Kevin's Watch

Just trying to sharpen up my understanding of certain ideas [humanism, theism, socialism etc] by wikiscanning [not the most reliable, but usefull for a quick edushot] I fit the 'fascist' link and read the following sentance in the intro "..the first fascist movements emerged in Italy around World War I, combining elements of left-wing politics with more typically right wing positions..." I recoiled in horror for this [dear God, typed with shakinggg hand] could surely describe my own [in my head entierly rational and clearly correct] way of looking at things. So dear readers I put it to the test. I ask you [see poll] ....?

I believe the state should have responsibility for the provision of the essential utilities within a society and that these should be run with a view to raising sufficient revenue [by charges] for costs plus future development - not as scources of profit for private individuals. To be included in this we have water, electric, gas, and [some] social housing. At a possibly higher level we have transport [rail and bus] and communications [basic telephone service].

I believe it is incumbent upon the government of any given nation state to look first to the interests [all!] of it's own nationals before engaging in 'open door' policies regarding immigration [economic or otherwise] or implementation of extensive foreign aid programs. These interests include creating the correct environment to maximise employment levels within the indigenous population rather than importing labour to fill gaps in the labour market as a long term policy. None of this is to say that aid can never be sent where it is needed or that succour can never be given to those whose need is great or whose lives are threatened - it's just that these things will be best achieved from a position of maximum security of the home population in relation to jobs, living standards. Immigration, assylum and relief should not be built into policy at the expense of pursueing the goal of maximum levels of wellbeing [re employment, provision of basic needs to engage within society etc] of the indiginous population.

I do not believe in unrestricted laissez faire capitalism, but rather in the 'keynsian' approach where government can and should attempt to fine tune the course and direction of the economy. Private enterprise should in my view be given maximum help [in the form of a highly educated and skilled workforce] to pursue it's goal of profiting from it's enterprise at the highest level possible - but only after fair and reasonable return has been made to those whose labour makes such enterprise possible. Massive division within society between 'haves and have nots' between 'rich and poor' should be disencouraged by means of legislation and taxation such that while enterprise is not stifled, neither is exploitation tolerated.

In return for the guarentee of that government will work for the bennefit and best interest of all the people [irrespective of their past or future voting intent] and that the rule of Law will remain paramount, it is encumbent upon the individual to work to the maximum of his/her ability and for as long as is reasonably possible [allowing for both education at the beginning and a suitable period of rest at the end]. In this manner he or she provides the necessay funds via taxation to ensure universal provision of education, health care and support for the disadvantaged upon which the society is based. It becomes a matter of honour to give more to your country than you take from it [unless by disadvantage this is not possible, in which case their is neither shame nor reproach attendand upon recieving the support which you yourself would be gladly helping to provide others, were things otherwise.]

Now tell me - "Should .......[see poll]

I think the question you can ask yourself here is largely if you believe that there is such a thing as "lower race" that can be used for slaves or just killed off as not exactly human enough, then you'll pretty much answer your question.

I do understand you're talking about a somewhat different thing, but this is exactly the part really associated with the word and probably the one that bothered you and made your hands tremble, so this answer should suffice.

That's not part of the definition of fascism, Eff.

Anyway, pete, fascism is a much more totalitarian, authoritarian thing than necessarily implied by your position. It includes not just putting the state before other states but believing in military might and right of conquest for the state.

I did admit that, in case I wasn't clear - that I mentioned a somewhat different thing, but one likely to be among the main reasons to be scared about such an alignment. Your reasoning is also good and closer to the initial question, thank you for this clarification.

Phew! So far so good - It appears I do not quite, as yet, need to order a pair of 'jackboots' and start practiceing my goosestep. I did think after posting that I should have made clearer, in relation to my stated position on imported labour, that in no way do I hold the presence in our country of any foreign nationals who have come here by right of law, in any way against them. My position is purely one of what our law should and should not allow - once the Law allows it, then no blame whatsoever attaches itself to any individual who attempts to better his or her lot by taking advantage of it. I would fight to the death to protect those whose presence the law allows, while at the same time still believing in the maxim that we best help others in this world by first ensuring that we can support ourselves. As regards to 'inferior races and the right of conquest of the weak by the strong' - tosh! [As it says under my avatar, I'm a 'paid up member of the 'bungled and the botched' - one of the ones that Nietzsche's ubermensch would have trodden underfoot in their inexorable pursuit of the 'will to power'. [Am I mixing up my philosophers here?]].

pete the ageing savage wrote:In return for the guarentee of that government will work for the bennefit and best interest of all the people [irrespective of their past or future voting intent] and that the rule of Law will remain paramount, it is encumbent upon the individual to work to the maximum of his/her ability and for as long as is reasonably possible [allowing for both education at the beginning and a suitable period of rest at the end]. In this manner he or she provides the necessay funds via taxation to ensure universal provision of education, health care and support for the disadvantaged upon which the society is based.

