Definitions of the term vary among the disciplines: in social and information sciences, heterarchies are networks of elements in which each element shares the same “horizontal” position of power and authority, each playing a theoretically equal role. Political hierarchies and heterarchies are systems in which multiple dynamic power structures govern the actions of the system. They represent different types of network structures that allow differing degrees of connectivity. In a (tree-structured) hierarchy every node is connected to at most one parent node and zero or more child nodes. In a heterarchy, however, a node can be connected to any of its surrounding nodes without needing to go through or get permission from some other node. Socially, a heterarchy distributes privilege and decision-making among participants, while a hierarchy assigns more power and privilege to the members high in the structure. In a systemic perspective, Gilbert Probst, Jean-Yves Mercier and others describe heterarchy as the flexibility of the formal relationships inside an organization.
My political page on Facebook is: Axiological Left-Libertarian Anarchism
Axiological Left-Libertarian Anarchism is a representation of me thus is an eclectic Liberal and Leftist conceptions mainly involve Natural Rights Libertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarcho-Naturism, Green Anarchism, Dialectical Naturalism, Anti-capitalism, Progressive, Secularism, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Municipalism, Radical Minarchism, and Mutualism Political Philosophies with Axiology. For those who only know the standard Libertarian (right-Libertarian to me) this is like their opposite similar to how liberal is different than conservative. Put it easier for some on a political test I am 86% Democrat and only 7% republican. Axiological Left-Libertarian Anarchism would value municipal type minarchism small-government with mutualist socialist anarchism egalitarianism with no one for president, governor, or mayor, thus a government of several equal people not some supreme person. As such a more direct democracy government from the people by the people for the people. Two things I think you’ll find common to most mutualists: an advocacy of a kind of market socialism and a strong emphasis on ethics, particularly on “mutuality” and reciprocity. While I may be outright negative to the right, conservatives, republicans, right-Libertarians or anarcho-capitalists and at times somewhat positive to some democrat values or positions, It will challenge and attack democrats as well if applicable.
My political thinking is complicated in many ways and yet simple in others. As always, I am an axiologist thinker before any thinking or ideology and bend all thinking to axiologist thinking never the other way around. Therefore, I will address axiologist thinking first then show how it can be applied or how I would like to see it applied.
Formal Axiology addresses political science by asking, “What is a good political system?” The rules of Logic govern the rational processes in both Mathematics and Formal Axiology. Using the Formal Axiology of the philosopher of science, Robert S. Hartman, and David Easton’s concept of the political system, political scientists can now empirically and quantitatively assess the goodness of any political system in the world. Goodness can be measured according to the degree to which an actual political system fulfills the concept of a good political system, as that concept is defined by political scientists. Assessments can be made by assigning a numerical value to each of the elements in the definition of the good political system, and then quantifying how well actual processes fulfill the definition for them. Political systems can be compared, and determinations made as to which is‘good,’ ‘better,’ and ‘best’ – or ‘worst.’ Thus, political science would entail the study of both facts and values.
There is a lack of moralizing everything in Formal Axiologies Value Science such as when “good” is often defined as a conceptual fulfillment, then goodness can be measured on a scale from good, to fair, to not good, to bad, or very bad. A “very bad” chair, for example, is one that collapses when anyone sits on it. Hartman’s use of the words “good” and “bad” are descriptive of measurements based on defined concepts, or expectations. In Formal Axiology, these words are habitually free of any moralizing connotations as are usually used as degrees needed to measure like a thermometer. Temperature extremes may cause people some discomfort, but few people would call them “evil,” or “morally bad.”
Formal Axiology takes a realistic, or fact-based, view of the world. People have and act upon values. Value scientists/theorists/thinkers will seek to understand what values are, and to analyze their structure. To illustrate this realism, suppose that after church a religionist comments to a friend, that there are three things worth loving in the world which are God, ones family, and ones Dog. How would a Formal Axiologist value judge such claims of valuing? Since the science of value (Formal Axiology) has an empirical orientation, the term God is seen as a conception in the religionist’s mind not a thing in the real empirical world.
