Fascism

[AntimonyLegault]

This is a touchy matter. But I'll try to explain my thoughts and self-realization as fairly as possible. I'm pretty certain if everyone here is by definition an INTJ, then the state of world affairs is blatantly obvious. People tend to be in positions they shouldn't be in, most will abandon principle for inevitably temporary wealth.

Democracy, while probably the best of the worst thing we have (I think Churchhill said that) becomes unwieldly as fractures in the electorate increase at alarming rates. I'm talking things like pop culture for instance, which breeds irrational hatred among people over trivial things. These people are responsible for who is elected and if they can be moved so easily by the power of suggestion, then it is that they can be bought still more easily. Yes, elections are not about good government anymore, they're about who makes up the most bullshit and the people who happen to get into executive positions are mostly for themselves.

Now I know the word 'fascist' tends to bring up images of extremist, brutal, regimes. But to examine the matter closer we'd need to look at what exactly fascism is.

"n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control."

Fascism, though given a bad image, may not neccasarily be outright barbarism. The idea of it might be exercised as a sort of 'clan' system, with like-minded individuals as its members.
Also, to define fascism as the media tends to, is to look at the worst known scenario of the idea put to use.

Democracy prides itself in putting faith into the people to empower "the best leader" which is 'tyranny of the majority', it's as I said earlier more people mean more footfalls, it would seem that we stand divided as we watch liberty fall. I don't think I can say much else really.

I'd love to live in a universal, perfect, democracy, but it just doesn't work due to the fact that the people lose power of will to our inherent beastiality (the population growth is killing the planet, whereas it might be managed), we absolutely cannot depend on our average citizen to know what's best for humanity, something I need not say.

In the end the people make the final choice, at this rate they're on the road to self-genocide.

[Tarrick]

What was it..."Civilization is the end of the human race."

So we're faced with the choice of:

a) Uncontrollable problems and conflicts because people can choose but can't work together.

or b) Having everyone managed by people that know better and will ensure that everything is taken care of because no one has the freedom to disagree with them

Except that that has never worked and rebels have popped up everywhere it's been attempted, to a greater or lesser degree.

We're faced with a problem that has no real solution because people are fundamentally flawed. So the only thing we can really do is go with the best solution that we have, and that is democracy.

[Hdier]

I think that our system of government (I assume we're talking about the US) is better than others, but it still needs a lot of work. The only problem is that many people seem to think that the Constitution is godsend, and that it outlines the perfect way of doing things. We need to take a long look at it, and try to think of a better way of doing things.

[prometheus]

"n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control."


We are living in a fascist country.

1) centralization of authority under a dictator: We might change dictators ever 4 years or so but the original checks and balances are gone.

2)stringent socioeconomic controls: Try opening up a "head shop" in your basement and find out.

3)terror and censorship Ever hear of "free speech zones", or our current torture stance of raping a daughter in front of the father is alright as long as we are the only ones doing it?

4)typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. "Support the troops", "America you are with us, or you are against us", "Kick their ass and take their gas"

[AntimonyLegault]

Although you're right, I was thinking of something more along the lines of what Amerindian tribes were at one point.

[rocksteady]

I'm banking on a technological system that will allow people to basically govern themselves. This is slowly being achieved through decentralization. As the technological and social lines continue to blur, people will gravitate towards groups that share their ideology almost exactly (ahem, this forum as a starting point). Physical distance will continue to decrease in importance. I think essentially people will be governed by whatever "online communities" they intend to join.

Elements of fascism will be around, but it will be accepted, controlled fascism. Everyone controlling or participating in their own "metaverse" if you will. Most political ideology talk takes place on timescales we don't have. Politics are much slower than tech, and will eventually (25 years?) technology will take governments place.

I agree that fascism is not inherently bad. If Einstein or someone like that was a fascist ruler, and ignored the "intimidation and fear" aspect, we would all probably be better off. The problem is that most people pursuing the role of fascist leader have less than noble intentions. Hitler was immensely intelligent but also a terrible humanitarian. If people were allowed to freely choose their own fascist leader, it would make things a little more workable.

[Nomad]

Interesting point, Rocksteady. Not one fascist state, but a lot of small ones? I think the problem with a fascist mindset, is that it does not allow for other ideologies. It's a sort of mono idea, and true strength and durability is found in diversity. A fascist tell me what to think, and do, and believe. I'm going to tell them no if I disagree. Then we have a problem. How many of us here, in a like minded community, think that we should all agree? Boring. We don't even agree what is subjective and what is objective most days.

For what it's worth, I think you have an excellent idea, and i think it's probably the best hope for our continued survival, decentralization of society. Smaller sized, limited communities, etc. How many of you IT people seriously NEED to commute to do their job?

