Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo

Sound like Trump's America?


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#1 Bub

Bub

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 03:39 PM

"What was proletarian is now bourgeois. What began as radical has ended as conservative. Sedition has changed into loyalty. Left has turned right. The only constant quantity, the sole continuum, in this bewildering reversal has been Mussolini himself. It is not unnatural that Mussolini has been accused by his adversaries of being the arch-turncoat of history, outdoing all other famous renegades in the vast and devastating effect of his treachery to the cause of popular liberty. And, in plain fact, there is no denying that Mussolini was at one time a socialist, a republican, an atheist, a subverter of the government, and that he is now the opposite of all these things. He who was once against all constituted authority has become Authority incarnate."

- William Kilbourne Stewart, Dartmoth Scholar (American Political Science Review 1928)
  • maryannbr2 likes this

#2 Goldbrick

Goldbrick

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • LocationNorthern Colorado

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:59 PM

Nope.



#3 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,348 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 06:42 PM

Oh looky, the hungry troll is back.



#4 Sorass

Sorass

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts
  • LocationWakarusa, Kansas

Posted 28 December 2016 - 12:25 AM

The quote is real, and the history is written in black and white.  Mussolini was a radical socialist and follower of Leon Trotsky.  Once he smelled power, he became a fascist authoritarian and had his opponents killed.  He was the definition of fascism, the merger of corporate power and government.  

 

He died being hung upside down by his feet in a public square.  To me, it shows that political labels in truth mean nothing.  It boils down to the psychology of power, the stability of a given human being who seeks power, and the absence of judicial safeguards and a population that is committed to freedom. It shows the danger of concentration of political power in the hands of the wealthiest people.

 

And history does repeat itself over and over.  Democracy does not always turn out well.  Nero exploited that.



#5 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,122 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 02:36 AM

Agree about false labeling.  That's why I think the only meaningful scale is totalitarianism vs. anarchy.  Big government vs. small government.  Stalin, Mao, Castro, Mussolini, etc., etc. were all totalitarians.  To claim Fascists are the opposite of Communists is false in my book.  That's why is amusing, but misleading, to label socialists as liberals and conservatives as fascists and no group has an exclusive lock on bigotry.  It all means nothing until one get specific on what issue one is talking about.  



#6 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,890 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 02:38 AM

The quote is real, and the history is written in black and white.  Mussolini was a radical socialist and follower of Leon Trotsky.  Once he smelled power, he became a fascist authoritarian and had his opponents killed.  He was the definition of fascism, the merger of corporate power and government.  

 

He died being hung upside down by his feet in a public square.  To me, it shows that political labels in truth mean nothing.  It boils down to the psychology of power, the stability of a given human being who seeks power, and the absence of judicial safeguards and a population that is committed to freedom. It shows the danger of concentration of political power in the hands of the wealthiest people.

 

And history does repeat itself over and over.  Democracy does not always turn out well.  Nero exploited that.

actually bil, it shows the danger of concentrated power through government. Devolve the power of government, and totalitarianism cannot exist.



#7 Sorass

Sorass

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts
  • LocationWakarusa, Kansas

Posted 28 December 2016 - 03:37 AM

actually bil, it shows the danger of concentrated power through government. Devolve the power of government, and totalitarianism cannot exist.

Impossible. Virtually a childish notion. Totalitarianism always arises out of anarchy.  Without a government that tries to prevent that, it happens almost immediately. The totalitarian force that arises out of anarchy still calls itself government.  A government can "govern" with a scepter or with a parliament or congress and elections.  But it is still government. And power always concentrates, either slowly or quickly...because the powerful call the shots. The powerful can do it quickly with an army, like in Game of Thrones, or slowly through political contributions that purchase politicians either through bribes or lobbyists or though campaign contributions. They can change the laws that way. Whether you like it or not, it is still "government."  Advocating for small government is advocating for small power.  It ain't ever gonna happen.  An absolute fantasy straight out of Ayn Rand.



#8 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,890 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 03:51 AM

Impossible. Virtually a childish notion. Totalitarianism always arises out of anarchy.  Without a government that tries to prevent that, it happens almost immediately. The totalitarian force that arises out of anarchy still calls itself government.  A government can "govern" with a scepter or with a parliament or congress and elections.  But it is still government. And power always concentrates, either slowly or quickly...because the powerful call the shots. The powerful can do it quickly with an army, like in Game of Thrones, or slowly through political contributions that purchase politicians either through bribes or lobbyists or though campaign contributions. They can change the laws that way. Whether you like it or not, it is still "government."  Advocating for small government is advocating for small power.  It ain't ever gonna happen.  An absolute fantasy straight out of Ayn Rand.

