Fascism

[moses2792796]

"Fascism" is the name that moderns use to describe the style of organized, leadership-oriented government that predominated in ancient times, and to which all healthy societies return, knowing that of the ways of handling human frailty, the best is a system which selects the least frail and pushes it forward; the alternative, seen in modern liberal democracy, is a system which accepts human failings but then tries to impose upon them a "good" way of life.

When we gather together and form an agrarian or other immobile civilization, we know that some form of leadership will have to occur to compel us to complete the myriad tasks of maintaining an organized, large-scale human colony. At first, this is the warrior-chief, who tells people face to face what must be done and patrols the walls himself, sword in hand, but as the civilization grows in size, layers of intermediaries become needed, and thus the questions addressed by political theory become very real.

At this point, general types of society emerge: the state with a single leader; the state with a junta; the state with a leader and parliament of intermediaries; and finally, the disorganized options: the state run locally by intermediaries, and the democratic state. The democratic state takes two forms; republican democracy allows the people to delegate their allegiances to politicians who then decide how to apply those preferences, and direct democracy allows the citizenry to vote directly on proposed ideas. (There are also democracies of the elite, but these are of the fundamental type of a state run locally by intermediaries, with democracy being the method those leaders use to come to agreement on collective issues.)

The type of government selected shapes the people, because it defines what is expected of them and what they can expect, and the latter is used as incentive because it can be allotted in degrees according to, for example, a citizen's status or his vote. In leadership-oriented states, this tends to be determined by how a citizen rises in the hierarchy of specialized hierarchies according to ability; in democratic states, this is granted to all citizens, a minimal competitive aspect (e.g. money or doctrine) is provided so a single hierarchy can exist. This split occurs because leadership states have a collective goal, where democracies exist for the citizenry and assume that their individual decisions, even when collectivized by a vote, are equivalent to the work of a leader.

Another way to look at this is that leadership states embrace specialization, while democratic states are centered around the individual personality. When strong leadership exists, government plans shape the elites among the citizenry, and therefore naturally tend toward finding differentiated elites for specialized tasks. Democracies have more internal dialogue, and therefore government becomes the focus of activity, including debate about how government should be applied. It is for this reason that democracies react more slowly, and more simply, than a leader who has specialized in familiarity with the issues of her civilization and the unique tasks of command.

Citizens shaped by these governments react differently, and consequently, develop themselves and eventually breed differently. A "fascist" state has a clear goal and ongoing process of achieving it, and therefore provides minimal governmental interaction in the lives of its citizens, but in a democracy, everyone must become involved and fight for their own "interests," which inevitably occur on that gradient of reward such as monetary wealth which is the democracy's equivalent of natural competition. While in a "fascist" state citizens excel in their specialized hierarchies (for example, craftsmen or artists or farmers) and leave government to another specialized structure, leadership, in democracies all are assumed to have earned the right to leadership by right of birth, and from this arises the fatal flaw of democracies.

In individual life, things go wrong; this is how learning occurs, and change. When the conjecture of the individual about how an idea might work out in reality occurs in a far different way than planned, it is recognized as a failure and is re-assessed. Similarly, in governments, large errors require some form of change. In a leadership state, it may result in the head of state recognizing the error and changing his policy, or being replaced if this is another incident of failure in a string of them. Democracies, being constantly active in decision-making and debate and theory and other somewhat neurotic pursuits, have already assumed that the citizens are all capable of making the right decisions -- and for that reason, must find someone to blame.

This tendency is why democracies, more than any other form of government, are moral: they have a need for internal evils to blame for the failings of a schizophrenic, self-referential worldview. Since no single person leads, and "everyone" makes each decision such that "no one" is ever responsible for the axis of decision ("leaders" in democracies are delegates of the people, thus are responsible for finding popular opinion and implementing it, or they are not re-elected), in democracies, when something goes wrong, someone or something must be blamed. These states rarely choose to blame "the system" of democracy as whole, because it is hard to find fault with any "good" method of government that is in theory empowering its citizens, thus they look internally for those who take controversial or seemingly "bad" viewpoints, especially those that go against the fundamental idea of democracy, namely that every citizen is as fit to rule as a leader.

