the neoliberal vision of the future

[diptera]

This is softer and at all times a majority dictatorship secures that only a minority is being oppressed, so such a type of system always enjoys popular support. But this IS still dictatorship. The minority that is being oppressed don't see any difference between whether the laws are made by a Fuhrer or by a majority.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Actually I liked this comparison. Clearly you think that fascism is about as similar to social democracy as a billiard ball is to a football. In other words, apart from being round, not very similar. But I would dispute this. A more appropriate comparison would be between a hard, synthetic football and a softer leather football. The shape and function of the balls are identical, but some think that the synthetic footballs are a little too hard and want a softer version. In a similar way social democracy is a softer version of Nazism and Fascism, but apart from the softness/hardness they are virtually identical, both in practical politics and in ideology.

In other words, a social democrat cannot accept that there is a secret police that comes at night and throws people into concentration camps with poor living conditions without a trial. The social democrat will ultimately throw people into concentration camps if they don't obey (prisons), but they will not do so without a trial and they will try softer uses of force first, like fines and warnings. And a social democrat cannot accept a minority dictatorship (even if it is popularly elected by a majority), but they DO want a dictatorship, namely a majority dictatorship. This is softer and at all times a majority dictatorship secures that only a minority is being oppressed, so such a type of system always enjoys popular support. But this IS still dictatorship. The minority that is being oppressed don't see any difference between whether the laws are made by a Fuhrer or by a majority.

The way you lump all sorts of different things under the fascist rubric renders you politically useless. Equating social democracy with fascism is the the political equivalent of heading a snooker ball; while it could be entertaining to watch it is something you've been doing rather too much of.

Louis MacNeice

 

[onarchy]

Sure, death camps are a totally trivial difference.

Do I take it that you agree that if we remove the death camps (which were not death camps until the war progressed) then there is no important differences between Nazis and social democrats?

 

[onarchy]

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

You don't belong to the minority in the majority of cases. The "democratic" system (i.e. majority dictatorship) is designed in such a way that it favors those who are most average, i.e. agree with the majority most of the time. So in Norway for instance, all of the parties in the parliament are 90% identical in practical politics. This means that the vast majority of people who vote get their way in the vast majority of cases, regardsless of which party is in power. (Norway has a virtual one-party system, the social democratic party) But if you happen to be far from average then you will experience that you are in the minority most of the time. I know how that feels like because *I* am in the minority in 90-95% of the cases, and I can tell you it is not fun.

 

[Idris2002]

But if you happen to be far from average then you will experience that you are in the minority most of the time. I know how that feels like because *I* am in the minority in 90-95% of the cases, and I can tell you it is not fun.

Have you thought of getting professional advice on making friends and forming relationships with people? I'm not being funny, by the way.

 

[invisibleplanet]

I know how that feels like because *I* am in the minority in 90-95% of the cases, and I can tell you it is not fun.

Victim complex. And you position ''the other'', in this instance diptera, in the role of siding with the oppressor. It's not a compelling argument. What type of person are you attempting to attract/appeal to with this pseudo-politic, onarchy?

 

[nino_savatte]

It is definitely a form of altruistic narcissism.

Which is what when it's a home?

 

[nino_savatte]

Children are 'bairns'. dunno about church.

It's "kirk".

 

[Dillinger4]

You are a white middle aged european male. How are you in a minority?

90-95%

 

[JimW]

Do I take it that you agree that if we remove the death camps (which were not death camps until the war progressed) then there is no important differences between Nazis and social democrats?

Where did you find this one?

 

[nino_savatte]

With that said - do you know what "church" and "child" (or is it "children"?) are in scottish?

Bairn = child. Kirk = Church.

 

[Idris2002]

Where did you find this one?

He followed us home one day.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Do I take it that you agree that if we remove the death camps (which were not death camps until the war progressed) then there is no important differences between Nazis and social democrats?

Why remove the death camps - the extermination policy they helped to put in practice dates back to 1935 - do you see them as not important?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. removing the death camps from your political evaluation of fascism does put you in a minority...just not in the good way you'd like.

 

[Dillinger4]

Why remove the death camps - the extermination policy they helped to put in practice dates back to 1935 - do you see them as not important?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. removing the death camps from your political evaluation of fascism does put you in a minority...just not in the good way you'd like.

I think we are getting to the root of his thought now.

 

[onarchy]

The way you lump all sorts of different things under the fascist rubric renders you politically useless. Equating social democracy with fascism is the the political equivalent of heading a snooker ball; while it could be entertaining to watch it is something you've been doing rather too much of.

