been awhile since we had a big poltic fight

Unfortunately this isn't a very satisfactory fight. It's more like this:

1. Acosmist makes a statement
2. I respond to that statement questioning his views, or asking him to explain his points in light of my observations.
3. He concludes that there is no need to respond to my questions, since his massive intellectual superiority means that debating with me is simply beneath him.

>It wouldn't be a stretch to use the very broadest definition of socialism to apply to fascist ideals, though. You can't have fascism without big government, after all.

You can have socialism without big government, however.

Jamie (and trim)... props to you buddy... you are doing a great job backing up your points. but just keep in mind that logic and reason don't come into the equation with right-wing nut-jobs... and that's just as true in the UK as it is here in the US. but props to you for trying.

and yes, Acosmist - 'right wing nut-job' is an ad-hominum directed at you... and I feel no need to back up my claims, because MY intellectual superiority proves to me beyond a reasonable doubt that you are indeed... a right wing nut-job.

have fun ;)

Babak +1

?Are American rightwingers now trying to claim fascism wasnt the ultimate extreme of big business colluding with a powerful executive authority with control over a vast military machine and using fear of the "other" (gypsy,homosexuals,jews, organized labour, NGOs etc) to control society and instead claim that fascism is some sort of left wing socialist goal ??

boggles the mind

@ sean:

Yes, they've been doing this for some time.

There has long been a libertarian streak in the right wing in the U.S., and these guys have a point: fascism is far from what they support, even if they are socially very far right, because it is based on a powerful central state. I can have fruitful conversations with such right-wingers, sometimes getting them to see that, however much they may fear the other (and if they didn't fear the other, then I wouldn't consider them right-wing), it is dangerous to give the government authority to repress the other, because that authority will be turned on them next.

the truth is that the idea of a linear political line (right to left) is quite incomplete... the better model is a graph which has two axis... x axis for state involvement in social issues (personal), and y axis for state involvement in economic issues.

This chart has been used most effectively (and propegandically) by US Libertarians - check out this link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz)

The 'smallest quiz' test questions are very leading and its quite a badly designed set of questions for real social science research, but the two-dimensional model itself is rather impressive (and simple).

the issue of why 'fascism' and 'communism' come close in some minds is that they are both forms of statism... where as one envisions complete state control of the economy (Communism) the other envisions a complete state control of social/personal behavior (Fascism). There is certainly some overlap, but because nuance is lost to so many in the 'nut-job' fringe on the right, these details are irrelevant.

most of these 9-12ers or birthers, or shouters that are dominating the Republican party of 2009 in the US are rather close to Fascists themselves and pretty far from being libertarians... because they WANT the state to control personal behavior (ie abortion, church, and other social issues) but they want corporate control of the economy (minimal to non-existent regulation, opposing a progressive tax system etc).

I enjoy talking to libertarians, as they are for the most-part logic-based... their basic problem, and I pity them this, is that they have NO political party to call home. Real libertarians who do not condone corporate welfare also don't want a theocracy... so they really are an ideology without a political home in the US (that's why Rep./Dr. Ron Paul is so marginal in his own party).

anyways... one thing that has become clear to me over the years, is that in every society you will have 10-15% of the population that are just nuts (even France has Le Pan) and though a few will eventually recover or manage to break free of their own mental chains, most wont. the key to a healthy society is making sure this fringe stays as far away from the levers of power as possible. in my country of birth, Iran, that is the problem... the same 9-12ers and "Beck-is-God" crowd that rejoiced at the "You Lie" line from Congressman Wilson are actually IN CHARGE in Iran's coup-government right now... God forbid these people also take charge here in the US! They are far too close to power as it is.

"Iran's coup-government"? Did I miss a HUGE story?

umm... yes invictus.

The IRGC (the Revolutionary Guard) engineered a falsified election result that gave Ahmadinejad (Former IRGC Commander) a 66% landslide victory. They then took to the streets after the election and beat up, arrested, and cracked down harshly on the protesting population... in the past month, they have put forth 5 sets of 'show trials' and they are now facing open accusations of raping and killing the prisoners they had custoy of.

It is very likely that the opposition leaders, Mousavi, Karoubi, and Khatami may themselves be arrested and imprisoned in the near future...

Oh, I guess you mean that the current leaders remained in power through a coup. I suppose blatantly rigging an election can be called a coup.

To me a coup has the connotation of a change in government, not maintaining the status quo. I suppose that's where the confusion was.

Ok so.
The Muslim thing.
I see the worry about the Muslim population not integrating. You get the same kind of talk here in America about Mexicans. The truth is though, it will just take time. And yes, they will change your culture, but always for the better. That's the American mindset anyway. Newcomers shape the culture, and for the better. The article mentioned that the UK had seen a declined in morals and mentioned that Islam does better at that. That is just one example of why Islam can offer something to Britain.

The Jack the Ripper thing made me laugh too lol

You just have to remember that for a long time in my state of Texas an elsewhere all over the US there were, for one specific example, large communities of Germans who only spoke German and stayed in their neighborhoods. That didn't last forever though. It never does.

The one exception could be the Amish. Their fertility rate is way higher than the average American's but are we freaking out saying they'll take over? No.
A better example may be Catholics. There are more and more Catholics in the US than ever before because of the influx from Latin America and because Catholics of all races have more kids on average than Protestants or non-religious types.

So.... what? I am concerned that Catholics are going to "take over?"
No... even in they eventually become 95% majority I wouldn't cry about it. The world is dynamic and things change... fighting it is idiocy. And I doubt, as the article claims, that even if in 2060 Britain was primarily populated by Muslims, that they would see it as just a place to eat sleep and work. They would see it as home.... why wouldn't they? That's like 70 years to call the place home.

