[Ovid]

(03-04-2013 02:02 PM)j r Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 01:58 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:47 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:19 PM)j r Wrote:  

What's the obsession over empires. Empires are stupid.

Empires are natural. A given tribe suddenly becomes stronger, starts expanding, subjugates other tribes, and takes its genes, ideas, language, art, architecture, and religion to foreign lands. Empire is the only constant in human history. Besides, who will prevent a strong tribe from expanding? The Pope? How many tank divisions does the Pope have?

Do I like this reality? No, I do not. But that is human nature. The powerful do what they want, and the weak do what they must. To prevent war, arm yourself to the teeth, and keep your populace well-trained in the art of war. It's also a good idea to keep your women busy producing children.

The Roman Empire was not perfect, but everyone uses the Latin alphabet, and it's been over 1600 years since the empire fell.

Aye. If Rome had not conquered it's neighbors, eventually it would have been conquered by them. Today, we might speak of the great Sabine, Etruscan, Gallic, or Carthaginian Empires instead. And if those had not manifested a sufficiently virile spirit of self-preservation and pride in their own greatness to take proactive steps to ensure their continuance as an independent state, some other power might have arisen to wipe them all from the map. Rome, England, Spain, etc. all benefited hugely from their empires. Thanks to several centuries of colonization, conquest, and trading monopolies, London is one of the foremost cities of the world and the English people have a standard of living which surpasses most other places, despite the fact that their empire has crumbled.

Right. And if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we'd all be speaking Arabic and praying to Mecca five times a day. There are real wars of self-defense, but most wars are just elites conning everyone else into killing and dying for the benefits of elites.

By the way, the British Empire is a good case in point. There is a pretty robust literature attempting to quantify whether the British empire was a net contributor or a net gain to the domestic Beitish economy. I don't know the literature well enough to come down strongly either way, but it's pretty uncontroversial to note that whatever the positive effects of empire are they come with tremendous costs. And whereas the cost are born by society at large, the benefits tend to accrue to the elites in both the home country and the colony.

I never said that the wars many countries are engaging in *today* have any necessity. We live in a relatively peaceful age, because Western militaries are so strong, with such a surplus of very destructive weapons, that necessary self-defensive wars are few. No government dares to attack the West openly.

[rmo]

I haven't yet seen why facist is the best in this thread
A. On what qualities is facisim the best? Individual rights? Economic Prosperity? Moral Society? Most effective law? What exactly deems one form of organization 'the best'?
B. most of the retorts have been 'democracy sucks so by default the neo-nazis are right.

Also fuck all of you trying to defend war. Yes in the past where there was no alternative self-defense wars were necessary. Too bad the last one was WWII. It sounds like some people want to strengthen the American Empire (which I will concede exists, but is a rather shitty empire) instead of thinking in pragmatic or moral terms.

[soup]

(03-04-2013 02:34 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 02:16 PM)soup Wrote:  

to have all the power in the hands of one person.

Power is actually never in the hands of one person, though nominally it may be. A dictator is also a human being and, thus, can never be omniscient. A dictator must make decisions based on information provided by his advisers. His advisers can manipulate the ruler by choosing to withhold certain information, for example.

In fact, that is the best way to rule: behind the curtain, fooling the king into choosing the course of action you desire. You benefit if it works, and he takes the blame if it fails. If he falls, you may have a chance to replace him.

Corporations in America.

[Icarus]

(03-04-2013 02:50 PM)rmo Wrote:  

I haven't yet seen why facist is the best in this thread

Fascism is not the best. There's no best form of government. The whole question "what is the best form of government?" is stupid. A political system is the means, not the goal.

Is democracy good? Yes, when you have an ethnically homogeneous country in which there is a consensus on what the goal is and how to get there. It does not matter who wins or loses elections, because the major disagreements are about degree, not kind.

However, when consensus vanishes and people disagree on what path to take, then democracy leads to complete paralysis, and a country in paralysis sinks deeper and deeper. Eventually, people are overcome by despair and trade their "civil liberties" and "rights" for decisive action. Consensus leads to chaos, chaos leads to a consensus that order must be restored, and then order is restored. This will almost always involve some bloodshed, unfortunately.

