Russiagate

[Schmelzer]

where you most carefully omit the necessary representation in the supposed "consent",

The usual lie. Because I have not "carefully omitted" the representation, but explicitly discussed it:

A can represent B if he has a permission of B to do this. In this sense, fascism can represent those who support him, so, in the cases where fascism has the consent of the masses, one can say he represents these masses too. One can as well say that the state anyway, even without any consent, represents all citizens. In this case, fascism represents even more, all the citizens.

You may disagree with the argument, no problem, but to quote the sentence after this consideration, deleting the consideration itself, and then saying that I "most carefully omit the necessary representation" is simply a lie.

Which is followed by some wild fantasy:

and thereby avoid confronting what is for you a directly and personally fraught matter: the roles of coercion, deception, and media propaganda, in establishing fascist governance.

I see a lot of coercion, deception, and media propaganda, and I have no problem to see its role in establishing governance today almost everywhere. Nothing specific to fascist governance, for democratic governance deception and media propaganda is even more essential.

Because you are among the most gullible of posters here, in the face of sophisticated American fascist agitprop. You fall for the dumbest stuff those guys put out.

Your invented revisions of the meanings of English words is not entertaining enough to be worth posting. The rest of us would prefer to address thread topics, using a common vocabulary - which in the case of fascism, is difficult enough to maintain without your bs muddling things.

Fascism has no monopoly on its characteristic economic system.

Yes. And that's why I do not name every state which has the economic system of fascism a fascist state.

You have again reversed the direction of implication - mistaken "if" for "if and only if", and argued backwards. You do that a lot - Don't European educated math guys get any training in logic?

Nice techniques. Misinterpreting my texts in horrible ways, and then accusing me to have made the trivial logical errors necessary for such a misinterpretation.

 

[iceaura]

The usual lie. Because I have not "carefully omitted" the representation, but explicitly discussed it:

In the sentence I quoted, you carefully omitted all reference to it where it was critical.
Previously, you had declared its existence and then moved on - that was an avoidance of explicit discussion.
You have never explicitly even acknowledged the nature of representation in fascist takeover and governance. The ongoing and still progressing takeover of the Republican Party and through it the American government by American fascism includes little if any representation even of the 27% of Americans conned into political support, for example.

I see a lot of coercion, deception, and media propaganda, and I have no problem to see its role in establishing governance today almost everywhere.

Uh, yes, you do. You have a great deal of trouble even recognizing it, let alone seeing its role. (You post a fair amount here - are you aware of its role in helping you and the similarly gullible to abuse this forum and others like it? It's one of the important roles it plays)

Nothing specific to fascist governance, -

Exactly. You don't recognize fascism.

for democratic governance deception and media propaganda is even more essential.

It is much less essential. But you have to recognize fascism to see that - you don't, and apparently can't, as I have pointed out to you several times now.

Yes. And that's why I do not name every state which has the economic system of fascism a fascist state.

The logical error again, followed by:

Nice techniques. Misinterpreting my texts in horrible ways, and then accusing me to have made the trivial logical errors necessary for such a misinterpretation.

Keep digging, - it's a nice hole, and you're never getting out anyway.

Or, if you want to know which way is the way out: States which are not fascist do not have fascist economic systems. Ponder that.

It's key to why the Trump familia's collusion with Putin's band of brothers is a different manner of governing than - say - Obama's administration, and what we can expect from such a development.

 

[Schmelzer]

After disposing a lot of "you don't know fascism" blabla, a strange thing remains:

States which are not fascist do not have fascist economic systems.
It's key to why the Trump familia's collusion with Putin's band of brothers is a different manner of governing than - say - Obama's administration, and what we can expect from such a development.

Ok, that's easy to understand. A state is fascist if iceaura says so. Say, if ruled by Trump. In this case, everything is immediately fascist, including the economic system. If iceaura likes it, it is not fascism, say, if Obama rules. In this case, the economic system is also immediately not fascist. That the economic system has not changed even a little bit does not matter at all.
Anyway, it is simple to see what fascism is, simply repeat what the Great Teacher Iceaura is teaching.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Say, if ruled by Trump

But of course.... a democracy is not run by a single person like Trump, Putin, Adolf or Musso... yes?

