On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Ken Brown wrote:
The trouble with that use of the words (though it is the most common one on this list I guess) is that it defines just about every nation-state that ever existed as "fascist" including the so-called capitalist countries:
If you believe capitalism prevents fascism you better do some more thinking. There is nothing about capitalism that prevents fascism. In fact, if you think about it the management of private property (by any party other than the immediate owner) to maximize profit (i.e. the trains run on time) is a form of fascism. This is especialy true of corporations (ie fictional people - yuck) and things like LLC's. By my definition, capitalism is a form of socialism (I personaly think Marx was an idiot and the communist manifesto has several glareing incongruities) because it defines the pursuit of capital (the fact that it is in a small set of hands or lots is to this point irrelevant, what matters is everyone is at least trying to pursue capital) as the primary goal of society. It in effect wants to make everyone live by the same standards and processes. I would say that my position is the distinction between socialism, fascims, capitalism, crypto-anarchy are all false distinctions. The primary point of interest is that each of them is mono-theistic (if you'll let me bastardize that term) in that they require each participant to pursue the same goals, they require an inordinate amount of cooperation. They're an attempt to tame the unknown and uncontrollable by injecting an external framework. Hubris at its best. What a long-term stable human society needs is plurality, distribution, and lots of armed individuals. Yes, it may cause a higher murder rate than without the guns, but the freedom is much more precious than human life (if it weren't why spill blood for it?). Democracy is not about compromise. It is about recognizing fundamental limits to the actions of both individuals and societies, and respects those parties right to exist and defend that existance. Socialism, fascism, crypto-anarcy, bah. A gilded cage is still a cage.
"if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it away" is more or less the situation in western Europe and North America right now. (Can anyone say "consent order"?)
It's always been that way. The Consitition (here comes another of my half-based COTUS rants) is the first attempt at breaking this. It clearly says if you take private property for civil use the owner must be compensated, no exceptions are listed. Unfortunately this has gotten to be so bastardized (especialy in these days of confiscation) as to allow the taking of private property without compensation in nearly any circumstance. I blame this on the rise of federalism (and as a consequence fascism) that has taken hold of this country since Lincoln came to power and started the Civil War. Lincoln's heart may have been in the right place (I personaly doubt it) but it doesn't change the fact that his good intentions took us to the exit to hell. And the real bitch is that Mexican radio that keeps fading in and out on the AM band... Capitalism itself has some problems, such as it has no recognition of civil rights, religion, representation, etc. It's primary function is to increase the profit margin and raise capital, everything else is secondary. Nothing angelic in that at all. Greed is an original sin.
So we end up with words that don't really distinguish between the very different situations of say, the USA, & the old USSR, & Spain under Franco.
Simply because two societies are capitalist, socialist, or democratic (really anything) doesn't necessarily mean they will be implemented the same way. What you're doing is confusing principle with practice. We are after all using these terms in a very! general way. It's not like a perfect form of any sort of government has ever existed. People aren't that clean, which is the point under discussion after all and the reason for governments. This after all addressed the very heart of my disrespect for all political systems other than democratic ones. In every case the goal is to manage all persons using the same standards and practices. Democracy (at least in principle) is the only political system which recognizes in an axiomatic way the differences in goals and views of the participants of the system and (at least attempts to) protects that plurality.
Also of course most people who call themselves "socialists" (at least in Western Europe) say they don't want centralised state control of everything. You might say that socialism inevitably leads to an authoritarian Russian-style state (though if you did you couldn't use Russia as an example because it already had one of those before the revolution) but that's a different argument - you would be saying that all socialists are either deluded or lying, not (as you seem to be saying at the moment) that all governments are socialists.
Yes. I am saying that many people out there who call themselves, for example, social democrats or christian libertarian are confused. They have not sat down and reasoned their views out from first principles. They can not explicity list (or even make reference to some extant list) their fundamental base axioms, identify potential conflicts, and then how those conflicts are resolved. I believe that most anarchist, libertarians, etc. are simply people who are intellectualy advanced, emotionaly retarded, and as a result pissed off that everyone doesn't see things their way, 'cause it's the right way. In other words they're mad because they can't have what they want, right now. The vast majority of poeple think of themselves as good people (even Hitler thought he was doing good killing Jews). They believe they only want the best. The only problem is it's the best only from their narrow perspective. It isn't that they're bad, it's that they've never learned to think criticaly (or for themselves if you prefer) and as a result they have failed to develop emotionaly (i.e. empathy). Intelligence is not all it's cracked up to be. If the individual does not reserve the right to doubt in all cases then there can be no emotional development because there can be no conflict as there is no real choice. This trend can only be exacerbated by increased federal involvement in our schools for example. I find this trend horrendous as it is equivalent to the killing of local culture. Perhaps the very 'mediocrity' that D'Tokeville (I know the spelling is wrong) was concerned about. I can say that the Texas of today is not the Texas of my youth. Much of the culture has been lost with respect to individuals lives and what remains has been commercialized (e.g. German Texas Bar-B-Q houses) to the point of homogenization. I personaly want my god damn fiesta's back. I like whacking the shit out of that pinata! Why there are not groups in this country attacking any federal involvement in schools leaves me stunned honestly. It is after all a wholly state level issue. I will say this, that in regards mediocrity democracy must work at it. Other forms of government institutionalize it from the beginning. I'll take democracy, as "We" so poignantly demonstrates the battle isn't about right or wrong. It's about the right to make the choice yourself. Democracy at least gives me a chance (i.e. pursuit of happiness). I know of no other form of government that makes that promise or gives one the ability to be personaly involved (ie. 2nd Amendment). Which segues into another point that's been on my mind. Waco. The judge found the Davidians responsible and the feds without fault. Strictly speaking, since every citizen has the right to self defence and that at times in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the seperation. (oh yeah, so much for Lincolns claim that no country has ever recognized it's own demise, or the 'supreme law of nations'. Neither exist in this country and why nobody has ever bothered to mention this also stuns me.) The Branch Davidians did that. Their 'crime' to defend their 1st Amendment religion against the federal forces is a sham. They had every right to kill those agents the moment those agents attempted to enforce their 'jurisdiction' by force. Nature, God, and the Declaration of Independance (the founding document of the reasons and ethics that justified the formation of this country) clearly demonstrate this. Only short-sighted petty officials more interested in their own goals and greed than the great oath they took can fail to see and understand. Note I am not saying that in some cases federal agents don't have a responsibility to settle issues by force. I am saying that the other side has commited no crime in resisting. This is the true power of the American form of democracy when practiced honestly. The Founding Fathers (Go Jefferson!) knew exactly what they were doing. "I am no mans (or by extention nations) nigger. I refuse to bend my knee and any man who asks me to can't be an honest American. They can only be here to oppress me. I will resist." (It's also why I believe Jefferson was willing to keep his slaves. He expected a conflict much quicker than actualy occurred. Perhaps as little as 20 years. I believe his actions were based on rational expediency and the safety of all concerned.) THAT is THE fundamental American Democratic Ideal. It is the absolute bedrock upon which this country is built. The right to resist is absolute. This is why the 2nd Amendment says 'shall not be infringed'. That means not registered, not intimidated, not filed, not collated, not infringed. Unless there is specific evidence pursuant under the 4th Amendment it is not a federal issue what happens between me and my weapons. The Federal government may do nothing to interfere with the individual right to buy, own, and carry weapons. The 10'th Amendment does not invalidate existing state constitutional restrictions on same howerver. Weapon regulation is a state by state issue governed by state constitutional regulations regarding weapons. Note that since a fundamental bedrock of the nation, and therefore the very states themselves, they are also bound to recognize this point. In effect American democracy guarantees one the right to cease participating in the American experiment (or perhaps participate more actively in it depending on ones point of view). If America is justified to exist then individual Americans are justifed in killing any party which attempts to use force against them, as guaranteed in the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The judge has in effect said that since the Davidians didn't have a right to protect their beliefs the original colonist didn't have a right to revolt. As a consequence he has said that the very system that gives him authority to rule is not itself justified to exist. And therefore he has no authority to rule. What a fucking idiot. It is my biggest condemnation of American jurisprudence that the Declaration of Independence, the very ethical bedrock of this country - not English law as the law mongers would have you believe, is virtualy ignored with respect to the justification of law. Absolutely incredible and absolutely damning. Treason. We did after all have a war with the explicit intention of building our own society. The fact that we have drifted from these ideals should surprise no-one. The fact is the transient passion of pursuit of liberty will eventualy fade to the power of longer-term relationships such as language and family. I suspect this was the ultimate point of Jeffersons comment on a revolution every so often. Jefferson was unfortunately off a tad. I'm sorry but I'm getting tired and hungry. I'll leave the remainder of your email unaddressed if you don't mind. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------