Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

28 Dec 2010, 12:46 pm

Ordinary people supported Fascism and Nazism, and even today people support positions that could hypothetically lead to a sort of fascism if taken to their logical extreme. So most people would have some predispositions that could manifest as fascism under the right circumstances. The fascist wishes to impose their sense of order on society. For a Christian Evangelical, this could mean a world without homosexuals and other "sinners"; the libertarian could impose free-market values on others, preferring to remove the "moocher" element from society; the liberal may want to impose environmental-protection laws that become almost draconian; etc. Really, for almost any position, you can see how someone could force extremely coercive laws to get everyone to go along. Some people merely have a stronger desire to have others behave as they see proper than others.

The desire to conform is a broken form of the desire for companionship, to belong. So to belong, some have the urge to make those around them like them to be understandable.

Thoughts?



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

28 Dec 2010, 1:05 pm

That the impulses that lead to totalitarian uniformitarianism are endemic and in these times rampant I could hardly deny, having oft said so meself in many contexts.

That a large component is the drive [observed even in the vegetable kingdom, think maples and walnuts and the genus Penicillium] to make oneself comfortable and / or safe by eliminating competition [as opposed to my preferred technique of avoidance] I am unlikely to dispute.

But I am NOT convinced that for the majority the drive is to make the Other more comprehensible.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Dec 2010, 7:56 pm

I'll agree that the average person's positions, if taken seriously, would probably lead to Fascism. (Heck, I think that's the reason I spent some time as a neo-fascist)

I think that not all ideologies view themselves as being matters of imposition though. For example, Robert Nozick, a major libertarian thinker, really wanted to remove laws, so that there was freedom of choices. This goes hand in hand with the libertarian idea of markets, but for Nozick, as well as likely a few other libertarian thinkers, this also meant the freedom of individuals to basically find their own in some form or fashion(even through communal efforts), as these efforts would no longer face any degree of official suppression.(Note: how much impact is a relevant question, but it does not get to the core of that idea.)

I don't think that the desire for conformity has to be necessarily a matter of companionship though. Many minds are black and white, and their moral requirements are not really deeply connected to anything overly concrete. Conformity can really be just the way of saying "let's make the world *RIGHT*, instead of *WRONG*".



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

28 Dec 2010, 8:21 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Ordinary people supported Fascism and Nazism, and even today people support positions that could hypothetically lead to a sort of fascism if taken to their logical extreme. So most people would have some predispositions that could manifest as fascism under the right circumstances. The fascist wishes to impose their sense of order on society. For a Christian Evangelical, this could mean a world without homosexuals and other "sinners"; the libertarian could impose free-market values on others, preferring to remove the "moocher" element from society; the liberal may want to impose environmental-protection laws that become almost draconian; etc. Really, for almost any position, you can see how someone could force extremely coercive laws to get everyone to go along. Some people merely have a stronger desire to have others behave as they see proper than others.

The desire to conform is a broken form of the desire for companionship, to belong. So to belong, some have the urge to make those around them like them to be understandable.

Thoughts?


A libertarian forcing free-market values leading to fascism? That's a new one. :roll:

But yes, all collectivists have an "inner fascist". Everyone that believe in the state as a means to achieving their goals have an "inner fascist".



mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

28 Dec 2010, 8:44 pm

Those damn libertarians always trying to impose their freedom on people!



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

28 Dec 2010, 8:52 pm

Jacoby wrote:
A libertarian forcing free-market values leading to fascism? That's a new one. :roll:

The most extreme manifestation of libertarianism would lead to anarchy rather than fascism. Anarchism is really unmaintainable though because when a power vacuum is created, some kind of group will rise and fill it, most likely a plutocracy.

I think NeantHumain was not thinking of pure libertarianism as much as he was thinking of social darwinists of the Ayn Rand stripe who like to call themselves "libertarian" without actually valuing liberty for all people. These are people who might be ideologically motivated to use the power of the state to forcefully crack down on unionization, crush worker protests, and generally seek to punish people who the wealthy elite deem unproductive.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Dec 2010, 9:31 pm

marshall wrote:
I think NeantHumain was not thinking of pure libertarianism as much as he was thinking of social darwinists of the Ayn Rand stripe who like to call themselves "libertarian" without actually valuing liberty for all people. These are people who might be ideologically motivated to use the power of the state to forcefully crack down on unionization, crush worker protests, and generally seek to punish people who the wealthy elite deem unproductive.

