Fascism

[PanzerJaeger]

I did not want to hijack the Communist/Theocracy thread, but I did want to try to answer the people who had questions about fascism. I will try and give the best description I can, but direct questions would be better.

Fascism has its origins in the Spartan governmental system, not Mussolini(although of course it got its name from his movement). There are a lot of misconceptions about the ideology because of how it was instituted in the '30s.

These days, fascism is essentially a heavily regulated capitalist meritocracy. The military and the industrial sectors are the most valued components of society, and that is where the leadership is primarily drawn from. The two distinct groups keep each other in check. Instead of the popularity contests voted on by the feeble public of a democracy, or the innumerable problems caused by hereditary power, fascist society is ruled by those that have proven themselves the best among their peers.

Fascism promotes a class system based on merit. Those who prove themselves intelligent, diligent, and committed advance in society, while those who are less than stellar are not burdened with the responsibility of leadership or voting. Why should the opinion of a stupid, lazy man count the same as a smart, hard working one?

A fascist society is based in tradition and promotes nationalism. Unlike communism, fascism embraces cultural tradition and idealizes national heroes and advancements. Conservative in nature, the government promotes education in the sciences, and culturally significant forms of art. (Substantive, not crap)

Most importantly, fascism emphasizes competition. Idyllic fascist society enables the best to rise to the top and lead the others. Unlike communism and republicanism which emphasizes equality among all, fascism promotes the idea that people are inherently unequal, and the best people deserve the best places in society.

A fascist nation is only answerable to itself. It acts in its own best interest first and foremost. Whether this means war or peace, the betterment of the nation and its people come first before all other considerations.

Of course, the fatal flaw with this system that caused such problems in the 20th century was leadership. Mussolini bullied himself in, while Hitler swooned an uneducated public.

Power would be split between a group of the top leaders in the nation and a supreme leader. How this power would be distributed and, more importantly, how the institutions would initially come into being are fundamental issues that make fascism difficult to establish correctly in a nation.

Fascism is not necessarily racism, state sponsored homicide, or warfare.



Now then, feel free to tear it apart. I will be happy to answer any genuine questions, and maybe some insults as well. ~:P

[Tribesman]

Fair play to ya Panzer .
A brave attempt , but what you have done is shown is shown the fundamental flaws that make fascism as an ideology just as repugnanrt as many other isms .


I will be happy to answer any genuine questions
OK try this one for a start .
Fascism is not necessarily racism
If fascism with its basis of nationalism , meritocracy and superiority must of course view all other non nationals as not so meritable or superior because...well because they are of a different nationality , then how can it not be racist ?

[AntiochusIII]

Fascism has its origins in the Spartan governmental system, not Mussolini(although of course it got its name from his movement). There are a lot of misconceptions about the ideology because of how it was instituted in the '30s.Spartans weren't fascists. Not in a modern sense, no. Sure, the ideology draws from just about every source possible, Spartans probably included, but the ancient city-state wasn't fascism.

These days, fascism is essentially a heavily regulated capitalist meritocracy. The military and the industrial sectors are the most valued components of society, and that is where the leadership is primarily drawn from. The two distinct groups keep each other in check. Instead of the popularity contests voted on by the feeble public of a democracy, or the innumerable problems caused by hereditary power, fascist society is ruled by those that have proven themselves the best among their peers.Actually, what really happened is that fascism is at least as much a populist regime as a typical Democracy. It just interprets populism in a far more Machiavellian sense -- if the public doesn't believe, make it believe, usually including the disappearance of certain undesirable elements that oppose the regime's viewpoint too strongly.

Also, it's not any more of a meritocracy than a typical democratic government either; even less, in fact, since accountability is close to absolute zero in most cases, and the ruling classes jealously guard their privileges with extremely questionable methods if need be.

By the way, what is "these days?" I'm not aware of a truly fascist regime surviving in the world. A lot of tinpot dictators, sure, but no full-blown Restored Roman Empire (!!!) states as far as I know.

Fascism promotes a class system based on merit. Those who prove themselves intelligent, diligent, and committed advance in society, while those who are less than stellar are not burdened with the responsibility of leadership or voting. Why should the opinion of a stupid, lazy man count the same as a smart, hard working one?Because the stupid, lazy man is the Leader's crony? Fascism relies on a symbolic head; that symbolic head is usually a tyrant just as bad as the worst of monarchs before him.

The system promotes ruthless, unscrupulous takeovers of the leadership positions. The worst kinds of thugs and scums usually make it there.

Poor, honest Frank will have to do with his one-room apartment in the slums of Palermo. He's neither cruel nor rich enough to "win," nor is he dishonest enough to play the sycophant.

A fascist society is based in tradition and promotes nationalism. Unlike communism, fascism embraces cultural tradition and idealizes national heroes and advancements. Conservative in nature, the government promotes education in the sciences, and culturally significant forms of art. (Substantive, not crap)Wrong. It promotes a romanticization and distortion of all academic fields for the purpose of state propaganda. It bastardizes traditions in favor of acquiring the "glorious past" that the nation could then strive for, no matter that it never existed. It stamps out dissident thoughts -- usually crucial in ensuring the honesty of the "progress" -- and stifles fields the leadership feels is unimportant. I'm sorry, Mr. Potter, but pottery is insignificant to the glory of the nation; please be coerced into joining the Army. Or else.

The government-sponsored "education" is essentially a years-long propaganda campaign to instill into the youth misguided ideas of "the enemy," "national glory," and such; allowing humans to do things to other humans they usually won't likely to do without either desperation or said "education."

Most importantly, fascism emphasizes competition. Idyllic fascist society enables the best to rise to the top and lead the others. Unlike communism and republicanism which emphasizes equality among all, fascism promotes the idea that people are inherently unequal, and the best people deserve the best places in society.I suppose you're right on this one. Which doesn't change a thing for me, since to me social darwinism is a despicable ideal. You are a big fish wanting to eat all the small fish, big macho alpha male? Get away from civilization, then!; something like that.

A fascist nation is only answerable to itself. It acts in its own best interest first and foremost. Whether this means war or peace, the betterment of the nation and its people come first before all other considerations.If you mean the intention alone (obviously the results aren't very impressive), then you can include the nation, but not the people. Forget about the people; the people are tools of the state, they are a part of the glory, and can die, starve, and be massacred for national glory if need be. They don't need freedom, rights, or luxury goods beyond the basic necessities that allow them to perform functions the state requires of them or to keep their boots shiny enough to parade.

Power would be split between a group of the top leaders in the nation and a supreme leader. How this power would be distributed and, more importantly, how the institutions would initially come into being are fundamental issues that make fascism difficult to establish correctly in a nation.Top leaders of what? Supreme leaders from what? All these either come from established ruling classes -- usually scums, thugs in nobles' clothing -- or from the thugs themselves, who wade through blood and/or backroom backstabbings to rise to the top.

So *your* fascism is an oligarchy, then? Who'd topple the oligarchs once they become decadent, inbred, or merely just irritating?

Fascism is not necessarily racism, state sponsored homicide, or warfare.You cannot deny the latter; the desire for expansion and national glory is intertwined, and the claim to national glory (a bloody lame concept, in any case) is inherent in whatever constitutes anybody's fascisms. Moreover, all humans are unequal (based on nationality, race, colour, wealth, or conditions of servitude) = racism.

[PanzerJaeger]

Fair play to ya Panzer .
A brave attempt , but what you have done is shown is shown the fundamental flaws that make fascism as an ideology just as repugnanrt as many other isms .


OK try this one for a start .
Fascism is not necessarily racism
If fascism with its basis of nationalism , meritocracy and superiority must of course view all other non nationals as not so meritable or superior because...well because they are of a different nationality , then how can it not be racist ?


Well, I did my best. It is harder to give an all-encompassing description rather than answer specific questions.

To answer your question, race and national identity are not synonyms. In idyllic fascism, merit, not race, would be the key to advancement.

Again, racism was used heavily in Nazi Germany, but that was simply their take on fascism.

[PanzerJaeger]

Antiochus,

Most of your arguments are based on the fascist states of the 20th century.

I am certainly not intending on defending the actions of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. I am in complete agreement that those regimes, while being the closest actual attempts at fascism, did not work.

I am simply trying to show you why it is my opinion that fascism - "if done well" - is preferable to the other major governmental theories, and why it would be so difficult to institute it "well".

Edit: One of your points that is applicable to the modern theory.


I suppose you're right on this one. Which doesn't change a thing for me, since to me social darwinism is a despicable ideal. You are a big fish wanting to eat all the small fish, big macho alpha male? Get away from civilization, then!; something like that.

It is not about "eating up the little fish", it is about the best people advancing while the worst(stupid, lazy, unpatriotic) fall into the worst positions in society. People get what they deserve based on their merits. Those without merits are deservingly dealt with by the state.

[Tribesman]

To answer your question, race and national identity are not synonyms. In idyllic fascism, merit, not race, would be the key to advancement.


But if someone from another race/nationality/heritage/culture merits advancement then surely their race/nationaltity/heritage/culture should be taught as superior to that of the domestic one .
Don't forget your basis is that national tradition and culture are what sets the nation and its citizens above those of other nations and cultures .
So if someone else was to advance on merit it would undermine the whole national/cultural concept .

But anyway Antiochus has set you some real challenging ones there to explain .

[CountArach]

It is not about "eating up the little fish", it is about the best people advancing while the worst(stupid, lazy, unpatriotic) fall into the worst positions in society.

So basically a person who does not want to be oppressed by their government on the grounds that "It is for the good of the state", and as such is unpatriotic, would be unable to rise to the top? What makes these people less worthy of the top spot than someone else?

[Geoffrey S]

These days, fascism is essentially a heavily regulated capitalist meritocracy. The military and the industrial sectors are the most valued components of society, and that is where the leadership is primarily drawn from. The two distinct groups keep each other in check. Instead of the popularity contests voted on by the feeble public of a democracy, or the innumerable problems caused by hereditary power, fascist society is ruled by those that have proven themselves the best among their peers.
Here is the problem. 'The best among peers' is an extremely fickle subject, and someone who is appropriate to rule at one point will not be so at another time in the future. However, the very nature of fascism makes it possible for such people to consolidate their own power and prevent that very selection based on merit that you describe as fundamental to the proper functioning of a fascist state. Good leaders will not always remain so, and bad leaders are exceedingly hard to remove while preserving a fascist state.

