indirectly, via taxes in return for the illusion of participation in the sharing of power. In democratic societies, this is done by voting, while in socialist systems this is done with workers communes or party membership.

 

In the 1920's to 1940s this was interrupted by the introduction of third positionist politics (an alternative path between capitalism and communism). After the devastation of World War I, the illusions of many existing governments were shattered. Hitler seized power in Germany, Stalin in Russia, and Mussolini in Italy. Each regime instituted an industrialized version of earlier societies: fascism (although Stalinist fascism wore the color red). Unsuccessful movements based upon one of the three fascist governments organized in nearly every other western nation through the thirties. Although, it could be argued that America under Roosevelt, Japan under Tojo, and a number of governments pursued fascist policies during the period.

 

Fascism revealed itself to be an inevitable phase in industrialized nations that would likely repeat in the future: a reversion to openly exploitative government with an industrialized twist. The contradictions of democracy and socialism made this inevitable, as fascism is the most honest of ideologies, and thus the most efficient: Fascism makes no attempt to deny exploitation, but embraces and directs it against the enemies of the state (who are mostly foreign). Thus, fascism allows for open exploitation despite the literacy and education of the people, and directs their energy towards a unified goal. 

 

Thus, fascism is the most natural of governments in an industrialized nation, especially in times of urgency. Most western governments would have no chance as they stand today in a world war II situation: they have become fat, corrupt and inefficient with long-term peace, their populations soft, undirected and unchallenged. This is largely because they are still based upon exploitation, but spend so much energy making it indirect in nature. No politician, no bureaucrat, no bourgeoisie or proletariat leader has enough power to cut down on this inefficiency in modern peace-time, because he would be challenging the very nature of the system itself.

 

This inefficiency will ultimately doom modern governments. A nation can only bear so many years of contradictory government before it runs into inherent problems such as overpopulation (or immigration), a drop in real income, excess of labor, prison populations, debt, corruption, and many others. These problems are always solved by war, which reduces the excess population, expends surplus production, and maximizes employment. War also results in less measurable effects, such as national rejuvenation, national unity, the "culling of the herd," and a change in the character of the people. This was attempted by George Bush with the invasion of Iraq, but the war lacked any perceived threat to the US government itself, meaning that the government and nation actually became more bloated, inefficient, and indebted.

 

Thus, as the western world continue its decline, and as China ascends, we will soon see a necessary clash of interests between at least two power spheres, and possibly three. The result will be predictable and inevitable.


Edited by Tywin Lannister, 07 January 2014 - 05:28 PM.


#2 Dexomega

Dexomega

    Minister of Epic Trolling

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Nation Name:DexNation
  • Alliance Name:United Purple Nations

Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:36 PM

Your analysis of Facism, Communism, and Socialism isn't that bad and it has some merit, but the conclusions you drew in the last two paragraphs made me chuckle.

 

The one problem I had was your very sudden assumption that "These problems are always solved by war". I think everyone knows that this is, at the very most, a fantasy. Most wars tend to result in an economic slowdown as a result of the economic back blast from extreme deficit spending. The only thing that changed was that you won the war, so you get to write the history books and cash checks that you otherwise couldn't.

 

The second problem is you being the next in a very long line of people that just assumes that China is going to be the next big cat on the block. I've stated many times in the BR that I don't believe this at all. China has economic capital, yes, but their economy is a massively overdeveloped shell that costs too much to maintain. Whether or not China will be able to grow into its shell is up in the air and (to me) unlikely.

 

The third problem is your further assertion that the inevitable result of several power spheres is war. This is an era of globalization and war cannot be taken this lightly anymore. Any major conflict involving one or more large nations would plunge the world into an economic shock after all the established trade paradigms collapse. I don't think a single powerful nation on Earth isn't aware of the implications of this. War will only occur when the risk of economic collapse is outweighed by the risk of the world's economic collapse anyway. We're still a little far off from that condition (but not that far, it could happen in our lifetime if we don't plan ahead).


Edited by Dexomega, 07 January 2014 - 03:38 PM.


#3 KaiserMelech Mikhail

KaiserMelech Mikhail

    BEAT BAYLUH!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,753 posts
  • Nation Name:Marscurian Empire
  • Alliance Name:Orange Defense Network

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:34 PM

Fascism works in the industrial age because IT MAKES THE TRAINS RUN ON TIME.



