Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 60

Thread: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

  1. #1

    Default Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...democracy.html

    The warning signs are flashing red: Democracy is under threat. Across Europe and North America, candidates are more authoritarian, party systems are more volatile, and citizens are more hostile to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy.

    These trends have prompted a major debate between those who view political discontent as economic, cultural or generational in origin. But all of these explanations share one basic assumption: The threat is coming from the political extremes.

    On the right, ethno-nationalists and libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics; on the left, campus radicals and the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles. Across the board, the assumption is that radical views go hand in hand with support for authoritarianism, while moderation suggests a more committed approach to the democratic process.

    Is it true?

    Maybe not. My research suggests that across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.
    N.b. You'll see the terms used "far left" and "far right", but this study relied on surveys with a 10-point self-ranking political scale (as is typical, along with 5-point scales); 1-2 was coded far-left, center was 5-6 was center, 9-10 was far-right. Annoyingly, the article and attached analysis give only a taste of the survey items, and don't say anything about center-left or center-right. This is a working paper, so presumably more will be done with the data, which has one weakness of being recent only up to the early 2010s.

    1. Democracy is a "very good" political system. European average: ~50% of far-left and far-right, 42% of center.
    US average: ~60% of far left, ~40% of far right, 33% of center.

    2. Free and fair elections an "essential feature of democracy. Not as many countries shown, but United States: ~70% of far-left and far right, <45% of center.

    3. Civil rights that protect people’s liberty from state oppression an “essential feature of democracy". Not as many countries shown, but United States:~65% of far-left, ~40% of far-right, 25% of center.
    (New Zealand for the lols: 80% of far-left, 25% of far-right, 25% of center.)

    4. A strong leader who does not have to bother with a legislature is “fairly good” or “very good.” Europe: 35% of far-left, 45% of far-right, 38% of center.
    US: 16% of far-left, 28% of far-right, 40% of center.

    In the appendix of the article's linked working paper, the analysis is reproduced for "politically-engaged" centrists, who may be a different group than apathetic or confused 'centrists-by-default'. This is the place where the authors offer a look at the center-left and center-right, and the sparseness of what's on offer is frustrating. For example, in America wrt elections the center flanks are closer to the extremes, but in the UK wrt democracy as political system the center flanks are closer to the center than the extremes.


    All this would seem to validate leftist accusations since the 1930s that "moderates" are the sine qua non fascism enablers.

    One thing to keep in mind about the extremely broad/vague labels and self-labels of "centrist", "moderate", "middle of the road" is that people who think of themselves as not ideologically-bound to one "side" often hold highly eclectic (arguably incoherent) views that may well be radical or extreme, possibly even in a way that disregards the two-dimensional social-economic axes. For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.



    (There's some bad juju going on in Dutchland... are they ready to mob the PM and feast on his guts or what?)
    @Fragony
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  2. #2
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,397

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    It's interesting how both the far-left and the far-right are more committed to democracy than the center. I think this has a lot to do with Neoliberalism, which has come to dominate the political center and can be quite hostile to democracy.

  3. #3
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,904

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuuvi View Post
    It's interesting how both the far-left and the far-right are more committed to democracy than the center. I think this has a lot to do with Neoliberalism, which has come to dominate the political center and can be quite hostile to democracy.
    Mugwumps want safety and stability. They don't want anyone crusading about anything, but believe that having a third week of vacation would be nice.

    And, as Monty noted, there are some who get labeled centrists because the some of their schizoid radical and reactionary views -- and yes, some views directly opposed to others in terms of principle -- more or less zero out.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  4. #4
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,782

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post

    For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.
    My boss doesn't like two categories of people - Jews and Ukrainian Nazis. Claims her husband is a Jew, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  5. #5
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,659

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    I know quite a few people that voted for Obama for change and also voted for Trump for more change. Are those folks facists? I'd say that they are people that think the system is broken and are willing to try almost anything to fix it without needing to cling to our political norms.

    For example, someone in "the center" might simultaneously believe that government should directly administer and provision healthcare, but eliminate social welfare programs; that gay marriage should be permitted, but women don't belong in the workplace; that the death penalty should be abolished, but unauthorized immigrants be ejected with violence.
    I've met quite a few people that are for universal healthcare but little to no social welfare(usually they hate unemployment benefits), don't care what you do in the bedroom but prefer that society promote more conservative gender norms and roles as well as believe that laws should be enforced very strongly but are against capital punishment. The above positions and the ones you made examples are not exclusive. Look at the varying grades of what defines political membership depending on where you are in the country/world. A Republican in California is likely to hold many values similar to a democrat in Nebraska while also holding values that in true red/blue states would make them Republicans/Democrats in Name Only.

    The difference between these centrists and what I would actually call extremists on any side is that the people that believe the above don't usually see someone that doesn't believe their world view as the enemy. A Facist in the sense you describe would actively oppose and oppress speech and ideas they don't like while promoting their own with the backing of violence, bullying (physical, economical, cyber, cultural).

    People that think their system is more correct and the only way be it facism or socialism (or really any political -ism) and therefore think the ends justify the means to impose their system are the more dangerous ones.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

  6. #6
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    1. Democracy is a "very good" political system. European average: ~50% of far-left and far-right, 42% of center.
    US average: ~60% of far left, ~40% of far right, 33% of center.

    2. Free and fair elections an "essential feature of democracy. Not as many countries shown, but United States: ~70% of far-left and far right, <45% of center.

    3. Civil rights that protect people’s liberty from state oppression an “essential feature of democracy". Not as many countries shown, but United States:~65% of far-left, ~40% of far-right, 25% of center.
    (New Zealand for the lols: 80% of far-left, 25% of far-right, 25% of center.)

