Leftist Fascists Strike Yet Again

[Shwa]

Actually, politically active socialists are quite facetious. Some may naively believe in the ideology but it is my opinion the naivity is in it's followers not it's leaders or active proponents who truly think they are quite superior to the masses and should be leading them to a socio/political Nirvana, knowing far better how someone should live their life than they do themselves.

But any person of any political stripe can be accused of knowing "far better" how others ought to live. All you are doing here is pointing out the obvious, limiting it and then applying it as if it is exclusive. We can change the reference to "socialists" to any other -ist and arrive at the same conclusion.

This being a political forum is a certain "level" of activity. I'm sure you have witnessed some of the vitriol that passes as political debate. Can you imagine when actual power is at stake at upper levels. I have participated in a more active level as well.

Check out the following inferences regarding myself:

But the real question is not inferences regarding yourself, but how you fare on the other side of it? Such statements are meant to be applied broadly and may or may not include you in their scope. Do they? I doubt you are the sum of a single or small set of ideas.

Documented History, seems to be irrelevant and ignored when referred to and is not supportive of the desired point of view. History, as we know, is written by the victors.

History, we know, is written by story tellers - period. And, as such, are subject to literary criticism like any other story teller. Whether one needs to be on the side of victory to write "history" is not all apparent, especially nowadays. What we do know is that historians have their biases.

Have you perhaps compared the communist manifesto with the German National Socialist Workers Party manifesto. If you have read anything about socialism you may see some similarities in those documents to it.

Of course there are similarities since they deal with similarily broad subject areas. But are you referring to structure or content? (i.e. the fact that they are called 'manifesto' as opposed to policy platform papers) Here is Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto. An interesting comparative too. BTW - neither Marx, Hitler or Montana Ted were "victors."

What's the extreme right? Documented history shows it quite similar to the extreme left.

In structure or in content? You see, structurally I can buy into the MLW 'horseshoe' theory of right/left, but that can applied to tribalism too. Structurally, moieties are very similar and have similar functions in a society, but the taboos can be very, very different.

He was banished from the socialist ranks, not dissimilar to how Trotsky was banished from the communist ranks, not of his own free will. He knew a lot about them and proceeded to show them how wrong they were for their treatment of him. He was the true socialist, not them.

I disagree. He cherry picked those aspects of society that appealed enough to the people that counted to give him power. Nothing more. I wouldn't call him a socialist, more like an emperor whose power is beholden to a cadre ruling the masses. See Canetti's 'Crowds and Power' for the dynamics of such a structure.

As for Hitler, once again his own writings reveal their socialist and statist ambitions. Jewish support of communism and socialism could easily explain his distaste for the existing German socialist parties.

Another emperor in the scientific age, nothing more. One a little more nationalistic than Mussolini perhaps, but still focused on the primacy of politics.

To have syncretically fashioned his politics implies the elements of socialism were a part of it. But I think you are just being pedantic and don't really mean that.

Of course I mean that. The Prince cannot simply and wantonly abuse his subjects at will and maintain power for long. Heck, even Machiavelli knew this.

So, if we have documented history straight, he was a diehard socialist for the first twenty five years of his political career then "assembled and modified" to suit his purposes an entirely different form of totalitarian government completely and utterly divorced from socialism. One thing for certain, he sure showed those socialists a thing or two about getting trains to run on time - a miracle in itself.

I don't think he was a "diehard socialist for the first twenty five years" do you? He found a group of people that possesed a knowable structure for him and he gravitated to that. But even way back in the day, Mussolini was revising his views based upon his experiences and observations while associated with that group of people.

True it couldn't have done anything but evolve. But only only after his exile from socialist ranks. In a few short years he had become Il Duce and proceeded to evolve his statist dreams.

Like any good Prince or emperor.

My only claim is that socialism and fascism are not polar opposites but cousins in totalitarian statism Their similarities in such respect cannot be ignored. And it is the State that is necessary to both of their existences.

And I don't really dispute that, but we are talking structural similarity, not content. They may be organized on similar lines and, no doubt, those lines are heavily influenced by he prevalence of the socialist organizations in Europe in those days which would be attractive to any radical of any political stripe. It was a proximal influence. However, when we come to the content, the bits and pieces of ideology, the mythologies, the purposes of the power - the taboos - I think there is a radical departure from early 20th century socialism and mid-century nationalist fascism.

One of those historical documentations we have to relegate to "meaningless" if we wish to maintain our point of view.

What did he accomplish? A totalitarian regime that engineered society and the economy - the dream of all socialists.

I would agree that it is the dream of all megalomaniacs, but not of all socialists. I doubt you would find many Western socialists that would want a totalitarian regime, but we can pretty much guarantee that all Western fascists would.

And from what did he extract the means to "feed and clothe his prized group of "workers" aka his armies, navies and air forces." You will have to include "socializing" the economy, as well...oh and don't forget the youth groups that he "engineered".

But why did he nationalize key parts of the German economy and for what purpose? Look at his economic policies and you'll see syncretism and cherry picking. Slave labour used by leading military-industrial corporations, for example, not what I would call a socialist economic goal.

Is where he got the means to do what he did the "meaningless" part?

Meaningless when comparing what he said to what he demonstrated.

[Pliny]

But any person of any political stripe can be accused of knowing "far better" how others ought to live. All you are doing here is pointing out the obvious, limiting it and then applying it as if it is exclusive. We can change the reference to "socialists" to any other -ist and arrive at the same conclusion.

This may be the general perception created in today's social democracies and I think a large part of the probelm with social democracies is that people generally have the idea that politicians have a good grasp of issues and will act in our best interests. Often they have a partisan or even ideological view of the issues and act in their own or some special interest groups interests. This is divisive as winners and losers are decided upon and the "collective good" is too often the dismissive determining factor for time is often forgotten in the calculations, i.e. a politician is long gone before any ill effects of their poicies are experienced. Old age security, universal health care, public education are all basically brilliant ponzi schemes that later generations will pay for and will eventually collapse economically upon themselves. About the only politician I know for certain that feels you can run your life better than the "government" and gives the general populace any credit at all for being able to do so is Ron Paul.