As to the religionist’s valuation of family, Formal Axiology has a special rule: living persons, and only persons, always are notated as possessing intrinsic value compared to living non-human organism. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. In philosophy, the word “person” may refer to various concepts. According to the “naturalist” epistemological tradition, from Descartes through Locke and Hume, the term may designate any human (or non-human) agent which: (1) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and (2) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them. Some philosophers and those involved in animal welfare, ethology, the rights of animals, and related subjects, believe that certain animals should also be considered to be non-human persons and thus granted legal personhood. Common species considered non-human persons include the great apes, whales, dolphins, porpoises, and elephants, because of their apparent intelligence and intricate social rules. However, even though a Dog is seen as a living non-human organism not having personhood in Formal Axiology thinking, a Dog is still of greater value then a god concept because a Dog is a realistic, or fact based reality in the world unlike the concept of God which is not a thing in the real empirical world.
Formal Axiology can be seen as attached to the envisioning of a scientific ethics that would eventually displace ethics thinking especially religion as an authoritative, but not authoritarian, source of morality advice. Formal Axiologists are aware, as most rational people are, of the shameful wars that dogmatic and fanatical religions sometimes engage in against others, one another or even amongst themselves. Each side believes itself in possession of The One Truth, and therefore Morally Superior to apostates, infidels, and the heretics in the opposed religions. In the value structure of such deadly conflicts, ideas and doctrines are regarded as more important than the real human beings who are murdered in the name of such “Truths.” Indeed, such murder is considered “moral” by the Believers. But Formal Axiology can expose this hypocrisy. Killing a person in the name of a religion is formulated as the systemic valuation of the extrinsic disvaluation of an intrinsic value.
The religious warriors think systemic valuation it is “a good idea,” or morally honorable, to kill folks with different views or that do what they think is sinful. Nevertheless, no matter how good one pronounces such killing to be, the disvaluation of a person is contained in the self-delusion in Formal Axiology thinking. Thus are religious warriors confronted with the Real Truth, the Truth of Formal Axiology which holds ideas are never more important than people. Formal Axiology thus helps expose the real evils the disvalues posing as values of our civilization, which are chronic diseases of the so-called religious moral world.
Someone who is skeptical about the scientific aspirations of Formal Axiology might evoke the contrast between “facts” and “values.” Since the philosopher David Hume, the opinion has been widely shared that these two concepts are different in kind. Facts are considered amenable to rational understanding, but values are forever relegated to the realm of emotion, social conditioning, irrational dogmatism, or the state of one’s digestion. Nevertheless, with hindsight it becomes clear that Hume was committing the Fallacy of Method. That is, he failed to see that the phenomena of valuations in daily life are the subject matter, to be distinguished from the scientific point of view used to understand and explain those valuations. As Hartman writes, “The value dimensions follow each other in experience in any order. But they can be recognized only when their theoretical order is known.”
In other words, with Formal Axiology on a par with Natural Science, values and facts are equally amenable to rational understanding. Hartman goes on to show a logical similarity between facts and values that would surprise Hume and those who think like him about the fact/value distinction. Consider the difference between these two formal statements: “x is a C,” and “x is a good C.” “C” is a classification, or category. To say “x is a C” is to make the judgment that “x” fits in, or belongs within, category “C.” To say that “x is a good C” takes a step further by judging that “x” fits category “C” well. The first conclusion is a systemic valuation. The second conclusion is an extrinsic valuation. Thus, insofar as facts are known by taxonomy, or classification, they are first known by a systemic valuation: either “x” is such a thing, or it is not. Conversely, before the goodness of a thing can be known, its classification must be established as a matter of fact. Extrinsic “valuation is based on classification.”
