5 ms·

Every ideology appeals to emotions—liberalism, democracy, fascism, communism, etc. This is why we seldom see academic professors, who deliver lectures on TV, wi

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.
    - IndySun 3y ago
      Good. Replacing 'believing' with 'dying' gives meaning to an otherwise odd maxim.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
  I really like Churchills sentiment here. Democracy is very flawed in many aspects in my opinion, starting with the fact that it is the rule of majority over minority. Yet all other systems of governance seem much worse to me (any rule of minority over majority system like monarchy or dictatorship for example). Monarchy for example is great as long as your monarch is a sensible, smart, and empathetic person - but terrible when the ones after them aren’t. I really can’t come up with a better alternative to democracy (aka majority rule) even if I think many of the problems in contemporary western society stem from that majority rule. Of course there are many more devils in the details and democracies can vary widely across the spectrum. To me a socialist (as in social, as in having the interest of „the people“ as guiding principle) democracy seems to be the best system humans have been able to come up with so far - the best as in resulting in a good outcome for the biggest portion of people. The Nordic states seem to have gotten it right in most aspects, even if there are many problems even there. I wonder if there are any other good propositions or systems of governance that have been tried and proven that I have been missing (Spain's anarchist or Mexican syndicalism comes to mind, but I know too little about them to pass any judgement - plus they have been very localised systems afaict)
the_af 3y ago
Every ideology does, but it's question of how and how much. Popular support for fascism is almost exclusively predicated on strong emotions felt about vague/changing subjects. Fascist speakers excelled at driving their audience into a frenzy. Democracy is not consistently about this, and there's also rational debate about it. Rational debate wasn't the focus of fascism, and in fact it was actively shunned -- fascism was about sacrifice, blood and belief, not reason. Someone else linked to the reflections on the language of the Third Reich, and how it was meant to drive emotions and irrational thinking. Fascism cannot coexist with reason. Other forms of evil might, but not this one.
- lossolo 3y ago
  You seem to be confusing propaganda with the fundamental principles of an ideology. Can you specify which aspects of the defined fundamentals of fascism lack logic?
  - the_af 3y ago
    I'm not confusing anything and much has been written about how fascism wasn't a particular coherent or logical set of principles. There's not much you can point at and say "this is the logical core of fascism", because there is almost none. It's all very ad-hoc. "Propaganda" is almost all there is to fascism, if you take it away there's almost nothing left. I hope you can understand this is a topic that exceeds the scope of an HN comment. If you want to read about this, there's tons of literature.
    - lossolo 3y ago
      It seems that you are indeed conflating the two if you're unable to provide arguments to support your thesis. What you've offered is an opinion colored by your moral judgment. I asked you to identify which of the main fundamentals of fascism lack logic. This request doesn't exceed the scope of an HN comment. The logic of fascism is grounded in the belief that authoritarian leadership, nationalism, collectivism over individualism, militarism, use of propaganda and mass mobilization are necessary for creating a strong, unified, and powerful nation. It posits that individual freedoms and democratic processes can be sacrificed for the sake of national unity, strength, and revival. So, I ask again: Where exactly do you see a lack of logic? I'm not seeking a moral judgment about the methods, but a purely logical analysis.

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.
  - IndySun 3y ago
    Good. Replacing 'believing' with 'dying' gives meaning to an otherwise odd maxim.
sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
I really like Churchills sentiment here. Democracy is very flawed in many aspects in my opinion, starting with the fact that it is the rule of majority over minority. Yet all other systems of governance seem much worse to me (any rule of minority over majority system like monarchy or dictatorship for example). Monarchy for example is great as long as your monarch is a sensible, smart, and empathetic person - but terrible when the ones after them aren’t. I really can’t come up with a better alternative to democracy (aka majority rule) even if I think many of the problems in contemporary western society stem from that majority rule. Of course there are many more devils in the details and democracies can vary widely across the spectrum. To me a socialist (as in social, as in having the interest of „the people“ as guiding principle) democracy seems to be the best system humans have been able to come up with so far - the best as in resulting in a good outcome for the biggest portion of people. The Nordic states seem to have gotten it right in most aspects, even if there are many problems even there. I wonder if there are any other good propositions or systems of governance that have been tried and proven that I have been missing (Spain's anarchist or Mexican syndicalism comes to mind, but I know too little about them to pass any judgement - plus they have been very localised systems afaict)

the_af 3y ago

Every ideology does, but it's question of how and how much. Popular support for fascism is almost exclusively predicated on strong emotions felt about vague/changing subjects. Fascist speakers excelled at driving their audience into a frenzy. Democracy is not consistently about this, and there's also rational debate about it. Rational debate wasn't the focus of fascism, and in fact it was actively shunned -- fascism was about sacrifice, blood and belief, not reason. Someone else linked to the reflections on the language of the Third Reich, and how it was meant to drive emotions and irrational thinking. Fascism cannot coexist with reason. Other forms of evil might, but not this one.

lossolo 3y ago
You seem to be confusing propaganda with the fundamental principles of an ideology. Can you specify which aspects of the defined fundamentals of fascism lack logic?
- the_af 3y ago
  I'm not confusing anything and much has been written about how fascism wasn't a particular coherent or logical set of principles. There's not much you can point at and say "this is the logical core of fascism", because there is almost none. It's all very ad-hoc. "Propaganda" is almost all there is to fascism, if you take it away there's almost nothing left. I hope you can understand this is a topic that exceeds the scope of an HN comment. If you want to read about this, there's tons of literature.
  - lossolo 3y ago
    It seems that you are indeed conflating the two if you're unable to provide arguments to support your thesis. What you've offered is an opinion colored by your moral judgment. I asked you to identify which of the main fundamentals of fascism lack logic. This request doesn't exceed the scope of an HN comment. The logic of fascism is grounded in the belief that authoritarian leadership, nationalism, collectivism over individualism, militarism, use of propaganda and mass mobilization are necessary for creating a strong, unified, and powerful nation. It posits that individual freedoms and democratic processes can be sacrificed for the sake of national unity, strength, and revival. So, I ask again: Where exactly do you see a lack of logic? I'm not seeking a moral judgment about the methods, but a purely logical analysis.