You don't judge the seeds, you judge the fruits. A given seed by itself is nothing. You must plant at the right time, make sure that the climate is appropriate, fertilize the soil, and water. Likewise, a political system by itself is nothing. A political system that may be appropriate in times of peace, prosperity, and tranquility may be completely inappropriate in times of crisis.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

(03-04-2013 01:05 PM)Angry Beaver Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:38 AM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

In ancient Athens, the ideal size for a state was estimated at 5,040 people- just right.

Democracy in Ancient Athens was conducted/involved citizens, which made up 15-20% of the population. Slavery is the key here and that is probably not your take on democracy now.

Granted, we have universal franchises now, and no slavery, but I'm a big proponent of local government-you can learn more about your local MP (or congressman-whatever applies) than you can about a prime ministerial or presidential candidate. Likewise, you can make a more reasoned judgement about local policies, because you see the problems they supposedly address, and the effects they have. If democracy is on too big a scale, informed voting is watered down, the campaign media reduces it to a popularity contest, and achievements become less clear when in office- have they made positive improvements, are they riding the wave of the previous candidate, or is it something else altogether?
There needs to be more involvement at a local level, or people will remain apathetic until the next general election. More involvement on that smaller, local politics empowers people; encouraging them to wait four years for any change disenfranchises them.

(At least, I think reduced democracy is the best form of government from the point of view of the CITIZEN. From the point of view of the government, yeah, fascism is better.)

[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-04-2013 02:50 PM)rmo Wrote:  

I haven't yet seen why facist is the best in this thread
A. On what qualities is facisim the best? Individual rights? Economic Prosperity? Moral Society? Most effective law? What exactly deems one form of organization 'the best'?
B. most of the retorts have been 'democracy sucks so by default the neo-nazis are right.

Without inviting responses I'll offer some tentative suggestions. I want to try to write some worthwhile responses to issues raised in this thread so I'm holding onto a draft. But ...

... fascism aims at an ideal combination of stability and economic progress. Hitler's early domestic economic success is a model here.

... fascism aims at unity and national strength. Speaking for example of Hitler, while I would place him on the Right, that positioning isn't unambiguous. While he sought to smash Communism and Bolshevism he also absorbed the interests and concerns of the Left in the form of the working class. (See, for example, the politics of Otto Strasser.)

So these are just tentative suggestions, not invitations to debate. I think in this area a precondition for discussion is a certain minimum emotional openness to the moral possibility of fascism, which can't be called forth through anonymous online debate and ranting. So I won't go there. Just trying to be helpful.

For my own tastes certain fascist examples are attractive for the virility and vitality I feel they display. Mass consumer capitalist democracy strikes me as quite deadened--obviously a lot of people feel the same way without lurching towards fascist alternatives.

This all raises more questions than it answers, of course, so if I pull off my draft posts I'll try to map things out a little more.

[rmo]

(03-04-2013 04:04 PM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 02:50 PM)rmo Wrote:  

I haven't yet seen why facist is the best in this thread
A. On what qualities is facisim the best? Individual rights? Economic Prosperity? Moral Society? Most effective law? What exactly deems one form of organization 'the best'?
B. most of the retorts have been 'democracy sucks so by default the neo-nazis are right.

Without inviting responses I'll offer some tentative suggestions. I want to try to write some worthwhile responses to issues raised in this thread so I'm holding onto a draft. But ...

... fascism aims at an ideal combination of stability and economic progress. Hitler's early domestic economic success is a model here.

... fascism aims at unity and national strength. Speaking for example of Hitler, while I would place him on the Right, that positioning isn't unambiguous. While he sought to smash Communism and Bolshevism he also absorbed the interests and concerns of the Left in the form of the working class. (See, for example, the politics of Otto Strasser.)

So these are just tentative suggestions, not invitations to debate. I think in this area a precondition for discussion is a certain minimum emotional openness to the moral possibility of fascism, which can't be called forth through anonymous online debate and ranting. So I won't go there. Just trying to be helpful.

For my own tastes certain fascist examples are attractive for the virility and vitality I feel they display. Mass consumer capitalist democracy strikes me as quite deadened--obviously a lot of people feel the same way without lurching towards fascist alternatives.

