Are you a fascist?

There used to exist a communist country which was commonly known as East Germany.  I remember once seeing its head of government on television making a speech.  In a country devoid of democracy, he referred to its western frontier as the frontier with fascism.  I found this curious - even a trifle amusing - but I eventually realised that this was in fact a key part of the communist mindset.

Fascism - like communism - is a difficult concept to define in words, but basically it is a political ideology which arose in Italy around one hundred years ago.  As with communism, it maintains that the power of the state should be without limits, and holds both democracy and free speech in contempt.  Someone at some point coined the word totalitarianism as an umbrella term to classify both communism and fascism.

But whatever fascism was originally, it is now a word habitually used by communists to vilify almost anything they dislike.

Take for example this recent essay on the website of a national newspaper.  The author talks about the rise of fascism, but without offering any definition, and neither can I find a definition in any of her previous work.

What is obvious however is that she dislikes the outcome of the Brexit referendum, the election of Donald Trump, and tax avoidance by large companies.  I also have a dislike of tax avoidance by large companies, but I would not describe it as fascism.  I would not vote for Donald Trump, but I'm not sure I would describe him as a fascist.  I voted for Brexit, and I certainly do not regard myself as a fascist.

In an essay written in August 2016, the same author describes supporters of Jeremy Corbyn as ordinary, fed-up voters, and I wonder why she cannot bring herself to apply a similar description to British people who voted for Brexit or for American people who voted for Trump.

While the author may see herself and other people like her as marginalised, it is nevertheless the case that she is allowed to put her views across in a national newspaper.  By contrast, I am not sure I have ever come across a genuinely nationalist comment writer in any of Britain's national newspapers.  It is of course true that newspaper comment writers will occasionally put across a patriotic point of view, but this is merely a cynical ploy to encourage people to buy the newspaper.

I have never been invited to write for a national newspaper, and neither to my knowledge has any other patriotic blogger.  I hope that readers of this site will follow my example and never buy any national newspaper.  Read them only when you can do so without letting them have any of your money.

Related previous posts include:
The communist-loving "right wing" tabloids
The Trump phenomenon
What is tax avoidance?

An academic view of races

I cannot resist the temptation to return to the issue of race.  I am responding to an essay I recently found on the internet.  The quotes are in blue text, and I respond in black text.

The worst error in the history of science was undoubtedly classifying humans into the different races.

Rather than stray into a lengthy digression, I will merely observe that there are many errors in the history of science which could be classified as the worst.  Also, the fact that the author uses the term the different races suggests to me that he secretly accepts that races do in fact exist.

... race theory ... has wreaked untold misery and been used to justify barbaric acts of colonialism, slavery and even genocide. Even today it's still used to explain social inequality, and continues to inspire the rise of the far right across the globe.

Was race theory used to justify the millions of murders committed by the armed forces of the United Kingdom and the USA over the past hundred years or so?  I merely ask.

The human races were invented by anthropologists like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach back in the 18th century ...

This is utter garbage.  Anthropologists may have identified the concept of races, but races themselves were never invented.  They exist as a fact of science.

As an aside, I have recently found out that the word race derives from the medieval Italian word razza, and that it can be used to mean a breeding stock of animals.  The different races we see in the world today are basically different breeding stocks.  They have tended in the past to be determined largely be geography, but even in present day multiracial societies they can be determined by culture.  For example, fewer than ten percent of marriages in Britain today are inter-racial.

From the very beginning, the arbitrary and subjective nature of categories was widely acknowledged.

This is misleading.  It may well be true that there are some situations where racial definitions become blurred, but there are also many situations where the classification of animals into species and subspecies become blurred.  Does it follow that scientists who indulge in such classification are charlatans?

Most of the time races were justified on the grounds of cultural or language differences between groups of people rather than biological ones.

Even if this is true, it proves nothing.

Their existence was taken as a given right up until the 20th century when anthropologists were busy writing about races as a biological explanation for differences in psychology, including intelligence, and educational and socioeconomic outcomes between groups of people.

While the author does not want us to believe in races, he nevertheless acknowledges that there are different groups of people, and that they can differ in terms of intelligence and socioeconomic outcomes.  Maybe he’ll be telling us next that they can also differ in terms of propensity to criminal acts.

But buried within the survey results were some troubling findings like that anthropologists from privileged groups — in the US context 'white' males and females — were more likely to accept race as valid than non-privileged groups.

The author now accepts that white people exist as a group, and also as a privileged group.  Notice also that he does not explain what he means by privilege in this context.

These privileged scientists represent 75 per cent of the anthropologists surveyed. Their power and influence reaches right across the field. They are the main people determining what research is done, who gets funding ...