    4. A strong leader who does not have to bother with a legislature is “fairly good” or “very good.” Europe: 35% of far-left, 45% of far-right, 38% of center.
    US: 16% of far-left, 28% of far-right, 40% of center.
    All I see is that centrist people in an oligarchy don't believe in the "the system" that everyone falsely calls democracy, whereas the problem in less-corrupted countries (Europe) is actually smaller. Of course in a working democracy, the extremes are more likely to want something different because they hate any sort of common solution.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  7. #7
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    748

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    I think that the results are partly explained by the fact that the center currently identifies with the establishment and the ruling order, while the far-right clowns view themselves as some sort of civil rights activists, oppressed by the offspring of Bezmenov. I would compare it with the famous research in the United States, where Muslims were the most critical against civilian casualties during military operations.

    Also, it probably depends on the definition of fascist and far-right. Here the far-right openly cheers for two of our military dictatorships and sings the "Sieg Heil", so I have a feeling that the results would be different. On the other hand, another coup against a democratically elected government is also praised by the mainstream intellectuals or even school books, so maybe I am overly optimistic about the center's fondness of democracy.

    However, as Montmorency explained, it's another nail on the coffin of the unscientific horseshoe theory. After all, it's true that fascism and Nazism gained support, at least initially, not from the Prussian aristocrats or the workers in Rhenania, but from the impoverished middle class. We are talking about politically very immature people, willing to take authoritarian solutions (suspension of human rights, election of a powerful Messiah and etc.), in order to regain their former status.

  8. #8
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Mugwumps want safety and stability. They don't want anyone crusading about anything, but believe that having a third week of vacation would be nice.

    And, as Monty noted, there are some who get labeled centrists because the some of their schizoid radical and reactionary views -- and yes, some views directly opposed to others in terms of principle -- more or less zero out.
    I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

    In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

    In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.
    All the contents of a center-right/neoliberal.
    Last edited by AE Bravo; 05-27-2018 at 13:32.

  10. #10
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Showtime View Post
    All the contents of a center-right/neoliberal.
    George Orwell was a centre right neoliberal?

  11. #11

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    I know quite a few people that voted for Obama for change and also voted for Trump for more change. Are those folks facists? I'd say that they are people that think the system is broken and are willing to try almost anything to fix it without needing to cling to our political norms.
    On the first point I think we would need to be careful to avoid conflating topics. Are Obama-Trump cross voters in the "center", or in fact comfortably conservative? Most of them who were old enough, before Obama was around, would have been known as Bush voters. So emphasizing the brokenness of the system would better explain a conservative's choice to buy into Obama's rhetoric (hope, change, et. al); buying into Trump's rhetoric would thereafter be a reversion.

    I've met quite a few people that are for universal healthcare but little to no social welfare(usually they hate unemployment benefits), don't care what you do in the bedroom but prefer that society promote more conservative gender norms and roles as well as believe that laws should be enforced very strongly but are against capital punishment. The above positions and the ones you made examples are not exclusive. Look at the varying grades of what defines political membership depending on where you are in the country/world. A Republican in California is likely to hold many values similar to a democrat in Nebraska while also holding values that in true red/blue states would make them Republicans/Democrats in Name Only.
    I'm not so sure this is a regional or state-by-state stratification, if you drop the issue of parties and think about how people define themselves and where they stand on issues. The phenomenon of Blue Dog Democrats is more a construction of the strategic attitudes of the Democratic establishment than an expression of the attitudes of locals. If you leave it up to the grassroots, one local district could vote for a Bible thumper according to Republican standard per 1990s, yet running as a Democrat; the neighboring district could vote an Internationale-belting DemSoc. This is just the kind of thing that has occurred in Pennsylvania and Virginia over the past few months.

    The difference between these centrists and what I would actually call extremists on any side is that the people that believe the above don't usually see someone that doesn't believe their world view as the enemy. A Facist in the sense you describe would actively oppose and oppress speech and ideas they don't like while promoting their own with the backing of violence, bullying (physical, economical, cyber, cultural).

    People that think their system is more correct and the only way be it facism or socialism (or really any political -ism) and therefore think the ends justify the means to impose their system are the more dangerous ones.
    Isn't that the challenge raised by this article's analysis, and by history? A small group of ideologues can't win power alone. It needs to convince the great masses "in the middle" to let them seize power, whether in the name of security, prosperity, revenge...

    People with unformed, incoherent, or fickle beliefs could be dangerous in their own right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    All I see is that centrist people in an oligarchy don't believe in the "the system" that everyone falsely calls democracy, whereas the problem in less-corrupted countries (Europe) is actually smaller. Of course in a working democracy, the extremes are more likely to want something different because they hate any sort of common solution.
    How do you explain the center almost always, on almost every topic, have less support for these democratic ideals than extremists? Are extremists just that idealistic, disconnected from reality? What does it mean if centrists care more about security and results over institutions or "freedom"?

    Keep in mind that the authors haven't developed their full results for the center-right and center-left.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crandard
    Also, it probably depends on the definition of fascist and far-right.
    Based on self-definition in surveys. I guess if someone defines themselves as 1-2, or 9-10, on a ten-point scale, they probably aren't "wrong".

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    I want tomorrow to be reasonably like today. I value socialist ideals, but I see it as the individual's responsibility to see to their end of the equation. I see the state's role to enable the individual to do so. I don't want anything irreversible, and I certainly see nothing good in winning a victory whilst disowning one's responsibility for making one's victory work. I see Russia as a fundamentally hostile opposition to everything that I love about Britain. Not as alien as Islamist fundies, but my instinct is to distrust anything backed by Russia.