This all raises more questions than it answers, of course, so if I pull off my draft posts I'll try to map things out a little more.

Thanks for the reasonable response, Especially with the touch subject of toothbrush mustache and the Jew burning business / Italian assholes of facism.

I'm a proponent of the non-agression principal as well as culture > national borders drawn on a map. I'm a voluntaryist so I would require extraordinary proof that nationalism is not a force for evil. So I'm going to not bother with the 'national unity' portion.

Giving facism all the credit for the economic growth is silly. What gave the economy growth was that there was stability for investors. A strong government shows up and enforces law right after the shit of the WWI war debts and hyper inflation.

Take hong kong. It was taken over my Britain and even to this day it has a British legal system. Since it defends individual rights and is more likely that the economy is going to be stable so investors will invest.

When law (not necessarily governmental) and individual rights (inalienable) are defended your economy kicks ass. More ass then fascists.

But I'm sure you'd agree that just 2 benchmarks for government success is far too simplistic.

(03-04-2013 03:00 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 02:50 PM)rmo Wrote:  

I haven't yet seen why facist is the best in this thread

Fascism is not the best. There's no best form of government. The whole question "what is the best form of government?" is stupid.

I agree with everything you say after this including the 'fruits' comment since facism and communsim were responsible for empowering some of the most psyopathic thugs on the planet. Democracy is not any better since the populace votes for fucked up shit without forethought, pre-nazi Germany was a modern democracy.

Unfortunately this thread is an argument about facism being or not being the best form of government. You're right this is a statist/governmental/political question.

[Rah]

Roosh recently linked to this site: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.nl/ -- interesting arguments in favor of monarchy over republics or democracies. With the state of the U.S., monarchy does have some attractive selling points.

I think I could get behind the idea of the Industrialized West collapsing into a patchwork of smaller Kingdoms.

The current trend seems to be toward super states, globalization & power consolidation. That will at some point fall apart, then maybe from the ashes monarchy will take its turn in the cycle.

[jaakkeli]

(03-04-2013 08:45 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

That's all true - but consider the possibility that Hitler would have succeeded in advancing to Moscow and conquering it if a large part of his forces (particularly aerial) had been free instead of being tied up on the coast of France. Then all of history would be decrying Churchill for not declaring war earlier.

Naah, then all of history would be decrying Churchill as the disgusting warmonger who almost started a war against the hero Hitler who brought an end to the Bolshevik atrocities... as we'd all speak German and none of us would know a thing about the Holocaust and all that.

Or, more likely, if the British had avoided joining the war, Hitler could have dumped the Japanese instead of declaring war on the US (it's not like the Japanese went to war with Russia for Germany...) and the Germans could have ended up taking most of Europe leaving a hostile peace with Britain. Then the Americans drop the atomic bomb on Japan and the uneasy peace turns into a nuclear arms race, a repeat of the Cold War except this time with a German led fascist bloc replacing the Soviet bloc. Without a Soviet sponsor the small socialist countries would pretend to be democracies to join the American bloc and right-wing dictators would try to make friends with Germany. Those European countries that now jail people for Holocaust denial would instead jail people for mentioning the Holocaust.

Most things would be the same but at the same time hilariously different...

[jaakkeli]

(03-04-2013 08:13 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I also do not think that Germany somehow "allowed" the British ground forces to evacuate from Dunkirk - the retreat was under fire and heavily contested ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation ).

Actually, Hitler famously blundered with his orders in Dunkirk, first ordering his advancing ground forces to halt their advance and retreat from the port and then only after giving the British days of free time ordered to advance again. There's no doubt that almost the entire British expedition would have been captured or destroyed if Hitler hadn't given the British time to work it out with his contradictory orders.

Why he gave the orders that he did is one of those big mysteries of WWII that historians will endlessly debate without resolution but of course the idea that he just let the British go out of mercy is silly German wartime propaganda. Most likely he just believed that Britain would drop out of the war anyway and wanted to preserve his ground forces for other campaigns and then later he suddenly realized the British were getting away with too much strength left.

Dunkirk should be there close to the top of any list of Hitler's biggest blunders.