 

[Quantum Quack]

What is the difference between fascism and dictatorship?

 

[Tiassa]

What is the difference between fascism and dictatorship?

Is this a general question, or particular?

 

[iceaura]

Ok, that's easy to understand. A state is fascist if iceaura says so.

That would at least prevent you from posting some of this bs of yours. Try it.

Say, if ruled by Trump. In this case, everything is immediately fascist, including the economic system.

Fascism employs a corporate capitalist economic system, market based but not freemarket, with the upper level executives of the larger corporations by some means having immediate, personal, and essentially unlimited access to governmental force (by personal - the police, the military - and other powers of governance, employed in their interest at their will.
Government by a strongman overseeing an organized cabal of mutually supportive corporate executives and their military/police, essentially uncurbed by law or institutional stricture.
Which is why the US will never be "ruled" by Trump, even if he does engineer a coup for them - by destroying the functionality of the existing government, say. They wouldn't put up with him - unlike most wannabe Mussolinis or Pinochets, Trump did not earn leadership over a lifetime of acquiring corporate allies and a power base in the military and so forth. He just went on TV and got the votes directly. That won't keep him safe when the votes aren't necessary, or can be coerced.

Meanwhile, you have again made that logical error, going backwards on the implication. Math? Really?

If iceaura likes it, it is not fascism, say, if Obama rules. In this case, the economic system is also immediately not fascist.

But I didn't like the economic workings when Obama was President, non-fascist though he was. And Obama never ruled - that's not how the Presidency works. And the growing tilt toward fascism in American politics, including during Obama's tenure, is something I keep having to point out to you - not the other way around. You can't spot it on your own - you thought Trump was a rational businessman who would oppose expanding the bad war stuff, a step back from the nuclear cliff, remember?

That the economic system has not changed even a little bit does not matter at all.

Nonsense. Capitalism does not work the same under installed fascism as it does now in the US. If Trump pulls off his coup d'etat quite a bit will change, and rapidly.

You lack information. You will never make sense about American politics until you know something about them, and if you can't tell the difference between the workings of corporate capitalism under representative democracy and law rather than under fascism you have a great deal to learn.

Not only about America - about Putin and guys like Trump, as well.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Is this a general question, or particular?

More rhetorical... (Different categories perhaps?)
It appears Schmelzer has a very different idea of what "Fascism" can be defined as...and given the complexity of the definitions around I find it more productive to define it by what it isn't rather than what it is... ( in my naive way I might add)

 

[Schmelzer]

Fascism employs a corporate capitalist economic system, market based but not freemarket, with the upper level executives of the larger corporations by some means having immediate, personal, and essentially unlimited access to governmental force (by personal - the police, the military - and other powers of governance, employed in their interest at their will.

This is almost exactly what I see today everywhere: I see the same "a corporate capitalist economic system, market based but not freemarket". I see "access to governmental force" (in form of government regulations) for "the upper level executives of the larger corporations" (via lobbying). So, this looks like a difference in degree, given that in most countries the access is somehow limited and mediated. As far as I know the means were limited and mediated in fascism too, namely limited by the personal power of the fascist politicians. If one looks at the US prison complex, this is nothing different from concentration camps, except that the living conditions for the imprisoned are not that evil - which does not have much to do with humanism, but that a slave who dies of starvation is no longer profitable.

Which is why the US will never be "ruled" by Trump, even if he does engineer a coup for them - by destroying the functionality of the existing government, say. They wouldn't put up with him - unlike most wannabe Mussolinis or Pinochets, Trump did not earn leadership over a lifetime of acquiring corporate allies and a power base in the military and so forth. He just went on TV and got the votes directly. That won't keep him safe when the votes aren't necessary, or can be coerced.

Agreement. The chances for Trump winning against the globalist faction are minimal.

And the growing tilt toward fascism in American politics, including during Obama's tenure, is something I keep having to point out to you - not the other way around.

Really? Ok, nice to hear. Somehow you have managed to cry so faint that I have completely overheard this. But fine, we have found yet another point of agreement.

Capitalism does not work the same under installed fascism as it does now in the US.

That there are some differences between the actual fascist economics of the past and the actual one in the US now is clear. But the main features (rule of the one promille in cooperation with the political elite, overregulated capitalism instead of free market) are the same.

... if you can't tell the difference between the workings of corporate capitalism under representative democracy and law rather than under fascism you have a great deal to learn.

I can tell you a lot of differences between a revolutionary movement taking power to establish corporatism, and a long established system of corporatism, where all what is done spontaneously during revolutionary times has been regularized and fixed in laws written by the oligarchs. If the Nazis would have survived WW II, there would be now more state of law than in US now. And, by the way, it would be a democracy too.

What is the difference between fascism and dictatorship?

One of the main differences is that fascism requires some mass movement which supports the Führer. Part of this mass movement are own military formations controlled not by the state but by the fascist Party. Another one is that fascism may be democratic. The Nazis took power by democratic elections. Formally, Nazi Germany remained a democracy all the time, the Weimar constitution formally remained in power up to 1945, the Enabling Act has been regularly extended by the parliament. Peronism can be considered as another example of democratic fascism.

 

[iceaura]

That there are some differences between the actual fascist economics of the past and the actual one in the US now is clear. But the main features (rule of the one promille in cooperation with the political elite, overregulated capitalism instead of free market) are the same.

So we agree that the US does not have a "fascist economy" at the moment, and neither does Germany, Sweden, Canada, France, England, et al, with corporate capitalism based economies.

(btw: For some reason you think government "regulation" of corporations is a feature of fascism - - odd. Backwards. why?)

So, this looks like a difference in degree, given that in most countries the access is somehow limited and mediated.

Exactly. Differences in degree, central and critical to the differences in kind. Access to power limited and mediated - by law, of course, as institutionalized. Not fascist.
Here is an example from biology - this is an African elephant, only with some differences in degree: http://www.zooborns.com/.a/6a010535647bf3970b0115721b7956970b-pi

If the Nazis would have survived WW II, there would be now more state of law than in US now. And, by the way, it would be a democracy too.

Too bad - maybe next time your side will win.

One of the main differences is that fascism requires some mass movement which supports the Führer. Part of this mass movement are own military formations controlled not by the state but by the fascist Party. Another one is that fascism may be democratic. The Nazis took power by democratic elections. Formally, Nazi Germany remained a democracy all the time,

If the fascist Party gets control of the State without them, it doesn't need "own" military formations but can use the State's - as the Nazis proved, and Pinochet, and Franco, etc. Most fascistic takeovers involve the State military and police in the first place, for that reason - the readiest source of sympathetic and violent and well-armed forces, already organized to operate outside the law.

Fascist government, being essentially a looting and extortion enterprise, cannot be representative - a fascist Party can take office through democratic elections by deception and propaganda, but not govern unless these are from then on subverted or suspended - as all your examples demonstrate.

Which is where Russiagate comes back into focus. The tactic of cooperating with a foreign government to subvert elections is so common as to be standard and characteristic of fascistic takeovers. Of course the degree is not displayed - the help in this one event was not overwhelmingly significant - but the threat to the rule of law is real nevertheless.

 

[Tiassa]

More rhetorical... (Different categories perhaps?)

I confess, I was playing a word game. The difference, as I see it, is the difference 'twixt the general and particular. Even as such, it's weak tea.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I confess, I was playing a word game. The difference, as I see it, is the difference 'twixt the general and particular. Even as such, it's weak tea.

hmmm... thinking over night ( dangerous practice ) and came up with:

"Fascism could be deemed to be a dictatorship disguised as democracy"

Example: Russia's current situation with Putin.

as a thought provoker...

Fascism = dictatorship by deception... perhaps...

 

[Tiassa]

hmmm... thinking over night ( dangerous practice ) and came up with:

"Fascism is could be deemed to be a dictatorship disguised as democracy"
as a thought provoker...

Fascism = dictatorship by deception... perhaps...

I'm running with a much simpler formula: Dictatorship as apex office of tyranny; fascism a particular form, or subtype, of tyranny. Thus, dictatorship as the general proposition, and fascism as the particular form.

Or maybe I'm being pedantic in some reactionary context derived from the fact of being an American and thus immersed in a society that can't tell one tyranny from the next. It still slays my sense of political humor that, facing down Stalinism, we Americans went with Nazi comparisons, instead. Then again, neither can Americans tell the difference between Stalinism and Leninism or Trotskyism.

(Mark Steel's Reasons to be Cheerful includes reflections on being British during the Cold War and finally recognizing that Communism wasn't something to be ashamed of; it's obscure, and makes sense pretty much only if you were a closet Communist during the seventies and eighties. But it's also true that most Americans wouldn't recognize it, anyway, because it addresses reality; my generation of communist sympathizer came up struggling to discern truth from the tall tales our fathers spun; thus, once we justified a communist principle, we hadn't really justified anything because it wasn't necessarily actually communist, but, rather, a straw man invented by our predecessors.)​

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'm running with a much simpler formula: Dictatorship as apex office of tyranny; fascism a particular form, or subtype, of tyranny. Thus, dictatorship as the general proposition, and fascism as the particular form.

Yes agrees... the two labels can apply to different contexts.
example:
you have

• A significant nationalist, patriotic electorate.
• An elected president who can issue/rule by executive order.
• A significant propaganda machine, deliberate or circumstantial.
• A two party system that can be over ruled by executive order.
• A president who can potentially pardon himself. ( above the law )

Defined :

1. democratic republic or
   
2. fascist state or
   
3. a serious mix of both?

 

[Tiassa]

Yes agrees... the two labels can apply to different contexts.
example:
you have

• A significant nationalist, patriotic electorate.
• An elected president who can issue/rule by executive order.
• A significant propaganda machine, deliberate or circumstantial.
• A two party system that can be over ruled by executive order.
• A president who can potentially pardon himself. ( above the law )

This is a little tougher.

Try ... oh, hey, point and call.

Wait, what?

Okay, the first time Americans witness point and call, it blows our minds because we don't notice it until suddenly we do. P&C is very important to Japan Rail; yes, 'tis a vague phrasing, but the article I encountered in truly striking coincidence, all of a day after noticing for the first time, explains that P&C reduced errors and accidents by eighty-five percent. Yes, it's a striking number, but what does it mean? Errors and accidents?

A note about Japan: The juvenilizing of public advice and instruction is almost insane. Quite literally, various Pokemon characters are telling us how to conduct ourselves safely on the train; Toshii and Matsu are rendered as childish cartoons in Kanazawa, and there's a scary mascot deer in Nara to tell you how to not get hurt in traffic. And one or another train station—I'll have to find the photo—included a warning to not go onto the tracks for any reason that depicted in silhouette a platform conductor retrieving Mai's (My Neighbor Totoro) sun hat. Some of the signs seem almost ridiculous to my American witness, but that's the thing: This is their show, and it seems to work.

At any rate, point and call is exactly what it sounds like. We got off the shinkansen and were still on the platform when the train opposite us rolled out. The conductor pointed dramatically up the empty track, recited something ritual, and with a fluid motion turned and pointed down the track behind the departing train, again reciting some ritual phrase. He was literally looking at the track and verifying that nothing and no one has fallen from the platform, and that's it. Apparently they do this when driving the trains, too. You don't just check the speedometer; you assume a posture, point in a ritual manner, call out the speed check, call out the actual speed, and then relieve your posture in some ritual manner as well. And doing this, apparently, really reduces the small screwups that eventually cost lives.

I mention this because we Americans, generally speaking, wouldn't put up with it. We'd just look at the damn track. We'd just look at the effing speedometer. And if someone tried to make us point and call like monkeys, we'd get lawyers and sue for workplace denigration. We have this attitude that we don't need to be careful in certain ways, and part of the reason is that it is annoying, unglamorous, and the kind of thing we would ridicule others for. No, really, we won't do it because it looks funny. So, yeah, maybe we call sixty-five because that's what the number is supposed to be, and we're not noticing it's still eighty-five. And if the train doesn't slow down properly, that's how people die.

The more relevant answer is that we haven't quite the precise conditions for fascism, but we're almost there. More realistically, however, is to point out that Americans just don't seem to learn. The big fault you're pointing out is how much of it relies on the "honor system"; we Americans are big on the honor system, and largely because it's completely meaningless pretense. The functional honor system in these United States is to not get caught. There are, among thieves, a couple of ways to violate honor. One is among the thieves and the other is running to the law. President Trump has turned on the thieves; the pretense of honor system is in full collapse, and won't survive in the Beltway; we might call that a victory for Vladimir Putin, except Democrats will get their turn and suffer for the mistrust Republicans inspire, and then Republicans will return to the White House and by then the People will have allowed them to reiterate anew a pretense of honor and an expectation of being beyond reproach according to the honor system of American statecraft.

It works as long as people are decent.

But, then, there are Republicans and conservatives in our society, so there goes decency.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Whilst I am struggling a little in finding the relevance of point and shoot and honor systems I get the gist as follows..

Years ago when on a journey to Sao Paulo Brazil for a family event I was out dining one night in one of the many fabulous restaurants not far from the city's CBD.

The owner of the restaurant was a family friend or relative (?) and was really pleased a Gringo who was married to a Brazilian lady, was making use of his facilities. As I was used to doing in Australia I went out side the restaurant to have a cigarette so as not to bother the patrons inside. The law at the time allowed people to smoke inside and there was some discussion of making it illegal to smoke in food eating areas.
The restaurant owner saw me out side and and came out to join me for a chat.

He asked me whether he thought I agreed with the proposed changes to the law to prohibit smoking in the restaurant. ( as was the case in Australia at the time)

I answered to the negative and explained it as best as I could by saying that to regulate smoking in the restaurant means that the clientele are robbed of their discretionary responsibility.

By making it illegal to smoke in a restaurant a client no longer has to call upon his honor, compassion and consideration of others, as all he has to do is point at the sign that says "Thou shall not smoke" and think that it is not up to him any more to decide as the decision has already been made for him.

"To educate rather than regulate"
​

Sure this is in part the position taken by anarchists etc. but it is a worthy thing to consider IMO.

To remove or other wise minimize an honor system is to inhibit personal responsibility.

One could suggest that such an honor system for such a serious position as President or other senior gov. members is fraught with risk and even though we know one day someone will take full advantage of such an honor system we should still accept that risk as being a part of our lifestyle and quality values etc.

To do other wise would be to inhibit discretionary responsibility, that is to say choosing to do stuff as you choose to do, takes a back seat to doing stuff because you have no choice....(by law) thus destroying any sense of initiative and good will that you may have normally and other wise employed regardless of regulation.

It could be further argued as evidenced in child psychology, etc. that to minimize discretionary responsibility breeds contempt for the system and ultimately leads to the corruption and abuse the system is attempting to prevent.

 

[Tiassa]

Whilst I am struggling a little in finding the relevance of point and shoot and honor systems I get the gist as follows..

The eternal vigilance of democracy is unglamorous and the sort of thing we've laughed at the whole time.

 

[Schmelzer]

So we agree that the US does not have a "fascist economy" at the moment, and neither does Germany, Sweden, Canada, France, England, et al, with corporate capitalism based economies.
(btw: For some reason you think government "regulation" of corporations is a feature of fascism - - odd. Backwards. why?)