The essence of fascism is positive: we are governed to promote what we love among our people and wish to nurture and make stronger. It is in this mindset only that one can recognize threats for what they are, because one has something one values and wishes to make grow ("consensus" in the longest-lasting sense). Democracies on the other hand are based on fear of strength and challenge that might puncture the political viability of the individual, and for this reason their primary mode of thought is avoiding threat and seeking out evils to overcome and normalize. People in democracies aren't "bad" people, but they are in the grips of a dysfunctional philosophy.

The democratic philosophy is based in fear and denial of what could be; they are not "seize the day," in the dynamic leadership style of "fascist" civilizations, as much as "preserve the individual." This causes them to isolate individuals from any form of large-scale change, and promotes the increasing fascination with the government itself and its workings. Such beliefs deny that pain and uncertainty are the currency of change, and will always occur; the only choice incumbent upon us is whether they occur for something meaningful, or not. And for there to be meaning there must be consensus, a state which groups of individuals whose highest goal is preserving those individuals from challenge will not achieve.

It is this reason that made our ancestors in ancient times choose "fascist" states when their empires were at their healthiest and not already in decay: they wanted to form consensus, remove government as a question, and move on to creation of great empires and cultures through constant change, selecting the good and letting the less opportune pass by. Contrary to popular debate, "fascist" states were not an extension of the warrior-chieftain but probably occurred as a natural response to failures in democracies (anyone who has ever sat through a committee trying to make decisions recognizes the value of strong leadership, even in error, as at least a choice is made that can then be criticized and modified, while committees are incapable of making choices far from the default "but that's how it's done around here").

Typically, as noted by Plato most strongly among the Greeks, who among the Westerns first recorded their experiments and debate over the nature of government, democracies have a tendency to hunt evils until they descend to a linear, binary mindset of "good" versus "evil," at which point they murder all nonconformists and elect the biggest conformist as emperor. From this one eventually gets hybrid systems such as Soviet Russia, where "the people" under goading from well-funded decadent academics, rise up and murder the higher castes, then implement a society where everyone is equal and ruled by a strong, unquestioned tyrant.

Interestingly, a population of healthy, strong-minded people given the vote will usually elect a strong leader; they understand specialization, and realize that bringing government into the life of each individual will compel that individual to spend more time on government, without necessarily having the time or ability to develop aptitude for it. This is a healthy response. To those who have grown up in a modern time, it's like life in the old neighborhood. Few people move in or out, and families live among it for generations, passing down houses and roles. There are butchers, bakers, grocers, repair workers, and many other specialized roles, including that of leader. This allows each to get the day's work done, which although it might not be perfect is a workable model which can then be perfected, and then go home to their families and friends, free of concern for government; after all, those are the things that define our lives as individuals.

The neighborhood is both harsh and forgiving. You are the individual are known for your actions, and since everyone knows you, there are few secrets that last long. On the flip side, however, your positive attributes are also remembered and praised, and will be used as the summary of your character, not a single negative incident, or evil. Human frailty is accepted and those who do basically constructive things are moved up, and there's no real need to look for evils because threats are obvious, the neighborhood having achieved a basic consensus of its operation. While some neighborhoods, particularly those in which families live for less than a generation, are notoriously corrupt, the healthy ones tend to have strong leaders who bypass bureaucratic paper-filings in order to take care of their people. And is that not what government is for?


This is an interesting viewpoint. He seems to think that although moderns fear fascism, when viewed objectively, and with a historical perspective, it may be the solution to many modern problems. In the current time their is an overiding mindset that democracy is morally superior to all other systems, although it's actual track record is rarely brought into question. This mentality is thanks primarily to the alleged actions of one man during and before WW2. Perhaps we need to look beyond those events to a more ancient time to gain a better understanding of civilisation.

[jafar00]

I've seen it before, but I still think that is a most unfortunate URL to have :D

[Osborn F. Enready]

Moses said:
This is an interesting viewpoint. He seems to think that although moderns fear fascism, when viewed objectively, and with a historical perspective, it may be the solution to many modern problems. In the current time their is an overiding mindset that democracy is morally superior to all other systems, although it's actual track record is rarely brought into question. This mentality is thanks primarily to the alleged actions of one man during and before WW2. Perhaps we need to look beyond those events to a more ancient time to gain a better understanding of civilisation.

I don't see why we should try to make a turd look less like a turd.

No matter how much you polish and shine a turd, its always just a turd.

Fascism, is a clear winner for the category of turd, in my opinion.

