[Wittmann]

I would describe you as necro-fascist.

Necro (?) - Fascist, what leads you to that?

Why?

[slybaldguy]

Your thirst for violence and technology resembles a current of though in the early Italian fascist movement. Necro because your ideology is already dead.

[Wittmann]

Have you taken the test?

Just re-took "The Test"



I ended up in the same area (upper right), but more down the middle economically because I think humans need competition, but economically, wealth is no longer made by creation of new goods, expanding markets, and building companies, as it is by day-trading penny stocks, flipping property, and market manipulation that doesn't create wealth, but inflates it.

[trombonepolitician]

An authoritarian liberal probably. I like many of your stances on science, with the exception of eugenics (I'm more of a libertarian on that one). Welcome to PoFo! Send me a message if you want

[Wittmann]

An authoritarian liberal probably. I like many of your stances on science, with the exception of eugenics (I'm more of a libertarian on that one)

That seems to get pretty close! I don't agree with the standard Liberal idea of marginal equality, but exemplary equality through progress. I believe that at the end of the day. I am anti-communist, because I feel like it doesn't promote good social and economic progress for a nation moving beyond basic industrialization.

I believe that the state serves the populace, and while people have the right to individual initiative for economic progress (but primarily recognition), corporations should serve the interest of the nation, and as the interests of the nation are a strong, happy, populace, they serve the people. At the same time, the people have the obligation to purchase goods made by intra-national corporations and not sell out their brothers for cheaper shoes.

I am happy that people can be successful, but not that people are successful by manipulating the market and trading imaginary stock options. The commodity market was once a useful tool, it protected farmers from the price of their products dropping before they went to market, but now when corporations exist who simply "flip" stocks and trade commodities that they don't have physical possession of, it skims money out of the economy, and creates baseless wealth, inflating prices.

Wealth should be made through development, progress, and ingenuity, not stock options and securities.

I guess you could say I am an anti-Banker Fascist for Scientific Progress.

[trombonepolitician]

That seems to get pretty close! I don't agree with the standard Liberal idea of marginal equality, but exemplary equality through progress. I believe that at the end of the day. I am anti-communist, because I feel like it doesn't promote good social and economic progress for a nation moving beyond basic industrialization.

I believe that the state serves the populace, and while people have the right to individual initiative for economic progress (but primarily recognition), corporations should serve the interest of the nation, and as the interests of the nation are a strong, happy, populace, they serve the people. At the same time, the people have the obligation to purchase goods made by intra-national corporations and not sell out their brothers for cheaper shoes.

Yeah, many of these are values embedded in classical liberalism if I am correct. Fascism tends to want to legislate only in the national interest (legislate when the state thinks it is in the best interest of the people- fascists correct me if I am wrong!). So I would say that you're a great mix of liberal and authoritarian views (I use authoritarian instead of Fascist because fascism is a specific type of which supports an organic unity of a national identity under a nation state)

[Wittmann]

Yeah, many of these are values embedded in classical liberalism if I am correct.

Classical Liberalism differs from modern Liberalism I imagine, but howso?

[slybaldguy]

Classic Liberalism is commited to laissez-faire economics and is generally skeptical of government intervention. Many would argue than CL is synonymous with Right Libertarianism. Modern Liberals tend to most interested in 'social justice' and social engineering.

[Wittmann]

Classic Liberalism is commited to laissez-faire economics and is generally skeptical of government intervention. Many would argue than CL is synonymous with Right Libertarianism. Modern Liberals tend to most interested in 'social justice' and social engineering.

I'm not for Laissez-Faire economics because I recognize companies propensity to exploit labour forces for profit. While profit based motivation is "good", because we have ingrained into our culture that monetary gain is equatable to success as an individual, I believe we need to culturally shift our national character from a profit-based motivation to an achievement and recognition based culture. The goal that profit represents (success and hard work) is good, but the means of making profit nowadays are too often in a moral gray area.

[Pants-of-dog]

No offense, Wittman, but you seem like a fascist to me. And when I say that I mean no offense, I mean that I think while fascism is reprehensible and should be opposed whenever it rears its head, some of the most respected people on this forum are fascists.

How's your nationalism?

[Wittmann]

How's your nationalism?

I consider myself Nationalistic but I recognize that my nation isn't "the best" or "the one way". I believe people should support their national ideals (not the nation to all ends), but that citizens of other nations should feel proud of their cultural and national history as well.

So I'm a nationalist with respect to the fact that most nations can justify their own legacy of heroism.
--------

The issue with Capitalism and advanced mechanization now is that working class people, are being replaced by machines. Working class people also have the largest number of children, thereby making more working class people (as you are more likely than not to end up in the same social class as your parents), who will be even more stretched to find work in 20 years.

We need to move away from the idea of a working class, and into a society almost entirely composed of the middle class and upper middle class. Most useful inventions and products are not invented by the rich (they fund the project though), but instead by the educated middle class. Scientists, Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Physicists, etc. are all Upper-Middle class, not Rich (some are, but not the vast majority). Most people do not become Scientists, Doctors, Physicists, or Engineers to become rich, most do it for the passion of their work (can't say anything in defense of lawyers though ). Because of this, taking away the corporate structure wouldn't cause some absurd drop in PhDs and Doctorates.

If companies moved away from a profit based model, and more into a co-op, where the workers owned the business (not the govt.) and elected their bosses, wages would rise. This would in-turn, keep people off of social services, and increase localized consumption, because people who have reached a point in wealth where they no longer worry about typical day-to-day expenses are able to make morally and ecologically sound purchases. The middle class and upper middle class is also more politically involved then the working class, and would be more able to recognize the importance of maintaining a natural balance.

Co-ops also have the advantage that workers can directly help themselves by working harder and producing more. In a normal corporate environment most people just want to keep their job and get by, in a Co-Op you are producing your own profits.

I think Capitalism is the best thing we've had so far, and I am not a socialist, I don't believe in hand-outs, and I love the early 19th century industrialists, because they created tangible goods and became rich doing so. But now where it comes down to market manipulation and theoretical stock options, it's just shuffling numbers on a computer.

I mean that I think while fascism is reprehensible and should be opposed whenever it rears its head

What about Fascism is it that causes you to hold disdain for it. Many ideologies have characteristics I imagine you disagree with, but what causes you to find Fascism so reprehensible (and I say that without reference to crimes committed under Fascist flags, purely ideologically what do you hate)?

[Pants-of-dog]

It' not just fascism. It's all authoritarian gov'ts. Since I am smarter than most politicians, it makes no sense for me to give up my freedoms and hand them over to someone who is not as smart as me and has no respect for me. I also don't like monocultural nationalism. I understand that it is a useful method for rallying support from an economically disadvantaged populace, but it does not usefully manage the ethnic diversity that is the norm for developed nations today.

[Ter]

Wittman, why do you need a label at all ?

Be who you are, make up your mind about issues as you wish, and ignore the people that try to label you. Believe me, they do not do that out of love.

[Technology]

I don't know if you're an actual Fascist, but the idea of a middle class, or petite bourgeois nation, your reverence for 19th Century capitalism and disdain for financialized capital, do resemble Mussolini's views on the age of producerist "heroic capitalism" vs modern international banker capitalism and usury.

[Wittmann]

Wittman, why do you need a label at all ?

Because it simplifies political introductions to individuals, I'd like to be able to just say "Ohh I'm a Libertarian, or I vote Labor Party" rather than go into a 20 minute analysis of government systems with everyone.