Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 98 of 98

Thread: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

  1. #81
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    8,824

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    We, fortunately, know the platforms of fascism and those are what should be used to measure how "fascist" an individual is in their ideology.
    Fascism includes the ideal of a society in which all people participate with a shared purpose (as does communism btw). Until someone is subscribing to this explicitly, I don't think the term 'fascist' is really applicable.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  2. #82

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    ...any comparison between the Tea Party and Fascism is wrong...Trump isnt Fascist or anything remotely close to that
    Some good points for a change.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Yeah? Which platform of fascism have I incorrectly described, mr. fascist expert?
    It isn't a descriptive inaccuracy, it's an inaccuracy in the way you're conceptualizing it in a 21st century context.

    As Sukiyama said, some serious pedantry. The point that you think I am unfairly comparing the American Right to fascism is clear, however you want to word it.
    1. Clarifying that I had not accused you of "slander" isn't pedantry.
    2. Sukiyama introduced a straw man and characterized it as my own. Rebuking this sort of rhetorical nonsense isn't pedantry.

    Wait, vague? I guess you just aren't reading my posts, I am pretty clear about the platforms and their distinctions with other ideologies. You may want to check out post 50 and 44. I list several fascist platforms and note that any particular one is not proof of fascist ideology, but rather the sum of many of the platforms. Nor have I accused any individual or even group of being fascists; what I said was that many fascist platforms were becoming popular again. I never claimed wanting national economic self-sufficiency meant one was a fascist or that only fascist wanted it either, you would be inaccurate to depict me as claiming otherwise. Reductio ad Hitlerum my ass. Hitler wasn't the end all be all of fascism, nor did I even mention him in his thread.
    You haven't provided evidence that platforms which were/are uniquely associated with fascism (hyper militarism, imperialism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, virulent antisemitism, radical authoritarianism etc.) are "becoming popular again". You instead made vague associations (without proper explanation) between the "American right" and fascism. The reality is that the only noticeable area of agreement between the "American right" and fascism is in their abhorrence of communism, though even in this case, not only are there are significant divergences in the intellectual rationale, but it has nothing to do with Trump.

    P.S: I had read your posts, hence my reference to autarky.

    You an econ expert now too? If you think I am inaccurately describing autarkic principles, feel free to point out how. I much prefer that to vague disagreement.
    You asked me why I had used quotation marks around the word autarky; I told you it was because I was citing your use of it. I don't know why that triggered you into sarcastically demanding to know whether I was "an econ expert now too".

    Wait, so you think that if the fascists governments made it through the war, they would have abandoned autarkic principles? I don't think I have ever heard that before.
    Neither do I. I don't know where you got that conclusion from.

    This seems like more pedantry, though, it is pretty clear that fascists supported national economic self-sufficiency. Whether you think they had a specific purpose for it is kind of besides the point.
    I'm not arguing that fascists didn't/don't support national self-sufficiency. I'm arguing that equating fascist autarky (which was predicated on the domination of resources via militarism) to Trumpism is an empty comparison.

    Uhuh, and a mixed economy with autarkic principles of protectionism are what fascists pushed for. Not very definitive by itself, now is it? Thank god I never claimed as much.
    Once again, it' s so lacking in definitiveness that you might as well not bother making the comparison. Mixed economies with autarkic and protectionist elements are applicable to virtually all societies.

    The current Right in the US is far more protectionist than they are Laissez-faire.
    They aren't, but even if they were, protectionism is - as explained above - just far to generic an idea/policy position for you to use it to draw a meaningful comparison between Trumpism and fascism.

    Indeed, fascists did not have a set goal for tax or regulation, it was all in service of economic self-sufficiency for the nation. When did I ever say otherwise?
    When did I say that you said otherwise?

    Literally nobody in this thread said or even implied as much. I even made a point of distancing myself from this kind of accusation. You seem adamant on making it seem like I was.
    You stated that there was a link between economic perspectives of fascists and Trump supporters which, it was implied, came via their alleged agreement on autarky. The only vaguely autarkic economic position that Trump has taken relates to trade protectionism and possibly climate change.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; September 01, 2019 at 09:17 AM.

  3. #83
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,528

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    This reminds me of an article I read a while ago.

    The Reflex toward Illiberal Democracy | National Review

    There are two rules for illiberal democracy.

    The first rule is that during an emergency certain illiberal and anti-democratic measures are necessary to ensure public safety, national security, and the practice of democracy itself.

    The second rule is that there is always an emergency.

    ...

    To the German political theorist Karl Loewenstein we owe the term streitbare Demokratie, or “militant democracy,” the principle that liberal democratic governments must sometimes employ illiberal and undemocratic means to fight nascent totalitarian movements. This is the theory under which Germany bans certain political parties (both neo-Nazi parties and some Communist parties) while countries such as Austria can hand down lengthy prison sentences for selling forbidden political books. The United States historically has not countenanced such invasions, and classical liberalism is embedded in our Constitution through the Bill of Rights — which is, it is important to understand, a check on democracy, putting certain principles beyond referendum. The American model has targeted such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan and the Weather Underground not as ideological offenders but as organizations engaged in criminal conspiracies independent of their political views, however repugnant those views may be. But the American Left (and, to a lesser extent, certain populist constituents of the Right) has abandoned that liberalism and looks partly to Western Europe for other models.

    ...

    If I may quote from The Smallest Minority:

    Loewenstein argued that fascism was not an ideology but a technique, which it is—one that is independent of any particular policy content and that can be made to serve any political agenda, from Hitler’s psychotic Jew-hatred to Mussolini’s romantic corporatism to Stalin’s “scientific” socialism to Antifa’s self-professed antifascism. The classical technique of fascism described by Loewenstein relied on exploiting nationalism or other appeals to solidarity, together with newly available forms of media and communication that could be harnessed to achieve “a supersession of constitutional government by emotional government.” One wonders what he might have made of 21st-century social media: “The technical devices for mobilizing emotionalism are ingenious and of amazing variety and efficacy,” he wrote, “although recently become more and more standardized. Among them, besides high-pitched nationalist enthusiasm, the most important expedient, perhaps, is permanent psychic coercion, at times amounting to intimidation and terrorization scientifically applied.”
    Loewenstein was of course correct about fascism being a technique; what he failed to appreciate was that his “militant democracy,” allowed to take its natural intellectual and political course, ends up being a technique, too — the same technique. The authoritarian political entrepreneur relies on a threat that is exterior, specific, and easily identified: Hitler and the Jews, the Communists and the capitalists, contemporary American progressives and the “1 percent,” etc. Where there is a real threat, it can be exaggerated, and its relationship with political opponents misconstrued. Where there is no useful threat at hand, one can be invented[.]

  4. #84

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Drawing parallels between the American right and fascism doesn't mean we are equating the two in totality. So let's drop that strawman before you get too excited.
    American right is very anti-government and libertarian to various degrees on most issues, so unless one's definition of "fascism" is being opposed to the left, then there aren't really any parallels to draw.

  5. #85

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It isn't a descriptive inaccuracy, it's an inaccuracy in the way you're conceptualizing it in a 21st century context.
    Then I guess I am confused how I can both accurately describe the ideology and not know what a fascist is at the same time. Whether you think I am inaccurate in my "conceptualizing it in a 21st century context" seems more like, uh, an opinion rather than me not knowing what a fascist is.

    I would agree that we aren't going to find a 1:1 policy comparison between fascists of the 30s to fascists of today, global politics is a bit different, but that is why we also have the more specifically current ideology of Neo-Fascism. For the sake of differentiating, wikipedia defines Neo-Fascism as:
    a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, racial supremacy, populism, authoritarianism, nativism, xenophobia and opposition to immigration, as well as opposition to liberal democracy, parliamentarianism, Marxism, communism and socialism.
    And, indeed, my original points in this thread (posts 44, 48, 50) were more focused around the political and social aspects of fascism that are more popular today.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    1. Clarifying that I had not accused you of "slander" isn't pedantry.
    2. Sukiyama introduced a straw man and characterized it as my own. Rebuking this sort of rhetorical nonsense isn't pedantry.
    Well it certainly seems like you want to play pedantic games, which I can do if you really want, I just find it tiring:

    I didn't say you accused me of slander, I said:"And you realize that, at least from my point of view, that I am not trying to slander the American Right by just inappropriately calling them fascists, right?"

    Clarifying that I am not trying to slander the American Right when I make comparisons to fascist platforms. It was just for clarity's sake
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You haven't provided evidence that platforms which were/are uniquely associated with fascism (hyper militarism, imperialism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, virulent antisemitism, radical authoritarianism etc.) are "becoming popular again". You instead made vague associations (without proper explanation) between the "American right" and fascism. The reality is that the only noticeable area of agreement between the "American right" and fascism is in their abhorrence of communism, though even in this case, not only are there are significant divergences in the intellectual rationale, but it has nothing to do with Trump.
    Probably because there isn't a specific political platform that is uniquely associated with any single ideology; that's why you can have comparisons at all. I don't know why you think I could point to some aspect of fascist ideology that literally only fascists believe. You have to look at the whole of the platforms and see how well someone lines up with them. Even in the post you jumped down my throat on for daring to mention autarky principles, what I had actually said was: "All the way from social to economic platforms, the preferred platforms fit in well with fascist ideology", not "Only fascists would support an autarkic economic policy". See how I am referencing a sum of platforms and not just one?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    P.S: I had read your posts, hence my reference to autarky.
    Then you probably shouldn't have said: "what really matters is that both Drumpf and Hitler support/supported protectionist trade policies, which, as we know, only fascists or their apologists can do."