Thus, factual determinations are necessarily prior to extrinsic valuations. One must know the kind of thing at hand before one can assess the degree to which it is a good such thing. “We have here the razor sharp, razor-thin distinction between fact and value.” Both formal statements relate “x” and “C” by the logic of entailment; that is, that “x” is entailed by “C.” But the factual statement merely assumes that “x” is good enough to be classified as a “C,” while the valuational statement more directly examines the value elements. These are: i) the requirements for belonging to that classification (its predicates), ii) the actual properties of “x,” and iii) how well “x’s” properties satisfy “C’s” membership requirements. By this logical operation, “value has been added to its factuality.”
Now we can see that “the factual set of descriptive properties is normative for the value field.” Hartman then discusses what value terms like “good,” “fair,” “bad,” etc. can mean. Count the essential requirements for membership in a category. Then count the number of elements a thing has which satisfy those requirements. Quantity gives rise to quality. Superlatives and comparatives can also be quantifiable axiological terms. For example, x is the best C; y is the worst C; and, p is a better C than q, etc. This method enables words that express value relations to have precise meanings. For example, “better than,” or “worse than” can be distinguished quantitatively. One can say, for example on a scale from 1 to 10, exactly why, as a C, x is better than y. The term “ought,” then, can be given a morally detached, scientific meaning. If an extrinsic valuation shows that the thing under consideration lacks properties p and q, then as a matter of measurement, it “ought” to have those properties to be fully a good such thing.
Moving from Fact to Value in Political Science
Understanding the mutual relations between fact and value, and the measuring capacity of fact for value, is crucial to the development of any particular field of value science. The social sciences, as new value sciences, will be dependent upon established fact in order to carry out their task of value measurement. To illustrate this point, we will now consider how a particular social science, political science, can be integrated into the formal system of Formal Axiology. Since the following discussion is meant only to be illustrative, some informational statements will be left unsubstantiated for the sake of brevity. As a profession, political science is far from being a unified epistemic community. There are some huge methodological divisions. Some argue that statistics gathering is the central business of political science as a science, because statistical operations are repeatable and therefore verifiable. But others argue that statistics alone do not explain behavior, which is the central aim of any social science.
To explain political behavior, the political scientist must know what meanings caused political actors to behave the way they did. Some say that to explain behavior the political scientist must use “softer” methods of information gathering, such as using the self-reports in biographies, or interviews of actors. Probably the least unity and the most friction occur among political scientists when they are asked to define the “good” or “just” society. One issue is that the self-identified “scientists” say the very question is irrelevant to their work, but others call that hypocrisy and say these so-called “value neutral” political scientists tacitly assume, like Hegel, that “what is good.” That is, by their very refusal to be critical, they imply that all is well with the status quo. Whether political scientists as a profession should become involved in public policy debates is another issue. There are “normative political philosophers” who say that taking part in politics should be the profession’s primary purpose. Nevertheless, the more prevalent view is that of the “behavioral political scientists” who argue that “science” requires political detachment. These are just some of the intense controversies in the field. Perhaps by presenting political science as one of the value sciences, and showing how it can be made to connect with Formal Axiology thus clearly assess the goodness of any political system in the world. What are the implications of Formal Axiology for assessing the value implications of public policies, laws, and government actions?
Formal Axiology employing progressive logic shows that the common element is a logic of values, which takes as its basic premise that “all persons always deserve positive regard.” From this primary value axiom two “fallacies” and two “enhancements” follow.
Two Value Fallacies:
. The Ideological Fallacy — to value ideas over persons.
. The Instrumental Fallacy — to value persons solely for their usefulness.
Two Value Enhancements:
. The Ideological Enhancement — using ideas to enhance or enrich the lives of persons.
. The Instrumental Enhancement — using persons to enhance or enrich their lives. These principles of value logic are applied to numerous aspects of life, culture, and public policies.
Formal Axiology and Karl Marx?
