Liberal Fascism

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Agathon


They're the Ayn Rand types who see a libertarian manifesto as a way for the strong to triumph in a Darwinian fashion over the weak.

You can usually sort them out by asking this question: would you prefer a libertarian society where everyone happened to end up having approximately the same amount of wealth and influence, or would you prefer a libertarian society where there were vast disparities in wealth and influence?

The authoritarians will tend to opt for the latter, while the anti-authoritarians either won't care or will opt for the former. The anti-authoritarians are the "every man's home is his castle" type, while the others are the the "my castle is bigger than yours" type.

I dont get this one. I'd say I'm defiinitely an anti-authortarian libertarian, which includes that I dont want the kind of government interference that produces the "same amount of wealth and influence" rubbish. Maybe I missed something?

[Darius871]

Yeah, I must have missed the boat on Randian Objectivist-types too. There's no question that they see no inherent evil in wealth disparity, and see it as an inevitable consequence of the system they envision, but I never took it to be their goal. Then again I ain't no filosofiser so what do I know?

[Arrian]

To be fair, fellas, I read several of her books, and she definitely glorified the guys who would get ahead in such a society, and denigrated others. So it's not a crazy stretch to think that she and many of those who liked her work actively *want* that disparity to happen. Not that it's a simple natural outcome, but that it's desireable (probably b/c they figure those who rise to the top are the cream, as Rand clearly did, and so it's good for society to have them as the winners).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's everything liberals don't like. I wouldn't necessarily say "we."

Dude, the title of the thread is "liberal fascism," a book written by a conservative loonbat.

We is the collective we. Everybody. Society.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
To be fair, fellas, I read several of her books,...

You poor man.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Darius871
Yeah, I must have missed the boat on Randian Objectivist-types too. There's no question that they see no inherent evil in wealth disparity, and see it as an inevitable consequence of the system they envision, but I never took it to be their goal. Then again I ain't no filosofiser so what do I know?

I take it you missed the rapes. You know, like the bit in one of her novels where the architect-hero breaks into that chick's flat and rapes her. Rand thought that women ought to submit to the desire of powerful men. Doesn't that sound a wee bit authoritarian to you?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

We is the collective we. Everybody. Society.

-Arrian

Shuddup Chairman Yang.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
I take it you missed the rapes. You know, like the bit in one of her novels where the architect-hero breaks into that chick's flat and rapes her. Rand thought that women ought to submit to the desire of powerful men. Doesn't that sound a wee bit authoritarian to you?

It just sounds like Rand was messed up in the head. As we all already knew.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
what I'm trying to say is that fascist state doesn't have to use totalitarian means to control the population if they can do it by other ways.

If they could control the population by other ways, they don't need fascism. Fascism is the last resort of the big bourgeoisie to try and restore profitability and smash the working class. If they're profitable or the working class is submissive, fascism isn't in the cards. That's why I keep arguing with liberals that the U.S. is not fascist, nor is El Presidente, even if both are more authoritarian that what they are used to.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If they could control the population by other ways, they don't need fascism. Fascism is the last resort of the big bourgeoisie to try and restore profitability and smash the working class. If they're profitable or the working class is submissive, fascism isn't in the cards. That's why I keep arguing with liberals that the U.S. is not fascist, nor is El Presidente, even if both are more authoritarian that what they are used to.

If the difference is only a lack of tanks on the streets they are close. If somebody asked me if U.S is closer to being fascist with a smileyface or representive democracy I would say fascist. I admit there might be better definitions out there I don't know about, I hope you can share.
I dug around in wiki and found Oligarchy and Plutocracy and then got bored. What do you think?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871
Jesus kid, who broke your heart today?

I just got a bit riled up yesterday. Sorry everyone.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Dude, the title of the thread is "liberal fascism," a book written by a conservative loonbat.

We is the collective we. Everybody. Society.

-Arrian

Well fascism isn't everything we (society) don't like. We just don't like the word. But let's take a look at a not so rare type of American.

He...

1) Isn't necessarily a bigot the way that most people would define him, but his daughters definitely know that if they date someone who isn't white like daddy (including jews) there will be hell to pay. Also he beats women (just when they piss him off mind you).

2) Whips his kids with the belt so hard that it leaves welts, and sometimes he misses and hits them in the lower back and thighs, but he considers that their fault for disobeying him.

3) Holds the view that anyone who criticises America should revoke their citizenship and leave the country.

3) Believes in freedom of religion, but also that evangelical christians are chosen by God, and that catholics and others aren't really christians. Also, he believes that Muslims and Buddhists are evil.

4) Is against any kind of help for the poor and others who he considers weak. He believes that one of the evil things that the govt is doing to destroy America is ruining the gene pool with it's social programs.

5) Is for all the freedoms that he was taught America stands for in school and at home, but supports every war that America has been in and some others that he believes it should be in. Also, everytime citizens are in a conflict with police he sees police as protectors of America and always right. Those the police are beating or whatever, as stated, should revoke their citizenship.

6) enjoys doing things in he spare time such as reading books about American imperial and military power including stuff about tanks and ships and what have you.

I could go on, but it's probably unnecessary. Can you see how using the word fascist still has meaning, just not when you blame people for being hug nazis?

[snoopy369]

Does he also lose track of his numbering in numbered lists?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Except we are not one of those, so if I were a fascist why would I want it now? And that is false anyway. You don't want everyone to have guns even in a teetering democracy, YOU want to have guns.

And no, after fascist take the government they do not want private gun ownership, quite the opposite (as history has shown).

A fascist is always waiting for racial conflict, national calamity etc as an excuse to seize control. Hence the need for guns. Widespread gun ownership may enable resistance to fascists, but it may also engender a sense of disorder and mayhem, which requires fascist order to control.

Why did Saddam keep Iraq awash with weapons? He could easily have limited it. Do you think that Mugabe's 'war veterans' have their weapons under rigorous state control?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If they could control the population by other ways, they don't need fascism. Fascism is the last resort of the big bourgeoisie to try and restore profitability and smash the working class. If they're profitable or the working class is submissive, fascism isn't in the cards. That's why I keep arguing with liberals that the U.S. is not fascist, nor is El Presidente, even if both are more authoritarian that what they are used to.

The fascist distaste for mass production, female labour and international trade can't be explained with the 'big bourgeoisie' thesis. Nor can their enthusiasm for traditional rural life, small family businesses and autarky.