    When I said in post 50: " Just because some person may support any given of the platforms I mentioned doesn't automatically make them a Fascist. If somebody finds themselves agreeing with most or all of the platforms, then it starts to become a lot more indicative. "
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You asked me why I had used quotation marks around the word autarky; I told you it was because I was citing your use of it. I don't know why that triggered you into sarcastically demanding to know whether I was "an econ expert now too".
    "Citing my use of it" implies that is not the proper or widely accepted use; otherwise it is just the term autarky. Is there another use I don't know about?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Neither do I. I don't know where you got that conclusion from.
    Probably from:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I said fascist interpretations of autarky were hyper militaristic. Citing the war economy serves only to prove my point that the fascist strategy for attaining self sufficiency was predicated on militarism.

    Which seems to be an attempt at separating "interpretations" of autarky from one another; or to imply, as I was reading it, that fascists would not have autarkic goals if they didn't also have military ones. You aren't referring to a different "interpretation" of autarky fascists may have had, you are simply stating another goal fascists had that autarky can facilitate. It's still an autarkic, protectionist policy, which seems fair to compare with other autarkic, protectionist policies (as opposed to, you know, an open global market). And, to make this clear again because you seem real touchy on it: just because someone has economic protectionist goals like fascists did doesn't mean that person is automatically a fascist. It's just one aspect to compare among many.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I'm not arguing that fascists didn't/don't support national self-sufficiency. I'm arguing that equating fascist autarky (which was predicated on the domination of resources via militarism) to Trumpism is an empty comparison.
    I never said "Trumpism" (I guess that is just Trump's policy?) is equatable to fascism. Though, I will again point out that there is not such thing as "fascist autarky", it's just autarky. At least that I have ever heard of or read.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Once again, it' s so lacking in definitiveness that you might as well not bother making the comparison.
    Good thing I never claimed anything definitive about it. But I will disagree there is no point in making comparisons. You make it seem like "autarkic protectionist policy" could be used to describe the economic policy any political ideology. It can't, that's why there is value in contrasting it with a liberal market, or a centrally planned market or any ideology that does not put emphasis on autarkic protectionist policies.

    If you want a more specific breakdown of economic policy of the fascists (Nazi Germany specifically) I would recommend this video, or at least that part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Mixed economies with autarkic and protectionist elements are applicable to virtually all societies.
    Woah now, we aren't talking about protectionist "elements", we are talking about an autarkic priority, which is certainly not applicable to virtually all societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    They aren't, but even if they were, protectionism is - as explained above - just far to generic an idea/policy position for you to use it to draw a meaningful comparison between Trumpism and fascism.
    Perhaps that statement was a bit crass so let me put it this way: the American Right (I guess you are calling them Trumpists?) are not particularly concerned with the type of economic policy so long as it furthers the social and political policies they want. Economic policies are secondary to, and informed by, socio-political ones. That's why there is an interest in national self-sufficiency at all instead of a more detailed economic plan or principle.

    And how many more times am I going to have to say that I don't think supporting an autarkic, protectionist policy itself does not indicate if someone is fascist?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    When did I say that you said otherwise?
    "Comparing this to the low tax, low regulation economic models favored by most people on the right is absurd."

    Seems to imply that fascists wanted an economic policy of high tax and high regulation, thereby differentiating them from people who want low tax, low regulation. Fascists did not have a set goal for taxation or regulation, so I don't see why you think this is a distinction.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You stated that there was a link between economic perspectives of fascists and Trump supporters which, it was implied, came via their alleged agreement on autarky. The only vaguely autarkic economic position that Trump has taken relates to trade protectionism and possibly climate change.
    This is rich coming from a guy that wanted to link interventionist war policies to Liberalism, but this seems like a huge step down from "what really matters is that both Drumpf and Hitler support/supported protectionist trade policies, which, as we know, only fascists or their apologists can do."

    Yes, I was drawing a comparison of the fascist goal for national economic self-sufficiency with other people who have the goal of national economic self-sufficiency. That seems like a fair comparison to make. I don't see how that is anything close to claim that only fascists or fascist apologists support protectionist trade policies.

    And economic self-sufficiency is a popular platform among the Right here in the US. I frequently have to listen to lofty dreams of bringing raw goods manufacturing back to the US or the disapproval of economic reliance on other nations from people on the Right here. Again, I don't think these people are necessarily fascists. You would definitely need to know more about their social and political platforms to know that.
    Last edited by The spartan; September 01, 2019 at 06:21 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  6. #86
    Tiro
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    215

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    It is a complex issue. And historically isn't always the right wing to have such ideas.

    Regardless our own history tell us about those incompatibilities, as well success cases.

    It isn't that ethnic groups should be separate or not. (in lots of cases they do separate themselves naturally), The problem is those processes are seldom pacific.
    Osiris Akkebala provides the grounds for his people to venture forth for their fates. He has a blog and yt channel.

    There have certainly been pacific elocutions of the repatriation of various different groups - which have included religions in the past, but also developed into ideologies, besides cultures - from nations that allowed themselves to become diverse. The violence stems from the opponents to these developments - the big question of life, civilization actually, is why is it good not is it progressing - promoting the same French Terror ideology of equality of people governed by a state. Voltaire criticized absolute power and yet the Europe of feudal caste provided an orgamization that no longer has power in the people, but the people have become the worst opponents to organization.
    Last edited by Bob69Joe; September 02, 2019 at 01:40 PM.
    Gornahoor|Liber esse, scientiam acquirere, veritatum loqui
    Crow states: "If you would be a great leader, then learn the way of the Tao. Relinquish the need to control. Let go of plans and of concepts. The world will govern itself. The more restrictive you are, the less virtuous people will be. The more force you display, the less secure they will feel. The more subsidies you provide, the less self-reliant they become. Therefore the master says: Un-write the law, thus the people become honest. Dispense with economics, thus the people become prosperous. Do without religion, thus the people become serene. Let go all desire for the common good, and the good becomes as common as the grass." ~ Lao Tzu - Tao te tching
    MONARCHY NATION TRANSCENDENCE

  7. #87

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. Could you perhaps articulate your thoughts better? Or maybe I'm just exceptionally thick tonight, in which case, would you mind using plainer, more direct language?

  8. #88

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Hmm...
    Let's look at the Fascist platform and see how well it is lined up with by someone:

    The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle, published in The People of Italy on June 6, 1919.

    For the political problem: We demand:

    a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.
    b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years.
    c) The abolition of the Senate.
    d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State.
    e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.

    For the social problems: We demand:

    a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.
    b) A minimum wage.
    c) The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions.
    d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.
    e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries.
    f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.

    For the military problem: We demand:

    a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.
    b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
    c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.

    For the financial problem: We demand:

    a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
    b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
    c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein
    Last edited by Infidel144; September 02, 2019 at 08:15 AM.

  9. #89

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Then I guess I am confused how I can both accurately describe the ideology and not know what a fascist is at the same time.
    Proper understanding involves more than the ability to make generic statements about a specific topic.

    Whether you think I am inaccurate in my "conceptualizing it in a 21st century context" seems more like, uh, an opinion rather than me not knowing what a fascist is.
    Your insistence on associating the "American right" with fascism is evidence that you don't really know what fascism is.

    I would agree that we aren't going to find a 1:1 policy comparison between fascists of the 30s to fascists of today, global politics is a bit different, but that is why we also have the more specifically current ideology of Neo-Fascism. For the sake of differentiating, wikipedia defines Neo-Fascism as:
    The overwhelming majority of Americans who adhere to right wing perspectives are not neo-fascist.

    And, indeed, my original points in this thread (posts 44, 48, 50) were more focused around the political and social aspects of fascism that are more popular today.
    I didn't see any reference to contemporary fascistic expression in those posts.

    Well it certainly seems like you want to play pedantic games, which I can do if you really want, I just find it tiring

    I didn't say you accused me of slander, I said:"And you realize that, at least from my point of view, that I am not trying to slander the American Right by just inappropriately calling them fascists, right?"

    Clarifying that I am not trying to slander the American Right when I make comparisons to fascist platforms. It was just for clarity's sake
    You asked me a question and I answered it. That isn't pedantry.

    Probably because there isn't a specific political platform that is uniquely associated with any single ideology; that's why you can have comparisons at all. I don't know why you think I could point to some aspect of fascist ideology that literally only fascists believe. You have to look at the whole of the platforms and see how well someone lines up with them. Even in the post you jumped down my throat on for daring to mention autarky principles, what I had actually said was: "All the way from social to economic platforms, the preferred platforms fit in well with fascist ideology", not "Only fascists would support an autarkic economic policy". See how I am referencing a sum of platforms and not just one?
    The statement that the the views of the American right "fit in well with fascist ideology" is simply false. The only areas in which fascists and the American right coincide is with respect to their dislike of communism and, to a much lesser extent, their position on protectionism.

