How do you explain Nazism, Fascism or even the Communist Terror ?

[Retribution]

By appointment, and violence. Not by election.

What has that to do with what we were talking about?

There's another one: That intelligence and benevolence are necessary, but not sufficient. Also among the necessities: luck. Because you need a simultaneous absence of dominant military capability and long term security of territory. You need longevity in your tyrant. And you need respite from things like drought and plague. Benevolent tyranny may be the most fragile of all governmental systems.

There's a reason these benevolent tyrannies - Kew's Singapore, Castro's Cuba, Tokugawa's Japan - tend to happen on islands.

Fairly desperate, IcaAura. Most of those things apply to any form of government, anywhere.
Who is Kew?

We were talking about why, and how, those systems of government can arise, not how long they stick around or what you see as their weaknesses.
If I'm making the point that, in some cases, "they were the government for the moment" and in some cases quite successful, how about you try to address that?

 

[iceaura]

"By appointment, and violence. Not by election."
What has that to do with what we were talking about?

You were describing the Nazi rise by reference to reasons for its popularity, the situation at the time that would lead voters to favor them. I was pointing out that they never won a majority vote - they never did fool a majority of the voters. They obtained favor by lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence.

Fairly desperate, IcaAura. Most of those things apply to any form of government, anywhere.

No, they don't. You don't need longevity in tyrants to preserve tyranny in general, say - one strongman replaces another routinely. You certainly don't need military weakness or incapability. You don't need respite from natural disaster. And you don't need intelligence in the tyrant. You only need that for benevolent tyranny.

Hence the superior durability of benevolence in representative government, as well as frequency. You don't need as much luck, let alone intelligence etc.

 

[Retribution]

You were describing the Nazi rise by reference to reasons for its popularity, the situation at the time that would lead voters to favor them. I was pointing out that they never won a majority vote - they never did fool a majority of the voters. They obtained favor by lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence.

Actually that section you questioned was me responding to river about international financiers role in all this, but I suppose we can run with your rather random quoting for the time being.
In a place of low standards, one must lowers one's own.

Everyone knows violence and a bit of mayhem was involved in the rise of the Nazi party to power. However, as already pointed out, election violence was far more prevalent at the time all over the globe than it is now and didn't send up as many warning flags as it should have. One thing I've always noticed about these two-bit modern historical "commentators" is that they simply don't understand the perspective required to assess these things in relative terms.
It was not "the" factor in the election of the government. The Nazi party did not come to power through violence and vote rigging. These things were a factor - to one extent or another.

Saying things like "They obtained favor by lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence." begins to sound more than a little like propaganda itself - if we eliminate the possibility of outright lying and misdirection on the grounds of a simple lack of knowledge and perspective.

Until it's also pointed out that '"They obtained favor by lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence" also sounds a little like the race to become American President.
I bet you were really proud of that sentence.

As to the rest, the importance of military control is obvious, I've noticed unintelligent men tend to do far better in a representative government than in any other form, and if you're even trying to use natural disasters and luck to reinforce and argument on types of government then you're simply starting to sound desperate.

Thing being, of course, I have been accused of deliberately looking for a fight, but it seems that in this case at least, it's the only reason you're here.
Your position is mostly comprised of weak, unsubstantiated histrionics. You've nothing to say, really, that can't be largely argued against by simple dint of pointing at the subject matter itself.

The real argument here against you, in particular, is that these forms of government do exist and survive all over the globe, more so in fact than representative democracy does.
Clearly, if all of these other forms were in fact as doomed to failure for all those reasons you're attempting to pass off above, they would be folding and everywhere replaced by democracies. China alone is evidence that you're not exactly possessed of a balanced perspective.

But they do rise and continue to exist, don't they? Even under external threat in the form of economic sanction and often simple gunpoint .

And those "arguments" you've outlined above have a tendency to dissolve particularly when that gun is held in the hand of these representative democracies whose own methods of ensuring others govern themselves in the same manner are often a combination of lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence.

 

[iceaura]

Everyone knows violence and a bit of mayhem was involved in the rise of the Nazi party to power. However, as already pointed out, election violence was far more prevalent at the time all over the globe than it is now and didn't send up as many warning flags as it should have.

That's irrelevant. The subject was the central role of the violence and other non-electoral manipulations, not the perceptions of others at the time (which you underestimate, btw).