#4 Hereno

Hereno

    For Services Rendered

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,435 posts
  • Nation Name:Lancashire
  • Alliance Name:NSO

Posted 07 January 2014 - 06:07 PM

Your first mistake, in paragraph one, was attributing the faults of Marxism-Leninism to the entire sphere of socialism/communism/anarchism/left-wing politics.

 

It went downhill from there.

 

And hit rock bottom when you endorsed literal fascism.



#5 commander thrawn

commander thrawn

    "May warriors' fortune smile on our efforts."

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,740 posts
  • Nation Name:Csilla

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:12 PM

Although I find Marxism interesting in concept and far more advanced intellectually than most ideologies and political philosophies, I have found that it suffers from the same issues that most ideologies do. Marxism provides a useful way to analyze history in a materialist manner, but its solution to the so-called exploitation of the workers is contradictory: an inner-party of non-proletariat intellectuals is necessary to guide revolutionary efforts, meaning that the communist vanguard politically exploits the workers themselves. Lenin himself, an advocate of an agrarian form of communism, was from the city and was robbed by the peasants when living amongst them.

You actually believe the bolded? Hahaha.
 

Similarly, any form of democratic-capitalism ends in another form of political exploitation: the dual exploitation of the taxpayer and the voter. Despite the rhetoric of democratic societies exhorting the values of freedom and egalitarianism, a ruling class develops nonetheless: comprised of the bourgeoisie, lawyers, lobbyists, bureaucrats and other exploiters of a democratic system. In the United States, the founders intended to avoid this with a constitution, but even from it's conception the United States was based upon the exploitation of black slaves and Indian lands.

Citation needed.
 

Unlike today, exploitation was openly practiced and endorsed by earlier societies. Imperialism, feudalism, religion, the city-states of Greece, all exploited one group of people or another. Indeed, there was little effort to conceal such efforts: the Roman citizenship openly supported imperialism and the festivals that celebrated it, the Catholic Church suppressed heretics and exploited Christians via tithes and the selling of indulgences, feudal lords exploited peasants to support their political and military ambitions, the city states invaded rival city states when not united against outside threats.. Although arguably this was because of the ignorance and illiteracy of commoners and even the nobility of the periods, this made deception less necessary and thus governance less convoluted and confusing.

Openly practiced and endorsed... maybe, but I think you are painting with a wide brush and a few datapoints you think prove your point.
 

The 20th century trends towards either capitalism or socialism (or both) is heavily influenced by the literacy and self-awareness of the masses. With industrialization, the machine has reduced the importance of human labor in development, meaning an improvement of the living standards of the average human. With the struggle for survival reduced in severity for more and more people, it has given people more time to advance their self-interests politically. This tendency has advanced even more radically with the increase in lifespan and possibility of retirement. It meant that though the masses could no longer be exploited directly, they could still be exploited indirectly, via taxes in return for the illusion of participation in the sharing of power. In democratic societies, this is done by voting, while in socialist systems this is done with workers communes or party membership.

Close enough. 

In the 1920's to 1940s this was interrupted by the introduction of third positionist politics (an alternative path between capitalism and communism). After the devastation of World War I, the illusions of many existing governments were shattered. Hitler seized power in Germany, Stalin in Russia, and Mussolini in Italy. Each regime instituted an industrialized version of earlier societies: fascism (although Stalinist fascism wore the color red). Unsuccessful movements based upon one of the three fascist governments organized in nearly every other western nation through the thirties. Although, it could be argued that America under Roosevelt, Japan under Tojo, and a number of governments pursued fascist policies during the period.
 
Fascism revealed itself to be an inevitable phase in industrialized nations that would likely repeat in the future: a reversion to openly exploitative government with an industrialized twist. The contradictions of democracy and socialism made this inevitable, as fascism is the most honest of ideologies, and thus the most efficient: Fascism makes no attempt to deny exploitation, but embraces and directs it against the enemies of the state (who are mostly foreign). Thus, fascism allows for open exploitation despite the literacy and education of the people, and directs their energy towards a unified goal.

How is fascism inevitable?