    Then you probably shouldn't have said: "what really matters is that both Drumpf and Hitler support/supported protectionist trade policies, which, as we know, only fascists or their apologists can do."

    When I said in post 50: " Just because some person may support any given of the platforms I mentioned doesn't automatically make them a Fascist. If somebody finds themselves agreeing with most or all of the platforms, then it starts to become a lot more indicative. "
    The claims you made about the views of the American right coinciding with the views of fascists supersede your attempts to qualify your associative argument.

    "Citing my use of it" implies that is not the proper or widely accepted use; otherwise it is just the term autarky. Is there another use I don't know about?
    No, it doesn't.

    Which seems to be an attempt at separating "interpretations" of autarky from one another; or to imply, as I was reading it, that fascists would not have autarkic goals if they didn't also have military ones. You aren't referring to a different "interpretation" of autarky fascists may have had, you are simply stating another goal fascists had that autarky can facilitate. It's still an autarkic, protectionist policy, which seems fair to compare with other autarkic, protectionist policies (as opposed to, you know, an open global market). And, to make this clear again because you seem real touchy on it: just because someone has economic protectionist goals like fascists did doesn't mean that person is automatically a fascist. It's just one aspect to compare among many.
    You see, this is why I really don't think you understand fascism. Militarism was the means by which the Axis powers sought to attain national self-sufficiency, not the other way around. The Germans tried to use the Wehrmacht to prevent the international community from limiting its supplies of food and oil as had been the case in WWI. That's why the farming territory of the Ukraine and the oil fields of the Caucuses (from Maikop to Baku) were strategic priorities. Similarly, the Japanese wanted to break out of the US stranglehold by dominating the resource rich regions in China, Indonesia and Singapore.

    I never said "Trumpism" (I guess that is just Trump's policy?) is equatable to fascism. Though, I will again point out that there is not such thing as "fascist autarky", it's just autarky. At least that I have ever heard of or read.
    Autarky refers to national self-sufficiency; fascist autarky refers to the strategy by which the Axis powers sought to attain national self-sufficiency. There are plenty of ways that a nation can attempt to become self-reliant without going to war with half the world you know.

    Good thing I never claimed anything definitive about it. But I will disagree there is no point in making comparisons. You make it seem like "autarkic protectionist policy" could be used to describe the economic policy any political ideology. It can't, that's why there is value in contrasting it with a liberal market, or a centrally planned market or any ideology that does not put emphasis on autarkic protectionist policies.
    "Liberal markets" use protectionism all the time; what do you think a common external tariff is? Protectionist policies are standard international practice - until Trump does it. Then suddenly comparisons between protectionism and fascism become valid again. If I started trying making latent associations between the European Union and the Third Reich on the basis that both are protectionist, our resident lefties/cosmopolitans would lose their minds.

    If you want a more specific breakdown of economic policy of the fascists (Nazi Germany specifically) I would recommend this video, or at least that part of it.
    I've had plenty of arguments with conservatives/right wing independents on this board about the existence of private ownership in Nazi Germany evidencing that the NSDAP wasn't really "left-wing" in the sense of state ownership of the means of production. That still doesn't mean that the fascist economies of Italy and Germany weren't "planned", it just means that the planning wasn't of the communist variety. Also I don't think I need the advice of a YouTube historian.

    Woah now, we aren't talking about protectionist "elements", we are talking about an autarkic priority, which is certainly not applicable to virtually all societies.
    I don't know a single American who treats the acquisition of national self sufficiency as an economic "priority". Not one. The US is already self-sufficient in food and crude oil and almost self-sufficient in energy. The expectation that American commercial interests to be given preferential treatment by Washington, particularly with respect to strategic competitors like China and Russia isn't autarkic - its just financially self-serving and entirely normal within the scope of humanity.

    Perhaps that statement was a bit crass so let me put it this way: the American Right (I guess you are calling them Trumpists?) are not particularly concerned with the type of economic policy so long as it furthers the social and political policies they want. Economic policies are secondary to, and informed by, socio-political ones. That's why there is an interest in national self-sufficiency at all instead of a more detailed economic plan or principle.
    This is just your own invention.

    And how many more times am I going to have to say that I don't think supporting an autarkic, protectionist policy itself does not indicate if someone is fascist?
    At least once more.

    Seems to imply that fascists wanted an economic policy of high tax and high regulation, thereby differentiating them from people who want low tax, low regulation. Fascists did not have a set goal for taxation or regulation, so I don't see why you think this is a distinction.
    1. Lowering taxation and reducing regulation is one of (if not the) primary economic objective of the mainstream American right. These objectives bear no relation to fascist principles.

    2. Lowering taxes and limiting regulations decreases the influence that the government can exert over the populace. Since state worship/authoritarianism is a central premise of fascist ideology, it standards to reason that a fascist wouldn't prioritize attempting to limit the state's interference in the economy.

    This is rich coming from a guy that wanted to link interventionist war policies to Liberalism, but this seems like a huge step down from "what really matters is that both Drumpf and Hitler support/supported protectionist trade policies, which, as we know, only fascists or their apologists can do."
    I didn't want to "link interventionist war policies to liberalism"; I showed that Anglo-American foreign policy since the end of WW2 were both liberal and interventionist. If you're still not convinced go and read the posts of Legio Italica. He's pretty much a mouthpiece for liberal hawkishness and the mic.

    Yes, I was drawing a comparison of the fascist goal for national economic self-sufficiency with other people who have the goal of national economic self-sufficiency. That seems like a fair comparison to make. I don't see how that is anything close to claim that only fascists or fascist apologists support protectionist trade policies.
    Except once again, no one on the mainstream right actually prioritizes "economic self-sufficiency". The reason protectionism was brought into it is because that is pretty much the only vaguely autarkic principle that people on the right support.

    And economic self-sufficiency is a popular platform among the Right here in the US. I frequently have to listen to lofty dreams of bringing raw goods manufacturing back to the US or the disapproval of economic reliance on other nations from people on the Right here. Again, I don't think these people are necessarily fascists. You would definitely need to know more about their social and political platforms to know that.
    As above, you're confusing prioritizing American commercial interests and facilitating its global financial dominance with "autarky". And by the way, supporting domestic industry is a classic left wing position which was adopted by Trump.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; September 02, 2019 at 11:58 AM.

  10. #90

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Proper understanding involves more than the ability to make generic statements about a specific topic.
    This sounds like more pedantry. Fascism is an ideology made up of ideals and principles. I can accurately describe the ideals and principles, but that isn't a "proper" understanding for you? Ya sure I am not just discussing it in a way you do not like?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Your insistence on associating the "American right" with fascism is evidence that you don't really know what fascism is.
    Do you know what thread you are in? Do you know what a comparison is? FFS, I could fairly compare aspects of fascism to progressivism and have done so in the past. If you get triggered out of some need to protect the political Right in America like a mother hen, that is on you, not me being uninformed about what a fascist is. A political platform is just that, people can either ascribe to it or not.

    But lets just check on the platforms that wikipedia listed for Neo-Fascism (citing this source):
    Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, racial supremacy, populism, authoritarianism, nativism, xenophobia and opposition to immigration, as well as opposition to liberal democracy, parliamentarianism, Marxism, communism and socialism.
    You see nothing there that could fairly be used for even a comparison with the current Right in America? C'mon man, do you really want to die on this hill? I am not even allowed to draw obvious comparisons, in a thread about the resurgence of fascism, without you diving down my throat because it offends you?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The overwhelming majority of Americans who adhere to right wing perspectives are not neo-fascist.
    That is quite possibly true, sure; but as the Hemingway quote alludes to in the OP, that could very well be a moot point. The Nazi Party was not very popular in Germany initially. Most of their supporters were gained shortly before they took power in the early 30s as the Wiemar Republic was crumbling under crises. This thread is about the resurgence of fascist ideologies in parts of the world. I am noting obvious comparisons with the American Right and fascist (now Neo-Fascist) ideology such as xenophobia, dismissal of traditional institutions (the similarity to progressives rather than conservatives), understanding domestic issues through ethnic conflict, nativism and focus on native mythos, among some others. Now, you can either deny these similar ideals or, as you seem to be doing, state that these comparison provide no useful means of distinction. That would be weird, though, as we do not typically accept the fantasy that most political ideologies also promote these platforms; only some of them do. Ideologies that share similar platforms can be more appropriately compared that those that don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I didn't see any reference to contemporary fascistic expression in those posts.
    Of course not, ultranationalism is completely unrelated to the policy "America First". Indeed, as the policy "America first" was unrelated to the America First Committee which, in turn, was unrelated to the America First Party and the Silver Legion of America. Absolutely no comparisons to draw there, no sir.

    I think my personal fav demonstration of this was in the legendary "Trump shove":
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    It's our party, baby!

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You asked me a question and I answered it. That isn't pedantry.
    Then I guess don't slander me by accusing me of accusing you of accusing me of slander? I have lost track. This is a good use of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The statement that the the views of the American right "fit in well with fascist ideology" is simply false. The only areas in which fascists and the American right coincide is with respect to their dislike of communism and, to a much lesser extent, their position on protectionism.
    And nationalism. And nativism. And pro-ethnic hierarchy.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The claims you made about the views of the American right coinciding with the views of fascists supersede your attempts to qualify your associative argument.
    You know I said: "Just because some person may support any given of the platforms I mentioned doesn't automatically make them a Fascist."