I just don't think what you describe is really fascism.

Good idea, thought.

-Nomad

[rocksteady]

Interesting point, Rocksteady. Not one fascist state, but a lot of small ones? I think the problem with a fascist mindset, is that it does not allow for other ideologies. It's a sort of mono idea, and true strength and durability is found in diversity. A fascist tell me what to think, and do, and believe. I'm going to tell them no if I disagree. Then we have a problem. How many of us here, in a like minded community, think that we should all agree? Boring. We don't even agree what is subjective and what is objective most days.

For what it's worth, I think you have an excellent idea, and i think it's probably the best hope for our continued survival, decentralization of society. Smaller sized, limited communities, etc. How many of you IT people seriously NEED to commute to do their job?

I just don't think what you describe is really fascism.

Good idea, thought.

-Nomad

i don't think the overall idea should be labeled fascist, just certain components. More like personal fascism as opposed to state fascism. The reason I use the term fascism is because the increasing amounts of power that individuals get due to great technology, also will probably increase power lust, which is a central point of fascism i would say. Fascism has a pretty vague general definition anyways, and I probably wouldn't have the used the word if I wasn't responding in this thread however. (i relate everything to the future of tech, lol)

[Ederico]

Now I know the word 'fascist' tends to bring up images of extremist, brutal, regimes. But to examine the matter closer we'd need to look at what exactly fascism is.

"n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control."

I tend to believe that this definition of fascism is in fact a definition befitting nazism.

This is my first post here, I've been politically associated to fascism in the past and that helped look into the matter further. I said to myself, "if they're going to use an epithet against me, might as well know what it is all about!" I do not really consider myself a fascist, and even though in Italy I would support political groupings whom would be termed postfascist or neofascist, I doubt how truly "fascist" they are unless one associates with historical fascism political currents that are not exclusively fascist to start with.

First of all, most anglophone people speak of fascism knowing little to nothing of historical fascism, nor its ideological tenets. Moreover, not only do such people get fed an ideologically modified and biased view of fascism by its opponents, but they also have a linguistic barrier to counter. Considering that the English-speaking world had been historically opposed to fascism, an objective person would understand how "dangerous" this is for a correct understanding of fascism.

People should understand one thing, fascism was a political movement much more based on action than ideology, and this according to Mussolini's own words.

In fascism there were a myriad of currents that basically meant that it could not have one single ideology, and its coherency depended on one thing, the pragmatic application of one major diktat, the good of the country. Relating to nazism's racial policies Mussolini stated that "il razzismo è uno cosa per biondi" (racism is a thing for blondes), and that Hitler was "quel pazzo di Berlino" (that madman from Berlin). Fascist racial laws were introduced exclusively due to nazi pressure, and were resented by most fascists.

Fascist Italy had feared a Nazi German invasion (so much so that Mussolini had ordered the building of a vast military complex in Northern Italy to counter such an eventuality). What truly brought about the alliance was not ideological sympathy, but rather the fact that Fascist Italy was ending up internationally isolated due to Franco-British sanctions in the 1930s due to Italy's African campaign. In the same campaign Nazi Germany had even provided weapons to the Africans opposing the Fascist endeavour, in order to weaken the latter for the former's hit in Austria (which Fascist Italy had opposed in previous years by putting military troops by the border in Northern Italy as a signal to Nazi Germany that Austria should have been left untouched). Hitler might have been crazy about Mussolini, but Mussolini only thought Hitler as crazy in private.

The truth about racism is that the opponents of fascism were as racist as their opponents were. The freedom fighting UK and USA were not immune from institutional racism. The former had usurped our islands, our history remains distorted. Maltese workers performing the same jobs as British ones, in Malta, were paid less, certain areas were off-limits if one wasn't of British blood, if one was a nationalist he was prone to suffer discrimination. The latter culminated in war crimes against a group of some 48 Maltese nationalists, whom were deported to Uganda during a war supposedly fought for freedom and human rights. On this episode, one can read this excellent article by the current Maltese judge at the European Court of Human Rights - (unfortunately I cannot post this due to some technical limitation).

My main point here, is that equating nazism to fascism or as one of its various incarnations is ridiculous and incorrect. Fascism was inherently Italian, and Italian fascism is fascism. The rest is anglophonic simplification and error. If anything, Spanish Falangism should be associated with Italian Fascism, not German Nazism. Even this though, would be incorrect and muddling.

