Right-wing

[Dante]

Is there anyone out there who agree with me? Or am I the only Right-wing, Fascist, Imerialistic technocrat around? There's got to be someone else!

Edric started the conversation for Left winging people (which I did not intrude on) so I thought I'd try it for Right wingers. But then I realised, are there any others? Speak out if you are! There's nothing to be ashamed of...

[Apollyon]

Erm... I think I am. :)

[nemafakei]

I am not Fascist, Imperialistic, but I am do support a constitutional monarchy and a system by which strong decisions can be made without elected representatives. And I am very right wing on moral issues.

[Navaros]

I am a Right-Wing Facist, in fact being so even got me in quite a bit of trouble with Gob at the old WW boards and I singlehandedly turned an offtopic thread into one of the most Famous Threads ever. it was legendary. every now and then, i still get pages on WOL about that thread even over a year later. LOL

You are not alone, my brother.

[Acriku]

What does it mean to be Right-Wing morally? Is it that you have your morals, and will not change them, or that you have your morals passed down to you, never changing, or perhaps something else? Also, where does moral development fall in conscerning your 'wing'?

[zamboe]

I am not Facist neither Imperialistic.

But I am technocrat and right -wingded in most issues as well as quite conservative as any other Catholic.

I am not Fascist, Imperialistic, but I am do support a constitutional monarchy and a system by which strong decisions can be made without elected representatives. And I am very right wing on moral issues.

Should I understand you only believe in democracy for futile things ?, if so, quite english manner I'd say.

I find very strange (not usuall would be a more accurate term) that you are right wind on moral issues and at the same time you declare yourself atheist, since usually moral issues are linked to somekind of religion.

[SurlyPIG]

I am rightish economically, though leftish socially.

[Caid Ivik]

Fascism is a system, which - in utopical meaning - is done everything for the will of the Nation. Even here, same as in communism, everything is in hands of the State, so I think putting it on the right side of spectre is unfortunate and nonprecisious. Also technocratism was the main course Stalin choosed for USSR. All efforts in whole USSR history were to be technically better than the West, so even this isn't characteristic for the Rights. And imperialism? I don't think there is difference between spreading economically than by "revolution"...

Capitalism is functional, because it has no straight ideology. All definitions were made by opposers, which just wanted to descript their phantom enemy.

[Egeides]

Arohk:

What are your arguments exactly to support fascism? What do you call fascism exactly? Mussolini's italian system?

[Navaros]

Arohk:

What are your arguments exactly to support fascism? What do you call fascism exactly?

i didn't read a bunch of technical jargon and hot air on the subject so i can't answer in a "formal" way but here's the way i see it:

the average person is a blithering idiot. so why then, would it make sense to have a mob of blithering idiots elect a government???!!!! these blithering idiots are naturally going to elect a government which is also full of blithering idiots! is that "progress"? i say not.

think of Facism as a game of "Lemmings". the average person is a Lemming. The Facist Leader is the guy who controls the Lemmings for their own best interests to be met (ie: the "player" in a game of Lemmings).

better to have a genius who knows what he's doing take control of the blithering idiots and tell them what's good for them, since he knows better what is good for them than they do, because they are blithering idiots.

secondly, one thing the Bible says is true which can basically be summed up as: "All men are born evil". since all men are naturally evil, if given the opportunity en massse, they will naturally elect an EVIL lot of blithering idiots to make their laws. this results in the immoral cesspool-esque society that is now North America. if one righteous man takes charge, he can purge much of this evil away from the society and make it somewhat moral. you may say, "but the man in charge would be evil, too!" and yes that is true to some degree; but a smart, devoted man with strong convictions is still far less evil than your Average Joe Blithering.

[Dante]

Go here for my arguments (against Emprworm) for Imperialism. There is most likely no mention of Fascism, but you get the idea.

[Egeides]

Ok, I see.

But wasn't monarchy and these kind of "electoral monarchies" (nobles with an elite who votes) less efficient? We could see these systems in Italy, Germany,... And they were generally far from good for people!

Intellectuals got problems in these places... Apparently the rulers weren't acting more intelligently, maybe even less sometimes because there wasn't the same political pressure for evolution.

I am far from saying that the actual democracies (or call this how you wish) are perfect though. Political machinations, etc.The elected ones are the ones able to promote their campaign (so obviously politically intelligent).

Yes? No? What don't you find in actual systems that you'd find in centralised ones?

[Caid Ivik]

Arohk:

What are your arguments exactly to support fascism? What do you call fascism exactly?

i didn't read a bunch of technical jargon and hot air on the subject so i can't answer in a "formal" way but here's the way i see it:

the average person is a blithering idiot. so why then, would it make sense to have a mob of blithering idiots elect a government???!!!! these blithering idiots are naturally going to elect a government which is also full of blithering idiots! is that "progress"? i say not.

think of Facism as a game of "Lemmings". the average person is a Lemming. The Facist Leader is the guy who controls the Lemmings for their own best interests to be met (ie: the "player" in a game of Lemmings).

better to have a genius who knows what he's doing take control of the blithering idiots and tell them what's good for them, since he knows better what is good for them than they do, because they are blithering idiots.

This is a definition of fascism? ;D That is ideology of any oppressional state. Also it is leftist idea: sacrifice some things to government and it will make your country a paradise.