But the real question is not inferences regarding yourself, but how you fare on the other side of it? Such statements are meant to be applied broadly and may or may not include you in their scope. Do they? I doubt you are the sum of a single or small set of ideas.

I am reminded of Bill Clinton when he wagged his finger and stated, "I never had sex with that woman!"

What did he mean? The nation started a conversation about whether or not a BJ was considered sex and indeed a midwestern judge deemed, in an unrelated case, that it was not.

This is the level of facetiousness of the political class. Now I don't trust establishment Republican politicians any more than Democrat politicians. They have pretty much learned the ropes and are playing the same game.

So the problem we have is determining what is actually being said. Bill Clinton could of course say what he did and according to what "he" intended to define as sex not be an outright liar. He earned the label "Slick Willy" for that and may people would just shake their head and smile at the "so'm bitch".

But it is a pretty sad statement of the typical treatment of the general public, not to mention one's spouse.

So really, and It is experienced on a lot of levels that the intent of what is said is specious and facetious. We have to analyze in specifics what is being said, what's behind the sloganeering and demagogic rhetoric. What does "hope and change" mean? What does "redistribute the wealth" mean? One of the reasons I dislike Barack Obama is that what he says is so general and can be interpreted in so many ways that he can always back track and say he meant something else.

What the hell is Obamacare? 2000+ pages of legislation that wasn't even ananlyzed befroe it was voted on and passed. And now hundreds of companies, Unions, States, municipalities are being granted waivers

to exempt themselves form some of this legislation. What a dog's breakfast!

History, we know, is written by story tellers - period. And, as such, are subject to literary criticism like any other story teller. Whether one needs to be on the side of victory to write "history" is not all apparent, especially nowadays. What we do know is that historians have their biases.

The victim and entitlement class has become the victor of late and has started the revision.

Try looking at what is said and what is done by those who the stories are being written about.

There is some documentation.

Of course there are similarities since they deal with similarily broad subject areas. But are you referring to structure or content? (i.e. the fact that they are called 'manifesto' as opposed to policy platform papers) Here is Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto. An interesting comparative too. BTW - neither Marx, Hitler or Montana Ted were "victors."

Marx, Hitler and Kaczynski still haunt us. But really can we confuse totalitarian statism as anything but totalitarian and statist?

In structure or in content? You see, structurally I can buy into the MLW 'horseshoe' theory of right/left, but that can applied to tribalism too. Structurally, moieties are very similar and have similar functions in a society, but the taboos can be very, very different.

Once again is one form of totalitarian statism less totalitarian or less statist?

They do not differ so much in content as in structure. The far right wing fascist has their heirarchy and supreme leader. The far left wing socialist has their "committee".

I will say this. The far right is a little more straight forward than the far left. Although it is essentially a force that reasons only with dictatorial supremacy and winds up destroying itself by it's employment of force for the purpose of it's supremacy, socialism is the more insidious of the two. It is more likely to employ specious arguments for it's ends and those using the power invested in the "committee" twist their words and deeds to their own ends but have to facetiously hide their motives. This makes power a very tenuous thing among the political class and only the most brutal survive it, it winds up using force just as destructively to maintain it's structure. Content, then seems to me to be irrelevant to all forms of totalitarian statism.

I disagree. He cherry picked those aspects of society that appealed enough to the people that counted to give him power. Nothing more. I wouldn't call him a socialist, more like an emperor whose power is beholden to a cadre ruling the masses. See Canetti's 'Crowds and Power' for the dynamics of such a structure.

Fine. He recognized the futility of achieving a working socialist state by decree of a committee and his banishment led to his abandoning the idea of ever reconciling his fellow socialists in achieving the ideal State and a totally engineered society - which is the end of both ideals.

Another emperor in the scientific age, nothing more. One a little more nationalistic than Mussolini perhaps, but still focused on the primacy of politics.

As are all Statists.

The State, at the time held great promise for it's populaces. Obviously, those who had some concept of private property would have a problem with pure socialism. They owned things. The business class and the middle class thus resisted some of the socialist concepts of the "public" ownership of all production. Fascism and Nazism were options. The problem with those Statist ideas was in being able to convince a portion of the society to support the idea of a "supreme leader". It found it's support in the opposing of socialist economic ideas.

Of course I mean that. The Prince cannot simply and wantonly abuse his subjects at will and maintain power for long. Heck, even Machiavelli knew this.

They rarely "simply and wantonly" abuse their subjects. they cleverly and strategically abuse their subjects, granted they are inevitably found out.

But they can abuse them for a time if they are deceitful and brutish enough. Stalin lasted a whole generation and so has Castro. Fear and ignorance are generally the tools used. Monarchies, in a strategic allegiance with the church, condemned their citizens to hell for centuries before they lost that cudgel.

I don't think he was a "diehard socialist for the first twenty five years" do you?

You will have to read some of his history. He became the editor, and voice of the socialists in the publishing of several socialist newspapers. There should be lots of fodder for arguing against that premise iof you can find any.

He found a group of people that possesed a knowable structure for him and he gravitated to that. But even way back in the day, Mussolini was revising his views based upon his experiences and observations while associated with that group of people.

He really revised them when they booted him out. But he wasn't any less of a Statist.

And I don't really dispute that, but we are talking structural similarity, not content. They may be organized on similar lines and, no doubt, those lines are heavily influenced by he prevalence of the socialist organizations in Europe in those days which would be attractive to any radical of any political stripe. It was a proximal influence. However, when we come to the content, the bits and pieces of ideology, the mythologies, the purposes of the power - the taboos - I think there is a radical departure from early 20th century socialism and mid-century nationalist fascism.