If you would like to sacrifice your freedom, your mind, your income from YOUR labor, feel free. Its not for me, and I don't love any society enough to do that, thanks.

[Go Fish]

Every socio-political paradigm became obsolete when the United States initiated the "Representative Republic".
Ask Benito, Adolph, or Saddam.

[Troubadour]

He seems to think that although moderns fear fascism, when viewed objectively, and with a historical perspective, it may be the solution to many modern problems.


Such as?


In the current time their is an overiding mindset that democracy is morally superior to all other systems


It is.


although it's actual track record is rarely brought into question.


Its track record is constantly brought into question by the nature of democracy itself. People can elect fascist governments, as the Germans did and US Republicans have attempted to do, but in general people do not want their lives in the hands of psychotic bullies. Even leaving aside Hitler, it's quite impossible to characterize fascism as being other than the ideology of choice for those who see all human motivations other than power as insignificant - i.e., people incapable of empathy, commonly known as psychopaths.

Classicists can fawn over the Pax Romana ad nauseum, but only by deliberately ignoring the fact that the Roman Empire was the "solution" to its own problem: Rather than be constantly invaded by their own generals, Rome sent them to conquer foreign lands; when those foreign conquests made the generals too rich and powerful, they warred with each other to seize Rome, and forced the Senate and people to recognize one as supreme to avoid being torn apart by their struggles. The thousand+ years of darkness and mass cultural extinction that followed - and the subsequent rebirth of pre-Imperial styles and philosophies during the Renaissance, with quite different results - more than illustrate the folly of Rome.

Once again, we find that the only "solutions" fascism provides are to problems caused by fascism. The same reality could be applied to the German case: The Kaiser's Reich brought down devastation on Deutschland, and Hitler's Reich rose to power promising to alleviate it.


Perhaps we need to look beyond those events to a more ancient time to gain a better understanding of civilisation.


Even setting Nazism aside, the objections to fascism are legion (pun intended) and insurmountable. And as a personal note, I would just say that anyone intending to impose it in this country had better be prepared for war - first blood is theirs to take whenever they wish, but there is no question last blood would be theirs to give. Fortunately, I don't see much evidence that America's fascists are capable of that level of courage - they're content to burglarize the Treasury and crush defenseless third-world peoples. Gutless cowards.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Troubador said:
And as a personal note, I would just say that anyone intending to impose it in this country had better be prepared for war - first blood is theirs to take whenever they wish, but there is no question last blood would be theirs to give.

Consider that for communism, or socialism in this country also.....assuming you support its introduction, since you support Obama and/or Clinton. (McCain is one and the same though)

[Troubadour]

Consider that for communism, or socialism in this country also


Those are economic systems, Osborn, and anyone who would kill over money is no friend of freedom.


.....assuming you support its introduction, since you support Obama and/or Clinton. (McCain is one and the same though)


Your claim is thoroughly delusional. The United States has had a mixed economy (that means "part socialist" to you) since the Great Depression, and that's true of every single functioning society on the planet. Moreover, your posts overflow with Bizarro World claims that this fact (nearly 70 years old) is responsible for current troubles that started 27 years ago and have only become extreme in the past 8. But now you're claiming that Barack Obama is going to take office wearing a Mao suit and sully your pure laissez-faire paradise with a grim Stalinist state because he would raise your taxes by a single-digit percent and fund social programs to a fraction of their former level. Get real.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Troubador said:
Those are economic systems, Osborn, and anyone who would kill over money is no friend of freedom.

..... you can't be serious... can you?

What is money?

People have killed over money and property since the dawn of man.... don't see that changing any time soon.

Troubador said:
Your claim is thoroughly delusional. The United States has had a mixed economy (that means "part socialist" to you) since the Great Depression, and that's true of every single functioning society on the planet.

Indeed, thank you for stating it. However, this didn't occur in the United States through a proper, constitutional process. What does that mean to you?

Troubador said:
Moreover, your posts overflow with Bizarro World claims that this fact (nearly 70 years old) is responsible for current troubles that started 27 years ago and have only become extreme in the past 8.

Really? I would love to debate this in a thread of its own if you would like to?

Troubador said:
But now you're claiming that Barack Obama is going to take office wearing a Mao suit and sully your pure laissez-faire paradise with a grim Stalinist state because he would raise your taxes by a single-digit percent and fund social programs to a fraction of their former level. Get real.

LOL...