According to William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. a formal Axiologist Karl Marx wrote with an astute intuitive grasp of Formal Axiology. While he never articulated the processed structures of Formal Axiology, or wrote of the three categories of value, or understood the word “good” as Formal Axiology defines it, his sense of value reality, and of the natural order of values, and especially of the nightmarish disorder of values in capitalist society, remains unparalleled. Marx’s criticisms of social relations in the capitalist system follow Formal Axiology thinking. Marx formulated his conception of the person, the human individual, as an intrinsic value early in his career. He did this in the course of criticizing religion, by which he generally meant European Christianity.
In his 1844 essay, “Critique of Hegel ‘s Philosophy of Right,” Marx wrote that “the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticisms.” The reason for this is that “The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself like his own true sun.” Marx recognized that while religious doctrines purported to be statements of Universal Truths, they were more forcefully value ideologies. Doctrines like man as sinner and God as the Supreme Being had huge consequences on the values that folks believed in. Such dogmas as “original sin” taught people a moralistic low self-evaluation, and consequently to accept the feelings of unworthiness and powerlessness before the All-Mighty. In Marx’s view, this value milieu of self-loathing and learned helplessness before God conditioned the person to acquiesce to ruling class domination and capitalist exploitation, as if he or she were deserving of such treatment. Marx understood that people with low self-esteem, who see the highest values as outside and above humanity, are more likely to accept oppressive and degrading socio-economic conditions than are people with high self-esteem and pride. That is why, for Marx, what is needed is the man whose values “will move around himself like his own true sun.”
Marx wrote: “Man’s self-esteem, his sense of freedom, must be re-awakened… only with its aid can society ever again become a community of people that can fulfill their highest needs.'” As we will see, those “highest needs” are for human liberation from oppression and toil, so that people can live in a self-governing society dedicated to the development or humane human potential. In the terms of Formal Axiology thinking, the situation in which having a person with low self-esteem is a benefit to the capitalist system can be written as the positive systemic valuation of the intrinsic disvaluation of an intrinsic value. To positively value the negative condition in which a person has learned self-loathing, the intrinsic disvaluation of an intrinsic value, is an axiological contradiction. Value consistency requires self-esteem: or, the intrinsic valuation of an intrinsic value.
Yet, to Marx’s outrage, this contradiction in values was taught by religion’s capitalist-serving ideology, as a corrective, Marx wanted to humanize society by raising human self-esteem so that people will act accordingly to change their social conditions. As mentioned, to begin this process requires the criticism of religion. Then he wrote: “The criticism of religion ends with the doctrine that for humans the supreme being is humans, and thus with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which humans are debased, enslaved, neglected and contemptible being. Contrary to religion, Marx’s supreme value is, then, that man himself is the supreme value. Humanity is the summit of Marx’s value hierarchy.
Just as in Formal Axiology thinking the person is the only one of intrinsic value, so for Marx there is no higher value, nor higher power, than humanity. Because Marx sees that a great part of humanity is a “debased, enslaved, neglected and contemptible being” in the capitalist system, human liberation and from this value environment is an urgent necessity. This too follows the anthropocentric atheism arguments connecting to Axiological Atheism which also favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Beyond Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre and Freud and others even if not knowing it all used Axiological Atheism arguments to some extent to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.
Now on to a specific issue “affirmative action.”
I was asked if I supported or opposed affirmative action?
Affirmative action: the practice of improving the educational and job opportunities of members of groups that have not been treated fairly in the past because of their race, sex, etc.
Hell yes I support it!
I would rather that things like race, sex, gender, et cetera simply had no impact on how we judge and interact with others. This desire of sudden, unconditional equality should not be a reason for us to ignore the societal need for affirmative action, if indeed such need does exist though. I am a socialist anarchist mutualist seeing value in individuals and the collective who does not believe in political disengagement in current systems as some do. For me all change towards positive progressive change is positive change. I am for revolutionary frameworks and movements committed to dismantling the institutions which politically, economically, sexually and psychically oppress all outgroups because of their race, sex, sexual or gender identity, class, etc.
I am for all positive change I am for reforms that benefit the worker in the here and know and push for real change abolishing capitalism and working towards a mutualism left libertarian anarchist society. I am not for reformism as I do not wish for capitalism to continue. Being a supporter of reforms and improvements in the here and now does not hinder my anarchist seeking to expose and attack the root causes of societal problems.