You just defined "wage slavery". Is that really what you would want for a society?

I lean towards facism.

Nothing wrong with the principles behind a bit of fascism. Problem is the people behind it.

--A

I'm a very anti-nationalist person, and since fascism is grounded in nationalism...

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

pete the ageing savage wrote:In return for the guarentee of that government will work for the bennefit and best interest of all the people [irrespective of their past or future voting intent] and that the rule of Law will remain paramount, it is encumbent upon the individual to work to the maximum of his/her ability and for as long as is reasonably possible [allowing for both education at the beginning and a suitable period of rest at the end]. In this manner he or she provides the necessay funds via taxation to ensure universal provision of education, health care and support for the disadvantaged upon which the society is based.

You just defined "wage slavery". Is that really what you would want for a society?

I think the spirit of my meaning is clear Hashi in it's referal to the broad mass of society rather than the few who will [quite acceptably] amass such wealth as to be fortunate enough to cease thier labours befor the usual age of 60 - 65ish. To those individuals it remains thier duty to continue to pay thier taxes and thus contribute to the continuence of the country whose advantages they enjoy. [I remain happily open to instruction as to where these ideas might be deficient however, and will not as a reasonable individual be immune to logical argument .]

I've heard the same argument sort of applied to the communism Av - ie that the idea itself is not so much at fault as the manner in which it was/is executed [bad word perhaps given the left wing totalitarian history of mass killing].

pete the ageing savage wrote: I've heard the same argument sort of applied to the communism Av - ie that the idea itself is not so much at fault as the manner in which it was/is executed [bad word perhaps given the left wing totalitarian history of mass killing].

There is a fair amount of truth to that. And for a number of reasons.
One is related to the ideas that "No plan survives contact with the enemy," and "the map is not the territory."
No ideology survives contact with reality. The concept is not the conditions.
They all fail [and will always fail] to take into account the entirety of what people are, how they behave in the past and the present.
They also fail [and must always fail] to accurately and entirely predict what people will become once the "system" is in place.

And that's just the simple general stuff.

pete the ageing savage wrote:I think the spirit of my meaning is clear Hashi in it's referal to the broad mass of society rather than the few who will [quite acceptably] amass such wealth as to be fortunate enough to cease thier labours befor the usual age of 60 - 65ish.

There will always be people gaming the system no matter what system gets set up. There will also be people in power willing to adjust the system to benefit them regardless of the potential cost to anyone else.

peter, you should have skimmed a little deeper into Wiki and you would have found this:

Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the right, explaining that "the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be." [link] (My emphasis.)

Nothing you have ever written suggests to me that you desire anything other than more equality among people or that you are a social conservative who believes a woman's place is in the home etc.

Fascism is a bit of a mongrel ideology with a large dollop of nationalism thrown in and the necessity of a hugely charismatic leader to arise at just the right time. In Ireland we nearly had a full-blown fascist party for a short time in the 30s, but while the leader involved, General Eoin O'Duffy, had charisma, he had no real grasp of what the Fascist ideology was, and once he was removed from a position of significant power the movement towards fascism disappeared. One of the features of a coherent ideology is that it extends beyond the life of any individual.

An interesting argument that I have seen put forward is that the massive social movements that arose at the start of the 20th century were a reaction to the displacement of religion (and thus God) from it's central position in societies in Europe, and the projection onto 'society' (or the Nation) of some of the qualities that had previously been ascribed to religion. Before this there may have been no real concept of 'society'; as in 'society must be protected', the breakdown of 'society'.

On the Left you got a 'progressive' movement such as Socialism, which counter-balanced the (properly titled) progressive movement of classical liberalism. (This is where, I believe, the division between 'liberals' and libertarians in the US stems from.) Socialism places Society before the individual.

On the Right you got Fascism, which installed a charismatic leader into the place created by the absence of God (due to the triumph of Enlightenment rationality and science), and also emphasised the importance and purity of the Nation.

Society and Nation in their own different but related ways carry semi-religious implications, remove God and religion from their centres and they are likely to take on even more of those qualities. IMO, this is not a good thing because it isn't an accurate reflection of our everyday reality. We are individuals before we are communitities and we live in communitites rather than society. However, Society and Nation can be invoked and used to stir up powerful emotions because of the quasi-religious attributes that have been artifically ascribed to them.

u.

[EDIT: to fix typo.]

Vraith wrote:
No ideology survives contact with reality. The concept is not the conditions.
They all fail [and will always fail] to take into account the entirety of what people are, how they behave in the past and the present.
They also fail [and must always fail] to accurately and entirely predict what people will become once the "system" is in place.

Well put.

It's like a benevolent dictatorship...the most effective possible form of government. But is his successor also benevolent? No way to ensure it.

--A