    In UK political terms, I'm probably closest to early 20th century Labour.
    China is the real end-boss. If Russia softens us up a bit, they can hardly complain. Xi Jinping's loudly proclaimed policy for China and the world is the "community of common destiny", which sounds great on paper but in practice must be a Chinese mercantilist empire into every corner of the world.

    As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  12. #12
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    China is the real end-boss. If Russia softens us up a bit, they can hardly complain. Xi Jinping's loudly proclaimed policy for China and the world is the "community of common destiny", which sounds great on paper but in practice must be a Chinese mercantilist empire into every corner of the world.

    As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.
    I don't believe in international socialism. I believe in individual rights and the right of the individual not be imposed on by others. On an international level, that means national rights, the right of one nation not to be imposed on by others. Except, at all levels, where agreed on between the parties involved. Therefore I believe in individuals, and states, keeping to the agreements they've previously made, until such a time as a new agreement is made. And individuals, and states, doing their best within their current ability. I believe less in natural rights than in responsibilities, between individuals and individuals, between individuals and their state, and between state and their individuals. I don't aim for a utopian end state. I aim for improving the lot of myself and others, bit by bit, day by day. I don't expect miracles. I don't believe in people who promise miracles.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    I don't believe in international socialism. I believe in individual rights and the right of the individual not be imposed on by others. On an international level, that means national rights, the right of one nation not to be imposed on by others. Except, at all levels, where agreed on between the parties involved. Therefore I believe in individuals, and states, keeping to the agreements they've previously made, until such a time as a new agreement is made. And individuals, and states, doing their best within their current ability. I believe less in natural rights than in responsibilities, between individuals and individuals, between individuals and their state, and between state and their individuals. I don't aim for a utopian end state. I aim for improving the lot of myself and others, bit by bit, day by day. I don't expect miracles. I don't believe in people who promise miracles.
    I don't believe "socialism in one country" is possible. (Isn't that how Corbyn/Momentum leans anyway?)

    I expanded the pro-Lexit previously, now here's anti-:
    @Husar

    It hardly needs the genius of a Varoufakis to grasp that the UK is made up of European nations and when it comes to the dominant economic system this will be changed only through a shared European process that defies EU corporatism, or not at all. Much of the left still must learn that the existing British state is the prison of their hopes and will never be the instrument for their delivery.

    Political unionism and transnational cooperation will be indispensable.

    I aim for improving the lot of myself and others, bit by bit, day by day.
    You'll need the right framework, which can't be had with the current arrangements.



    Aside: Interesting tidbits from the article linked above:

    In July, to take the most immediate example, the still fresh President Macron nationalised shipyards about to be taken over by an Italian bidder. In the same month, in his barbaric speech in on how Europe should belong to Europeans, Hungary’s Prime Minister Orban claimed he had achieved, “clear majority national ownership in the energy sector, the banking sector and the media sector. If I had to quantify this, I would say that in recent years the Hungarian state has spent around one thousand billion forints on repurchasing ownership in strategic sectors and companies which had previously been foolishly privatised."
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  14. #14
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I don't believe "socialism in one country" is possible. (Isn't that how Corbyn/Momentum leans anyway?)

    I expanded the pro-Lexit previously, now here's anti-:
    @Husar

    Political unionism and transnational cooperation will be indispensable.

    You'll need the right framework, which can't be had with the current arrangements.

    Aside: Interesting tidbits from the article linked above:
    Why does socialism have to inform international relations? I tend towards the efficient delivery of socialist ideals in my own country, in the manner I've already described. For that, whatever international relations as is necessary should be pursued. The failure in Corbyn's Lexitism is the detrimental effect it has on the UK's economy. That affects everything else. It means working harder for less effect, similar to Boxer's situation in Animal Farm. I don't mind working harder, but I want more effort to mean more results. Lexit is the opposite of this.

  15. #15
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    I AM haring a hard time leerling update without whatever the word means

    I AM nog dumb mg tablet Changers nu words
    Last edited by Fragony; 05-27-2018 at 18:13.

  16. #16
    Moderator Moderator Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,574

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Most people hold authoritarian views. Left or right they want society managed by government to do the things they want while denying the opposition any say in how things are done. People who self identify as Centrists are no different.

    Collectivism by its very nature is authoritarian, this includes all forms of Socialism, Progressivism, or their child Fascism. It has no room for anyone wishing to go their own way. You either conform to the dictates or they will find a way to punish you. It makes no difference if you think the government is of the left or the right.

    It is also matter or what you think Democracy is. Is it majority rule where the other 49.9999% may be oppressed by the majority or is it the misnaming of a Representative Republic where democratic elections are held?

    Most people are profoundly ignorant of political philosophy. Some, as in the article are so profoundly ignorant as to be stupid.

    For representative government, which most mistakenly refer to as Democracy, to work requires an informed and engaged public. When that is missing it will devolve into an Oligarchy with a ruling class and a class of peons, merely voting for those who promise the most. If the ignorance persists it will eventually devolve into a kind of neo-feudalism, where there may be some private property but essentially state ownership of the people.
    Last edited by Fisherking; 05-27-2018 at 18:18.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    Most people hold authoritarian views. Left or right they want society managed by government to do the things they want while denying the opposition any say in how things are done. People who self identify as Centrists are no different.

    Collectivism by its very nature is authoritarian, this includes all forms of Socialism, Progressivism, or their child Fascism. It has no room for anyone wishing to go their own way. You either conform to the dictates or they will find a way to punish you. It makes no difference if you think the government is of the left or the right.