Actually that section you questioned was me responding to river about international financiers role in all this, but I suppose we can run with your rather random quoting for the time being

Especially since I was responding to you and your claims, not river - in context, and not at all randomly.

It was not "the" factor in the election of the government. The Nazi party did not come to power through violence and vote rigging. These things were a factor - to one extent or another.

The Nazi Party did not come to power through gaining a majority of the popular vote - was my point. That was not even the predominant factor. The only reason violence and vote rigging would not be "the" factor is if there were no such "the" factor - which is the case, in a sense, agreed, but the implication is different.

As to the rest, the importance of military control is obvious, I've noticed unintelligent men tend to do far better in a representative government than in any other form,

Nonsense. Any form in which power is inherited will trump a genuinely representative government, in that respect.

and if you're even trying to use natural disasters and luck to reinforce and argument on types of government then you're simply starting to sound desperate.

? Your arguments omit such considerations, true, but lack of desperation is not the first guess as to why.

The real argument here against you, in particular, is that these forms of government do exist and survive all over the globe, more so in fact than representative democracy does.

? Not benevolently. I'm not sure what this argument is that you are attributing to me.

Representative democracies in fact appear to be as durable a form of government as has been devised, once established - even while remaining benevolent. The difficulty appears to be in establishment - once up, they seem to hold up very, very well. Aside from powerful outside forces - military conquest, financial and political interests significantly larger than the government involved striking before a new one can get itself established - nothing seems to shake them.

And those "arguments" you've outlined above have a tendency to dissolve particularly when that gun is held in the hand of these representative democracies whose own methods of ensuring others govern themselves in the same manner are often a combination of lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence.

Buried in there is the claim that the gun, the lies, and so forth, are commonly employed as methods of ensuring that others govern themselves "in the same manner". That claim is without visible support.

 

[Retribution]

That's irrelevant.

Yes, yes. One of the final refuges of the completely lost.

This thread is one concerning how and why these forms of governments occur, which I've been trying to discuss... but has been co-opted, mostly be you, into more one of which government form you want to argue about on primarily moral grounds.
This has been pointed out several times now, but you just keep bangin' on...

Buried in there is the claim that the gun, the lies, and so forth, are commonly employed as methods of ensuring that others govern themselves "in the same manner". That claim is without visible support.

Heh. I was going to respond to your post in full, particularly the attempt to introduce a strawman in the form of monarchy, but it does seem fairly pointless. With that comment above, you just completely lost whatever credibility you had remaining.



It does continue to astound me that I have the reputation I do, when there are those like you about on a far more permanent basis. I'd be more accepting of censure if it were practiced on a more universal basis. I suppose, at the end of the day, it just comes down to what it is one desires to achieve under the circumstances prevalent at the time.

Which is, both in context of this thread and the site in general, a general observation about as on topic as anything you've said here.

 

[iceaura]

This thread is one concerning how and why these forms of governments occur, which I've been trying to discuss... but has been co-opted, mostly be you, into more one of which government form you want to argue about on primarily moral grounds.

I have argued nothing on moral grounds. I have posted on the manner in which these forms of government occur, strictly - you have not.

Included in my posting are observations that your claimed origins of occurrence for these governments are mistaken, by and large - that the Nazi version of fascism in Germany did not gain its power primarily by being elected to it in 1933, for example, but instead by forcible seizure and various manipulations of favor in prior and subsequent years (and that the perceptions of observers at the time are irrelevant to a description of the events themselves, and that you were in error concerning the obliviousness of observers to the implications of the events anyway.) Or that the gun and propaganda employing efforts of representative democracies to impose on other countries have not been, as you claimed, in the service of coercing them into governing themselves as representative democracies ("in the same manner"). Or that the durability of representative democracies cannot be estimated by counting their frequency among other forms of government. Or that representative democracy does not arguably or reasonably feature greater frequency of stupidity in power than any other form of government.

Your responses have consistently - as in #65 - evaded every single one of those issues and implications of your errors of fact and history, and have instead confined themselves to disparagements of posting style and attempted personal insult and the like.

Why is that?

 

[river]

Actually that section you questioned was me responding to river about international financiers role in all this, but I suppose we can run with your rather random quoting for the time being.
In a place of low standards, one must lowers one's own.