As I said above, and I stick with that, structurally they differ. The differences in content exist only out of the differences in structure. Once again, the totalitarian state of either is no less totalitarian and no less statist.

I would agree that it is the dream of all megalomaniacs, but not of all socialists. I doubt you would find many Western socialists that would want a totalitarian regime, but we can pretty much guarantee that all Western fascists would.

The dream of socialists is of social and economic equality for all. By the way, is Chavez a western socialist? We shall see if we get a totalitarian regime - it's increasingly looking that way.

Although the followers and believers in socialism may have faith in it's ideals of acheiving social justice and economic equality. The political activists and leaders of socialism would never be so bold as to openly state their objectives because as long as there is such a thing as even a concept of private property they can't. Once that is gone, and it is disappearing, they can openly wreak their havoc.

Socialism is a process to an end, that end being the totally engineered society. Some adherents believe it will always be subject to the will of the people - but they will one day find themselves in opposition to what is for the collective good and not necessarily the "people" because the collective good becomes the welfare of the State.

But why did he nationalize key parts of the German economy and for what purpose? Look at his economic policies and you'll see syncretism and cherry picking. Slave labour used by leading military-industrial corporations, for example, not what I would call a socialist economic goal.

Now are you cherry picking looking at the military industrial complex? There was public education, universal health care, national socialist youth movements. There was no military industrial complex in soviet russia. They just took what they needed, gave everyone an apartment, whenever they became available, shipped off recalcitrant workers (is there much difference in slave labour)to Siberia.

Facts are that working for a dictator is not much different than working for the State.

The slippery dialogue of the socialist has us beleiving that socialism has never been tried. The socialism of Stalin could not even be called socialism either. Chavez is not a socialist. Obama is not a socialist. Socialism, apparently, has never existed. This is how they divorce themselves from all their statist failures. They are never truly socialist.

It is not dissimilar to convincing the public that a BJ is not really engaging in "sex".

Meaningless when comparing what he said to what he demonstrated.

He demonstrated a totalitarian statism that was essentially socialism in a hurry. It wasn't revolutionary so it wasn't communism, which is instant socialism.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Pliny

[Shwa]

This may be the general perception created in today's social democracies and I think a large part of the probelm with social democracies is that people generally have the idea that politicians have a good grasp of issues and will act in our best interests. Often they have a partisan or even ideological view of the issues and act in their own or some special interest groups interests. This is divisive as winners and losers are decided upon and the "collective good" is too often the dismissive determining factor for time is often forgotten in the calculations, i.e. a politician is long gone before any ill effects of their poicies are experienced. Old age security, universal health care, public education are all basically brilliant ponzi schemes that later generations will pay for and will eventually collapse economically upon themselves. About the only politician I know for certain that feels you can run your life better than the "government" and gives the general populace any credit at all for being able to do so is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul. Every one can wax romantically, but that hardly exempts one from foisting their views upon others. Even Ron Paul requires structure to deliver his content and eventually such content must be considered superior to any other to usurp the status quo. IF his ideas were so obvious THEN one would think that populace - to whom Paul gives so much credit - would have flocked to him by now. I don't see that happening in any comprehensive way, which means that there is a contradiction of sorts going on yes? Perhaps the populace ain't to bright after all.

I am reminded of Bill Clinton when he wagged his finger and stated, "I never had sex with that woman!"

What did he mean? The nation started a conversation about whether or not a BJ was considered sex and indeed a midwestern judge deemed, in an unrelated case, that it was not.

This is the level of facetiousness of the political class. Now I don't trust establishment Republican politicians any more than Democrat politicians. They have pretty much learned the ropes and are playing the same game.

So the problem we have is determining what is actually being said. Bill Clinton could of course say what he did and according to what "he" intended to define as sex not be an outright liar. He earned the label "Slick Willy" for that and may people would just shake their head and smile at the "so'm bitch". But it is a pretty sad statement of the typical treatment of the general public, not to mention one's spouse.

But such arguments are plied for criminal (and other) defences in courts thousands of times over, day after day. Redefinition of one thing or another isn't a new strategy for law or for politics. Such sophistry has been the sad treatment "of the general public" for thousands of years why is there any surprise with Clinton or Trudeau or Castro? Because you believe in Ron Paul, doesn't mean he is not above all of that and, should he or his ideas ever come to fruitition in a meaningful way, they too will be subject to sophistry, deceit and superiority.

So really, and It is experienced on a lot of levels that the intent of what is said is specious and facetious. We have to analyze in specifics what is being said, what's behind the sloganeering and demagogic rhetoric. What does "hope and change" mean? What does "redistribute the wealth" mean? One of the reasons I dislike Barack Obama is that what he says is so general and can be interpreted in so many ways that he can always back track and say he meant something else.

You mean like Mussolini declaring he was a socialist for life?

What the hell is Obamacare? 2000+ pages of legislation that wasn't even ananlyzed befroe it was voted on and passed. And now hundreds of companies, Unions, States, municipalities are being granted waivers to exempt themselves form some of this legislation. What a dog's breakfast!

Yes, well, what can one say? Freedom has it's perks.

The victim and entitlement class has become the victor of late and has started the revision.

Regardless, all of their history is the simple construct of literary narrative. It isn't art, yet it isn't science either. And like Clinton's BJ, subject to examination, inspection and criticism.

Try looking at what is said and what is done by those who the stories are being written about. There is some documentation.

Sure, but the documentation is assembled for a purpose, usually of ideology or some other beneficial purpose to the writer. If there is anything you should worry about is a history book that claims, in its title, to be "The Complete History of..."

Marx, Hitler and Kaczynski still haunt us. But really can we confuse totalitarian statism as anything but totalitarian and statist?

Once again is one form of totalitarian statism less totalitarian or less statist?

Again, that is structure and can be generally applied to a whole range of political organization. Heck, we haven't even looked at the nuts and bolts of such a structure, let alone what it actually contains. But we can distinguish between fascist totalitarian statism and communist totalitarian statism, as we can between and emperor and a God-king. Which is the point is it not? The distinguishing?

