• BitconnectCarlos
    2.3k


    Exodus 1:9-10 (NIV)

    Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them; or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, they will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country."

    It's a demographic fear. We see the same today - fears of certain populations growing.
  • frank
    16.2k

    They were already in slavery at the time. They weren't enslaved because they were numerous, right? Cline thinks the Exodus is a memory of the Bronze Age.
  • Tom Storm
    9.4k
    And yet it is worth a glance at Paxton's definition.Banno

    Yes, that definition probably encompasses Trump fairly well. Reading Ian Kershaw's rise of Hitler (Hubris) there are some parallels with Turmp. It’s also worth looking at Ian Dunt’s Origin Story podcast on fascism too. Was Hitler even a fascist? Or is the word specific to one political Italian story? An issue with understanding fascism is that definitions tend to focus on methods rather than central ideas. The notion of fascism (like some other movements) seems to be without theorists or thinkers. It's an approach more than a clear doctrine.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.3k


    This passage is from before they were enslaved. I would agree with Cline. One of my favorites on this topic is Nahum Sarna who places these events around the 13th century BC so, yes, end of Bronze Age.

    Even if the Exodus is completely made-up biblical writers still had this idea of disloyal demographic threat in mind.

    EDIT: Earlier the Egyptians sell themselves to Joseph/the Egyptian state due to a famine. That is in Genesis.
  • frank
    16.2k
    Even if the Exodus is completely made-up biblical writers still had this idea of disloyal demographic threat in mind.BitconnectCarlos

    :up:
  • NOS4A2
    9.4k


    That seems overly simplistic, but tell me if you think the proposition ("The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual”) is intrinsically false - meaning that it's necessarily wrong in all respects and in all contexts.

    There is no such thing as a “Public Weal”, just a bunch of people pretending they know what is and how to reach it. What they mean is their own interests transcend that of others, and that’s how it always turns out in practice.
  • Banno
    25.8k
    The F-word has little use, as can bee seen in this thread. But Trump does fit Paxton's list.

    That'll do for now.

    There is no such thing as a “Public Weal”NOS4A2
    Well, not any more, over where you are.
  • Relativist
    2.7k
    There is no such thing as a “Public Weal”NOS4A2
    There is at least the potential of a public interest.
  • Paine
    2.6k
    There is no such thing as a “Public Weal”NOS4A2

    That is odd to hear after your years of arguing for a particular vision of that above others.
  • NOS4A2
    9.4k


    There is at least the potential of a public interest.

    What would that be?
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.3k


    Re: public weal -- disease prevention, crime prevention, cleanliness are a few that come to mind.
  • Relativist
    2.7k
    A non-controversial example is law enforcement. Also: minimizing air and water pollution.
  • Vera Mont
    4.5k
    There is no such thing as a “Public Weal”, just a bunch of people pretending they know what is and how to reach it.NOS4A2
    With respect, Roosevelt had some pretty serious public problems o contend with: mass unemployment, homelessness, people literally starving. What he did actually helped the economy and the population get back on their feet. It's not quite the same as giving huge whacks of public money to one's political supporters.
  • Tobias
    1.1k
    It's not the exact definition of the ism under which American democracy is utterly destroyed that people should be concerned about, but the means by which it is done.Vera Mont

    Good point!
  • NOS4A2
    9.4k


    With respect, Roosevelt had some pretty serious public problems o contend with: mass unemployment, homelessness, people literally starving. What he did actually helped the economy and the population get back on their feet. It's not quite the same as giving huge whacks of public money to one's political supporters.