Thus, fascism is the most natural of governments in an industrialized nation, especially in times of urgency. Most western governments would have no chance as they stand today in a world war II situation: they have become fat, corrupt and inefficient with long-term peace, their populations soft, undirected and unchallenged. This is largely because they are still based upon exploitation, but spend so much energy making it indirect in nature. No politician, no bureaucrat, no bourgeoisie or proletariat leader has enough power to cut down on this inefficiency in modern peace-time, because he would be challenging the very nature of the system itself.

Why is fascism the most natural government exactly? You didn't provide an argument for it other than that it is exploitative. Also how exactly is it that modern nations are more corrupt and inefficient than fascism? Is this an automatic thing? Living standards are the highest they have ever been, employee productivity is massive, and you have provided a contraindication to your earlier point about capitalism, by saying that exploitation is harder in modern society. This indirect nature of power in a democracy is the exact protection that a good constitution puts on its government to prevent fascist-style power and exploitation.
 

This inefficiency will ultimately doom modern governments.

Oh hello marxy poo.

A nation can only bear so many years of contradictory government before it runs into inherent problems such as overpopulation (or immigration), a drop in real income, excess of labor, prison populations, debt, corruption, and many others. These problems are always solved by war, which reduces the excess population, expends surplus production, and maximizes employment. War also results in less measurable effects, such as national rejuvenation, national unity, the "culling of the herd," and a change in the character of the people. This was attempted by George Bush with the invasion of Iraq, but the war lacked any perceived threat to the US government itself, meaning that the government and nation actually became more bloated, inefficient, and indebted.

The world can only bear about 10 years of fascism. Is war actually inevitable in a society? Also Bush was culling the herd now? I thought I had heard everything.
 

Thus, as the western world continue its decline, and as China ascends, we will soon see a necessary clash of interests between at least two power spheres, and possibly three. The result will be predictable and inevitable.


Yes it will, massive economic expansion, equalization and globalization.

#6 jerdge

jerdge

    Heart of Gold

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,850 posts
  • Nation Name:Gaela
  • Alliance Name:Gorgeous Perfect Alliance!

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:49 AM

If you think that exploitation is the same under any regime, you haven't studied all those regimes very well.
I take my modern Western imperfect democracy over any of your stupid, extremely corrupt, violent and ultimately based-on-dreams-that-don't-come-true fascist nightmares, thank you.
 
 
Short comments:
• Marx had some very good ideas and intuition, but his theory of value was just dead wrong. As an economist he failed miserably, and his materialism was only apparent: he was actually an idealist (that's why I respect his memory, BTW).
• Mussolini rose to power in a nation where most of the people were politically ignorant and significantly illiterate. "Education" meant just "professional training" and the masses had no political awareness worth speaking of. Fascism actually significantly improved literacy in Italy, which was still widespread well into the 20th century (especially in the South).
• Re: "fascism is the most honest of ideologies, and thus the most efficient" - ideologies are all inefficient. The differences are negligible when you compare them to more pragmatic forms of government.

• Big/World-scale wars are not a "solution" anymore (if they ever were), unless with "solution" you mean a reset of the biosphere.



#7 Omniscient1

Omniscient1

    Dangerous

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,920 posts
  • Nation Name:Silla
  • Alliance Name:New Sith Order

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:57 AM

I've told you before I love the way you think. I'd love to have another rightist around who actually understands what I say. It gets so bad around here that everytime I bring up the masses not knowing what they're doing people act confused. Anyway, I think you start out wrong by saying all government is exploitation. Maybe because it is because you're a Nietzchan that sees only power though, so I'll let it slip. Fascism proper can not really be reduced to simple "exploitative industrial governing" either. Although, I assume you understand that. That really highlights the futurist elements of the ideology though, and is a factor. Really going off Gentile's work, Fascism is basically a doctrine that believes every indivual actualizes his greatest potentials as member of the organic state. So really, unless you're viewing Fascism from the outside and not as a Fascist, the doctrine has no "exploitation". Every indivual does his own thing, psychologically motivated by the state (as an ideal) which leads to the ultimate form of justice (what everyone from Thrawn to Hereno to Juslen to Kain is after). Of course, then the question is how do you psychologically motivate people to act a certain way, and Gentile focuses on education. A non-fascist would basically read this as "brain-washing". Gentile's education system sounds kind of brutal tbh.