Uh, totalitarianism NEVER arises from anarchy. Italy, The Third Reich, Imperial Japan, Communist China, the Soviet Union, Cuba... none of those regimes evolved from anarchy. Each evolved from a state of economic malaise, where the people traded freedom for the promise of 'security' or in the case of several, never experienced freedom in the first place. Economic malaise is not anarchy. The lack of government is anarchy, which hasn't existed in any of the best modern examples of totalitarian governments.

 

Sorry, but your rant is hollow and illogical. Freedom NEVER begets totalitarianism, until good men sit back and do nothing while their freedoms are eroded in the name of security.



#9 Sorass

Sorass

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts
  • LocationWakarusa, Kansas

Posted 28 December 2016 - 04:01 AM

Uh, totalitarianism NEVER arises from anarchy.

 

Sorry, but your rant is hollow and illogical. Freedom NEVER begets totalitarianism, until good men sit back and do nothing while their freedoms are eroded in the name of security.

"Totalitarianism never arises from anarchy."   Mex, I don't know even how to respond to such a statement.  It is beyond words.

 

In your second statement it seems like you are equating "freedom" and "anarchy."  Is that right?  If that is what you are saying, I am again at a loss for words. And as anyone knows, when I am at a loss for words, something really astonishing has happened.



#10 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,890 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 04:46 AM

"Totalitarianism never arises from anarchy."   Mex, I don't know even how to respond to such a statement.  It is beyond words.

 

In your second statement it seems like you are equating "freedom" and "anarchy."  Is that right?  If that is what you are saying, I am again at a loss for words. And as anyone knows, when I am at a loss for words, something really astonishing has happened.

You should be at a loss for words because there's no defending your point.

 

Name one nation that went from anarchy to totalitarianism.

 

You can't because it has never happened. So what you'll have to do is change the definition of 'anarchy' to make your claim. You might try to say that the Weimar Republic was anarchy... because their currency was a wreck and their economy was a shambles... but wasn't because the government was an anarchist government (the very term is an oxymoron) it was because of unbearable sanctions the rest of Europe placed on them at Versailles. 

 

But go ahead... give me an example of an anarchistic country that went totalitarian. I'll pop up some popcorn....



#11 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,524 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 28 December 2016 - 05:24 AM

Libya. Ghana. Argentina under Juan Peron. Spain under Franco. Of course Germany in 1932. There was little if any semblance of order under Weimar and Hindenburg

#12 Sorass

Sorass

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts
  • LocationWakarusa, Kansas

Posted 28 December 2016 - 05:24 AM

You should be at a loss for words because there's no defending your point.

 

Name one nation that went from anarchy to totalitarianism.

 

You can't because it has never happened. So what you'll have to do is change the definition of 'anarchy' to make your claim. You might try to say that the Weimar Republic was anarchy... because their currency was a wreck and their economy was a shambles... but wasn't because the government was an anarchist government (the very term is an oxymoron) it was because of unbearable sanctions the rest of Europe placed on them at Versailles. 

 

But go ahead... give me an example of an anarchistic country that went totalitarian. I'll pop up some popcorn....

 

 

https://www.merriam-...tionary/anarchy

 

Mex, you asked an example, and there is a tragic one from the early part of the 20th century.  The anarchy-statists of Spain tried to set up a system without courts, law, or formal government, and it ended in tyranny.  The reason is that power never stays decentralized. The elimination of state structure leads to eventually the opposite, tyranny.  The bullies take the reins locally and do what they want to those who disagree with them.  They build further on their power until they impose it on everyone.

 

http://econfaculty.g...aplan/spain.htm

 

It was true prior to feudal times.  The exact same thing.  Rural dwellers living off the land, then bullies, then militias, then kings and queens living in castles, often claiming a religious motive (the divine kings).  This is as old as mankind itself.  To think that freedom can be maintained in anarchy is a pipe dream, a fantasy created by well-meaning people who are sick of what government brings.  But it completely ignores the natural un-evenness of human personality and subtypes.  Some just want to be on top and control others.  They get, maintain, and expand power, including enforcement of death penalties on those who they disagree with.  The heirarchy keeps building and concentrating.  

 

Only those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of human nature can believe that an anarchist system does not move toward tyranny just as much as a democratic system moves in the same direction.  Refusing to acknowledge hard fact in favor of an idealistic perfect world is, in actuality, childish.  But it sells a lot of books and captures a lot of imaginations.



#13 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,122 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 05:41 AM

No one here wants totalitarianism, even Wilkie.  No one wants anarchy.  The issue is where on the scale is the optimum point to give maximum freedom with reasonable security and safety.  



#14 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,348 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 09:24 AM

You guys realize that this thread only exists so that Mugsy can troll the board.  If you respond to him you only feed and perpetuate the trolling.  It's like handing a heroin addict a needle.

