Is the Center More Fascist Than Fascists?

[Pannonian]

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?

[Montmorency]

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?

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.

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?

[Pannonian]

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.

[Montmorency]

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

[Pannonian]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

"Democracy" is for reasons that are lost on me are viewed as some sort of end to itself - if people are democratic they are bound to become more tolerant and lovely, and the less democratic the less tolerant they are. The list of countries that prove this to be ridiculous doesn't need repeating.

I believe that universal suffrage is in fact the most optional bit of a well functioning country, with the most important being equality of persons under Law and Institutions that are able to enforce this. This can after this point be a monarchy (such as Lichtenstein), a republic (such as France) or a theocracy (such as the UK). No, none are anywhere near perfect.

So not being in favour of Democracy does not mean one wants to become under the rule of an extreme state. Perhaps the centre views that democracy seems to lead to extreme leaders with the centre increasingly ignored and hence a technocratic ruler would be better.

[spmetla]

Read people like Ann Coulter and you understand the big stumbling block in swaying many conservatives (non-socialist, non libertarian) on this issue is that they often literally see migrants as subhuman and actively desire to inflict pain or violence upon them (euphemized in terms of "deterrence"). If sadism is what drives one's politics... we have a big problem. A productive countermeasure may be to force those with such a mindset to physically confront other people who experience the travails of migration and our response to it; it's a lot harder to be callous toward someone or their group if you've listened to their story.

I understand the stumbling block because in my industry (coffee farming) I know a lot of very conservative farmers whose views are sometimes very extreme.
I'm for immigration that's regulated, but letting in masses just because, doesn't work for me.
Just letting in lots of people when the host society cannot necessarily employ much less integrate creates problems. In other threads I've explained the difficulties in upward mobility in a first world country when language, schooling, skills, etc.. are a problem not to mention the issues that imposes on the losing nation with wealth and talent go abroad with no replacement.

We've had a thread about middle-ground oriented thinking: it's an artificial construction that doesn't map onto real people.

I've been following that thread but haven't contributed because I find the extreme positions too absurd. There are some things that should not be conceded to just achieve compromise for the point of compromise, there are many more where compromise make absolute sense. The goal of compromise isn't to make everyone happy but find the most suitable solution for the situation. Present day solutions would not have worked two hundred years ago or a thousand years ago on a myriad of issues which is why compromise is usually necessary, moving away from traditional values and laws always takes time and needs to be done with a bit of tact and usually over time. Trying to do change overnight like imposing democracy on a tribal culture with no history of peaceful civil discourse usually doesn't end well. Modern societies not much different, there is a lot people can accept now that decades ago they couldn't but the method of progress tends to succeed best when done gradually as cultures and attitudes are allowed to change with the times. Just because one side thinks they have the answers does not mean they have the right to impose their correctness on the rest of society for their own good at least not in a functioning modern form of democracy.

@ rory_20_uk
I believe because it's been a successful form in Western Europe and the US for the last century is why it's viewed so favorably as the 'best' form of government, it should be a goal. One of the requirements though is that the voter base be more tolerant and lovely, not that democracy changes them to it. Like I was writing in my response to Montmorency it should be done gradually. The limited franchise of the early US with it being white males that owned land or paid taxes while not representative allowed the US to grow at a time period when a universal franchise would have probably torn it apart over religion, western expansion, or the the role of the federal government if the slavery issue didn't fragment the country from the start.

I believe that democracy like all things human swings back and forth between representative and direct. The changes of attitudes, means of information distribution, technology, and education all affect it. Imagine if voting were required and those with zero interest were required to put a name down (assuming none of the above was't an option). Modern democracies have many flaws with many possible solutions which is why there will always be people that want reform and some that want radical change to a new form of government.

[spmetla]

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.

Die hard Trump supporters of course remain so, just as Obama supporters that saw him as sort of a messiah continued to give him unfettered support.
Special election's lesson: Where Trump once won big there's now a centrist path to victory for Democrats

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...............For these reasons, Lamb’s performance has major negative implications for continued Republican control of the House and vindicates the critical importance of Democrats taking a centrist approach to the most competitive races.

If the Democrats want to win back the red and swing districts lost to President Trump in 2016, they must follow Lamb’s example and take moderate positions on key issues that are in line with their constituents........

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...democrats.html

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).

The open borders may not be a priority in your mind but it has been a rallying point around which hard line right wingers have been able to build support. Perhaps having a message that isn't as extreme as "No human can be illegal" and "A world without borders" by social justice warriors would do strides toward making modern socialism more palatable for the center mass of European society.

Free movement is better than strict security, but both are an extreme position. Legal and legitimate movement instead of just mass migration is certainly the best, especially when it is tied to economic needs and the capabilities, limitations, and most importantly goals of those immigrating.

Socialism certainly can be exclusionary to the citizens of said country. It is not up to Sweden to provide welfare for all the disenfranchised and poor in Somalia. To truly help the folks in say Somalia one must try to fix what's causing the flight of people there. If it's insecurity then perhaps propping up and reforming the recognized government. To allow the current flow of people out that have the means to only contributes to the drain of money and talent that a country like Somalia needs to become better.
If your approach is more of a non-interventionist in were you see no need for us to meddle in the affairs of Somalis, then the opposite must be true then that there is not requirement or obligation to help those same Somalis.

ut 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.

I agree on that fully. If the PRC and USSR had tried that approach instead of flooding the third world with weapons to overthrow every barely functioning state then the constant cycle of violence that happen from the 1960s (Congo independence) up to the mid 90s would have been much shorter.

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).

The first step must be for those few socialist nations that truly are so and not just dictatorships (Venezuela for one) to actually become the "City on the Hill" for other countries to emulate instead of the previous method of imposing socialism on the rest of the population by force.

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.

Being dissatisfied with democracy in my mind does not equate supporting fascism, just dislike for political gridlock and bureaucratic slowness and red-tape.
I'd actually say the extremists are more satisfied, as the debate has become more pointed and both major parties in the US have gone more toward their extreme base that gives both sets of extremists the radical policies and agendas they can get behind as well as the evil opponents to vilify. Both sets of extremists see any compromise as concessions of their principles, they want to attain power and impose their will, not negotiate toward any sort of middle ground.

[Montmorency]

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.

Ok, that sounds good, but then what's the point of whining about Brexit here? Most of us aren't even Britons.

Die hard Trump supporters of course remain so, just as Obama supporters that saw him as sort of a messiah continued to give him unfettered support.
Special election's lesson: Where Trump once won big there's now a centrist path to victory for Democrats

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...............For these reasons, Lamb’s performance has major negative implications for continued Republican control of the House and vindicates the critical importance of Democrats taking a centrist approach to the most competitive races.

If the Democrats want to win back the red and swing districts lost to President Trump in 2016, they must follow Lamb’s example and take moderate positions on key issues that are in line with their constituents........

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...democrats.html

This is the wrong lesson, because it doesn't take into account either what people on the ground are saying, nor the actual results in aggregate (that demonstrate a clear left-ward shift in preference across elections). Reproducing the centrism that still predominates today, and has for a generation, is exactly what Republicans and Fox News should hope Dems do, from a partisan outlook. It's what lost the Dems West Virginia and hundreds of seats in state legislatures throughout the country.

Connor Lamb won not merely because he was a centrist, but because he ran a good campaign and convinced people he was a good candidate. He wasn't a detached sack of crap riding on cash injections from the Machine and the safety blanket of the party-brand ballot. We can discuss whether "all politics is local" or "all politics is national" is more true, but in between the personal touch is critical in shifting votes. Especially in local races. See here:

https://democracyjournal.org/argumen...-no-civil-war/
https://democracyjournal.org/argumen...ots-democracy/

I think the indication here is for the national party to reinvent itself on the Left, encourage grassroots mobilization, and allow local engagement to decide who is selected to run on the lowest level, even if they may be rightward of the party line. DON'T PRE-SELECT LOCAL CANDIDATES BY CENTRAL COMMITTEE, even if you can't vet the candidates as well.

There do have to be some hard boundaries. If one believes we "need Jesus" in schools, that abortion needs to be banned and illegal abortions policed and penalized, that government revenue needs to be redistributed toward business and the top income tax bracket, that 'the bones of an American are worth more than all the rest of humanity', that black people have nothing to be politically active about... that person simply cannot be accepted as collateral with the party.

Perhaps having a message that isn't as extreme as "No human can be illegal" and "A world without borders" by social justice warriors would do strides toward making modern socialism more palatable for the center mass of European society.

In general, both socialists and libertarians believe that people have a right to freedom of movement. So, socialists may aim freedom of movement at establishing empathy and solidarity and democratic cooperation (by breaking down exclusionary "imagined communities"), whereas libertarians may want freedom of movement as an individual right against the state and support schemes that more or less amount to purchasing citizenship privileges.

Socialists prioritize consideration of the economic utility of immigrants, because they apply "to each according to their needs...". A bed-bound, intellectually disabled septuagenarian wouldn't be excluded on that basis; people shouldn't be rejected just because they can't contribute to GDP.
Libertarians tend to emphasize economic utility, but they believe the market will sort things out on its own. A bed-bound, intellectually disabled septuagenarian wouldn't be excluded on that basis; incentives will align to either keep such a person out, minimize their presence, or otherwise find just the right equilibrium.

More concretely, both Left and Libertarian recognize that a strict border-security regime requires a lot of resources and inflicts a lot of suffering on people just because of how they happen to be moving around.

Personally, I think even a libertarian market-oriented scheme would be better than what we have got, moving as it is toward Gestapo-ization of federal law enforcement. Due to my statist bent, I believe that the state should always be heavily involved in regulating movement of persons - but regulation doesn't have to mean restriction. You could legalize/deschedule all the controlled substances and still heavily regulate them, for example. So when I've said that neither undocumented nor illegal immigrant is a fully accurate term because:

(a) most "illegal" immigrants are not violating any criminal statute by entering or being in the United States, rather civil codes
(b) most "undocumented" immigrants, excepting those held as slaves or trafficking victims, have various forms of state documentation and are to an extent known by some or another authority (from IRS down to local primary school)

you'll funnily enough find it echoed at places like Cato Institute that the correct term is "unauthorized immigrant", and that authorization is something trivial to extend in the sense that Congress could do it immediately if it wanted to.

Read people like Ann Coulter and you understand the big stumbling block in swaying many conservatives (non-socialist, non libertarian) on this issue is that they often literally see migrants as subhuman and actively desire to inflict pain or violence upon them (euphemized in terms of "deterrence"). If sadism is what drives one's politics... we have a big problem. A productive countermeasure may be to force those with such a mindset to physically confront other people who experience the travails of migration and our response to it; it's a lot harder to be callous toward someone or their group if you've listened to their story.

The first step must be for those few socialist nations that truly are so and not just dictatorships (Venezuela for one) to actually become the "City on the Hill" for other countries to emulate instead of the previous method of imposing socialism on the rest of the population by force.

Yeah.

I'd actually say the extremists are more satisfied, as the debate has become more pointed and both major parties in the US have gone more toward their extreme base that gives both sets of extremists the radical policies and agendas they can get behind as well as the evil opponents to vilify. Both sets of extremists see any compromise as concessions of their principles, they want to attain power and impose their will, not negotiate toward any sort of middle ground.

We've had a thread about middle-ground oriented thinking: it's an artificial construction that doesn't map onto real people.

If you believe that there is a human right to bodily autonomy, then women must be permitted to exercise that right toward abortion. This is not something that can go up for sale. And even if a "compromise" like elective restrictions in the third trimester doesn't in theory curtail access to abortion (given extant patterns), if the people on the other side of the compromise believe that abortion should be criminalized, no good-faith compromise is actually possible.

flipside

If you believe that there is a natural right to private arms ownership for any conceivable kind of defense, then people should be encouraged to value guns and practice gun ownership. This is not something that can go up for sale. And even if a "compromise" like a single universal license for all firearms ownership doesn't in theory curtail gun ownership or gun culture, if the people on the other side of the compromise believe that guns need to be eliminated, no good-faith compromise is actually possible.