10 ms·

I don't think it's so simple. Support for fascism can seem sensible and logical if you let yourself think that between you and greatness stands a minority whose

• KittenInABox 3y ago
  I think the initial assumption comes from emotion. Humans are not dual creatures with frontend and backends that must communicate through an API between their emotions and thoughts. Emotions and thoughts are actually phenomenon in simultaneous occurrence-- your thoughts can trigger emotions (planning what to do after being laid off can trigger anxiety) and your emotions can trigger thoughts (you're anxious, so you consider putting planning off and binge a show/movie). Fear of the "other" is clearly an emotion, but all the justifications, reasons, and overall narratives about the "other" are thoughts.
• Noughmad 3y ago
  "X can seem sensible and logical if you ignore sense and logic and believe your emotions instead". Yes, that's true for everything, and it is exactly what believing your emotions over facts means.
  • lewhoo 3y ago
    But that's just ad absurdum considering we don't have straight answers when it comes to socio-political issues.
    • ryanklee 3y ago
      It's absolutely straightforward to uphold Democratic principles over Fascistic enterprises. People who get this wrong are simply wrong, and it's likely emotional and psychological forces that got them there, not rational, historiographic, or empirical ones. The current headwinds are a result of ill-equiped individuals being manipulated by other ill-equiped individuals.
      • lewhoo 3y ago
        > It's absolutely straightforward to uphold Democratic principles over Fascistic enterprises. That may be, but it also seems perfectly logical to claim democracy is broken because a voice of an educated person carries same weight than that of a high school dropout. All you need to do is extend this logic a bit. I think it is because of our emotions, empathy or maybe something else that we see that this "flaw" in democracy isn't really a flaw. > ill-equiped individuals being manipulated by other ill-equiped individuals Except fascism wasn't only a manipulation. Had fascism succeeded it would've made the participating states extremely rich, powerful and influential throughout the next (maybe) hundreds of years.
        • throwaway171223 3y ago
          > to claim democracy is broken because a voice of an educated person carries same weight than that of a high school dropout Is not logical. > fascism wasn't only a manipulation No successful ideology is only a manipulation. > Had fascism succeeded I doubt anyone really knows why, but the historical fact is that it didn't.
          • johnnyanmac 3y ago
            >Is not logical. How so? >No successful ideology is only a manipulation. Depends on how you define success. We can say "fascism didn't succeed" but it certainly didn't blow over as a trend. Not back then, and not now.
            • throwaway171223 3y ago
              As a common meeting ground between Hobbes and Rousseau (and probably Locke, which I confess I have not read), anyone can hold and fire a gun. Considering the original context in whence Greek democracy flourished, I'd say that's a fair extrapolation to modern times.
              • johnnyanmac 3y ago
    • throwaway171223 3y ago
      We do though, We've had them since the first time a group of farming monkeys decided to post day/night guards on the granary. Those posts have been filled around the clock ever since. To my knowledge the first ones to formalize this were Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau but, in all cases, very little has changed since. To me, that's as straight an answer as you're ever going to get
      • mordae 3y ago
        Since then a single farmer feeds thousands of people. We are producing more and with much less effort than we did before we have started farming and had to post the guards. Yet the guards remain and insist that they are still needed.
        • throwaway171223 3y ago
          By my understanding, the definition of granary has changed since.
• the_af 3y ago
  You are effectively describing an appeal to emotions, not reason.
  • lossolo 3y ago
    Every ideology appeals to emotions—liberalism, democracy, fascism, communism, etc. This is why we seldom see academic professors, who deliver lectures on TV, winning elections based solely on their lectures. Ideologies aim to harness people's emotions to gain support. Democracy, fascism, and communism all possess underlying logic. By analyzing these ideologies dispassionately, without moral judgments, one can discern the logic in each of them. When encountering opposition, there are numerous ways to resolve conflict and achieve one's goals. These include discussion, compromise, and litigation, but also extend to extreme measures like murder and genocide. While one cannot deny the existence of these methods, their acceptability depends on individual values.
    • narag 3y ago
      Every ideology appeals to emotions... I can't find the source right now, but someone said that believing in democracy is like believing in the metric system. And there's another (Churchill's?) one saying that it's the worst government system, except all the others. Not very exciting definitions, more like cynics' choice.
      • IndySun 3y ago
        >..someone said that believing in democracy is like believing in the metric system.. I have no idea whatsoever the hidden meaning here.
        • narag 3y ago
          I found it, it was "dying for democracy..." instead. The meaning? Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Humans can die for freedom. Democracy doesn't sound as such an epic thing to die for.