Of course since we're on the subject of Fascism I'll just go ahead and ramble on about it. The problem arises when you ask why there has to be any party at all (just like in communism). A true Fascist state would not have a party, because for one to exist would assume that there are special interest, opposition, and non-organic hierarchy. That's why when Mussolini asked Baron Julius Evola in an attempt to shame him why he wasn't a party member, Evola trumped him and pointed out any party member was not a true fascist. Really Fascism had to arise because hyperindivuality had destroyed any sense of unity. Which is why it done so well in nations with no real identity (look at Germany and Italy). In the past, faith took that role. Religion even literally means "to bind together". A common faith would unite people and tell them what was the correct actions to take. When faith suffers a crippling blow a need for a different binding arises and Fascism enters onto the stage. In fascism the state basically apes faith. That is really why I and Evola as well rejects any fascist ideas; it never solves the problems of transcendence.

Still we can thank Fascism today for keeping the continent of Europe from going red. I think people forget how close communist were to controlling Germany, France, and possibly Spain. I'm pretty sure Italy had quite a huge threat to them as well at the time, but I honestly can't remember as well there. Could you imagine a united Europe at the time having the goal to spread Marxism worldwide? Only the Anglo world could have stood against them and that would have been a scary as $%&@ thing in my opinion. I realize it sounds far fetched, but it could have been a possibility at one time. Especially if you believe Hereno that people naturally love Marxism or w/e. Anyway, for that thank you Mussolini. Although not sure it's better than what we have now. I guess time will tell.

So yea anyway, read Gentile, Pareto, and Marreneti. Gentile literally wrote the book on Fascism, and the other two are influential.

Edited by Omniscient1, 08 January 2014 - 05:42 AM.


#8 Omniscient1

Omniscient1

    Dangerous

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,920 posts
  • Nation Name:Silla
  • Alliance Name:New Sith Order

Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:04 AM

If you think that exploitation is the same under any regime, you haven't studied all those regimes very well.
I take my modern Western imperfect democracy over any of your stupid, extremely corrupt, violent and ultimately based-on-dreams-that-don't-come-true fascist nightmares, thank you.
 
 
Mussolini rose to power in a nation where most of the people were politically ignorant and significantly illiterate. "Education" meant just "professional training" and the masses had no political awareness worth speaking of. Fascism actually significantly improved literacy in Italy, which was still widespread well into the 20th century (especially in the South).

Most people are just blind to the exploitation no matter what system they are under.

I'm not sure how well it was implemented, but Gentile's education at least theoretically was far greater in scope than "professional training". The masses never have any real political awareness. Might as well have just reminded us water is wet.

Also your name reminds me I have jumped on the GoT bandwagon today watching the first three episodes. I really hope your family gets $%&@ed, and $%&@ed hard. Cheers!

Edited by Omniscient1, 08 January 2014 - 05:44 AM.


#9 jerdge

jerdge

    Heart of Gold

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,850 posts
  • Nation Name:Gaela
  • Alliance Name:Gorgeous Perfect Alliance!

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:43 AM

 

If you think that exploitation is the same under any regime, you haven't studied all those regimes very well.
I take my modern Western imperfect democracy over any of your stupid, extremely corrupt, violent and ultimately based-on-dreams-that-don't-come-true fascist nightmares, thank you.


Mussolini rose to power in a nation where most of the people were politically ignorant and significantly illiterate. "Education" meant just "professional training" and the masses had no political awareness worth speaking of. Fascism actually significantly improved literacy in Italy, which was still widespread well into the 20th century (especially in the South).

I'm not sure how well it was implemented, but Gentile's education at least theoretically was far greater in scope than "professional training". The masses never have any real political awareness. Might as well have just reminded us water is wet.

 

Yep, I was talking of education before fascism. Gentile's reform wasn't bad.

Masses may or not have political awareness, but anyway I was just answering to the claim that Mussolini rose to power "despite the literacy and education of the people". People were largely illiterate and ignorant when Mussolini rose to power.



#10 Icewolf

Icewolf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,877 posts
  • Nation Name:Icicle City

Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:08 PM

The problem I have with this peice is the total lack of sources. Can you cite events that back up your claims?