The author appears to hint at the possibility that access to funding in the academic world may not always be decided strictly on the basis of merit, but rather on the basis of adherence to an accepted point of view.  That does not surprise me in the slightest.

Related previous posts include:
Is there really just one race?
Are you a racist?

Understanding unemployment statistics

Looking back over some of my previous posts, it occurs to me that I have never fully explained unemployment statistics or how to interpret them.

In the United Kingdom there are two statistics which are published regularly, although they are not always widely reported in the media.  One is the claimant count, and the other is the Labour Market Survey.

The claimant count records the total number of people in the whole country who are claiming benefits on the grounds that they are looking for work.  It is compiled on a monthly basis, and is - or at least ought to be - a precise, reliable figure.  The reason why it is not necessarily a reliable figure is because it is easy for the government to find ways to remove people from the claimant count - for example by persuading them to claim other benefits.

The Labour Market Survey is compiled quarterly, and is an estimate of the number of people out of work in the whole country.  It is based on a survey of a randomly chosen group of people, and is therefore unlikely ever to be a precise figure.  On the other hand there is no reason to regard it as an unreliable figure.  So far as I am aware, no government has ever tried to manipulate it unfairly.

The way to interpret these statistics is as follows.  Take the current level of unemployment as estimated by the Labour Market Survey; then take the fall in the level of unemployment since the last quarter.  At the time of writing, these figures are 1.62million and sixteen thousand respectively.  Then simply divide the one figure by the other, which for the current quarter yields a figure of 101.25.

What this figure reveals is that if unemployment continues to fall at the present rate, then we will achieve zero unemployment in 101 quarters from now.  Divide 101 by four, and we see that full employment can be achieved in twenty-five years from now if unemployment continues to fall at the current rate.

The claimant count can be interpreted in much the same way.  Divide the claimant count by the extent to which it fell since the previous month, and then divide that number by twelve to convert months into years.

If the government is serious about tackling unemployment, then it should achieve falls in both the level of unemployment and the claimant count which are consistent with both figures falling to zero in only a few years.

The British economy does not function in a vacuum.  It is influenced to a large extent by economic events in other parts of the world, although British politicians are generally unwilling to admit this.  As a result, we must expect that - no matter how skilfully the British government manages the economy - we will experience rising unemployment from time to time.

The challenge for any government is to ensure that when unemployment does rise that it rises from a position of not one person out of work - and that has never happened in my lifetime, nor even come close to happening.

Related previous posts include:
Unemployment falls again
The new power house in Europe

The question of statehood in the USA

Once again I have decided to dedicate a post to an in-depth reply to a comment.  This time it relates to my recent post about the definition of a state.  When writing this blog I always try to be factually correct, but I may make mistakes from time to time, and readers are welcome to point out any faults.

I am replying to someone called Luke, who appears to be an American citizen.  The original comments are shown in blue, and I reply mainly in black text.
.

A State of the United States can secede by a simple majority vote of its State legislator.

I wasn't aware of this.  What is your evidence for this?  Is it written into the Constitution of the USA?

That hasn't happened since our Civil War, but many elected representatives of different States have discussed it openly and even made it an issue in their campaigns just recently. No effort to secede from the United States since the Civil War has been successful, mainly because it has never been popular enough to even come to a vote. 

I do not know whether or not any states have discussed leaving the Union since 1865, but I do know that the efforts of eleven states to secede in 1861 were unsuccessful because the federal government of the USA brought them back into the Union through various acts of violence and starvation.

It would be financial suicide for a State to secede from the United States. Only New York, California, and Texas might be able to survive a cut off from the federal system. Our communal taxation system makes it almost impossible for a State to succeed and be financially successful, without that federal financial help.

Again, what is your evidence for this?  I expect that some people in 1776 thought that the British colonies in North America would not be able to survive outside of the British Empire.  Maybe some people in 1966 felt that Bechuanaland would not be able to flourish outside of the British Empire.

Then their is the question of what happens to the federally guarded rights of an American citizen living in a State that secedes.

Presumably they would be replaced by rights guarded by the legislation of that particular state.

When some States seceded from the United States before our Civil War, there was no federal right that made slavery illegal, protected blacks, or even made blacks citizens.

I believe that is correct.

This is where Lincoln is rightfully accused of making unconstitutional, illegal decisions.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I repeat what I said in an earlier post:

If the states were not allowed to secede, then the citizens of those secessionist states were still technically American citizens.  The war deprived many of them of their lives, but in most cases without the privilege of trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the constitution.
.

Lincoln never took the stand that slavery was illegal, or should be abolished. His stance was, as new States joined the United States, they would agree to be non-slave States. 

This is not true.  My understanding is that Lincoln was elected on a policy that all new states of the USA would not have any slavery.  However he subsequently decided - I believe it was early in 1862 - to abolish slavery throughout the USA.  He also decided for political reasons to delay announcing this new policy until later that year.

