Arising_uk wrote:The Voice of Time wrote:I go with this one. Anyways, it's meaningless to say that a name leads to a reality. You can speak of a group of people who uses that name as a symbol of their cause, but the name itself will only lead nowhere. ...
I understand what you say but a group that takes a name will lead it to somewhere.
There are communists who are anarchists, liberals who are facists and conservatives who are fundamentalists... it got nothing to do with the name, you must speak about people not names. ...
I can understand anarcho-communists - just, but liberal-fascists I doubt and fundamentalist can apply to most of the terms, what do you mean by it?
A group that takes a name will
indeed take it somewhere, but the illusion that they represent the idea must not be allowed, and so the must not be allowed to take it somewhere else than its actual self. The soviet union was a "democracy". China is the "people's republic". However, these words are to us senseless, we who actually have a good chance of making a difference in our own country and world (at least I have since Norway is a small country and relatively easy to get elected). We who are (or can be and in my country we are the top of the world in this) organized among ourselves, we can make a difference. These people, with their democracy and people's rule, are using symbols because they can and not because they have genuine right in it. So to say that they take it somewhere is like saying a thug gets his way, because yes, when he carries a gun he usually does, but it's not
right, and so it becomes a twist of what should've taken place and what under the rule righteousness takes place.
As for liberal-facists people think that liberalism just means all forms of *freedom* and that facism necessarily means strictness and stiffness. That's not true. Facism is the centralization of power and thought around a character, a person, and a mass-mobilization of the people for the causes of the personhood, and of course the authority is necessary. In a sense, you could say that Hitler
was the facism of his country. I read the wiki-article but it's too historical, so no, eugenics and constant discipline is not mandatory. You could have a facist rule of hippies if you wanted to, the important part would be that the hippies all mobilized to fend off whatever the leader felt the need to dispose of, and that they believed in him as a personhood, a character, as a leader of them, and guarded his words like the words of an All-Mighty. I know it sounds weird, because such a thing has never existed as far as I know, but it very well can exist. Don't think Nazis never took a joint and relaxed or went fornicating at random, taking their own liberties. A country can be a big motherfucking lazy ass of a people who almost always do exactly what they want to and then in just a moment of a radio-speech they can all bring out their guns and rally to the cause and even butcher each and every one who disobeyed the words of the leader. Call it weak facism but it is what it is. About fundamentalist conservatives I was thinking more that, at least in Norway, conservatives are very liberal, and they usually want to go back to less rules and more power to the individual in terms of economy. And also they tend to have less stronger opinions about what should be and more relaxed about, yes, rules and stuff. That things should be more up to the individual. So fundamentalist conservatives in that sense would be less intuitive than perhaps fundamentalist communists or liberals.
Hope this answers what I meant
