/lit/ - Literature

>>17823951
Louder for the people in the back.

I know this is a joke thread but I started thinking about fascism as a result of reading the OP and it filled me with joy. I love fascism so much guys, I just wanted to say thank you to all of you on /lit/ who have helped me learn about it.

>>17823983
If reading Plato brought you to fascism, you have been filtered.

>>17823993
I'm Sicilian, Plato brought fascism to us.

>>17823993
Truly the idiot.

Platos take on art was retarded but other than that he was an extremist by today’s standards and case can be made that he’s either a communist or fascist depending on how you interpret his work, I have studied The Republic and taken a course on it

>>17824009
Reading Plato should make a philosopher of you. If you can only make political conclusions to reading him it's because you were too dumb to read him in the first place.
>taken a course on it
I'm not impressed by courses named "introduction to platonic thought".

>>17823965
More like people in the BLACK lmao.

>>17824008
Based, but you ultimately failed him in becoming a philosopher king.

>>17824022
I have only read the republic from start to finish. This is why I comment on Plato from the lens of politics

>>17824071
Then you haven't read Plato and can't afford too comment on him. Come back when you have read his whole corpus.

>>17824083
Forgive the typos, I'm phoneposting.

Plato was a progressive

>>17824083
I made the thread as a joke to own the libs, I read pic related and the author I unironically makes the argument that Plato is a radical dangerous thinker and that people should be careful. After reading the republic I actually agree that Plato is radical, but in the good sense because we have gone so far off the rails now that anything less than Liberlaism is considered bad and dangerous today

>>17824098
>but in the good sense because we have gone so far off the rails now that anything less than Liberlaism is considered bad and dangerous today
You, as everyone else, would earn a lot by reading (as in reading all of) Plato. You'll come to think that these sort of things are vulgar. Godspeed.

>>17823951
>in 2021
Anything written today will feel detached from the values your kids will be holding.
>Stay safe, don't read books.

>>17823951
>Plato
>fascist

fascism is an inherently postmodern, industrial movement, and comparing it to anything pre-19th century is so retarded it hurts. Also plato rocks, dudes rock, greeks rock so stfu

>>17823951
Why are you trying to convince me to read Plato OP?

>>17824245
I want everyone to read Plato, I’m trying to pull a reverse psychology here ;)

>>17824098
Nietzsche would probably like being called dangerous.

>>17824071
Do you think his failures in Syracuse might've altered his political theory? I don't think he wrote Laws without any reason.

He went full on homophobic in his later works so FUCK PLATO. Long live the homofash.

>>17824138
>fascism is an inherently postmodern
Ask me how I know you don't know what either of those two words mean.

>>17823983
Based

>>17823951
k whatever where do I start with plato

>>17823983
Kek

>>17824009
Retard. His political takes are predicated on his take on art.

>>17824804
How can I be a retard if it's a well known fact that everyone's a retard but me, retard?

>>17824822
How can that be a fact when it was debunked by multiple independent fact-checkers?

>>17823951
You’re more anti inclusive than the dialogues. With the dialogues there is opportunity to be thorough but in your post you reduce the ideas to one good one bad, without including the pros and cons for each idea.

The Republic is a theological work. It's a way to think about life and the afterlife. And it's a way to think about spirits, ideas, and the origin of thought itself. God is also mentioned repeatedly.

It is truly the intellectual's bible.

>>17824694
it's you who doesn't know what those words mean lol

>>17824804
That’s true, but it doesn’t mean I have to agree with him. Now that I think about it, Plato was more of a communist by today’s standard and Aristotle more of a fascist and for that I have to agree with Aristotle

>>17824893
Are you off the belief that the imagined perfect state in the republic is actually a representation of ones own soul? I have heard scholars say this before

>>17824009
literally anything that isnt liberal is "extremist", the phase is basically meaningless

>>17825014
They're both valid interpretations

>>17825000
>Aristotle more of a fascist
His ideal practical state was a constitutional government. I don't know how you could consider the Roman Republic, Machiavelli, or the radical whigs fascist. Aristotle didn't like the idea of a populist sovereign because he thought it could easily devolve into tyranny, the system he considered to be the worst form of government. And one of the reasons he favored Republics was because he thought it descended into democracy, the form of bad government he thought was the least harmful.

>>17825579
Why do you equate fascism with tyranny when I, a fascist, whole heartedly believe we live under a tyranny right now in the west. You cited Rome and machiavelli, you honestly don’t believe this is considered fascist in 2021 by virtually everyone on the center and left?

>>17824009
>and case can be made that he’s either a communist or fascist depending on how you interpret his work
I got monarchist.

>>17825780
I didn't equate fascism with tyranny. I said it could descend easily into tyranny, which is the form of government Aristotle disliked the most. Calling our current government a tyranny is incorrect in the same way your despised leftist is incorrect. Believing women to be inferior to men, that different races have different natural aptitudes, or that slavery can be justified does not make you a fascist.

>>17823951
>"Plato is about fascism"
>his writings all appeal to a greater, incorporeal ideal beyond physical might and being a bug
You got filtered.

>>17825871
I believe we live under a technocratic tyranny or at the very least are very, very close to one. Explain your reasoning why you don’t think this is the case

>>17823951
>at the core anti-democratic and borderline fascist.
Just because he isnt in favor of democracy doesn't mean he is pro-fascism. Fascism implies populism which he would clearly abhor

>>17825884
I do not think the United States government is a technocracy, that would imply our officials have backgrounds in STEM. A real technocratic government would be closer to what the Chinese have. Xi Jinping studied ChemE in college, and if I recall correctly a majority of government officials over there have engineering backgrounds. I also don't think this government is a Tyranny because there is no central figure, or sovereign, that has claimed power for himself. A technocratic tyranny could arise if a popular figure with an technical background seized power, but I think we are far from Elon Musk staging a military backed coup.