[English assassin]

It is not about "eating up the little fish", it is about the best people advancing while the worst(stupid, lazy, unpatriotic) fall into the worst positions in society. People get what they deserve based on their merits. Those without merits are deservingly dealt with by the state

OK. Lets say for the sake of argument that this is a "good idea" (to be defined, but form now, take it as a given)

How does fascism improve on western liberal democracy in delivering an outcome where the "best" people are "adanced" and the "worst" are not?

As far as I can see fascism has major drawbacks, even if we accept the idea that fascism could be implimented without reference to race (which I don't in fact accept, and nor do I find the fetishising of the "nation" attractive, but as I say, for the sake of argument).

First, it seems to come with an odd preference for the military and industrial sectors. Apparently it is not enough to be the best at what you do, to be the best best you must be a soldier or a junker. Why? Isn't being a doctor, a teacher, or an artist also good?

Second, fascism is simply another attempt to plan the market. All the historical evidence is against you here except, possibly, in the very special case of a society facing an extreme and short term challenge. The only example I can think of would be the USSR/UK/USA in WWII, none of which were of course fascist. There seems to be no reason at all for thinking that a planned economy will be advantageous in peacetime. On the contrary, the evidence is that it will be less efficient and deliver worse outcomes for everyone.

If you look at the west it seems to me you find a system where the "best" do in fact advance very considerably. And, in an improvement on fascism, they are not the "best" because they are deemed to be the best by some ideology/party machinery deriving its authority from I know not quite where, they are the "best" as a result of the operation of the market. (There may be those who feel that even that does not fully capture the richness of human experience, :yes: and that a highly paid businessman is not necessarily "better" than a lowly paid social worker, but again, allow it for the sake of argument. Lets see if fascism works even on its own terms)

IHMO fascism's primary appeal is to those who would define "best" as "those who have the insight to be fascists". it is a genuinely dangerous ideology even in these so caled "modern" terms, since a combination of a peculiar fixation on the "nation" (and hence an inevitable distain for that which is not of "the nation", bioth internally and externally) and an economic theory which really only had any merit in a short term **** or bust production burn, and which will over time inevitably deliver living standards that fall behind other nations (thereby creating the need to distract the people) will always tend to make a fascist state an aggressive and hostile player on the world stage.

Still, kudos for discussing it sensibly PJ.

[Adrian II]

1. Power corrupts even the best minds, and unchecked power does so at twice the pace.

2. Make that three times the pace for communism and fascism, since corporatism (merger of state and corporate power) means one less check on power.

[HoreTore]

Thanks a lot for this thread, PanserJager! I surfed a fascist forum some years, but to be honest, I can't remember much of it... Ignore the some of the idiot criticism, some people prefer to rot in ignorance and give up a good chance to learn about something they know little about.

I do have a question; what groups/persons are furthering the fascist ideology today? And is it still changing?

Oh, and to the comment on Spartans... If you can call the Athenian democracy the beginning of democracy, then surely you can call the Spartans the beginning of fascism...

[Tribesman]

Ignore the some of the idiot criticism, some people prefer to rot in ignorance and give up a good chance to learn about something they know little about.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


I surfed a fascist forum some years, but to be honest, I can't remember much of it...
Visit one of the forums again , there are lots of them , and they are very very educational ...... educational in so far as seeing how many idiots are out there and just how crazy their ideas are .
Now I would post links to some nice Norwegian fascist sites , but that tends to get me a severe spanking from the mods .:shrug:
So instead I must suggest that you find and revisit some of those forums and then come back and try and talk of idiot criticism and rotting in ignorance .:thumbsdown:

[Meneldil]

According to your definition, many Western Countries could be labeled as fascist States, while they're in fact not. *cough* US *cough*


It is not about "eating up the little fish", it is about the best people advancing while the worst(stupid, lazy, unpatriotic) fall into the worst positions in society. People get what they deserve based on their merits. Those without merits are deservingly dealt with by the state.

Apart the 'unpatriotic' thingy, isn't that how modern societies work ? I mean, although you might be thinking that these horrid nany states allow anyone to have a great life, you'd be surprised to see that the stupid and lazy people are still a the bottom of the social leader, and will stay there forever.


Unlike communism and republicanism which emphasizes equality among all, fascism promotes the idea that people are inherently unequal, and the best people deserve the best places in society.

Well, AFAIK, republicanism doesn't emphasize equality but equity. These are 2 very different things.
And well, equity very much shows who is the best one : you're not labeled as the best because of your race/your ideology/your father who is the party's leader, but because you studied more and worked harder.

Overall, I think your definition of the ideal fascism is quite flawed, as it tends to oppose the leader and the ruling class (aka 'the best one(s)') to the - quite stupid - mass, while fascism is political ideology that emphazises as much on the mass as on the leader. What you're describing is simply elitism (an ideology that was also theorized -is that a word btw ?-, mainly after the French Revolution), not fascism.

[Vladimir]

I am simply trying to show you why it is my opinion that fascism - "if done well" - is preferable to the other major governmental theories, and why it would be so difficult to institute it "well".

Therin lies the rub. The same can be said about many forms of government, perhaps all of them.

[cegorach]

WOW ! Another useless important thread in the ORG.

Makes me wonder if I should start another one - 'human sacrifice - the best way to get rid of crime' :hide:

[macsen rufus]

fundamental issues that make fascism difficult to establish correctly in a nation

which seem to be the same ones that prevented "true" communism in the USSR, "true" Anarchism anywhere there is an angry mob, or the smooth and honest running of ANY sytem of government. No matter how lofty the ideals, the fact is there are people who will exploit any "system" for their own ends.

IMHO open, democratic societies free from ideologies are the safest bet in the long run -- it is not about finding the best possible form of government, more about preventing the worst. As other posters have mentioned, the corporatisation of state and industry is not good. Look at the problems we have even in democracies when government and business get too close.

Can't remember who said it, but it has been said that fascism requires one supremely intelligent person, and all the rest must be a dim as possible. This is certainly evidenced by the various so-called fascist movements we've seen in the West in recent years.

:2cents:

[KukriKhan]

Idyllic fascist society enables the best to rise to the top and lead the others.

Is this not the goal of all the political systems we humans have tried? And the thing that is most difficult to achieve on a sustained basis?

Just when we find (or select) a benevolent monarch, or a compassionate dictator, or an enlightened president or prime minister... they die. How we find the next good one, without resort to brutality, is what marks the various systems as workable and desireable, or not. How the "rise to the top" is achieved is as important as who has done it.

And finally, AdrianII's "power corrupts" observation has been shown true on so many occasions, that we must allow for it in our systems, instead of denying that it happens, or "it won't happen with this guy."

Nicely laid-out thumbnail sketch, PJ. Some may dispute the details and origins, but none can challenge that the OP is "P.Jager's understanding of fascism."

[caravel]

Fascism - the political system that makes communism all the more appealing. :2cents:

Myself I prefer some kind of Anarchy. :yes:

[Sir Moody]

Oh, and to the comment on Spartans... If you can call the Athenian democracy the beginning of democracy, then surely you can call the Spartans the beginning of fascism...

before I go into anything else no the spartans do not fit the Fascist ideals very well they had a well structured noble class from which the leaders were chosen from and while they had 2 Kings who shared power who were chosen by the other nobles rather than by their heritage the common spartan would never have had the chance to become a leader or even a noble even if he had the ability - they were not a meritocracy and so they are not a fascist state they in fact are a slight variant of the normal Monarchy.


now i will shock a few people here in agreeing with Panzer that fascism as an ideal isnt a bad thing - it is basically a Meritocracy version of Monarchy where people rise through the ranks through merit rather than breeding but much like communism it is doomed to fail because it just cannot work - there has yet to be one fascist state that managed to bring the ideal into being primarily because the people at the top are all powerful and power corrupts.

The first real Fascist state would be the French Revolutionists leading to napoleon who should really be the poster child for all fascists everywhere - he out of all dictators everywhere almost created the meritocracy required for a proper fascist state - he promoted generals from the infantry because they had skill rather than because they had rich fathers. But despite this power corrupts and Napoleon ended up like the royalty of the surrounding countries - ironic since they were his "enemy" used to solidify support of the people.

Fascism is one of those Good on paper deals like communism that cannot possible survive in the real world - someone will always be born into a position where either through money or social position can manipulate the system to take power without merit.

[Watchman]

One wonders where the utterly opportunistic populism so characteristic of historical, actually extant fascism was forgotten...?

[Randarkmaan]

I think I should repeat what I said once again and that is that Fascism is basically militant/radical populism, at least the Mussolini type of fascism which can be summed up by what Mussolini said about the political goals of the fascists "We want to rule Italy". This also means that the only thing consistent in fascism is the party, while the power base changes, again taking Mussolini as an example as in the beginning he expressed socialist views with nationalism thrown into them, because there were alot of dissatisfied workers in Italy at the time, later he made the middle-class and to some degree the upper class his power base.


The first real Fascist state would be the French Revolutionists leading to napoleon who should really be the poster child for all fascists everywhere - he out of all dictators everywhere almost created the meritocracy required for a proper fascist state
I would classify many of the French revolutionaries (the ones who ruled during the reign of terror) as closer to the Bolsheviks than to the Fascists, especially considering the view many of them had on religion.

Also... the Spartans enforced equality (at least in material posessions) among themselves. I don't know what that qualifies them as... Spartans maybe.

[gunslinger]

Several people have already commented that just about any form of government is OK if you assume that it exists in ideal circumstances. This is even true for fascism. In fact, under ideal circumstances you could all just acknowledge me as dictator for life, because, ideally, I would be just and fair, and all of you would agree wholeheartedly with the way I run things.

In an ideal society, we wouldn't even need government. Everyone would just do the right thing automatically.

So, let's keep this discussion real. So far, a mix of republicanism / democracy operating under a mostly capitalist economy (they all contain various degrees of socialism ) has been the only thing proven to work in the modern world. The only aspect that is really open to debate is how much socialism should be thrown into the mix, and that is dependent on the culture being governed.

[Slyspy]

Should the nation support the ideology or the ideology support the nation?

Facism is fundamentally weak.

It relies on one strong leader and his patronage and so will have difficulty with the transition to a new one.

It depends on both external and internal enemies in order to glorify the national ideal, and is hence more than a little self destrucive.

