Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[Purgatio]

Feudalism was organic in the sense that, under the social conditions of the time, it was the most logical and sustainable form of economic and political organisation in an age where the economy was essentially agrarian and you had a massive uneducated and illiterate population, incapable of broader political and democratic participation.

They were in fact capable when left to their own devices as the peasantry of Dithsmarschen demonstrated at length, as well as the Frisian culture more broadly and subsequent societies influenced by their ideas.

I'm inclined to say Dithmarschen is just an exception rather than the rule. Yes you're always gonna be able to identify one example of a community of uneducated rural peasants who were able to organise without coercive authority like vassal knights and feudal lords, but I find it hard to believe that that was a politically-sustainable model for an entire civilisation or a broader civilisation-wide basis.

[Ostroeuropa]

They were in fact capable when left to their own devices as the peasantry of Dithsmarschen demonstrated at length, as well as the Frisian culture more broadly and subsequent societies influenced by their ideas.

I'm inclined to say Dithmarschen is just an exception rather than the rule. Yes you're always gonna be able to identify one example of a community of uneducated rural peasants who were able to organise without coercive authority like vassal knights and feudal lords, but I find it hard to believe that that was a politically-sustainable model for an entire civilisation or a broader civilisation-wide basis.

Mmmhmm.

Sure mate.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Europe.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls#Social_structure

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

You mean xi/xir is an actual thing? Sweet suffering Jesus. Well, just another day in 2019 I suppose. I hope the Mullahs put us out of our misery soon and nuke us.

Why?

[Purgatio]

I'm inclined to say Dithmarschen is just an exception rather than the rule. Yes you're always gonna be able to identify one example of a community of uneducated rural peasants who were able to organise without coercive authority like vassal knights and feudal lords, but I find it hard to believe that that was a politically-sustainable model for an entire civilisation or a broader civilisation-wide basis.

Mmmhmm.

Sure mate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls#Social_structure

Weren't the Gauls defeated by the Roman Empire? I wouldn't proffer a conquered and assimilated people as a successful model to follow for, well, anything.

[Ostroeuropa]

Mmmhmm.

Sure mate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls#Social_structure

Weren't the Gauls defeated by the Roman Empire? I wouldn't proffer a conquered and assimilated people as a successful model to follow for, well, anything.

They were one of the most expansive and long-lasting cultural groups in history and their society was organized without feudal lords on the basis of local democracy.

Their defeat to the Romans is more based in terrible military strategy than anything else. It's not like Rome was a superpowered juggernaught on the basis of its government system alone, it spent hundreds of years being a shitty town on the Italian peninsula until their military reforms.


There's plenty of other examples. There is nothing "Organic" about aristocracy and a system of violent exploitation.

[Purgatio]

Weren't the Gauls defeated by the Roman Empire? I wouldn't proffer a conquered and assimilated people as a successful model to follow for, well, anything.

They were one of the most expansive and long-lasting cultural groups in history and their society was organized without feudal lords on the basis of local democracy.

Their defeat to the Romans is more based in terrible military strategy than anything else. It's not like Rome was a superpowered juggernaught on the basis of its government system alone, it spent hundreds of years being a shitty town on the Italian peninsula until their military reforms.


There's plenty of other examples. There is nothing "Organic" about aristocracy and a system of violent exploitation.

It's natural for more successful societies to absorb, conquer and take-over less-succesful societies which follow less-successful models of governance. That's how all empires, nations and civilisations (China, Japan, Ottoman, the US, Great Britain etc) have grown and expanded throughout history. The fact that the Gauls not only lost but became absorbed and assimilated into the Roman Empire implies they ran a less-successful and productive civilisation, which isn't surprising since having a system of local democracy for uneducated and illiterate peasants sounds like a prima facie terrible and ill-thought out system. And calling aristocracy violent exploitation sounds a little anarchistic, I mean yes its 'violent' in the sense that its a system maintained by coercive force, but that's true of any system of government, even democracy is maintained by coercive force since the minority that objects to the law as determined by the majority (ie criminals) have to be violently suppressed. That sounds like an argument against all government generally than aristocracy specifically.