Everyone knows violence and a bit of mayhem was involved in the rise of the Nazi party to power. However, as already pointed out, election violence was far more prevalent at the time all over the globe than it is now and didn't send up as many warning flags as it should have. One thing I've always noticed about these two-bit modern historical "commentators" is that they simply don't understand the perspective required to assess these things in relative terms.
It was not "the" factor in the election of the government. The Nazi party did not come to power through violence and vote rigging. These things were a factor - to one extent or another.

Saying things like "They obtained favor by lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence." begins to sound more than a little like propaganda itself - if we eliminate the possibility of outright lying and misdirection on the grounds of a simple lack of knowledge and perspective.

Until it's also pointed out that '"They obtained favor by lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence" also sounds a little like the race to become American President.
I bet you were really proud of that sentence.

As to the rest, the importance of military control is obvious, I've noticed unintelligent men tend to do far better in a representative government than in any other form, and if you're even trying to use natural disasters and luck to reinforce and argument on types of government then you're simply starting to sound desperate.

Thing being, of course, I have been accused of deliberately looking for a fight, but it seems that in this case at least, it's the only reason you're here.
Your position is mostly comprised of weak, unsubstantiated histrionics. You've nothing to say, really, that can't be largely argued against by simple dint of pointing at the subject matter itself.

The real argument here against you, in particular, is that these forms of government do exist and survive all over the globe, more so in fact than representative democracy does.
Clearly, if all of these other forms were in fact as doomed to failure for all those reasons you're attempting to pass off above, they would be folding and everywhere replaced by democracies. China alone is evidence that you're not exactly possessed of a balanced perspective.

But they do rise and continue to exist, don't they? Even under external threat in the form of economic sanction and often simple gunpoint .

And those "arguments" you've outlined above have a tendency to dissolve particularly when that gun is held in the hand of these representative democracies whose own methods of ensuring others govern themselves in the same manner are often a combination of lies and propaganda, an illusory prosperity by swindle and default and debt and theft, power by appointment and violence.

Retribution

Respond to the international financing of Germany ( and the Soviet Union ) ; for that matter ; by Banks of the West .

 

[Retribution]

Already have, River.
Addendum: It's hardly limited to banks of the "west".

 

[river]

Already have, River.
Addendum: It's hardly limited to banks of the "west".

And the Vatican.

Fascism is everywhere.

 

[Retribution]

Kinda thought I'd made that point already.
Last part of #63.


Really depends on whether or not you think you're the "good guys". One man's freedom fighter, and all that...

 

[river]

Kinda thought I'd made that point already.
Last part of #63.


Really depends on whether or not you think you're the "good guys". One man's freedom fighter, and all that...

No .

The last part of # 63 is the worst.

Look Nazism - fascism is about the power to manipulate the populous. For the government's and businesses purpose. Of direction to a goal ; which has not yet been defined.

 

[Retribution]

One thing you'll glean from this forum is that there are a lot of people around here who'll argue for days on end that western governments (focus being the USA, in most cases) engage in that very same manipulation on a daily basis.
I had the impression you were one of them, but I haven't really done much checking on that, by way of apology if I'm wrong.

So... what. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. This is the reason fascism or communism arises? This is the reason they don't? This is the reason western style democracy is more successful?
I'm not sure what your point is at all, I'm afraid.

If you're going to clarify, I'd suggest you check the ground ahead before you take any further steps; it's rather muddy. You might ruin your shoes.

 

[Retribution]

I have argued nothing on moral grounds. I have posted on the manner in which these forms of government occur, strictly - you have not.

er...

Your responses have consistently - as in #65 - evaded every single one of those issues and implications of your errors of fact and history, and have instead confined themselves to disparagements of posting style and attempted personal insult and the like.

Why is that?

I do like to think that the more intelligent members of this forum can see where your problem is, here.
Even they are on the "other side".

The deafening silence arising from this sort of post on your part is certainly saying something; I'm just not sure exactly what.
Perhaps it's several things.

 

[river]

Fascism is about business, corporations controlling the government .

Government and Business dictate policy. Both work together ; rather than being sperate entities.

Think of the power of lobbiest dictating policy and/or laws .

Not government alone .

 

[Retribution]

Hard to know what to say, really.

I'm actually right now thinking of those you see wandering around on the street talking to themselves.
Difficult not to come to the conclusion that at least some of them might be far less disturbed than one might ordinarily suppose.

 

[river]

Hard to know what to say, really.

I'm actually right now thinking of those you see wandering around on the street talking to themselves.
Difficult not to come to the conclusion that at least some of them might be far less disturbed than one might ordinarily suppose.