For example, in the here and now as a reformist I look at ways to lessen the destructive and debilitating effects of poverty: this produced things like the minimum wage and workers rights. But likewise as an anarchist I look at what causes poverty and work to attack that source of poverty, rather than just the symptoms. I could never be satisfied with just a reformist style because even if there is some succeed in the short run, the festering problems remain untreated.
Like how an emergency room doctor can do some here and now good treating the symptoms of a disease without getting rid of what causes it, all the reformist can promise is short-term improvements for a condition that never goes away and may ultimately kill the sufferer. My long-term goals of socialist anarchist, like a real doctor, investigates the causes of the illness and treats them while fighting the symptoms.
It must be pointed out that the struggle for reforms within capitalism is not the same as reformism. Reformism is the idea that reforms within capitalism are enough in themselves and attempts to change the system are impossible (and not desirable). As such all anarchists are against this form of reformism — we think that the system can be (and should be) changed and until that happens any reforms will not get to the root of social problems.
We need revolutionary politics. That means politics that can lead us towards a genuine socialism where freedom knows no limit other than not interfering with the freedom of others. A socialism that is based on real democracy – not the present charade where we can choose some of our rulers, but may not choose to do without rulers. A real democracy where everyone effected by a decision will have the opportunity to have their say in making that decision. A democracy of efficiently co-ordinated workplace and community councils. A society where production is to satisfy needs, not to make profits for a privileged few, we need “Anarchism.”
Revolutionary socialism encompasses multiple social and political movements that may define “revolution” differently from one another. These include movements based on Orthodox Marxist theory, such as Luxemburgism, Impossibilism and DeLeonism; as well as movements based on Leninism and the theory of Vanguardist-led revolution, such as Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism. Revolutionary socialism also includes non-Marxist movements like anarchism, revolutionary syndicalism and some forms of democratic socialism. It is used in contrast to the reformism of social democracy, which is not anti-capitalist in form. Revolutionary socialism also exists in contrast to the concept of small revolutionary groups seizing power without first achieving mass support, termed Blanquism.
Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism.
An ideology, in contrast, is a set of “fixed” ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or “changing” it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. Ideologies are the nemesis of critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of rules and “answers” which relieve us of the “burden” of thinking for ourselves.
I do not worship people or ideologies, I respect behavior and ideas. I see Ideas or behaviors I like and ones I do not.
Even in myself when I look, back at the last five years I see how we can change ideas and if following reason and evidence that shows something different, expand on the understanding or contradicts we should desire to change. However, sometimes even knowing change is needed is not the same as welcoming change. I wish to strive for greatness of staying humble to learn and change. People are people I see they too must suffer being human with all that entails and learn from them what I can never forgetting they are but their thinking and behavior a fluid not fix thing.
I am a mostly a mutualist socialist anarchist, and a supporter of Axiological Left-Libertarian Anarchism.
By Damien Marie AtHope
I leave you with a song that mirrors my thinking somewhat Creed-One
I oppose Fascism but what is Fascism?
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism commonly described as “extreme right” originated in Italy during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Fascism considered right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. While fascism includes Nazism, Nazism might be seen as an extreme variant of fascism. The more a person values absolute equality among all people, the further left they will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right they will be.
Fascism is influenced by national syndicalism in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, anarchism and traditional conservatism. National syndicalism developed in France, and then spread to Italy, Spain and Portugal. National syndicalism is an adaptation of syndicalism to suit the social agenda of integral nationalism. Fascism was founded by Italian national syndicalists, who combined elements of left-wing politics with more typically right-wing positions, in opposition to socialism, communism, liberal democracy and, in some cases, traditional right-wing conservatism.