    It is also matter or what you think Democracy is. Is it majority rule where the other 49.9999% may be oppressed by the majority or is it the misnaming of a Representative Republic where democratic elections are held?

    Most people are profoundly ignorant of political philosophy. Some, as in the article are so profoundly ignorant as to be stupid.

    For representative government, which most mistakenly refer to as Democracy, to work requires an informed and engaged public. When that is missing it will devolve into an Oligarchy with a ruling class and a class of peons, merely voting for those who promise the most. If the ignorance persists it will eventually devolve into a kind of neo-feudalism, where there may be some private property but essentially state ownership of the people.
    See Gaius Gracchus and Marcus Livius Drusus. Gracchus promises much but stops short of what can't be done. Drusus promises much more than that. Drusus wins, Gracchus loses. Gracchus is killed. Drusus's faction drops their promises.

    Did Drusus fairly win the vote?

  18. #18
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,659

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    On the first point I think we would need to be careful to avoid conflating topics. Are Obama-Trump cross voters in the "center", or in fact comfortably conservative? Most of them who were old enough, before Obama was around, would have been known as Bush voters. So emphasizing the brokenness of the system would better explain a conservative's choice to buy into Obama's rhetoric (hope, change, et. al); buying into Trump's rhetoric would thereafter be a reversion.
    I wouldn't say that those folks are necessarily conservative. People with no real interest or desire to understand government, economics, or politics are more easily swayed by good rhetoric from both sides. These are the same people that wanted Bernie Sanders and ended up voting for Trump instead of Hillary. They are extremely dissatisfied with the status quo and willing to try anything new to 'fix' it whatever that means to them.
    By and large those people that could vote for Obama, Sanders, and Trump do not support him anymore. They feel tricked by Trump just like they think Obama tricked them as well.

    People with unformed, incoherent, or fickle beliefs could be dangerous in their own right.
    I absolutely agree, that however doesn't make them more fascist, just more easily manipulated. Fascists have more strings to pull on when it comes to manipulating peoples opinions, they can side with the Church or Mosque when they want, they use ethno-nationalism to create a them versus us situation. This is why I believe that most socialist movements have succeeded through coercion and not through the ballot box.

    Isn't that the challenge raised by this article's analysis, and by history? A small group of ideologues can't win power alone. It needs to convince the great masses "in the middle" to let them seize power, whether in the name of security, prosperity, revenge...
    I fully agree with that part of the article, the extremist Utopian societies have never succeeded in attaining power without control of the center. The Nazis used the democratic system and the fears and street fights with communists/bolshevists to sieze power.
    The Soviets seized power by taking advantage of the turmoil in Russia following the collapse of the Tsarist state. Every communist guerrilla in Africa, Asia, and South America maintained their position by coercion of the middle of society while attacking the conservative parts.

    How do you explain the center almost always, on almost every topic, have less support for these democratic ideals than extremists? Are extremists just that idealistic, disconnected from reality?
    Usually because they are extremely dissatisfied with the slowness of change and inefficiency of democracies. The checks and balances that ensure we don't get one party rule or dictatorship are also inhibitors of 'progress' however one defines that.
    The people you describe as fascist should better be described as extremely dissatisfied.

    What does it mean if centrists care more about security and results over institutions or "freedom"?
    That's a common acceptance. People will put up with the legacies of Mao and Stalin because of the positive changes they made in destroying what were very rural agricultural and still somewhat feudal societies. The same happens on the right, Mussolini made the trains run on time, the Nazis ended the street fighting and insecurity of post WWI Germany. They'll accept a strong man who can get things done but they generally don't want that to be a permanent system because historically people usually go from a benevolent dictator to somesort of complete incompetent. The Roman experiment of empire would probably have failed much sooner if there hadn't been a young Augustus to take up Caesers populist cause.

    As it stands, I don't believe there is hope for international socialism unless many individuals can be convinced they want to organize and agitate for it, then permitted by pseudo-vanguard governments to engage in radical democracy (to avoid capture by business/military/other powerful figures). Yet how do you get to that stage? But that's another thread.
    I personally am opposed to 'international socialism'. If it were for just one State like the Scandinavian countries did in the 30s to the 60s people could get more behind it. That was a more conservative form of socialism though without what modern nationalist decry which is the influx of immigrants and the move away from conservative norms like the Church. You'd get more support for socialism if it were just for taking care of your community and country but so long as the trend tends to be to let in more immigrants without the public support for it to happen it will lead to more nationalist gains.

    I think the underlying motive for the current open borders advocates are really to try and undermine the pillars of fascism and nationalism which are race and religion. If done slowly overtime it could work but it's usually tried at a pace that's too fast for comfort for the average joe which drives them into the arms of nationalist movements that say they will protect them from the other.
    There's also the fallacy with the muslim immigration into Europe specifically that by and large these immigrants are more conservative than the natives of the their new country just with a culture and religion that is currently at odds with christians and nationalists that can use that fact to further gain support through fear mongering. Britons didn't like massive Hungarian and Polish migration a few years ago, why would we think that a group of even more different immigrant would go over better.

    It doesn't help to gain support through the ballot box when there are socialists that actually say their goal is to create a society with no religion or race which plays straight into the hand of extremist nationalists.
    The economics require more young workers which is the reason for promoting immigration but the other solution which is the one preferred most closet nationalists is to promote native birthrates and 'family values' which no longer is on the socialist agenda. Not to forget that would also undermine the work of feminism, and other social movements that have fought against having any gender roles/norms in society.
    Last edited by spmetla; 05-27-2018 at 19:21.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

  19. #19
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    People who are seeing fascism usually don't understand who they are
    Last edited by Fragony; 05-27-2018 at 20:02.

