LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).

I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.

I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.

There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.

Is the argument a reaction to how happy everyone was/is to throw the F-word about, simply making the definition more precise? Possibly with the hope of having more productive discourse with people who love authoritarian right wing movements but have their feelings hurt if people call them fash

I think the key point is that if you just label everything RW as fascist it ceases to mean anything. Much like idiots labelling everything vaguely left of centre as 'woke'. It just becomes 'the worst slur I can think of' and makes it easier for real fascists to gain wider acceptance.

I don't think it means much any more anyway. You rarely hear North Korea described as fascist, even though that is probably an accurate description.

….because it’s still basically communist?

Which aspects of any definition of fascism does it not meet?

briantrumpet

Just in case anyone wonders where the 'National Conservatives' are heading...

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1658514932659257360

First.Aspect

Wow, things must have changed. When I was at Oxford I massively increased my odds* of being a Conservative Prime Minister.



*They were relatively modest to begin with...

morstar

briantrumpet said:

Just in case anyone wonders where the 'National Conservatives' are heading...

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1658514932659257360

This just underlined how thick these ‘leaders’ are.

Universities, by their very nature champion critical thinking rather than promotion of doctrine.

verylonglegs

Will there even be a Conservative party after the next election? Looking likely it will disintegrate at the moment.

First.Aspect

verylonglegs said:

Will there even be a Conservative party after the next election? Looking likely it will disintegrate at the moment.

There will either be a semi-organised loony fringe, made up of the zenophobes and EU skeptics who need something else to be skeptical about (for sake of argument, let's call them the 1939 Committee) kliping from the back benches, or there will be a lunatic break away (let's call them the Conservative Ultra Nationalist Trust party) kliping from the back benches.

Personally, I think the former, at least for a couple of election cycles.

twotoebenny

briantrumpet said:

Just in case anyone wonders where the 'National Conservatives' are heading...

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1658514932659257360

I would argue its in the national interest not to amercaniZe english words like recognise!!!

skyblueamateur

They really are a massive bunch of cranks.

rick_chasey

Plainly anti-Semitism isn't just a labour problem.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).

I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.

I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.

There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.

Is the argument a reaction to how happy everyone was/is to throw the F-word about, simply making the definition more precise? Possibly with the hope of having more productive discourse with people who love authoritarian right wing movements but have their feelings hurt if people call them fash

I think the key point is that if you just label everything RW as fascist it ceases to mean anything. Much like idiots labelling everything vaguely left of centre as 'woke'. It just becomes 'the worst slur I can think of' and makes it easier for real fascists to gain wider acceptance.

I don't think it means much any more anyway. You rarely hear North Korea described as fascist, even though that is probably an accurate description.

….because it’s still basically communist?

Which aspects of any definition of fascism does it not meet?

I mean. It was fully communist until the mid 90s and even then the state owns (rather than controls) the economy.

They have gigantic pictures of Marx lying around which is a clue. They're not gearing up the entire economy for an existential war; else they would have probably invaded somewhere in the 50 years since the ceasefire.

TheBigBean

twotoebenny said:

briantrumpet said:

Just in case anyone wonders where the 'National Conservatives' are heading...

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1658514932659257360

I would argue its in the national interest not to amercaniZe english words like recognise!!!

In case you are interested, recognize is the preferred spelling by Oxford English Dictionary. This is not true for all words though e.g. analyse is always used in British English whereas analyze is the choice in American English. If you have spell check on it will confirm this.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

I think I do broadly agree with him (though I should add he's about 40% of what I've read on the topic, so that might be fairly tautological).

I think the war bit is the central pillar on which the rest of the ideology hangs. It's about gearing up your entire society for the most total conflict you can engineer in an existential fight for ultimate supremacy. That's what fascism is about.

I think his point is that the comparison is a red herring and though it rhymes, it rhymes with many other non-fascist far-right efforts, and it makes sense to fight that fight and not the fight from 100 years ago.

There are plenty of other far-right leaders who want to be dictators.

Is the argument a reaction to how happy everyone was/is to throw the F-word about, simply making the definition more precise? Possibly with the hope of having more productive discourse with people who love authoritarian right wing movements but have their feelings hurt if people call them fash

I think the key point is that if you just label everything RW as fascist it ceases to mean anything. Much like idiots labelling everything vaguely left of centre as 'woke'. It just becomes 'the worst slur I can think of' and makes it easier for real fascists to gain wider acceptance.

I don't think it means much any more anyway. You rarely hear North Korea described as fascist, even though that is probably an accurate description.

….because it’s still basically communist?

Which aspects of any definition of fascism does it not meet?

I mean. It was fully communist until the mid 90s and even then the state owns (rather than controls) the economy.

They have gigantic pictures of Marx lying around which is a clue. They're not gearing up the entire economy for an existential war; else they would have probably invaded somewhere in the 50 years since the ceasefire.

Ok. It is your lack of knowledge of North Korea that is the issue.

A quick google supports my view which brings me back to my point. What's the point of defining fascism if it is never used to define actual fascist states?

rick_chasey

OK why don't you explain to me how North Korea, famously communist, is fascist?

As I am lacking in knowledge, what does this bit in the wiki entry refer to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Korea
However, in January 2021, the WPK reasserted its commitment to communism.[25]

WKP being, of course, the Workers party of Korea, and in their wiki entry, it says

However, his successor Kim Jong Un reversed this position in 2021, replacing Songun with "people-first politics" as the party's political method[7] and reasserting the party's commitment to communism

pblakeney

Is it not both with the exception of the capitalist economy?

“
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.”

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

OK why don't you explain to me how North Korea, famously communist, is fascist?

For example from Wikipedia.

Juche (English: /ˈdʒuːtʃeɪ/ (listen); Korean: [tɕutɕʰe] (listen)), officially the Juche idea, is the state ideology of North Korea and the official ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea. North Korean sources attribute its conceptualization to Kim Il Sung, the country's founder and first leader. Juche was originally regarded as a variant of Marxism–Leninism until Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Sung's son and successor, declared it a distinct ideology in the 1970s. Kim Jong Il further developed Juche in the 1980s and 1990s by making ideological breaks from Marxism–Leninism and increasing the importance of his father's ideas.

Juche incorporates the historical materialist ideas of Marxism–Leninism but also strongly emphasizes the individual, the nation state, and national sovereignty. Juche posits that a country will prosper once it has become self-reliant by achieving political, economic, and military independence. As Kim Jong Il emerged as Kim Il Sung's likely successor in the 1970s, loyalty to the leader was increasingly emphasized as an essential part of Juche, as expressed in the Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System.

Juche has been variously described by critics as a quasi-religion, a nationalist ideology, and a deviation from Marxism–Leninism.

I have highlighted in italics the bits that apply to North Korea.

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]

First.Aspect

I was told as a kid by one of my comrades that if one of you goes to the far right, and the other to the far left, eventually you meet one another...

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Korea
However, in January 2021, the WPK reasserted its commitment to communism.[25]

WKP being, of course, the Workers party of Korea, and in their wiki entry, it says

However, his successor Kim Jong Un reversed this position in 2021, replacing Songun with "people-first politics" as the party's political method[7] and reasserting the party's commitment to communism

Are you saying after decades of fascism, North Korea became communist in 2021? That could be an interesting discussion although I suspect nothing actually changed.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

I was told as a kid by one of my comrades that if one of you goes to the far right, and the other to the far left, eventually you meet one another...

There's an element of that.

There are some key aspects that are different. Fascism is obviously not preoccupied with 'equality' in any meaningful sense. Quite the opposite. 30s fascism understood the power / threat of socialism (hence national socialism), but it was conducted in a way that meant the unions had a say but they were not in control (it was billed as the "third way" where the state would arbitrate, for the national interest, between the TUs and the business owners - communism does not allow for business owners, right?)

But like I said, unless they're gearing up for actual war, rather than just bigging up the military, you're missing the flagpole on which the rest of the ideology hangs.

A militaristic communist party is not fascist. Fascism is fundamentally orientated towards a mass total conflict, in a survival of the fittest.

TheBigBean

North Korea is gearing up for a war all the time. It underpins the way the whole society operates. That said, I have no interest in the argument I have got sucked into. I just think the term fascism isn't particularly useful now.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

North Korea is gearing up for a war all the time. It underpins the way the whole society operates. .

Then why haven't they had one in 50 years?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

I was told as a kid by one of my comrades that if one of you goes to the far right, and the other to the far left, eventually you meet one another...

There's an element of that.

There are some key aspects that are different. Fascism is obviously not preoccupied with 'equality' in any meaningful sense. Quite the opposite. 30s fascism understood the power / threat of socialism (hence national socialism), but it was conducted in a way that meant the unions had a say but they were not in control (it was billed as the "third way" where the state would arbitrate, for the national interest, between the TUs and the business owners - communism does not allow for business owners, right?)

But like I said, unless they're gearing up for actual war, rather than just bigging up the military, you're missing the flagpole on which the rest of the ideology hangs.

A militaristic communist party is not fascist. Fascism is fundamentally orientated towards a mass total conflict, in a survival of the fittest.

genuine question - did you write this in reference to N. Korea and were you being sarcastic?

They're not gearing up the entire economy for an existential war;

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

They're not gearing up the entire economy for an existential war;

Yeah, I think that not waging war for 50 years isn't very fash.

TheBigBean

So the US is far more fascist than North Korea because it wages more wars?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

So the US is far more fascist than North Korea because it wages more wars?

Well no, they are a democracy, and they don't gear their entirety of society up for a do-or-die war.

I know everyone likes to cherry pick specific things but you need to take them all in as a whole.

There is obviously less difference between a militaristic communist country and a fascist country, than there is a democracy and a communist country, right?

The Fascist re-armament was unsustainable without war.

Dorset_Boy

First.Aspect said:

I was told as a kid by one of my comrades that if one of you goes to the far right, and the other to the far left, eventually you meet one another...

The spectrum is a circle, or a clock face with the centre at 12, and the far right at 5.30 and the far left at 6.30.
Lots of overlap but some differences.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

I was told as a kid by one of my comrades that if one of you goes to the far right, and the other to the far left, eventually you meet one another...

The spectrum is a circle, or a clock face with the centre at 12, and the far right at 5.30 and the far left at 6.30.
Lots of overlap but some differences.

For all the professions of hatred for the other side, both are happy to steal any ideas that work to their advantage. They're not particularly bothered about academic classification.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

They're not gearing up the entire economy for an existential war;

Yeah, I think that not waging war for 50 years isn't very fash.

but they have geared the entire country up for an existential war for well over 50 years

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

They're not gearing up the entire economy for an existential war;

Yeah, I think that not waging war for 50 years isn't very fash.

but they have geared the entire country up for an existential war for well over 50 years

I'm getting concerned by the fact I keep agreeing with you.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

So the US is far more fascist than North Korea because it wages more wars?

and is a military industrial complex

briantrumpet

Even if it's coming from Campbell, these do sound like good pieces of advice.

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1658793926633959424