    Hitler did the same. It’s true that war economies work, especially when you have an army of unemployed young men and women at your disposals, but it’s not quite clear if the benefits outweigh the costs.
  • Vera Mont
    4.5k
    Hitler did the same.NOS4A2
    Hitler did nothing remotely similar.
    It’s true that war economies work,NOS4A2
    Yes, except that the New Dealdidn't create a war economy. It was about labour unions and financial reform, social security and agriculture. Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR prepared for war.
    There is no comparison and it's disingenuous to claim one.
  • ssu
    8.8k
    The F-word has little use, as can bee seen in this thread.Banno
    Would the rapid decline of the liberal democracy and replacement of it with populist autocracy that is supported by few extremely wealthy oligarchs do? That really doesn't fit the f-ideology. That the democratic institutions become mere shadows of themselves and the liberal rule based order be replaced by might makes right as in the 19th Century? In the f-ideology the state institutions ought to be extremely powerful and dominant the extreme rich totally dependent on the state.

    There is no ideology here to see, no 20th Century ideology as we have learnt. The only hugely popular accurate definition used by various different commentators (both American and foreign) is transactional. Everything is transactional. Trump supporters will define it as Trump measuring everything as what is profitable for the US and his opponents as what is profitable for Trump himself. If there's some guiding light in Trump's action, it is this transactional attitude toward everything. It explains the Trump talk of Europe "owing" to the US when the countries are spending less of defense.
  • frank
    16.2k
    It explains the Trump talk of Europe "owing" to the US when the countries are spending less of defense.ssu

    I think what's finally dying out is the idea that the US is supposed to have global influence. That was cold war ideology. The new US only takes care of itself. That's been coming for a while.

    Regarding Elon Musk using the government to advance his interests, that sounds bad, but that would be normal in Japan. The Japanese don't have the history of strife between government and big business. Maybe that has also needed to change in the US.

    Still, change is scary.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    I think the perception is that liberalism ended up screwing people over and leaving them without reliable income or healthcare. Or the perception is that liberalism opened the door to changes people didn't want, like LGBTQ.frank
    I would say that the "Liberals" were no longer liberals. Once you start telling others what they can say or think you've crossed over into authoritarianism.

    Sure, they like to label themselves as liberals and progressives, but they are anything but. Authoritarianism is not progressive or liberal. They keep the label to influence the sheep into thinking they are sheep like them when they are a wolf instead, and know that most of their constituents will believe what they are told without question, and if you do question it then you're a heretic. Political parties have essentially become religions.

    I no longer call them liberals. They are leftists. Libertarians are the true liberals.

    The right is no different - using the term "freedom" instead of "liberal" when they are just as likely to impose their religion on you and call it "freedom". If the Dems had their way, we'd be a communist state. If the right had their way, we'd be a theological state. Both sides are playing us against each other, focusing our attention on each other rather than on them - the real oppressors.
  • frank
    16.2k

    I agree. When Americans talk about liberals or leftists, they mean people who favor solutions from the federal government and greater centralized authority. Historically, it's been American rightists who tried to protect democracy.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    I don't think you understood my post. It was about how Tobi's article pointed out that the capitalists might back Trump only so far as he is profitable. If he is unpredictable or if his policies are otherwise not conducive to profit, they will not back him.Banno
    I understood your point. You did not understand mine. Would you support a incumbent when you have lost money during their tenure, or does your politics not allow you to make sound financial decisions?

    It seems to me that if Trump started to control speech, Elon would drop him like a bag of garbage.

    Trump supported both Democrats and Republicans before he ran, and his support earned him the same benefits that any donor gets. This is nothing new. Again, both sides do it.
  • ssu
    8.8k
    I think what's finally dying out is the idea that the US is supposed to have global influence. That was cold war ideology. The new US only takes care of itself. That's been coming for a while.frank
    Well, it's taking a lousy effort to take care of itself. Because a lot of what it has depends on that it is a Superpower. Yet many think it's just the sheer awesomeness of the US that it has this role.

    Starting from the role of the dollar. Without the US being the Superpower, there is no reason to give it's currency a special role global arena. The US dollar naturally would be important, but then it would be just one among many, just like basically the role that the euro has in international trade. This gives the US the ability to spend totally recklessly and have no worries about a current account crisis. It really affects the life of every American. We could be easily repeating the lines that only now Russia and China are talking about the "unfair" role that the US enjoys.