    Before you said: "what really matters is that both Drumpf and Hitler support/supported protectionist trade policies, which, as we know, only fascists or their apologists can do."

    Right?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You see, this is why I really don't think you understand fascism. Militarism was the means by which the Axis powers sought to attain national self-sufficiency, not the other way around. The Germans tried to use the Wehrmacht to prevent the international community from limiting its supplies of food and oil as had been the case in WWI. That's why the farming territory of the Ukraine and the oil fields of the Caucuses (from Maikop to Baku) were strategic priorities. Similarly, the Japanese wanted to break out of the US stranglehold by dominating the resource rich regions in China, Indonesia and Singapore.
    Fascism did not exist for the exclusive purpose of military conquest. Especially when you have the context of fascists groups in America at the time, like the Silver Shirts, it was unlikely that their priorities involved military conquest. Fascists in America also often had a theological bent to their goals, with the Christian Party being the political face of the Silver Legion. I am not buying this idea that you can only be a fascist if you want to embark on military conquest.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Autarky refers to national self-sufficiency; fascist autarky refers to the strategy by which the Axis powers sought to attain national self-sufficiency. There are plenty of ways that a nation can attempt to become self-reliant without going to war with half the world you know.
    Fascism existed outside of the Axis powers, you know. Unless you think the American fascist parties were not autarkic as well (or that they should not have been considered fascist), I don't see your point.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    "Liberal markets" use protectionism all the time; what do you think a common external tariff is? Protectionist policies are standard international practice - until Trump does it. Then suddenly comparisons between protectionism and fascism become valid again. If I started trying making latent associations between the European Union and the Third Reich on the basis that both are protectionist, our resident lefties/cosmopolitans would lose their minds.
    Who said wanting a particular protectionist policy made one a fascist? Autarky is the overall principle that the nation should be economically self-sufficient, not any given protectionist policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I've had plenty of arguments with conservatives/right wing independents on this board about the existence of private ownership in Nazi Germany evidencing that the NSDAP wasn't really "left-wing" in the sense of state ownership of the means of production. That still doesn't mean that the fascist economies of Italy and Germany weren't "planned", it just means that the planning wasn't of the communist variety. Also I don't think I need the advice of a YouTube historian.
    They specifically were not centrally planned (until 1942), hence the "mixed economy" thing. Communists do central planning.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I don't know a single American who treats the acquisition of national self sufficiency as an economic "priority". Not one. The US is already self-sufficient in food and crude oil and almost self-sufficient in energy. The expectation that American commercial interests to be given preferential treatment by Washington, particularly with respect to strategic competitors like China and Russia isn't autarkic - its just financially self-serving and entirely normal within the scope of humanity.
    Maybe you don't know many Americans? Right wingers I know would love for their manufactured goods to be made in American using American raw goods. At least, they think they would love it. This is often generalized into wanting to use protectionist policies to "bring manufacturing jobs back to America". There is also a feeling among the Right that it is bad for America to be reliant on foreign economies as well, a kind of reaction to the globalizing world economy, I guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is just your own invention.
    Huh, how do you think the American Right feels about regulating tech industries like Google, Twitter, or Amazon? It seems like they become suddenly pro-regulation when they think there is politics at stake.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    At least once more.
    I know how sensitive you can be.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    1. Lowering taxation and reducing regulation is one of (if not the) primary economic objective of the mainstream American right. These objectives bear no relation to fascist principles.
    I mean, tariffs are literally a tax, so they can't be that anti-tax. Plus what I said about their shifting stance of regulation given it's political importance, I don't think the American Right are married to the idea of lower taxes and regulation. They seem to shift it around depending on how they think it will effect socio-political issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    2. Lowering taxes and limiting regulations decreases the influence that the government can exert over the populace. Since state worship/authoritarianism is a central premise of fascist ideology, it standards to reason that a fascist wouldn't prioritize attempting to limit the state's interference in the economy.
    No, lowering spending decreases the influence the government can exert, and the Right has no particular interest in reducing spending whenever they are in power. The Trump administration consistently propose increasing the military budget year after year and his supporters seem just fine with it. Even Rand Paul signed off on the big Republican tax cut without matching it with reduced spending. They don't care about the size of the government; they like it big when they have the presidency. This is nothing to say of the desperately wanted giant border wall that would increase federal government influence on the border.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I didn't want to "link interventionist war policies to liberalism"; I showed that Anglo-American foreign policy since the end of WW2 were both liberal and interventionist. If you're still not convinced go and read the posts of Legio Italica. He's pretty much a mouthpiece for liberal hawkishness and the mic.
    Ok, then I don't want to "link the American Right with Fascists"; I am just showing that policies the American Right supports after 2010 are both protectionist and ethnically focused.

    I mean, seriously dude? You are now going to deny you were trying to draw a connection between Liberalism and the Iraq War (and other interventionist wars)? This deserves a hagfish:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    As above, you're confusing prioritizing American commercial interests and facilitating its global financial dominance with "autarky". And by the way, supporting domestic industry is a classic left wing position which was adopted by Trump.
    Wtf is "prioritizing American commercial interests" and what does it have to do with protectionist policies? I don't think promoting American over Chinese steel is "prioritizing American commercial interests" or "facilitating it's global financial dominance". The value you get out of protectionist policies is almost always political rather than economic. Cheaper steel would, I think, be better for American commercial interests than trying to hold on to steel manufacturing in the continental US. The only value I see in the latter is that it allows for more national self-sufficiency.

    And feel free to compare fascist platforms to the Left, there are some to be made. I don't think it will get you too far, though.
    Last edited by The spartan; September 02, 2019 at 09:08 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  11. #91

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    This sounds like more pedantry. Fascism is an ideology made up of ideals and principles. I can accurately describe the ideals and principles, but that isn't a "proper" understanding for you? Ya sure I am not just discussing it in a way you do not like?
    It's a bit like how I can describe, lets say, what a computer is without really understanding how it works.

    Do you know what thread you are in? Do you know what a comparison is? FFS, I could fairly compare aspects of fascism to progressivism and have done so in the past. If you get triggered out of some need to protect the political Right in America like a mother hen, that is on you, not me being uninformed about what a fascist is. A political platform is just that, people can either ascribe to it or not.
    The comparisons you're making are largely empty. The point of a political comparison to highlight meaningful parallels or divergences not just generic similarities which are lacking in informative value.
    But lets just check on the platforms that wikipedia listed for Neo-Fascism (citing this source):

    You see nothing there that could fairly be used for even a comparison with the current Right in America? C'mon man, do you really want to die on this hill? I am not even allowed to draw obvious comparisons, in a thread about the resurgence of fascism, without you diving down my throat because it offends you?
    If you'd bothered reading my comments, you would have seen that I explicitly stated - twice - that the American right opposes communism. The rest of the things listed are not supported by the mainstream American right.

    That is quite possibly true, sure; but as the Hemingway quote alludes to in the OP, that could very well be a moot point. The Nazi Party was not very popular in Germany initially. Most of their supporters were gained shortly before they took power in the early 30s as the Wiemar Republic was crumbling under crises. This thread is about the resurgence of fascist ideologies in parts of the world. I am noting obvious comparisons with the American Right and fascist (now Neo-Fascist) ideology such as xenophobia, dismissal of traditional institutions (the similarity to progressives rather than conservatives), understanding domestic issues through ethnic conflict, nativism and focus on native mythos, among some others. Now, you can either deny these similar ideals or, as you seem to be doing, state that these comparison provide no useful means of distinction. That would be weird, though, as we do not typically accept the fantasy that most political ideologies also promote these platforms; only some of them do. Ideologies that share similar platforms can be more appropriately compared that those that don't.
    1. The American right is no more "xenophobic" now than it has been historically; progressives have just developed a greater sensitivity to "bigotry".

    2. Show me evidence that the American right has become more dismissive of US institutions over recent years. I've not once heard anyone belonging to the mainstream right arguing for any significant structural changes to any of the major pillars of state, least of all the Constitution. People complain about the overreach of the "deep state" (by which they mean the intelligence community) and the dishonesty of the press, not the fundamental structure of the nation.

    3. It is the progressive wing of US politics which is currently seeking to use ethnic conflict as a means of control, not the right. As well you know, the relevance of white nationalism is wildly overstated.

    Of course not, ultranationalism is completely unrelated to the policy "America First". Indeed, as the policy "America first" was unrelated to the America First Committee which, in turn, was unrelated to the America First Party and the Silver Legion of America. Absolutely no comparisons to draw there, no sir.
    Trump's "America First" policies aren't "ultra-nationalistic"; the fact that you can draw a linguistic comparison to the Silver Shirts is functionally irrelevant.

    Then I guess don't slander me by accusing me of accusing you of accusing me of slander? I have lost track. This is a good use of time.
    Or just don't cry about pedantry when I gave you a straight forward answer to a question.

    And nationalism. And nativism.
    Not to any such extent that warrants comparisons with fascist ultra-nationalism.