It requires the excessive use of propaganda to hide the flaws in the system, which in turn harms education and prevents innovation.

It relies on a planned economy which stifles market forces and stunts economic growth in the long term.

Foreign policy becomes a laughable contradiction of both maintaining the notion of national superiority and yet also having to make deals with your "inferiors" in order to operate in the real world.

By necessity it requires huge expenditure on the armed forces and government bureaucracy, which are economic dead-weights.

Generally speaking a facist state will not actually be a meritocracy at all.

Of course all these flaws can also be seen in other government types. Communism has most of them as well, and died by them too. Even democracies can suffer them, but the point is that they are not institutionalised. In the case of democracy these flaws are a drag on the state, not a crutch.

I'm not sure how well a facist state would fare in today's global economy either.

Facism is, however, a good means of instituting extremely rapid social and political reform. Tightly centralised control based on the total subservience of the armed force (probably a military coupe), a central idea of superiority over other people and ideologies and the idea that the government cannot be wrong because otherwise they wouldn't be the government. Add in a dash of brutality, hatred of intellectuals and a lot of short term thinking and we have a nice little means of shafting our own country!

[ShadeHonestus]

Several people have already commented that just about any form of government is OK if you assume that it exists in ideal circumstances. This is even true for fascism. In fact, under ideal circumstances you could all just acknowledge me as dictator for life, because, ideally, I would be just and fair, and all of you would agree wholeheartedly with the way I run things.


:applause:

Everything is ideal on paper, its just when you add human beings that things get all muckered (is that a word?) up. So many of these model governments look to fly in the face of human nature, those most successful will harness or rechannel mankind's inclinations.

[King Henry V]

I am simply trying to show you why it is my opinion that fascism - "if done well" - is preferable to the other major governmental theories, and why it would be so difficult to institute it "well".


Here, however, we find the main flaw with fascism: its great susceptibility to be corrupted from its ideal state into a different. In theory, nearly all governmental systems sound great: communism, meritocracy, anarchy, aristocracy, monarchy. However, such is human nature that in practice, many of these systems become awful. Fascism is the same. On paper, it sounds brilliant. However, 99 cases out of a 100 do not even approach the idyllic state of fascism you have described. And the nature of fascism is such that it is one of the hardest systems to get rid of if things do go wrong.
However, fascism can sometimes work as an effective stopgap governement in times of crisis, in order to avert chaos and the possible disintegration of a country. In point to Franco's Spain as a case in point. During the turbulent times from the '30s to the '50s, fascism, for someone like me who finds communism an abhorrent governmental system, was probable the best governmental system Spain could have had. True, civil liberties, human rights and all that jazz were very limited, however, the fascsist government allowed Spain to go through the economic boom from '59 to '73. Had the Republicans won in the Civil War, it is very likely that the country would have become communist, which would not have allowed the huge economic growth of Spain. Thanks to fascism, Spain managed to approach the development levels of Western Europe, allowing it thus to enter the Common Market in '73, thirty years before the communist states of Eastern Europe.

[macsen rufus]

muckered (is that a word?)

It is now :2thumbsup: :book:

[Kralizec]

Is there a fascist system in history wich suits your tastes in particular, Panzer?

[HoreTore]

Now I would post links to some nice Norwegian fascist sites , but that tends to get me a severe spanking from the mods .:shrug:

If you're feeling a bit down some day, just read some of the stuff on Vigrid's homepage, it's guaranteed to make you laugh your ass off...

But they're not fascist really, they are, if memory serves me right, the remnants of the norwegian nazi party(Nasjonal Samling, or NS), and as such follow the "philosophy" of Vidkun Quisling, mixed in with Odin and the other Norse gods... They are more racist than anything else really. Except pathetic...

[Tribesman]

Horetore whats happened to the Nasjonal Samling website , my link to it comes up as "site suspended" ? Same with a lot of the US and german groups I have links for , even Vanguard have got rid of their links section .
Oh well its back to that routine of waiting in the forums laughing at the rubbish till some idiot posts new links again :laugh4:


and as such follow the "philosophy" of Vidkun Quisling, mixed in with Odin and the other Norse gods
Aw come on you have to admire their respect for their traditions , heritage and culture:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Randarkmaan]

Aw come on you have to admire their respect for their traditions , heritage and culture

Yeah, I know we can't let them filthy money grabbing jews defile our blond nation and we have to turn to our old gods for protection against these eastern filth! (Sarcastic smilie inserted for the google-spider's edification; let's remember that what's said on the web, doesn't stay of the web, gents)

Crazy, eh? But that's how many people are, good they are so few and that they don't have the guts to do anything for real. Sort of like the old AKP-ml fellows, lots of talking about the revolution, but not really doing anything serious. Which is a good thing for everyone else actually.


Horetore whats happened to the Nasjonal Samling website , my link to it comes up as "site suspended" ? Same with a lot of the US and german groups I have links for , even Vanguard have got rid of their links section .
Oh well its back to that routine of waiting in the forums laughing at the rubbish till some idiot posts new links again

Try Stormfront community, those wackos are probably still up, ofcourse they are not "National Socialist" (notice how the guys who use this term and never "nazi" often are nazis) or "Fascist" but "White Nationalist". I think one of the guys who runs that site was a KKK grand wizard or something and he also attempted to invade Cuba! :no:

[ajaxfetish]

Very interesting to hear your personal take on fascism, PJ. I must say this makes your posts in general make a lot more sense to me.

I have one big question for you, meant in no way as an attack. You've mentioned already the difficulties of actually establishing an ideal fascist state. Do you personally consider this possible, what with human nature and all (and if so, how might it be accomplished), or do you think of it more as an impossible ideal, much like a Marxist utopia vs. communism as it was actually implemented, that can be admired but can't actually happen?

And as a follow-up, in the event that an ideal fascist state would be impossible to set up, how desirable would a less-than-ideal fascist state be in comparison to other forms of government?

Ajax

[Watchman]

Personally, I'm a little puzzled as to where PJ derives this whole idea of "ideal" fascism from in the first place - since when did that collection of utterly and shamelessly opportunistic, tub-thumping, belligerent populists have any sort of actual theoretical groundwork outside just grabbing the power by any means and then keeping it, anyway ? And general virulent reactionarism doesn't count.

[KukriKhan]

Personally, I'm a little puzzled as to where PJ derives this whole idea of "ideal" fascism from in the first place - since when did that collection of utterly and shamelessly opportunistic, tub-thumping, belligerent populists have any sort of actual theoretical groundwork outside just grabbing the power by any means and then keeping it, anyway ? And general virulent reactionarism doesn't count.

I guess one must travel to 1920's Germany for such an answer.

Defeated in the field, culturally ridiculed by the victors, economically oppressed by the Versailles peace treaty, is it a wonder that those folks would seek a savior, a group of
utterly and shamelessly opportunistic, tub-thumping, belligerent populists have any sort of actual theoretical groundwork outside just grabbing the power by any means and then keeping it, anyway guys who promise national vindication, personal pride, individual dignity, and: jobs for all, no inflation, and convenient victims... to actually get elected?

And supported?

The real aspect to be examined, IMO, is our ability, nay propensity, for finding and selecting leaders. Why must we elevate them to omniscent godlike status? Why can't they just be Joe the barber, or Tim the shoemaker, or Fidel the lawyer, or Abdul the resterauntuer... doing a job thrust upon them by virtue of their citizenship? Like the army or jury duty, or voting?

[ShadeHonestus]

The real aspect to be examined, IMO, is our ability, nay propensity, for finding and selecting leaders. Why must we elevate them to omniscent godlike status? Why can't they just be Joe the barber, or Tim the shoemaker, or Fidel the lawyer, or Abdul the resterauntuer... doing a job thrust upon them by virtue of their citizenship? Like the army or jury duty, or voting?

One very interesting topic out there atm is that of GW and the depth (not shallow polls) of the public's opinion of him. The consensus in this discussion is that he suffers a great deal in those polls because in truth, GW is too much like us, he gave us what we wanted when we asked for it, did what many of us would do. He lacked that transcendent indifference to the common belief structure.

Of course most people hate to admit this as it takes a degree of humility and I myself as a BR member refuse to accept fallibility, I knew better than the president at all times, thats why he sucks...or something...

[AntiochusIII]

One very interesting topic out there atm is that of GW and the depth (not shallow polls) of the public's opinion of him. The consensus in this discussion is that he suffers a great deal in those polls because in truth, GW is too much like us, he gave us what we wanted when we asked for it, did what many of us would do. He lacked that transcendent indifference to the common belief structure.Suuuure. And it has nothing to do with the Iraq War. :yes:

[KukriKhan]

Heh. He might be an idjit, but bagawd he's our idjit! And we re-elected him.

Point. IMO. We got what we asked (or settled) for.

[ShadeHonestus]

Suuuure. And it has nothing to do with the Iraq War. :yes:

Well most of us wanted that war at the time and don't give me the WMD dissent, we did find over 500 of those afterall.



Point. IMO. We got what we asked (or settled) for

:yes: Our system does, thank goodness, allow for good deeds and mistakes, both which can be corrected by time.


[edit for word usage]

[Lemur]

Well most of us wanted that war at the time and don't give me the WMD dissent, we did find over 500 of those afterall.
Hmm, I must know some oddballs then, because most of my friends were scratching their heads as the nation rolled to war in 2003. Personally, I never saw any connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, despite Cheney's chest-thumping about phone records from Bucharest. Even in the Org, I recall that Gawain (among others) was pretty opposed to the invasion.

I just finished reading yet another book (http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/159420103X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4102218-1534256?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174365685&sr=8-1) about the early phases of the war, and there were some sad, sad emails reprinted from military commanders, begging the White House not to talk about Al Qaeda and Iraq as though they were one and the same. Confusing for the troops, don'tcha know.

[edit]

I have noticed, however, that people who like GWB have very strong, personal feelings about him. "He's a good man" seems to paper over any number of problems with his policies. Of late, I've heard that less and less.

[Lord Winter]

Do you belive in a system more like the enlightened absolutist of the 18th century. Or are you more iron fisted? Also what do you define as the difference between Monarchy and Facism?

[Lemur]

Is there a fascist system in history wich suits your tastes in particular, Panzer?
I think this is a very good question, and bears repeating. If there is a historical example you can show us that embodies the sort of benign fascism you're talking about, it would really help clarify your argument.