  20. #20
    Hǫrðar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,330

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    I think the underlying motive for the current open borders advocates are really to try and undermine the pillars of fascism and nationalism which are race and religion. If done slowly overtime it could work but it's usually tried at a pace that's too fast for comfort for the average joe which drives them into the arms of nationalist movements that say they will protect them from the other.
    I would say that liberal immigration policies (including "open borders") would never achieve to fatally undermine nationalism and fascism, because nationalism and fascism do not have to lean on the existence of the current ethnic groups in any way whatsoever; for different reasons.

    For starters, any inequality in immigration patterns will lead to different outcomes in terms of ethnicity: the ethnic group that used to form the majority in a country may no longer meaningfully exist due to extensive interbreeding with immigrants that arrived in the country, but it has in the process morphed into a new ethnic group that is also specific to this country and this country alone.

    In fact, sufficiently different immigration patterns could this way make neighbouring countries that used to be close both genetically and culturally to diverge in both categories, especially in the first one.

    The other reason does not concern genetics at all, but simply the fact that national myths can still be created today. New nations can be defined, even from something as simple as citizenship. For example, all the good people migrated to this country; this nation did not arise by chance.

    A kind of "citizenship nationalism" seems to be underpinning a lot of US nationalism.

    Even if you eliminate all the countries in the world so that there is only one global country left, manage to merge all ethnicities into one global ethnicity by interbreeding, and make all religions go extinct, you can still get a global fascist government that wants to cleanse the world of undesirables (and that could well be directly inspired by the Nazis and Hitler).
    Last edited by Viking; 05-27-2018 at 21:14.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  21. #21
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,904

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    See Gaius Gracchus and Marcus Livius Drusus. Gracchus promises much but stops short of what can't be done. Drusus promises much more than that. Drusus wins, Gracchus loses. Gracchus is killed. Drusus's faction drops their promises.

    Did Drusus fairly win the vote?
    If you allow suffrage, you will both the acceptance of that vote AND that the responsibility to vote intelligently is upon those voters.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  22. #22
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    If you allow suffrage, you will both the acceptance of that vote AND that the responsibility to vote intelligently is upon those voters.
    And if there is a system of a Loyal Government and a Loyal Opposition, it is the responsibility of the Opposition to hold the Government to its electoral promises. And there should be an acceptance that, if the Government cannot fulfil its major manifesto promises, its mandate to govern no longer exists, and a new mandate should be sought.

  23. #23

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fragony
    People who are seeing fascism usually don't understand who they are
    What if someone outright calls himself a fascist? Does it mean they don't understand who they are?

    By the way, what do you make of those poll results from the Netherlands in the article?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Why does socialism have to inform international relations? I tend towards the efficient delivery of socialist ideals in my own country, in the manner I've already described. For that, whatever international relations as is necessary should be pursued. The failure in Corbyn's Lexitism is the detrimental effect it has on the UK's economy. That affects everything else. It means working harder for less effect, similar to Boxer's situation in Animal Farm. I don't mind working harder, but I want more effort to mean more results. Lexit is the opposite of this.
    Let's say not-Corbyn takes over the Labour Party, the Labour Party wins at least 40% of votes throughout the UK and forms the next government, and they follow most of your ideal in constructing a socialist society for the UK. You get to work hard to improve your life and make your dreams a reality, along with likeminded people.

    How does the international order react to that? What happens to trade and industry? Does everything get to go on as normal?

    Does the UK get to become self-sufficient, like Wakanda?


    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    Most people hold authoritarian views. Left or right they want society managed by government to do the things they want while denying the opposition any say in how things are done. People who self identify as Centrists are no different.

    Collectivism by its very nature is authoritarian, this includes all forms of Socialism, Progressivism, or their child Fascism. It has no room for anyone wishing to go their own way. You either conform to the dictates or they will find a way to punish you. It makes no difference if you think the government is of the left or the right.

    It is also matter or what you think Democracy is. Is it majority rule where the other 49.9999% may be oppressed by the majority or is it the misnaming of a Representative Republic where democratic elections are held?

    Most people are profoundly ignorant of political philosophy. Some, as in the article are so profoundly ignorant as to be stupid.

    For representative government, which most mistakenly refer to as Democracy, to work requires an informed and engaged public. When that is missing it will devolve into an Oligarchy with a ruling class and a class of peons, merely voting for those who promise the most. If the ignorance persists it will eventually devolve into a kind of neo-feudalism, where there may be some private property but essentially state ownership of the people.
    How about as a basic principle, that people should have more say and influence in how their lives are run?

    What kind of system do you imagine maximizes the room for people to "go their own way"? Does massively differential accumulation of power or privilege limit this?

    I agree that, in theory, there's nothing special about the figure 50.00%, or any other threshold. It's just relatively easy to measure.


    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    By and large those people that could vote for Obama, Sanders, and Trump do not support him anymore. They feel tricked by Trump just like they think Obama tricked them as well.
    I'm not sure the numbers I've seen suggest all that many Trump voters have abandoned him, though he isn't adding any support. The many interviews from "Trump country" the media agglomerates suggest that they are willing to give him as many chances as he needs, though in that there may be some indeterminate selection bias.

    This is why I believe that most socialist movements have succeeded through coercion and not through the ballot box.
    Many self-styled socialist movements on the national level have been vanguardist movements relying on armed insurgency and political violence to seize power*. In those cases none of them had any opportunity to succeed at the ballot, however, because there was no ballot (the Bolsheviks did after 1917, but preferred unilateralism). I would argue that this reflects the characteristics of local geography and society more than anything - autocracy is the default, and with a few men in power (as opposed to a broad base) power struggles are inevitable.