    And pro-ethnic hierarchy.
    I've never heard of anyone from the mainstream right in the US who's in favour of an "ethnic hierarchy".

    You know I said: "Just because some person may support any given of the platforms I mentioned doesn't automatically make them a Fascist."
    Before you said: "what really matters is that both Drumpf and Hitler support/supported protectionist trade policies, which, as we know, only fascists or their apologists can do."

    Right?
    As I say, the comments you made about the American right largely reduced your attempts to protect yourself via caveats to a point of irrelevance. I don't know how else you expect people to interpret comments such as "all the way from social to economic platforms, the preferred platforms [of the American right] fit in well with fascist ideology" other than as a guarded articulation of the view that the American right has become/is fundamentally fascistic.

    Fascism did not exist for the exclusive purpose of military conquest. Especially when you have the context of fascists groups in America at the time, like the Silver Shirts, it was unlikely that their priorities involved military conquest. Fascists in America also often had a theological bent to their goals, with the Christian Party being the political face of the Silver Legion. I am not buying this idea that you can only be a fascist if you want to embark on military conquest.
    I didn't say that fascism existed "for the exclusive purpose of military conquest". I said that fascist solutions to the problem of international interdependence were fundamentally militaristic.

    Fascism existed outside of the Axis powers, you know. Unless you think the American fascist parties were not autarkic as well (or that they should not have been considered fascist), I don't see your point.
    I think that American fascist parties were and are irrelevant garbage which lacked any sort of ideologically coherent vision. Nevertheless, I don't doubt for a moment that they would gladly use violence to achieve national self sufficiency if they thought it was possible.

    Who said wanting a particular protectionist policy made one a fascist? Autarky is the overall principle that the nation should be economically self-sufficient, not any given protectionist policy.
    As previously mentioned, the only significant link between the current crop of American right wingers and autarky is their interest in protectionism. That's why we're discussing it.

    They specifically were not centrally planned (until 1942), hence the "mixed economy" thing. Communists do central planning.
    Fascist economies were planned (albeit not initially "centrally planned" in the strictest sense) insofar as they were contingent upon the fundamental economic transformation which would occur as a result of the state's policy of total war.

    Maybe you don't know many Americans?
    Yeah, I don't know many Americans

    Right wingers I know would love for their manufactured goods to be made in American using American raw goods. At least, they think they would love it. This is often generalized into wanting to use protectionist policies to "bring manufacturing jobs back to America". There is also a feeling among the Right that it is bad for America to be reliant on foreign economies as well, a kind of reaction to the globalizing world economy, I guess.
    Wanting the US to remain competitive in the global market place isn't autarkic.

    Huh, how do you think the American Right feels about regulating tech industries like Google, Twitter, or Amazon? It seems like they become suddenly pro-regulation when they think there is politics at stake.
    Well I didn't say that the American right was entirely consistent; the world is far to complex for all hypocrisies to be avoided. Though let's not pretend that the cognitive dissonance is generally limited to the right: I might just as well point out that progressives favour preventing exclusionary practices until its conservatives being excluded from social media or higher education and they favour reasonably strict economic regulations except until people start asking for proper border controls.

    You know tariffs are a tax, right?
    They are - but they aren't a tax on domestic consumers (even though you can make the argument that they can increase costs).

    Plus what I said about their shifting stance of regulation given it's political importance, I don't think the American Right are married to the idea of lower taxes and regulation. They seem to shift it around depending on how they think it will effect socio-political issues.
    Not really. People tend to care about their money far more than they care about "socio-political" issues.

    No, lowering spending decreases the influence the government can exert, and the Right has no particular interest in reducing spending whenever they are in power.
    That's only true if you're operating inside of a global financial system where attracting foreign investment and lenders is possible. I'm not sure how fascists would feel about owing trillions of dollars to private debtors; I have a feeling they'd rather extract their wealth via taxation, exploitation and conquest.

    The Trump administration consistently propose increasing the military budget year after year and his supporters seem just fine with it. Even Rand Paul signed off on the big Republican tax cut without matching it with reduced spending. They don't care about the size of the government; they like it big when they have the presidency. This is nothing to say of the desperately wanted giant border wall that would increase federal government influence on the border.
    This is more a commentary on western perceptions on the function of the state than it is on the American right.

    Ok, then I don't want to "link the American Right with Fascists"; I am just showing that policies the American Right supports after 2010 are both protectionist and ethnically focused.
    That's at least a more reasonable way of framing it - even if the "ethnically focused element is debatable.

    I mean, seriously dude? You are now going to deny you were trying to draw a connection between Liberalism and the Iraq War (and other interventionist wars)?
    Correct: I wasn't trying.

    Wtf is "prioritizing American commercial interests" and what does it have to do with protectionist policies?
    Prioritizing American commercial interests means placing the financial concerns of American producers, consumers and markets above the financial concerns of foreign producers, consumers and markets. Protectionism can (and often has) been used as a mechanism for facilitating these domestic interests.

    I don't think promoting American over Chinese steel is "prioritizing American commercial interests" or "facilitating it's global financial dominance". The value you get out of protectionist policies is almost always political rather than economic. Cheaper steel would, I think, be better for American commercial interests than trying to hold on to steel manufacturing in the continental US. The only value I see in the latter is that it allows for more national self-sufficiency.
    Chinese steel dumping destroys domestic industries. That's why organizations like the European Union have placed exorbitant tariffs on it. This has to do with maintaining domestic competitiveness, and standards not autarky.

    And feel free to compare fascist platforms to the Left, there are some to be made. I don't think it will get you too far, though.
    Protectionism isn't really a "fascist" platform - that's the point.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; September 03, 2019 at 06:11 AM.

  12. #92

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Finally got around to it, though I think it is sloppier than it was originally, thanks for the understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It's a bit like how I can describe, lets say, what a computer is without really understanding how it works.
    I am not sure if I follow the analogy of how a mechanical device functions to that of a political ideology. And you specifically said that I don't know "what a fascist is", but now I know what a fascist is just not how they work?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The comparisons you're making are largely empty. The point of a political comparison to highlight meaningful parallels or divergences not just generic similarities which are lacking in informative value.

    As I say, the comments you made about the American right largely reduced your attempts to protect yourself via caveats to a point of irrelevance. I don't know how else you expect people to interpret comments such as "all the way from social to economic platforms, the preferred platforms [of the American right] fit in well with fascist ideology" other than as a guarded articulation of the view that the American right has become/is fundamentally fascistic.
    I would imagine that the "meaningfulness" of a comparison is dependent on one's opinion, but I would disagree that there no value whatsoever in these comparisons. If I were to more properly lay out my thesis statement, it would be something along the lines of:

    Over the past 25 years, about as long as I have been politically aware, the American Right has been understood as ideologically conservative and pro-free market. But in the period of 2008-2010, it seems as if a lot of Right wing platforms shifted to a much more populist, nativist stance with a contempt for the status quo. This is covered in the book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism which has that quote: "[The Republican party] is an insurgent outlier--ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government." These shifts toward right-wing populist nativism, in my opinion, seem to be going in the direction of fascism. So I would disagree in the characterization of my point being "the American right has become/is fundamentally fascistic", but rather "the American Right have been, from political, to social, to economic platforms, shifting more towards a fascistic ideology."

    I would also like to note that from what I know about how you post, you would not accept this kind of "so what you are saying is" criticism leveled at you by an opponent. I don't know why you want it to seem like I think people are just fascists based off of minimal information. It's not even like I post fascist alarmist posts in other threads or anything. I am just discussing in this thread about fascism.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    If you'd bothered reading my comments, you would have seen that I explicitly stated - twice - that the American right opposes communism. The rest of the things listed are not supported by the mainstream American right.

    Yes, I saw you mentioned opposing communism, I guess I presumed it was clear I meant "other than an opposition to communism" given the other platforms to which to draw obvious comparisons too. Hell, you can throw opposition to liberalism in there while you are at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    1. The American right is no more "xenophobic" now than it has been historically; progressives have just developed a greater sensitivity to "bigotry".
    I would disagree, the Right has seemed to have been more agitated by the demographic changes of the past few decades. Try comparing the rhetoric Trump uses regarding immigration and comparing it to the rhetoric used by the Bushes or even ole Ronnie Reagan. I would imagine many on the Right today vehemently disagree with Reagan's depiction of immigration there.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    2. Show me evidence that the American right has become more dismissive of US institutions over recent years. I've not once heard anyone belonging to the mainstream right arguing for any significant structural changes to any of the major pillars of state, least of all the Constitution. People complain about the overreach of the "deep state" (by which they mean the intelligence community) and the dishonesty of the press, not the fundamental structure of the nation.
    I will recommend It's Even Worse Than It Looks as Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein could explain it better than I ever could. Their take on the issue is pretty much laid out in the quote; the Republican party has been unique in their attempts at partisanship in congress and taking political hostages, effectively reducing congress's ability to govern. You could also check out this talk by Charles Sykes who has the interesting quote about 15 mins in: "I don't know what the future of the Republican party is going to be. The party has shown itself to be more invertebrate than I expected. As I say in the book, a Republican party that was deeply conservative or actually had fixed principles would never have nominated Donald Trump. A party without fixed principles or one open to the kind of nationalist nativism that he represents would've nominated him."

