Fascism is Heroarchy

[Jonathan101]

That definition is dangerously close to being unfalsifiable since any time a Fascist seems to not think like that you could just say "well, fascism isn't logically consistent anyway" or "well, the fascist leaders have moved the goalposts again" etc

Many actual fascists never saw themselves as loyal to traditional power structures or thought that their movement was defined by a hatred of outsiders at all, not to mention there were actually plenty of instances of fascists questioning their leaders or objecting to "unquestioning obedience" to the leader even when Hitler and Mussolini made it official policy.

Defining it as inherently an outgrowth of conservative beliefs also ignores that Fascists began as National Syndicalists, who of course derived from Syndicalists in general, or the utter hostility many fascists displayed to monarchists and the church (even if they were willing to compromise this hostility for power at times).

It also doesn't actually distinguish it from Leftist authoritarianism at all because many authoritarian Leftist states (such as Stalinist Russia) fit that definition just fine, and on top of that plenty of non-fascist regimes and movements have "moved the goalposts" of their ideology or redefined said ideology according to their needs, so it's hardly a distinguishing feature of any ideology.

[CharlesPhipps]

That definition is dangerously close to being unfalsifiable since any time a Fascist seems to not think like that you could just say "well, fascism isn't logically consistent anyway" or "well, the fascist leaders have moved the goalposts again" etc

Which is exactly the point. I'm not discarding the rest of your post but Nazism is a perfect example of that as what "Nazism is/was" changed dramatically under what exactly Hitler was going for at the moment. The Nazism of the Beerhall Pustch is different from the Nazism of the Night of Long Knives and is different from the Nazism as it evolved when he finally came to power as Chancellor.

And yes, I know that "the Nazis aren't the be end all of fascism" as we have Mussolini but the fact that Mussolini's fascism was so distinct and changed so much (to accomadate his needs when he was overthrown before restored by Hitler) is part of the point.

It's why people can/do debate things like whether Franco was a fascist.

Many actual fascists never saw themselves as loyal to traditional power structures or thought that their movement was defined by a hatred of outsiders at all, not to mention there were actually plenty of instances of fascists questioning their leaders or objecting to "unquestioning obedience" to the leader even when Hitler and Mussolini made it official policy

At that point, I think you're getting into the issue of it not being fascist at all and missing the fact that reactionary means that they're NOT conservatives but take the views of the Right and go far beyond their traditional interpretation.

Take another less talked about fascist dictator of the 1930s and 1940s in Marshal Petain. Petain is defined primarily as being Hitler's flunkie (justifiably so) and squadering his WW1 legacy (again) but that ignores that he had a whole ideology that he attempted to sell to the French people. A Far Right conservative revival of what HE perceived as "traditional" French culture that had been destroyed by outsiders, "decadence", and an unwillingness of the public to sacrifice.

Petain's idealized France and traditions NEVER EXISTED BEFORE and were an entirely new ideal that was hostile to the Church, nobility, and traditional French life. Yet you can't possibly think they're not reactionary conservative ones.

[MithrandirOlorin]

See I disagree with calling Petain Fascist, he and Leval were collaborators for pragmatic purposes but were not actually ideological Fascists.

[pilight]

Going back to the original post, it's not just the left who need to abandon meritocracy. Everyone should abandon it. The word was coined to describe a dystopian society. People who argue for it always reserve the right to define what "merit" is and shockingly they always choose to describe people like themselves.

[MithrandirOlorin]

Obviously, but Left should be the ones who already know that.

[CharlesPhipps]

See I disagree with calling Petain Fascist, he and Leval were collaborators for pragmatic purposes but were not actually ideological Fascists.

This is notably an Orwellian retcon propagated by De Gaulle.

Because the truth was that Petain wasn't remotely pragmatic and was a since believer in Nazism (or at least the Third Reich). Churchill and Roosevelt believed he was playing the long game and would be an ally when they invaded Normandy but, in fact, the Vichy French fought tooth and nail the entire time before retreating to Germany before fighting more. Notably, De Gaulle SAID this was the case and was repeatedly ignored as they wanted to believe Petain was their ally.

And then De Gaulle to "heal" France created the myth that every Frenchman was secretly resisting when collaboration was coined by Petain.

I was genuinely stunned to hear and read about Petain's speeches that were full of reversing the attitudes of the French Revolution and restoring some weird uber-conservative spirit with an end to French democracy that he viewed as week.

The funny thing was that Hitler hated Petain and the French as a whole while the latter believed they would be a major part of the new Empire.

[clearspira]

Going back to the original post, it's not just the left who need to abandon meritocracy. Everyone should abandon it. The word was coined to describe a dystopian society. People who argue for it always reserve the right to define what "merit" is and shockingly they always choose to describe people like themselves.