I didn't compare Obama to Mao, but I do wonder about the similarity in their goals sometimes.

So, you are saying that social and economic liberty are not of equal value to the individual? More importantly, are you saying I am "delusional" because I think they are equally important? Am I delusional to expect my government to follow the rules it is BOUND to follow, when making changes in government? Am I delusional to expect accountability for actions taken DURING a seated representatives term, or AFTER a seated term through Judicial Review?

I really don't understand how I am delusional for expecting the people entrusted to enforce the law, to obey the law. Please, elaborate.

[Troubadour]

What is money?


A means to an end.


People have killed over money and property since the dawn of man....
don't see that changing any time soon.


How is that a justification?


Indeed, thank you for stating it. However, this didn't occur in the United States through a proper, constitutional process.


Yes, it did. The only coercive element in social programs is income taxation, which was already explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and the specific application doesn't violate any other part of the Constitution or rescind any of the rights reserved by the people. We the people have already determined that our elected representatives may tax our income as necessary, so it's of no difference to your rights (despite whatever impact they have on sensibilities) if they're using the money to build roads, feed the poor, or build giant statues of Kermit the Frog. Now, you may not like how it's being spent, and in that case you have the right to elect different leaders with different spending priorities.


So, you are saying that social and economic liberty are not of equal value to the individual?


Beyond a certain level, they're not even close. But I would also argue with your apparent definition of "economic liberty," since so few people have any such thing in a laissez-faire system. Some heir to a great fortune can choose to become a businessman, and fail repeatedly without giving up a single luxury; or he can become a philanthropist, and feel righteous while spending far more stroking his own vanity; or he can do absolutely nothing, if he so chooses, and just while away his days content in the knowledge that no amount of wrecked Bugattis and high-class hookers will ever derail the gravy train. That is "economic liberty." Having no choice but to accept a paycheck dictated by employers, then paying it all back to them with interest for the "privilege" of existing is no kind of liberty that I recognize - it's more like how farm animals live.

[Buck Laser]

Every socio-political paradigm became obsolete when the United States initiated the "Representative Republic".
Ask Benito, Adolph, or Saddam.

Are you actually saying that our form of government is a failure?

[moses2792796]

Moses said:
This is an interesting viewpoint. He seems to think that although moderns fear fascism, when viewed objectively, and with a historical perspective, it may be the solution to many modern problems. In the current time their is an overiding mindset that democracy is morally superior to all other systems, although it's actual track record is rarely brought into question. This mentality is thanks primarily to the alleged actions of one man during and before WW2. Perhaps we need to look beyond those events to a more ancient time to gain a better understanding of civilisation.

I don't see why we should try to make a turd look less like a turd.

No matter how much you polish and shine a turd, its always just a turd.

Fascism, is a clear winner for the category of turd, in my opinion.

If you would like to sacrifice your freedom, your mind, your income from YOUR labor, feel free. Its not for me, and I don't love any society enough to do that, thanks.


I live in a democratic nation, I am told almost on a daily basis that I am free, and yet, from the day I was born I was bombarded with moralistic proparganda from just about every adult I encountered indoctrinating me, in one way or another, into a form of thought that presented no challenge to established paradigms. I was taught that the democratic way is the right way, and had it not been for a rather unusual set of events during high-school I most likely would have ended up working 9-5 in a pointless paper-shuffling job convinced that I was doing something worthwhile and not really being to see a way out of that lifestlye anyway. Everyday I witness a society with no culture other than reckless consumerism, where realistic values are sacrificed on a daily basis to insane moral standards designed to justify methods which are in the process of failure. Millions of people simply go along with this crazy death-march, all convinced that despite the increasing instability within society, the destruction of the natural environment and the breakdown of social order, that there way is the best that has ever existed. This doesn't seem like freedom to me...

[moses2792796]

although it's actual track record is rarely brought into question.


Its track record is constantly brought into question by the nature of democracy itself. People can elect fascist governments, as the Germans did and US Republicans have attempted to do, but in general people do not want their lives in the hands of psychotic bullies. Even leaving aside Hitler, it's quite impossible to characterize fascism as being other than the ideology of choice for those who see all human motivations other than power as insignificant - i.e., people incapable of empathy, commonly known as psychopaths.