#11 Hereno

Hereno

    For Services Rendered

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,435 posts
  • Nation Name:Lancashire
  • Alliance Name:NSO

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:13 PM

• Marx had some very good ideas and intuition, but his theory of value was just dead wrong. As an economist he failed miserably, and his materialism was only apparent: he was actually an idealist (that's why I respect his memory, BTW).


Normally you post great stuff but nothing about this bullet is correct and I feel obligated to point it out.



#12 commander thrawn

commander thrawn

    "May warriors' fortune smile on our efforts."

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,740 posts
  • Nation Name:Csilla

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:50 PM

Really going off Gentile's work, Fascism is basically a doctrine that believes every indivual actualizes his greatest potentials as member of the organic state. So really, unless you're viewing Fascism from the outside and not as a Fascist, the doctrine has no "exploitation". Every indivual does his own thing, psychologically motivated by the state (as an ideal) which leads to the ultimate form of justice (what everyone from Thrawn to Hereno to Juslen to Kain is after). Of course, then the question is how do you psychologically motivate people to act a certain way, and Gentile focuses on education. A non-fascist would basically read this as "brain-washing". Gentile's education system sounds kind of brutal tbh.


Everyone actualizes his greatest potential out of fear and bigotry. Fascism requires an enemy outside the state, or something to mass mobilize against. This means that in effect it always becomes at a minimum hypernationalist, and typically ultra-rascist. That tendency on its own, and the lack of individual determination is reason enough to reject the concept. At least with communism the good intentions are plain enough.

#13 Omniscient1

Omniscient1

    Dangerous

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,920 posts
  • Nation Name:Silla
  • Alliance Name:New Sith Order

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:04 PM

Everyone actualizes his greatest potential out of fear and bigotry. Fascism requires an enemy outside the state, or something to mass mobilize against. This means that in effect it always becomes at a minimum hypernationalist, and typically ultra-rascist. That tendency on its own, and the lack of individual determination is reason enough to reject the concept. At least with communism the good intentions are plain enough.

Not sure if that is true, but I can't think of anything against it. It sounds very Toynbee-ish. Anyway, that's a very illogical reason to reject Fascism. If man achieves his greatest goals through fear then it logically follows that man should be placed in a state of fear, not that fear should be rejected. Again, your premise doesn't sound right to me, but I can't think of how to refute it atm. Mainly because I'm tired.I may come back.

I have always hated the term nationalism. See there are all kinds of "nationalism" from mere patriotism to the belief that one race or ethnicity is superior to another. Since nation usually means a group of people united by some common trait (usually culture, race, or language) it's hard to pin down exactly what you mean.

Still fascism does not immediately mean racism (at least biological racism), contrary to popular belief. For instance, Italian fascism (the real ideological fascism) had no biological race doctrine. Racism played essentially no part. Understand that any obscure fascist quote that I assume you will now pull from your ass is referring basically to personality (often people will use psycholigical or spiritual racism as a synonym). It is a theory popular with people like that German guy who wrote an anti-semetic book then specifically says he is referring to the "jewish mindset" (whatever that meant) and not jews as a race. Theoretically, according to these people you can be born black but your soul be white or vice versa. Anyway, I go this far down the rabbitt whole just to show that fascism and racism are not synonymous.

Anyway, I'm not sure if fascism needs an enemy to exist or not. I mean you can have an army without an enemy, but then why have it? Kind of the same with the state. You can have a state with nothing to overcome, but then It's useless.

Edited by Omniscient1, 08 January 2014 - 10:20 PM.


#14 Hereno

Hereno

    For Services Rendered

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,435 posts
  • Nation Name:Lancashire
  • Alliance Name:NSO

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:14 PM

Not sure if that is true, but I can't think of anything against it. It sounds very Toynbee-ish. Anyway, that's a very illogical reason to reject Fascism. If man achieves his greatest goals through fear then it logically follows that man should be placed in a state of fear, not that fear should be rejected. Again, your premise doesn't sound right to me, but I can't think of how to refute it atm. Mainly because I'm tired.I may come back.

I have always hated the term nationalism. See there are all kinds of "nationalism" from mere patriotism to the belief that one race or ethnicity is superior to another. Since nation usually means a group of people united by some common trait (usually culture, race, or language) it's hard to pin down exactly what you mean.