 

By the way, both Mussolini and Hitler were Marxists, and their governments were Socialist.  They were left-wing power hungry lunatics, and they learned very well from the Bolsheviks that the fastest way to power was through nationalist pride, violence, and a large government apparatus utilizing Socialism to consolidate power while exploiting capitalists to fund it all.  They were simply smarter economists than Lenin and Stalin, who were basically gangster thugs who eventually bankrupted their pyramid scheme by using a centrally-planned economy.  At least Hilter and Mussolini were smart enough to conceal their intentions.  Both models have been repeated since their inceptions, and both lead to enormous human suffering for the civilian population, and lavish lifestyles for the Marxists in power.



#15 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,890 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 02:29 PM

Libya. Ghana. Argentina under Juan Peron. Spain under Franco. Of course Germany in 1932. There was little if any semblance of order under Weimar and Hindenburg

We're talking about political ideals, and by definition, anarchy is the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual.

 

What you are describing is chaos, not anarchy. 

 

In every one of your examples, there were governments who had massive thumbs on the freedom of their people. In each and every example you provided, there was a decided lack of personal freedom.

 

Thanks for making my point.



#16 Sorass

Sorass

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts
  • LocationWakarusa, Kansas

Posted 28 December 2016 - 02:35 PM

No one here wants totalitarianism, even Wilkie.  No one wants anarchy.  The issue is where on the scale is the optimum point to give maximum freedom with reasonable security and safety.  

That's exactly it...except for the thing about Wilkie  :lol:



#17 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,890 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 02:37 PM

No one here wants totalitarianism, even Wilkie.  No one wants anarchy.  The issue is where on the scale is the optimum point to give maximum freedom with reasonable security and safety.  

The issue in this thread is the complete misunderstanding of how totalitarianism evolves, thanks to the progressives watering down the definition. We have people who believe fascism is a 'right wing' philosophy. It is not. Fascism is by definition a left wing philosophy, and cannot survive without massive, intrusive, freedom-squashing government. It is amazing that people in this thread actually believe that yielding more power to the government is the solution to fascism. Boggles the mind.



#18 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,890 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 02:51 PM

https://www.merriam-...tionary/anarchy

 

Mex, you asked an example, and there is a tragic one from the early part of the 20th century.  The anarchy-statists of Spain tried to set up a system without courts, law, or formal government, and it ended in tyranny.  The reason is that power never stays decentralized. The elimination of state structure leads to eventually the opposite, tyranny.  The bullies take the reins locally and do what they want to those who disagree with them.  They build further on their power until they impose it on everyone.

 

http://econfaculty.g...aplan/spain.htm

 

It was true prior to feudal times.  The exact same thing.  Rural dwellers living off the land, then bullies, then militias, then kings and queens living in castles, often claiming a religious motive (the divine kings).  This is as old as mankind itself.  To think that freedom can be maintained in anarchy is a pipe dream, a fantasy created by well-meaning people who are sick of what government brings.  But it completely ignores the natural un-evenness of human personality and subtypes.  Some just want to be on top and control others.  They get, maintain, and expand power, including enforcement of death penalties on those who they disagree with.  The heirarchy keeps building and concentrating.  

 

Only those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of human nature can believe that an anarchist system does not move toward tyranny just as much as a democratic system moves in the same direction.  Refusing to acknowledge hard fact in favor of an idealistic perfect world is, in actuality, childish.  But it sells a lot of books and captures a lot of imaginations.

Bill, let's say, just for the sake of argument (that we both love  :lol: ) that there was a temporary pause in American government on the national, state and local level.

 

Would you use force to take possessions from someone? Would you commit violence on an innocent person, to obtain some desired means?

 

I don't see you as the type of person who would do that. I sure wouldn't. The only violence I would perform would be to protect my friends or family from others who would do them harm. But this is true even today under our magnificent government. 

 

You are describing chaos, not the political philosophy of anarchy. You are also misunderstanding my point. I'm not defending anarchy as a form of government. I merely say that anarchy is the total lack of government which would be the most extreme right. Totalitarianism is total control of society by government... it's the extreme left.

 

Fascism is very close to totalitarianism, and is not anywhere near anarchy on the political spectrum.

 

Yet, we always associate right wing politicians with fascists. Just read anything from mother jones, john oliver, or msnbc. The public is horrible misinformed, just as they are about the true nature of socialism.



#19 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,122 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 03:14 PM

The big government control freaks and their propaganda arm, the MSM, have redefined Nazism and Fascism as right wing philosophies and one has to give them credit.  They have made the lie into truth in the public mind.  So all the snowflakes think Trump, who certainly isn't on the right end of the scale, should be called a fascist or another Hitler.  Lessons from Goebbels or "1984" on the often repeated lies.



#20 Bub

Bub

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts

Posted 28 December 2016 - 03:34 PM

It blows me away how some if you keep going back to Italy and Germany. Germany's fascism was different than Italy's. Why would America's version be the same as either of those? Maybe we should rename it because some of you are too stupid to understand that. The core fundamentals are there. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Fascism spawns in the west when people resist transcendence and that is exactly what is happening here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users