Some

 

[Retribution]

Yeah. Some.

Straighten up and fly right, dude. Get a haircut. Get a real job.

I actually prefer you to most others, here. That isn't in any way to be construed as saying I agree with you; fact is, I don't, on pretty much everything. Understand that. Or, at least, and by way of preference, I'd hope you understand that your argument here applies across the board.

Don't waste it on the bullshit, man. Don't ever think that opposition to the status quo is a position in and of itself. It isn't. Pick your fight. Make it real.

But don't ever assume that if you're fighting for a chunk of sand in the Gobi, that that chunk of sand is worth it simply because they say it isn't.
Sometimes, they're right. It isn't. Sometimes its just a chunk of sand.

 

[iceaura]

er...

I do like to think that the more intelligent members of this forum can see where your problem is, here.
Even they are on the "other side".

The deafening silence arising from this sort of post on your part is certainly saying something; I'm just not sure exactly what.
Perhaps it's several things.

Perhaps a review of the post you replied to, will help clear up this mystery for you - compare your posting in 73 there, quoted in its entirety, with (say) this:

Your responses have consistently - as in #65 - evaded every single one of those issues and implications of your errors of fact and history, and have instead confined themselves to disparagements of posting style and attempted personal insult and the like.

Why is that?

You are now posting in direct quotation enhanced response to my posting, without addressing a single matter of thread content in my posts. None of your errors regarding the OP topic, as pointed out by me, have you even addressed, let alone explained or corrected.

Why is that?

Here's a synopsis, partial but enough to keep you on topic for a couple of posts: "Included in my posting are observations that your claimed origins of occurrence for these governments are mistaken, by and large - that the Nazi version of fascism in Germany did not gain its power primarily by being elected to it in 1933, for example, but instead by forcible seizure and various manipulations of favor in prior and subsequent years (and that the perceptions of observers at the time are irrelevant to a description of the events themselves, and that you were in error concerning the obliviousness of observers to the implications of the events anyway.) Or that the gun and propaganda employing efforts of representative democracies to impose on other countries have not been, as you claimed, in the service of coercing them into governing themselves as representative democracies ("in the same manner"). Or that the durability of representative democracies cannot be estimated by counting their frequency among other forms of government. Or that representative democracy does not arguably or reasonably feature greater frequency of stupidity in power than any other form of government."

In short, that these bad governments were not, by and large, brought into power inadvertently via foolishly liberal and sincere voters or naively right-minded and transparent foreign policies of representative democracies. They haven't been primarily a consequence of bad tactics by good people. They are not an unavoidable weakness built into representative democracy, only a matter of time in the ignition.

 

[Retribution]

Because you haven't given me anything compelling enough to respond to, Iceaura.

Simply saying "That's irrelevant" to a response and only giving the most flimsy of pretexts to back it up isn't really enough to make me want to come back.
Other than to explain that to you. Got little else to do right now.

"I have posted on the manner in which these forms of government occur, strictly - you have not." was just so off target and, according to my own opinion, an indefensible line that I completely lost interest.
That's something MR might say. I'd hoped you were better than that. Which is another reason for any response at all, at this point.

 

[iceaura]

Because you haven't given me anything compelling enough to respond to, Iceaura.

The various synopses (most recently in 78) of your major posted errors - of fact and logic both - are of course trivial, and hardly worth anyone's time. I agree.

But not compared to your actual responses, about matters so compelling to you as to motivate several responses, but which engage no subject except other people's posting style, supposed character and motive, etc.

Your standards for reply are visible. And they definitely include the matters of thread on which you have already posted errors of fact and logic - you have already chosen to post on them, after all.

So - - - we were looking, if you recall, for explanations of Nazism etc. The OP. You offered a couple of dubious possibilities backed with confused implied argument from apparently inaccurate accounts of historical event.

Such as your attempted dismissal of the role violence played in the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany by pointing to the supposed relative complacency of "people" at the time, compared with now, to such violence. As if that were even relevant, let alone accurate.

Do you have a clarification handy?

This is the current claim status: "In short, that these bad governments were not, by and large, brought into power inadvertently via foolishly liberal and sincere voters or naively right-minded and transparent foreign policies of representative democracies. They haven't been primarily a consequence of bad tactics by good people. They are not an unavoidable weakness built into representative democracy, only a matter of time in the ignition."