Louis MacNeice

Do you think it is useless to lump all different kinds of supernatural faiths under the rubric of religion? By the definition of religion as a systematic belief in the supernatural, the vast majority of the Earth's population (>95%) is religious. Does this make religion a useless concept? Is religion an "atheist-centric" concept? I would think not. Religion is a useful concept even for those who ARE religious. By the same token fascism is also a very useful concept, even for those who ARE fascists because there are different kind of fascisms: islamofascism, socialist fascism, christian fascism, feminist fascism, ecofascism, nationalistic fascism etc. A socialist fascist may be very concerned about islamofascists or christian fascists gaining control over society. Indeed, the term "fascism" is analogous to religion in many ways: most religious people think that their OWN religion is obviously true and fantastic, whereas most religious people regard OTHER religions as complete bollocks and they cannot understand how anyone could be so stupid as to believe in such shite. Only atheists think that religion as such is crap.

By the same token most fascists think that their OWN form of fascism is obviously true and fantastic and they have zero problems forcing everyone to bend to it, whereas most fascists regard OTHER forms of fascism with horror. They dread the thought of living under another form of fascism because the thought of being forced to abide to someone else's belief system is fundamentally repulsive to humans. And by the same token only liberals think that fascism as such is crap. They dread ALL forms of fascism equally much.

Thus liberalism is highly analogous to atheism. (And liberals are typically also atheists) Indeed, religion and fascism are related. Religion is a form of collectivism, and fascism is FORCED collectivism.

Just like there only exists one form of atheism there only exists one form of non-fascism, and that is liberalism. Liberalism is the only political philosophy which allows all people to live out their belief system so long as they are peaceful. In a liberal society you are allowed to live as a socialist, but in a socialist society you are not allowed to live as a liberal. That is the hallmark of fascism vs liberalism.

To an objective third party it would be absolutely obvious why this definition of fascism is useful, but I know why you don't like it and that is because you do not want to acknowledge that you have something very fundamental in common with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ahmadinejad, Barre, Marcos, Kim Jong Il. You don't like the idea of being placed in the same category because it makes you question whether you might be the baddies.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's that 95% again.

If in doubt, the answer is 95% at least 95% of the time.

Oh, and "Heh"

*nervous laugh*

 

[Dillinger4]

There's that 95% again.

If in doubt, the answer is 95% at least 95% of the time.

Oh, and "Heh"

*nervous laugh*

Always almost one or the other. A very strong indicator of a totalitarian view of the world.

 

[Idris2002]

Why don't you view death camps as a key defining feature of fascism, Onar?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hmm no, what you're doing is more like saying that all religions are buddism or something ...

 

[Crispy]

Do you think it is useless to lump all different kinds of supernatural faiths under the rubric of religion? By the definition of religion as a systematic belief in the supernatural, the vast majority of the Earth's population (>95%) is religious. Does this make religion a useless concept? Is religion an "atheist-centric" concept? I would think not. Religion is a useful concept even for those who ARE religious. By the same token government is also a very useful concept, even for those who ARE governments because there are different kind of government: islamic government, socialist government, christian government, feminist government, eco-government, nationalistic government etc. A socialist government may be very concerned about islamic government or christian government gaining control over society. Indeed, the term "government" is analogous to religion in many ways: most religious people think that their OWN religion is obviously true and fantastic, whereas most religious people regard OTHER religions as complete bollocks and they cannot understand how anyone could be so stupid as to believe in such shite. Only atheists think that religion as such is crap.

By the same token most governments think that their OWN form of government is obviously true and fantastic and they have zero problems forcing everyone to bend to it, whereas most governments regard OTHER forms of government with horror. They dread the thought of living under another form of government because the thought of being forced to abide to someone else's belief system is fundamentally repulsive to humans. And by the same token only anarchists and libertarians think that government as such is crap. They dread ALL forms of government equally much.

Now you're making (some) sense

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Do you think it is useless to lump all different kinds of supernatural faiths under the rubric of religion?

Yes if I want to talk in a meaningful way either to or about any of the specific religions.

Here's a hint; substitute the word dictatorship for fascism and some of your 'facts' would gain a little more bite...only some mind.

Louis MacNeice

 

[rekil]

Swimming pool and orchestra at Auschwitz.

According to Rudolf Hoess, the first person to be executed in the war was a communist from Dessau who refused to carry out air raid duties. He was shot at Sachsenhausen. Denounced by cunts much like this one no doubt.

 

[onarchy]

You are a white middle aged european male. How are you in a minority?

90-95%

I know that many people think in racial and sexual categories, but I was talking about political categories.

 

[JimW]

You'd hope the terminally banal would be a fairly small minority, or Norwegian social democracy really has failed.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Do you think it is useless to lump all different kinds of supernatural faiths under the rubric of religion? By the definition of religion as a systematic belief in the supernatural, the vast majority of the Earth's population (>95%) is religious. Does this make religion a useless concept? Is religion an "atheist-centric" concept? I would think not. Religion is a useful concept even for those who ARE religious.