    Then continuing to the simple fact that other countries listen to what the US president says. They don't listen to the prime minister of India says so much. Not even the Chinese leader gathers so much interest.That the West welcomes the US leadership role is again solely because of it's alliances and it's relations and it being a Superpower. In the 1930's or earlier that wasn't the case. So how much did the World listen to some US President? Only brief episode after WW1 was there a role for the US, but that went away quickly as the US went back home and withdrew.

    It's sheer stupidity from the US to think that NATO isn't the Crown jewel of it's hegemony. A whole First World union equivalent of the size of the US has entrusted it's security to the US and wants the US to take the lead. How stupid can one be in giving up this dominant position? At worst make your allies former allies and either lukewarm or even hostile to you? It's now been repeated so many times over that the US possibly won't be there for it's allies that Europeans have understood this. Yet the Europeans are still treating the talks about Greenland as "Trump talk", but if Trump literally will want to expand the territory of the US as he said, even the most obstinate supporter of America's role in the security of Europe might change their heart.

    I think the main reason is that nobody is telling to the Americans how their economy and thus their way of life has been depended on the country having the role it has. Nobody can tell Donald Trump what is the real price for him if the US would leave NATO.
  • frank
    16.2k
    Well, it's taking a lousy effort to take care of itself. Because a lot of what it has depends on that it is a Superpower. Yet many think it's just the sheer awesomeness of the US that it has this role.ssu

    It's actually not a stable situation to have only one superpower. There needs to be at least two.

    The US dollar naturally would be important, but then it would be just one among many,ssu

    No, global trade needs one currency. It's the dollar now because the Chinese want it to be the dollar. When they change their minds, it will become the yuan.

    Then continuing to the simple fact that other countries listen to what the US president says.ssu

    They shouldn't. Remember what happened to Syria?

    I think the main reason is that nobody is telling to the Americans how their economy and thus their way of life has been depended on the country having the role it has.ssu

    The US debt will never be paid. It will disappear in the next global economic catastrophe. Everyone will start over and Americans will turn back to their own resources. As climate change sets in, the global network will weaken. War will become the norm again. I imagine the US will continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal and use it occasionally.

    Nobody can tell Donald Trump what is the real price for him if the US would leave NATO.ssu

    Trump is 78. He may or may not get around to leaving NATO. Unless the Democrats come up with a superstar, the next president will be Vance, the "dark enlightenment" guy. Even if the Democrats do win an election, the cold war crew is gone. There is no reason to support Europe. The UK maybe, but not Europe.
  • ssu
    8.8k
    No, global trade needs one currency.frank
    Nonsense!

    Have you ever heard of a system called a market? And it's simple math to trade with a basket of currencies. No, seriously, the global economy doesn't need one currency. For the vast majority of human history there hasn't been a currency in the role as the dollar was post WW2. This is the major fallacy that Americans seem to have about their awesomeness. It's all related to WW2 and the role the US dollar was given in the post-war system. Ask just why would the Arab states buy an sell their oil in dollars if it wasn't the security guarantees that the US has given to them?

    . It's the dollar now because the Chinese want it to be the dollar. When they change their minds, it will become the yuan.frank
    When the global system is dollar based, why not. China doesn't want a conflict with the American Superpower and China simply isn't as aggressive as the US portays it to be. But yes, that can change...

    In China’s telling, these strategies are less about offense — trying to dethrone the U.S. dollar or replacing it in the global system with the renminbi — and more about defense: strengthening China’s financial security and reducing its geo-economic vulnerabilities within the existing dollar-dominated global economic and financial system. Beijing wants to minimize its exposure to a potential dollar liquidity crunch and ensure its continued access to global capital markets even during times of geopolitical crisis.

    No Chinese leaders have publicly expressed an intention to dethrone the dollar despite escalating geopolitical and trade tensions between the U.S. and China beginning in 2018. However, as those tensions persist, Chinese financial regulators and scholars have explicitly expressed concerns about Beijing’s vulnerabilities and urged government officials to step up efforts to protect the financial system.