Well, I see that you have arrived at a condemnation of all forms of totalitarianism and that is good. We must be on guard after all. However, I see no forms of this here and now, even though there are state intrusions into everyday life. It vacillates in the centre in most of our Western societies. That is our 'balance.'

They do not differ so much in content as in structure. The far right wing fascist has their heirarchy and supreme leader. The far left wing socialist has their "committee".

You determine the tribal moiety by way of the distinguishing taboos and ritual responsibilities. Supreme leaders, committees are all facets of both fascism and communism. Similar structures. You might call one a committee and another a council - they are all cadres of some sort. Well known structural dynamics. What distinquishes your brown shirt from your comrade is in the taboos and ritual responsibilities. I think the resultant content differences between fascism and communism are clear enough for us to determine one from the other.

I will say this. The far right is a little more straight forward than the far left. Although it is essentially a force that reasons only with dictatorial supremacy and winds up destroying itself by it's employment of force for the purpose of it's supremacy, socialism is the more insidious of the two. It is more likely to employ specious arguments for it's ends and those using the power invested in the "committee" twist their words and deeds to their own ends but have to facetiously hide their motives. This makes power a very tenuous thing among the political class and only the most brutal survive it, it winds up using force just as destructively to maintain it's structure. Content, then seems to me to be irrelevant to all forms of totalitarian statism.

Content is the supreme distinguisher, especially when you have the primacy of politics at play. Marxism can be used to express anthropological ideas - sound ideas - about a given population or culture. Can fascism do the same? If it can, I haven't read about it yet.

Fine. He recognized the futility of achieving a working socialist state by decree of a committee and his banishment led to his abandoning the idea of ever reconciling his fellow socialists in achieving the ideal State and a totally engineered society - which is the end of both ideals.

Except in one case it worked in that environment. But Mussolini's "social engineering" wasn't all too far removed from the Medici's or Holy Roman Emperors. His ideas didn't come out of the blue. You could even say there was a sort of provenance to his rise to power. Something that the interested have been wary of ever since.

As are all Statists.

The State, at the time held great promise for it's populaces. Obviously, those who had some concept of private property would have a problem with pure socialism. They owned things. The business class and the middle class thus resisted some of the socialist concepts of the "public" ownership of all production. Fascism and Nazism were options. The problem with those Statist ideas was in being able to convince a portion of the society to support the idea of a "supreme leader". It found it's support in the opposing of socialist economic ideas.

Like a Prime Minister or President can ride the coattails of anti-communism or anti-fascism. Sure. There are oppositions everywhere. Even to Ron Paul.

They rarely "simply and wantonly" abuse their subjects. they cleverly and strategically abuse their subjects, granted they are inevitably found out.

But they can abuse them for a time if they are deceitful and brutish enough. Stalin lasted a whole generation and so has Castro. Fear and ignorance are generally the tools used. Monarchies, in a strategic allegiance with the church, condemned their citizens to hell for centuries before they lost that cudgel.

Yes, however how many haven't made any long term stay in power? Heck, Kings were frequently murdered or desposed of in battle for centuries while allying themselves with the Church. That a few lasted to any length of time is the exception, not the rule. Franco, Mao - what makes them interesting is that they lasted when the general rule was that they shouldn't have. They must have had some powerful cadres!

You will have to read some of his history. He became the editor, and voice of the socialists in the publishing of several socialist newspapers. There should be lots of fodder for arguing against that premise iof you can find any.

He really revised them when they booted him out. But he wasn't any less of a Statist.

Of course he did, but even as he wrote, his views were beginning to be gradually modified by his experience and observations.

As I said above, and I stick with that, structurally they differ. The differences in content exist only out of the differences in structure. Once again, the totalitarian state of either is no less totalitarian and no less statist.

No, the content is the how and why which differ greatly and are the distinguishing marks of the ideologies. Structurally they are similar and all answer to the top, usually invested in one person supported by an equally interested, but ever evolving cadre.

The dream of socialists is of social and economic equality for all. By the way, is Chavez a western socialist? We shall see if we get a totalitarian regime - it's increasingly looking that way.

I think so too, but I am not convinced yet. And, if it does, it won't last long.

Although the followers and believers in socialism may have faith in it's ideals of acheiving social justice and economic equality. The political activists and leaders of socialism would never be so bold as to openly state their objectives because as long as there is such a thing as even a concept of private property they can't. Once that is gone, and it is disappearing, they can openly wreak their havoc.

The political activists and leaders of any -ism would never be so bold as to openly state their objectives. All is well sayeth the press release.

Socialism is a process to an end, that end being the totally engineered society. Some adherents believe it will always be subject to the will of the people - but they will one day find themselves in opposition to what is for the collective good and not necessarily the "people" because the collective good becomes the welfare of the State.

Again, a broad statement that can be applied to any political organization. Even kings and queens engineered their societies. Emperors did. All leaders will, to one degree or another don't you think?

Now are you cherry picking looking at the military industrial complex? There was public education, universal health care, national socialist youth movements. There was no military industrial complex in soviet russia. They just took what they needed, gave everyone an apartment, whenever they became available, shipped off recalcitrant workers (is there much difference in slave labour)to Siberia.

I am not cherry picking so much as pointing out the syncretic nature of having to reconcile all of the power centres for fascism to work. I believe there is less of this in the organiztion of communism even though Soviet Russia appeared to have a healthy - and well known - black market.

Facts are that working for a dictator is not much different than working for the State.

The slippery dialogue of the socialist has us beleiving that socialism has never been tried. The socialism of Stalin could not even be called socialism either. Chavez is not a socialist. Obama is not a socialist. Socialism, apparently, has never existed. This is how they divorce themselves from all their statist failures. They are never truly socialist.

LOL! True enough. Then again, who wants to associate with failure?