[ShadeHonestus]

Hmm, I must know some oddballs then, because most of my friends were scratching their heads as the nation rolled to war in 2003.

Over 60% and as high as 70% were pro-war prior to and until around October of '03. (depending on the poll of your choice)

Bush's highest approval ratings were April-May '03 at 71%.

[PanzerJaeger]

So basically a person who does not want to be oppressed by their government on the grounds that "It is for the good of the state", and as such is unpatriotic, would be unable to rise to the top? What makes these people less worthy of the top spot than someone else?

As with every governmental system, those unwilling to work within the system cannot expect to advance very far.

Someone who does not love their country is most definitely not worthy of advancement, as their loyalties are not with the state.

I would say that this is pretty standard no matter what ideology you are discussing.

[PanzerJaeger]

How does fascism improve on western liberal democracy in delivering an outcome where the "best" people are "adanced" and the "worst" are not?


Second, fascism is simply another attempt to plan the market. All the historical evidence is against you here except, possibly, in the very special case of a society facing an extreme and short term challenge. The only example I can think of would be the USSR/UK/USA in WWII, none of which were of course fascist. There seems to be no reason at all for thinking that a planned economy will be advantageous in peacetime. On the contrary, the evidence is that it will be less efficient and deliver worse outcomes for everyone.



The fascist leadership comes from people who are proven to be skilled at leadership and administration.

This overcomes the messy problems of democracy, where career politicians can swoon gullible voters with their looks and likablility. In fact, the best argument against democracy is the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Also, fascism does not embody a planned market. Government and industry certainly have a much less combative relationship than in modern western democracies, but the central planning found in communist ideology is not found in fascism.

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks a lot for this thread, PanserJager! I surfed a fascist forum some years, but to be honest, I can't remember much of it... Ignore the some of the idiot criticism, some people prefer to rot in ignorance and give up a good chance to learn about something they know little about.

I do have a question; what groups/persons are furthering the fascist ideology today? And is it still changing?

Oh, and to the comment on Spartans... If you can call the Athenian democracy the beginning of democracy, then surely you can call the Spartans the beginning of fascism...


Your welcome!

Unfortunately, I feel National Socialism will keep fascism on the fringes long after we are dead, but its still good to remind people Nazism was not the ideal.

[PanzerJaeger]

According to your definition, many Western Countries could be labeled as fascist States, while they're in fact not. *cough* US *cough*



I think you misunderstand. There is no democracy in a fascist nation, unless you meant to imply voting is a sham in the US... hehe.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is this not the goal of all the political systems we humans have tried? And the thing that is most difficult to achieve on a sustained basis?

Just when we find (or select) a benevolent monarch, or a compassionate dictator, or an enlightened president or prime minister... they die. How we find the next good one, without resort to brutality, is what marks the various systems as workable and desireable, or not. How the "rise to the top" is achieved is as important as who has done it.

And finally, AdrianII's "power corrupts" observation has been shown true on so many occasions, that we must allow for it in our systems, instead of denying that it happens, or "it won't happen with this guy."

Nicely laid-out thumbnail sketch, PJ. Some may dispute the details and origins, but none can challenge that the OP is "P.Jager's understanding of fascism."


The competitive nature of true fascism dictates that when a leader does not sustain his ability to lead, he is replaced.

That was one of the problems in the 30's. Arguably, Hitler led Germany fairly successfully for a period of time, but as his decision making became more and more flawed due to his mental issues, there was not a power structure in place to replace him.

Fascism is not a dictatorship, but more of an oligarchy.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is there a fascist system in history wich suits your tastes in particular, Panzer?

No.

In many ways, Germany made many elements of modern fascism work well in a "modern" industrial nation.

However, the downfalls of Nazi fascism far outweigh the positives, and have ironically doomed fascism to the fringes for a long time, if not forever...

And for effect...

However, the downfalls of Nazi fascism far outweigh the positives


Spain is also worthy of mention. The way in which a communist misery was avoid through fascism is often overlooked. Rome, to a certain extent, as well. Although that society cannot be replicated in the 20th century.

[CountArach]

As with every governmental system, those unwilling to work within the system cannot expect to advance very far.

Someone who does not love their country is most definitely not worthy of advancement, as their loyalties are not with the state.

I would say that this is pretty standard no matter what ideology you are discussing.

I am loyal to my state, but I am not Patriotic. The world would be a better place without Patriotism IMO. Patriotism simply allows the government to get away with things that are immoral/against international law, by simply stating "It is for the good of the nation". There is more to life than the state. People need freedom, and patriotism blinds people to this.

[PanzerJaeger]

Very interesting to hear your personal take on fascism, PJ. I must say this makes your posts in general make a lot more sense to me.

I have one big question for you, meant in no way as an attack. You've mentioned already the difficulties of actually establishing an ideal fascist state. Do you personally consider this possible, what with human nature and all (and if so, how might it be accomplished), or do you think of it more as an impossible ideal, much like a Marxist utopia vs. communism as it was actually implemented, that can be admired but can't actually happen?

And as a follow-up, in the event that an ideal fascist state would be impossible to set up, how desirable would a less-than-ideal fascist state be in comparison to other forms of government?

Ajax


I feel fascism is very possible today. America is an excellent staging ground. A strong capitalist meritocracy with very low voter turnout and civic participation, but a strong nationalistic element. The majority of Americans are practically asking to be relieved of the responsibility of choosing their leadership.

I dont think that any state can be ideal, but Fascism would eliminate "Kerry Vs Bush" disappointments. :P

[Suraknar]

Umm wow, surprised by this thread, I thought we were past such Ideologies, which do nothing than serve their own interests (all the isms of the past 2 centuries included).

And althought I do not subscribe to any isms(of the past 2 centuries), I feel compelled to intervene from a Historical point of view.

Sparta cannot be considered as the roots of fascism, Sparta was a military society with own traditions and beliefs. More like the Klingons (if you watch Star Trek) rather than any Fascist establishment.

Now, Fascism starts with ROME, it was the first Fascist Society and Governement.

Which may I add, differs from the Ideology of Fascism of the 20th century as revived by Mussolini and then Hitler.

It constitutes however one of the 2 ingredients of 20th Century Fascism.

The etymology of the word come from the Latin word fasces which is the name of the Rods Romans used to punish criminal behavior.

The Symbol of Roman Law was a bundle of fasces tied around an Axe. This represented the Law of the State,the Law of the Senate.

If your Crimes were light you would receive several hits by the fasces, if your crime was capital you would die by the Axe.

In later symbolism we talk about Strength through Unity, as represented by the Bunde of Rods, being mode difficult to break than if they are singled out, and the power of Unity as represented by the Axe capable of delivery decissive blows. (This Symbolism exists in the US congress)

Yet in Rome, the Fasces represented the Law of Rome. And the power the State had over all matters. It was an Authoritarian Society.

And Authority of the State is one of the two ingredients which lead to 20th Century fascism.

The second Ingredient came from the recognition of the City-State, in 17th Century at the Treaty of Westphalia, the second Ingredient, is Nationalism, which became very popular in the late 19th Century.

Combining the Authoritarianism of old and Nationalism Mussolini came up with the 20th Century Version of Fascism from which Nazism sprang.

Thought to clarify here, as some may try to usurp the current Spartan Hype all around for the promotion of their own agenda.

Fascism is NOT cool!

[HoreTore]

Just feel I have to remind everyone that while you may hate what is said, you are not obligated to dismiss it, you can still use the opportunity to learn something ;)

I'm at the opposite end of the scale myself, but "knowledge is power" and "know your enemy" are wise words... PanzerJager has been very good and serious in his explanation here, common courtesy demands the same of us ;)

But I'll try again, PanzerJager; who are the contemporary fascist theorists? What people are adding to the fascist ideology?

[English assassin]

Someone who does not love their country is most definitely not worthy of advancement, as their loyalties are not with the state.

I would say that this is pretty standard no matter what ideology you are discussing.

But what does it mean to love your country (or state, I guess you are using them as synonyms?)

A state is just a human construct. Different states in different times and places have profundly different characteristics. A hundred years ago not everyone had the vote in the UK. There was next to no state welfare. A significant part of the then country didn't want to be in the then country (and in due course became Eire). Should I have had the same loyalty to that state as to the UK in 2007? What if I think the modern American or the Swedish of the French states are better, am I being disloyal if I agitate to move the UK state in those directions?

And why is a state such an important construct to be loyal to? Why does it outweight being loyal to an ideal, a church, to your family? Is PJ, with his affection for fascism which is NOT the current state model in the USA, thereby disloyal to the state, and unworthy of advancement by his own standards? If he does not accept that argument, then what is it about a fascist state that gives it the right to command his obedience, which a democratic state lacks? Obviously it is not enough simply to say "this is a state, you must be loyal to it". What does fascist thought tell us about which characteristics a state must have before it deserves our loyalty? other than being a fascist one....

Is there really any coherence to fascism, even as defined in this thread? It all seems very arbitrary to me. There is this "state" and you must be loyal to it simply because it IS, and if you are loyal to it you will advance.

Which I am afraid is also the morality of gangsters.

One benefit from this thread is I know realise it is very wrong to equate communism and fascism as equally bad. Communism is clearly far better.

[Watchman]

The fascist leadership comes from people who are proven to be skilled at leadership and administration.Incorrect. The fascist leadership comes from the populists who were able to corner just enough popularity and political clout to seize power and hold it, and whatever idiots they then decide to appoint into the governement.

The only merit required is sufficient skill in manipulating the public opinion (invariably by appealing to the "reptile brain" departement of the audience - fears, feelings of shame and frustration, artificially inflated self-perceptions etc.), political power games and exploiting salient social and political crises, enough ruthless opportunism, and as far as the cronies other than the charismatic Great Leader on which the whole movement always ultimately hinges on go, being on good terms with the Great Leader and adoring the party line.

It's not actually too different from how revolutionary Communist regimes tended to get set up actually, although as many of those came to being through fighting and winning a popular uprising a certain competence in guerilla warfare tended to be common. But at least they had a fully developed theoretical framework to build on, rather than having to hash together kooky brews from any and all suitably jingoist national myths and pure trumped-up garbage like the fascists.
And the Commies also had a tad more sophisticated basic ideological message than "we're bigger and better than everyone else and are duly deserving, nay entitled, to go and conquer everyone we can if we feel like it, and boy my **** is big today how about yours mate?"