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no problem with the notion that the cream should automatically rise to the top. The alternative is Donald Trump as president - a notion that if you suggested it ten years ago it would look like either slippery slope fallacy or reductio ad absurdum. And yet, here we are aren't we? Perhaps even for a second time.

We're not all equal. And we can bleat and cry about that all we want but this a luxury afforded to us by our incredibly over-privileged society that allows under-achievers to flourish. And i'm not putting myself on some pedestal here. If civilisation fell tomorrow, it would be the job of society to save the astronauts, the surgeons, the scientists, the scholars. It wouldn't be to save me for any other purpose than manual labour. This is what acknowledging realism looks like.

I agree however that it is very difficult to set an objective set of measurements as to who the ''best'' are and it would be very difficult to enforce. But that does not change my belief that the world would be better off for it if we managed to pull it off.

[MithrandirOlorin]

See I disagree with calling Petain Fascist, he and Leval were collaborators for pragmatic purposes but were not actually ideological Fascists.

This is notably an Orwellian retcon propagated by De Gaulle.

Because the truth was that Petain wasn't remotely pragmatic and was a since believer in Nazism (or at least the Third Reich). Churchill and Roosevelt believed he was playing the long game and would be an ally when they invaded Normandy but, in fact, the Vichy French fought tooth and nail the entire time before retreating to Germany before fighting more. Notably, De Gaulle SAID this was the case and was repeatedly ignored as they wanted to believe Petain was their ally.

And then De Gaulle to "heal" France created the myth that every Frenchman was secretly resisting when collaboration was coined by Petain.

I was genuinely stunned to hear and read about Petain's speeches that were full of reversing the attitudes of the French Revolution and restoring some weird uber-conservative spirit with an end to French democracy that he viewed as week.

The funny thing was that Hitler hated Petain and the French as a whole while the latter believed they would be a major part of the new Empire.

Petain at worst was like Franco, a generic reactionary Dictator without an actual Philosophy behind him at all (my problem with Franco being called Fascist is that he actually betrayed the Falangist who at helped him).

It's really Leval who I'm sick of seeing demonized for associating with the Vichy government when he was a Marxist who had a plan to contain Hitler before the War which fell apart.

[hammerofglass]

Going back to the original post, it's not just the left who need to abandon meritocracy. Everyone should abandon it. The word was coined to describe a dystopian society. People who argue for it always reserve the right to define what "merit" is and shockingly they always choose to describe people like themselves.

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no problem with the notion that the cream should automatically rise to the top. The alternative is Donald Trump as president - a notion that if you suggested it ten years ago it would look like either slippery slope fallacy or reductio ad absurdum. And yet, here we are aren't we? Perhaps even for a second time.

We're not all equal. And we can bleat and cry about that all we want but this a luxury afforded to us by our incredibly over-privileged society that allows under-achievers to flourish. And i'm not putting myself on some pedestal here. If civilisation fell tomorrow, it would be the job of society to save the astronauts, the surgeons, the scientists, the scholars. It wouldn't be to save me for any other purpose than manual labour. This is what acknowledging realism looks like.

I agree however that it is very difficult to set an objective set of measurements as to who the ''best'' are and it would be very difficult to enforce. But that does not change my belief that the world would be better off for it if we managed to pull it off.

Unless you somehow made inheritance and privalege of opportunity not a thing this is just aristocracy with extra steps.

[clearspira]

Going back to the original post, it's not just the left who need to abandon meritocracy. Everyone should abandon it. The word was coined to describe a dystopian society. People who argue for it always reserve the right to define what "merit" is and shockingly they always choose to describe people like themselves.

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no problem with the notion that the cream should automatically rise to the top. The alternative is Donald Trump as president - a notion that if you suggested it ten years ago it would look like either slippery slope fallacy or reductio ad absurdum. And yet, here we are aren't we? Perhaps even for a second time.

We're not all equal. And we can bleat and cry about that all we want but this a luxury afforded to us by our incredibly over-privileged society that allows under-achievers to flourish. And i'm not putting myself on some pedestal here. If civilisation fell tomorrow, it would be the job of society to save the astronauts, the surgeons, the scientists, the scholars. It wouldn't be to save me for any other purpose than manual labour. This is what acknowledging realism looks like.

I agree however that it is very difficult to set an objective set of measurements as to who the ''best'' are and it would be very difficult to enforce. But that does not change my belief that the world would be better off for it if we managed to pull it off.

Unless you somehow made inheritance and privalege of opportunity not a thing this is just aristocracy with extra steps.

Oh, absolutely, no question. You would have to remove inherited titles and money for any sort of true meritocracy to work and that isn't happening. The idea is impossible with our social structure. But the original post implied that meritocracy as a concept is dystopian of which I do not agree.

Communism which I would argue is the flipside of the coin wouldn't work for the same reasons.