[Dante]

The purpose of a human being is to look after themself. Therefore the purpose of any government will sooner or later be to look after itself. Why fight it? It's inevitable. It won't be good for the people, it'll be good for the aristocratic

[Acriku]

The instincts for survival often branch further than oneself, to the group or tribe. It can also branch out to the community, state, nation, or world. I serve my country because I think it helps the world out, etc.

[Warlord Ripskar]

My political leanings are Jacobite Royalist.

Within a country there are various tasks which must be carried out, diplomacy, tax collection, law and order, defence, etc.

Anarchism does not allow for these things and would be crippled immediately. These tasks carry with them a proportion of power and therefore the possibility of corruption. What must be avoided at all costs is the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual without any balencing power elsewhere, Thus in a stable monarchy the monarch holds the position of head of state but is kept in check by reliance upon a strata of less powerful individuals who together are more powerful than the monarch. This system results in the neccesity to strike deals and compromises between individuals in order to carry out tasks.

Exactly who makes up the strata of less powerful individuals is open to debate though representatives of governmental functions should be present.

Whether or not this group is democratically elected or to what extent it is democratically elected is similarly subject to review.

[Edric O]

I didn't mean to intrude, but Caid Ivik is making idiotic (no offense intended) statements about the left wing, so I have to correct him:

Fascism is a system, which - in utopical meaning - is done everything for the will of the Nation. Even here, same as in communism, everything is in hands of the State, so I think putting it on the right side of spectre is unfortunate and nonprecisious.

That is ideology of any oppressional state. Also it is leftist idea: sacrifice some things to government and it will make your country a paradise.

Caid, you're horribly confusing the left/right scale with the authoritarian/libertarian one. Look at the Political Compass, for God's sake!

What you're talking about is authoritarianism, not leftism (or rightism, for that matter). Fascism is neither left not right, it is simply the most extreme forum of authoritarianism. Nazism is right-wing authoritarianism, while Stalinism is left-wing authoritarianism. They can both be called fascist.

On the other hand, you and I are both libertarians. I am a Communist (which is the most extreme form of leftism), but that doesn't say anything about my alignment on the authoritarianism/libertarianism scale. Communists can be extreme authoritarians (stalinists) or extreme libertarians (anarcho-communists), or anything in between. I happen to be a libertarian communist, just like you are a libertarian rightist.

So please don't confuse the two political scales any more.

[Egeides]

" Also it is leftist idea: sacrifice some things to government and it will make your country a paradise. "

There isn't supposed to be any sacrifice since it should be redistributed.

Where did you heard that?...

[Edric O]

I already corrected him... Let's not take this thread off-topic.

[Caid Ivik]

I've disagreed with Compass already. For liberty, better graph should be Gauss' curve. Sacrificing property for the state is what you are for, even with your points about first christian societies. There ARE some which product more than the others, and they have to sacrifice their overproduction for the others, altough they would have i.e.bigger needs. If they do it voluntarily, ok. But it is unable to base a state on voluntarship, so there must be some revolution to make it - even by rough way. Maybe you don't support idea of a Party or State, which should control the "common property", but then I have (again) a link for you:

http://www.csaf.cz ;D

[Edric O]

You've disagreed with the way the Political Compass placed you on their chart, not with the chart itself! And besides, that's a commonly accepted chart, used by a lot more people than those from the Compass site.

What I'm trying to say is that your view of politics is too simplistic. The left/right scale is not enough to locate an ideology. The authoritarian/libertarian one is also needed.

Sacrificing property for the state is what you are for, even with your points about first christian societies.

Not for the damn state, but for your fellow human beings! I thought I made that clear by now! The state is only an artificial construct, which must exist in order to preserve law and order. The people must always have full control of the state. AND THE STATE EXISTS ONLY TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.

[Caid Ivik]

I mean political compass is still too simplified. It is very uncomplete, and specially inaccurate. For example, there is nothing about ideological flexibility, which is possible in oligarchy, but not in fascism, altough you may say both are on same corner of the compass. I disagreed with the system of questions. Chart itself isn't mistaking, but I consider it as NOT ENOUGH. I've made myself wider spectrum, search for it in older threads if you'll be interested.

Not for the damn state, but for your fellow human beings! I thought I made that clear by now! The state is only an artificial construct, which must exist in order to preserve law and order. The people must always have full control of the state. AND THE STATE EXISTS ONLY TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.

You don't need to tell me it again ;) Anyway, those are HUMANS who compose the government, no Shivans or Vasudans...

Maybe you don't support idea of a Party or State, which should control the "common property", but then I have (again) a link for you:

http://www.csaf.cz ;D

[Dante]

Oh, never mind. I'm obviously the only one who wants to turn the world into a mini Imperium...

[Egeides]

Dust: You said that democracy was less efficient than monarchy. Why not explainning yourself by using history as a source?

[Caid Ivik]

Imperium (from impero, rule) is a dictatorship, but doesn't need to be monarchistic. First imperium was Roman, where the imperators were military prefects in conquered lands. Later it became an honor title for good or veteran generals. Caesar adopted this title as imperator of Rome and whole Empire. Maybe the imperium could be realistic, if the imperator would be elected democratically, but I feel no one could resist such seducing power.