It is not dissimilar to convincing the public that a BJ is not really engaging in "sex".

Perhaps in a small way, one has to defend one's position as it were. But I don't naturally associate the two.

He demonstrated a totalitarian statism that was essentially socialism in a hurry. It wasn't revolutionary so it wasn't communism, which is instant socialism.

However one gets to the party I suppose, while democracy and anti-liberalism are raging all about. Someone is bound to say they have the right idea and kill opposition to it. They key is how does one get the reigns of power to be able to kill the opposition? The devil is in the details.

[Pliny]

But such arguments are plied for criminal (and other) defences in courts thousands of times over, day after day. Redefinition of one thing or another isn't a new strategy for law or for politics. Such sophistry has been the sad treatment "of the general public" for thousands of years why is there any surprise with Clinton or Trudeau or Castro? Because you believe in Ron Paul, doesn't mean he is not above all of that and, should he or his ideas ever come to fruitition in a meaningful way, they too will be subject to sophistry, deceit and superiority.

The difference between Ron Paul and Clinton, Turdeau or Castro is in what they are going to do for you.

Ron Paul isn't promising very much except in ensuring force is not initiated against one's person. The others, in varying degrees, promise much more. Where is there deceit and superiority in allowing you to run your own life? There is patronizing deceit and superiority in someone that says if you allow me to take money from you I will look after all the people you don't want to be bothered with looking after. It's a good deal if you are the one that can write the expropriation laws or choose to limit your responsibility to your fellows through the simple act of paying your taxes.

So really, and It is experienced on a lot of levels that the intent of what is said is specious and facetious. We have to analyze in specifics what is being said, what's behind the sloganeering and demagogic rhetoric. What does "hope and change" mean? What does "redistribute the wealth" mean? One of the reasons I dislike Barack Obama is that what he says is so general and can be interpreted in so many ways that he can always back track and say he meant something else.

You mean like Mussolini declaring he was a socialist for life?

Only if you have some confusion about what a socialist is, which I don't believe he did.

Regardless, all of their history is the simple construct of literary narrative. It isn't art, yet it isn't science either. And like Clinton's BJ, subject to examination, inspection and criticism.

Very comforting to Hillary, I'm sure.

Sure, but the documentation is assembled for a purpose, usually of ideology or some other beneficial purpose to the writer.

I agree. It becomes a problem when the purpose is something other than stated. Like when Mussolini stated he was a socialist and always would be a socialist. His purpose was to obviously confuse not only the socialists but the historians who would document his legacy. I guess he was successful.

If there is anything you should worry about is a history book that claims, in its title, to be "The Complete History of..."

True.

Again, that is structure and can be generally applied to a whole range of political organization. Heck, we haven't even looked at the nuts and bolts of such a structure, let alone what it actually contains. But we can distinguish between fascist totalitarian statism and communist totalitarian statism, as we can between and emperor and a God-king. Which is the point is it not? The distinguishing?

Of course, there are differences which are easily discernable. On a scale of differences and similarities in the scope of Statism they sit fairly close together. In relation to anarchy, a total absence of the state, they are quite distant. Even a limited governemnt is still way off. So relativity is the point.

Well, I see that you have arrived at a condemnation of all forms of totalitarianism and that is good. We must be on guard after all. However, I see no forms of this here and now, even though there are state intrusions into everyday life. It vacillates in the centre in most of our Western societies. That is our 'balance.'

I haven't arrived at it. What does one do about socialist revolutionary forces? Can they be countered without being considered right wing fascist forces?

It's ok if the centre stays as a point of reference but there is only an apparency of balance if the centrepoint drifts in any direction. I would venture to say that the centre is a pretty fuzzy area and has drifted. On a spectrum of increased state regulation, size and cost as opposed to zero, growth in the state could more easily be seen. In a democracy it is missed by claiing the democracy is still there and exists as it always has.

You determine the tribal moiety by way of the distinguishing taboos and ritual responsibilities. Supreme leaders, committees are all facets of both fascism and communism. Similar structures. You might call one a committee and another a council - they are all cadres of some sort. Well known structural dynamics. What distinquishes your brown shirt from your comrade is in the taboos and ritual responsibilities. I think the resultant content differences between fascism and communism are clear enough for us to determine one from the other.

Yes, but the differences come out of heirarchical structure. The classless society acknowledges no distinction of class, but the political "class" in the purely socialist state belies the claim.

There is a defined heirarchy in Fascism. Does the socialist society or the fascist society not have the State determine where to take the wealth from and where to put it? Economically, they are similar in that respect but their importances of where to move wealth, that is to say their content, differ and indeed are clear enough to determine one from the other. My argument is not that they are the same, only similar. Cousins in the same family and blood related as opposed to being unrelated.

Content is the supreme distinguisher, especially when you have the primacy of politics at play. Marxism can be used to express anthropological ideas - sound ideas - about a given population or culture. Can fascism do the same? If it can, I haven't read about it yet.

Fascism is not anthropological at all, I guess??? How are Marx's anthropological ideas - sound ideas - especially in light of the fact that he ignores the reality that no action occurs unless there is a perceived and clear future benefit after and above a careful analysis of cost and that it is an individual who makes the determination, not a committee, which is comprised of individuals, or some other vague entity or society. If left to the masses or "the people" there is nothing but a mad destructive mob. If left to individuals acting, it is not in their interests or benefit to harm another.

So barring criminal or evil intent or accident the actions of all individuals in harmony will benefit the whole in the long term.

Except in one case it worked in that environment. But Mussolini's "social engineering" wasn't all too far removed from the Medici's or Holy Roman Emperors. His ideas didn't come out of the blue. You could even say there was a sort of provenance to his rise to power. Something that the interested have been wary of ever since.

We have to agree that up to the point where he was exiled from the socialist movement that he considered himself of like mind. It's an error of assumption of which socialist activists are unaware until the prize is in reach. It is when that prize of power is before them that they become keenly aware of their competitive nature and their differences.