    Fang Xinghai, vice chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, has cautioned that China should urgently prepare for the possibility of being removed from the U.S. dollar-based global payment system — a form of “forced financial decoupling.” In such a scenario, Chinese entities would lose the ability to access the U.S. dollar or use it to conduct international transactions.

    Hence it's obvious that the Chinese have had to think about this, especially seeing what happened to Russia after Putin invaded Ukraine. You can face then sanctions and severe problems in trade, but it's not an existential threat as Russia has shown. If they would invade Taiwan, the most likely response would be sanctions, freezing of assets and difficulties in normal trade.

    They shouldn't. Remember what happened to Syria?frank
    What are you referring to? The line in the sand -speech by Obama?

    The US debt will never be paid. It will disappear in the next global economic catastrophe.frank
    Well, then I guess it's paid with inflation. Looking forward to that 1000$ Big Mac? With a 1000$ Big Mac a trillion dollars isn't so much money. And there will be many trillionaires around.

    Everyone will start over and Americans will turn back to their own resources.frank
    Oh don't be so dramatic. An economic crisis is just a rearrangement of assets and some generations finishing unemployed until they. But if you have invested well, you will profit from the debacle. And what "turning back to their own resources" are you talking about? That sounds very Trumpian. Do understand that the existence of our societies has always depended on trade.
  • frank
    16.2k

    Look up dark enlightenment. That's vice president Vance, soon to be President Vance.
  • NOS4A2
    9.4k


    I didn’t claim it. I cited a well-researched book from a German historian. It’s called The Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. I recommend it. Here’s some quotes from the arch-fascist himself:

    The question is often asked in America and in Europe just how much ‘Fascism’ the American President’s program contains. Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices, having recognized that the welfare of the economy is identical with the welfare of the people. Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism. More than that cannot be said at the moment.

    - Mussolini

    You want to know what fascism is like? It is like your New Deal!

    - Mussolini
  • BC
    13.7k
    You want to know what fascism is like? It is like your New Deal!

    Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices

    When I look for fascistic features I generally don't look at social security, unemployment insurance, public works programs, and the like as examples. Or, was it the rapid marshaling of government programs that struck Mussolini as fascistic? Fascists are not alone in managing economies. Are programs which alleviate poverty fascistic in nature?

    The view that government economic policy is fascistic leads me to wonder about the relationship between fascism and libertarianism, which finds government activities so repugnant.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    1.2k
    I think we can agree that fascism isn't a particularly coherent system of beliefs. It's based on sentiment, there is no rational ideology behind it. It works because it riles people up into a sort of raptured state of mind. This is accomplished by Romanticist rhetoric, such as "Neither Right nor Left", and "The Nation is the Hegelian dialectical synthesis of Bourgeois and Proletarians". It's a tricky rhetoric to deal with, because it's arguably Napoleonic in intent, though not in actual language.
  • BC
    13.7k
    Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR prepared for war.Vera Mont

    Had FDR waiting until Pearl Harbor to prepare for a war that was already well underway in Europe and Asia at the end of 1941, we would have had one hell of a time. The level of war production ramped up steeply in 1942 and following, certainly. Remember the pre-Pearl Harbor Lend - Lease program.
  • BC
    13.7k
    Thanks!

    I think we can agree that fascism isn't a particularly coherent system of beliefs. It's based on sentiment, there is no rational ideology behind it. It works because it riles people up into a sort of raptured state of mind.Arcane Sandwich

    Very much so.

    Fascism has also been characterized as "a style" -- by which I do not mean a mere preference for brown shirts and goose stepping. "Style" would include the regular crude use of force, ruthlessness, crass manipulation of the public, the deployment of sappy 'Volk' sentimentality (like PATRIOTISM), etc.

    "It works because it riles people up into a sort of raptured state of mind." Indeed.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.