Classicists can fawn over the Pax Romana ad nauseum, but only by deliberately ignoring the fact that the Roman Empire was the "solution" to its own problem: Rather than be constantly invaded by their own generals, Rome sent them to conquer foreign lands; when those foreign conquests made the generals too rich and powerful, they warred with each other to seize Rome, and forced the Senate and people to recognize one as supreme to avoid being torn apart by their struggles. The thousand+ years of darkness and mass cultural extinction that followed - and the subsequent rebirth of pre-Imperial styles and philosophies during the Renaissance, with quite different results - more than illustrate the folly of Rome.


Rome was decadent for nearly it's entire lifespan, it's fate was sealed as it would seem ours is now. The advent of Christianity provided a temporary restoration which lasted until the middle-ages, however it's energy is spent, and unless a significant phenomen occurs within the next hundred years the final collapse of this cycle of human civilisation is imminent.

[Go Fish]

Every socio-political paradigm became obsolete when the United States initiated the "Representative Republic".
Ask Benito, Adolph, or Saddam.

Are you actually saying that our form of government is a failure?


Okay, I'll bite. What are you getting at?
Before you answer, let me turn the stereo down. I was just listening to the New York Philharmonics' rendition of "The Battle Hymn Of The Democracy".

[Go Fish]

Moses said:
This is an interesting viewpoint. He seems to think that although moderns fear fascism, when viewed objectively, and with a historical perspective, it may be the solution to many modern problems. In the current time their is an overiding mindset that democracy is morally superior to all other systems, although it's actual track record is rarely brought into question. This mentality is thanks primarily to the alleged actions of one man during and before WW2. Perhaps we need to look beyond those events to a more ancient time to gain a better understanding of civilisation.

I don't see why we should try to make a turd look less like a turd.

No matter how much you polish and shine a turd, its always just a turd.

Fascism, is a clear winner for the category of turd, in my opinion.

If you would like to sacrifice your freedom, your mind, your income from YOUR labor, feel free. Its not for me, and I don't love any society enough to do that, thanks.


I live in a democratic nation, I am told almost on a daily basis that I am free, and yet, from the day I was born I was bombarded with moralistic proparganda from just about every adult I encountered indoctrinating me, in one way or another, into a form of thought that presented no challenge to established paradigms. I was taught that the democratic way is the right way, and had it not been for a rather unusual set of events during high-school I most likely would have ended up working 9-5 in a pointless paper-shuffling job convinced that I was doing something worthwhile and not really being to see a way out of that lifestlye anyway. Everyday I witness a society with no culture other than reckless consumerism, where realistic values are sacrificed on a daily basis to insane moral standards designed to justify methods which are in the process of failure. Millions of people simply go along with this crazy death-march, all convinced that despite the increasing instability within society, the destruction of the natural environment and the breakdown of social order, that there way is the best that has ever existed. This doesn't seem like freedom to me...

Have you ever considered taking up golf? Seriously, if your life sucks that badly and you think it's the government's fault, you need to take up golf. When your game sucks, there's just one person to blame. I love golf. I hate myself, but I love golf.
I hear that they have some really nice courses in Finland.

[Troubadour]

Rome was decadent for nearly it's entire lifespan


Rome was a functioning republic for 400 years, an operational fascist state for less than 200, and a degenerate theocratic kingdom slowly consumed by feudal anarchy for the following 1200.


it's fate was sealed as it would seem ours is now.


There's no such thing.


The advent of Christianity provided a temporary restoration which lasted until the middle-ages, however it's energy is spent, and unless a significant phenomen occurs within the next hundred years the final collapse of this cycle of human civilisation is imminent.


"Unless a significant phenomenon occurs within the next hundred years"...Like ubiquitous, trivially cheap, decentralized solar power? Ubiquitous, cost-effective access to space? Ubiquitous, trivially cheap yottaflop-level computation, capable of simulating systems more complex than entire human civilizations? Radical life extension? Mind downloading? High-voltage, reliable, long-distance wireless power transmission? Self-assembling, maximally efficient anything courtesy of nanotech, in addition to synthetically-augmented immunity? The world would be unrecognizable within a decade of any one of these developments coming to fruition, and they're all likely to occur on far shorter timeframes than 100 years.

The glory of modern science and technology is that it outpaces social entropy; in fact, it even outpaces economic entropy. Despite the boom-and-bust cycle of economics, there has not been a single epoch in modern history, all the way from the Renaissance to the present day, where the general level of technology declined. Not one. When one society became decadent and hostile to progress, the locus of change simply moved to another, and then the fruits of that movement ended up coming back to that society and reviving it through trade.

