What's so bad about fascism?

Post Reply New Topic

Well not really the war led to the creation of Stalinism which was the death of Communism. It is good to see that you actually know and understand what happened.

More than any other Ideology that I am aware of

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 09 Feb 2009, 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Now that is an interesting question, one that leads me back to something I realised a long time ago. Fascism is a regular, organic form of government, communism was a weird coup born out of a nest of philosophers and social engineers.

What I'm saying is that fascism doesnt have 'thinkers' in the same way that a commie would recognise them, nationalism and or ethnocentrism with centralised control of the economy is as old as the hills.

I don't know what to say to that. My mind, it is blown.

Nationalism is actually a relatively new ideology, and central control of the economy was not even possible until quite recently (arguably it still is not realistically possible). You are correct only on one point, and that is that racism is quite old.

I don't mean in ideological terms, obviously Marxism did not prevail, I meant more that the Soviets managed to actually create a viable, strong nation out of some very difficult situations.

Not fasc-ionable topic

Extreme political regimes do not last long, in practice, due to many factors including coups, civil war (revolution), war from outside causes, economic disasters and financial (bankruptcy). They are inherently unstable, and so are difficult to sustain. Fascism is no exception.

An issue might be defining "extreme". It is hard to say that modern society is much like a lot of historical ones.

OK then, let's hear your fascist platform. I want specifics, not just vague jingoistic rhetoric. How will a fascist state approach monetary policy? Trade? International relations? What about welfare? Healthcare? Education? Taxes? What is the appropriate fascist response to all these issues?

Monetary policy exists to serve the people, and thus strict rules such as Friedman's monetary rule do not provide enough flexibility to make sure that the economy stays strong and provides jobs for the people. As for trade, the issue with trade is that it leaves the nation open to dangerous foreign products, also, trade can lead to a dangerous dependency on other nations that can be exploited in international relations, as well, certain levels of tariffs can improve the wages of the average worker, as well historically most wealthy nations have gotten their wealth through the judicious use of tariffs to protect their major industries a fact brought to light by economist Ha-Soon Chang and one exploited by Japan in it's meteoric rise to economic success. As for international relations, international affairs are anarchic and filled with threats, and the best way to keep ahead of these threats it to keep peace through strength. Welfare is something only to be given to those willing to work, if a being is not willing to work for the good of society, then it should starve rather than being a leech. Healthcare is to be state provided to help the good of society, particularly given that the US has had failures with it's system while other nations with a more nationalized version are more successful. Market impulses will be used as beneficial, and the care provided will not be entirely free, so as nobody wastes valuable resources, but a government health care system is the best way to ensure the welfare of society. Education shall be government provided to ensure the quality of it, and to make sure that good and essential socialization occurs in it, as well, higher education will be provided for free to those who can meet the high standards required for it, and this higher education will mostly be in fields that provide benefit to the nation rather than useless studies such as often found in the Liberal Arts. As for taxes, the goal of fascism is class collaboration, taxes will be based upon the capability to pay but these taxes will by no means be so stringent as to meet socialism but rather some attention shall be given to marginal incentives and recognize that those great enough to earn wealth should receive it.

Does that work? I am not going into numbers by any means, so if you want something more specific then you are screwed. In any case, fascism is to some extent pragmatic compared to other ideas, like libertarianism which *must* hold to a certain set of economic policies.

I realize you're playing devils advocate but you're really beating around the bush. The "goal" of fascism in Germany was to get the working class and the ruling elite(especially wealthy industrialists) to gang up and annihilate the middle class, which was predominately jewish at the time. Socialism has the ideal of a classless, egalitarian society...Fascism most certainly does Not. But look kid, if you're enamored with fascism go live in Turkey or Uzbekistan for at least a year; THEN come and talk to us about what its actually like to live under it.

Well, actually that seems completely wrong, as I thought that the middle class were a group to mostly support fascism and have heard that multiple times. As well, I can't even imagine that there would be enough Jews to dominate the middle class, I mean, yes the Jews were more successful than the average person without being the super-rich, but not enough to constitute a middle class.

I also never said anything about classlessness or egalitarianism.

In any case, your attack here is pretty weak, as you address almost nothing.

Not bad. I take it, then, that your fascist state is open to some form of Keynesian monetary policy? Otherwise there is no reason to accuse Friedmanite monetary rules of being too inflexible, since their goal is to be inflexible. Hm, the tariff standpoint could be problematic, but from a fiercely nationalistic standpoint a degree of protectionism seems valid enough.

OK, your hypothetical fascist society seems at least semi-viable. Doesn't mean I'd like it, but it would probably work. Now, how about civil liberties? Criminal justice? I'm also interested in hearing about drug laws under this hypothetical regime. Further, what is the bureaucratic apparatus like? How are administrative decisions in government made? Based on your desire for "peace through strength" you presumably would promote funding of scientific research in the hopes of it having military applications?

You've made it a heck of a lot farther than most libertarian theorists in giving specifics.

Well, yes, it holds to a Keynesian monetary policy.

As for civil liberties, most media would be regulated so as to prevent anti-state messages from coming through or bad cultural ideas. After all, promoting such views could logically lead to self-destructive behavior, after all, I think there is some evidence that bad influences can lead to bad behavior. Certain religions will be banned based upon how they can negatively impact communal spirit, and the ones that are kept will have some regulation by the state, if not state control after all, Christianity is controlled in certain European countries today. This will be to make sure that the message given is controlled somewhat. Criminal justice will be based upon reformation using both teaching and use of force, it is always essential to provide a stick and a carrot for results to occur and hopefully through this, better outcomes can be attained. Drug laws will involve restrictions on most drugs, with the explicit reasoning that these can hurt productivity and health, both of which are governmental concerns, and effort will be taken to make sure that drugs do not have a large effect within schools and families. This will be done with both conventional punishment, and financial incentives for turning in drug-dealers. The bureaucratic apparatus will be mostly hierarchical and with some adversarialism cultivated around the top so as to promote improvement, with a strong emphasis on efficiency and working well with the private sector, in fact, a high level of accountability will be held to the private sector, with branches of the bureaucracy showing themselves to be non-functional to be examined and reformatted or pruned if necessary. Administrative decisions? Well, I think that the elite should rule, they earned it after all. But the selection mechanism is still something I would need to work through. Yes, scientific discoveries related to the military would be promoted, as these can both help the whole of society in spin-off creations, and building a strong military force will certainly involve having the best technology.

Yes, well, I have to be a good devil, don't I?

Indeed you do. I'll not bother refuting you on drug law, you already know you're wrong there, and badly so. How do you decide what is or isn't censored?

Also, what are the mechanisms for accountability?

Last edited by Orwell on 08 Feb 2009, 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Meh, on drug law, I am probably no worse than the current US.

Such lines are always subjective. Basically some standards will have to be set and then implemented, it is like drawing standards with most things, basically the major standard would be whether a cultural influence would be alienating, as a psychological distance from a fellow member of society is likely behind things as extreme as shootings, and can just play a harmful role in society, as societies are not just groups of people in the same place, but also do and must share norms and common goals, otherwise the society will collapse.