    It's a good thing that most socialists now agree that Great Leader movements are inherently reactionary, and that socialism must come "from below", as Marx & Engels wanted: "That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves..."

    *Except, I believe, Chile, Venezuela and Bolivia. AFAIK Bolivia is doing OK for itself; I haven't studied it. But there isn't much socialist about Venezuela, just social democratic. Interestingly, Chavez's chief state industry is really just the oil industry (so he could control the cash flow). According to this article, "...between 1999 and 2011, the private sector's share of economic activity actually increased from 65 to 71 percent." Here's a Fox article from 2010 pointing out the same:

    Last year the private sector accounted for 70 percent of gross domestic product, including 11 percent in taxes paid on products, according to Central Bank estimates. The public sector was 30 percent, a slightly smaller share than when Chavez was elected in 2008.
    [...]
    Polls have repeatedly shown Venezuelans oppose expropriations. Chavez now is focused on maintaining his majority in September congressional elections and on his own re-election in 2012.

    He has repeatedly said he would not use Cuba or the collapsed Soviet Union as an economic model, noting that even his mentor Fidel Castro has advised him: "Chavez, remember this isn't 1960."
    I don't know how much exactly life improved for the bottom quintile(s) under Chavismo, but he clearly employed the typical strategies of cult of personality coupled with bureaucratic clientelism and handouts to friends, family, and supporters.

    The people you describe as fascist should better be described as extremely dissatisfied.
    There is something about satisfaction in the working paper, actually. In Europe, answering "not very satisfied" or "not at all satisfied" with democracy - a distinct question from how good you think it is as a system: ~66% of far left, >50% of center-left and center, ~45% of center-right and far-right. Not enough to draw many conclusions, but it does suggest that "extreme dissatisfaction" isn't a sufficient explanation for centrist attitudes here. Like I mentioned, the Euro survey data is from 2008, but I don't think it's easy to say that the center must have grown less satisfied while extremists more satisfied, without data.

    Aside from the thread source, I'm reminded of the following (though I disagree on whether historians care about this):

    Quote Originally Posted by Julius Goat
    "Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

    That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.

    They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?"
    You'd get more support for socialism if it were just for taking care of your community and country but so long as the trend tends to be to let in more immigrants without the public support for it to happen it will lead to more nationalist gains.
    I don't think open borders is a high priority currently, but eventually you have to admit that managed free movement is superior to a strict security regime, which has only been able to exist in the world since the late 19th century anyway. And I have to admit that segregation on the basis of birth isn't conducive to that good old "brotherhood of man" that communalist ideas ride upon. Socialism can't be exclusionary, or else it's more like the clientelist practices of Hugo Chavez or those Asian/African strongmen, right? But take this as reassurance: a transnational movement to advance socialism and tackle our transnational problems of governance (crime, corruption, climate, etc.) will permit a dramatic reduction in our current economic migration troubles. These are basically just the product of economic conditions and imbalances, so if people have the opportunity to improve their lives at home they don't have as much incentive to resettle elsewhere. The only ways to resolve undesirable economic migration patterns are to either address the underlying incentives, or just become a fascist fortress state and kill thousands of people. An international socialist collaboration even has the benefit of creating frameworks to address migrations to due shock events, such as natural disasters and the effects of climate change (which in our world will inevitably overwhelm both Europe and the US).


    Quote Originally Posted by Viking
    For starters, any inequality in immigration patterns will lead to different outcomes in terms of ethnicity: the ethnic group that used to form the majority in a country may no longer meaningfully exist due to extensive interbreeding with immigrants that arrived in the country, but it has in the process morphed into a new ethnic group that is also specific to this country and this country alone.
    A kind of "citizenship nationalism" seems to be underpinning a lot of US nationalism.
    You might be interested in these two essays. Mind that I'm bringing them to your attention because I think you will be interested in them, not because I buy into them and want to debate the merits.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_a_Nation%3F
    https://jacobitemag.com/2018/05/03/t...ican-question/

    The first is "What is a Nation?" by Ernest Renan from the 19th century, on how the basis of any nation is not language, creed, race, and so on, but the continual renewal of "consensual aggregation". If I have it right, part of it involves continually erasing the human memory so that grievances and contestations don't accumulate and undermine mutual commitment.

    The second is one that unfortunately comes from an alt-right bent (it's one of those trendy new ideologized journals that have been popping up lately) which I can't accept, but does a thought-provoking job in exploring issues of ethnogenesis, indigenization, and the nature of American nationhood. The author describes America in terms of an experimental "death-continent" where old nations go to die and become fossilized. He doesn't believe the experiment is sustainable on those terms.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  24. #24
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    How do you explain the center almost always, on almost every topic, have less support for these democratic ideals than extremists? Are extremists just that idealistic, disconnected from reality? What does it mean if centrists care more about security and results over institutions or "freedom"?

    Keep in mind that the authors haven't developed their full results for the center-right and center-left.
    A lot of factors could be at play, beginning with the definition of democracy they use, over how one would define a "very good" system, what other systems they may have in mind, what they connect with democracy and so on and also a connection between how people self-define for the study. For example people who are not doing well and are fed up with the existing parties might be more likely to self-define as centrist since they do not want to define themselves as leaning towards either side of the current system that they don't like. Their problems on the other hand could come from a source that isn't necessarily democratic, such as oligarchic structures. Yet they blame democracy because people look for easy answers.
    And then we're also missing the totals unless there is a link that I ignored that has them. If 90% of centrists think x and only 20% of rightists do that is one thing, but if 5000 people self-identify as rightist and only 3 as centrist (I know, the last centrist would be split of sorts )...