Rome never had this benefit - it made a few significant advances in its early years, and then just coasted on them without much subsequent innovation. All it relied upon was the static strength of its culture and institutions, which, while impressive, could not outlast change. Science and technology, however, are change incarnate, and our civilization is woven intimately into them - we survive because we constantly change. Change is cool, savvy, exciting, youthful, alive, and attractive. While there are brief periods where people want stability, they are always fleeting - we get [b]bored[/i] with it, and crave a revolution in something. Every culture before the modern era would find our attitude blasphemous and mad, and it's that which makes at least this aspect of our civilization immortal. We may lose it temporarily, but it will simply move elsewhere and return to us - in the same way the ideals of Republic returned to Italy after a millennium and saw the rise of Venice, Florence, Pisa, and Genoa.

I am optimistic for a simple reason: America is not a flag, or a piece of land, or even a bloodline - it's a spirit that we share with civilizations both past and unborn, and it is immortal. Imagine looking through a window at 2508, and seeing what had once been the USA now shattered into a hodgepodge of dysfunctional, ignorant, impoverished states of little significance to the world. Further imagine that something similar had happened to China, only in the opposite direction - its collapse gave birth to a bunch of dynamic, free, creative, and awesomely energetic states that had far surpassed everything we had ever been. Which do you feel more? Sad or happy? Personally, the spirit of freedom and progress are my definition of America, so if they thrive anywhere, my country is not dead. And since I have zero doubt that they will do so short of human extinction, the future is not something I fear. That fact makes me immune to the seductions of fascism, and its most implacable enemy.

[moses2792796]

Technology is not a saviour, the human obsession with technology merely makes decadence more obvious. Almost every major advance in technology in recent times has had destructive consequences.

[davo]

Technology is not a saviour, the human obsession with technology merely makes decadence more obvious. Almost every major advance in technology in recent times has had destructive consequences.


One could also argue the principles of fascism favor the advancement of technology. The Third Reich for example, was responsible for a large amount of cutting-edge research at the time, including advances that led to space flight, the stealth bomber and the human genome project.

Fascism aside, if you believe in a Darwinist outlook in regard to society, a more high-tech civilization will usually win conflicts against a lower-tech civilization. The European colonial powers were highly successful against natives in America, Africa and Australia, due in large part to far superior technology.

Its true that modern trends in technology have led to a culture of 'bread and circuses'. This is a social problem and not one with science and technology itself. For example, instead of devoting a great deal of resources to manufacturing better ipods, we could be designing and building nuclear fusion reactors and interstellar spacecraft.

[moses2792796]

If we cannot use technology reponsibly and constructively then it will contribute to our downfall. Technology is useful when it is subordinate to man, not when man becomes enslaved by his creations.

[moses2792796]

Moses said:
This is an interesting viewpoint. He seems to think that although moderns fear fascism, when viewed objectively, and with a historical perspective, it may be the solution to many modern problems. In the current time their is an overiding mindset that democracy is morally superior to all other systems, although it's actual track record is rarely brought into question. This mentality is thanks primarily to the alleged actions of one man during and before WW2. Perhaps we need to look beyond those events to a more ancient time to gain a better understanding of civilisation.

I don't see why we should try to make a turd look less like a turd.

No matter how much you polish and shine a turd, its always just a turd.

Fascism, is a clear winner for the category of turd, in my opinion.

If you would like to sacrifice your freedom, your mind, your income from YOUR labor, feel free. Its not for me, and I don't love any society enough to do that, thanks.


I live in a democratic nation, I am told almost on a daily basis that I am free, and yet, from the day I was born I was bombarded with moralistic proparganda from just about every adult I encountered indoctrinating me, in one way or another, into a form of thought that presented no challenge to established paradigms. I was taught that the democratic way is the right way, and had it not been for a rather unusual set of events during high-school I most likely would have ended up working 9-5 in a pointless paper-shuffling job convinced that I was doing something worthwhile and not really being to see a way out of that lifestlye anyway. Everyday I witness a society with no culture other than reckless consumerism, where realistic values are sacrificed on a daily basis to insane moral standards designed to justify methods which are in the process of failure. Millions of people simply go along with this crazy death-march, all convinced that despite the increasing instability within society, the destruction of the natural environment and the breakdown of social order, that there way is the best that has ever existed. This doesn't seem like freedom to me...