Fascism, as "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator" arose out of historical contingency. The first fasci in 1919, in Piazza San Sepolcro in Milan, actually had a very democratic programme, calling for universal suffrage amongst others and the right of women to vote. The first Mussolini-led cabinet comprised ministers from all Italian political parties, unfortunately certain things went off hand and to maintain power this had to be changed, otherwise a communist reassertion was to be expected. Fascist advisers had asked Mussolini to call free elections at times, as they were totally sure that that would have resulted in a fascist plebiscite (particularly after the declaration of the Empire). The fascist suppression of the opposition, included allowing the major liberal thinker of Italy, Benedetto Croce, write freely in local papers, and else. One of the last friends of Mussolini in his last days, was Bombacci, one of the former Italian communist leaders.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying that fascist rule was a liberal democracy, not at all. I might favour liberal constitutionalism and democracy, but historical fascism was openly and unequivocally opposed to liberal democracy, and that is probably why it got power in those days. Liberal democracy in Italy was failing to meet the populace's expectations, leading to a true communist danger. Liberal democrats in Italy showed themselves weak against the "minaccia rossa" (red threat), and the fascist squadristi were the necessary antidote, the liberals in their comfortable saloons would have done nothing concrete to block a communist show of force.

Calling fascism far-right for example is laughable as far as political theory is concerned, perhaps a reflection that far-right is whatever is most actively opposed to the far-left. Fascists themselves couldn't stand being considered right-wing, and they viewed liberal democracy and international socialism/communism as part and parcel of the same problem. This though is a common error everywhere, and is not restricted to the anglosphere.

No political system is inherently evil, inasmuch as no political system is politically good. The strength of democracy lies in the fact that it allows people to err freely, even though with great immaturity they add unrelated notions such as the equality of intellects to discern right from wrong political choices and equate the right with the popular. Fascism pretended to impose the good of the people on the people, and even though it seemed to work fine prior to the war itself, it was eventually bound to fall without the popular support that made it work. Hear I would say that the Spanish Falangisti (Franco's) seemed to better understand this (or had a more favourable history perhpas). That is the truth of every political system, for politics is about a society's governance, and without the support of that society governance becomes either tyrannical or/and eventually prone to fall.

[rocksteady]

Now, mind you, I'm not saying that fascist rule was a liberal democracy, not at all. I might favour liberal constitutionalism and democracy, but historical fascism was openly and unequivocally opposed to liberal democracy, and that is probably why it got power in those days. Liberal democracy in Italy was failing to meet the populace's expectations, leading to a true communist danger. Liberal democrats in Italy showed themselves weak against the "minaccia rossa" (red threat), and the fascist squadristi were the necessary antidote, the liberals in their comfortable saloons would have done nothing concrete to block a communist show of force.


If Italian liberal democrats were anything like our liberal democrats, that changes my whole perspective on fascism for sure.

I've always felt fascism was a system that could be used for rapid advancement of a society towards a goal, whose reputation was tarnished by a few bad dictators (which is one of the major flaws in the system I think, too much power to one individual)

Also, I want to thank you for the awesome information packed post! I feel like I just passed a course on world government!

[AgentofGaming]

To prevent politically unaware people from voting would require something like a "test to be able to vote". This could ensure that a potential voter understood the world of politics in such a way that they would be able to make a knowledgeable vote. However it has the potential to be used as a way to censor votes.

Has anyone looked into technocracy? there are several definitions though: One would be to let the intellectuals form a governing committee. Another would be letting the most competent person have the respective position in government.
It works on a small scale as the most skilled person is elected leader of a group.

However despite all those points, anything less than Universal Suffrage can lead to people feeling alienated and dissatisfied. Unless of course those not in suffrage acknowledge their government provides perfectly well for them.

[Booko]

Democracy, while probably the best of the worst thing we have (I think Churchhill said that) becomes unwieldly as fractures in the electorate increase at alarming rates. I'm talking things like pop culture for instance, which breeds irrational hatred among people over trivial things. These people are responsible for who is elected and if they can be moved so easily by the power of suggestion, then it is that they can be bought still more easily. Yes, elections are not about good government anymore, they're about who makes up the most bullshit and the people who happen to get into executive positions are mostly for themselves.

Yes, I believe it was Franklin who remarked that democracy was viable until people figured out they could vote themselves money.

Democratic forms of gov't also depend on an informed populace, but we seem to have shifted as a society to something more along the lines of bread & circuses.

Our public education system is designed not to guide people to learn to think critically, but to make them uniform happy factory workers in a time when there isn't much factory work to do.

"n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control."

Fascism, though given a bad image, may not neccasarily be outright barbarism. The idea of it might be exercised as a sort of 'clan' system, with like-minded individuals as its members.

Also, to define fascism as the media tends to, is to look at the worst known scenario of the idea put to use.

Maybe it's the "terror and censorship" part the media reacts to. I can't say the rampant nationalism and racism do much good either, for that matter.

Are there examples of cultures under a system like this that you think might be worth considering as models that would be good?