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    @Husar

    Political unionism and transnational cooperation will be indispensable.
    Have you never noticed that I jokingly and somewhat seriously said how much I dislike Britain? Part of it is that aside from the NHS they put capitalism on a pedestal almost as high as the one it gets in the US. And whether the EU is really corporatist is a matter of debate IMO. And partially remains to be seen. The EU certainly hands out more punishments to big business than the individual member states do. The tiny ones are usually just concerned with lowering all the corporate taxes to zero for their "competitive advantage" so they can remove the new wage slaves from unemployment statistics since for some strange, unknown reason they lack the tax income to pay the unemployment benefits.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  25. #25

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    A lot of factors could be at play, beginning with the definition of democracy they use, over how one would define a "very good" system, what other systems they may have in mind, what they connect with democracy and so on and also a connection between how people self-define for the study. For example people who are not doing well and are fed up with the existing parties might be more likely to self-define as centrist since they do not want to define themselves as leaning towards either side of the current system that they don't like. Their problems on the other hand could come from a source that isn't necessarily democratic, such as oligarchic structures. Yet they blame democracy because people look for easy answers.
    And then we're also missing the totals unless there is a link that I ignored that has them. If 90% of centrists think x and only 20% of rightists do that is one thing, but if 5000 people self-identify as rightist and only 3 as centrist (I know, the last centrist would be split of sorts )...
    Well, there is the Fishhook theory. @Crandard

    But then that leaves us with the conclusion that Right ideas have an in-built advantage over Left ones.

    Here's what the working paper relays about proportions in the ratings for Europe. If we want more, we'll just have to go to the source data linked in the article and analyze it for ourselves. (I don't wanna.) Recall that this survey data is no more recent than 2008, unfortunately - but that decade probably doesn't allow for less polarization, at least.

    Table 1: Distribution of Political Views in EVS
    Left-Right Political View N %
    Left (1) 2,684 5.5
    2 1,913 3.9
    3 4.259 8.7
    4 5.382 8.9
    5 15,639 31.9
    6 6,240 12.7
    7 6,240 9.6
    8 4,526 9.2
    9 1,716 3.5
    Right (10) 3,002 6.1


    Have you never noticed that I jokingly and somewhat seriously said how much I dislike Britain? Part of it is that aside from the NHS they put capitalism on a pedestal almost as high as the one it gets in the US. And whether the EU is really corporatist is a matter of debate IMO. And partially remains to be seen. The EU certainly hands out more punishments to big business than the individual member states do. The tiny ones are usually just concerned with lowering all the corporate taxes to zero for their "competitive advantage" so they can remove the new wage slaves from unemployment statistics since for some strange, unknown reason they lack the tax income to pay the unemployment benefits.
    So you agree with this sentiment:

    But the UK is not powerless within the EU. Brussels would not be able to prevent Labour from implementing a social-democratic reorientation of the economy to ameliorate the gung-ho marketisation that is the legacy of Cameron and Osborne’s six disastrous years.

    But what about red-bloodied socialism? Could this be allowed by the corporatist constitution of the European elite? Of course not. But, however much this might be McDonnell’s and my own dream, it is hardly on the immediate agenda.
    [...]
    Absurd as it may seem, however, the lure of Lexit is a belief that a Corbyn majority can unleash British socialism while the EU groans under the austere regimentation of the Eurozone.
    [...]
    It hardly needs the genius of a Varoufakis to grasp that the UK is made up of European nations and when it comes to the dominant economic system this will be changed only through a shared European process that defies EU corporatism, or not at all. Much of the left still must learn that the existing British state is the prison of their hopes and will never be the instrument for their delivery.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  26. #26
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    What if someone outright calls himself a fascist? Does it mean they don't understand who they are?

    By the way, what do you make of those poll results from the Netherlands in the article?



    Let's say not-Corbyn takes over the Labour Party, the Labour Party wins at least 40% of votes throughout the UK and forms the next government, and they follow most of your ideal in constructing a socialist society for the UK. You get to work hard to improve your life and make your dreams a reality, along with likeminded people.

    How does the international order react to that? What happens to trade and industry? Does everything get to go on as normal?

    Does the UK get to become self-sufficient, like Wakanda?
    Where have I advocated isolationist international trade relations? I assume international trade. I love international trade. I just don't presume to impose my country's choice of government on another country.

    Let me draw your attention to a famous socialist sentiment: "Libraries gave us power". Early 20th century UK mainstream socialism is encapsulated in that sentence. What does it mean? Literacy was practically universal by then. What was lacking was common access to texts by which ordinary people could further educate themselves> Libraries, provided by the state for all to access, was the key. Through this, those who wanted to could better themselves, and a number of early Labour MPs came via this route.

    Now let me show you a modern equivalent: Sure Start. This was one of the many programmes set up by the much maligned Blair government to help the less privileged sections of society. It aimed to empower parents by providing support, education, and everything else needed to allow them and their children access to the support that your middle class family gets. One of the current Labour shadow cabinet was a single mother at the time, and she credits Sure Start with enabling her subsequent career.

    That's my preferred form of socialism in action. Nothing there about isolationism. Membership of the EU doesn't prevent the above. On the contrary, it actively encourages the above. And I ask myself, why the hell would any right minded socialist want to leave the EU?

  27. #27

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Where have I advocated isolationist international trade relations? I assume international trade. I love international trade. I just don't presume to impose my country's choice of government on another country.