    But I suspect you want examples given by me as they would be much easier to attack so I will try to oblige. There is a good chance we will not have a SCOTUS nominee confirmed by an opposition Senate for the foreseeable future thanks to Right-wing partisan manuevers. The Right supported Trump in not even attempting to negotiate with Democrats over border wall funding, just skipped to the longest government shutdown in history part, and continued to support him when he declared a National Emergency to get funding when the Dems didn't cave. The Right's acceptance of Trump's attempts to interfere with and control an investigation of himself. Political norms and practices have changed dramatically from even 10 years ago, primarily pushed by the Right, that have disrupted the normal functioning of the government. And the Right approves of this.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    3. It is the progressive wing of US politics which is currently seeking to use ethnic conflict as a means of control, not the right.


    I don't see how perceived stance of progressives negates the Right's concern with preserving the "White" identity in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    As well you know, the relevance of white nationalism is wildly overstated.
    Depends on what you mean by "relevance". Do I think that most of the Right want to go out an march with the Nazis from the Charlottesville rally? Of course not. Do I think that the Right is concerned with keeping an ethnically "White" majority in the US? Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Trump's "America First" policies aren't "ultra-nationalistic"; the fact that you can draw a linguistic comparison to the Silver Shirts is functionally irrelevant.
    I doubt I could get you to agree that anything in the West is "ultra"-nationalistic at the moment, but for ultranationalism I get the the definition "extreme nationalism that promotes the interest of one state or people above all others" which seems relevant to an "America First" foreign policy. Suffice it to say it is certainly nationalistic, the "ultra" part is going to always be a judgement call. Speaking of America First, though, it seems to be a foreign policy that "emphasizes U.S. nationalism and unilateralism". Are you sure the comparisons to Trump's "America First" platform are purely cosmetic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Or just don't cry about pedantry when I gave you a straight forward answer to a question.
    Ok, then don't misrepresent me as saying or implying that only fascists or fascist sympathizers could support autarky.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Not to any such extent that warrants comparisons with fascist ultra-nationalism.
    If we are going to need your approval on the "extent" of nationalism or nativism necessary to warrant fair comparisons to fascism, I doubt this line of conversation would get anywhere. At least you are admitting that the American Right are nationalistic and nativist.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I've never heard of anyone from the mainstream right in the US who's in favour of an "ethnic hierarchy".
    Sure you have, just not in a way that's like a literal ethnic caste system. The fear of "Whites" falling into the minority betrays the perception that to be a minority is to have a "lesser" status in the US, which is apparently appropriate for non-"Whites" but not "Whites". This could also be understood as "White" Americans being perceived as "more American" than non-"White" Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I didn't say that fascism existed "for the exclusive purpose of military conquest". I said that fascist solutions to the problem of international interdependence were fundamentally militaristic.
    You were alluding to an intrinsic link between fascist ideology and military conquest for resources. That is not an intrinsic part of fascism. While a fascist government may think it is necessary to use it's military to pursue self-sufficiency, fascism can exist in a nation in where that wouldn't seem necessary to do so, such as the US.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I think that American fascist parties were and are irrelevant garbage which lacked any sort of ideologically coherent vision. Nevertheless, I don't doubt for a moment that they would gladly use violence to achieve national self sufficiency if they thought it was possible.
    Their perceived political relevancy at the time is besides the point, we were discussing their ideology. The popularity of ideologies can change over time.

    Also the America First Committee was one the largest anti-war organizations of all time. While I would agree that fascism has never enjoyed mainstream popularity in the US, I think it would also be ridiculous to call it irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    As previously mentioned, the only significant link between the current crop of American right wingers and autarky is their interest in protectionism. That's why we're discussing it.
    I am a bit wary of what all you are counting as protectionism, because that could be a lot of different policies in terms of autarky. I think wanting to bring back raw goods manufacturing (which implies we have already lost our comparative advantage in that industry) is a pretty severe protectionist stance to take.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Fascist economies were planned (albeit not initially "centrally planned" in the strictest sense) insofar as they were contingent upon the fundamental economic transformation which would occur as a result of the state's policy of total war.
    No, actually, at least in regards to Nazi Germany, their conversion to a total war economy in 1942 came as a surprise to them as they thought the war would be over by then. Their previous economic policy was not expected to convert into total war mobilization, but fortunately for them (and unfortunately for the rest of the world), autarkic principles line up with national mobilization.


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Well I didn't say that the American right was entirely consistent; the world is far to complex for all hypocrisies to be avoided. Though let's not pretend that the cognitive dissonance is generally limited to the right: I might just as well point out that progressives favour preventing exclusionary practices until its conservatives being excluded from social media or higher education and they favour reasonably strict economic regulations except until people start asking for proper border controls.
    Whataboutism aside, this was sort of my point, no? You were saying the American Right prioritizes lower regulation and I was saying their economic views of lower regulation were secondary to their political concerns. It seems as if they will abandon this economic principle if they see a political objective.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    They are - but they aren't a tax on domestic consumers (even though you can make the argument that they can increase costs).
    Not just that it increases costs, it increases them directly proportional to the imposed tariff. From the consumer's perspective, a tariff is effectively a consumption tax as I don't think consumers care where the US government is picking up the revenue, they just care how much money they have to spend to get the good. And don't forget that businesses can act as consumers as well, and if a business is reliant on foreign imports to make their own goods and services, those increased costs have to be past on to their individual consumers if they want to maintain their margins.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Not really. People tend to care about their money far more than they care about "socio-political" issues.
    I think this is a half-truth. People care about money once it's gone, but they will also brazen with it when they have it. This is why we had those idiots in 2007-2008 saying we should let the banks fail without understanding how this would effect them. This is why there is some economic regret with Brexit voters, especially now. People generally have a poor grasp of how any particular policy will effect them economically and will shoot themselves in the foot if you let them. When I am arguing with people on the Right here in America about immigration, 9 times out of 10 they start off stating that immigrants are generally bad for the economy (presumably because they don't understand the labor pool as a resource) and then quickly back down from that point when it becomes obvious they haven't looked much into the economics of immigration. And when it becomes clear that there will be economic costs to restricting incoming labor, they quickly make the point that they are willing to reduce economic activity for the sake of avoiding the social impact of immigration. That sounds like they care more about socio-political effects than economic ones.

    This is also why libertarians are an endangered species on the Right; they don't care for nationalism and are generally pro-immigration. Rand Paul has become cowed in his own party; he can complain about the deficit all he wants but the Republicans don't seem like they are going to address that.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    That's only true if you're operating inside of a global financial system where attracting foreign investment and lenders is possible. I'm not sure how fascists would feel about owing trillions of dollars to private debtors; I have a feeling they'd rather extract their wealth via taxation, exploitation and conquest.
    Are you familiar with how government bonds work? You may very well be, I have just frequently come across people who aren't and will talk about how much influence China has over the US because of all the bonds they have bought and how screwed the US would be if China suddenly recalled that debt. Which is obviously not how US bonds work at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is more a commentary on western perceptions on the function of the state than it is on the American right.
    I don't understand how this responds to our line of exchange; you were saying that lower taxation makes for less government influence. It doesn't, government influence is expressed through spending, which the Right doesn't want to reduce (when they have power). Just because the Right reduced taxes doesn't mean the government is going to do less, it just means they are ok with borrowing more and increasing the deficit.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    That's at least a more reasonable way of framing it - even if the "ethnically focused element is debatable.
    God help is if "Whites" go from the majority to just a plurality.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Correct: I wasn't trying.
    I forgot that you were the only one allowed to draw connections between policies and ideologies. My bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Wanting the US to remain competitive in the global market place isn't autarkic.


    Prioritizing American commercial interests means placing the financial concerns of American producers, consumers and markets above the financial concerns of foreign producers, consumers and markets. Protectionism can (and often has) been used as a mechanism for facilitating these domestic interests.



    Chinese steel dumping destroys domestic industries. That's why organizations like the European Union have placed exorbitant tariffs on it. This has to do with maintaining domestic competitiveness, and standards not autarky.
    Protectionism
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth.

    Protectionism is frequently criticized by economists as harming the people it is meant to help. Mainstream economists instead support free trade. The principle of comparative advantage shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage. Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.


    Now, I would admit, albeit tentatively, that there are very specific situations in which protectionist policies can improve outcomes in the short term, though international trade deals almost always seem to be the better long term solution. The idea that an overall policy of protectionism benefits American commercial interests seems woefully misinformed.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Protectionism isn't really a "fascist" platform - that's the point.
    If I am reading this correctly, what I think you are saying is: "protectionism isn't really a fascist (exclusive) platform", which of course it isn't. But fascists certainly do pursue protectionism as a platform, and since not all ideologies promote protectionism, we can use it conjunction with other platforms to help identify someone who might be a fascist. This is important because, unfortunately, someone who is even a hardline fascist may deny being so because of all of the baggage (and subsequent loss of political capital) that comes along with the term.
    Last edited by The spartan; September 12, 2019 at 12:16 AM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  13. #93

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Press the restore auto-saved content button.

