The Maelstrom of Violence

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-14-2017, 05:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The reason for that is because Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were all authoritarian regimes with more or less centrally planned economies.  (Remember Nazi is a German Language abbreviation for the words National Socialist.  All three were socialist so their differences were more a matter of what spices the baker favored rather than if yeast and flour were used.)

I don't see the use of fascist or fascist like tendencies without a credible threat of communism, or some other leftist absurdity.  The class interests of those who own capital is to see that capital make them huge profits.  Fascists eventually end up with a centrally planned economy, something not in the interests of the owners of capital unless those owners happen to be the largest and most well established firms.  That said in the West such blue chip corporations have far too many shareholders to please.

The structure I put on things has modern authoritarian governments growing out of agricultural age values. The government is willing to terrorize its own people and features such things as secret police and knocks on the door in the middle of the night. The values do not include functioning multiparty democracy or real human rights. See Genghis Khan for one early authoritarian example, or any of Cynic Hero's old time examples of how things were and might yet be done.

Sure, you can find patterns where modern authoritarian governments take a shape similar to others which have come before. It is easier to borrow than create. I just wouldn't consider such patterns to be inherent limits. The pattern will be shifted as necessary to meet the dictator's need.

I'm also not sure that a blue leaning solution to the hypothetical post scarcity economic problems might not count as a "leftist absurdity" by some right leaning extreme partisan authoritarian. An awful lot of people are stuck looking at things from the mid 20th century perspective. I think that lessons were learned in that era, that the things tried now will not be as extreme as they were back then. I am watching the Scandinavian 'socialist' pattern with vague hope, while others scream in panic at the word 'socialist' as much as what is actually going on.

I see the key question is if democracy and human rights can hang on, or whether the elite owners of the means of production can co-opt government. An awful lot of attention has been diverted in the US to the urban / rural values divide, but the haves / haves not divide might truly be more key.