There’s a whole lot of working definitions provided by the 20th century that can be used as measuring sticks on the passage to the right. Signs include a breakdown or suppression of a free press, simplification of the political spectrum, identification of and processing of enemies of the state, weakening of the rules and protections of government and so on. A shift from the idea of equality of all (protection of minorities) towards the will of the majority.
There dan also be an anti-rational or anti-scientific aspect. And as an old history prof lectured, the political spectrum is not linear it’s a circle. The far ends turn out to be the same part of the circle. Power for the in group and problems for the rest. Read animal farm.
You're conflating "the right", "far right", fascism, and totalitarianism. Which, I think, is why the term "far right" was invented - so leftists could basically call other people fascists without having to substantiate the claim.
Being "on the right" is about policy. Someone on the right believes in democracy, freedom, capitalism, human rights, etc. They hold policy positions such as lower taxes, controlled immigration, and greater punishment for criminals. These policy positions put them in opposition to those on the left.
Someone "on the right" is not a fascist, and is not nearer being a fascist than someone "on the left". Fascism means the abolition of human rights, democracy, free capitalism, and everything "the right" believes in.
It's common to cherry pick little policy points from previous facsict states and use that as evidence that the right is facsict. "Hitler limited immigration, the Tories want to limit immigration, the Tories are fascist!!!!". That makes no sense. "Mao raised taxes, Biden wants to raise taxes, Biden is literally a communist!!!".
Facsism is not about policy. It is a fundamentally different, totalitarian, way to structure a society.
Ok, then socialism and communism aren’t associated with the far left. This makes right/left terms about where they sit in parliament. We’re trapped by common usage when it comes to jargon, and your usage of fascism vs. Nazism shows you’re not parsing them correctly. The former was a corporatist state that preserved trappings and some legitimacy of existing governmental power. The latter, well, didn’t.
How about: leaders <- government <- owners <-> workers -> government -> leaders. Which I can’t format in a circle. And the presence or absence of “for all” can be a tell about where on the political spectrum people or groups sit.
It’s generally accepted that the red states sit to the right vs. the blue states and the us sits to the right of Western Europe. There’s a spectrum of countries as there’s a spectrum of states (or provinces in Canada). The “political middle ground” can be constructed from this set and then decorated with secular or religions states from elsewhere throughout.
The same world where fascism isn’t associated with the far right. Where jargon is fluid and arbitrary. Was responding to previous post trying to separate fascism/right wing.
In the same world where fascism isn't associated with the far right.
There are many possible axes to divide politics, in many (but not necessarily all) conservative politics and fascism tends to be projected to similar spaces and Soviet-style communism and socially-progressive politics to the same.
Once you start looking at multiple of these at the same time, things do tend to look quite different.
> Signs include a breakdown or suppression of a free press, simplification of the political spectrum, identification of and processing of enemies of the state, weakening of the rules and protections of government and so on. A shift from the idea of equality of all (protection of minorities) towards the will of the majority.
The Chinese Communist Party has all the stuff you listed here.
True, and I stated the spectrum is a circle with absolutism or totalitarian being a leader-only political setup. The workers might own the means of production in China but they damned well better not try to act on that thought. Ask jack ma.
There's a saying about the UK's far right parties (the likes of UKIP, National Front (1) etc) that in the long run it's not a winning proposition, as the Tories can always adopt the same rhetoric, and they always have better suits.
Well that is a good question as no real solid answer. I do know that what has been classed as far-right in the media has shifted more and more towards the center to the stage that if Hitler was around today, most things on the current far-right would appear centerist-left. Though I like to look at that as progress. Though equally some people class what is on the left as far-left and it's all just got very silly with focus upon labels and arguing over rational logical debate with facts.
If you look at various media outlets, their own definition of far-left or far-right varies so much that you can end up being labeled as both very easily.
Another issue would be cultural aspects and you will find what is far-left or far-right will vary country to country and with that. Subjective labels have and always will be a can-of-worms.
Immigration enforcement raids against mostly black/brown people. Putting them on flights to countries they left as infants. Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for "processing". Sending British citizens to the Carribean because we were too disorganised to issue them passports in the 50s.