To be perhaps a bit politically incorrect: When the Muslims conquered Morocco, it wasn't their home. The Moroccans who live there now would definitely say it was their home though.

invictus... well, the argument about coup is that they did indeed 'change' the government... in the sense that they took out the "republic" in the "islamic republic" and now its just a straight up military dictatorship. you really have to know the interplay between IRGC and what is going in Iran today, but one of the prevailing mindsets right now is that even the Supreme Leader is now more-or-less under the control of the IRGC and not the other way around.

by the way, the term people in the business use is "White Coup" to reflect the exact discrepancy you indicated.

And the thing about Iran is, the country ALWAYS does things its own way... for some reason, we have a history in Iran of creating new political dynamics... I mean going back to 2500 years ago... i wont list out what I mean, but suffice to say, Iran has always been a trend-setter not a trend-follower... I just hope this "white coup" thing is not a new trend ;)

as for the integration issue... its a non-issue... its only an issue in the deluded, fear-induced, and easily terrorized minds of right wing conservatives who always have to have an 'other' who is threatening them... if they dont, then the world just wont make sense to them. I think this borders on being a psychological condition - the only mitigating thing about it is that a good 10-15% of the population usually suffer from it, so its not uncommon enough for one to classify it as a mental disorder...

In this instance non-integration may well be a non-issue, and I agree that publication has a right-wing bias, and the case is probably overstated; but non-integration is not always a non-issue. I think it is reasonable for a nation to examine its immigration policy and consider the long term implications. A few examples come to mind: for example in American history California and Texas for example were once part of Mexico, but immigration from the United States eventually reached a point where the Mexicans were out-numbered; the outcome was that those state became part of the United States. In Indonesia massive immigration from Java to the other Islands of the archipelago has change the demographic of those Islands. Areas that were once predominantly Christian or Hindu (for example) now have large numbers of Javanese Muslims living there, resulting in ethnic conflict and the detriment of the original inhabitants. Is it wrong for a society to take such factors into consideration?

typo (actually quite a few, but definitely one I should correct).... *emigration from Java to the other islands of the archipelago...

Perhaps, Spyman. But that is certianly not what is happening in the UK right now, despite what the reactionary right-wing scaremongers at the Daily Mail want people to think, and what Acosmist thinks.

That was a terrible article. Mohammed and Muhammed are treated as different names just as Thomas and Tomas and Tommy and Tom are. I noticed the daily mail didn't bother to include those variations, because then maybe Thomas would be the third most common name in England after all.

its the mail what the hell do you expect

@ Centurian: Exactly my view.

You could make this argument for so many names. For example I know someone called Josh. People often ask him "is that short for Joshua?" and he says "No, Josh is my whole first name" - and it is, his parents named him "Josh" not "Joshua", it's on his birth certificate like that.

To group all the variants of "Mohammed" or "Muhammed" into one for the purpose of listing the most popular boys names, as the Daily Mail want to do, would in my view be manipulating the statistics. Counting each spelling as a seperate name is, in terms of statistical analysis, the best way of counting them.

Before anyone disagrees with me, I would ask them to bear in mind also that the following names are ALL versions of "Muhammed":

Mohemmed
Mohemed
Mehmed
Mehmet
Mahomet
Muhamed
Mohammed
Mohamed

Should they ALL be counted as one name, whilst Thomas and Tomas would be counted as two seperate ones?

You're right Jamiet99uk. I don't think the goal of that article is to stimulate an intelligent discussion but rather to sell more newspapers by appealing to peoples prejudices.

spyman +1

That's always the goal of the Daily Mail: play on people's fears and prejudices to shift papers and therefore secure continued advertising revenue (which is where newspapers actually make money. The amount you pay to buy the paper barely covers the cost of distributing it to the newsagents, who themselves only make a profit of about 2p per paper sold)

its nice when you have a 3 letter name :P

and I just loved the fact that the FIRST conclusion it jumped to was that the UK government was deliberately trying to 'hide' the fact that Muslims are taking over the country... it was such perfect tinge of conspiratorial blather to cover up the fact that there was no story what-so-ever in the entire waste of space called an article.

speaking of newspapers dying off... watch this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/michael-moore-newspapers_n_286027.html

so damn accurate.

I don't often agree with Michael Moore, but he sure has a point there. It's hardly so simple as evil corporations, since fewer people have time to read a newspaper and the internet can get information out so much quicker, but he makes a valid argument.

Well spyman, I guess my personal is that people should be able to live anywhere in the world they want if they can pay for it. I've never seen it as right for a country to restrict who enters the nation. If that means Texas goes back to Mexico one day, so be it. Why shouldn't it be that way, if a majority of people vote for that to happen? If the ones that are left don't like that fact, they can move. Especially in the more modern age where the idea of nation-states is really falling away. I live on EARTH. What more do you want.

Again that's a personal view though.. I hardly expect that everyone would share it.

Actually Thucydides, given that you used the important qualfier "if they can pay for it" (by which I am going to assume you mean they must pay the taxes etc in the country they move to) I would agree with your view whole-heartedly. There should be no place in our modern world for xenophobia and building up huge walls at our borders.

(By this I am not saying that we should not police our borders - we must do this to prevent illegal activity such as smuggling - but not to 'keep out foreigners')

Yes. I agree. And yes I do mean they should obey laws and pay taxes, and buy/rent the place they live in... no squatters obviously. And borders do need to be watched for security reasons but all this business of random quota assignments, only 2,000 people in a year from Country X and so on... to me it's ludicrous. And I feel one should be able to get on an attainable path of citizenship in any country they move to. Countries that do not allow foreigners to become citizens... well I guess I have a beef with those countries, if there are any.