    Let me draw your attention to a famous socialist sentiment: "Libraries gave us power". Early 20th century UK mainstream socialism is encapsulated in that sentence. What does it mean? Literacy was practically universal by then. What was lacking was common access to texts by which ordinary people could further educate themselves> Libraries, provided by the state for all to access, was the key. Through this, those who wanted to could better themselves, and a number of early Labour MPs came via this route.

    Now let me show you a modern equivalent: Sure Start. This was one of the many programmes set up by the much maligned Blair government to help the less privileged sections of society. It aimed to empower parents by providing support, education, and everything else needed to allow them and their children access to the support that your middle class family gets. One of the current Labour shadow cabinet was a single mother at the time, and she credits Sure Start with enabling her subsequent career.

    That's my preferred form of socialism in action. Nothing there about isolationism. Membership of the EU doesn't prevent the above. On the contrary, it actively encourages the above. And I ask myself, why the hell would any right minded socialist want to leave the EU?
    I'm asking, how would the international context respond in such an event? Business goes on as usual, even though the whole premise of the government is to redefine business as usual?

    Quote Originally Posted by Article
    Meanwhile, the country’s largest export market will, apparently, despite its ineradicable neoliberal character, sit idly by as the path to socialism is pioneered on its largest island.
    Isn't the clear incentive of states and businesses and organizations like the World Bank to isolate the UK to punish its citizens until they discard their government? Whatever investment is lost in the short-term can be recouped during a round of speculation upon the re-liberalization of the UK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian
    I just don't presume to impose my country's choice of government on another country.
    I'm suggesting your country can't choose this government (for long) unless it is arrived at collaboratively across multiple countries individually.

    It's not that you're advocating isolationism, but that you aren't. A non-isolationist stance can't be compatible with a realistic vision for this type of governance, without the mutual aid of aligned governments.


    As for the EU again, I've covered some arguments both for and against. What I wanted to hear from you, and that you didn't really answer in the Future of EU thread, was what you believe should happen assuming - as is most plausible now - that some form of Hard Brexit is assured. Spilt milk and all, what's the next step assuming this will be the case?
    Last edited by Montmorency; 05-28-2018 at 01:44.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  28. #28
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I'm asking, how would the international context respond in such an event? Business goes on as usual, even though the whole premise of the government is to redefine business as usual?

    Isn't the clear incentive of states and businesses and organizations like the World Bank to isolate the UK to punish its citizens until they discard their government? Whatever investment is lost in the short-term can be recouped during a round of speculation upon the re-liberalization of the UK.

    I'm suggesting your country can't choose this government (for long) unless it is arrived at collaboratively across multiple countries individually.

    It's not that you're advocating isolationism, but that you aren't. A non-isolationist stance can't be compatible with a realistic vision for this type of governance, without the mutual aid of aligned governments.

    As for the EU again, I've covered some arguments both for and against. What I wanted to hear from you, and that you didn't really answer in the Future of EU thread, was what you believe should happen assuming - as is most plausible now - that some form of Hard Brexit is assured. Spilt milk and all, what's the next step assuming this will be the case?
    You wot? Are you trying to say that the World Bank and other organisations would stop a UK government from investing in libraries? Because Sure Start happened recently, under the Blair government.

    And as for what should be done should hard Brexit happen; don't ask me, I didn't vote for it. I voted Remain, and in any future referendum (not that I expect one to happen in my lifetime), I'd vote for EU membership.

  29. #29

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    You wot? Are you trying to say that the World Bank and other organisations would stop a UK government from investing in libraries? Because Sure Start happened recently, under the Blair government.
    Libraries and Sure Start? Don't be facile. Does the UK get to mind its own business if it charges large businesses operating there with all sorts of onerous duties and responsibilities, curtails SOP corruption, instates capital controls, pools wealth to equalize citizens, transfers ownership of private enterprise to employees, gives local residents the vote in property development, guarantees local jobs, orients toward strategic self-sufficiency in industry, advocates minimum exposure to public education environment, any number of things that are not currently on the table?

    No one is threatened by the opening of libraries.

    And as for what should be done should hard Brexit happen; don't ask me, I didn't vote for it.
    Inasmuch as you will remain an English citizen post-hard Brexit, what's the next step? Or not a step, but any considerations you have for national policy.

    incentivize
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  30. #30
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,035

    Default Re: Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Libraries and Sure Start? Don't be facile. Does the UK get to mind its own business if it charges large businesses operating there with all sorts of onerous duties and responsibilities, curtails SOP corruption, instates capital controls, pools wealth to equalize citizens, transfers ownership of private enterprise to employees, gives local residents the vote in property development, guarantees local jobs, orients toward strategic self-sufficiency in industry, advocates minimum exposure to public education environment, any number of things that are not currently on the table?

    No one is threatened by the opening of libraries.

    Inasmuch as you will remain an English citizen post-hard Brexit, what's the next step? Or not a step, but any considerations you have for national policy.

    incentivize
    I leave that kind of stuff to governments and civil servants. It's their job to generate money as efficiently as possible, and their job to manage the details. My interest, as is the interest of practically all the population, is in how that money is spent.

    And what do I plan to do as a British citizen? I plan to be a good member of my community. Which would be considerably easier if we had the benefit of a better economy that comes from being a member of the EU. But since we won't be, I'll do what I can. And it doesn't involve high level political theory as you keep pointing to. Recycle, give, make do and mend is what I'm concentrating on at the moment. Waste as little as possible. I'm looking at a local apple tree that had its had rotting windfalls last year; I'll see if I can get the owner to let me pick them in exchange for something or other, to redistribute to those who can make use of them.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO