[PLUG-TALK] Re: Socialist Facism

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, GLL wrote:
> Fascism is whenever threat of a gang of thugs (government or otherwise)
> is applied against citizens, to foist upon them (Webster's here) "severe
> economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
> opposition."

I hardly think your dictionary definition is going to give you much detail
on an entire political system.

See here:
<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition >

> So, the people who came onto my property a few weeks ago and tore up my
> Bush/Cheney signs were Fascist Assholes, attempting to suppress my
> freedom of expression. Got that?

No.  Fascists are corporate feudalists.

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I described in a previous post the
right's tactic of disarming dissent by removing the language necessary to
describe structures of power (and, therefore, expose or deconstruct them).

> Under socialism, in which the purpose of invention and economic activity
> is kidnapped from personal success, pleasure, gain, or a chance to earn
> enough now so that one can quit work - totally - later in life, and
> rechanneled to support the Good of the People or the Good of the State,
> said confiscation enforced by Government Thugs.

Not quite.  Socialism is control of the means of production by the workers
(the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, to use Marx' language).

Consider, for instance, libertarian socialism (anarchism) in which there
is no state and the only concept of government is self-government.  There
are no thugs, yet you have ideal socialism.

As for your accusation of "kidnapping" and "confiscation", I would counter
with the obvious fact that private control of invention must be enforced
by Government Thugs (e.g., the patent office) and is used only to deprive
the majority and exploit that deprivation.  It CANNOT exist without
massive government controls.

I would also like to point out that there is an inherent contradiction
between the Puritan Work Ethic as applied to those who receive public
assistance via welfare grants and those who receive public assistance via
patents, copyrights, or exclusive control of capital.  In the former case,
the folks are condemned for their receipt of unearned income and in the
latter, they are praised.

There's no mystery as to why that dichotomy exists, of course.  The folks
receiving welfare assistance threaten the status quo by empowering workers
to strike (since the unemployment pool isn't threatened with starvation
and, therefore, will not quickly flood in to fill the abandon production
and their stomachs).  The folks who receive police protection for their
private property and exclusive control of information perpetuate the
status quo by working to prevent technological progress or innovation in
productivity so that their capital retains its current value.

Such is the fundamental disconnect between "conservatism" and
"progressivism".  One works against innovation and the other encourages
it.

> "If you get too productive we will confiscate an ever increasing slice
> of your success."

On the contrary, the increased productivity of technological innovation,
under socialism, is shared by all to improve the productivity of all
people and decrease the amount of labor required for survival.

> By beating down its most economically cabable and efficient participants
> to little more than the capability ot the Average Schlubb, socialism is
> certainly an exmple of "severe economic regimentation,"

Ah, see, now here's where we get at the crux.

Your concern seems to be with the relative wealth of individuals compared
to each other rather than the relative wealth of individuals compared with
themselves over time.

As a result, you oppose increasing the wealth of the poor unless there is
comensurate (and hopefully greater) increasing of wealth of the rich so
that the relationship is maintained.  High quality of life for all people
is abhorrent because it destroys that inequity and that is the only thing
you use to judge value.

However, inequity is only useful as power over others.  It is a force
(fundamentally, the only force) of oppression.  While you extol the
virtues of individual freedom, you promote a system that maximizes power
of oppression.

> and it tolerates little private competition against its Public
> Institutions (schools, utilities, garbage handling, power stations,
> transportation, personal security and property protection,)

As noted above, socialism doesn't require any public institutions
whatsoever.

However, we can briefly address this on your terms.

I find it interesting that you point this out as a flaw in and of itself.
The only sense I can make of this is your belief (and mine, incidentally),
that institutions, over time, become more concerned with their own
perpetuation and processes than with innovation and development.  In other
words, they become conservative and fight against things that are
progressive.

> and it attempts to squelch opposition in the form of private
> alternatives to these Public Institutions.

(see note above on "public institutions")

I think you're mistaking ALL institutional behavior for public
institutional behavior.  Private institutions have this very same flaw.
However, private institutions have the added flaw of being unaccountable
and short-sighted.

> To which the best response I have heard is: "Who is John Galt?"

He's a fictional character in a contrived landscape where arguments are
presented from two sides of the same mouth, that's who.

> By the way, since neither the Good of the People or the Good of the
> State are scientifically demonstrable entities, then government coersion
> to support these fictions is equal in oppression as in a theocracy: "You
> must believe that the People are worthy of your economic and spiritual
> support, without demonstration or proof, or else we will punish you" =
> "You must worship the Big Purple and Green Thingie every Tuesday with
> us, and obey Its Edicts, or we the Collective will burn your house down
> and kill your family."

I think that what you're trying to write here is that it all boils down to
morality -- and you're right.  Everyone who claims to be arguing "for
rationality against morality" is just unaware of their own moral code.
They are ignorant and it shows.  I think this was Kerry's fundamental
problem as a candidate -- he wasn't aware of his morality as morality (or
was afraid to confess it) and, therefore, couldn't command moral
authority.

Here's an interesting article (I don't agree with all of it by a long
shot, but the basics are there) regarding the economic justification for
morality:

<URL: http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002322.html#2322 >

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org