Integral nationalism or Integralism, is an ideology which defends social differentiation and hierarchy with co-operation between social classes, transcending conflict between social and economic groups. French National syndicalism was an adaptation version of revolutionary syndicalism to the monarchist ideology of integral nationalism, as practiced by Action Française, which involves the support of anti-democratic socialism seen as the “pure” and correct form of socialism. Action Française was a French nationalist-monarchist movement led by Charles Maurras (1900–1908).
National syndicalists or Integral nationalism/Integralism especially in Latin America can be associated with fascism in so extent or another, although there exist deep points of disagreement: integralism stresses trade unionism and localism while fascism defends a centralist state; the traditionalist and Catholic foundation of integralist ideas against the often secular and anti-clerical, and modernist philosophical basis of fascism.
National syndicalism in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) is a political theory very different from the fascist idea of corporatism, inspired by Integralism and the Action Française. It was formulated in Spain in a manifesto published in 1931. National syndicalism was intended to win over the anarcho-syndicalist to a corporatist nationalism. Fascism is often placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum, but some academics call that description inadequate. Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.
Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community, relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles. Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation and asserts that “superior” nations and races should attain living space by displacing weak and inferior ones.
Fascist ideology consistently invoked the primacy of the state. Fascist ideology can involve a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Fascist ideology often strong and charismatic leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and claimed indisputable power. Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but applied them to what it saw as the more significant conflict between nations and races rather than to class conflict, and focused on ending the divisions between classes within the nation.
Fascism advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Fascism opposed socialist and communist ideology but was also critical of some aspects of capitalism, arguing for what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism. A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far-right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.
Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program, “The Doctrine of Fascism” stating: “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.” However, Mussolini clarified that fascism’s position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue to fascists and stated whether Fascism, sits on the right, it could also have sat on a mountain of the center. Going on to say, “We don’t give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words.” A number of fascist movements try to describe themselves as a “third position” outside the traditional political spectrum. Mussolini used fascistic Militarism and Nationalism on the Italian People.
The key factors used by Benito Mussolini to gain the trust of the Italian people were militarism and nationalism. Nationalism is devotion and patriotism to your country with constant glorification and promotion of the country’s values and culture. This constant promotion of the country’s values led to absolutely unjustifiable decisions that were perceived as setting standards for a country’s people, but actually inhumane acts. Mussolini promoted the cultural and political values of the Italian Fascists by using lots of propaganda across Italy. This large amount of propaganda displayed across the country is important because it made the Italian population become more focused on fascism and military power, which strengthened Mussolini’s power in his dictatorship. Mussolini used fascistic nationalism to promote the growth and need of militarism in Italy along with Italian Strength.
Mussolini used fascistic patriotism from his country to give Italy the idea that if they want to become a force as big as they were during the Roman Empire that they would need to have a strong military and constantly promote Italian values. To promote this ideal, Mussolini ordered children from ages 16-65 to enroll in the “New Empires” Military. This new side of Mussolini showed to the Italian people and the rest of the world that he was serious about making Italy the force it was back in the days of the Roman Empire. This use of militarism to enforce national superiority and strength was important because it made Italy become a large threat to neighboring countries and also threatened the balance of power and created a potential for war. These nationalistic, militaristic, and fascist values enforced and promoted by the Italians where what eventually led to Italy joining the axis powers and going to war against the allied powers.
Fascism has been criticized for being ideologically dishonest. Major examples of ideological dishonesty have been identified in Italian Fascism’s changing support, rejection back again relationship with German Nazism. Fascist movements emphasized a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a fear of foreign people (xenophobia), which they frequently linked to an exaggerated ethnocentrism. The typical fascist state also embraced militarism, a belief in the rigors and virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal, meaning much of public life is organized along military lines and an emphasis is put on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture.
Following the Second World War, few parties openly describe themselves as fascist and the term is more usually used pejoratively by political opponents. Moreover, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum but to do so is not always warranted and if it applies to everything like ‘oppressor’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’ without justification the word ‘Fascism’ becomes almost meaningless as a traditional political ideology but if its referring to national authoritarian/totalitarian militarism then it is likely warranted.