Democracy prides itself in putting faith into the people to empower "the best leader" which is 'tyranny of the majority', it's as I said earlier more people mean more footfalls, it would seem that we stand divided as we watch liberty fall. I don't think I can say much else really.


Yes, tyranny of the majority is a danger, which is why there need to be safeguards to prevent that. We have some, though of late they have proved ineffective. But I can remember well a time when the safeguards were functioning fairly well.

In the end the people make the final choice, at this rate they're on the road to self-genocide.

Oh, I would've considered that far more likely when I was growing up during the Cold War. Not that we don't have our problems now, or that those problems are somehow insignificant, mind you.

[Hdier]

An interesting way to do the votes would be to have people vote on what they think about various issues, and how strongly they feel about them, and they choose a candidate based off of how many points he has in favor with America, prioritized by how strongly America feels about it.

[Nomad]

That would require people to actually put some thought into their decisions. Most people spend very little time thinking, and very rarely do they think beyond what is good for them, rather than what is good for the whole.

For instance, it's become quite fashionable to shop in Whole Foods here in the Bay Area. They still leave their Escalades and Hummers idling at the curb while they go into the store to purchase their organic free trade coffee while wearing stones on their fingers mined using what amounts to slave labor and traded internationally to support genocide.

They don't shop at Whole Foods because it's the best choice for the planet, they shop there because it's trendy to do so.

it's pretty much marketing, nothing more.

-Nomad

[Sylvanus]

Democracy, while probably the best of the worst thing we have (I think Churchhill said that) becomes unwieldly as fractures in the electorate increase at alarming rates. I'm talking things like pop culture for instance, which breeds irrational hatred among people over trivial things. These people are responsible for who is elected and if they can be moved so easily by the power of suggestion, then it is that they can be bought still more easily. Yes, elections are not about good government anymore, they're about who makes up the most bullshit and the people who happen to get into executive positions are mostly for themselves.

Strictly speaking, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Nevertheless, the whole system is screwed and is far worse than the situation our founding fathers were in when they rebelled.

Fascism, though given a bad image, may not neccasarily be outright barbarism. The idea of it might be exercised as a sort of 'clan' system, with like-minded individuals as its members.
Also, to define fascism as the media tends to, is to look at the worst known scenario of the idea put to use.
While Fascism and Capitalism both have their good points and bad points, capitalism is preferred. The reason for this is that fascism (like communism) is based on collectivism, while capitalism is based in individualism, which is more impervious to the tendencies of tyranny and consolidation of power, which are inherent in any form of government.

[Allie]

Looking at this at a basic level. That's all I am capable of in expressing myself in writing :-)

Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and Communionism have seen the test of time and failed. From my point of view, they share the same ideal, Utopia (in the broadest terms) and requires one thing to make it work, the use of force (of any and all forms). This is not viable as it's against nature (we're not the same, period) and human nature (we're competitive and do not respond well to force).

At first glance, I'd test any political systems against the following overall basic requirements:

1. Freedom - In all aspects. Balance between individual freedom with fairness to the greater society/masses, err on the side of individualism.
2. Leadership - Fair representation, and elective processes. There will always be a natural gravitation toward a central leader or leaders, be it within the families, groups/organizations, corporations, or governments.
3. Law and order - Accountability. Holding individuals and organizations accountable

The US political system is far from perfect, but workable. At each critical periods throughout it's hisory, I am sure most people go through the same dis-satisfaction with the system, which is good in making sure it's working, but looking back through the years, the bigger picture puts them into perspectives.

Having experienced Communism first hand, and read about its related --ism family, any forms or manifestations of them just scare the beejeezus out of me.

[rocksteady]

The reason for this is that fascism (like communism) is based on collectivism, while capitalism is based in individualism, which is more impervious to the tendencies of tyranny and consolidation of power, which are inherent in any form of government.

I think a balance could be achieved between capitalism and fascism, I believe sometimes collective and individual interests can align themselves together. An individual can choose to align themselves with multiple collectives, while still maintaining their own identity.A society that is mentally prepared could theoretically do well for themselves.

[Sylvanus]

I think a balance could be achieved between capitalism and fascism, I believe sometimes collective and individual interests can align themselves together. An individual can choose to align themselves with multiple collectives, while still maintaining their own identity.A society that is mentally prepared could theoretically do well for themselves.

I'm pretty sure the purpose of a fascist government is to remove the identity of the individual. Assuming that everyone in all levels of the government was working for the benefit of society and not their own self interests fascism may work alright. However, we can't even guarantee that in a capitalist society that has checks and balances that are supposed to prevent corruption. A fascist society may start with the best of intentions, but it has the power to impose its will and to maintain its power. It would have to have a pretty rigorous set of checks and balances in order to maintain itself as a benevolent government and not an oppressive one.