  14. #94
    Tiro
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    215

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    The False God of Economic Growth https://theimaginativeconservative.o...ic-growth.html

    There are few alternatives to an economy. What must it serve? The above essay highlights very well that "economic growth" is implemented in a nation and on others in participation for the goal of social change. This is not averse to exports, but the idea of economic growth as explained by GDP and the overwhelming popular sentiment that increases are the only desirable outcome. Increases in GDP are quantitative, not of quality.
    Gornahoor|Liber esse, scientiam acquirere, veritatum loqui
    Crow states: "If you would be a great leader, then learn the way of the Tao. Relinquish the need to control. Let go of plans and of concepts. The world will govern itself. The more restrictive you are, the less virtuous people will be. The more force you display, the less secure they will feel. The more subsidies you provide, the less self-reliant they become. Therefore the master says: Un-write the law, thus the people become honest. Dispense with economics, thus the people become prosperous. Do without religion, thus the people become serene. Let go all desire for the common good, and the good becomes as common as the grass." ~ Lao Tzu - Tao te tching
    MONARCHY NATION TRANSCENDENCE

  15. #95

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob69Joe View Post
    The False God of Economic Growth https://theimaginativeconservative.o...ic-growth.html

    There are few alternatives to an economy. What must it serve? The above essay highlights very well that "economic growth" is implemented in a nation and on others in participation for the goal of social change. This is not averse to exports, but the idea of economic growth as explained by GDP and the overwhelming popular sentiment that increases are the only desirable outcome. Increases in GDP are quantitative, not of quality.
    I feel like this doesn't actually respond to that part of my post. To quote the article you linked:
    Conclusion
    The commitment to unlimited increases in personal consumption, growth, is ultimately counterproductive; the social and moral costs are greater than the economic benefits.
    If you want to make a social or moral argument for limiting growth, make one. I think there are valid reasons to constrain growth for other tangible gains, but don't make the argument that it is good for, solely, economic interests. Also, I would caution the approach that limiting economic growth is "easy" as the ones to be most adversely effected by protectionist policies tend to by poorer Americans operating within tight margins who have the most to gain from cheaper prices and accessible products.
    Last edited by The spartan; September 13, 2019 at 04:33 AM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  16. #96
    Tiro
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    215

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia - protectionism
    There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth.

    Protectionism is frequently criticized by economists as harming the people it is meant to help. Mainstream economists instead support free trade. The principle of comparative advantage shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage. Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.
    The keyword is "growth." That term only applies in a social context for change. It has no place anywhere else because a nation needs to sustain itself as a niche "species" to fit with an ecosystem, which is a perfect metaphor and the only sane one if we understand what growth refers to. Growth can be of benefit to one type of ideal state, and that being pluralistic, and demotic, where the fortunes of diverse individuals - diversity required to attempt to outpace Asiatic communist nations, and near Asian ones like Russia, numerically - reside in being propelled upwards socially and all are in competition for the same "freedoms," meaning there is no specialization, or personal stability within the greater whole of the nation, that social hierarchy offers.
    Gornahoor|Liber esse, scientiam acquirere, veritatum loqui
    Crow states: "If you would be a great leader, then learn the way of the Tao. Relinquish the need to control. Let go of plans and of concepts. The world will govern itself. The more restrictive you are, the less virtuous people will be. The more force you display, the less secure they will feel. The more subsidies you provide, the less self-reliant they become. Therefore the master says: Un-write the law, thus the people become honest. Dispense with economics, thus the people become prosperous. Do without religion, thus the people become serene. Let go all desire for the common good, and the good becomes as common as the grass." ~ Lao Tzu - Tao te tching
    MONARCHY NATION TRANSCENDENCE

  17. #97

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    I am not sure if I follow the analogy of how a mechanical device functions to that of a political ideology. And you specifically said that I don't know "what a fascist is", but now I know what a fascist is just not how they work?
    I think you can take the analogy too far.

    I would imagine that the "meaningfulness" of a comparison is dependent on one's opinion, but I would disagree that there no value whatsoever in these comparisons. If I were to more properly lay out my thesis statement, it would be something along the lines of:

    Over the past 25 years, about as long as I have been politically aware, the American Right has been understood as ideologically conservative and pro-free market. But in the period of 2008-2010, it seems as if a lot of Right wing platforms shifted to a much more populist, nativist stance with a contempt for the status quo. This is covered in the book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism which has that quote: "[The Republican party] is an insurgent outlier--ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government." These shifts toward right-wing populist nativism, in my opinion, seem to be going in the direction of fascism. So I would disagree in the characterization of my point being "the American right has become/is fundamentally fascistic", but rather "the American Right have been, from political, to social, to economic platforms, shifting more towards a fascistic ideology."
    The data simply doesn't support this view. The over representation of activist voices within Democratic circles combined with a general deviation toward progressivism is giving you a false impression of reality. It's the Democrats who are becoming more extreme, not Republicans. As I have expressed previously, the comments about the Republican Party being "an insurgent outlier" and "ideologically extreme" are nothing more than inaccurate, hyperbolic drivel.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    I would also like to note that from what I know about how you post, you would not accept this kind of "so what you are saying is" criticism leveled at you by an opponent. I don't know why you want it to seem like I think people are just fascists based off of minimal information. It's not even like I post fascist alarmist posts in other threads or anything. I am just discussing in this thread about fascism.
    My interpretation of your comments was not an attempt to construct a straw man: you are in fact drawing parallels between conservatism and fascism with the intention of producing a tacit association between the two. The justification you offer - that any rightward movement is necessarily a movement "toward fascist ideology" - is, for the reasons expressed above, at best uninformative.

    Yes, I saw you mentioned opposing communism, I guess I presumed it was clear I meant "other than an opposition to communism" given the other platforms to which to draw obvious comparisons too. Hell, you can throw opposition to liberalism in there while you are at it.
    As stated, the rest of the items listed are not supported by the American right.

    I would disagree, the Right has seemed to have been more agitated by the demographic changes of the past few decades. Try comparing the rhetoric Trump uses regarding immigration and comparing it to the rhetoric used by the Bushes or even ole Ronnie Reagan. I would imagine many on the Right today vehemently disagree with Reagan's depiction of immigration there.
    Immigration has become a more of a concern since Reagan's time for three reasons:

    1. The volume of migrants to the US has almost doubled since the 1980's.
    2. The size of the welfare state has ballooned.
    3. The left is increasingly abandoning the idea of individualism in favour of race based identity politics.

    That doesn't mean that people on the right are more xenophobic now than they were thirty five years ago.

    Also, this is a better Reagan speech concerning fascism (skip to 1:05):

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    But I suspect you want examples given by me as they would be much easier to attack so I will try to oblige. There is a good chance we will not have a SCOTUS nominee confirmed by an opposition Senate for the foreseeable future thanks to Right-wing partisan manuevers.
    The senate blocking a SCOTUS nominee in an election year is neither constitutionally unprecedented or improper.

    The Right supported Trump in not even attempting to negotiate with Democrats over border wall funding, just skipped to the longest government shutdown in history part, and continued to support him when he declared a National Emergency to get funding when the Dems didn't cave.
    The president attempting to circumvent a hostile Congress's attempts to deny him funding for a border wall is not an act of institutional vandalism. This much is evidenced by the Supreme Court's acceptance of his legal position. The pillars of state competing with one another for influence is part of the normal functioning of government. If you want to see a genuine constitutional and institutional break down I suggest you look at the United Kingdom.

    The Right's acceptance of Trump's attempts to interfere with and control an investigation of himself. Political norms and practices have changed dramatically from even 10 years ago, primarily pushed by the Right, that have disrupted the normal functioning of the government. And the Right approves of this.
    I've offered extensive opinions about this in the thread dedicated to the Mueller investigation. The constitutional inconvenience (from the perspective of the Democrats) that a sitting president cannot be indicted by his own Department of Justice was not caused by "the right". Conservatives supporting the OCL's interpretation that it would be constitutionally impermissible to prosecute Trump is itself supportive of the institutional status quo and so cannot be viewed as an attack against it.

    I don't see how perceived stance of progressives negates the Right's concern with preserving the "White" identity in the US.
    When one side of the debate (in this case the progressive side) abandons the so-called "color-blind" approach to society and starts mobilizing voters on the basis of racial identity it is inevitable that there will be a response.

    Depends on what you mean by "relevance". Do I think that most of the Right want to go out an march with the Nazis from the Charlottesville rally? Of course not. Do I think that the Right is concerned with keeping an ethnically "White" majority in the US? Absolutely.
    Only to the extent that progressives are concerned with overcoming a white majority in the US. Though this actually has much less to do with racial demographics than it does with political ones.

    I doubt I could get you to agree that anything in the West is "ultra"-nationalistic at the moment, but for ultranationalism I get the the definition "extreme nationalism that promotes the interest of one state or people above all others" which seems relevant to an "America First" foreign policy.
    All sovereign governments promote the interests of their own state/people above all others. The only question is whether extreme nationalism and totalitarianism are involved. You have yet to demonstrate that either are.

    Suffice it to say it is certainly nationalistic, the "ultra" part is going to always be a judgement call. Speaking of America First, though, it seems to be a foreign policy that "emphasizes U.S. nationalism and unilateralism". Are you sure the comparisons to Trump's "America First" platform are purely cosmetic?
    Yes.