Still fascism does not immediately mean racism (at least biological racism), contrary to popular belief. For instance, Italian fascism (the real ideological fascism) had no biological race doctrine. Racism played essentially no part. Understand that any obscure fascist quote that I assume you will now pull from your ass is referring basically to personality (often people will use psycholigical or spiritual racism as a synonym). It is a theory popular with people like that German guy who wrote an anti-semetic book then specifically says he is referring to the "jewish mindset" (whatever that meant) and not jews as a race. Theoretically, according to these people you can be born black but your soul be white or vice versa. Anyway, I go this far down the rabbitt whole just to show that fascism and racism are not synonymous.

Anyway, I'm not sure if fascism needs an enemy to exist or not. I mean you can have an army without an enemy, but then why have it? Kind of the same with the state. You can have a state with nothing to overcome, but then It's useless.

 

1. There is no cosmic goal of human success, and human success is not inherently moral. There is no point in putting people in fear to do what you consider is best beyond your own content with that outcome. Of course, I'd then call you a sociopath.

 

2. Fascism is based on the idea that nations are struggling against each other. So.... yeah.



#15 Omniscient1

Omniscient1

    Dangerous

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,920 posts
  • Nation Name:Silla
  • Alliance Name:New Sith Order

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:57 PM

1. There is no cosmic goal of human success, and human success is not inherently moral. There is no point in putting people in fear to do what you consider is best beyond your own content with that outcome. Of course, I'd then call you a sociopath.
 
2. Fascism is based on the idea that nations are struggling against each other. So.... yeah.

1. Then Thrawn's argument should have been that facism is immoral. Not that fascism is best for the human being, but should still be rejected. I get it was implied, but considering the OP rejected the moral superiority of liberal democracy in the first place it's irrelevant.

2. Umm no not really. The best way to put it is it is not essential to fascism. There were fascist who were extremely anti-imperialist. Especially if you consider the nouvelle droite to be fascist that is extremely wrong (Which actually I do not). There are people like Francis Yockey who are deffinetly fascist, but wouldn't agree with that. He's also interestingly a post-modernist and supported the USSR in the cold war.

But the things classified under "fascism" are even more broad than the things classified under Marxism. So, again I'm working purely from the point if view that fascism is a broad philosophy laid down by Marenetti, Mussolini, and Gentile; then co-opted and interpreted by others.

Edited by Omniscient1, 09 January 2014 - 03:23 PM.


#16 jerdge

jerdge

    Heart of Gold

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,850 posts
  • Nation Name:Gaela
  • Alliance Name:Gorgeous Perfect Alliance!

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:53 AM

 

• Marx had some very good ideas and intuition, but his theory of value was just dead wrong. As an economist he failed miserably, and his materialism was only apparent: he was actually an idealist (that's why I respect his memory, BTW).


Normally you post great stuff but nothing about this bullet is correct and I feel obligated to point it out.

 

Hey thank you! :)

Well yes I was probably a bit severe about his "failure" as an economist - I think that his ideas were mostly wrong, but he was actually clever for his time - but I am convinced of that bullet. That discussion would be too long and completely off topic here, though.



#17 Lord GVChamp

Lord GVChamp

    Liberation is at hand

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,183 posts
  • Nation Name:Quanda
  • Alliance Name:GREEN TEAM!

Posted 09 January 2014 - 11:39 AM

Hmmmm…

 

So I am not really sure what I am supposed to do with this. The fundamental point SEEMS to be that, while most ideologies focus on ELIMINATING exploitation, you think exploitation is actually inherent and unavoidable. Okay, I see where you are going there so far.

 

From there, we then make the leap that societies which embrace exploitation actually produce superior results. Specifically, that democracies are bound to decay, and grow weak, with the presumption that were true fascist states able to rise today, they would quickly defeat the old democratic order and plant themselves firmly in the lead. And it’s true that the 20th century was REALLY about either democracy or communism, but that trend will ultimately subside and give way to fascist governments, which are able to energize the people, are not bound by pretending to not be exploitative, and in fact embrace it, especially vis a vis other nations.

 

That about right?

 

Okay. I am not entirely sure that the fascist states are going to be outproducing and outfighting the democratic or socialist states, one. Two, there’s other stuff going on besides governance: Germany might be Denmark but that doesn’t mean democracy is inferior to fascism. Two separate points, so jumping off from there….

 

It is not obvious that fascist states are superior to democratic states (or even socialist states!) We have few examples of modern fascist states, but, for similar groups of people (see North vs. South Korea, East vs. West Germany, Estonia vs. Sweden, etc), democratic capitalist states have produced VASTLY superior economic performance, on the order of 5 to 1 and sometimes up to 10 to 1. The socialist states lack the incentive for people to improve the economy, whereas Democratic states do, and a lot of socialist states ended up squandering resources on bad investments. To me, it looks like the corporatist set-up of the fascist states will more resemble socialist states than democractic capitalist states, and I would expect the same issue to crop up there.

 

In fact “embracing exploitation” would be bad in relation to the above. You need to create a society where people can contribute value and keep some of it. Doesn’t work if people just take it from you. Looking at the US economy, part of the reason the South probably was underdeveloped for a while was their agrarian exploitative economy which had little incentive to develop.

 

In the short-term of Nazi Germany, the Germans had actually demobilized much of their economy, which contributed to their defeat. Their peak aircraft production, for instance, was in late 1944, even after D-Day and the strategic bombing by the US.

 

Also, exploiting other nations is not always a good idea. You need other nations to be your allies, in modern coalition warfare. And sometimes your greatest allies are the disaffected peoples living under your enemy’s oppression. For example, Germany had a huge ground-swell of support from the various Slavic nationalities in WWII, who did not like living under Russian oppression. That pretty much vanished entirely after it became apparent Germany was planning to Holocaust them all, and they squandered all of their support. But Germany couldn’t avoid this: it was in their nature to exploit others and clear them out for proper German settlement.

 

Contrast that with the British, who worked the Portugeese to defeat Napoleon, and then with an entire coalition, including Russia. Big difference. Germany was ultimately destroyed by superior coalitions in both world wars, despite being the strongest nation individually in Europe. You need allies, and an open declaration that you will exploit other people is not going to help you.



#18 Ayatollah Bromeini

Ayatollah Bromeini

    War of holy principles

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,096 posts
  • Nation Name:Rock n Rollah
  • Alliance Name:LSF
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Soviet Tennessee
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:The Warriors

Posted 11 January 2014 - 07:31 PM

Lenin advocated agrarian socialism? The problem with communism (which you seem to limit to the narrow confines of Marxist-Leninism) is that the various parties were not made up of working class people? Even if this were true (it's not), how is that inherently exploitative to the working class? There are plenty of criticisms to be levied against M-L, this isn't one of them.

 

 

Your claims of increased mechanization of the world economy leading to higher standards of living and more leisure time sort of falls flat, too, since work hours and the strenuousness of labor have only increased as well as the amount of work there is (though mostly useless service and financial sector jobs created simply to sustain a strong work model). 

 

 

 

Other than that all I'm seeing is the talking up of fascism, an entirely synthetic ultranationalist ideology that means different things in different countries in different contexts, in the way of economic and governing models. Kind of pointless to advocate it on its face since it doesn't really have a specific criteria as most other socioeconomic models do, outside of the importance of the state and state-centric collectivism. 

 

 

 

Some pretty odd posts in this thread I must say... yeah, thank you Hitler/Mussolini/Franco for.. keeping Europe from falling to communism (????????????????????). 



#19 Omniscient1

Omniscient1

    Dangerous

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,920 posts
  • Nation Name:Silla
  • Alliance Name:New Sith Order

Posted 12 January 2014 - 01:42 PM

Was that a shot at me, Trotsky? :P

I'm mad Tywin never responded. That's a lot if writing for nothing.

#20 Tywin Lannister

Tywin Lannister

    The Future is Order

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,685 posts
  • Nation Name:Kingdom of Pakalolo
  • Alliance Name:The Order of Ivan

Posted 13 January 2014 - 12:48 AM

Was that a shot at me, Trotsky? :P

I'm mad Tywin never responded. That's a lot if writing for nothing.

 

Thanks for holding the fort :P I'll put a detailed reply soon.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users