I can really see that, and that makes a lot of sense of what he stated.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

29 Dec 2010, 2:14 am

Jacoby wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Ordinary people supported Fascism and Nazism, and even today people support positions that could hypothetically lead to a sort of fascism if taken to their logical extreme. So most people would have some predispositions that could manifest as fascism under the right circumstances. The fascist wishes to impose their sense of order on society. For a Christian Evangelical, this could mean a world without homosexuals and other "sinners"; the libertarian could impose free-market values on others, preferring to remove the "moocher" element from society; the liberal may want to impose environmental-protection laws that become almost draconian; etc. Really, for almost any position, you can see how someone could force extremely coercive laws to get everyone to go along. Some people merely have a stronger desire to have others behave as they see proper than others.

The desire to conform is a broken form of the desire for companionship, to belong. So to belong, some have the urge to make those around them like them to be understandable.

Thoughts?


A libertarian forcing free-market values leading to fascism? That's a new one. :roll:


Actually, to students of history it isn't new at all. Many right-libertarian leaning economists helped with the Augusto Pinochet regime. Right-libertarian's elsewhere have even rationalized working with third-world dictators under the thesis that "free markets" will eventually "trickle out" into areas of political freedom. Some right-libertarians may even apply a "lesser-evilism" approach, thinking that it's better to have a strong man safeguard an economy for a brief period before libertopia can be established than let "the rabble" redistribute private property to themselves.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

29 Dec 2010, 6:35 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Actually, to students of history it isn't new at all. Many right-libertarian leaning economists helped with the Augusto Pinochet regime. Right-libertarian's elsewhere have even rationalized working with third-world dictators under the thesis that "free markets" will eventually "trickle out" into areas of political freedom. Some right-libertarians may even apply a "lesser-evilism" approach, thinking that it's better to have a strong man safeguard an economy for a brief period before libertopia can be established than let "the rabble" redistribute private property to themselves.


So basically allowing a totalitarian ruler to take power in the hope that they will eventually lead the country to a point where government is no longer required.

That is, interestingly enough, pretty much communism. huh. :chin:



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 Dec 2010, 7:33 am

First of all, I wouldn't call Pinochet a fascist, an authoritarian dictator yes but not a fascist.

Second of all, I assume you're referring Milton Friedman, he didn't really have anything to do with Pinochet actually. He just gave some lectures at some colleges down there in the mid 70s and met with Pinochet briefly to give him some economic advice. He declined honorary doctorates from the two universities he was speaking at because he didn't want people to think he supported the dictatorship of Pinochet. His "rational" was also correct in that economic freedom always eventually leads to more political freedom.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Dec 2010, 12:17 pm

Jacoby wrote:
His "rational" was also correct in that economic freedom always eventually leads to more political freedom.

The situation with China has frustrated this notion.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Dec 2010, 12:42 pm

Jacoby wrote:

But yes, all collectivists have an "inner fascist". Everyone that believe in the state as a means to achieving their goals have an "inner fascist".


For example, Alexander Hamilton.

ruveyn



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Dec 2010, 12:43 pm

marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
His "rational" was also correct in that economic freedom always eventually leads to more political freedom.

The situation with China has frustrated this notion.


Give it time, the cracks are already starting to show and they can't keep up that information blockade forever.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

29 Dec 2010, 12:49 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I'll agree that the average person's positions, if taken seriously, would probably lead to Fascism. (Heck, I think that's the reason I spent some time as a neo-fascist)

I think that not all ideologies view themselves as being matters of imposition though. For example, Robert Nozick, a major libertarian thinker, really wanted to remove laws, so that there was freedom of choices. This goes hand in hand with the libertarian idea of markets, but for Nozick, as well as likely a few other libertarian thinkers, this also meant the freedom of individuals to basically find their own in some form or fashion(even through communal efforts), as these efforts would no longer face any degree of official suppression.(Note: how much impact is a relevant question, but it does not get to the core of that idea.)

I don't think that the desire for conformity has to be necessarily a matter of companionship though. Many minds are black and white, and their moral requirements are not really deeply connected to anything overly concrete. Conformity can really be just the way of saying "let's make the world *RIGHT*, instead of *WRONG*".


Awesomelyfascist topic

8O Even fashism scares me. :P


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

29 Dec 2010, 1:36 pm

I recognise my inner fascist, and I don't allow him to set policy.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 Dec 2010, 4:53 pm

marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
His "rational" was also correct in that economic freedom always eventually leads to more political freedom.

The situation with China has frustrated this notion.


I'd say China is definitely more free than it was 30-40 years ago.