• Aunche 3y ago
  > Not every wrong assumption comes from emotion I'm not sure what you mean by that. Every assumption right or wrong comes from emotion. The problem tends to come when people let their emotions are left completely unchecked. "Bankers are taking advantage of me. My banker is an X minority. Therefore, we need to exterminate X minority" indeed has a nonzero degree of logic, but it's not the sort of reasoning 99% of people would come up with in a vacuum. A counterpoint is that sometimes an irrational degree of emotion may be required to do extraordinary things like soldiers being brainwashed to fight even a defensive war, building a cathedral that fitting of the magnificence of god, or even a lot of cult-like startups.
  • lewhoo 3y ago
    > Every assumption right or wrong comes from emotion. I disagree. Wrong assumptions are often just a conclusion of limited or false knowledge.
    • johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Well, if you remember how not every one wanted to learn in school and realize those people still "grew up", you realize how impractical it can be to make sure everyone has sufficient knowledge.
• arrosenberg 3y ago
  That seems to be perfectly consistent - it's pure hubris and ego to believe that you are great or that a group of people would care enough about you to dedicate themselves so. That's not for you to judge, but for the rest of us. Pure emotion, no logic.
  • lewhoo 3y ago
    There are plenty of exceptions to recall here. People who thought of themselves as great but were diminished by others for being fools are easy to find in history of science in particular. I'd say if you invoke hubris or ego then you yourself are reacting emotionally - then who is right and who is wrong would probably only rely on the outcome of my endeavors (successful or not).
    • arrosenberg 3y ago
      > I'd say if you invoke hubris or ego then you yourself are reacting emotionally - then who is right and who is wrong would probably only rely on the outcome of my endeavors (successful or not). Ah yes - "I am rubber, you are glue". Given that this is a hypothetical, and I have no stake in the outcome, I think it is reasonable to conclude I am not being emotional about this. > People who thought of themselves as great but were diminished by others for being fools are easy to find in history of science in particular. And how many claimed to be great that are not in the history books?
      • lewhoo 3y ago
        > Given that this is a hypothetical, and I have no stake in the outcome, I think it is reasonable to conclude I am not being emotional about this. And why would you assume that ? If you hand no stake then I'd say it's far less likely to go for descriptions like hubris or ego. I have no stake in chess and I wouldn't call Kasparov anything like that but people more invested in chess certainly do because it's closer to heart for them. > And how many claimed to be great that are not in the history books? We don't know, because they're not in the books. But seriously, how exactly does this matter if you are just searching for logical support ?
• wongarsu 3y ago
  If you reduce fascism to "let's genocide everyone else", of course the ideology doesn't make sense. I would say the idea of fascism is more about doing what's best for the nation or people, guided by a strong centrally led state, and a belief that imperialism and war can be appropriate tools to further this goal. It's adjacent to ultranationalism (though it doesn't have to be about the nation). For example to name the most well-known example, Hitler's goals were: - unite the German people under one country - more lebensraum (space to live) for said German people - get rid of undesirables who hold the Germans back (Jews, disabled people, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc) If you start from the axioms that the German people are the best and should be elevated and all other people don't deserve compassion, it's not hard to arrive at those goals by pure reason. Of course those are bad axioms from our point of view, but you can't reason yourself away from your axioms.
  • felipeerias 3y ago
    It's very easy to get to fascism from Darwinism: the best are destined to prosper and rule, everybody else is doomed to servitude and eventual extinction, and that's how progress is made. In fact, all sorts of eugenic and racist ideas were popular in the West until the Nazis took them to their obvious conclusion.
• raxxorraxor 3y ago
  One of the main motivators of people looking for strong leadership is fear and mostly a purely emotional need. Mostly fear of being taken advantage of. But yes, it also doesn't have to be irrational, it just was for the most prominent instance of fascism. Using your mind and getting some distance and perspective would be quite beneficial here. The heart can follow the mind or the other way around. There isn't a clear cut and there cannot be a general answer which direction is the better one. What probably is true in almost any case is that if you have an image of an enemy to put all the blame on, he probably just looks at you from the mirror.
• denton-scratch 3y ago
  I've been wondering lately how much fascist ideas derive from the time of Julius Caesar and imperial Rome. Fascists seem to love Roman architecture, huge buildings with lots of pillars and pediments. They love massed ranks of marching soldiers, and imperial conquest. Caesar was murdered to stop him becoming a King; but the process continued, and Octavian became the first emperor. Murdering the tyrant isn't enough, and imperial Rome lasted 500 years. I've realized that my knowledge of Julius Caesar is sorely wanting, consisting mainly of vaguely-remembered quotes from Shakespeare's play (which, I realize, I've never read through, and never seen on stage). I evidently have some reading to do.