I believe he set out to prove that the socialists were wrong. Not for being socialists, but for exiling him. His problem was partially his public popularity and thus a perception of inequality among equals.

Like a Prime Minister or President can ride the coattails of anti-communism or anti-fascism. Sure. There are oppositions everywhere. Even to Ron Paul.

The difference is in the concentration of power. The centralization of power and authority to the State in contrast to a defense of the power of the individual over his own life.

Yes, however how many haven't made any long term stay in power? Heck, Kings were frequently murdered or desposed of in battle for centuries while allying themselves with the Church. That a few lasted to any length of time is the exception, not the rule. Franco, Mao - what makes them interesting is that they lasted when the general rule was that they shouldn't have. They must have had some powerful cadres!

Franco and Mao lasted? I would disagree but I suppose it depends upon what you mean by lasted. If you mean the length of their life then I suppose you are right. But the dictatorship of Franco shows little similarity to the government of modern Spain which, I believe is considered a western social democracy

and Mao's socialist state has morphed into what could be conceived to be a capitalist/corporate kind of Fascism. Perhaps another argument that Fascism rises out of the left.

In the contrary, the centuries old lineage of the royal families of Europe exists still today although largely symbolic after WW I. The Tsar of Russia, the King of England, and the Kaiser of Germany were all cousins. The French Revolution is probably the only departure from the familial connections of European Monarchy that occurred until WW I. That there was infighting and power struggles among them would not be unusual. The end of a Monarch was not the end of the monarchical dynasty.

Of course he did, but even as he wrote, his views were beginning to be gradually modified by his experience and observations.

He worked pretty fast then. His editorial and publishing experience allowed him to discredit his rivals. He had already been crowned with the title of Il Duce to the consternation of his former "equals".

No, the content is the how and why which differ greatly and are the distinguishing marks of the ideologies.

I don't have a probelm with that statement in and of itself.

Structurally they are similar and all answer to the top, usually invested in one person supported by an equally interested, but ever evolving cadre.

Structurally they differ greatly - or are supposed to. Socialism purports to have no class distinction, for instance. That some are more equal than others is never admitted to. And As I pointed out Fascism has a ranked political class, as well as economic and social classes. In my view it seems it is the differences in their structure that create the differences in their content. One must first imagine how society should be structured and then achieve that by the policies and plans that lie within the structure.

The dream of socialists is of social and economic equality for all. By the way, is Chavez a western socialist? We shall see if we get a totalitarian regime - it's increasingly looking that way.

I think so too, but I am not convinced yet. And, if it does, it won't last long.

Unlike Franco or Mao who did last?

The political activists and leaders of any -ism would never be so bold as to openly state their objectives. All is well sayeth the press release.

What is Ron Paul talking about then, getting rid of entitlements and the Federal Reserve? I'll agree with your statement when power is at stake but proposing to return power to the individual and decentralize the government it appears opposite the interests of a politician.

Again, a broad statement that can be applied to any political organization. Even kings and queens engineered their societies. Emperors did. All leaders will, to one degree or another don't you think?

Yes. I agree - which is why I believe their mandates should be limited.

I am not cherry picking so much as pointing out the syncretic nature of having to reconcile all of the power centres for fascism to work. I believe there is less of this in the organiztion of communism even though Soviet Russia appeared to have a healthy - and well known - black market.

It was a simpler effort to "reconcile the power centres" at that time than today. We are wary of "being out of balance" We have the history of fascism to tell us where it leads. We have the history of communism to tell us where it leads. Socialists, as a benefit to themselves, would have us believe or ignore that they actually existed as they insidiously move the goal posts to an ever centralized power.

LOL! True enough. Then again, who wants to associate with failure?

What failure? True socialism has never existed.

However one gets to the party I suppose, while democracy and anti-liberalism are raging all about. Someone is bound to say they have the right idea and kill opposition to it. They key is how does one get the reigns of power to be able to kill the opposition? The devil is in the details.

Well, there are the opposing seekers of power, as illustrated by the left/right paradigm and then there is the proponents of the decentralization and limiting of power. Government does not have the tendency to restrain it's powers.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Pliny

[Shwa]

The difference between Ron Paul and Clinton, Turdeau or Castro is in what they are going to do for you.

Ron Paul isn't promising very much except in ensuring force is not initiated against one's person. The others, in varying degrees, promise much more. Where is there deceit and superiority in allowing you to run your own life? There is patronizing deceit and superiority in someone that says if you allow me to take money from you I will look after all the people you don't want to be bothered with looking after. It's a good deal if you are the one that can write the expropriation laws or choose to limit your responsibility to your fellows through the simple act of paying your taxes.

Ron Paul. Castro. Stalin. Mussolini. Each has/had their own Utopian bubble. Promises are cheap commodities.

Only if you have some confusion about what a socialist is, which I don't believe he did.

Once again: he could have declared practically anything about himself, the proof is what he demonstrated and that was fascism.

Very comforting to Hillary, I'm sure.

And Ron Paul...

I agree. It becomes a problem when the purpose is something other than stated. Like when Mussolini stated he was a socialist and always would be a socialist. His purpose was to obviously confuse not only the socialists but the historians who would document his legacy. I guess he was successful.

I guess propaganda is successful too, no?

Of course, there are differences which are easily discernable. On a scale of differences and similarities in the scope of Statism they sit fairly close together. In relation to anarchy, a total absence of the state, they are quite distant. Even a limited governemnt is still way off. So relativity is the point.

But you are still referring to structure here. One can argue - likely somewhat naively - that anarchism is structure-less or less structure, but the small demonstrations of anarchy, in world of nation states, isn't so structure-less.

I haven't arrived at it. What does one do about socialist revolutionary forces? Can they be countered without being considered right wing fascist forces?