Spain is also worthy of mention. The way in which a communist misery was avoid through fascism is often overlooked.Franco was too clever, cynical and opportunistic to even be a fascist any longer than immediately necessary for securing German and Italian support for winning the Civil War. Afterwards he largely sidelined the domestic fascist party (althugh he did ship some off to the Eastern Front as the plausibly deniable Spanish contribution - these being members of a private political movement, not the Spanish state forces) and proceeded to run a standard run-of-the-mill autocracy.

Rome, to a certain extent, as well. Although that society cannot be replicated in the 20th century.
I'm guessing you're talking about the Empire. That was a monarchy of the typical form, except for the fact there were virtually no real dynasties due to the fact the Emperors kept getting killed and the succession tended to get settled through civil wars, palace coups, and at least in one instance, flatly buying the post from the Praetorians who lacking better ideas at the moment put it up to sale.

Later fascist aping of Roman symbols and suchlike nonwithstanding. They weren't exactly scrupulous about the historical stuff they exploited anyway.

Fascism is virtually the antithesis of monarchy.


As for fascism and the private sector, bah. Fascists are opportunists par excellence; so, in many ways, are the people Marx defines as "capitalists". Unless the interests of the two are for some strange reason opposed from the start, they can and will come to mutually beneficial arrangements. The fascists can use the support and clout; the "capitalists" can use the fascist hatred of all things 'socialist' to ride roughshod over labour organization, work standards and similar annoying sources of expenses, and tend to profit greatly from the obsessive militarization shcemes and the accompanying arms purchases, the gratuitious (and invariably tasteless) monumental building projects autocratic regimes so like for trying to shore up their popularity (and covering up the typical emptiness of their nominal ideology, or their failure to adhere to it in practice), and the general culture of favouritism and cronyism that makes cultivating good relationships with the Great Leader and the senior toadies a lucrative prospect indeed.


I ask again, where the heck does this Unified Fascist Theory come from ? Certainly not the historical manifestations of the phenomenom.

[Adrian II]

The majority of Americans are practically asking to be relieved of the responsibility of choosing their leadership.Oh boy, speaking of being out of touch...

Panzerjager, I am often amazed at the views you expound here, some of which are endearing in a sense because I think I know where they come from. Without going into your personal life because that is none of my business, I can't help remembering a much older thread about the need to leave home, start your own life, be your own man. Consider it as the next step after you left Europe. Europe, the German past and everything it stood for are behind you now. You should outgrow those obsolete loyalties. You are young, the world is at your feet. Don't reject it on the basis that your fellow-countrymen are mostly stupid. Get up, get around, get to know mankind before you judge.

My two cents. You don't even have to answer.

[Ja'chyra]

While I don't believe that facism is necessarily a good thing I do think, like all forms of government, they do have some good ideas. A meritocracy is always a good thing IMHO but where does it stop? Take me for example I class myself as Scottish, not British, family comes first before everything and loyalty to a country seems to be a bit far fetched, after all what are you loyal too. It's not the land because it was there before I was born and will be there long after I die, it neither needs nor wants me to fight and die for it. Is it the government? I doubt whether any government actually represents the view of the majority even half the time. Is to the people who climb to the top of the hill? Nope, they have a vision and try to lead us in that direction, I doubt my wants and needs matter to them in the slightest.

As I said family always has and always will come first, I suppose that makes me a bad choice for facism, or communism, or democracy and defintly not for a theocracy.

[Kommodus]

This is an interesting thread, PanzerJager.

At first I didn't think you were necessarily defending or promoting Fascism, but merely explaining it as an ideology. Then I saw your later posts and realized you would actually support a Fascist government "if done well." It's certainly rare to meet someone who openly support such an idea.

You do a good job, I think, of explaining Fascism as something other than pure evil. It has well-meaning goals, and proposes well-thought-out ideas to achieve them. These ideas are not without support, and some intelligent and thoughtful people might hold to them.

My opinion is that Fascism, like every other political solution to human ills, runs afoul of this one immutable obstacle: human nature.

Consider Communism, one of the most idealistically ambitious political systems proposed. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a brilliant formulation, one that should achieve grand results - in theory. Why doesn't it work, then? Because alas, people are self-focused, personally ambitious beings who would rather work for their own good than for that of another. Take away their motivation to excel, and they won't. In addition, a proper communist government would require a massive yet efficient administration, virtually free of corruption. That anyone could consider such a goal as realistic is absurd.

Similarly, a Fascist meritocracy, in which the best and brightest rise to the top is a nice idea - in theory. But take away public accountability and who will actually rise through the ranks? Not the best administrators, but rather the strongest, those with the best initial circumstances, and those most useful to the ones currently in power.

Why is this? Because unfortunately, people are power-hungry, personally ambitious beings. Their actual merit is a secondary consideration - their interests are of primary importance. That a Fascist regime "done well" would be a good thing is entirely irrelevant. The same could be said of a Communist regime, a dictatorship, a monarchy, or even anarchy. The point is that Fascism is impossible to do well. It betrays itself.

Lest anyone think I'm being biased, I'll readily admit that democracy suffers from this very same drawback. It runs the risk of a host of problems - a misinformed or poorly educated public, a tyranny of the majority at the expense of minority groups, etc. Democracy is, of course, the very worst form of government - except for all the others. The highest goal a government can hope to achieve is to protect the people from itself. Democracy only works to the extent that it does because it's the hardest form of government to screw up completely, and the most self-correcting.

Anyway, the best advice I can give to anyone looking for political solutions to human ills is this: give up now and stop wasting your time. There are many better places to look... :yes:

[Vladimir]

I think this is a very good question, and bears repeating. If there is a historical example you can show us that embodies the sort of benign fascism you're talking about, it would really help clarify your argument.

I can pull one from the future: Starship Troopers. Love that movie! Every teenage male should watch it because it’s more fun when you’re young and foolish. It was shot like a World War II propaganda movie and had the perfect excuse for Fascism, an unhuman enemy. If Fascism would ever work to its true potential, the premise laid out in the movie would be perfect for it.

[Kralizec]

Technically, a communist government is a contradiction in terms.
Marx intended a brief proletarian dictatorship (Lenin visioned a "vanguard of the working class", professional burocrats) and the establishment of a planned economy wich is socialism.
However the purpose of the socialist state was to eradicate class differences, after wich the state would become redundant, giving rise to an apolitical society wich is communism.

[English assassin]

I can pull one from the future: Starship Troopers. Love that movie! Every teenage male should watch it because it’s more fun when you’re young and foolish. It was shot like a World War II propaganda movie and had the perfect excuse for Fascism, an unhuman enemy. If Fascism would ever work to its true potential, the premise laid out in the movie would be perfect for it.

On the contrary, every adult male should watch it, to remember what it was like being so young and foolish that having a gun and Denise Richards was the best life could offer.

Come to think of it though .....

OT, fascism is NOT ok just because the creatures you are gassing are inteligent insects. Gassing sentient beings is always wrong.

[HoreTore]

Technically, a communist government is a contradiction in terms.
Marx intended a brief proletarian dictatorship (Lenin visioned a "vanguard of the working class", professional burocrats) and the establishment of a planned economy wich is socialism.
However the purpose of the socialist state was to eradicate class differences, after wich the state would become redundant, giving rise to an apolitical society wich is communism.

The reason we called it a communist government, is because Lenin renamed his party after the revolution to consolidate the international Bolshevik faction as the true marxist way and to eradicate other socialist groups. The name refers to the Bolshevik government, not any other socialist form.

[Strike For The South]

On the contrary, every adult male should watch it, to remember what it was like being so young and foolish that having a gun and Denise Richards was the best life could offer.

Come to think of it though .....

OT, fascism is NOT ok just because the creatures you are gassing are inteligent insects. Gassing sentient beings is always wrong.

you mean thats gonna change?

[Watchman]

It's generally considered meritous to grow out of it, yes.

Other than that, there's good reasons why armies are mainly made up of young men. Have I already mentioned that funny one-percent skew in birth rate statistics ?

[Strike For The South]

It's generally considered meritous to grow out of it, yes.

Other than that, there's good reasons why armies are mainly made up of young men. Have I already mentioned that funny one-percent skew in birth rate statistics ?

No, Im intrested

[Watchman]

Apparently, 51% of all babies born are male. Save for societies where girl-children are really given the boot, the disparity in numbers evens out by adolescence.

The most obvious culprit would be the suicidal stupidity of young males under testosterone, plus cultural norms encouraging such which are nigh universal.

[Strike For The South]

Apparently, 51% of all babies born are male. Save for societies where girl-children are really given the boot, the disparity in numbers evens out by adolescence.

The most obvious culprit would be the suicidal stupidity of young males under testosterone, plus cultural norms encouraging such which are nigh universal.

Heh so I am at least smarter than 1% of the male population? Thats good news

As for the topic at hand. I dont care for facism as I have never cared for communism. You cant pigeon hole yourself into an ideolgy youll end up screwing yourself. Take what works for you and your country the best and apply it. Screw ideolgy the talk of philosphiers and half men. As for PJ emigrating from Germany and coming to America beleiving we are going to become a breeding ground for "new" facism Im sorry but it aint happening. So he should be a good immagrant and assimalate.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Heh so I am at least smarter than 1% of the male population? Smarter than some 2% of the male population then. ~;)

[Watchman]

While I may have my doubts about him occasionally, I sincerely doubt if PJ came to America hoping for it to turn into a Fascist Paradise where everyone gets free popcorn! :sweatdrop:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I did not want to hijack the Communist/Theocracy thread, but I did want to try to answer the people who had questions about fascism. I will try and give the best description I can, but direct questions would be better.

Fascism has its origins in the Spartan governmental system, not Mussolini(although of course it got its name from his movement). There are a lot of misconceptions about the ideology because of how it was instituted in the '30s.

These days, fascism is essentially a heavily regulated capitalist meritocracy. The military and the industrial sectors are the most valued components of society, and that is where the leadership is primarily drawn from. The two distinct groups keep each other in check. Instead of the popularity contests voted on by the feeble public of a democracy, or the innumerable problems caused by hereditary power, fascist society is ruled by those that have proven themselves the best among their peers.

Fascism promotes a class system based on merit. Those who prove themselves intelligent, diligent, and committed advance in society, while those who are less than stellar are not burdened with the responsibility of leadership or voting. Why should the opinion of a stupid, lazy man count the same as a smart, hard working one?