Quote:

Deciding to fight before the enemy grows completely out of control is a purely tactical decision, not a moral one.

But then again there's the point that the British made the decision to consider Germany an enemy when they could have chosen otherwise. Hitler was after all an anglophile who wanted an alliance with Britain, not a war.

Of course German friendship could have been even worse for the British, at least if you're one of those people who dislike fascism. British fascists would have ended up with a supporting superpower right next to them, the atrocities on the continent would have been covered up so people would not immediately associate Naziism with Auschwitz (hell, no one would have heard about Auschwitz) and there would have been no war with a fascist country so the British general public would not have been as reflexively anti-fascist as they are today. Fascism would have become a major force in British politics.

[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-04-2013 06:33 PM)rmo Wrote:  

Thanks for the reasonable response, Especially with the touch subject of toothbrush mustache and the Jew burning business / Italian assholes of facism.

I looked into it, and found that Jewish Communism in large part initiated the 20th-century phase of the European civil war (World Wars I and II and the secondary and tertiary conflicts) and massacred an order of magnitude more people than Hitler.

Quote:

I'm a proponent of the non-agression principal as well as culture > national borders drawn on a map. I'm a voluntaryist so I would require extraordinary proof that nationalism is not a force for evil.

I originated as a voluntary-ist and believer in the non-aggression axiom, so I'm familiar with the school of thought. I hope to give better and more developed answers in the future!

[j r]

(03-04-2013 08:57 PM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:33 PM)rmo Wrote:  

Thanks for the reasonable response, Especially with the touch subject of toothbrush mustache and the Jew burning business / Italian assholes of facism.

I looked into it, and found that Jewish Communism in large part initiated the 20th-century phase of the European civil war (World Wars I and II and the secondary and tertiary conflicts) and massacred an order of magnitude more people than Hitler.

Oh, you looked into it. I guess that settles that.

[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-04-2013 09:01 PM)j r Wrote:  

Oh, you looked into it. I guess that settles that.

Now, now, with the snark. Of course it doesn't "settle it," but do I strike you as one would be disinclined to bring evidence and back up his strongly-worded case? Anyway, be patient, or go look into it for yourself!

[Blaster]

Quote:

Of course German friendship could have been even worse for the British, at least if you're one of those people who dislike fascism. British fascists would have ended up with a supporting superpower right next to them, the atrocities on the continent would have been covered up so people would not immediately associate Naziism with Auschwitz (hell, no one would have heard about Auschwitz) and there would have been no war with a fascist country so the British general public would not have been as reflexively anti-fascist as they are today. Fascism would have become a major force in British politics.

The question is, though, what elements off fascist ideology are compatible with the political system that existed? I suspect British people are reflexively anti-fascist because they associate fascism with authoritarianism and suppression of individual rights and racist nationalism. Do you really think the Nazi influence would have been able to overcome Britain's commitment to enlightenment ideals?

[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-04-2013 07:52 PM)jaakkeli Wrote:  

the atrocities on the continent would have been covered up so people would not immediately associate Naziism with Auschwitz (hell, no one would have heard about Auschwitz)

You mean, like Anglo-American Leftists did with Communists atrocities? Like, for example, no one knew the truth about Katyn until decades afterward?

It turns out that even Teutonophilic figures in the West (H.L. Mencken comes to mind) were wholly ready to call out the Germans for their treatment of Jews, and did so early in the game. So the issue was quite known.

See also: Walter Duranty.

[TheCaptainPower]

In my opinion, a well run fascist government will always out perform a democracy. The key word being "well run". A nation as a whole makes a lot of progress when everyone is one the same page, either by choice or forced.

Fascist leaders like Hitler, Napoleon? Almost took over half of Europe in a short amount of time.

[j r]

(03-04-2013 10:30 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

In my opinion, a well run fascist government will always out perform a democracy. The key word being "well run". A nation as a whole makes a lot of progress when everyone is one the same page, either by choice or forced.

Fascist leaders like Hitler, Napoleon? Almost took over half of Europe in a short amount of time.

WW2 says otherwise.

[TheCaptainPower]

Doesn't WWII back it up?

[j r]

(03-04-2013 10:39 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

Doesn't WWII back it up?