In a small way, look what Trudeau did to the FLQ. I think there are all kinds of socialist revolutionary forces that are being absorbed into the present body politic without resorting to right wing extermist measures. Well, so long as you are not in Guatemala...

It's ok if the centre stays as a point of reference but there is only an apparency of balance if the centrepoint drifts in any direction. I would venture to say that the centre is a pretty fuzzy area and has drifted. On a spectrum of increased state regulation, size and cost as opposed to zero, growth in the state could more easily be seen. In a democracy it is missed by claiing the democracy is still there and exists as it always has.

And really, this sums up your entire point doesn't it? I think most people recognize this 'drifting' which is problematic in setting up hard definitions of right and left. But it is an incremental drift, as Hayen White would say, of functional adjustments that are relatively congruent to the wishes - the preceived wishes - of society. White describes this as liberalism. The good thing is that there is a demonstrated flexibility, even within modern conservatives who still move along this drift, but try and gradualize the changes keeping in mind the status quo.

Yes, but the differences come out of heirarchical structure. The classless society acknowledges no distinction of class, but the political "class" in the purely socialist state belies the claim.

There is a defined heirarchy in Fascism. Does the socialist society or the fascist society not have the State determine where to take the wealth from and where to put it? Economically, they are similar in that respect but their importances of where to move wealth, that is to say their content, differ and indeed are clear enough to determine one from the other. My argument is not that they are the same, only similar. Cousins in the same family and blood related as opposed to being unrelated.

This is what I am getting at. Fruit trees, they have similar structures, but the fruits have different flavours arising out of some structural differences in the trees themselves. But to us, we distinguish between apples and oranges.

Fascism is not anthropological at all, I guess??? How are Marx's anthropological ideas - sound ideas - especially in light of the fact that he ignores the reality that no action occurs unless there is a perceived and clear future benefit after and above a careful analysis of cost and that it is an individual who makes the determination, not a committee, which is comprised of individuals, or some other vague entity or society. If left to the masses or "the people" there is nothing but a mad destructive mob. If left to individuals acting, it is not in their interests or benefit to harm another.

So barring criminal or evil intent or accident the actions of all individuals in harmony will benefit the whole in the long term.

Fascism can be analyzed in an anthropological light, but itself has no anthropological school of thought or can't really have any sound anthropological viewpoint on anything worthwhile, namely because of the primacy of politics whereas Marx waxed on the primacy of economics. His economic theories still have interesting and useful points about the economies of peoples and civilizations. There are still Marxist influences in the mainstream humanities, that simply don't exist for fascism. Now this could be an effect of the philosophy that is waning, I don't know. But you can still dig into some decent Marxist influenced literature in the social sciences.

We have to agree that up to the point where he was exiled from the socialist movement that he considered himself of like mind. It's an error of assumption of which socialist activists are unaware until the prize is in reach. It is when that prize of power is before them that they become keenly aware of their competitive nature and their differences.

I agree to this about Mussolini, but I am not convinced that this is a universal for socialists any more than fascism is a universal for corporatists. However Mussolini is a great lesson in the particular phenomenon he demonstrated.

I believe he set out to prove that the socialists were wrong. Not for being socialists, but for exiling him. His problem was partially his public popularity and thus a perception of inequality among equals.

I think he wanted a measure of proof to show the socialists that their path was not destined for power and that a revolution simply wasn't going to do it for them. And most definately I think his cult of personality had a profound influence on that view of equality.

The difference is in the concentration of power. The centralization of power and authority to the State in contrast to a defense of the power of the individual over his own life.

Of course, but my point was that even IF someone like Ron Paul got in and his views and ideas became widespread, there would be an opposition somewhere. Corporatists, Statists, Anarchists, etc., there will always be a struggle of some sort.

Franco and Mao lasted? I would disagree but I suppose it depends upon what you mean by lasted. If you mean the length of their life then I suppose you are right. But the dictatorship of Franco shows little similarity to the government of modern Spain which, I believe is considered a western social democracy and Mao's socialist state has morphed into what could be conceived to be a capitalist/corporate kind of Fascism. Perhaps another argument that Fascism rises out of the left.

They themselves, yes, as personalities embodying a particular political view, compared to some tinpot dictators and short-lived fascist or communist experiments. As for China, again when you mix in those other elements, you have syncretic politics - or what can be preceived as syncretic politics. Modern China is an interesting development though going from - what they consider - purer communism to a mixture of contradictory philosophies. But... in functionally graduate and socially congruent changes which, as White would define, as the hallmarks of conservativism. On the face of it, true yes? So linking right with conservatism runs into problems here. I don't think China could be classified as fascist, but are the elements there to create a fascist state? Absolutely. But then one could argue it was those contradictory 'western' philosophies, when introduced, that caused the fascism. A sticky wicket.

In the contrary, the centuries old lineage of the royal families of Europe exists still today although largely symbolic after WW I. The Tsar of Russia, the King of England, and the Kaiser of Germany were all cousins. The French Revolution is probably the only departure from the familial connections of European Monarchy that occurred until WW I. That there was infighting and power struggles among them would not be unusual. The end of a Monarch was not the end of the monarchical dynasty.

I think it was in effect, which really counts when we are talking about oppositions. There are residual effects of all sorts of prominent individuals, families and former power structures of course. But in effect, monarchism is pretty much dead in the Western world.

He worked pretty fast then. His editorial and publishing experience allowed him to discredit his rivals. He had already been crowned with the title of Il Duce to the consternation of his former "equals".

Mussolini might have looked pathetic strung up by his ankles, in the end, but he was no dummy.

I don't have a probelm with that statement in and of itself.

Structurally they differ greatly - or are supposed to. Socialism purports to have no class distinction, for instance. That some are more equal than others is never admitted to. And As I pointed out Fascism has a ranked political class, as well as economic and social classes. In my view it seems it is the differences in their structure that create the differences in their content. One must first imagine how society should be structured and then achieve that by the policies and plans that lie within the structure.