A fascist society is based in tradition and promotes nationalism. Unlike communism, fascism embraces cultural tradition and idealizes national heroes and advancements. Conservative in nature, the government promotes education in the sciences, and culturally significant forms of art. (Substantive, not crap)

Most importantly, fascism emphasizes competition. Idyllic fascist society enables the best to rise to the top and lead the others. Unlike communism and republicanism which emphasizes equality among all, fascism promotes the idea that people are inherently unequal, and the best people deserve the best places in society.

A fascist nation is only answerable to itself. It acts in its own best interest first and foremost. Whether this means war or peace, the betterment of the nation and its people come first before all other considerations.

Of course, the fatal flaw with this system that caused such problems in the 20th century was leadership. Mussolini bullied himself in, while Hitler swooned an uneducated public.

Power would be split between a group of the top leaders in the nation and a supreme leader. How this power would be distributed and, more importantly, how the institutions would initially come into being are fundamental issues that make fascism difficult to establish correctly in a nation.

Fascism is not necessarily racism, state sponsored homicide, or warfare.



Now then, feel free to tear it apart. I will be happy to answer any genuine questions, and maybe some insults as well. ~:PSomehow, your utopia reminds me of one quarter North Korea and three quarters of Singapore.

And no, I won't throw any insults. I admit that when I first met you I had to, well, get used to seriously debating the merits of fascism. But you once rightfully reminded me that we also discuss the merits of communism here with self-declared communists. And you clearly distance yourself from deliberate mass murder. Those are sufficient arguments to respectfully disagree about our pick of ideology.

[Lemur]

It's a bit deflating to consider that there are more real, positive examples of monarchy than there are of either communism or fascism. Starship Troopers is a great book and a hilarious movie, but it doesn't add up to a meaningful political model.

Speaking of which, there's a really good homage to ST that came out last year, Old Man's War (http://www.amazon.com/Old-Mans-War-John-Scalzi/dp/0765348276/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7703052-8667856?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174442201&sr=8-1). Anybody who's a fan of the Heinlein classic will probably enjoy it.

As for fascism, if the best model we can look to is Franco's Spain, well, I'm not encouraged.

[Slyspy]

Spain is also worthy of mention. The way in which a communist misery was avoid through fascism is often overlooked. Rome, to a certain extent, as well. Although that society cannot be replicated in the 20th century.

You really need to learn more about the Spanish Civil War.

[Watchman]

Wanna bet PJ forgot or ignored the part about Stalin absolutely loathing the sundry Spanish anarchists, Trotskyists and whoever and sabotaging their whole act to the best of his ability ? :book:

[PanzerJaeger]

A few points...

-I think America is a good candidate for fascism. However, I do not believe such a transition will happen any time soon. Certain conditions have to be met to make the change. While I am fascist in principle and would support fascism if it ever showed a resurgence, I vote and take an active interest in democratic politics in the US.

-Thanks for the mostly respectful responses. I didnt expect to win any converts.. :P

-It is disheartening that there have been almost no successful, modern fascist states. I do, however, believe fascism is far more capable of sustaining itself than communism, and has far less leadership issues than a republic.

-Nationalistic elements in Spain rallied around Franco and his fascist ideology and eventually overcame the republicans et al. Thats as deep as it gets. I was not saying fascism was responsible for the military victory, it was only the unifying ideology.

[Slyspy]

Like I said, you need to learn more.

[AntiochusIII]

-Nationalistic elements in Spain rallied around Franco and his fascist ideology and eventually overcame the republicans et al. Thats as deep as it gets. I was not saying fascism was responsible for the military victory, it was only the unifying ideology.The unifying factor of the Right was an utter hatred of all things socialist. Beyond that, they were in fact quite very much splintered. Some were devout -- fanatical, even -- Catholics; some were monarchists; some supported Franco's junta; some were fascists (Italian model)...

It was quite possible that the "Republican" Spanish might as well made it had Stalin not find it in his heart to purge just about everyone who wasn't a Stalinist with the ruthless carelessness characteristic of Old Uncle Joe. The famed George Orwell himself barely escaped one of the purges. Oh, and there's the thing about Italian and German military support that might just as well dampen the oh-so-proud Great Victory of the Spanish Civil War from being a success of Fascism As A Unifying Mode into just another one of the string of Axis powers' thug diplomacy's success prior to WW2. Sure, the Soviets sent support; but primarily only for Stalinists and said support had probably been used against the anarchists, Trotskyists, democrats, and other factions opposing the military rebellion just as much as against Franco's forces.

And, quite frankly, Fascist or no, Franco's regime sucks balls. One of the best recent movies -- whatsitsname, Pan's Labyrinth? -- dramatized that point with quite a success.

The best government for a modern, free society is one that is so transparent and effective you don't even feel it's there, not one that keeps pestering people forward into the foxholes or oppress them with black helicopters and gulags. The only real weakness of such a government is its inability to address great injustices in society; and Fascism certainly ain't doing that.

[PanzerJaeger]

I do not think I made myself clear. Im sorry.


Originally Posted by PanzerJager
-Nationalistic elements in Spain rallied around Franco and his fascist ideology and eventually overcame the republicans et al. Thats as deep as it gets. I was not saying fascism was responsible for the military victory, it was only the unifying ideology.

Im glad you mentioned the brave Germans that fought communism and all manner of other leftist ideologies in Spain, though. :)

[Tribesman]

Im glad you mentioned the brave Germans that fought communism and all manner of other leftist ideologies in Spain, though. :)

What you mean like the ones who bombed the hell out of Guernica on market day because Franco was pissed with the Basques ?
yeah brave as ****:furious3:

[scotchedpommes]

Well now, those lives would surely be of little significance.

[Randarkmaan]

What you mean like the ones who bombed the hell out of Guernica on market day because Franco was pissed with the Basques ?
yeah brave as ****

Everyone knows there's nothing more glorious and brave than testing new weapons on defenceless men, women and children, after all they are weak and cannot be allowed to live... :no:

[Ironside]

-It is disheartening that there have been almost no successful, modern fascist states. I do, however, believe fascism is far more capable of sustaining itself than communism, and has far less leadership issues than a republic.


Considering the need for a Fascist state to prove thier mettle through struggle, would say that a functional Fascist state is quite unstable, as the leader is probably going to be replaced within a few years.

As stabilisation on that front would probably result in a mere dictorship, were to only certain skill the leader has is to keep himself in power (and that means that loyalty is more important than merit for the higher posts for example).

So embraced Facism would in end up in an aggressive dictorship, prone to war (while not the only option, it's a good way to test your strength against your neighbours).

[PanzerJaeger]

What you mean like the ones who bombed the hell out of Guernica on market day because Franco was pissed with the Basques ?
yeah brave as ****:furious3:

Funny, I didnt think every German took part in that raid. :inquisitive:

Also, if you want to get into a discussion about the morality of bombing strategic towns and cities before a military advance, your comments are more suited towards the allies, who firebombed enormous cities of no military or strategic significance just to terrorize civilians. :yes:

[Tribesman]

Funny, I didnt think every German took part in that raid.
Thats strange ??? I could have sworn that I wrote that every German did . oh no forgive me I just remembered , I did write that in an alternative reality .
I profusely apologise for the alternative reality encroaching into this world .


Also, if you want to get into a discussion about the morality of bombing strategic towns and cities before a military advance, your comments are more suited towards the allies, who firebombed enormous cities of no military or strategic significance just to terrorize civilians.
If you want to get into that discussion feel free ....so then who was it who chose targets to bomb based on how highly they were rated in a tourist guide eh ?

Yo were doing so well in your topic till you chose to ignore comments like....You really need to learn more about the Spanish Civil War. and add comments like Im glad you mentioned the brave Germans , because that is really leaving yourself open .

[King Henry V]

And, quite frankly, Fascist or no, Franco's regime sucks balls. One of the best recent movies -- whatsitsname, Pan's Labyrinth? -- dramatized that point with quite a success.


But would a Republican Spain have sucked more?

[Papewaio]

Was Iraq a fascist state?

Strong leader.
Military and Industry ruled the people.
No voting.
Jingoism.
Plenty of internal and external enemies to lay the blame on.
Penchant for invading neighbors.

[Tribesman]

Was Iraq a fascist state?

Strong leader.
Military and Industry ruled the people.
No voting.
Jingoism.
Plenty of internal and external enemies to lay the blame on.
Penchant for invading neighbors.

I think national socialist is the term you are looking for , one people one state one party , though the question remains , is national socialism fascism ?

[Randarkmaan]

Strong leader.
Military and Industry ruled the people.
No voting.
Jingoism.
Plenty of internal and external enemies to lay the blame on.
Penchant for invading neighbors.

I do not think it is possible to define fascism... Iraq could fit the bill... but, I think there is a flaw with fascism that there's really no ideology, I don't believe Panzer Jager, its just all about getting into power and adapting your views and political goals (other than ruling), thats what the fascists did. I think this is just hard, fascism is very radical populism or just lust for power.


though the question remains , is national socialism fascism ?
I don't think so... national socialism IS national socialism as it can be defined. But Iraq may have fit that one actually, as Saddam was a sort of a socialist and a nationalist and he really did hate certain people and all that. Anyway it is a lot easier classifying someone as somethign which can be defined, but after all it is what people define themselves that is truly important.

[Kralizec]

Strong leader.
Military and Industry ruled the people.
No voting.
Jingoism.
Plenty of internal and external enemies to lay the blame on.
Penchant for invading neighbors.

One of the key differences between full-blown fascist states and states that are merely autocratic is that the former seeks complete abolition of the private sphere of life, the later merely seeks a monopoly on political power. Baathist Iraq certainly had fascist characteristics.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yo were doing so well in your topic till you chose to ignore comments like....You really need to learn more about the Spanish Civil War. and add comments like Im glad you mentioned the brave Germans , because that is really leaving yourself open .

If you want to discuss Guernica, and its ethical dimensions, Im up for it. :2thumbsup:

[IrishArmenian]

A few rambling points:
Can it exist as you see it in a real enviroment?
The poor never get oppurtunities to "prove" themselves.
Who is the government to judge laziness or hard-work?
Promoting misguided nationalism always ends in bloodshed.
Facism allows no time for the arts.
I am an uneducated, working class soldier. According to your post, I am part trash, part gold.
If it's not possible, why still believe in it?
Facism always leads nations on the road to war and destruction.