It appears to me that we are on a different path, but one I think is much worse. I think the United States is still currently a Republic, but has become increasingly democratized. The governing bodies have made many concessions to the people to try and appease their complaints, but these have slowly brought us closer to a mob rule in which whoever control the government simply has the largest number of people on their side. If an institution like the electoral college were to be abolished then this transformation would be complete. But democracy would not be the end state, because I think wealthy individuals are manipulating the government to achieve this goal. They want this because a democracy is much easier to subvert into an oligarchy in which they will have supreme power. All the weird woke stuff that's been produced in the past six years has been a part of this plot. It's purpose is to incite the vast majority of stupid people into demanding a change which they think will benefit them. Meanwhile the civic nationalist of yesterday feels increasingly alienated from his country and chooses to opt out of participating in the government.

>You cited Rome and Machiavelli, you honestly don’t believe this is considered fascist in 2021 by virtually everyone on the center and left?
I think this illustrates my point well. If they have managed to convince people to give up any beliefs in Republicanism, Constitutionalism, or civic virtue then they have removed an obstacle in their path. By painting all these things as 'fascist' they can easily get rid of them. They do this because at their most crucial moment, when they have thoroughly democratized the state and reduced everyone to an equal mob; that is when the state has the greatest chance of becoming a Fascist one. If the masses are too culturally divided to agree on how the state should be run then it will be easy for them to steer things favorably to themselves.

>>17826301
You’re a very sensible writer. When you talk about the state, who do you refer to? The deep state? What about the big corporations virtually controlling the information flow of the US and in many instances (banning Trump, the president of the United States from Twitter) overriding the government?

>>17825881
>>his writings all appeal to a greater, incorporeal ideal beyond physical might and being a bug
That is fascism

>>17826344
By the state I mean the idea of the United States: what it stands for, what a citizen of the country is, and the role the government should play in the citizens lives. This is a very important concept and if you could change it drastically you would essentially become two entities, the person you are, what we both currently experience, and a figure larger than human. Some other entity like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc. But let's not dwell on that weird shit, and just leave it with this: a hypothetical deep state would want to attain mythic status like this and would do unspeakable things for it.

In regards to corporate censorship -- I agree that that's something that appears technocratic. But I'm unsure of their motives here. If their goal was to censor and control the flow of information so that it elevates the knowledge of everyone in the state I would be comfortable calling them technocrats. This could be censorship that targets misinformation like flat Earth theories. But I can't feel comfortable labeling them technocrats because they seem to be politically motivated. By censoring Trump they're essentially telling everyone, "it doesn't matter how powerful you are, if you say things that are against what the people believe we'll get rid of you." My idea is that they are trying to level out everyone, and because they can hide behind the free market excuse of 'make your own platform' (at least for now) they can engage in the 21st century equivalent of the tall poppies. One aspect of states described by Aristotle that seems bizarre now is the ostracism they'd sometimes engage in of their most successful citizens.
>…democratic states have instituted ostracism; equality is above all things their aim, and therefore they ostracize and banish from the city for a time those who seem to predominate too much through their wealth, or the number of their friends, or through any other political influence. (book III of Politics)
This is what I mean by increasing democratization of the state. The most talented individuals could be become persecuted if the majority is envious of them. There is also the increasing support for retributive justice in the form of racially based welfare (reparations) and the dissolution of rigor based of radical subjectivity. The new narrative being created is not one of modernist progress towards utopia but a schizophrenic one that preaches both hyper-individualism and ethnic identity. You are simultaneously living your truth and part of a shared cultural experience only understandable to that group. We are all equal but at the same time unfathomably different. This is their safeguard from Fascism, Communism, and other modernist projects. How can the people create anything if they all hate each other?

I do not know if they will succeed, but if they do we can expect to see a pretty noticeable decline in our quality of life, as oligarchic states don't typically take great care of their citizens.

>>17824113
Not the anon you replied to, but what do you mean? Which things are vulgar? I've never read Plato's later dialogues like Philebus n shit

>>17823951
Okay but I will only read him because he refutes fascists

>>17826349
>a greater, incorporeal ideal
>beyond physical might
>that is fascism

Do you really believe that anything which speaks to a higher ideal, that organizes society around transcendent values, and is NOT based on brute physical power... is fascism? Surely not. Because that would mean you think fascism is not brutal, dehumanizing totalitarianism that strips individuals of their sovereignty by making them disposable slaves of the all-powerful state.

I hope that's not what you're saying.

Cuz that would be awful silly.

>>17826541
>Do you really believe that anything which speaks to a higher ideal, that organizes society around transcendent values, and is NOT based on brute physical power... is fascism?

>Reminder: only read Plato for reference to 21st century philosophy. His dialogs are very dangerous, at the core anti-democratic and borderline fascist. His reasoning can be very compelling and logically sound which is why you should always keep in mind his anti-inclusive tendencies as you read along. Plato is a dead white male who does not represent the all inclusive, non bigoted and diverse values that we hold and identify with in 2021.

>>17823951
That does sound like an introduction someone would write in 2021

>>17826887
That's a new low even for you

>>17826776
Fascism is really vague and at this point equivalent to "Communism never happened!"

>>17824694
retard