More or less my view of that whole conversation is the same as yours. Both of them brought up some good points however Stephan's strawmanning of Cultured Thug's arguments, besides his interruptions, was dishonest on his part tbqh.
Like when he used the typical libertarian argument against collectivism by associating it with leftist regimes and failed social experiments and that therefore collectivism = giant Soviet-like government indefinitely (usually anytime they use the word "socialism" in this context that is what they're implying).
The problem with that is that it's historically inaccurate (and dishonest). The goal of Communism was to achieve some weird (unrealistic) Utopia on Earth and to that end they utilized brutal means through massive government to force the population towards that end.
To paint Fascism/National Socialism as left-wing is a fallacy. The word "Socialism" in National Socialism was a propaganda tool to undermine the grip that the Communists and Social Democrats held over the German working class. But it was also Nationalistic because you have to care for your own people in order to be considered a true Nationalist. One has to really view this within the context of that time. There was rampant unemployment, prostitution, spread of syphilis was a major problem, drugs, suicides, hunger and homelessness and you had the disconnected cosmopolitan elite with all their wealth who did nothing to help alleviate the pain and suffering of the common man while Marxist Jews on the other hand took advantage of the suffering of the masses to agitate for a Bolshevik style communist revolution with a similar bloody outcome like in Russia.
Therefore a large Nationalist &
Socialist government (if we are to use that term for it's real meaning) was the need of the hour because who else would have tackled the major problems facing society and thus prevent a catastrophe of epic proportions? That however does not mean that a large state would be permanent. Fascism is not dogmatic in this regard provided that the interests of the Nation are not violated and progress is not hampered. However a state would still be maintained because one cannot have a stateless society.
And this is actually a very interesting article from the NYT I was reading yesterday which originally intended to do one thing but ended up doing something else, however it does kinda dip into our topic and the analogy made in this particular excerpt I thought was spot on:
"He name-drops Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, architects of “anarcho-capitalism,” with its idea that free markets serve as better societal regulators than the state. And he refers to the 2013 science-fiction movie “Pacific Rim,” in which society is attacked by massive monsters that emerge from beneath the Pacific Ocean.
“So the people, they don’t ask the monsters to stop,” he says. “They build a giant robot to try to stop them. And that’s essentially what fascism is. It’s like our version of centrally coming together to try to stop another already centralized force.”"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile...25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nationalist.amp.html
And this brings me to my other point that fascism is not against individual initiative or property because it is seen as a vital source of social utility. Without it there is no progress and creativity. Here I will share an excerpt from an essay by Alfredo Rocco, one of the theorists of Italian Fascism:
"The chief defect of the socialistic method has been clearly demonstrated by the experience of the last few years. It does not take into account human nature, it is therefore outside of reality, in that it will not recognize that the most powerful spring of human activities lies in individual self interest and that therefore the elimination from the economic field of this interest results in complete paralysis."
"The recognition of individual property rights, then, is a part of the Fascist doctrine not because of its individual bearing but because of its social utility."
So free market is not the issue in itself but rather the room it leaves for certain subversive and selfish elements to undermine the national health and interests of the Nation. There are no regulations that prevent the abuse of this freedom.
Now I agree with Stephan with regards to the ruthless competition that the free-market allows which then stimulates growth. This is of course a great thing and Fascism seeks to encourage this growth as long as it is not to the detriment of the Nation.
On the issue of education, here too I agree with Stephan however I personally believe that gov.t funded public schools should still remain the default option but the options of private schools and home schooling should still be there for those who wish to opt out of public schools and who can afford to do so.
On the issue of propaganda I would disagree with Stephan here. Propaganda is everywhere and most people are susceptible to it because the great majority of people are not intellectuals. Logic is not appealing to them but only emotions.
Is propaganda bad? I think that depends on who's weilding that power. Certainly there are bad people who are using that power to mislead people. Interestingly those who created this art of propaganda were Marxist Jews. Even Hitler mentions in Mein Kampf that he learned propaganda from studying the methods of Marxists during his years in Vienna (before WW1).
But it certainly can be used for the good as we saw during the 2016 presidential campaign with the trolling and memes. Memes are a very effective form of propaganda, especially when there's humor attached to them.
hats off to that lil girl