Where as we both know that Soviet communism had classes - even ranked political classes. What any particular ideology purports of itself is a content issue, not structural.

Unlike Franco or Mao who did last?

Absolutely unlike Franco and Mao, who both came to power during a great global conflict that depleted most resources - and international will - to do anything about them. By the time the West had recovered, it was really too late to defeat them openly in a sophisticated way. Chavez doesn't have the luxury of such an isolated beginning and with what is happening in the Middle East is an easy backdrop to changing the regime in Venezuela.

What is Ron Paul talking about then, getting rid of entitlements and the Federal Reserve? I'll agree with your statement when power is at stake but proposing to return power to the individual and decentralize the government it appears opposite the interests of a politician.

What makes you think that Ron Paul is 'openly' stating what HE wishes? Is there some sort of test you are applying to what is considered openly stating and hidden agenda? The test in my case - and surely Ron Paul et al are very aware - is that there will be opposition to his/their ideas and views. Anyone can philosophize, but a politician is a different animal and less beholden to specific virtues.

Yes. I agree - which is why I believe their mandates should be limited.

And we have that, to a degree.

It was a simpler effort to "reconcile the power centres" at that time than today. We are wary of "being out of balance" We have the history of fascism to tell us where it leads. We have the history of communism to tell us where it leads. Socialists, as a benefit to themselves, would have us believe or ignore that they actually existed as they insidiously move the goal posts to an ever centralized power.

Well, socialists at their purest perhaps, but I don't think there are very many of them that last for any length of time, at least not in our part of the world. However, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

What failure? True socialism has never existed.

No, but where it could lead to - aka "the history of communism" above.

Well, there are the opposing seekers of power, as illustrated by the left/right paradigm and then there is the proponents of the decentralization and limiting of power. Government does not have the tendency to restrain it's powers.

But there are also proponents of centralization and the limitation of freedoms. Government, as much as we want to corporatize it for the sake of analysis, still boils down to the people behind it all. Perhaps that lack of tendency for the government to restrain its powers is a residual effect of bureaucratic managers to expand their careers. A study is in order methinks.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

More accurately, the libertarians couldn't abuse power nearly as much, even if they wanted to, because, by definition, a libertarian government is much smaller and has much more limited power. If a libertarian government has enough power to really be able to abuse it, then it's already moved away from truly being a small libertarian government. One of the main points of libertarianism is just that: limit the size and power of government so it has much less power to abuse.

I understand that; I just find it odd to have such faith in the human beings achieving power, as if ideals will override everything else.

More to the point (because I"m not only talking hypotheticals about abuse of power), we hear a lot of support--open, explicit support, unabashed--for extensive and even expanded government powers.

From self-styled "libertarians," including prominent tea party spokespeople, and including the self-labelled libertarians here on this board.

Thye talk about "shrinking government" and the problems inhernt to "big government"...but what they mean is taxes.

In most cases, we could add "full stop" to the end of that sentence. As if "big government" is defined only by taxation, and by "progressive" government polciies or intiatives.

Why do they think this, which is demonstrably ridiculous, and undermining of their own theories? I dunno.

Edited June 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Here's Tea-Partier and libertarian leader Rand Paul on Hannity's program:

PAUL: Im not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where theyve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not theyve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldnt be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, thats really an offense that we should be going after they should be deported or put in prison.

So civil libertarian Paul thinks that someone "attending" a "radical political speech" ("radicalism" to be determined by which authorities, exactly?) should be "deported or sent to prison."

Their "crimes," to be taken into account "indirectly," whatever the F that means.

So much for free speech. So much for due process. And so much for "libertarianism."

Edited June 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Here's Tea-Partier and libertarian leader Rand Paul on Hannity's program:

...

So civil libertarian Paul thinks that someone "attending" a "radical political speech" ("radicalism" to be determined by which authorities, exactly?) should be "deported or sent to prison."

Their "crimes," to be taken into account "indirectly," whatever the F that means.

So much for free speech. So much for due process. And so much for "libertarianism."

That is pretty harsh there bloodyminded. Think of it this way: Paul's statements were a reflection of his utmost desire for the protection of "the people" as a group, in a social way. In that form, he is a socialist since he wants to use government authority to ensure a minimum level of care for "the people." Naturally his focus is the potential violence towards "his people" aka those of his nation, to ensure the protection of his nation. That would make him a "nationalist."

In a way, you could say he is a "nationalist socialist."

[bloodyminded]

That is pretty harsh there bloodyminded. Think of it this way: Paul's statements were a reflection of his utmost desire for the protection of "the people" as a group, in a social way. In that form, he is a socialist since he wants to use government authority to ensure a minimum level of care for "the people." Naturally his focus is the potential violence towards "his people" aka those of his nation, to ensure the protection of his nation. That would make him a "nationalist."

In a way, you could say he is a "nationalist socialist."

I'm not going to elaborate, but let's just say I'm finding the logical progression (is "progression" a bad word?) of your thoughts here remarkably familiar in this thread.

[Pliny]

That is pretty harsh there bloodyminded. Think of it this way: Paul's statements were a reflection of his utmost desire for the protection of "the people" as a group, in a social way. In that form, he is a socialist since he wants to use government authority to ensure a minimum level of care for "the people." Naturally his focus is the potential violence towards "his people" aka those of his nation, to ensure the protection of his nation. That would make him a "nationalist."

In a way, you could say he is a "nationalist socialist."

The prime reason for government in the first place, if they are to have any mandate at all, is protection of the individual, that is, the security of person and property, hardly socialism. Although you could contrive that to mean it is socialism. I won't argue that, as socialism in it's basic definition is the progression of growth in the State as a means to achieve the end of the total State and even a limited mandate provides the opportunity to expand towards that end. A national government only has the ability to tax and regulate it's own people.

In a very specious way you could say he is a "nationalist socialist". You sly dog - at least you aren't a lying pirate.