No, religion is a useful concept. It's a higher level abstraction than, say, Theism, which is a higher level abstraction than Christianity, which is itself a mid-level abstraction, encompassing Calvinism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, etc. Calling a Buddhist religious is fine - it fits the definition of the concept - it can fit without needing to redefine religion, there's no loss of descriptive power. Calling Buddhists Theists would be silly - they're not. Calling them Christians would be even dafter. But you're doing something even worse - you're labeling Buddhists as Catholics. That you cannot see this is very telling - it suggests a severe case of quasi-religious dogmatism. Again, if you read the Sartori article I linked way back in this thread it explains this. If you can come up with an abstraction that fits all the cases you label "fascist" then use it - you'll need to define it, show the group of unique character traits they all share, but you should be able to do it. Welfarism may be a better term. But at the moment you're taking a very specific term and applying it to just about everything, rendering it useless - by your definition every government ever has been fascist, which is bollocks. Fascism is a terrifying system of governance - you're diluting that terror and in a way you're making real fascism appear less malignant.

TLDR - What Louis MacNeice said.

 

[fredfelt]

You'd hope the terminally banal would be a fairly small minority, or Norwegian social democracy really has failed.

I wonder how market fundamentalists account for Norway having the most productive workforces in the world?

If the free market was such a wonderful way to create efficiencies I would have thought that the social democratic countries in Europe would struggle to keep up with the US. As it happens If you measure productivity in terms of hours worked the US is way down the list.

 

[onarchy]

Why remove the death camps - the extermination policy they helped to put in practice dates back to 1935 - do you see them as not important?

I know that the Nazis had plans to rid Europe of Jewry, not totally unlike many Europeans today want to rid Europe of muslims -- by kicking them out. Many "endloesungs" were discussed by the Germans and as late as after the war had started the Nazis planned to ship the Jews to Madagascar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

However, I have never seen any evidence of concrete extermination plans. In fact, among Holocaust scientists it is widely acknowledged that the research is plagued by a lack of concrete physical evidence of industrial extermination. Therefore I would be very greatful for any reference to such material.

p.s. removing the death camps from your political evaluation of fascism does put you in a minority...just not in the good way you'd like.

I regard the death camps as incidental, and largely a product of WWII which was also incidental. The evidence points in the direction that Hitler never had any intentions of starting a war. After the allies declared war Hitler was reportedly both very surprised and depressed. It was logical that Hitler was surprised. He was an ally with Stalin, and Stalin also invaded Poland. Yet Britain did not go to war with Stalin. Why? This was something Hitler could not have predicted and did not expect.

All the major deaths in the concentration camps occurred during the war, so if the war had't happened (which was not planned) then the evidence indicates that there would not have been any death camps either. Hence, the death camps are incidental, and not an integral part of Nazism, not any more integral than Stalin's death camps are to communism.

 

[nino_savatte]

Vidkun Quisling?

 

[Blagsta]

Wow, holocaust denial now!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, religion is a useful concept. It's a higher level abstraction than, say, Theism, which is a higher level abstraction than Christianity, which is itself a mid-level abstraction, encompassing Calvinism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, etc. Calling a Buddhist religious is fine - it fits the definition of the concept - it can fit without needing to redefine religion, there's no loss of descriptive power. Calling Buddhists Theists would be silly - they're not. Calling them Christians would be even dafter. But you're doing something even worse - you're labeling Buddhists as Catholics. That you cannot see this is very telling - it suggests a severe case of quasi-religious dogmatism. Again, if you read the Sartori article I linked way back in this thread it explains this. If you can come up with an abstraction that fits all the cases you label "fascist" then use it - you'll need to define it, show the group of unique character traits they all share, but you should be able to do it. Welfarism may be a better term. But at the moment you're taking a very specific term and applying it to just about everything, rendering it useless - by your definition every government ever has been fascist, which is bollocks. Fascism is a terrifying system of governance - you're diluting that terror and in a way you're making real fascism appear less malignant.

Yep. That's a good explanation.

I think I can see some of Onar's thinking coming through here, though. The comparison with religion is instructive in that way. It would appear that he is atheist, and he is right to say that most people in the world are not atheist. I'm atheist too, and I'm pretty damn sure I'm right in my atheism and those who are not atheists are wrong. Thus, even if 95% of the rest of the world thinks I'm wrong, or even nuts, I'm not going to be shaken from my (absence of)belief.

I think he views his political opinions in the same way. Here, he plays the role of the atheist who has seen through the hocus-pocus, while the rest of us play the role of the gullible believers, yet to have the wool pulled back from our eyes.