    If we are going to need your approval on the "extent" of nationalism or nativism necessary to warrant fair comparisons to fascism, I doubt this line of conversation would get anywhere. At least you are admitting that the American Right are nationalistic and nativist.
    All groups are tribalistic to a certain extent. Claiming that the American right are "nativist" is just too generic to be of any particular value, particularly since you haven't illustrated that they are any more "nativist" than they have been historically.


    Sure you have, just not in a way that's like a literal ethnic caste system. The fear of "Whites" falling into the minority betrays the perception that to be a minority is to have a "lesser" status in the US, which is apparently appropriate for non-"Whites" but not "Whites". This could also be understood as "White" Americans being perceived as "more American" than non-"White" Americans.
    No I haven't (not within mainstream circles anyway). For the most part only people who care about "demographic destiny" (in an racial sense) are the alt-right and progressive racialists. I can guarantee you that the majority of people on the right aren't shaking in their boots that they won't always be a majority group according to poorly constructed definitions of "whiteness".

    You were alluding to an intrinsic link between fascist ideology and military conquest for resources. That is not an intrinsic part of fascism. While a fascist government may think it is necessary to use it's military to pursue self-sufficiency, fascism can exist in a nation in where that wouldn't seem necessary to do so, such as the US.
    Forceful dominance is an intrinsic element of fascism. That's one of the reason why they're so widely loathed.

    Their perceived political relevancy at the time is besides the point, we were discussing their ideology. The popularity of ideologies can change over time.

    Also the America First Committee was one the largest anti-war organizations of all time. While I would agree that fascism has never enjoyed mainstream popularity in the US, I think it would also be ridiculous to call it irrelevant.
    In the US fascism is irrelevant and will continue to remain irrelevant. The fact that fascist movements exist doesn't mean that they're able to exert any sort of meaningful influence over society or the political institutions.


    I am a bit wary of what all you are counting as protectionism, because that could be a lot of different policies in terms of autarky. I think wanting to bring back raw goods manufacturing (which implies we have already lost our comparative advantage in that industry) is a pretty severe protectionist stance to take.
    No it isn't.


    No, actually, at least in regards to Nazi Germany, their conversion to a total war economy in 1942 came as a surprise to them as they thought the war would be over by then. Their previous economic policy was not expected to convert into total war mobilization, but fortunately for them (and unfortunately for the rest of the world), autarkic principles line up with national mobilization.
    I'm not talking about the economy necessitated by total war but the economic scenario created by total conquest. The NSDAP's economic plans were fundamentally contingent upon defeating the western democracies (and the influence of their international financiers) and having unfettered access to Slavic farming territories and labour in addition to Eurasian oil. Part of the way that fascists rationalized (and still continue to rationalize) their virulent antisemitism was by falsely claiming that Anglo-American Jews were responsible for manipulating global markets into working against the integrity of European nations. That's how figures like Mosley were able to reason that England's participation in the war had been incited by influential British Jews.

    Whataboutism aside
    I openly acknowledged that the right isn't above hypocrisy or inconsistency in my response.

    this was sort of my point, no? You were saying the American Right prioritizes lower regulation and I was saying their economic views of lower regulation were secondary to their political concerns. It seems as if they will abandon this economic principle if they see a political objective.
    Pointing to one example doesn't prove the general assertion, it simply shows that the American right doesn't always prioritise low regulation over everything else.

    Not just that it increases costs, it increases them directly proportional to the imposed tariff. From the consumer's perspective, a tariff is effectively a consumption tax as I don't think consumers care where the US government is picking up the revenue, they just care how much money they have to spend to get the good. And don't forget that businesses can act as consumers as well, and if a business is reliant on foreign imports to make their own goods and services, those increased costs have to be past on to their individual consumers if they want to maintain their margins.
    Sometimes consumers having to pay a little more for certain products/materials is worth the benefits that regional economies and labourers receive in return. Limiting the economic reach of hostile economies via protectionism can also be a useful tool for national security. Again, this is why the neoliberal colossus that is the European Union imposes external tariffs.

    I think this is a half-truth. People care about money once it's gone, but they will also brazen with it when they have it.
    This isn't really a refutation to the idea that people tend to care more about money than socio-political issues.

    This is why we had those idiots in 2007-2008 saying we should let the banks fail without understanding how this would effect them.
    Not that this really has anything to do with fascism, but there are very good reasons for assuming that had the state allowed the banks to fail, a more robust financial sector would have emerged in the long term. The problem with the state subsidising corporate interests (even if it's to protect consumers in the short term) is that it fundamentally undermines the dynamics of capitalism. The way you eradicate businesses which become "too big to fail" is actually just to let them fail.

    This is why there is some economic regret with Brexit voters, especially now. People generally have a poor grasp of how any particular policy will effect them economically and will shoot themselves in the foot if you let them.
    Spoken like a true liberal. The only people who witter on about this alleged "economic regret" of people who want the United Kingdom to leave the European Union are those who insisted (often with abject lies) that the United Kingdom shouldn't leave the European Union. The British economy has remained strong since 2016 with steady growth up until the contraction last quarter.

    When I am arguing with people on the Right here in America about immigration, 9 times out of 10 they start off stating that immigrants are generally bad for the economy (presumably because they don't understand the labor pool as a resource) and then quickly back down from that point when it becomes obvious they haven't looked much into the economics of immigration. [And when it becomes clear that there will be economic costs to restricting incoming labor, they quickly make the point that they are willing to reduce economic activity for the sake of avoiding the social impact of immigration. That sounds like they care more about socio-political effects than economic ones.
    The benefits (or lack thereof) of migration are entirely contextual, but it actually doesn't matter. What I said was that people tend to prioritize their personal wealth over socio-political issues not that they would always do so.

    This is also why libertarians are an endangered species on the Right; they don't care for nationalism and are generally pro-immigration. Rand Paul has become cowed in his own party; he can complain about the deficit all he wants but the Republicans don't seem like they are going to address that.
    Libertarians are an endangered species in general though their open opposition to statism puts them at odds with the left far more so than the right.

    Are you familiar with how government bonds work? You may very well be, I have just frequently come across people who aren't and will talk about how much influence China has over the US because of all the bonds they have bought and how screwed the US would be if China suddenly recalled that debt. Which is obviously not how US bonds work at all.
    What has that got to do with fascists opposing international financing?

    I don't understand how this responds to our line of exchange; you were saying that lower taxation makes for less government influence. It doesn't, government influence is expressed through spending, which the Right doesn't want to reduce (when they have power). Just because the Right reduced taxes doesn't mean the government is going to do less, it just means they are ok with borrowing more and increasing the deficit.
    When I said that "lowering taxes and limiting regulations decreases the influence that the government can exert over the populace" I was referring to individual freedoms to spend and earn with liberty. Nevertheless I'd say that most people on the right do want expenditure reduced (except on the military) its just that the Republican Party has no idea how to do it - just like they have no idea how to get rid of Obamacare.

    God help is if "Whites" go from the majority to just a plurality.
    Personally I'm far more concerned about the hand-wringing of crypto-totalitarians on the progressive left than I am about Mexicans (you know, that overwhelmingly Christian group) coming to America.

    I forgot that you were the only one allowed to draw connections between policies and ideologies. My bad.
    I'd say there was a much stronger case for arguing that neoconservativism exists under the ideological umbrella of "liberalism" than that the American right is becoming fascistic.

    Now, I would admit, albeit tentatively, that there are very specific situations in which protectionist policies can improve outcomes in the short term, though international trade deals almost always seem to be the better long term solution. The idea that an overall policy of protectionism benefits American commercial interests seems woefully misinformed.
    I continue to find the inconsistency of liberals on protectionism laughable. When the EU was exploring trade relations with the US via TTIP, leftists started losing their minds at the prospect of US corporations interfering in European markets. When WTO Brexiteers raised the possibility of striking an independent trade deal with the US once the United Kingdom has left the Customs Union, English liberals likewise started panicking that American pharmaceutical companies would compromise the NHS. Those same liberals then lambasted Cameron for vetoing a European proposal to combat Chinese steel dumping. Though the very thing that liberals applaud when its done by the European Union (lets face it, American liberals are hopeless Eurofetishists) they denounce as something which fascists "pursue" when its done by Trump.

    If I am reading this correctly, what I think you are saying is: "protectionism isn't really a fascist (exclusive) platform", which of course it isn't. But fascists certainly do pursue protectionism as a platform, and since not all ideologies promote protectionism, we can use it conjunction with other platforms to help identify someone who might be a fascist. This is important because, unfortunately, someone who is even a hardline fascist may deny being so because of all of the baggage (and subsequent loss of political capital) that comes along with the term.
    It isn't closely related enough to fascism specifically to be of any particular value in assessing who is or isn't a fascist. Since virtually no one on the right (again with the exception of radicals on the fringe) believes that elections should be abolished and the state should impose totalitarian controls, I think it's fair to say that there aren't many fascists in America.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; September 16, 2019 at 03:44 AM.

  18. #98

    Default Re: When the time comes: Let's discuss fascist rhetoric

    Delete.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; September 14, 2019 at 09:49 PM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •