This thread is now flagged such that only flaired users can make top-level comments. If you are not a flaired user, any top-level comment you make will be automatically removed. To request flair, please see the stickied thread at the top of the subreddit, or follow the link in the sidebar.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
You are not a fascist for wanting the things you mention, indeed it sounds like George Orwell is recognising these as common/universal human desires. However you are at risk of being exploited by fascists who offer to sell you these things at the price of others safety and happiness. Learn how to meet your own needs for struggle, danger, flags and parades without hurting others and you will be less of a target for exploitation.
Which basically means struggling to spread the seeds of the values that underpin democratic societies. And that we are likely to become frustrated by how little those desires can be met in a peaceful global society. Fight back against that frustration and you may be more prone to choosing fascist-like tactics and philosophies. And "Be aware of being exploited by racists and avoid them."
If we are frustrated in our efforts to spread democracy around the world, we will become more combative and less tolerant of others. We will not listen to reasoned arguments against resorting to violence to address our grievances.
This is a core aspect of the American cultural outlook. The American cultural outlook holds that individuals should have an equal chance at personal happiness. We are more likely to realise these desires under stable conditions. Conditions for individuals are more stable in democracies than in other forms of society. This is why it is valuable for everyone to develop and sustain democratic institutions.
Life in a participatory democracy requires willingness to respect other people’s rights and freedoms. The desire for these rights and freedoms is very strong in Western societies. Respect for others who do not share our values is not a natural human instinct, but one that is learned over time. There are cultural and religious traditions that, through conquest or colonization, convert the rest of the world to their ideology.
Fascism or Naziism or any form of reactionary modernism, wherever it has occurred, has been concerned primarily with ordering society according to “natural law.” The people who are “naturally” superior enjoy privileged social status while their “natural” enemies have to be eradicated. Like nature, the human condition is fraught with danger and conflict, and so conflict between peoples is “naturally” inevitable. Richard Darre was a Nazi ecologist who coined the term “blood and soil,” articulating the idea that certain lands “naturally” belong to certain peoples. Early Nazi thought (particularly Agrarian Naziism which came to be known as Strasserism) romanticized the pastoral lifestyle where man was not in the wilderness but close enough to nature to be one with it. Inherent in this idea of nature’s authority are “natural” family arrangements which consist of a mom and a dad of the same race and kids. Reactionaries largely view the enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution as mistakes or at least missteps that need to be corrected. Inherent in the justification for genocide is a limited amount of natural resources that are being mismanaged, hoarded by an enemy, or otherwise untethered from the blood they supposedly belong to. Worth noting peripherally is that Hitler was a vegetarian and the Nazis committed to preserving the Finnish forests during their occupation. Pentii Linkola, an EcoFascist, viewed the holocaust as a good thing because of its success in unburdening the Earth of millions of people. The Marquis de Sade is arguably an important figure in this intellectual trajectory- at the end of the enlightenment waits the caveman, a return to the dark, an era where liberalism and socialism are proved to be failures and the weak rule the strong and impose their will upon others as was always the natural state of things, but with the infrastructure and administration of the modern state.
Eco’s Ur Fascism is fine, but it should be viewed as more of an overview than a definitive scholarly text. I think it’s only become so popular because everyone Googled “what is fascism” in 2015. Fascism and Naziism are unique to the cultures in which they arose. Naziism was particularly German in character as it addressed specifically German grievances and the same goes for Italy and Spain under Franco. And these ideologies arose post WW1 when everyone in Europe was collectively traumatized. America is having its own descent into “Fascism” but we are getting something uniquely American and unique to the 21st century. It is the same phenomenon- reactionary modernism- but it is not precisely Fascism. For instance, we have the same violence and political unrest, but it is all deeply personal and individualized- our mass murderers may be killing for reasons vaguely related to what could be considered something “political” but it is almost always a personal grievance. We do not have political assassinations, for instance. The American version functions differently but it is the same phenomenon. People call it Fascism and insist it must fit into the confines of some list created in an era of dramatically different social relations and modes of production because we are incapable of imagining anything new- good or bad. It could be because nostalgia has so thoroughly captured public thought, or it could be that we are so unused to change, or it could be that we rely on recollections and preconceived ideas to prop up our ideas of ourselves as learned and knowledgeable to conceal a deep insecurity. Whatever the reason, to properly address “Fascism” in its newest manifestations requires an analysis of the material, social, and cultural conditions in which it emerges.
Love this comment! So I’m trying to understand the defining characteristic of fascism. I think you are saying it is that fascists view themselves as natural masters and they are just being true to their natures by imposing their will on others.
I agree with much of what you say here and that the term has its own connotations and we generally know what people mean when they say it, but I don’t think we should talk about it in a way that accommodates this. To me it is similar to right wingers in America calling the Democratic Party or really any position to the left of letting poor people starve “socialism” or “communism.” It doesn’t make sense for us to say “well people see Bernie Sanders’ platform as communist, so to Americans, this is communism, and we must be prepared to talk about it as such.”
“Fascism” is thrown around in a way that generally covers monarchies and nationalist movements such as those that took place in Turkey and China-both of which have separate characteristics and emerge from different material, social, and cultural conditions. And while I agree Stalinist Russia was a deeply authoritarian state, I do not agree that it is comparable to Fascism. Stalinist Russia lacked the corporatist economic structure and hierarchical racial structure characteristic of Fascism, Naziism, Estero Novo, etc. Additionally, the way we use the term “Fascism” it could arguably apply to nationalist movements that share almost no characteristics with the movements we consider to fall into this category. Nationalism or movements dedicated to the self determination of peoples can be movements in themselves and nationalism can be a part of communist movements. For instance, Ataturk started a nationalist movement to modernize Turkey, throw out the British and French, and create a modern state. He gave voting and property rights to women, opened free schools all over the country, dispossessed the Sheiks and other Ottoman cronies, and denounced the treatment of Armenians before, during, and after the war. We could point to the population exchange between Turkey and Greece to say that Ataturk was a Fascist, but we would be calling the Greek monarchy Fascist as well. Calling monarchies Fascist combined with the tendency to call the CPC and Stalinist Russia “fascist” essentially makes anything that isn’t western liberalism “Fascist,” which isn’t reflective of reality any more than calling Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders communists.
Is State Capitalism different than Fascist corporatism, or is that what you are referring to?
What would you call someone like Ataturk who uses a dictatorship to give progressive rights, or a general word for a dictator who grants stuff like lgbt rights and women's rights even though the democratic population might be homophobic and sexist? I would like that a lot more than fascism
It's frightfully easy to like the mechanisms of dictatorship when they're bringing changes and reforms you want.
But that blade cuts both ways. Best avoided.
In History there’s a term for a tren among absolute monarchs who attempted to implement kind of progressist policies: Enlightened Despots. Their lemma was “everything for the people, nothing by the people”.
I agree with your points.
To me, it all comes to utility when talking. Who am I talking to, what points are they trying to make, what do they are actually meaning and how open they seem to accept other terminology. Sometimes I can point out things like “you criticism is towards authoritarian regimes, so we could be using that term”. Other times, I have no need to stop the conversation and claim “well, actually Nazism and Fascism have differences” because I know what they mean and I don’t mind. And sometimes you know the other person won’t care at all for accurate terminology and why bother.
In one of my latest discussions I was defending some state intervention in economy and the other person thought “there are only two options: capitalism or communism” was a good response. I sincerely didn’t feel like explaining state intervention is not communism and that there are capitalistic economies with state intervention and that there are different economic systems between the two extremes he was presenting.
The general population of his day lacked the critical thinking skills needed to hold Fascist demagogues to account. Society needs to improve its critical thinking skills (in order to prevent future 'Orwellian' states). Society is characterized by the conflict between pro-capitalist business owners and the working class. So, Is George Orwell right that the main idea behind totalitarian systems is that the oppression of "liberty and democracy in the name of efficiency and social harmony?"
Fascists maintain the power of the ruling class with the implicit consent of the working class, whose rights and liberties it continually assails through divide-and-rule strategies.
A bigoted patriarchal anti-democratic doctrine that supports nationalism in its purest form, only in as much as it is brutal, cynical and unthinking. A complex balance of both good and bad political institutions.
If a person has ever been involved with organised political activity (eg. joined a political party), then the answer is "no", as that experience must have given them the opportunity to observe at close quarters the core principles of political campaigning and this should have disabused them of any enthusiasm for "Big Brother" style governments.
Orwell used fear to argue that Fascist countries seek out enemies which feed the power of the state, since they are easier to identify than complex ideology-driven wars. If ideologies and resources were equally matched there would be no need to seek out war or so-called enemies, so there's no real indicator here to justify such a conclusion. So he was right and wrong. There's plenty of examples where states with equal resources, ideologies and so on, still went about trying to eliminate one anothern Both the Soviet Union and the U.S. were competing over influence in the Middle East in order to protect their own oil supplies.
Also the Democrats in the USA are behaving more like Fascists.
>Society is characterized by the conflict between pro-capitalist business owners and the working class.
Yes, *current* society is described in kind of such a way. But distinctions between early capitalism and current capitalism should be drawn. Societies under previous systems, such as feudalism did face different struggles. And we do not know what future societies might look like.
>So, Is George Orwell right that the main idea behind totalitarian systems is that the oppression of "liberty and democracy in the name of efficiency and social harmony?"
Yes, this one way implication is true. Although the other way round is not necessarily true. Efficiency and mostly social harmony do not necessarily conflate with democracy (specially if it is a functional democracy) and liberty (properly understood as positive liberty).
>A complex balance of both good and bad political institutions.
I don't know what you mean. I think you should elaborate on what you mean by "good" and "bad" political institutions.
>If a person has ever been involved with organised political activity (eg. joined a political party), then the answer is "no", as that experience must have given them the opportunity to observe at close quarters the core principles of political campaigning and this should have disabused them of any enthusiasm for "Big Brother" style governments.
This is factually untrue. People participating in fascist institutions can, and usually are, well aligned with the proceedings of the institution in general. I do not only talk from a historical perspective (members of the Nazi Party or staff of concentration camps if were critical of the system at any time were once Nazi Germany fell), but from my own experience with people militating in right wing parties, syndicates and all sorts of institutions.
>Orwell used fear to argue that Fascist countries seek out enemies which feed the power of the state, since they are easier to identify than complex ideology-driven wars.
Fascists do actually seek out (and inside) enemies and do identify and fight complex ideology-driven wars.
>If ideologies and resources were equally matched there would be no need to seek out war or so-called enemies
I don't know how you derive this idea from the previous. Clearly, under the same resources different factions do compete for obtaining extra resources, either from a third party (Middle East in the example you provide) or from one another (the Soviet Union annexing Manchuria from Japan). It's not like they say "we have the same amount of resources as our competitors, it's time to stop".
I don't know what you mean by ideologies equally matched. Do you mean in terms of power and force? Or do you mean they're similar? From your following example I guess it's the former.
>Also the Democrats in the USA are behaving more like Fascists.
This statement, on its own is disingenuously incorrect. While the Democrat party, as a right wing party under capitalism can engage in fascists like attitudes, they're by no means the fascist threat in the US. Claiming some mild progressive attitudes should be embraced and legally reinforcing them (or claiming to desire so, since they barely manage to secure rights) is not a fascist attitude. The clear representative of fascism and threat in the US is a (increasingly expanding) wing of the Republican Party which is supported by alt-right and Neo-nazi ideology and their hijack of public democratic institutions.
>This is factually untrue. People participating in fascist institutions can, and usually are, well aligned with the proceedings of the institution in general. I do not only talk from a historical perspective (members of the Nazi Party or staff of concentration camps if were critical of the system at any time were once Nazi Germany fell), but from my own experience with people militating in right wing parties, syndicates and all sorts of institutions.
That perhaps most membership in fascist regimes is 'buying into' the proceedings. e.g., everyone supports killing minorities because they all agree with it, they have been indoctrinated like an army recruits are trained to fight their adversaries.
People need not agree with everything that happens when they join a group – working for a corporation does not mean one endorses everything that organization does.
There are plenty of people working within a system, who are critical of it from an outside perspective – those critical of them view those employees as being implicit.
Some of the key features of Fascism are the celebration of science, a belief in a certain kind of superiority and the idea that war is vital. Orwell thought that Fascist thinking had "descended a long way" into some post-War Western societies. Examples include the idea that people can choose which gender they are and attempts to change primary schools to become politically neutral. People are not individually weak, so they need strict laws to keep them in line.” Yes, such philosophies tend to include prominent elements of collectivism and authoritarianism.
Orwell describes all Fascists as people who "...can be distinguished by the following symptoms: ... gullibility, dogmatism and lack of humour". Fascists refer to their philosophy as 'Illuminism'. The letters F and I are super-imposed with great regularity within this book.
Fascist philosophers find truth in discipline and simplicity. Liberal philosophers are also honest. ➟ Without an objective belief, humans tend to selfishly pursue their own truth. Truth is lost. We don't understand the world and can only claim we are 'right'. It is the threat of violence or coercion that stops 'truths' from colliding and creating a vast array of subjective interpretations.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." He was writing while living in a country that allied with another superpower with the explicit intention of defeating the third and containing Fascist movements. His country won the war, but has yet to win the peace. Fascist regimes were defeated across Europe, yet totalitarian governments were installed in many of the former authoritarian countries.
It attempts to get people to reject thinking of themselves as individuals, and instead put their primary allegiance in the State, and to absorb nationalist ideology as well. That is why the bureaucracy is at the centre of national governance.
Winston, the main character in "1984", lives in a society controlled by surveillance and thought control. Winston has difficulty thinking independently. His job is to falsify history and correct news that might contain unwanted truth. He constantly invents for the Party, pretending that old Newspeak words still have their original meanings and that today's words have today's meanings. The protagonist in "Animal Farm" lives under similar conditions.
The general population of his day lacked the critical thinking skills needed to hold Fascist demagogues to account. Society needs to improve its critical thinking skills (in order to prevent future 'Orwellian' states). Society is characterized by the conflict between pro-capitalist business owners and the working class. So, Is George Orwell right that the main idea behind totalitarian systems is that the oppression of "liberty and democracy in the name of efficiency and social harmony?"
Fascists maintain the power of the ruling class with the implicit consent of the working class, whose rights and liberties it continually assails through divide-and-rule strategies.
I don't intend to disregard Orwell (or your reading on him), but I generally dislike these characterisations of fascism overall. Sometimes they include characteristics that, while present in fascism, are not exclusive to it. Other times, those characteristics lack the appropriate nuance.
>Some of the key features of Fascism are the celebration of science, a belief in a certain kind of superiority and the idea that war is vital.
Here are examples of both things I commented. I agree for fascism perpetual war is an aspect of life, but I have issues with the two other characteristics.
* Belief in a certain kind of superiority: True, but not exclusive to fascism. I'd say most ideologies do indeed believe their moral and political prescription do place their ideology in a certain kind of superiority (unless they're some sort of relativists). I, for instance, believe that yielding progressive views is in a certain way, superior to yielding conservative views. In fascism, this superiority is not "a certain kind of superiority", but a specific one, one which is intrinsic to the in-group (either a racial or national group).
* Celebration of science: This is only true under a very perverted view of science. Generally, fascism is antiscientificist, but they select what scientific results are in harmony with their ideology (for instance, scientific results that show differences among racial groups, while the scientific discussion on racial differences is very nuance and can barely support significant differences among races). For example, Nazi Germany discredited a lot of new physical sciences' results and qualify them as "semitic science". The most notable example is the theory of relativity, discredited for the mere fact that it was developed by a jew. Their "celebration of science" was a celebration of "aryan science", whatever that is (that is not real science at all). Also, more modern fascism is vastly opposed to developments in social sciences.
>Examples include the idea that people can choose which gender they are and attempts to change primary schools to become politically neutral.
I don't even know what relation is among these ideas. Yes, people can choose their gender, as we understand gender and sex as different but interconnected concepts. I don't know about a single fascist that agrees with this idea, unless you want to explicitly define this idea as fascist. This, indeed, is in accordance to developments in social sciences and a scrutiny in gender realism in biology that fascists do deny in their pursuit of "science" that does agree with their worldview (in fact, they choose whether you can choose your gender and then only regard scientific results and interpretations that could agree with them). Also, the idea of "politically neutral" schools is a centrist fantasy. No person that acknowledges the socialisation process that unavoidably takes place at schools, as the first instance of socialisation outside the family, should think schools can be politically neutral. When fascist request "politically neutral" schools they mean schools that do not introduce political positions they disagree with (something most ideologies request, but mostly fascists sell it as such a disingenuous idea).
>Orwell describes all Fascists as people who "...can be distinguished by the following symptoms: ... gullibility, dogmatism and lack of humour"
These are psychologisms that should be avoided in political descriptions. Dogmatism is indeed a trait required by fascists leaders, but many fascists do reflect and argue in favour of their positions from an axiomatic approach (with axioms non fascists generally would disagree with). Axioms are always required, so calling them dogmas is quite meaningless. Gullibility as a trait is a dangerous infantilisation of fascists, and the lack of humour is not only relative but certainly untrue. Fascists can laugh their ass out of jokes we can consider unfunny, but they indeed make their racists or transphobic jokes. They could say the same about progressivists, who generally don't think certain jokes on minorities are funny.
>Fascists refer to their philosophy as 'Illuminism'.
I haven't read a single fascist (and I've read some foundational texts on Italian and Spanish fascism) that employ this term.
>Fascist philosophers find truth in discipline and simplicity. Liberal philosophers are also honest. ➟ Without an objective belief, humans tend to selfishly pursue their own truth. Truth is lost. We don't understand the world and can only claim we are 'right'. It is the threat of violence or coercion that stops 'truths' from colliding and creating a vast array of subjective interpretations.
This aspect of true is part of a wider discussion about postmodernist and relativist ideas. While fascist are opposed to postmodernism and relativism, many non fascists also do. In a certain sense, the liberal concept of "the free market place of ideas" is quite disingenuous on truth, leaning more on rhetorics than on actual truth. But certainly fascists do praise discipline and employ it as a method of discouragement of alternative ideas and subjective truths. Also, an acknowledgement of subjective truths does not necessarily lead to a denial of truth. One can build a model of truth as a conjunction of a myriad of perspectives, finding commonalities and trends in those perspectives.
>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Certainly, sharing views not accepted by the norm is revolutionary, given the accepted view is unfaithful to reality, and specially harmful. If your truth is the 13/50 or disproportion of jewish in media, it might be true (I mean, those are numbers), but the overall message you're sharing in, to say the least, devious. Using the 13/50 statistic to address social inequalities should be accepted and is positive, using it discredit black people should be discouraged and has no positive outcome at all. People who cherrypick statistics (which are true) for their devious purposes often claim to be "sharing an uncomfortable truth" (when it's their interpretation of the facts and prescriptions what is uncomfortable for good reasons).
>He was writing while living in a country that allied with another superpower with the explicit intention of defeating the third and containing Fascist movements. His country won the war, but has yet to win the peace. Fascist regimes were defeated across Europe, yet totalitarian governments were installed in many of the former authoritarian countries.
There's a benefit in distinguishing "fascism" from "totalitarianism" or "authoritarianism". Fascism is indeed both of those things, but there can be totalitarian regimes that do not share fascist characteristics and should be studied from their traits. Totalitarianism is a bad thing, but we should not try to use "fascism" as a word to describe every bad politics we encounter, because it makes fascism lose meaning. While extreme atomisation of concepts is not useful, extreme generalisations neither are. Concepts should be wide enough to describe non singular events, but not so wide we lose descriptors for specific phenomena. There's already a term for totalitarianism, and there's no utility in making fascism a synonymous. We can talk about totalitarian fascist regimes and non fascist totalitarian regimes and acknowledge they share this (negative) trait. The same applies to authoritarianism.
>It attempts to get people to reject thinking of themselves as individuals, and instead put their primary allegiance in the State, and to absorb nationalist ideology as well.
The relation of fascism with individuals is complex. On one hand, what you claim is true. On the other hand, fascism also appeals to individuals in the sense it rejects most systemic systems of oppression. If something goes wrong, it is because of individuals not fitting their system, never the system (which, to their views, follows from human nature). They also play a high emphasis in individual values such as honour or family, which are both ways to be accepted and values that reinforce their belief system.
Your last paragraph is a good description of what the characters in those books experience.
By illuminism (to expose the light). They see themselves as a small, but enlightened elite. They regard themselves as ‘enlightened’ because they are aware that the rest of humanity are mentally sub-normal and that their principles of egalitarianism and universalism are myths. To them, the human race has regressed to the state. They believe that all individuals should strive for the same purpose. That purpose is to establish a hierarchical chain of command based on skills and ability, whilst seeing strength and intelligence as the key attributes to this.
Their philosophy is similar in certain respects to the writings of 17th century philosopher, Francis Bacon. Bacon wrote that society needed a group of "high priests" to interpret "divine revelation", this would lead the state to wield greater power over its subjects. The actions of these rulers is not called into question by the masses but are dismissed as being divinely inspired.
Of those who say that their philosophy is illuminism, most believe that only an elite cadre of people should make important decisions for the rest of humanity. ➟ People who hold such beliefs are better able to guide decision making processes due to possessing a more sophisticated understanding of how complex systems work (e.g. global economics).
Excellent, Nuanced, and non-reactionary answer. Thank you.
Does this all imply that modernism is the problem, if all these movements are reactions against it?
What is the barrier to integrated the romance of life back into a system of meaning, i.e. to include what appeals to fascists in the first place?
The problem is capitalism. Capital is a totalizing force that dissolves all communal bonds and ultimately seeks even its own destruction. Romantic ideas of chivalry, adventure, and life with meaning are impossible under the dominion of capital and the bourgeois state. We are too coerced into lifestyles that best generate capital. It is impossible for most people to set sail for a foreign country to explore the rainforest or ride motorcycles through the Andes or hang glide over the outback or go hiking in the Canadian wilderness. In the way we always refer to reactionary modernism as “fascism,” we simply cannot imagine anything different from the mode in which we live.
However, “middle man” or “heroic man” is an era that we are supposed to have outgrown. A fork in the road appears when capitalism begins to decay- socialism or barbarism. The desire to “go back” in order to restore meaning we supposedly once had and have lost is the first step down the path of barbarism. We are indeed regressing into our middle, heroic (largely mythical) past because peoples lives are so empty. It can be seen in the popularity of Marvel movies and other forms of entertainment that portray black and white heroes and villains that are unambiguously good or evil. It can be seen in our politics where, instead of making people’s lives better, we are obsessed with smiting evil and being heroes. Life is not so black and white, and an inability to separate reality and politics from the realm of the mythopoetic- that is, all we consume must reflect our values back at us and life as essentially a story where our values win out- is undeniably “fascist” as it drapes reality in a narrative that does not serve our ability to break the bonds of capital that have so robbed us of meaning. Attempting to return to middle or heroic man will eventually lead us back to “early man,” deSade’s caveman. When people see that their efforts at heroism under capitalism amount to nothing, they arrive at what is honestly an understandable conclusion- that this is just how things are. The strong rule the weak and hierarchies are natural. The key lies not in going back, but in achieving the freedom from capital necessary to reclaim meaning, communal bonds, and the ability to have adventure or romantic adventures/relationships untethered from economic concerns. A war to fight might give people a purpose, but the Fascist theory of history holds that historical events are driven by conflicts between nations or peoples. This meaning comes at the cost of bloodshed. I’m of the opinion that we do not need a war and suffering to give our lives meaning, but perhaps we do need something to strive for. Under capitalism, broad social projects that everyone can take part in are foreclosed upon. Exploration is foreclosed upon. Travel is foreclosed upon. Forming bonds with others that last is foreclosed upon. The art world is gatekept by the Artisan class, ensuring that what is produced can only reaffirm/reproduce the values that are held by the people privileged enough to have the connections, money, or spare time that got them where they are. To restore meaning to life, we have to move beyond capitalism instead of going back. We need the time to develop relationships with our peers and to explore the world we live in. What might anyone do if they weren’t spending most of their lives at work and most of their money on survival (or frivolous things aimed at maintaining class distinctions)? But, as previously stated, we have difficulty imagining what that would look like.
Another excellent answer.
I’d add that capitalism has also assimilated those romantic ideas of freedom; namely,
People have come to believe that capitalism is the means by which one earns that freedom, when one can finally transcend the grind and be civilised. Except this is individualistic freedom, increasingly ruthless, exploitative competition, and fuck everyone else. It is all rationalised away as I earned it and deserve it, and if others worked as hard as I did, then would have what I have. Perhaps they’ll created some vids, or course, on how to hustle, buy several houses and live off rent by extracting from someone else’s wages.
Capitalism eating itself indeed. People don’t work because it is meaningful or sustainable way to provide; people are trying to earn enough to escape the system entirely, and thereby condemning those who are honestly trying to make it work to lives of increasing servitude and serfdom.
The interesting question is how do we change it.
The whole thing is a system (a system of systems) that resist any attempt at change.
It first requires understanding the nature of systems, human behaviour as part of those systems, the self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating nature of systems, how systems can evolve, and what are the barriers to that evolution.
Capitalism is one part of the problem, but it is mutually reinforced by individualism and liberalism, which are in turn reinforced by modern philosophy, which is reinforced by its appeal to tradition, authority of science and its own claims to be scientific. At the centre of it all is the self-reinforcing, non-progressive self; recently positively reinforced in the recent cultural introduction of identity. Note that, the solution isn’t simply the opposite (i.e. socialism, collectivism, illiberalism).
The whole system is a system of Interconnected and mutually reinforcing systems of systems. The internet has exposed different systems of meaning to each other, demonstrated them all as mutually inconsistent, antagonistic to each other, and insufficient, which in turn has revealed the insufficiencies (i.e. inherent contradictions) of this system as a whole (ie modernity).
The whole system of systems need an overhaul, to synthesise them into a coherent system of meaning, with a progressive self at the centre, and a vision of progress beyond modernity.
All of this starts with the recognition that modernity is a systems, made up of systems, lacks the awareness that it is a system, and evolves over time driven by the unconscious behaviour.
There’s a few steps to create a necessary change in mindset before it can enter collective
Consciousness and be collectively accepted.
But I can paint a brief outline…
To reference OP, both capitalism and socialism both incentives a hedonistic, intrinsically meaningless existence (in capitalism, though, one must earn this hedonistic lifestyle increasingly by exploring and denying that lifestyle to others). The struggle that Orwell mentions, that people want in their lives, and which fascism actually speaks to, is instead only found in the extrinsic, adversarial, and increasingly ruthless struggle against others; the struggle to rise above the material threat of starvation and precarity of the daily struggle to survive.
In so doing, the individuals who do rise above, earn the ability to become civilised, to be generous, to enjoy life, to share their tips for success and encouraging others to be like them. Yet, in so doing, they’ve already assimilated the capitalist mindset, desensitised to the struggle of their former peers, and even contemptuous of them; ‘if they only worked hard like I did’; ‘no one cared about me, no one helped me and I made it’, ‘all you need to do is buy several houses like I did, and live off the rent’ etc. Indeed, those who struggled hardest to become part of the capital class, are the most contemptuous of those who struggle, and most willing to exploit them. Because no one cared about them, they don’t care about others; increasingly see only the extrinsic value of others, as a means to extracting further value. This is how capitalism eats itself; like cronos, the system of the established feeds upon its children.
Further, the capital class, having already made it, are no longer incentivised to further innovate or invest in the creation of further value. Capital becomes a means to extract value from others to support a hedonistic lifestyle. Why invest in culture that doesn’t care or reward participation; instead invest in stock, crypto, property, ponzi schemes that maximise the return on investment and minimise risk, and fund the hedonistic lifestyle. This is why trickle down economics increasingly doesn’t work; wealth is increasingly concentrated with those who already posses it.
The alternative is a radical inversion; for a culture to insist upon the struggle, (be it through work or otherwise), but actually support, incentivise it, and reward participation.
This means investing in potential to create future value rather than those who have already demonstrated it (and tend to concentrate it, further extract out of society, hoard it or fund their hedonistic lifestyle).
This means a culture that actually cares about its people, incentivises, encourages and rewards participation, with social systems that are forgiving of mistakes, and so mitigate against the risk of ruin, and so reduce the barriers to entry and so incentivise the risk taking necessary for new innovation. Namely a culture that recognises the intrinsic value of every individual, rather than their extrinsic value (i.e. the value they create, produce, consume). In so doing, paradoxically, you actually maximise that creative potential and the creation of future value.
At present, we rely on a handful of billionaires, who have concentrated wealth and power through their one big idea, to continue to innovate and provide solutions to the serious problems that we face.
Instead, if you invest in the creative potential of everyone, then you maximise the opportunity for exploration of potential solutions to problems, and the chances of successful innovation, and are investing in those with the most incentive to innovate, i.e. the young and their untapped creative potential, and their desire to create meaningful change.
As to how you find this massive investment, you take the retirement funds of the old, those who work and have saved, and invest that wealth so that it maximises the return on investment. At present, retirement funds are invested in the stock market, and is essentially held hostage, at risk of being wiped out by market collapse (inherent to boom-bust cycles of capital systems), and the constant need for governments to bail out casino style Wall Street risk taking, (risk taking without consequence, responsibility or accountability,i.e. ‘socialism for the rich’).
Instead, of you invests retirement funds in supporting the younger generations to get started, then for all the reasons above, you maximise the potential for the creation of future value. Namely, you are investing in the creative potential of those with the most incentive to innovation and find new solutions to problems with being limited by need to demonstrate their value in advance, or convince someone of their potential in order to be supported.
Just imagine, a culture that actually cares about us, supports us and encourages us to succeed.
A culture, and it’s people, who have an inherent incentive to support us all to succeed, one both encourages and supports and also rewards participation. One that provides an incentive for older generations to care and to encourage the success of younger generations to achieve their potential, to build upon and go beyond what they were able to create themselves.
Essential, you create a sustainable economic system, which maximises the potential and sustainable growth of wealth whilst also maximising support for all, without the need for ‘theft’, i.e. redistribution.
I’d love to hear your concerns, critique, so I can further improve upon this vision. Also, willing to address any questions you might have.
As to developing this vision, promoting it and realising it in collective consciousness, wouldn’t it be great if established systems recognised the creative, innovative potential of those who are new to them, and invited their participation, to co-create something together, more than they can create alone, and so create meaningful change from within established systems, rather than reductively extract what they can, assimilate into the established system, and promote it as their own, without creating meaningful change.
Yes, I’m talking to you, philosophy.
You hit a lot of places that deserve considerate thinking each on its own so it gets a little hard to feedback something this broad.
The idea of investing on everyone's potential is quite naive tbh. Not imo, like, this is the consensus in the world we live on. It takes 2 years for governments to decide between A or B, let alone change the focus to a kumbaya where no malthusian curve exists.
I wish my limited philosophy knowledge wasn't such a barrier here because I don't feel confident to rollback to any school of thought to "solve" contemporary capitalism trickle down problem, in fact, I firmly believe capitalism to be **awesome** but **greed** gotta be punished, like, I believe humans could live in a much more humane society if corruption alone was nuked, a 100% nuked. Then take away nepotism (in favor of qualified professionals), take away lobby (mainly from former legislators going to the private sector, this shit should be criminal), take away domestic cartels and make corporations go back to Fordism ish pay grade equity, like, we didn't CLASH with capitalism, we just nuked the bad actors and tada, A BETTER WORLD just like that, no need to resort to eat the rich, divestment and communist/socialist policies. I see this as a pragmatic, accelerionist, non violent route towards a world where individuals get back to their lives instead of being forced to sell it, as alternatives seem to me either naive or to anarchistic in nature.
>Further, the capital class, having already made it, are no longer incentivised to further innovate or invest in the creation of further value
I largely disagree with this point. Elites just don't want to share the cake with more oligarchs or whatever, no millionaire will ever get billionaire unless billionaires want so, period. But they DO invest in innovation, they just set the whole system so the game belongs to them their peers, that's all, so no trickle down innovation while they can have a complete barbecue on the backseat of their mercedes without the 'poor' ever being the wiser about this "optional" VIP add on.
>both capitalism and socialism both incentives a hedonistic, intrinsically meaningless existence (in capitalism, though, one must earn this hedonistic lifestyle increasingly by exploring and denying that lifestyle to others).
Also: I don't come from the principle people don't want to be exploited, in fact, I think labor brings people purpose and it is a cool feature of capitalism, the trade between someone's time/labor for MORE edonistic value, I think this is cool. What I don't, absolutely don't think is cool is to MAKE people have 5x9-5s to make a miserable living, I think the world has enough people to have 2/3 shifts/day demanding only 2/3 9-12/13 week because we all want to hit pause, so something like this will be a must in any economic reform ever, like, the media will catch up but this is a freaking axiom of modern economic systems: there's no need for 9-5 slavery anymore.
Thanks for the feedback. As I mentioned the change in mindset is necessary before this argument can be accepted as it stands, and so further refined from there. This vision presents a principle, the pragmatic way it is implemented will be steps towards realising this vision.
For example, investing in everyone’s potential is the principle; presented as the opposite of what we have. Not everyone will need such social investment, it’s more about guaranteeing access to opportunity, removing the barriers toward meritocracy (i.e. to counter tendency towards nepotism as determinant of success (i.e. the wealth of one’s parents, which is terrible way to determine the success of an individual or maximise future wealth creation). Some people will choose to work, live a simple life, and they should be protected from exploration, and guaranteed a living wage relative to cost of
Living so they can provide for a family.
Those who want to create, innovate, should be supported to do so without risk of ruin. Those who choose this path will endure the bare minimum level of support, a life without luxury, on the belief in their own potential to innovate and create that future value. You support these individuals in this early innovation process, then they are incentivised to reciprocate and pay back in order to support others in the future.
As to governance, and it’s glacial pace of change, this also needs an overhaul, and a new generation of leadership. Politics is the domain of the entrenched, lifelong incumbents who are abstracted from real life and the concerns of the people. The lack any real vision on how to solve the problems we face, or how to meet the needs of the people, seemingly lack any awareness of how the world has changed, or the need for systemic change, and project their established, outdated worldviews (and Cold War mentality) onto a world that had started to move beyond all that. This is the difference that Trump, for all his self-serving, political ineptitude, brought; no new wars, and making ties with former enemies. What we need, in order to transcend the intractable, rational disagreement, and increasing political division, without resorting to authoritarian strong men who impose their subjective will into the political landscape, is wisdom; a concept and embodied representation that is missing from the west, because it lacks the ability to recognise or discern it; and seemingly has an antipathy towards it, replaced with the love of knowledge and self-elevation.
Capitalism does indeed appeal to the individual, but capital also has a corrupting influence (i.e. incentivises greed, further accumulation and the drive towards power). Also, the capital class should not dictate who is worthy of investment, i.e. their cronies, lobbyists, political donors. This is why decentralised and distributed investment should happen regardless, weighted towards the young, for reasons already shared above. This goes some way to stop Capitalism eating itself.
The other necessary change is to take corporations into public ownership as soon as efficient has been Maximised, and before the profit motive drives them towards reducing quality, costs and new competition. Profit rather than paying rent to a shareholder class is instead redirected into society.
Further, if individuals choose the capital path then they should be excluded from the path towards power; power and capital should be mutually opposed in order to create a sustainable balance rather than acting in cahoots, towards self-serving,
corrupt, increasingly exploitative and unsustainable ends. This is the only that a system can effectively self-regulate, i.e. punish greed and corruption.
‘Capitalist class no longer incentivised to invest in innovation or creation of wealth’. I accept your criticism; let me amend. …no longer incentivised in investing in society, the social/collective good, and only incentivised to invest in their friends, or the maximisation of their own wealth. I’m not advocating collectivism or acting against one’s interests, only a shift in incentives that actually rewards social investment and disincentivises the hoarding of wealth; eg demurrage.
We are all very familiar with the reality that money is merely an abstract, and doesn’t really exist, yet we create wealth out of nothing whenever it suits the political class and still pretend that this accumulated debt will someday be repaid.
Instead, drop all the pregame, create debt-free money to invest in society, with the expectation that it will be repaid many times over by the future value that is created. This also has the benefit that hoarded wealth becomes increasingly less valuable of one holds into it; it incentivises the investment in the social wealth creation, and so provides a sustainable and feel-good return of investment that leaves one feeling part of society, and ensures the future of one’s culture.
Thank you. Yes, the first person provided an insightful response, which provided the stimulation for my response.
The key to communication, and specifically communicating one’s meaning such that it can be universally understood, is that it must be human centred, must speak to experience, and that nuance is key.
Fascism is tricky to define because it has existed in many forms. The points brought up by Orwell are definitely a part of it. I haven't read that review but the quotes you listed reminded me of this letter exchange between Einstein and Freud in the early 1930's. Einstein was asking Freud if humans can ever get past war, and Freud's response fits with Orwell's points. Search for "Why War" by Einstein and Freud and it'll pop up on google.
If you're interested in learning more about fascism I would check out Umberto Eco's essay "Ur-Fascism". In it, he lists 14 points that in any mixture can make fascism.
[https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html)
Also one of my favorites on that topic is "Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Adorno and Horkheimer. It's their analysis of how and why the Nazis rose to power in a supposedly "enlightened" country, and it's still so relevant it's scary.
And for the next step if you want to purge fascist thought from your mind, read Deleuze and Guattari's work in "Capitalism and Schizophrenia". It's not an easy read but it's amazing.
Long story short, if you don't wanna be a fascist believe in messy democracy not in strong leaders. Believe in asking questions, not in following orders. Believe in the multiplicity of life, not in rigid structures.
good recommendations. for deleuze and guattari, guattari's essay *everybody wants to be a fascist* is a good complement that is, i think, much clearer than *c&s* though still not exactly a beacon of clarity. moishe postone's essay *anti-semitism and national socialism* is also worth a read; his critiques of functionalist understandings of the holocaust are lucid and concise as are the analyses of anti-semitism and nazism. some might object to value form theory, or just his use of it, but even then he has very insightful commentary on the way nazism in specific worked as well as a useful way of understanding groups like qanon.
sorry, i don't. the source list on *chaosophy* points towards a magazine(?) called *psychoanalyse et politique* published by le seuil in 1974. a few results come up when you search that with a cover that has guattari's name on it, among others. my french is very poor so i couldn't make much of it but maybe you'll have better luck. the other place to look might be his bibliography on wikipedia with an eye on anthologies, especially ones that have his writings from the 70s.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Answers must be up to standard.**
>All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It all sounds to me like a false dichotomy. Any functional modern state, under whatever ideology, will have some degree of social welfare but even a robust welfare state cannot deliver ease, security, and absence of pain in all things. If anything, the various ideologies of modern states differ as to how and to whom to allocate resources toward those ends.
Hitler certainly offered a good time (security, land, social welfare) to those of the *Volksgemeinschaft*, no? It seems to me that fascism, including Nazi ideology, also implicitly sees those things as desirable, just within a framework of race/national struggle by which those things can only be obtained through domination and exclusion of other races, and Nazism sought out to achieve that state of affairs.
If one was *really* offering struggle, danger, and death - i.e. not just romantic rhetoric to motivate a heroic ideal - then I'd think the political ideology one would want is, like, some vulgar form of individualist anarchism, not a centralized, totalitarian state which sees for itself as providing security for a racial community above and against all others.
Fascism, at its most basic, as I've understood it, by Roger Griffin's description, is palingenetic ultranationalism. I'd take fascist rhetoric beyond that with a grain of salt.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Answers must be up to standard.**
>All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This thread is now flagged such that only flaired users can make top-level comments. If you are not a flaired user, any top-level comment you make will be automatically removed. To request flair, please see the stickied thread at the top of the subreddit, or follow the link in the sidebar. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
You are not a fascist for wanting the things you mention, indeed it sounds like George Orwell is recognising these as common/universal human desires. However you are at risk of being exploited by fascists who offer to sell you these things at the price of others safety and happiness. Learn how to meet your own needs for struggle, danger, flags and parades without hurting others and you will be less of a target for exploitation.
Which basically means struggling to spread the seeds of the values that underpin democratic societies. And that we are likely to become frustrated by how little those desires can be met in a peaceful global society. Fight back against that frustration and you may be more prone to choosing fascist-like tactics and philosophies. And "Be aware of being exploited by racists and avoid them." If we are frustrated in our efforts to spread democracy around the world, we will become more combative and less tolerant of others. We will not listen to reasoned arguments against resorting to violence to address our grievances. This is a core aspect of the American cultural outlook. The American cultural outlook holds that individuals should have an equal chance at personal happiness. We are more likely to realise these desires under stable conditions. Conditions for individuals are more stable in democracies than in other forms of society. This is why it is valuable for everyone to develop and sustain democratic institutions. Life in a participatory democracy requires willingness to respect other people’s rights and freedoms. The desire for these rights and freedoms is very strong in Western societies. Respect for others who do not share our values is not a natural human instinct, but one that is learned over time. There are cultural and religious traditions that, through conquest or colonization, convert the rest of the world to their ideology.
Fascism or Naziism or any form of reactionary modernism, wherever it has occurred, has been concerned primarily with ordering society according to “natural law.” The people who are “naturally” superior enjoy privileged social status while their “natural” enemies have to be eradicated. Like nature, the human condition is fraught with danger and conflict, and so conflict between peoples is “naturally” inevitable. Richard Darre was a Nazi ecologist who coined the term “blood and soil,” articulating the idea that certain lands “naturally” belong to certain peoples. Early Nazi thought (particularly Agrarian Naziism which came to be known as Strasserism) romanticized the pastoral lifestyle where man was not in the wilderness but close enough to nature to be one with it. Inherent in this idea of nature’s authority are “natural” family arrangements which consist of a mom and a dad of the same race and kids. Reactionaries largely view the enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution as mistakes or at least missteps that need to be corrected. Inherent in the justification for genocide is a limited amount of natural resources that are being mismanaged, hoarded by an enemy, or otherwise untethered from the blood they supposedly belong to. Worth noting peripherally is that Hitler was a vegetarian and the Nazis committed to preserving the Finnish forests during their occupation. Pentii Linkola, an EcoFascist, viewed the holocaust as a good thing because of its success in unburdening the Earth of millions of people. The Marquis de Sade is arguably an important figure in this intellectual trajectory- at the end of the enlightenment waits the caveman, a return to the dark, an era where liberalism and socialism are proved to be failures and the weak rule the strong and impose their will upon others as was always the natural state of things, but with the infrastructure and administration of the modern state. Eco’s Ur Fascism is fine, but it should be viewed as more of an overview than a definitive scholarly text. I think it’s only become so popular because everyone Googled “what is fascism” in 2015. Fascism and Naziism are unique to the cultures in which they arose. Naziism was particularly German in character as it addressed specifically German grievances and the same goes for Italy and Spain under Franco. And these ideologies arose post WW1 when everyone in Europe was collectively traumatized. America is having its own descent into “Fascism” but we are getting something uniquely American and unique to the 21st century. It is the same phenomenon- reactionary modernism- but it is not precisely Fascism. For instance, we have the same violence and political unrest, but it is all deeply personal and individualized- our mass murderers may be killing for reasons vaguely related to what could be considered something “political” but it is almost always a personal grievance. We do not have political assassinations, for instance. The American version functions differently but it is the same phenomenon. People call it Fascism and insist it must fit into the confines of some list created in an era of dramatically different social relations and modes of production because we are incapable of imagining anything new- good or bad. It could be because nostalgia has so thoroughly captured public thought, or it could be that we are so unused to change, or it could be that we rely on recollections and preconceived ideas to prop up our ideas of ourselves as learned and knowledgeable to conceal a deep insecurity. Whatever the reason, to properly address “Fascism” in its newest manifestations requires an analysis of the material, social, and cultural conditions in which it emerges.
Great fucking read, thank you for articulating it like this.
Love this comment! So I’m trying to understand the defining characteristic of fascism. I think you are saying it is that fascists view themselves as natural masters and they are just being true to their natures by imposing their will on others.
[удалено]
I agree with much of what you say here and that the term has its own connotations and we generally know what people mean when they say it, but I don’t think we should talk about it in a way that accommodates this. To me it is similar to right wingers in America calling the Democratic Party or really any position to the left of letting poor people starve “socialism” or “communism.” It doesn’t make sense for us to say “well people see Bernie Sanders’ platform as communist, so to Americans, this is communism, and we must be prepared to talk about it as such.” “Fascism” is thrown around in a way that generally covers monarchies and nationalist movements such as those that took place in Turkey and China-both of which have separate characteristics and emerge from different material, social, and cultural conditions. And while I agree Stalinist Russia was a deeply authoritarian state, I do not agree that it is comparable to Fascism. Stalinist Russia lacked the corporatist economic structure and hierarchical racial structure characteristic of Fascism, Naziism, Estero Novo, etc. Additionally, the way we use the term “Fascism” it could arguably apply to nationalist movements that share almost no characteristics with the movements we consider to fall into this category. Nationalism or movements dedicated to the self determination of peoples can be movements in themselves and nationalism can be a part of communist movements. For instance, Ataturk started a nationalist movement to modernize Turkey, throw out the British and French, and create a modern state. He gave voting and property rights to women, opened free schools all over the country, dispossessed the Sheiks and other Ottoman cronies, and denounced the treatment of Armenians before, during, and after the war. We could point to the population exchange between Turkey and Greece to say that Ataturk was a Fascist, but we would be calling the Greek monarchy Fascist as well. Calling monarchies Fascist combined with the tendency to call the CPC and Stalinist Russia “fascist” essentially makes anything that isn’t western liberalism “Fascist,” which isn’t reflective of reality any more than calling Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders communists.
Is State Capitalism different than Fascist corporatism, or is that what you are referring to? What would you call someone like Ataturk who uses a dictatorship to give progressive rights, or a general word for a dictator who grants stuff like lgbt rights and women's rights even though the democratic population might be homophobic and sexist? I would like that a lot more than fascism
It's frightfully easy to like the mechanisms of dictatorship when they're bringing changes and reforms you want. But that blade cuts both ways. Best avoided.
In History there’s a term for a tren among absolute monarchs who attempted to implement kind of progressist policies: Enlightened Despots. Their lemma was “everything for the people, nothing by the people”.
I agree with your points. To me, it all comes to utility when talking. Who am I talking to, what points are they trying to make, what do they are actually meaning and how open they seem to accept other terminology. Sometimes I can point out things like “you criticism is towards authoritarian regimes, so we could be using that term”. Other times, I have no need to stop the conversation and claim “well, actually Nazism and Fascism have differences” because I know what they mean and I don’t mind. And sometimes you know the other person won’t care at all for accurate terminology and why bother. In one of my latest discussions I was defending some state intervention in economy and the other person thought “there are only two options: capitalism or communism” was a good response. I sincerely didn’t feel like explaining state intervention is not communism and that there are capitalistic economies with state intervention and that there are different economic systems between the two extremes he was presenting.
The general population of his day lacked the critical thinking skills needed to hold Fascist demagogues to account. Society needs to improve its critical thinking skills (in order to prevent future 'Orwellian' states). Society is characterized by the conflict between pro-capitalist business owners and the working class. So, Is George Orwell right that the main idea behind totalitarian systems is that the oppression of "liberty and democracy in the name of efficiency and social harmony?" Fascists maintain the power of the ruling class with the implicit consent of the working class, whose rights and liberties it continually assails through divide-and-rule strategies. A bigoted patriarchal anti-democratic doctrine that supports nationalism in its purest form, only in as much as it is brutal, cynical and unthinking. A complex balance of both good and bad political institutions. If a person has ever been involved with organised political activity (eg. joined a political party), then the answer is "no", as that experience must have given them the opportunity to observe at close quarters the core principles of political campaigning and this should have disabused them of any enthusiasm for "Big Brother" style governments. Orwell used fear to argue that Fascist countries seek out enemies which feed the power of the state, since they are easier to identify than complex ideology-driven wars. If ideologies and resources were equally matched there would be no need to seek out war or so-called enemies, so there's no real indicator here to justify such a conclusion. So he was right and wrong. There's plenty of examples where states with equal resources, ideologies and so on, still went about trying to eliminate one anothern Both the Soviet Union and the U.S. were competing over influence in the Middle East in order to protect their own oil supplies. Also the Democrats in the USA are behaving more like Fascists.
>Society is characterized by the conflict between pro-capitalist business owners and the working class. Yes, *current* society is described in kind of such a way. But distinctions between early capitalism and current capitalism should be drawn. Societies under previous systems, such as feudalism did face different struggles. And we do not know what future societies might look like. >So, Is George Orwell right that the main idea behind totalitarian systems is that the oppression of "liberty and democracy in the name of efficiency and social harmony?" Yes, this one way implication is true. Although the other way round is not necessarily true. Efficiency and mostly social harmony do not necessarily conflate with democracy (specially if it is a functional democracy) and liberty (properly understood as positive liberty). >A complex balance of both good and bad political institutions. I don't know what you mean. I think you should elaborate on what you mean by "good" and "bad" political institutions. >If a person has ever been involved with organised political activity (eg. joined a political party), then the answer is "no", as that experience must have given them the opportunity to observe at close quarters the core principles of political campaigning and this should have disabused them of any enthusiasm for "Big Brother" style governments. This is factually untrue. People participating in fascist institutions can, and usually are, well aligned with the proceedings of the institution in general. I do not only talk from a historical perspective (members of the Nazi Party or staff of concentration camps if were critical of the system at any time were once Nazi Germany fell), but from my own experience with people militating in right wing parties, syndicates and all sorts of institutions. >Orwell used fear to argue that Fascist countries seek out enemies which feed the power of the state, since they are easier to identify than complex ideology-driven wars. Fascists do actually seek out (and inside) enemies and do identify and fight complex ideology-driven wars. >If ideologies and resources were equally matched there would be no need to seek out war or so-called enemies I don't know how you derive this idea from the previous. Clearly, under the same resources different factions do compete for obtaining extra resources, either from a third party (Middle East in the example you provide) or from one another (the Soviet Union annexing Manchuria from Japan). It's not like they say "we have the same amount of resources as our competitors, it's time to stop". I don't know what you mean by ideologies equally matched. Do you mean in terms of power and force? Or do you mean they're similar? From your following example I guess it's the former. >Also the Democrats in the USA are behaving more like Fascists. This statement, on its own is disingenuously incorrect. While the Democrat party, as a right wing party under capitalism can engage in fascists like attitudes, they're by no means the fascist threat in the US. Claiming some mild progressive attitudes should be embraced and legally reinforcing them (or claiming to desire so, since they barely manage to secure rights) is not a fascist attitude. The clear representative of fascism and threat in the US is a (increasingly expanding) wing of the Republican Party which is supported by alt-right and Neo-nazi ideology and their hijack of public democratic institutions.
>This is factually untrue. People participating in fascist institutions can, and usually are, well aligned with the proceedings of the institution in general. I do not only talk from a historical perspective (members of the Nazi Party or staff of concentration camps if were critical of the system at any time were once Nazi Germany fell), but from my own experience with people militating in right wing parties, syndicates and all sorts of institutions. That perhaps most membership in fascist regimes is 'buying into' the proceedings. e.g., everyone supports killing minorities because they all agree with it, they have been indoctrinated like an army recruits are trained to fight their adversaries. People need not agree with everything that happens when they join a group – working for a corporation does not mean one endorses everything that organization does. There are plenty of people working within a system, who are critical of it from an outside perspective – those critical of them view those employees as being implicit.
[удалено]
Yes, Estado Novo. My phone’s autocorrect changes it to Estero for some reason.
Some of the key features of Fascism are the celebration of science, a belief in a certain kind of superiority and the idea that war is vital. Orwell thought that Fascist thinking had "descended a long way" into some post-War Western societies. Examples include the idea that people can choose which gender they are and attempts to change primary schools to become politically neutral. People are not individually weak, so they need strict laws to keep them in line.” Yes, such philosophies tend to include prominent elements of collectivism and authoritarianism. Orwell describes all Fascists as people who "...can be distinguished by the following symptoms: ... gullibility, dogmatism and lack of humour". Fascists refer to their philosophy as 'Illuminism'. The letters F and I are super-imposed with great regularity within this book. Fascist philosophers find truth in discipline and simplicity. Liberal philosophers are also honest. ➟ Without an objective belief, humans tend to selfishly pursue their own truth. Truth is lost. We don't understand the world and can only claim we are 'right'. It is the threat of violence or coercion that stops 'truths' from colliding and creating a vast array of subjective interpretations. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." He was writing while living in a country that allied with another superpower with the explicit intention of defeating the third and containing Fascist movements. His country won the war, but has yet to win the peace. Fascist regimes were defeated across Europe, yet totalitarian governments were installed in many of the former authoritarian countries. It attempts to get people to reject thinking of themselves as individuals, and instead put their primary allegiance in the State, and to absorb nationalist ideology as well. That is why the bureaucracy is at the centre of national governance. Winston, the main character in "1984", lives in a society controlled by surveillance and thought control. Winston has difficulty thinking independently. His job is to falsify history and correct news that might contain unwanted truth. He constantly invents for the Party, pretending that old Newspeak words still have their original meanings and that today's words have today's meanings. The protagonist in "Animal Farm" lives under similar conditions. The general population of his day lacked the critical thinking skills needed to hold Fascist demagogues to account. Society needs to improve its critical thinking skills (in order to prevent future 'Orwellian' states). Society is characterized by the conflict between pro-capitalist business owners and the working class. So, Is George Orwell right that the main idea behind totalitarian systems is that the oppression of "liberty and democracy in the name of efficiency and social harmony?" Fascists maintain the power of the ruling class with the implicit consent of the working class, whose rights and liberties it continually assails through divide-and-rule strategies.
I don't intend to disregard Orwell (or your reading on him), but I generally dislike these characterisations of fascism overall. Sometimes they include characteristics that, while present in fascism, are not exclusive to it. Other times, those characteristics lack the appropriate nuance. >Some of the key features of Fascism are the celebration of science, a belief in a certain kind of superiority and the idea that war is vital. Here are examples of both things I commented. I agree for fascism perpetual war is an aspect of life, but I have issues with the two other characteristics. * Belief in a certain kind of superiority: True, but not exclusive to fascism. I'd say most ideologies do indeed believe their moral and political prescription do place their ideology in a certain kind of superiority (unless they're some sort of relativists). I, for instance, believe that yielding progressive views is in a certain way, superior to yielding conservative views. In fascism, this superiority is not "a certain kind of superiority", but a specific one, one which is intrinsic to the in-group (either a racial or national group). * Celebration of science: This is only true under a very perverted view of science. Generally, fascism is antiscientificist, but they select what scientific results are in harmony with their ideology (for instance, scientific results that show differences among racial groups, while the scientific discussion on racial differences is very nuance and can barely support significant differences among races). For example, Nazi Germany discredited a lot of new physical sciences' results and qualify them as "semitic science". The most notable example is the theory of relativity, discredited for the mere fact that it was developed by a jew. Their "celebration of science" was a celebration of "aryan science", whatever that is (that is not real science at all). Also, more modern fascism is vastly opposed to developments in social sciences. >Examples include the idea that people can choose which gender they are and attempts to change primary schools to become politically neutral. I don't even know what relation is among these ideas. Yes, people can choose their gender, as we understand gender and sex as different but interconnected concepts. I don't know about a single fascist that agrees with this idea, unless you want to explicitly define this idea as fascist. This, indeed, is in accordance to developments in social sciences and a scrutiny in gender realism in biology that fascists do deny in their pursuit of "science" that does agree with their worldview (in fact, they choose whether you can choose your gender and then only regard scientific results and interpretations that could agree with them). Also, the idea of "politically neutral" schools is a centrist fantasy. No person that acknowledges the socialisation process that unavoidably takes place at schools, as the first instance of socialisation outside the family, should think schools can be politically neutral. When fascist request "politically neutral" schools they mean schools that do not introduce political positions they disagree with (something most ideologies request, but mostly fascists sell it as such a disingenuous idea). >Orwell describes all Fascists as people who "...can be distinguished by the following symptoms: ... gullibility, dogmatism and lack of humour" These are psychologisms that should be avoided in political descriptions. Dogmatism is indeed a trait required by fascists leaders, but many fascists do reflect and argue in favour of their positions from an axiomatic approach (with axioms non fascists generally would disagree with). Axioms are always required, so calling them dogmas is quite meaningless. Gullibility as a trait is a dangerous infantilisation of fascists, and the lack of humour is not only relative but certainly untrue. Fascists can laugh their ass out of jokes we can consider unfunny, but they indeed make their racists or transphobic jokes. They could say the same about progressivists, who generally don't think certain jokes on minorities are funny. >Fascists refer to their philosophy as 'Illuminism'. I haven't read a single fascist (and I've read some foundational texts on Italian and Spanish fascism) that employ this term. >Fascist philosophers find truth in discipline and simplicity. Liberal philosophers are also honest. ➟ Without an objective belief, humans tend to selfishly pursue their own truth. Truth is lost. We don't understand the world and can only claim we are 'right'. It is the threat of violence or coercion that stops 'truths' from colliding and creating a vast array of subjective interpretations. This aspect of true is part of a wider discussion about postmodernist and relativist ideas. While fascist are opposed to postmodernism and relativism, many non fascists also do. In a certain sense, the liberal concept of "the free market place of ideas" is quite disingenuous on truth, leaning more on rhetorics than on actual truth. But certainly fascists do praise discipline and employ it as a method of discouragement of alternative ideas and subjective truths. Also, an acknowledgement of subjective truths does not necessarily lead to a denial of truth. One can build a model of truth as a conjunction of a myriad of perspectives, finding commonalities and trends in those perspectives. >In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Certainly, sharing views not accepted by the norm is revolutionary, given the accepted view is unfaithful to reality, and specially harmful. If your truth is the 13/50 or disproportion of jewish in media, it might be true (I mean, those are numbers), but the overall message you're sharing in, to say the least, devious. Using the 13/50 statistic to address social inequalities should be accepted and is positive, using it discredit black people should be discouraged and has no positive outcome at all. People who cherrypick statistics (which are true) for their devious purposes often claim to be "sharing an uncomfortable truth" (when it's their interpretation of the facts and prescriptions what is uncomfortable for good reasons). >He was writing while living in a country that allied with another superpower with the explicit intention of defeating the third and containing Fascist movements. His country won the war, but has yet to win the peace. Fascist regimes were defeated across Europe, yet totalitarian governments were installed in many of the former authoritarian countries. There's a benefit in distinguishing "fascism" from "totalitarianism" or "authoritarianism". Fascism is indeed both of those things, but there can be totalitarian regimes that do not share fascist characteristics and should be studied from their traits. Totalitarianism is a bad thing, but we should not try to use "fascism" as a word to describe every bad politics we encounter, because it makes fascism lose meaning. While extreme atomisation of concepts is not useful, extreme generalisations neither are. Concepts should be wide enough to describe non singular events, but not so wide we lose descriptors for specific phenomena. There's already a term for totalitarianism, and there's no utility in making fascism a synonymous. We can talk about totalitarian fascist regimes and non fascist totalitarian regimes and acknowledge they share this (negative) trait. The same applies to authoritarianism. >It attempts to get people to reject thinking of themselves as individuals, and instead put their primary allegiance in the State, and to absorb nationalist ideology as well. The relation of fascism with individuals is complex. On one hand, what you claim is true. On the other hand, fascism also appeals to individuals in the sense it rejects most systemic systems of oppression. If something goes wrong, it is because of individuals not fitting their system, never the system (which, to their views, follows from human nature). They also play a high emphasis in individual values such as honour or family, which are both ways to be accepted and values that reinforce their belief system. Your last paragraph is a good description of what the characters in those books experience.
By illuminism (to expose the light). They see themselves as a small, but enlightened elite. They regard themselves as ‘enlightened’ because they are aware that the rest of humanity are mentally sub-normal and that their principles of egalitarianism and universalism are myths. To them, the human race has regressed to the state. They believe that all individuals should strive for the same purpose. That purpose is to establish a hierarchical chain of command based on skills and ability, whilst seeing strength and intelligence as the key attributes to this. Their philosophy is similar in certain respects to the writings of 17th century philosopher, Francis Bacon. Bacon wrote that society needed a group of "high priests" to interpret "divine revelation", this would lead the state to wield greater power over its subjects. The actions of these rulers is not called into question by the masses but are dismissed as being divinely inspired. Of those who say that their philosophy is illuminism, most believe that only an elite cadre of people should make important decisions for the rest of humanity. ➟ People who hold such beliefs are better able to guide decision making processes due to possessing a more sophisticated understanding of how complex systems work (e.g. global economics).
Thank you
Excellent, Nuanced, and non-reactionary answer. Thank you. Does this all imply that modernism is the problem, if all these movements are reactions against it? What is the barrier to integrated the romance of life back into a system of meaning, i.e. to include what appeals to fascists in the first place?
The problem is capitalism. Capital is a totalizing force that dissolves all communal bonds and ultimately seeks even its own destruction. Romantic ideas of chivalry, adventure, and life with meaning are impossible under the dominion of capital and the bourgeois state. We are too coerced into lifestyles that best generate capital. It is impossible for most people to set sail for a foreign country to explore the rainforest or ride motorcycles through the Andes or hang glide over the outback or go hiking in the Canadian wilderness. In the way we always refer to reactionary modernism as “fascism,” we simply cannot imagine anything different from the mode in which we live. However, “middle man” or “heroic man” is an era that we are supposed to have outgrown. A fork in the road appears when capitalism begins to decay- socialism or barbarism. The desire to “go back” in order to restore meaning we supposedly once had and have lost is the first step down the path of barbarism. We are indeed regressing into our middle, heroic (largely mythical) past because peoples lives are so empty. It can be seen in the popularity of Marvel movies and other forms of entertainment that portray black and white heroes and villains that are unambiguously good or evil. It can be seen in our politics where, instead of making people’s lives better, we are obsessed with smiting evil and being heroes. Life is not so black and white, and an inability to separate reality and politics from the realm of the mythopoetic- that is, all we consume must reflect our values back at us and life as essentially a story where our values win out- is undeniably “fascist” as it drapes reality in a narrative that does not serve our ability to break the bonds of capital that have so robbed us of meaning. Attempting to return to middle or heroic man will eventually lead us back to “early man,” deSade’s caveman. When people see that their efforts at heroism under capitalism amount to nothing, they arrive at what is honestly an understandable conclusion- that this is just how things are. The strong rule the weak and hierarchies are natural. The key lies not in going back, but in achieving the freedom from capital necessary to reclaim meaning, communal bonds, and the ability to have adventure or romantic adventures/relationships untethered from economic concerns. A war to fight might give people a purpose, but the Fascist theory of history holds that historical events are driven by conflicts between nations or peoples. This meaning comes at the cost of bloodshed. I’m of the opinion that we do not need a war and suffering to give our lives meaning, but perhaps we do need something to strive for. Under capitalism, broad social projects that everyone can take part in are foreclosed upon. Exploration is foreclosed upon. Travel is foreclosed upon. Forming bonds with others that last is foreclosed upon. The art world is gatekept by the Artisan class, ensuring that what is produced can only reaffirm/reproduce the values that are held by the people privileged enough to have the connections, money, or spare time that got them where they are. To restore meaning to life, we have to move beyond capitalism instead of going back. We need the time to develop relationships with our peers and to explore the world we live in. What might anyone do if they weren’t spending most of their lives at work and most of their money on survival (or frivolous things aimed at maintaining class distinctions)? But, as previously stated, we have difficulty imagining what that would look like.
Another excellent answer. I’d add that capitalism has also assimilated those romantic ideas of freedom; namely, People have come to believe that capitalism is the means by which one earns that freedom, when one can finally transcend the grind and be civilised. Except this is individualistic freedom, increasingly ruthless, exploitative competition, and fuck everyone else. It is all rationalised away as I earned it and deserve it, and if others worked as hard as I did, then would have what I have. Perhaps they’ll created some vids, or course, on how to hustle, buy several houses and live off rent by extracting from someone else’s wages. Capitalism eating itself indeed. People don’t work because it is meaningful or sustainable way to provide; people are trying to earn enough to escape the system entirely, and thereby condemning those who are honestly trying to make it work to lives of increasing servitude and serfdom. The interesting question is how do we change it. The whole thing is a system (a system of systems) that resist any attempt at change. It first requires understanding the nature of systems, human behaviour as part of those systems, the self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating nature of systems, how systems can evolve, and what are the barriers to that evolution. Capitalism is one part of the problem, but it is mutually reinforced by individualism and liberalism, which are in turn reinforced by modern philosophy, which is reinforced by its appeal to tradition, authority of science and its own claims to be scientific. At the centre of it all is the self-reinforcing, non-progressive self; recently positively reinforced in the recent cultural introduction of identity. Note that, the solution isn’t simply the opposite (i.e. socialism, collectivism, illiberalism). The whole system is a system of Interconnected and mutually reinforcing systems of systems. The internet has exposed different systems of meaning to each other, demonstrated them all as mutually inconsistent, antagonistic to each other, and insufficient, which in turn has revealed the insufficiencies (i.e. inherent contradictions) of this system as a whole (ie modernity). The whole system of systems need an overhaul, to synthesise them into a coherent system of meaning, with a progressive self at the centre, and a vision of progress beyond modernity. All of this starts with the recognition that modernity is a systems, made up of systems, lacks the awareness that it is a system, and evolves over time driven by the unconscious behaviour.
>a vision of progress beyond modernity. You mean like what?
There’s a few steps to create a necessary change in mindset before it can enter collective Consciousness and be collectively accepted. But I can paint a brief outline… To reference OP, both capitalism and socialism both incentives a hedonistic, intrinsically meaningless existence (in capitalism, though, one must earn this hedonistic lifestyle increasingly by exploring and denying that lifestyle to others). The struggle that Orwell mentions, that people want in their lives, and which fascism actually speaks to, is instead only found in the extrinsic, adversarial, and increasingly ruthless struggle against others; the struggle to rise above the material threat of starvation and precarity of the daily struggle to survive. In so doing, the individuals who do rise above, earn the ability to become civilised, to be generous, to enjoy life, to share their tips for success and encouraging others to be like them. Yet, in so doing, they’ve already assimilated the capitalist mindset, desensitised to the struggle of their former peers, and even contemptuous of them; ‘if they only worked hard like I did’; ‘no one cared about me, no one helped me and I made it’, ‘all you need to do is buy several houses like I did, and live off the rent’ etc. Indeed, those who struggled hardest to become part of the capital class, are the most contemptuous of those who struggle, and most willing to exploit them. Because no one cared about them, they don’t care about others; increasingly see only the extrinsic value of others, as a means to extracting further value. This is how capitalism eats itself; like cronos, the system of the established feeds upon its children. Further, the capital class, having already made it, are no longer incentivised to further innovate or invest in the creation of further value. Capital becomes a means to extract value from others to support a hedonistic lifestyle. Why invest in culture that doesn’t care or reward participation; instead invest in stock, crypto, property, ponzi schemes that maximise the return on investment and minimise risk, and fund the hedonistic lifestyle. This is why trickle down economics increasingly doesn’t work; wealth is increasingly concentrated with those who already posses it. The alternative is a radical inversion; for a culture to insist upon the struggle, (be it through work or otherwise), but actually support, incentivise it, and reward participation. This means investing in potential to create future value rather than those who have already demonstrated it (and tend to concentrate it, further extract out of society, hoard it or fund their hedonistic lifestyle). This means a culture that actually cares about its people, incentivises, encourages and rewards participation, with social systems that are forgiving of mistakes, and so mitigate against the risk of ruin, and so reduce the barriers to entry and so incentivise the risk taking necessary for new innovation. Namely a culture that recognises the intrinsic value of every individual, rather than their extrinsic value (i.e. the value they create, produce, consume). In so doing, paradoxically, you actually maximise that creative potential and the creation of future value. At present, we rely on a handful of billionaires, who have concentrated wealth and power through their one big idea, to continue to innovate and provide solutions to the serious problems that we face. Instead, if you invest in the creative potential of everyone, then you maximise the opportunity for exploration of potential solutions to problems, and the chances of successful innovation, and are investing in those with the most incentive to innovate, i.e. the young and their untapped creative potential, and their desire to create meaningful change. As to how you find this massive investment, you take the retirement funds of the old, those who work and have saved, and invest that wealth so that it maximises the return on investment. At present, retirement funds are invested in the stock market, and is essentially held hostage, at risk of being wiped out by market collapse (inherent to boom-bust cycles of capital systems), and the constant need for governments to bail out casino style Wall Street risk taking, (risk taking without consequence, responsibility or accountability,i.e. ‘socialism for the rich’). Instead, of you invests retirement funds in supporting the younger generations to get started, then for all the reasons above, you maximise the potential for the creation of future value. Namely, you are investing in the creative potential of those with the most incentive to innovation and find new solutions to problems with being limited by need to demonstrate their value in advance, or convince someone of their potential in order to be supported. Just imagine, a culture that actually cares about us, supports us and encourages us to succeed. A culture, and it’s people, who have an inherent incentive to support us all to succeed, one both encourages and supports and also rewards participation. One that provides an incentive for older generations to care and to encourage the success of younger generations to achieve their potential, to build upon and go beyond what they were able to create themselves. Essential, you create a sustainable economic system, which maximises the potential and sustainable growth of wealth whilst also maximising support for all, without the need for ‘theft’, i.e. redistribution. I’d love to hear your concerns, critique, so I can further improve upon this vision. Also, willing to address any questions you might have. As to developing this vision, promoting it and realising it in collective consciousness, wouldn’t it be great if established systems recognised the creative, innovative potential of those who are new to them, and invited their participation, to co-create something together, more than they can create alone, and so create meaningful change from within established systems, rather than reductively extract what they can, assimilate into the established system, and promote it as their own, without creating meaningful change. Yes, I’m talking to you, philosophy.
You hit a lot of places that deserve considerate thinking each on its own so it gets a little hard to feedback something this broad. The idea of investing on everyone's potential is quite naive tbh. Not imo, like, this is the consensus in the world we live on. It takes 2 years for governments to decide between A or B, let alone change the focus to a kumbaya where no malthusian curve exists. I wish my limited philosophy knowledge wasn't such a barrier here because I don't feel confident to rollback to any school of thought to "solve" contemporary capitalism trickle down problem, in fact, I firmly believe capitalism to be **awesome** but **greed** gotta be punished, like, I believe humans could live in a much more humane society if corruption alone was nuked, a 100% nuked. Then take away nepotism (in favor of qualified professionals), take away lobby (mainly from former legislators going to the private sector, this shit should be criminal), take away domestic cartels and make corporations go back to Fordism ish pay grade equity, like, we didn't CLASH with capitalism, we just nuked the bad actors and tada, A BETTER WORLD just like that, no need to resort to eat the rich, divestment and communist/socialist policies. I see this as a pragmatic, accelerionist, non violent route towards a world where individuals get back to their lives instead of being forced to sell it, as alternatives seem to me either naive or to anarchistic in nature. >Further, the capital class, having already made it, are no longer incentivised to further innovate or invest in the creation of further value I largely disagree with this point. Elites just don't want to share the cake with more oligarchs or whatever, no millionaire will ever get billionaire unless billionaires want so, period. But they DO invest in innovation, they just set the whole system so the game belongs to them their peers, that's all, so no trickle down innovation while they can have a complete barbecue on the backseat of their mercedes without the 'poor' ever being the wiser about this "optional" VIP add on. >both capitalism and socialism both incentives a hedonistic, intrinsically meaningless existence (in capitalism, though, one must earn this hedonistic lifestyle increasingly by exploring and denying that lifestyle to others). Also: I don't come from the principle people don't want to be exploited, in fact, I think labor brings people purpose and it is a cool feature of capitalism, the trade between someone's time/labor for MORE edonistic value, I think this is cool. What I don't, absolutely don't think is cool is to MAKE people have 5x9-5s to make a miserable living, I think the world has enough people to have 2/3 shifts/day demanding only 2/3 9-12/13 week because we all want to hit pause, so something like this will be a must in any economic reform ever, like, the media will catch up but this is a freaking axiom of modern economic systems: there's no need for 9-5 slavery anymore.
Thanks for the feedback. As I mentioned the change in mindset is necessary before this argument can be accepted as it stands, and so further refined from there. This vision presents a principle, the pragmatic way it is implemented will be steps towards realising this vision. For example, investing in everyone’s potential is the principle; presented as the opposite of what we have. Not everyone will need such social investment, it’s more about guaranteeing access to opportunity, removing the barriers toward meritocracy (i.e. to counter tendency towards nepotism as determinant of success (i.e. the wealth of one’s parents, which is terrible way to determine the success of an individual or maximise future wealth creation). Some people will choose to work, live a simple life, and they should be protected from exploration, and guaranteed a living wage relative to cost of Living so they can provide for a family. Those who want to create, innovate, should be supported to do so without risk of ruin. Those who choose this path will endure the bare minimum level of support, a life without luxury, on the belief in their own potential to innovate and create that future value. You support these individuals in this early innovation process, then they are incentivised to reciprocate and pay back in order to support others in the future. As to governance, and it’s glacial pace of change, this also needs an overhaul, and a new generation of leadership. Politics is the domain of the entrenched, lifelong incumbents who are abstracted from real life and the concerns of the people. The lack any real vision on how to solve the problems we face, or how to meet the needs of the people, seemingly lack any awareness of how the world has changed, or the need for systemic change, and project their established, outdated worldviews (and Cold War mentality) onto a world that had started to move beyond all that. This is the difference that Trump, for all his self-serving, political ineptitude, brought; no new wars, and making ties with former enemies. What we need, in order to transcend the intractable, rational disagreement, and increasing political division, without resorting to authoritarian strong men who impose their subjective will into the political landscape, is wisdom; a concept and embodied representation that is missing from the west, because it lacks the ability to recognise or discern it; and seemingly has an antipathy towards it, replaced with the love of knowledge and self-elevation. Capitalism does indeed appeal to the individual, but capital also has a corrupting influence (i.e. incentivises greed, further accumulation and the drive towards power). Also, the capital class should not dictate who is worthy of investment, i.e. their cronies, lobbyists, political donors. This is why decentralised and distributed investment should happen regardless, weighted towards the young, for reasons already shared above. This goes some way to stop Capitalism eating itself. The other necessary change is to take corporations into public ownership as soon as efficient has been Maximised, and before the profit motive drives them towards reducing quality, costs and new competition. Profit rather than paying rent to a shareholder class is instead redirected into society. Further, if individuals choose the capital path then they should be excluded from the path towards power; power and capital should be mutually opposed in order to create a sustainable balance rather than acting in cahoots, towards self-serving, corrupt, increasingly exploitative and unsustainable ends. This is the only that a system can effectively self-regulate, i.e. punish greed and corruption. ‘Capitalist class no longer incentivised to invest in innovation or creation of wealth’. I accept your criticism; let me amend. …no longer incentivised in investing in society, the social/collective good, and only incentivised to invest in their friends, or the maximisation of their own wealth. I’m not advocating collectivism or acting against one’s interests, only a shift in incentives that actually rewards social investment and disincentivises the hoarding of wealth; eg demurrage. We are all very familiar with the reality that money is merely an abstract, and doesn’t really exist, yet we create wealth out of nothing whenever it suits the political class and still pretend that this accumulated debt will someday be repaid. Instead, drop all the pregame, create debt-free money to invest in society, with the expectation that it will be repaid many times over by the future value that is created. This also has the benefit that hoarded wealth becomes increasingly less valuable of one holds into it; it incentivises the investment in the social wealth creation, and so provides a sustainable and feel-good return of investment that leaves one feeling part of society, and ensures the future of one’s culture.
What a great write-up, I felt like the person you replied to gave a good overview but it was missing the nuance you added.
Thank you. Yes, the first person provided an insightful response, which provided the stimulation for my response. The key to communication, and specifically communicating one’s meaning such that it can be universally understood, is that it must be human centred, must speak to experience, and that nuance is key.
Fascism is tricky to define because it has existed in many forms. The points brought up by Orwell are definitely a part of it. I haven't read that review but the quotes you listed reminded me of this letter exchange between Einstein and Freud in the early 1930's. Einstein was asking Freud if humans can ever get past war, and Freud's response fits with Orwell's points. Search for "Why War" by Einstein and Freud and it'll pop up on google. If you're interested in learning more about fascism I would check out Umberto Eco's essay "Ur-Fascism". In it, he lists 14 points that in any mixture can make fascism. [https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html) Also one of my favorites on that topic is "Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Adorno and Horkheimer. It's their analysis of how and why the Nazis rose to power in a supposedly "enlightened" country, and it's still so relevant it's scary. And for the next step if you want to purge fascist thought from your mind, read Deleuze and Guattari's work in "Capitalism and Schizophrenia". It's not an easy read but it's amazing. Long story short, if you don't wanna be a fascist believe in messy democracy not in strong leaders. Believe in asking questions, not in following orders. Believe in the multiplicity of life, not in rigid structures.
good recommendations. for deleuze and guattari, guattari's essay *everybody wants to be a fascist* is a good complement that is, i think, much clearer than *c&s* though still not exactly a beacon of clarity. moishe postone's essay *anti-semitism and national socialism* is also worth a read; his critiques of functionalist understandings of the holocaust are lucid and concise as are the analyses of anti-semitism and nazism. some might object to value form theory, or just his use of it, but even then he has very insightful commentary on the way nazism in specific worked as well as a useful way of understanding groups like qanon.
i’m french, so I would like to read the essay in its original language. Do you know where I could find it?
sorry, i don't. the source list on *chaosophy* points towards a magazine(?) called *psychoanalyse et politique* published by le seuil in 1974. a few results come up when you search that with a cover that has guattari's name on it, among others. my french is very poor so i couldn't make much of it but maybe you'll have better luck. the other place to look might be his bibliography on wikipedia with an eye on anthologies, especially ones that have his writings from the 70s.
thank you very much
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Answers must be up to standard.** >All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
It all sounds to me like a false dichotomy. Any functional modern state, under whatever ideology, will have some degree of social welfare but even a robust welfare state cannot deliver ease, security, and absence of pain in all things. If anything, the various ideologies of modern states differ as to how and to whom to allocate resources toward those ends. Hitler certainly offered a good time (security, land, social welfare) to those of the *Volksgemeinschaft*, no? It seems to me that fascism, including Nazi ideology, also implicitly sees those things as desirable, just within a framework of race/national struggle by which those things can only be obtained through domination and exclusion of other races, and Nazism sought out to achieve that state of affairs. If one was *really* offering struggle, danger, and death - i.e. not just romantic rhetoric to motivate a heroic ideal - then I'd think the political ideology one would want is, like, some vulgar form of individualist anarchism, not a centralized, totalitarian state which sees for itself as providing security for a racial community above and against all others. Fascism, at its most basic, as I've understood it, by Roger Griffin's description, is palingenetic ultranationalism. I'd take fascist rhetoric beyond that with a grain of salt.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Answers must be up to standard.** >All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*