The Tory party has absorbed the UKIP/EDL/etc vote. It rules by populism alone at this stage.
Soulless is the essence of postmodernism. I have no doubt if the admin can remove the traditional buildings, they will replace them with all cubical buildings. Yelling for diversity and at the same time replacing everything with grey color rectangles and squares is their cultural revolution.
It is silly that we naively define diversity by what is trivially measurable, which tends you can determine of a person without knowing anything of their person. Give me a campus with humanistic diversity. Let us lower the entropy of the intellectual space.
Come on! Navie understanding of the market/society is a virtue. Profit is always bad for public good. The market is just failing everywhere. Captial investment is ruining everything. Downvotes prove you are wrong.
Where is anyone saying that? They are saying Cartels are bad. Artificially capturing the market so you can dictate pricing or can push hard upsells and no longer worry about customer good will because there is no longer an alternative decent vet to deal with is not creating 'public good'.
Totally agree, capturing the market should get government approval first. All the chain businesses should be banned, of course the ones you agree with can remain open.
There isn’t much bubble in the housing market. The supply simply can’t keep up with the demand. This is not the best time to buy, but not the worst either.
There’s 10x in almost every profession, why is engineering different?
If you take physicists with Ph.D. plus 3 years of post-doc as the baseline, of course top physicists are 10x the baseline. And don't interpret the 10x in a superficial silly way which makes post-docs stronger than Einstein.
This goes the same in sports, arts, academics, etc. As long as the field has enough depth for growth, the top players can easily be 10x compare to the majority.
You mention sports. I don't think most sports have a 10x difference between the worst and best professional athletes. Being 10 times faster or 10 times stronger is beyond human limits.
> I don't think most sports have a 10x difference between the worst and best professional athletes.
Aggregate productivity metrics are...difficult. But if one assumes that salaries are roughly proportional to value produced, it's not uncommon to have >10:1 ratio in the top professional tier of a sport, much less the whole of a professional sport.
MLB has a 700k minimum salary, a 1.1M median salary, a 4.4M mean salary, and a top salaries of $43.3M (that's a more than a 6:1 mean to minimum, and almost a 10:1 maximum to mean ratio, and over 60:1 overall ratio.)
> Being 10 times faster or 10 times stronger is beyond human limits.
“Fast” and “strong” measured in ways in which this is true are contributors to value produced, but not the measure of value produced by a player. A wide receiver that is the same in all other ways but runs half as fast as the fastest in the league isn't contributing half as much value.
For the 10x programmer thing, the premise (as I understand it) is that the programmer can produce a working program in 1/10th of the time of a (terrible/average, the exact definition varies) programmer. So literally 10 times as fast.
I think a reasonable sports comparison for the 10x dev must be a sport where people can perform/compete individually, such as athletics, weightlifting, diving, etc. Otherwise you get into handwavey arguments about contributed value. As for wages, having the best players can be worth 10x or 25x compared to having average players. This may be true even if the best players are "only" 2x as good as the worst ones. So I don't think the wages mean much.
> the mythical 10x developer can literally do tasks in 1/10th of the time.
Every form of the idea I’ve encountered other than from people criticizing it without identifying the source of the idea they were responding to has been about 10x overall value delivery, not 10x speed on individual microbenchmark tasks.
I don't know anything about these. But would opening up iPhone make it easier for authoritarian governments like China to install backdoors on your iPhone?
From a theoretical point of view, relying on security through obscurity is a bad thing. From a practical point of view, having obscured everything did not prevent people from finding many security vulnerabilities over the years.
Now, Apple devices are all manufactured in China so the relevant security services probably have access to all the schematics they need. Oh wait they don't need any shenanigans Apple is fully cooperating with chinese government and that's why they're so present on the chinese market, woops.
Slightly off-topic from the question, but if you're looking for authoritarian governments you don't need to look so far away from home, see also CoIntelPro/Snowden/etc (assuming you're from the USA). I agree authoritarianism and social control are a scale and we could do worse than Global North countries like France or USA, but we still have a pretty bad record of human rights overall and that should not be dismissed.