[The Serbian Empire]

Even if I am a great upholder of democracy, it seems to me that it is a very fragile thing. Right now in our contemporary decade, we are facing a broad range of issues, from socio-economic disparities to climate change. It is no wonder that pessimism and distrust towards the democratic system is growing large. In the quest for the panacea, people are looking towards circus artists, such as Trump and other populists acting like Santa Claus. Even though right-wing reactionary ideology is not going to appeal to our next generation, other forms of anti-democratic ideologies are going to do that, such as Marxist collectivism autocracy.

Almost as if the milquetoast capitalistic social liberal is a liability as the electorate wants either further approaches into socialism or a fascist. They want something that wasn't in power a dozen times before. Bernie Sanders and a couple presidents in Mexico and Uruguay are proof of Social Democrat populist in high economic equality countries like Latin America and the US. The Social being short for Socialist

[Purgatio]

Fascism is socialism, just look at its philosophical roots and the backgrounds of its proponents. It is an ideology of collectivism and extreme social change away from the gentry.

Fascism is völkisch, but that doesn't make it socialist. And really, you think social change away from the gentry means socialism? You understand that capitalism is not a synonym for feudalism, don't you?

---

What I was saying is that it is unnecessarily restricting free speech of non-fascists. And I have limited free speech apparently, because if I even carry a national symbol and unfortunately encounter these terrorists, I would be suppressed.

Was the First Amendment repealed with my noticing? That anti-fascists might mistake you for a fascist doesn't mean you don't have free speech. Someone might mistake you for a Muslim and throw you in front of a train(as happened to a Sikh man), that doesn't mean you don't have freedom of religion.

Thanks for proving you don't care about free speech when it is your compatriots suppressing it.

What?

Also, the idea that I would support - or not mind - Richard Spencer abolishing free speech is moronic at best. Just because I don't support hooliganism does not mean I have sympathies for Richard Spencer, not that he will gain power anyway.

I'm sure you would not support Richard Spencer, I didn't say that you do. I just said that if he took power in America then you really wouldn't have free speech, the right would cease to exist in law, you would be facing not individual violence, but state suppression, the danger would not be getting harassed or punched, it would be getting disappeared, Nacht und Nebel.

I am not saying anything about you here. I am not saying anything about the right in general, not about conservatives. I'm just contrasting fascists and anti-fascists. Try not to get triggered.

I agree with you about Richard Spencer, but what I don't see how is how Spencer theoretically suppressing free speech where he and the NPI folks in power is a point of contrast with anti-fascists. Anti-fascists are not in favour of free speech in any sense of the word. Throwing Molotov cocktails, smashing windows and destroying cars as an act of violent protest, not to mention punching people you disagree with on the street, is a clear attempt to make the people who express views you dislike feel unsafe in public spaces. That's not supporting free speech in any sense of the word.

[Ostroeuropa]

Mmmhmm.

Sure mate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls#Social_structure

Weren't the Gauls defeated by the Roman Empire? I wouldn't proffer a conquered and assimilated people as a successful model to follow for, well, anything.

Besides, if that is your argument;


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... rchies.png

9th and 15th centuries;
(600 years before decline, marginalization, and eventual overthrow on the vast majority of the planet.).

V

800 BCE to 51 BCE.
(750 years before roman conquest.).

I guess Aristocracy isn't organic because republicanism conquered it.

They were one of the most expansive and long-lasting cultural groups in history and their society was organized without feudal lords on the basis of local democracy.

Their defeat to the Romans is more based in terrible military strategy than anything else. It's not like Rome was a superpowered juggernaught on the basis of its government system alone, it spent hundreds of years being a shitty town on the Italian peninsula until their military reforms.


There's plenty of other examples. There is nothing "Organic" about aristocracy and a system of violent exploitation.

It's natural for more successful societies to absorb, conquer and take-over less-succesful societies which follow less-successful models of governance. That's how all empires, nations and civilisations (China, Japan, Ottoman, the US, Great Britain etc) have grown and expanded throughout history. The fact that the Gauls not only lost but became absorbed and assimilated into the Roman Empire implies they ran a less-successful and productive civilisation, which isn't surprising since having a system of local democracy for uneducated and illiterate peasants sounds like a prima facie terrible and ill-thought out system. And calling aristocracy violent exploitation sounds a little anarchistic, I mean yes its 'violent' in the sense that its a system maintained by coercive force, but that's true of any system of government, even democracy is maintained by coercive force since the minority that objects to the law as determined by the majority (ie criminals) have to be violently suppressed. That sounds like an argument against all government generally than aristocracy specifically.

So is aristocracy not organic?
Then what use is the term, other than;
"Well this is what we have now and this how things occured, so that's "Organic"". It sounds like an appeal to status quo in all times and places, a mandate of heaven kind of deal. The moment a system is overthrown it ceases to be organic and the new one becomes so.

Worthless.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Fascism is socialism, just look at its philosophical roots and the backgrounds of its proponents. It is an ideology of collectivism and extreme social change away from the gentry.

Fascism is völkisch, but that doesn't make it socialist. And really, you think social change away from the gentry means socialism? You understand that capitalism is not a synonym for feudalism, don't you?

---

What I was saying is that it is unnecessarily restricting free speech of non-fascists. And I have limited free speech apparently, because if I even carry a national symbol and unfortunately encounter these terrorists, I would be suppressed.

Was the First Amendment repealed with my noticing? That anti-fascists might mistake you for a fascist doesn't mean you don't have free speech. Someone might mistake you for a Muslim and throw you in front of a train(as happened to a Sikh man), that doesn't mean you don't have freedom of religion.

Thanks for proving you don't care about free speech when it is your compatriots suppressing it.

What?

Also, the idea that I would support - or not mind - Richard Spencer abolishing free speech is moronic at best. Just because I don't support hooliganism does not mean I have sympathies for Richard Spencer, not that he will gain power anyway.

I'm sure you would not support Richard Spencer, I didn't say that you do. I just said that if he took power in America then you really wouldn't have free speech, the right would cease to exist in law, you would be facing not individual violence, but state suppression, the danger would not be getting harassed or punched, it would be getting disappeared, Nacht und Nebel.

I am not saying anything about you here. I am not saying anything about the right in general, not about conservatives. I'm just contrasting fascists and anti-fascists. Try not to get triggered.

I think I misread one word in the last sentence of your other post, and thus thought it was a jab at me. I didn't get pissed about you explaining differences. Not that I support these antifa folks anyway. They still unjustifiably suppress free speech of non-fascists in some cases, and fascists being worse while in power still does not change that. I'm not comparing you to fascists after all.

[Purgatio]

Weren't the Gauls defeated by the Roman Empire? I wouldn't proffer a conquered and assimilated people as a successful model to follow for, well, anything.

Besides, if that is your argument;


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... rchies.png

9th and 15th centuries;
(600 years before decline, marginalization, and eventual overthrow on the vast majority of the planet.).

V

800 BCE to 51 BCE.
(750 years before roman conquest.).

I guess Aristocracy isn't organic because republicanism conquered it.

You realise I'm not arguing aristocracy is a good model for modern conditions, right? We have an educated population, we don't have agrarian economies, the moment we had industrial capitalism and the rise of the petit bourgeoisie, the fall of the aristocratic economic model was inevitable (hence the French Revolution and the abolition of seigneurial obligations by the Assembly and what not). I don't want aristocracy now, I just think when you have uneducated and illiterate peasants, coupled with a completely-agrarian economy, the most logical system of organisation is to have a hierarchical structure where you have people tasked with keeping peace and order amongst the agricultural labourers, by force if necessary, and have those peacekeepers owe fealty to people above them, through a peasant-vassal-feudal overlord system of rigid hierarchical organisation.

[Ostroeuropa]

Even if I am a great upholder of democracy, it seems to me that it is a very fragile thing. Right now in our contemporary decade, we are facing a broad range of issues, from socio-economic disparities to climate change. It is no wonder that pessimism and distrust towards the democratic system is growing large. In the quest for the panacea, people are looking towards circus artists, such as Trump and other populists acting like Santa Claus. Even though right-wing reactionary ideology is not going to appeal to our next generation, other forms of anti-democratic ideologies are going to do that, such as Marxist collectivism autocracy.