Our Civil War decided the question of State's rights. 

It decided that states have no right to secede.

Federal law trumps State law. A State cannot deny the federally guaranteed rights of any individual no matter where they (which State) lived. Once our federal Supreme Court decides a certain issues is a protected federal right, that is the law for all States. Same sex marriage is an example. So is integrated schools. 

In short, do states have any rights at all?  It seems to me that they have no rights whatever.  Should they even be termed states?

A person is a United States citizen first, not just a citizen of any one State. It does not matter where in the United States one lives, to have their federal rights protected. 

A big problem with this is that one man's federal right could be another man's federal wrong.

Our Constitution states any right not enumerated by the federal Constitution is left to the States to decide. That's why issues over the years fight in the Supreme Court to get federally protected status.

In other words, a lot of people in the USA do not like to see things decided by states.  That is not surprising when the states are effectively powerless.

This all gets legally complicated and the federal government has sent troops into States to enforce the rights of individuals. Again, the integration of schools is a good example.

I suppose it is easy to decide any legal quibble by sending in troops.  Who needs democracy when you can simply resort to violence?

I know little about the details of your form of government, but I can answer questions about our form of government.

I presume from the above that you are American. Do you accept that your form of government is founded in part at least upon violence?

I came across your blog through a random search and was intrigued by your post enough to respond.

Feel free to respond again.

The quote above in purple text is from this previous post: Mortocracy versus democracy

The only other time I have responded in depth to a comment was with this post: A reasoned approach to war

What exactly is a state?

I have found myself wondering of late about the proper definition of the word state. In some of my previous blog posts I have made use of Merriam Webster online dictionary, but on this occasion I will not be quoting it.

Earlier today I visited that site, and checked the definitions of three words: state, nation, and country.  I had planned to quote the definitions either in whole or in part, but I found the definitions so vague as to be not much use to me.  Up until today, I would have defined these words along the following lines:

A country is a geographical area occupied by people who for the most part share a common heritage and a common culture.  It has clear, recognised boundaries, and will either enjoy a degree of self-determination, or else will have done so in the past.

A nation is a country which currently enjoys a substantial degree of self-determination.  My definition of the word state would be similar although not identical, and it is worth noting that the two words are sometimes linked in the phrase nation state.

Even as I write, however, I feel uneasy with the above definitions.  For example, I have always regarded Wales as  country, but I'm not sure if it really fits the above definition.  Wales was brought together from a cluster of small states in the sixteenth century, but by a legislative process which abolished Welsh law and replaced it with English law.

Some readers might argue that the existence of the Welsh Assembly provides Wales with the degree of self-determination required for it to be classed as a country, but of course the Welsh Assembly was created by an act of parliament of 1998.

I could continue with this argument, but I will not.  I am not asking the reader to decide either way whether or not Wales could have been accurately described as a country prior to 1998.  I am merely observing that the question exists.  I am however prepared to say confidently that I have not tended in the past to regard Wales as either a state or a nation, as I have felt that it lacks a sufficient degree of self-determination.

By contrast, Scotland is easy to regard as a country.  It existed as a self-governing country for hundreds of years, and I have no problem with describing it as both a nation and a state for much of its history.  In 1707 it was united with England to form a new nation called Great Britain.  From that point on until 1998, Scotland continued to have its own legal and judicial system, and laws which applied in England did not necessarily apply in Scotland - and vice versa.

I have habitually regarded Scotland in this era as a country, but I have been less inclined to describe it as a nation, and I have never regarded it as a state.  An act of parliament of 1998 created the Scottish Parliament, whereby I believe that Scotland has a far stronger claim to be considered a nation, although I am still unwilling to describe it as a state.

The United States of America came into existence through a succession of events in the late eighteenth century which include the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Treaty of Paris in 1783.  There were initially just thirteen states, but this had increased to more than thirty at the outset of the year 1861.  In that year, seven states seceded from the Union, closely followed by four others.  All eleven states were forcibly returned to the union in 1865 following a war which claimed in the region of one million lives.

The USA now numbers fifty so-called states.  Each one has its own legislature, but so far as I am aware, not one of them since 1865 has even discussed becoming independent from the rest of the USA.  Nor so far as I am aware is there any recognised legal process whereby one of the so-called states can secede.

By contrast, an act of parliament of 2010 allowed the people of Scotland to vote for independence by referendum in the year 2014.  I am not aware that anyone in the United Kingdom denies that Scotland has the right to become independent if it so chooses, and on that basis Scotland has more right to be termed a state then any of the so-called states of the USA.

Related previous posts include:
Independence: Scotland must vote yes
Independence versus devolution
Mortocracy versus democracy