On Monday, March 27, 2000 7:28 PM Michael S. Lorrey retroman@turbont.net
wrote:
> > I define a "fascist" as one who advocates a system of government marked
by
> > centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic
> > controls,
How would economic equality be brought about and maintained? (I'm not
advocating this -- only trying to see how Zero will answer this.)
> > suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and a
> > policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
It should be noted that not all fascists are racists. Notably, the Italian
fascists even supported a Jewish fascist group in the 1920s. (See Zeev
Sternhell et al.'s _The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion
to Political Revolution_.) There's also a difference, too, between wanting
to destroy other races or ethnic groups and wanting separation of such.
(I'm not advocating any of this, just trying to point out differences.)
> > Michael has never given (to my knowledge) his definition of a fascist,
but
> > he has alluded to the fact that he considers me to be one.
> >
> > I am not a fascist because I don't advocate fascism.
> >
> > My guess is that Michael thinks I'm a fascist because I am in favor of
gun
> > control and ubiquitous transparancy.
>
> Considering that you also beleive that people are entitled to
> 'equitable' distribution of other peoples property (i.e. the food a
> farmer produces should be taken from him at cost), this indicates some
> socialist leanings.
I agree, though "egalitarian" might be a better term.
> That you are for total surveillance of everyone,
> including politically incorrect and/or subversive characters (whether
> its everyone or just a small controlling group that controls the system
> is irrelevant),
I have problems with ubiquitous surveillance too. Transparency might look
like a solution to all sorts of problems, but... I do think that in the
short run, any moves in that direction, will only benefit the elites and in
the long run, if it doesn't, it will make the majority nearly omnipotent.
Inescapable majority rule is not my idea of social paradise. It's basically
what Bruce Sterling would call an "enforcement technology."
> and the confiscation of people's abilities to defend
> themselves against thugs (individual or governmental), which are both
> policies used by fascists to hold onto power and eliminate opposition,
> indicates to me that you lean toward the policies espoused by a
> political party once known as the National Socialist Workers Party. Your
> only saving grace is that so far as I can tell, you wish to oppress
> everyone equally, rather than just on minority you'd prefer to pick on
> (then again, you've said a lot of things denigrating white undereducated
> males living in rural areas, so maybe you do have those leanings as
> well), but thats not much of a positive feature. Arguments you've made
> on this list show that you support a minimum of 2/3 of the planks on the
> platform found in the Communist Manifesto.
Yes, but people can support a variety of ideas without seeing where they
lead.
> You can protest all you want, but its your own words that have placed
> you in this category. If you don't like that people see you as placing
> yourself in this category, then maybe you need to really examine what
> you beleive. Any time you find yourself saying,"I beleive that people
> should have this freedom, but....." check yourself. Its that 'but' that
> kills.
I think what we might say is Zero supports many planks which would lead to a
totalitarian society -- rather than that it/she/he is a totalitarian per se.
This, sadly, is what too many people support.
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:40 MDT