Almost as if the milquetoast capitalistic social liberal is a liability as the electorate wants either further approaches into socialism or a fascist. They want something that wasn't in power a dozen times before. Bernie Sanders and a couple presidents in Mexico and Uruguay are proof of Social Democrat populist in high economic equality countries like Latin America and the US.

This doesn't appear to work in countries undergoing mass migration though, as they too have seen a rise in fascism even if they adopt a social democratic model.

[Ostroeuropa]

Besides, if that is your argument;


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... rchies.png

9th and 15th centuries;
(600 years before decline, marginalization, and eventual overthrow on the vast majority of the planet.).

V

800 BCE to 51 BCE.
(750 years before roman conquest.).

I guess Aristocracy isn't organic because republicanism conquered it.

You realise I'm not arguing aristocracy is a good model for modern conditions, right? We have an educated population, we don't have agrarian economies, the moment we had industrial capitalism and the rise of the petit bourgeoisie, the fall of the aristocratic economic model was inevitable (hence the French Revolution and the abolition of seigneurial obligations by the Assembly and what not). I don't want aristocracy now, I just think when you have uneducated and illiterate peasants, coupled with a completely-agrarian economy, the most logical system of organisation is to have a hierarchical structure where you have people tasked with keeping peace and order amongst the agricultural labourers, by force if necessary, and have those peacekeepers owe fealty to people above them, through a peasant-vassal-feudal overlord system of rigid hierarchical organisation.

I disagree it's the most logical, but I can concede it may well be inevitable once it arises.

[Purgatio]

Almost as if the milquetoast capitalistic social liberal is a liability as the electorate wants either further approaches into socialism or a fascist. They want something that wasn't in power a dozen times before. Bernie Sanders and a couple presidents in Mexico and Uruguay are proof of Social Democrat populist in high economic equality countries like Latin America and the US.

This doesn't appear to work in countries undergoing mass migration though, as they too have seen a rise in fascism even if they adopt a social democratic model.

Because the rise of fascism has nothing to do with 'economic anxiety'. Sure, poor economic conditions can be a factor, but the underlying factor is, as you pointed out, mass migration and radical demographic changes. When you radically change the ethnic make-up of a country, members of the threatened group are going to feel displaced and alienated, it's human nature. The folly of radical demographic changes makes the rise of fascism in Europe inevitable.

[The Serbian Empire]

Almost as if the milquetoast capitalistic social liberal is a liability as the electorate wants either further approaches into socialism or a fascist. They want something that wasn't in power a dozen times before. Bernie Sanders and a couple presidents in Mexico and Uruguay are proof of Social Democrat populist in high economic equality countries like Latin America and the US.

This doesn't appear to work in countries undergoing mass migration though, as they too have seen a rise in fascism even if they adopt a social democratic model.

The mass migration in the US is not evenly dispersed either. Hence why Bernie support being strongest in places like Michigan which are the least damaged by the shifting demographics as the new immigrants won't go to a place that after adjusted to inflation has been economically been stagnant since the Oil Crisis.

[Ostroeuropa]

This doesn't appear to work in countries undergoing mass migration though, as they too have seen a rise in fascism even if they adopt a social democratic model.

Because the rise of fascism has nothing to do with 'economic anxiety'. Sure, poor economic conditions can be a factor, but the underlying factor is, as you pointed out, mass migration and radical demographic changes. When you radically change the ethnic make-up of a country, members of the threatened group are going to feel displaced and alienated, it's human nature. The folly of radical demographic changes makes the rise of fascism in Europe inevitable.

I sort of agree, but I think it can be clarified that it's primarily because of multicultural nihilism that this occurs. A strong and robust system of assimilation would remove these tensions, however, such a thing requires money to implement, and our neoliberal elites don't want to pay taxes to have to support it. So they repackage a lack of an essential apparatus of the state for maintaining social cohesion as progressive and tolerant instead. Sort of like if they up and decided to get rid of the army, gave themselves a tax cut, and then clapped themselves on the back for being so modern and telling people that if they opposed that state of affairs they were evil warmongers.

I think it's more cultural displacement rather than racial or genetic that is driving the rise of fascism.

[Ostroeuropa]

This doesn't appear to work in countries undergoing mass migration though, as they too have seen a rise in fascism even if they adopt a social democratic model.

The mass migration in the US is not evenly dispersed either. Hence why Bernie support being strongest in places like Michigan which are the least damaged by the shifting demographics as the new immigrants won't go to a place that after adjusted to inflation has been economically been stagnant since the Oil Crisis.

I agree. I think if you expect social democracy to prevent the rise of fascism, a vital component of the tax and spend regimen must be institutions for assimilating immigrants and enforcing cultural norms and values.

[Purgatio]

Because the rise of fascism has nothing to do with 'economic anxiety'. Sure, poor economic conditions can be a factor, but the underlying factor is, as you pointed out, mass migration and radical demographic changes. When you radically change the ethnic make-up of a country, members of the threatened group are going to feel displaced and alienated, it's human nature. The folly of radical demographic changes makes the rise of fascism in Europe inevitable.

I sort of agree, but I think it can be clarified that it's primarily because of multicultural nihilism that this occurs. A strong and robust system of assimilation would remove these tensions, however, such a thing requires money to implement, and our neoliberal elites don't want to pay taxes to have to support it. So they repackage a lack of an essential apparatus of the state for maintaining social cohesion as progressive and tolerant instead.

I think it's more cultural displacement rather than racial or genetic that is driving the rise of fascism.

I guess our disagreement is whether cultural assimilation is a viable model under a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural society. I don't think it is. The notion of assimilation has been tried over and over again, but the reality is in-group, out-group thinking dooms that attempt from the beginning. The fact that groups like Ashkenazis Jews and the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia and Indians in East Africa have maintained a distinct culture, identity and sense of group belonging despite being scattered across many countries and forming a tiny proportion of the population of each nation they are in, is evidence of how as human beings, we naturally identify with people who look like us, have stronger blood and genetic ties with us, that's how we draw our sense of identity, belonging and communal association. Rather than try and go against human nature, we should be preventing the racial demographic changes which result in this type of inevitable social backlash.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

The far right needs a revival, but not in the form of fascism. People have seen what fascism has done, therefore they will not repeat their actions in the same exact way, only slightly different.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I think it's more cultural displacement rather than racial or genetic that is driving the rise of fascism.

I agree. When one goes into a Western country, one would expect Western culture to dominate. Not a new culture that shoves collective cultural guilt in everyone's faces, alongside foreign cultures.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

The far right needs a revival, but not in the form of fascism. People have seen what fascism has done, therefore they will not repeat their actions in the same exact way, only slightly different.

I mean, variants such as Strasserism and National Syndicalism do still exist, and in the US, the right-libertarians are also a thing.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The far right needs a revival, but not in the form of fascism. People have seen what fascism has done, therefore they will not repeat their actions in the same exact way, only slightly different.

No, we don't need a resurgence of pre-enlightenment thought.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

The far right needs a revival, but not in the form of fascism. People have seen what fascism has done, therefore they will not repeat their actions in the same exact way, only slightly different.

No, we don't need a resurgence of pre-enlightenment thought.

Again, National Syndicalism...

[Communist Zombie Horde]

The far right needs a revival, but not in the form of fascism. People have seen what fascism has done, therefore they will not repeat their actions in the same exact way, only slightly different.

I mean, variants such as Strasserism and National Syndicalism do still exist, and in the US, the right-libertarians are also a thing.

I dislike ‘right liberatrians’ who are liberal but the paleo libertarians and such are ok.

The far right needs a revival, but not in the form of fascism. People have seen what fascism has done, therefore they will not repeat their actions in the same exact way, only slightly different.

No, we don't need a resurgence of pre-enlightenment thought.

Okay, social leftist.

[First American Empire]

as human beings, we naturally identify with people who look like us, have stronger blood and genetic ties with us, that's how we draw our sense of identity, belonging and communal association. Rather than try and go against human nature, we should be preventing the racial demographic changes which result in this type of inevitable social backlash.

I identify more with liberals* of other races than I do with white conservatives. Even if you're the same race as me, the fact that you're even making this statement proves I have less in common with you than with pretty much any racial minority.

*In the American sense of the word.