Is fascism back with us?

Rascal said:
Its never been tried because the owners of Capital and their media lackeys, the Pro free market, libertarian nutjobs, the entrenched establishment would never allow it.

That is why Communism can only be achieved by revolution. It has to smash the capitalist system. a system that has given us slavery, greed, poverty, inequality and war.

Can you argue against this salient point

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Click to expand...
"It's never been tried...", but trust us, let us try it here and we PROMISE we'll make it work.

Honest!

Can I argue against your point? How about with who decides what the needs are and what classes as ability? And dont say "the people", because as we've seen with democracy, even a 49-51% split is a HUGE portion of people still in objection. What happens to freedom of choice? Freedom of refusal? Freedom of non-compliance? What happens to those who do not wish to live under your system?
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
"It's never been tried...", but trust us, let us try it here and we PROMISE we'll make it work.

Honest!

Can I argue against your point? How about with who decides what the needs are and what classes as ability? And dont say "the people", because as we've seen with democracy, even a 49-51% split is a HUGE portion of people still in objection. What happens to freedom of choice? Freedom of refusal? Freedom of non-compliance? What happens to those who do not wish to live under your system?
Click to expand...
The people decide, it is democratic. It is democratic though from bottom up rather than top down. Hence Communes, which would be a form of localism. For example my street could vote on how resources allocated to my street would be distributed. We could vote at a village level how resources were allocated to each street, we could vote at town level how resources were allocated to each village and so on. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to there capacity, talents and age; it is on this basis that duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive decisions. Say a Doctor would be allocated a larger dwelling as the Doctor would need extra room for surgeries. A family with 5 children would be allocated according to their needs. All available Labour would be used in such a way that benefits each level of distributive concern.

Of course there will always be detractors , but if resources are allocated fairly that would quell dissent. Freedoms would not be affected, but it would be majoritarian rule. Choice, it depends on whether you want to play a part in society, you have the choice not too of course, but then you don't get the allocation of resources. As nothing in society is owned by anyone, all a person has to sell is there labour. If you choose not to sell your labour then do not expect anything in return.

This is vastly oversimplified of course and i would have to write more than the site bandwidth to explain in full detail.

Its why i have issues with the Horseshoe theory, Fascism is vastly different, it creates an extremely nationalistic, authoritarian state usually led by one person at the head of one party. No democratic election of representatives. No free market. No individualism . The State controls of the press and all other media. The individual is considered meaningless; they must submit to the decisions of the leadership.
 
Rascal said:
The people decide, it is democratic. It is democratic though from bottom up rather than top down. Hence Communes, which would be a form of localism. For example my street could vote on how resources allocated to my street would be distributed. We could vote at a village level how resources were allocated to each street, we could vote at town level how resources were allocated to each village and so on. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to there capacity, talents and age; it is on this basis that duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive decisions. Say a Doctor would be allocated a larger dwelling as the Doctor would need extra room for surgeries. A family with 5 children would be allocated according to their needs. All available Labour would be used in such a way that benefits each level of distributive concern.

Of course there will always be detractors , but if resources are allocated fairly that would quell dissent. Freedoms would not be affected, but it would be majoritarian rule. Choice, it depends on whether you want to play a part in society, you have the choice not too of course, but then you don't get the allocation of resources. As nothing in society is owned by anyone, all a person has to sell is there labour. If you choose not to sell your labour then do not expect anything in return.

This is vastly oversimplified of course and i would have to write more than the site bandwidth to explain in full detail.

Its why i have issues with the Horseshoe theory, Fascism is vastly different, it creates an extremely nationalistic, authoritarian state usually led by one person at the head of one party. No democratic election of representatives. No free market. No individualism . The State controls of the press and all other media. The individual is considered meaningless; they must submit to the decisions of the leadership.
Click to expand...
How is Communism (being the other end of the horseshoe) any different? Individualism is suppressed, it is wider society that takes precedent. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few! Ownership of goods by individuals is frowned upon and suppressed/reclaimed, individual aims, gains and attributes are abhored, unless it serves the collective. No free market either, everyone must serve society, look at your own example; "Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to there capacity, talents and age"

That is equally as horrific; you're treating people as a commodity, a statistic, a tool to be used. How is that any different?

"Choice, it depends on whether you want to play a part in society, you have the choice not too of course, but then you don't get the allocation of resources." What's this? Obey OUR rules or you don't get fed? What happened to "the people own the means of production?" Which "society" would be in control of the allocation of resource? Or is this again your majoritarian principle. How is that any different to what we have now or any less abhorrent?

Accept it, your vision of a 'utopian future society' involves the same level of control and dictatorship of the systems you criticise, the difference being that it becomes YOUR vision of what you want society to be and not 'theirs'. You want to wrestle control from those you oppose in order to suit you, and any who do not subscribe to your 'society' will be ostracised and treated with contempt. The rest of us, who don't subscribe to EITHER view, well we can just go hang, can't we.

Young people today favour a more anarchistic/libertarian/commune style of 'societal living'. We're done with systems, we're done with 'democracy', we're done with control and we're done with politicians/diplomats dictating to us what we can do with our own lives. Individuals being the sole possessors of their own fates, not forced to mix into a wider 'society' they may not agree with, instead having their own, multiple separate communities which work alongside others.

Because nowadays younger people cannot abide that when a vote is taken there is inevitably a 'loser' and that 'loser' feels their voice hasn't been listened to. All voices should be seen as relevant, respected and acknowledged. 'Society' is simply too big of a concept to now accept every opinion peacefully; there has to be conflict, so they splinter. Individualism, expressionism, non-conformatism has taken hold. They don't want the future you're selling, they want personal liberty, personal independence, free from the 'system', be it capitalist, socialist, communist or liberal, and its expectations, no matter what system that might be in control. We the people control the resources, not society, and we the people distribute to any and all without prejudice or conformity or expectation of a role as 'good citizen'.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
How is Communism (being the other end of the horseshoe) any different? Individualism is suppressed, it is wider society that takes precedent. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few! Ownership of goods by individuals is frowned upon and suppressed/reclaimed, individual aims, gains and attributes are abhored, unless it serves the collective. No free market either, everyone must serve society, look at your own example; "Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to there capacity, talents and age"

That is equally as horrific; you're treating people as a commodity, a statistic, a tool to be used. How is that any different?

"Choice, it depends on whether you want to play a part in society, you have the choice not too of course, but then you don't get the allocation of resources." What's this? Obey OUR rules or you don't get fed? What happened to "the people own the means of production?" Which "society" would be in control of the allocation of resource? Or is this again your majoritarian principle. How is that any different to what we have now or any less abhorrent?

Accept it, your vision of a 'utopian future society' involves the same level of control and dictatorship of the systems you criticise, the difference being that it becomes YOUR vision of what you want society to be and not 'theirs'. You want to wrestle control from those you oppose in order to suit you, and any who do not subscribe to your 'society' will be ostracised and treated with contempt. The rest of us, who don't subscribe to EITHER view, well we can just go hang, can't we.

Young people today favour a more anarchistic/libertarian/commune style of 'societal living'. We're done with systems, we're done with 'democracy', we're done with control and we're done with politicians/diplomats dictating to us what we can do with our own lives. Individuals being the sole possessors of their own fates, not forced to mix into a wider 'society' they may not agree with, instead having their own, multiple separate communities which work alongside others.

Because nowadays younger people cannot abide that when a vote is taken there is inevitably a 'loser' and that 'loser' feels their voice hasn't been listened to. All voices should be seen as relevant, respected and acknowledged. 'Society' is simply too big of a concept to now accept every opinion peacefully; there has to be conflict, so they splinter. Individualism, expressionism, non-conformatism has taken hold. They don't want the future you're selling, they want personal liberty, personal independence, free from the 'system', be it capitalist, socialist, communist or liberal, and its expectations, no matter what system that might be in control. We the people control the resources, not society, and we the people distribute to any and all without prejudice or conformity or expectation of a role as 'good citizen'.
Click to expand...
We are not that far apart in reality. I thik you are becoming an Anarcho Syndicalist in your dotage
 
Rascal said:
We are not that far apart in reality. I thik you are becoming an Anarcho Syndicalist in your dotage
Click to expand...
"Becoming"? ;) I'm already there, just with a touch more libertarianism.

I don't have any faith in political leaders any more, politicians or any system where people are elected to "power". Nobody should have power over anyone regarding how they choose to live their lives. You're elected to govern; keep the lights on, keep the water clean, keep the food coming, stay the fuck out of my business. Doesn't mean I favour lawless either, just to clarify. I'm firmly of the "your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose".

I'm also not a "worker"; I despise the term, it's dehumanising. I have to work in order to live, not that I live for work. Give me £1m and i'd happily do nothing except leisure the rest of my life, society can do it's own thing.
 
Rascal said:
The people decide, it is democratic. It is democratic though from bottom up rather than top down. Hence Communes, which would be a form of localism. For example my street could vote on how resources allocated to my street would be distributed. We could vote at a village level how resources were allocated to each street, we could vote at town level how resources were allocated to each village and so on. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to there capacity, talents and age; it is on this basis that duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive decisions. Say a Doctor would be allocated a larger dwelling as the Doctor would need extra room for surgeries. A family with 5 children would be allocated according to their needs. All available Labour would be used in such a way that benefits each level of distributive concern.

Of course there will always be detractors , but if resources are allocated fairly that would quell dissent. Freedoms would not be affected, but it would be majoritarian rule. Choice, it depends on whether you want to play a part in society, you have the choice not too of course, but then you don't get the allocation of resources. As nothing in society is owned by anyone, all a person has to sell is there labour. If you choose not to sell your labour then do not expect anything in return.

This is vastly oversimplified of course and i would have to write more than the site bandwidth to explain in full detail.

Its why i have issues with the Horseshoe theory, Fascism is vastly different, it creates an extremely nationalistic, authoritarian state usually led by one person at the head of one party. No democratic election of representatives. No free market. No individualism . The State controls of the press and all other media. The individual is considered meaningless; they must submit to the decisions of the leadership.
Click to expand...
sounds like absolute hell on earth
 
Rascal said:
The people decide, it is democratic. It is democratic though from bottom up rather than top down. Hence Communes, which would be a form of localism. For example my street could vote on how resources allocated to my street would be distributed. We could vote at a village level how resources were allocated to each street, we could vote at town level how resources were allocated to each village and so on. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to there capacity, talents and age; it is on this basis that duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive decisions. Say a Doctor would be allocated a larger dwelling as the Doctor would need extra room for surgeries. A family with 5 children would be allocated according to their needs. All available Labour would be used in such a way that benefits each level of distributive concern.

Of course there will always be detractors , but if resources are allocated fairly that would quell dissent. Freedoms would not be affected, but it would be majoritarian rule. Choice, it depends on whether you want to play a part in society, you have the choice not too of course, but then you don't get the allocation of resources. As nothing in society is owned by anyone, all a person has to sell is there labour. If you choose not to sell your labour then do not expect anything in return.

This is vastly oversimplified of course and i would have to write more than the site bandwidth to explain in full detail.

Its why i have issues with the Horseshoe theory, Fascism is vastly different, it creates an extremely nationalistic, authoritarian state usually led by one person at the head of one party. No democratic election of representatives. No free market. No individualism . The State controls of the press and all other media. The individual is considered meaningless; they must submit to the decisions of the leadership.
Click to expand...
Imagine no possessions.
It’s easy if you try.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
"It's never been tried...", but trust us, let us try it here and we PROMISE we'll make it work.

Honest!

Can I argue against your point? How about with who decides what the needs are and what classes as ability? And dont say "the people", because as we've seen with democracy, even a 49-51% split is a HUGE portion of people still in objection. What happens to freedom of choice? Freedom of refusal? Freedom of non-compliance? What happens to those who do not wish to live under your system?
Click to expand...
Well, firstly, the ones who most vociferously do not wish to live under that system are lined up against a wall and shot dead, mate. That’s what a true revolution is.

You ask about objectors, but a true revolution wouldn’t have many objectors left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.