Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Well - that depends on your definition of viabilty.

The neo-fascist model is one where 1-2% of the population can survive at the expense of the rest. This is the sole foundation and aim of the current American empire.

And it works, and will continue to work, at least until such time that the Earth itself is barely habitable.

It might even survive for a while after that.

But that's a dispiriting and fantastically stupid excuse for something that calls itself a civilisation.

While the right enjoys its fantasies of Social Darwinism, the reality is that pure Darwinian competition leads to animal idiocies. Evolutionary competition is stupid. It has no strategy, no goals, and no predictive horizon longer than the next meal, the next pecking order status play, or the next fuck.

In comparison, the progressive model of government is strategic. The aim is the full expression of a population's creative, intellectual and physical talents.

Education, food management, social mobility, and wealth redistribution aren't just moral issues, they're also practical strategies. Done properly they create dynamic, diverse, inventive and resilient societies that are capable of innovation, strategic intelligence and far-sighted goal setting.

Neo-fascism in any form always regresses into infantile fantasies of omnipotence and practical disaster. To deal with reality effectively you have to accept that reality exists, and that's something the neo-fascists are simply unable to do - which is why their future prospects are so limited.

It's not just that they harm other populations, but that they're incapable of surviving without destroying themselves.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Nov 24th, 2010 at 08:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series