[HoreTore]

I don't think so... national socialism IS national socialism as it can be defined. But Iraq may have fit that one actually, as Saddam was a sort of a socialist and a nationalist and he really did hate certain people and all that. Anyway it is a lot easier classifying someone as somethign which can be defined, but after all it is what people define themselves that is truly important.

Uhm, Saddam Hussein a SOCIALIST?

Btw, the Baath-party held national socialism in high regard. How high, I don't honestly know. But I'm not sure if you can call Saddam anything but a standard nationalist. Oh, and he was secular.

[Kralizec]

Saddam described Stalin, not Hitler as far as I know, as a personal hero.

[Rodion Romanovich]

In idyllic fascism, merit, not race, would be the key to advancement.
Five questions:
1. how do you measure merit? If the society system, like a modern capitalism, promotes some forms of unethical behavior and fraud, should the individual be able to advance because of skill in those fields? Would ethical behavior be part of the measure of merit, or would someone who sabotages for say 1,000 people to gain a little advantage for himself, as long as he follows whatever the measure of merit is, be considered to have a lot of merit?

2. how would you make sure a decent measurement system of what merit is, actually ends up what decides your success? How would the society be able to regulate this?

3. what should happen to those who fail to meet the demands for merit that your particular society would promote? Would they get any form of support to survive? Remember that all modern civilizations explicitly forbid people from settling somewhere to cultivate the soil or hunt their food, so civilization must always offer an alternative AT LEAST to those who are unable to meet the requirements of success in civilization, but that could survive in nature.

4. who would get to decide what is merit? From a biological standpoint, all civilized society have both illogical, destructive and unfair methods for handing out success to people. Even in those societies, the way merit is measured is highly questionable, but accepted by the masses as long as the ideology is socialistic enough to care about those who can't meet the odd and unfair requirements needed to gain merit. But if merit would be the main requirement of success, it becomes a very central question what merit actually is, and who should decide it. Would it be the dictator's job to decide it? Or should it be democratically decided (would obviously fail to make hard work and similar be promoted as merit, since 90% would have disadvantage of such a system)? Or should it be some form of philosophically or scientifically decided measure, such as "what would give you most success in nature", or what exactly should it be?

5. if the rule is oligarchic or dictatorship, how would you prevent power abuse? How would the next leader be chosen? Normally in dictatorship, it's not merit that makes people leaders, but rather the most brutal, oppressive and stupid idiots in the country end up in power sooner or later. Or if you somehow manage to do so that someone can only advance to a leadership position from merit alone, will he feel he has anything left to fight for when he reaches that post? Will he not look down upon his subjects as inferior, because by the culturally accepted way of measuring people in such a society, he is considered to be the best of them all? Will he then treat his people with love and care for their lives, or will he consider them expendable?

[HoreTore]

Saddam described Stalin, not Hitler as far as I know, as a personal hero.

That might be true, but the Baath party rejected the idea of class struggle, which dismisses them as socialists in my opinion.

[Kralizec]

It dismisses Iraq as Marxist-Leninist specifically, but I don't view Saddam and the other Iraqi Baathists as socialists either, nor as typically fascist.

[Tribesman]

If you want to discuss Guernica, and its ethical dimensions, Im up for it.
OK what are the ethics about attacking civilian targets and how can you justify it ? and secondly since you used the word , how are those who carry out such actions "brave" ?

[HoreTore]

It dismisses Iraq as Marxist-Leninist specifically, but I don't view Saddam and the other Iraqi Baathists as socialists either, nor as typically fascist.

I think, to be fair, the only way to classify Saddam, is simply as a dictator. He mostly did what he did to keep himself in power. I really don't think you can classify him.

[Brenus]

Late intervention:
“you mentioned the brave Germans that fought communism”: Don’t forget the Italians and the disaster of the Battle of Guadalajara, due to the fact that the so-efficient Italian fascist state didn’t equipped its troop properly. And never did, by the way. To go in battle in an Italian Tank was a great act of courage… Weapons badly design, lack of sufficient equipment and uniforms, lack of training and bad management were the trend of all Italian Fascist Wars, from Abyssinia, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Africa to Russia. The Ariete, the Folgore and the Centauro did their best, and freeze to death to protect the Germans retreat (Hungarians and Rumanians) during the battle of Stalingrad, but still, the Fascism, as political and economical power failed them…

I would disagree with your definition of fascism. The base of fascism was the protection of the medium bourgeoisie.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why is this on page one? I have a note saying Brenus posted at 1829 local today, but his post here reads 2007. I am confused.

Been a while since I thought about Irish Armenian.

[Husar]

The powers that be have brought this to our attention again so that we can continue to discuss the merits of fascism.

It all started on a dark winter night...

[Lemur]

https://i.imgur.com/rnPRY7A.jpg

[a completely inoffensive name]

Glad to know that PJ once literally said the US should embrace Fascism.

[Kadagar_AV]

Glad to know that PJ once literally said the US should embrace Fascism.

Honestly, what could be worse than USAnian democrazy?

Illiterates dumbed down by media in a two party system.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Honestly, what could be worse than USAnian democrazy?

Illiterates dumbed down by media in a two party system.

5/10 too much effort.

[Fragony]

Illiterates dumbed down by media in a two party system.

Top 100 of best universities, notice anything http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013/reputation-ranking/range/01-50

Admittingly, you got a few on the last pages

[HoreTore]

Oh dear.

Reading my old posts hurts my eyes.

MAKE IT STOP!!!

[Fragony]

Oh dear.

Reading my old posts hurts my eyes.

MAKE IT STOP!!!

I know how it feels heh

[Husar]

Top 100 of best universities, notice anything http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013/reputation-ranking/range/01-50

Admittingly, you got a few on the last pages

It's a ranking by reputation, of course the people who elect their president depending on who spends most money on advertisement have their universities at the top...


Oh dear.

Reading my old posts hurts my eyes.

MAKE IT STOP!!!

You're not the only one who can't stand your posting style sometimes.

[Fragony]

Edit, frak it. The ski-instructor allready made up his mind. Things go downhill.

[Sarmatian]

It's so cute how PJ used to be a little nazi back in the day.

[Beskar]

This thread can be locked at Panzer's request, however, I wanted to make a serious reply to it, if he doesn't mind me referring to the OP.

If we are going to be fair to Panzer's view back in 2007, we will have to breakdown the information provided to us. Whilst looking at this, you can see how many of his ideals are valid in an idyllic point of view. Always in ideologies, there are certain core principles which the idea is revolved around.

Merit
Panzer'07 makes many references to how the best, brightest, most diligent and hard-working make it to the top. Those who simply cannot or do not have the will simply fall behind. The idea is to reduce incompetence at the top, we have all seen those national leaders who really need to hop upon the clue train now and then, and the idea that such people not being able to get into such a position is not really a bad idea in itself.

The real issue is how this gets translated into reality. How do we define who is indeed the best, brightest, most diligent and hard-working? Many roles in society require different sort of people, there is no uniformed 'best' as different roles suit different personalities. A public speaking is meant to be charismatic, able to influence large amounts of people to their view of the events, whilst some of the most proficient administrators are introverts. So assigning a role to carry out many jobs will lead to those who are able to influence others the best, not exactly by actually being the best. In democracy, this is done by wealth and charisma for you to convince as large as the population as you can to elect you. In smaller environments, it relies more on behind the scenes deals and corruption. Who defines what is in fact the best and how do you know who they assigned are indeed the best?

Cohesion
To Panzers'07 point of view, there is actually a very good real-life example for what he is trying to picture here, Modern China. In China, there is more focus on the community and society in large, with ties to the honour of the family. This is in vast contrast to the 'west' where we valve our individual liberty. Whilst a more cohesive society allows for stronger bonds when working together for the same goal, the failings and ills of the individual get lost in the many. The individual becomes more of a statistic, they simply cease to have any real meanings and they do not only dishonour themselves, but their families and community when something goes wrong, and it is this collective pressure which enforces conformity and coherence. This really attacks minorities and those who are different from the mainstream, such as homosexuality. In more Christian dominated areas of America, there is also a very similar focus on the community where such individuals are targets, forced into degrading 'gay camps' to cure them of 'the gay' where they go through humiliating exercises to enforce the will of the many upon the few, these individuals are not given the liberty to make their own choices in life, they are made for them by their community and they have to like it or suffer consequences.

Segregation
Like it or not, Panzer'07 does bring up segregation. He clearly defines a class system of diligent loyalists at the top and lazy good-for-nothings at the bottom. In one way, he makes a fair comment "Why should I held by account by someone who takes no effort or pride in themselves", there are definitely hypocrites in the world and we all dislike how they judge others and are oblivious to ourselves, however, as it is brought up later, where do the "loyalist good-for-nothings" and the "diligent non-loyalists" lie ? Are they put into their own categories within this class systems or are they simply thrown into the bottom. In a system which also valves the best and brightest, having some one as a street-cleaner simply because they didn't salute the flag three times a day is rather dumb idea. There is also the second crux to the categorisation other than those who do not follow the definitions, how these definitions are brought about. Are those seen diligent have to pass a certain exam to show it officially? Are those loyal have to serve a period in the armed forces (Starship troopers style) or do salute the flag on every hour to show how loyal they are to the state ?

Not only there are these variables, there are also the role of the outsiders, those who were not brought up in the state. Are these able to rise within the rank system when they are diligent and loyal or are they automatically excluded for not being pure-bred fascists?

Liability
This was in fact the strangest point made by Panzer'07, I will quote it here:

A fascist nation is only answerable to itself. It acts in its own best interest first and foremost. Whether this means war or peace, the betterment of the nation and its people come first before all other considerations.
This gets interesting when you consider the period the comment in its place of time, the downfall of American foreign policy. America being a nation declared wars on both Afghanistan and Iraq which Panzer'12 commented he supported. The main crux of these wars were they were to benefit as the United States as a nation, whether it is 'stomping out terrorism', 'distracting efforts to the middle east' 'pillaging easy-targets for fossil fuels', many of the jingoism is some form of one-sided betterment of the host nation. Obviously, as in all wars, there are parties which object, which talk about the causalities, the inhumane practises carried out by soldiers on one side or the other. Even in earlier examples where War was all-out wrong, such as the World Wars, Panzer'07 is voicing that no one should object and such things are meaningless as the nation should only look after number one.