Have you ever considered taking up golf? Seriously, if your life sucks that badly and you think it's the government's fault, you need to take up golf. When your game sucks, there's just one person to blame. I love golf. I hate myself, but I love golf.
I hear that they have some really nice courses in Finland.


I spend time contemplating problems that do not directly effect me, I doubt that if my life was unsatisfactory that I would have the time or energy to do this.

[Xavier13]

I like this.

As soon as someone has a reasonable opinion, he is told that he must hate his life.

Consequently, he is advised to play golf.

What lunacy becomes our modern day....

[Troubadour]

Technology is not a saviour


Yes, it is. Not the machinery itself, or even the capabilities it creates, but the social dynamism those capabilities drive. Greek ships seeded the Mediterranean world; Roman roads developed and preserved it through the Dark Ages; Spanish and English ships, far beyond anything the Greeks could have imagined, crossed an ocean and gave birth to two dozen nations; American ships of steel crossed the same ocean and saved Europe from what would have become a second Dark Age. And those are just transportation technologies - consider things like metal plowshares, aqueducts, basic medical hygiene, electricity, on and on. Science and technology have become synonymous with human evolution.


the human obsession with technology merely makes decadence more obvious.


It makes it obvious because decadent societies, unlike healthy ones, aren't interested in technological progress - they do not invest in it, do not appreciate it, and may even find it threatening. They prefer to buy it from others for limited uses like war or costly luxuries for the elite, but not to improve life generally.


Almost every major advance in technology in recent times has had destructive consequences.


This is an oft-repeated piety, but not so in the big picture. When metal plowshares were invented, farmers could farm more land, but they had to do so by cutting down forests - a "destructive consequence" of a technology that permitted the human population to explode. When medical technology made survival into old age an assumption rather than a rare blessing, society had to find a way to care for all the old people - another "destructive consequence" of progress. In case you're missing the point, it's that just because solving one problem causes others doesn't mean it wasn't worth solving the original one. New problems are inevitable no matter what you do, but this is the nature of evolution. Would you rather live in a static culture that never changes? Those are the ones that eventually fall, or are gobbled up by empires.

[moses2792796]

You have misunderstood my position, technological developement is a part of a healthy society, however the actual cause of that material progress is derived from a higher degree of organisation. For this reason technology is used where it is necessary for improvement. What we have occuring in the modern era is progress as an end in itself, rather than a means, this is a sign of decadence. For this reason countless resources are spent on producing throw-away technology with no real advantages, but serves only to blind people to deadly under-currents within society that are gradually eroding it from within.

A healthy society always retains a stable centre (spiritual influence, values systems, cultural customs) even when its appearance changes. Modern society has no centre, and so like a feather in the wind undergoes constant change without having any control over its eventual destination.

[Troubadour]

For this reason countless resources are spent on producing throw-away technology with no real advantages, but serves only to blind people to deadly under-currents within society that are gradually eroding it from within.


True in part, but throw-away gadgets are just a specific application of technological progress, and a useful driver. The fact that some new process is motivated by a desire for trivial gadgetry doesn't prevent it from being revolutionary in eminently beneficial ways - progress cascades continuously, and cannot be isolated.


A healthy society always retains a stable centre (spiritual influence, values systems, cultural customs) even when its appearance changes.


Some of our common values are progress, desire for positive change, and the bold pursuit of an awesome and unlimited future.


Modern society has no centre, and so like a feather in the wind undergoes constant change without having any control over its eventual destination.


I.e. pure, naked evolution.

[moses2792796]

Despite the fact that we supposedly desire 'positive' change, as our society progresses it becomes increasingly corrupt, and increasingly allows the population to stagnate, denying evolution itself.

[Troubadour]

Despite the fact that we supposedly desire 'positive' change, as our society progresses it becomes increasingly corrupt


The same was true in the late 19th century. Every office of government was full to the brim with corruption, corporations owned everything and crushed their workers, and life became grim for a large part of the population. America was sick, which was part of why Marx believed the worker revolution would happen here first, but he didn't count on the inherent adaptability of our culture. The growing urbanization of society, driven by the very industrial forces that were strangling it, allowed average people to organize and coordinate in massive numbers - they formed progressive movements, labor unions, and political parties that gradually brought about change. They elected progressive candidates all over America, found a friend in Teddy Roosevelt, and over the following half-century created one of the least corrupt societies in the world. There is no reason - none whatsoever - that America cannot rebound again, and I believe Barack Obama will be a catalyst of that rebound.


and increasingly allows the population to stagnate, denying evolution itself.


