[Ixa]

[CasX]

I started off thinking this might be a good thread.

AND THEN YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT CHOPPING UP BABIES!?!?

WHAT THE HELL?!?

[Ixa]

I started off thinking this might be a good thread.

AND THEN YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT CHOPPING UP BABIES!?!?

WHAT THE HELL?!?

It was only an example. Another example would be, say, to divide chair into its constituent parts.

[CasX]

Yes, but it's infinitely more SANE.

It follows that the individual has less truth--less reality--than the state, and is therefore less important. And that is why collectivism is truer than individualism.

But aren't states made out of many individuals? Created by individuals?

[Proctor]

That is a very good point Supernius. But I still think the individual is more important than the state.

[Ixa]

Yes, but it's infinitely more SANE.

It follows that the individual has less truth--less reality--than the state, and is therefore less important. And that is why collectivism is truer than individualism.

But aren't states made out of many individuals? Created by individuals?

"Individuals" are PARTS of the State, rather like parts of an organism. They exist to serve the State, the whole. The State does not exist to serve the people -- who are only one part of the State. Individuals are individually INSIGNIFICANT parts of the State, with little value. They are like the CELLS of an organism. Some can be destroyed, but the arm can still work. Kill a few brain cells, and the brain can still function. The defective cells must not exist, for they do not serve the organism, and could in fact cause damage (disease) to it. The same with the State. The defective individuals should not exist if they cannot serve the State, just like how cells serve the organism. Different types of cells exist, and serve different parts of the body, just as different classes of people exist to serve the State in different ways. The body (as a whole) does not exist to serve the individual cells. The individual cells exist to serve the body, the organism.

[redstar2000]

Mussolini's doctrine of the State. Also Hegel's. Also Plato's.

Also nutball.

[Ymir]

redstar2000 please support your argument using something that atleast can be related to logic.

[redstar2000]

Please see

http://politics.host.sk/discussion/inde ... 86bf079c85

Mussolini's article includes a number of remarks on the State that parallel Supernius's views quite closely.

On Hegel and Plato, I recommend Karl Popper's The Open Society and It's Enemies. Popper was no Marxist, but his observations on the philosophical roots of fascism are, I think, quite decisive.

In my opinion, fascist "ideas" are nutball on their face. But if you wish a more detailed critique, I'm willing to offer one.

[Ymir]

I was referring to your "nutball" statement, I agree that Mussolini, Plato, and Supernius have similar ideas.

[GlobalJustice]

The difference between the baby and the state is that the most capable people of the state want to separate so that they can make more for themselves; people want the opportunity to stand out individually.

It doesn't take a baby extra energy to keep its body parts together.

[redstar2000]

Ymir, Popper did this sort of thing much more extensively that I can...but here's a sample.

Supernius wrote: "What defines absolutely everything is how it relates everything else. Take everything away from it--what defines it, and it, in a sense, loses its definition, and is therefore meaningless and nothing. Truth is totality comprehended. It follows that the individual has less truth--less reality--than the state, and is therefore less important."

This is a good example of fascist "argument". Begin with something that at least sounds vaguely plausible and draw a conclusion that is, at best, only distantly related to the premise.

Actually, everything is not defined by how it relates to everything else, of course. It can be done that way...if you wish a definition of near-infinite length. In practical terms, we used a much restricted group of relationships to define things.

But the conclusion that the state is more important than the individual doesn't follow...unless you want to assume that individuals don't exist (are less real) in the absence of the state...which is what Supernius was trying to "prove".

This gelatinous "logic" can also "prove" its opposite; since the state cannot exist without at least two individuals, the individual is "more real" than the state.

In general, fascist "arguments" break down this way; the use and mis-use of abstractions, the assertion that conclusions "follow" from irrelevant premises, etc.

Suppose we said something like this: the idea of an individual is functionally meaningless in the absence of not less than one other individual. That would be true but also trivial; in fact, that isolated individual would still operate like a living organism.

The "state" is only one of an enormous number of possible human assemblies and, in my view, enjoys no "special" prestige and certainly is not worthy of "reverence".

Fascists feel differently...but "feeling" is the operative word here, not thought.

[Ymir]

Imagine the universe- reality in entirety, this affects the individual organism more than the organism affects the rest of the universe.

So too would the state surrounding the individual human, have more affect on it than he on the state. Also the state can accomplish more work when acting collectively, than when seperated into individual organisms. The State, once collectivized and working for the good of the state itself, is vastly more important than any individual.

[Ixa]

All good points. There is obviously a huge misunderstanding, however. I will endeavour to resolve it by way of a new post, which shall correct a few errors on the part of redstar,and even as regards myself. I hereinbefore resolved to describe it to you within not only insufficient space, but in needlessly simplistic, unphilosophical, non-technical and vulgarised language,which lead me to error: not by the geniune argument itself, but my ridiculous discription thereof. Which, again, of course, permits of a new, and certainly more lengthy, post.