No. The democracies outfought and outproduced the fascist countries. And the Axis powers were only able to gain so much ground in the first place because they invaded smaller weaker countries and the French, while Britain and Russia had no appetite for war.

Also, what exactly do you mean by outperform? If you mean that fascist countries are easier to mobilize and take to war, you're right. However, I would consider that a huge flaw.

[Blaster]

(03-04-2013 10:39 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

Doesn't WWII back it up?

Too small a sample size, too long ago. It's impossible to predict whether the Nazis would have been able to maintain their hold on territories.

Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8OEuj6-pVg

It's a time-lapse political map of the world for the last 200 years. If you aren't paying close attention, you'll miss the Nazis entirely.

[Ensam]

The Nazis lost because they were anti-Semitic not because they were fascist. If the Nazi's had let the jewish physicists keep their posts they probably would have gotten the A-bomb years before the US (and before they lost).

[Emancipator]

The Nazis also lost by failing to properly use the extensive human capital and other resources of their acquired countries. The Ukrainian breadbasket crops were left to rot as they didn't manage to put in place infrastructure to move it.

[TheRookie]

An empire is retarded because countries get so overconfident that they overextend and their own people and country that they originally wanted to uplift are crushed.

What do you think happened to the Germans after their empire fell in World War II? They were invaded by the Russians and their woman were raped en masse. No woman between eight and eighty was apared if wikipedia is to be believed. The Japanese got an atomic bomb dropped on their cities and now they are a nation of grass eaters.

Before that the Chinese empire was crushed by the Japanese and raped en masse.

The Swiss have the correct model - they are heavily decentralized, armed to the teeth, skilled marksman and they have a strict no invading other countries model. They have extremely limited immigration and maintain neutrality in armed conflicts.

When the American empire falls, hopefully it fades away slowly like the British without an occupation and mass rape. The Americans are armed to the teeth and surrounded by oceans so it would be near impossible for a foreign army to occupy the land.

[TheRookie]

These leaders ran unsustainable command economies with government directing a huge part of national product towards militarism, public works, national health care schemes, etc. The only way they could maintain a flawed socialistic economy was to invade other countries, steal their capital, and enslave their workers. They naturally over-extended and quickly collapsed. The German economy was a basket case at the end of the war. Hitler was able to turn the economy around by ending Weimar hyperinflation by instituting a new currency and ending crippling reparations payments to the allies. Then he went wild and started instituting all manners of flawed policies like price controls, farm subsidies, spending on wasteful public works projects, massive military build-up. He used deficit spending and central bank inflation to finance it all.

The notion that the fascist economic system is beneficial has already been debated by the sharpest minds and found wanting. Suggested reading:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=507
http://dailyreckoning.com/too-much-of-a-...-part-iii/
http://mises.org/daily/3274

I haven't read this book, only reviews, but if you're interested in this topic it would be worth a look:
http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-...0143113208

(03-04-2013 10:30 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

In my opinion, a well run fascist government will always out perform a democracy. The key word being "well run". A nation as a whole makes a lot of progress when everyone is one the same page, either by choice or forced.

Fascist leaders like Hitler, Napoleon? Almost took over half of Europe in a short amount of time.

[Lemmo]

(03-04-2013 10:48 PM)j r Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:39 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

Doesn't WWII back it up?

No. The democracies outfought and outproduced the fascist countries. And the Axis powers were only able to gain so much ground in the first place because they invaded smaller weaker countries and the French, while Britain and Russia had no appetite for war.

Also, what exactly do you mean by outperform? If you mean that fascist countries are easier to mobilize and take to war, you're right. However, I would consider that a huge flaw.

Not really. The US outproduced Germany thanks to being a larger country out of reach of bombers. The Russian outproduced the Germans through a system of slave camps and terror. The Germans failed to switch to a full war economy until a late stage. WWII economic production involved many factors and primarily centered around non-democracies so it can't be used to prove democracy is better than fascism at utilizing the forces of capitalism (see also pre WWII, Nazi era Germany).

As far as outfighting, the Allies suffered more military casualties than the Axis, and the majority of casualties were between non-democracies (esp Germany and the Soviet Union) so again WWII doesn't provide a comparison of democracy and fascism.