The number of people is virtually irrelevant - what matters is the diversity, boldness, and creativity of their ambitions, and the opportunity to realize them. Degeneracy is reflected in the cynicism of a people's ambitions - what do the vast majority want to achieve? In a healthy society, average people want to have a loving family, become financially stable, and see their children flourish - anything beyond that is extra. In a degenerate society, people's desires are petty and materialistic, wanting to satisfy unlimited consumer impulses, and if they have a loving, happy, and financially secure family, that is seen as "extra." Such degeneracy unquestionably exists, but I don't believe it's become the general state of America. Meanwhile, the elites of a healthy society want to achieve greatness through scientific, engineering, policy, or business progress - i.e., actual accomplishments that cause real change in society. In a degenerate culture, however, elites desire power and/or fame. Again, I don't dispute that the balance among these qualities has shifted in the negative direction, but I don't believe we're nearing collapse. We'll hit some (admittedly grim) bottom point and then rebound, perhaps with some truly glorious results.

[moses2792796]

I should have made my previous post more clear, what I meant was, America appears to evolve, when in fact the actual system decays. To top this off, the population is actually doing the opposite of evolving, thanks to a society that allows it's weakest to flourish, what modern society inherently lacks is genuine evolution, thanks to the the comfortable living conditions provided even to those who contribute nothing.

[davo]

The same was true in the late 19th century. Every office of government was full to the brim with corruption, corporations owned everything and crushed their workers, and life became grim for a large part of the population. America was sick, which was part of why Marx believed the worker revolution would happen here first, but he didn't count on the inherent adaptability of our culture. The growing urbanization of society, driven by the very industrial forces that were strangling it, allowed average people to organize and coordinate in massive numbers - they formed progressive movements, labor unions, and political parties that gradually brought about change. They elected progressive candidates all over America, found a friend in Teddy Roosevelt, and over the following half-century created one of the least corrupt societies in the world. There is no reason - none whatsoever - that America cannot rebound again, and I believe Barack Obama will be a catalyst of that rebound.


I'm calling b/s on this. Henry Ford did a far better job at improving the standards of living of the working class than any Marxist movement ever did. He single-handedly forced factories to double the wages of their workers, which resulted in a rapidly expanding middle class and the common man being able to afford goods previously only available to the rich. No revolution was necessary, and it became clear it was in everyone's interests for workers to be given a fair wage. Even industrialists could become wealthier if the common man had more money to spend, and for this he needed higher wages. Teddy Roosevelt was also not a Marxist. The 'progressive' causes of Ted Roosevelt were later hijacked by Marxists in the 20th century.

It's also very unlikely Barack Obama will significantly alter the plight of the common man. I've seen nothing in his policies that will prevent the outsourcing of jobs, cut tax burdens, restrain the power of the Federal Reserve or prevent companies from employing illegals at below the minimum wage.


The number of people is virtually irrelevant - what matters is the diversity, boldness, and creativity of their ambitions, and the opportunity to realize them. Degeneracy is reflected in the cynicism of a people's ambitions - what do the vast majority want to achieve? In a healthy society, average people want to have a loving family, become financially stable, and see their children flourish - anything beyond that is extra. In a degenerate society, people's desires are petty and materialistic, wanting to satisfy unlimited consumer impulses, and if they have a loving, happy, and financially secure family, that is seen as "extra." Such degeneracy unquestionably exists, but I don't believe it's become the general state of America. Meanwhile, the elites of a healthy society want to achieve greatness through scientific, engineering, policy, or business progress - i.e., actual accomplishments that cause real change in society. In a degenerate culture, however, elites desire power and/or fame. Again, I don't dispute that the balance among these qualities has shifted in the negative direction, but I don't believe we're nearing collapse. We'll hit some (admittedly grim) bottom point and then rebound, perhaps with some truly glorious results.

I'd say the closest definition of a 'degenerate' society is where the society's rulers have opted to distract the people's attention away from problems rather than actually deal with them; lest they lose power due to their incompetence. People are distracted from dealing with problems involving both their country and their personal/family life.