In a strange end-game scenario, the nation may reach the point where it has global dominance/domination. What happens now?
The nation has to benefit its people and it doesn't care about the 'others', and unlike the concept of Lebensraum such a scenario would not provide opportunity for exile, leaving alternative options such as slavery, genocide or ghettos. Integration of a large population of non-nationals into the system would heavily impact the resources and the livelihoods of those who already reside there and are the loyal citizens, which would breach the contract forged between the fascist state and its populace. With no need for any moral or ethical considerations, such horrid actions could be perfectly justified in their usage.

[Fragony]

Facism was considered to be the 'third way' in a period when socialism and nationalism would naturally collide. The classes would remain intact, but the middle-class economy would be practically centralised. The big difference between communism was that the class-system didn't have to be broken down. It's not even such a bad idea but it did't end all that well. But where are we now, not that far off I think.

Question, if you consider that a lot of EU nations are still monarchies, how are they not fascist states.

[Ironside]

Facism was considered to be the 'third way' in a period when socialism and nationalism would naturally collide. The classes would remain intact, but the middle-class economy would be practically centralised. The big difference between communism was that the class-system didn't have to be broken down. It's not even such a bad idea but it did't end all that well. But where are we now, not that far off I think.

Question, if you consider that a lot of EU nations are still monarchies, how are they not fascist states.

Different historical backround for starters. The leading word for monarchies is stabillity. Having a workable system for successors (and thus no civil wars) was worth the incompetence of an inbred king historically (states either went for more stable successions or went under Byzantine style). Try having someone like Charles II as a leader in a facist state.

That's not counting the ideological backround. One of the core concept in Fascism is nationalism. The Greece royals were of Danish stock.

The only thing in common is an elitism, but it's also quite different. Royalty was/is the power of the blood (to keep others from going for power), fascism is trying to justify the winners of a power struggle and gets a bit muddy to explain why the current ruler is so good that he should be in charge and not get challenged all the time. It's struggle, no, coheision, no, struggle, no, coheision.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fascism doesn't institutionalize well.

Legitimate authority (monarchy etc.) is all about institutionalizing the process of governance. You end up with the occasional drooling idiot, but the process is quite stable for the most part.

Modern republics try to use some variation of rational-legal authority to codify the power they derive from the "consent of the governed." Works best with a polity that is at least vaguely informed on events, which does not always happen.

Fascism, at least as practiced, tends to rely on charismatic authority embodied by a single dominant leader. Charisma is pretty hard to institutionalize and maintain as a stable system for the long haul (which is why Weber distrusted it). I've never seen an "institutionalized" fascist state. If someone can think of a good working example, I would be willing to re-think it a bit.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've never seen an "institutionalized" fascist state. If someone can think of a good working example, I would be willing to re-think it a bit.

North Korea? You could say that it has successfully institutionalised the hero-worship of its charismatic first leader and used that as to justify its state apparatus.

[HoreTore]

Fascism, at least as practiced, tends to rely on charismatic authority embodied by a single dominant leader. Charisma is pretty hard to institutionalize and maintain as a stable system for the long haul (which is why Weber distrusted it). I've never seen an "institutionalized" fascist state. If someone can think of a good working example, I would be willing to re-think it a bit.

The Late Republic is probably the closest you'll get(since not a single modern fascist state managed to pull off a succession), but it's not very close at all.

[HoreTore]

North Korea? You could say that it has successfully institutionalised the hero-worship of its charismatic first leader and used that as to justify its state apparatus.

Personality cult =/= fascism.

[Montmorency]

Everything else about the North Korean state does, though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not sure I would go so far as to label NK a "working state," but you are right that they are trying to do a multi-generational charismatic approach. I think though, that you see the institutionalization problem there as well. The charismatic fascist leader is safer when all her underlings are too busy competing/backstabbing one another to build up enough power to unseat her. This was true in Stalinist Russia and Hitlerian Germany as well. I don't think they are quite as stable as they may appear from the outside.

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow. It's crazy how much time you have to think about things not related to making yourself money as an undergrad. Not that the OP was particularly well thought out or insightful, but I cannot imagine having enough to time sit around contemplating the merits of fascism today. Stay in school as long as you can, kids.

What's really amazing is how much faith I had in government to act in the best interest of the people it is supposed to represent, even a very narrowly defined socio-ethnic 'in' group. The slow transition from social conservatism to libertarianism is quite depressing. I used to believe I could trust my politicians to act in the best interest of the country, now I know I cannot trust any politician. True believers live much simpler, happier lives than cynics, that's for sure.

For the record, I am still a strong advocate for realpolitik on the international stage and I still believe that a meritocracy led by largely apolitical technocrats working within nationalist constraints has a number of benefits over a Western style democracy. I also believe the concept of the nation state is the only force currently standing in the way of one world government, which will offer no escape once perverted. Healthy nationalism or a more benign form of patriotism should be encouraged.

Of course, I also have a much more mature understanding and empathy for the 'out' groups within our society and the absolute, fundamental importance of human rights. That, coupled with my complete loss of faith in government of any strain to act in the people's best interest renders my fascist utopia a fantasy and highlights the wisdom of Churchill's famous quote on the subject.

I don't mind the thread staying open; although, I am interested in how it resurfaced as it does not appear that anyone necro'd it.


Fascism, at least as practiced, tends to rely on charismatic authority embodied by a single dominant leader. Charisma is pretty hard to institutionalize and maintain as a stable system for the long haul (which is why Weber distrusted it). I've never seen an "institutionalized" fascist state. If someone can think of a good working example, I would be willing to re-think it a bit.

Contemporary China is just about as fascist as a country can get. While the ruling party is nominally communist, they long ago embraced corporatism and a hierarchical society based on unrestrained social Darwinism.

[Strike For The South]

True believers live much simpler, happier lives than cynics, that's for sure.

Get off the cross honey, Jesus needs it.

I grow weary of this noveau libertarian American cynic that seems to pervade the interwebs these days.

[PanzerJaeger]

Get off the cross honey, Jesus needs it.

I grow weary of this noveau libertarian American cynic that seems to pervade the interwebs these days.

Just call me Kettle then I suppose.

[Strike For The South]

Just call me Kettle then I suppose.

LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, THIS IS HOW YOU DO RAPPORT

[Idaho]

Fascism is really just capitalism desperately defending itself from communism. It takes on the revolutionary styling of something new whilst brutally defending existing privilege.

[Fragony]

Fascism is really just capitalism desperately defending itself from communism. It takes on the revolutionary styling of something new whilst brutally defending existing privilege.

Mussolini called it the third way, but how you put it probably sums it up perfectly. Class-differences had to stay intact.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fascism is really just capitalism desperately defending itself from communism. It takes on the revolutionary styling of something new whilst brutally defending existing privilege.

Actually, as a two sentence summary, that's not half bad. Good value per word ratio.

[Franconicus]

Panzer's post has some ideas which are new and strange to me. Thanks for that. Now, I have some questions/comments.


Fascism has its origins in the Spartan governmental system, not Mussolini(although of course it got its name from his movement).

Spartan governmental system was a racist military government, based on heritage classes, right? The whole system worked on the exploitation of the lower class.



... fascist society is ruled by those that have proven themselves the best among their peers.

This statement leads to a couple of questions:

1) Does not every government claim to be a rule of the best?

Aristocratic system including monarchy claim to be ruled by the best. Communist systems like they had in the USSR had their political cadres, based on merit. And you could also say that democracy is a concept that puts a lot of effort in finding the best.

2) How do you find the best?
Which properties and skills should a ruler have? And how do you find him? The fascistic states so far haven't shown very impressive answers.

3) Should the best lead the government?
First of all, if you take the smartest, one likely consequence will be that they find the best way to follow their own interests. And who could control them. The less good ones?
Then, assuming that you have only a limited number of excellent people, would you want to use them in the government? At Germany we have a long tradition of using our best minds outside the government - in industry, science, art and of course military. This lead to some painful breakdown, but it works well since we have democracy. That keeps the politicians busy so that they cannot do much damage.


Why should the opinion of a stupid, lazy man count the same as a smart, hard working one?

The answer is so obvious, that I almost do not dare to write it down. The reason is that everyone has to live with the consequences of the decision. If you have a small group of excellent leaders, these will follow the interests of this group. If everyone can take part of the decision, everyone will try to promote his own benefit and in the end it a compromise is likely that benefits most of the people. Thinking that you can have an excellent leader that promotes the interest of all - is a nice dream.



A fascist society is based in tradition and promotes nationalism. Unlike communism, fascism embraces cultural tradition and idealizes national heroes and advancements. Conservative in nature, the government promotes education in the sciences, and culturally significant forms of art. (Substantive, not crap)

I do not see much difference to the former system of the USSR. And I think that the past showed that neither science nor art develop good under state control.


Most importantly, fascism emphasizes competition. Idyllic fascist society enables the best to rise to the top and lead the others. Unlike communism and republicanism which emphasizes equality among all, fascism promotes the idea that people are inherently unequal, and the best people deserve the best places in society.
That is rubbish (soory). It is an old error that communism emphasis equality among all. True is, that the basic concept emphasis that everyone should have access to production means and goods. In reality, the system in the USSR quite exactly the way you describe fascism.


A fascist nation is only answerable to itself. It acts in its own best interest first and foremost. Whether this means war or peace, the betterment of the nation and its people come first before all other considerations.

As far as I know fascism has some basics:
1) It promotes the idea of a group of people better than others. This is usually the nation, could also be a religion or race. Aim of the system is to promote the interests of this group.
2) F. has the idea that everyone of this group should work, fight and if necessary die for these interests.
3) There has to be a leader, who gives these efforts a common direction. He is the best and he decides which way to go. There is no discussion and reflection. The leader is not limited by any laws or moral issues.
4) The leader is leader, because he can make the rest follow. He can do this by terror or money etc.. The leader is as long leader until another one appears and makes the others follow him. Therefore, fascistic leaders have the tendency to kill all rivals.


Power would be split between a group of the top leaders in the nation and a supreme leader. How this power would be distributed and, more importantly, how the institutions would initially come into being are fundamental issues that make fascism difficult to establish correctly in a nation.

Splitting power does not fit into the system. Same as the idea of freedom, which is mandatory for a strong economy and science. That makes fascism difficult to establish at all in a nation.


Fascism is not necessarily racism, state sponsored homicide, or warfare.

That is true. But it is an excellent platform to start all this.