Nationalism is the main foundation of fascism. Fascist movements typically espouse a racist conception. Although, fascists have not always held a unified set of racial views, most fascists promoted imperialism, although there have been several fascist movements that were uninterested in the pursuit of new imperial ambitions. Fascism also promotes the establishment of a totalitarian state. The Doctrine of Fascism states, “The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.” Fascist states pursued policies of social indoctrination through propaganda in education and the media and regulation of the production of educational and media materials. Education was designed to glorify the fascist movement and inform students of its historical and political importance to the nation. It attempted to purge ideas that were not consistent with the beliefs of the fascist movement and to teach students to be obedient to the state. One of the most common and strongest criticisms of fascism is that it is a tyranny in practice. Fascism is commonly regarded as deliberately and entirely non-democratic and anti-democratic.
Fascism opposes liberal democracy rejecting any concept of universal egalitarianism. It rejects multi-party systems, and supports a single party state. However, fascists have claimed Fascism supports a variant of democracy stating: “Fascism is a method, not an end; an autocracy on the road to democracy, trying to describe fascism as an authoritarian democracy. “ Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state. Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.
While fascism accepted the importance of material wealth and power, it condemned materialism, which it identified as being present in both communism and capitalism, and criticized materialism for lacking acknowledgement of the role of the spirit. Fascism denounced Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity, which fascists regarded as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of the nation and a threat to the achievement of genuine national solidarity.
Contrary to the popular use of the term, Communist states have sometimes been referred to as “fascist,” typically as an insult. Marxist interpretations of the term have, for example, been applied in relation to Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Herbert Matthews, of the New York Times asked “Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?” J. Edgar Hoover wrote extensively of “Red Fascism.” Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet Split, and likewise, the Soviets used the term to identify Chinese Marxists and social democracy (coining a new term of social fascism).
I oppose Fascism, including all its religious persuasions
Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime.
Comment from a fan:
Damien, you were a victim of what you call Christofascism (christian and fascism) as well as religiofascism (religion and fascism). And now you are a warrior for the victims of religious oppression. Imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have people like you out there. (Religion run amok, untethered). Thank you, Damien Marie AtHope.
My political page on Facebook is: Axiological Leftist
Whats wrong with rightists? Well, I am beginning to believe that rightists may be more concerned with perceived financial atrocities committed against the rich than the real social atrocities committed against everyone else.
Power Authority Oppression
Limiting the power to a point in authority, maximize the potential for oppression. This is referring to the need for greater inclusion of many instead of the exclusion driven only by the few. Moreover, how this greater inclusion can be adopted is non-hierarchical political structure and more direct democracy. Such as a “Heterarchy” which is a system of organization where the elements of the organization are unranked (non-hierarchical) or where they possess the potential to be ranked a number of different ways. Definitions of the term vary among the disciplines: in social and information sciences, heterarchies are networks of elements in which each element shares the same “horizontal” position of power and authority, each playing a theoretically equal role.
My Reaction to Trump’s Election
I have been ashamed of many things in my life but this is the first time I have been deeply ashamed to be an American, after Mericans voted Trump. America you have broken my heart. How sadistically confident is the mind so assured that the ones at risk for bigotry, discrimination, oppression, or harm are never them, only their victims? Merican to me is generally, a right-winger who is a larger-than-life patriot, likely prone to strong nationalism, xenophobia, or some set of far-right ideologies, whose core belief(s) may be one or all of the following, “American Identity”, “Working Class Identity”, or “White Identity” are under attack by leftwing multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine what they see as right. When boastful lies are championed as if they are worthy truths, there has been an attack on the credibility of honesty itself. We can be made into many things in fear and hate, then we would ever consider in hope and love. I have felt shame about things America had done but not for what we are. Addressing Destructive Cults?
Here are some of my similar blogs on my politics:
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheists Against Trump, Facebook The History Voyagers Page, Facebook Group: The History Voyagers, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy, Facebook Atheist for Non-monogamy Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, and My Email: email@example.com