No. That there are some differences does not mean that theses differences are relevant for something. There are some differences also between actual US and EU economies. There are also some between German and Italian and Japanese economies at that time. But the system is essentially the same - corporatism.
Why I think regulation of corporations is a feature of fascism?
Because there was a lot of it. In Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

The American journalist and war correspondent William L. Shirer described the economics of National Socialist Germany as a straitjacket for businesses and markets. He asserted that German businesses suffered under “mountains of red tape,” were instructed “as to what they could produce, how much and at what price,”

In Italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism

Employer syndicates had a considerable amount of power as well. Membership within these associations was compulsory, and the leaders had the power to control and regulate production practices, distribution, expansion, and other factors with their members. The controls generally favoured larger enterprises over small producers, who were dismayed that they'd lost a significant amount of individual autonomy.

Too bad - maybe next time your side will win.

Just to clarify: Germany is where I have been born, and where I yet spend some time because of family, but it is not "my side". Then, actually it is on the side of the losers again.

If the fascist Party gets control of the State without them, it doesn't need "own" military formations but can use the State's - as the Nazis proved, and Pinochet, and Franco, etc.

The NAZI military formations SA (up to the Röhm сoup) and SS played a big role even after this, the SS became the elite part of the army and remained separate.

 

[billvon]

He asked me whether he thought I agreed with the proposed changes to the law to prohibit smoking in the restaurant. ( as was the case in Australia at the time)

I answered to the negative and explained it as best as I could by saying that to regulate smoking in the restaurant means that the clientele are robbed of their discretionary responsibility.

By making it illegal to smoke in a restaurant a client no longer has to call upon his honor, compassion and consideration of others, as all he has to do is point at the sign that says "Thou shall not smoke" and think that it is not up to him any more to decide as the decision has already been made for him.

Agreed. However, that does not apply to employees. Often employees are prohibited from requesting patrons to stop smoking (or to move so as to not block their view, or to move to a table that makes their bussing job easier etc.) Thus the no-smoking laws protect employees, not patrons; patrons are always free to choose a different restaurant anyway.

 

[iceaura]

No. That there are some differences does not mean that theses differences are relevant for something. There are some differences also between actual US and EU economies. There are also some between German and Italian and Japanese economies at that time. But the system is essentially the same - corporatism.

Capitalistic corporatism. It is the basic economic setup of fascism, and also works for non-authoritarian setups like the US and many other non-fascist States enjoy.

Why I think regulation of corporations is a feature of fascism?
Because there was a lot of it. In Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

Only of the losers, the governed. Not at the upper levels, where the winning capitalist corporations and the State merge under fascism - they had a largely free hand (subject to the demands of a war footing, mind, but these were not legal and regulatory) even in Germany, where strict regulation was and is a cultural stereotype and standard comedic fare, let alone Pinochet's Chile or Mussolini's Italy or Putin's Russia or Franco's Spain.

At the lower levels of the society of course authoritarian governments are authoritarian, in whatever way works. Fascist governments are nothing if not authoritarian - remember your worry about not being able to escape the Fuhrer?

In Italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism

Syndicates and cartels and trusts and large conglomerate capitalist corporations beating up on employees and smaller employers, yes. We have that trend in the US, increasingly (Walmart, Goldman Sachs), just as in our previous close brush with fascism (always the threat, in the US, rather than leftwing tyranny).

They are increasingly escaping government regulation, however, not falling subject to it - as is characteristic of fascism, in fact one of its defining features.

The NAZI military formations SA (up to the Röhm сoup) and SS played a big role even after this, the SS became the elite part of the army and remained separate.

State military and police, yes, especially after Hitler had gained power - which he did democratically, remember, and not by violence "military" or otherwise.

Just to clarify: Germany is where I have been born, and where I yet spend some time because of family, but it is not "my side". Then, actually it is on the side of the losers again.

I didn't mean German. I meant fascist - your chosen US political side, and possibly Russian as well.