Fascism: Would it work.

[Lord Tammerlain]

This is simply incorrect. If anything Pinochet dove further into socialist policies than Allende by nationalizing a myriad of industries. Ironically he forced policies which made the overall income of Chileans dropped all the while increasing military spending for one of the few countries in Latin America who did not have a history of armed conflict like say Colombia or Venezuela. The damage to the Chilean economy came as a result of a global drop in copper prices, Chile's main export. They rebounded during the late 70s.

Economy of Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That drop in copper prices was due to the US governemnt selling a large chunk of it strategic reserves to actually hurt the Chilean economy at the time

 

[Mell]

''Fascism: Would it work. ''

I am surprised that somebody would actully ask such a question. Tyranny is universally abhorred, and thus Fascism never did and never would work.



''Hitler and Mussolini, but I got to thinking that besides those two bad apples, this system might have something to it.''

If this is the case, then you surely can name a few good apples for us to consider.



''It offers a system based off the concept of "corporatism". Basically, it implies that the state will take a guiding hand in the economy ''

Is there any example of a fascist nation, that is not or has not been corrupt. Their leaders empty 'their' countries resources like locusts, so the economy fails eventually. Also, there is generally suppressed unrest amongst the citizens who are deprived of their basic needs and rights. This usually periodically errupts in violence, which is then suppressed by killings and torture.



''Fascism also offers a society built on the cultural norms of the nation, as well as a strong devotion to nationalism and the military.''

Fascism forces nationalism on its citizens, whether they agree with it or not. It can hardly be called devotion. And nationalism can be any set of norms or 'values', and not necessarily logical or beneficial. Essentially, nationalism is to some extent pressured onto people in every country by the nationalists of that country, but forced by threat in fascist nations.



''Is fascism a workable system?''

Since you are a history and economic student, I presume you are asking this question to put out feelers for opinions of the general public. You surely know a bit about the problems of fascism already, from your studies?



''I don't think your question should be whether or not 'Fascism' would work but who it would work for....Whether or not an economic system works is dependent on how many people can actually benefit from it. ''

Indeed! That is how it is.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Obviously, I believe Fascism can work. People argue the cases of Germany and Italy as failures of Fascist policies, but compare the "failure" of Fascism to the fall of the Soviet Union. The German and Italian States were destroyed by World War II-- defeat at the hands of two superpowers, that were themselves employing Fascist strategies, on two fronts. Without Hitler's madness in declaring war on the United States and the Soviet Union, dragging Italy along with him, Italian Fascism might still be in power today.

If World War II had ended without the involvement of the United States, an alliance between the US and the Axis Powers could have halted the spread of international Communism in Eastern Europe and Asia.

 

[samsmart]

Actually, I believe it was Legalism that ended the era of the warring states in China.

But it didn't last, and for a reason.

Banishment, or capital punishment for serious crimes against the state.

If you banish people, you give them the opportunity to group together to make their own state that would then compete with the fascist state for resources. If you use capital punishment, it is still not a deterrent, and thus the drawback of Legalism is still applied to fascist states.

Many fascist states did the have the support of the majority of the population.

But it does not maintain the support of the majority of the population. And can you really say that after it is implemented, such a fascist state is justified if it banishes or kills anyone who disagrees or is opposed to the government?

It is also of note that fascism came to the fore as a major political philosophy during a global crisis of the Great Depression. On the other hand, fascist states do not come about during times of peace and prosperity.

 

[The Mark]

It depends.

I suppose it is possible for it to work.

But any application of it would most likely have to be far different from past examples for me to support it.

That said, I don't really know much about fascism as an idea.

Nor do I know much about any fascistic states except Nazi Germany, and there not that much either.

So I could be incorrect.

 

[Mell]

''If you look at Germany under Hitler for example, you'll see that for the most part it did very well economically, the only bad part was the wars.''

This is a misguided opinion. Nazi Germanys economy was essentially built on creating a war machine.



''Any governmental system can work, given perfect conditions. But only a few can work well without those perfect conditions. Fascism, along with Communism, works only in perfect worlds, but people aren't perfect. ''

Yes, this is what I think too.



''Marxism preaches the eventual withering away of the state and the development of a classless society. ''

Marxism is a stepping stone only, and should not be considered to be more than that.



Fascism leaders are on the wrong site of history. They need so much millitary to keep order, only the sleeziest foreign organisations want to touch them with a bargepole, and they are being sancioned more and more, by economies they rely on. They will essentially impode on themselves.



''Every Fascist regime has its own specific "enemy"''

Yeah, it is called scapgoating. It unites people against the common enemy, taking the attention away from what the regime are doing, to the country.



''Many fascist states did the have the support of the majority of the population. ''

They appeared to, which is not the same as actually supporting.



''It is also of note that fascism came to the fore as a major political philosophy during a global crisis of the Great Depression. On the other hand, fascist states do not come about during times of peace and prosperity. ''

I always find it shocking to see an increase of support for the far right, here in Germany, whenever the economy dips even slightly. The increase isnt significant enough to get them elected, but it is enough to shock me into wondering how many here have no sustaining morals.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

It depends.

I suppose it is possible for it to work.

But any application of it would most likely have to be far different from past examples for me to support it.

That said, I don't really know much about fascism as an idea.

Nor do I know much about any fascistic states except Nazi Germany, and there not that much either.

So I could be incorrect.

Spain, Portugal, Greece, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile had fascistic governments post WW2

 

[John2.0]

I am surprised that somebody would actully ask such a question. Tyranny is universally abhorred, and thus Fascism never did and never would work.

Fascism does not neccesarily have to be Tyrannical.

If this is the case, then you surely can name a few good apples for us to consider.

Potugese Fascism, Austrian Fascism(pre nazi), Greek Fascism, Spanish Fascism (granted, it was partially tyrannical, but it was a better alternative than communism), Polish Fascism (yes, poland was partially fascist before it was conquered) and, dare I say it, AMERICAN FASCISM.

Is there any example of a fascist nation, that is not or has not been corrupt. Their leaders empty 'their' countries resources like locusts, so the economy fails eventually. Also, there is generally suppressed unrest amongst the citizens who are deprived of their basic needs and rights. This usually periodically errupts in violence, which is then suppressed by killings and torture.

False, in fact Germany and Italy did very well under fascism. Also, many elements of the new deal were modeled after fascist Italy.

If you banish people, you give them the opportunity to group together to make their own state that would then compete with the fascist state for resources. If you use capital punishment, it is still not a deterrent, and thus the drawback of Legalism is still applied to fascist states.

No fascist state was ever overthrown from within.

But it does not maintain the support of the majority of the population. And can you really say that after it is implemented, such a fascist state is justified if it banishes or kills anyone who disagrees or is opposed to the government?

Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal both ended there reign with the majority support of the population.

It is also of note that fascism came to the fore as a major political philosophy during a global crisis of the Great Depression. On the other hand, fascist states do not come about during times of peace and prosperity.

Fascism rises in times of crisis because people realize that it is the most effective means of dealing with them.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Chile under Pinochet wasn't fascist, as the economic sector was largely free from government interference. Fascist states like Italy had the government controlling prices, wages, and industrial policy. It has much more in common with Soviet Communism than Pinochet

 

[John2.0]

Chile under Pinochet wasn't fascist, as the economic sector was largely free from government interference. Fascist states like Italy had the government controlling prices, wages, and industrial policy. It has much more in common with Soviet Communism than Pinochet

Yes, and I believe that Pinochet's economic system was based on the Chicago school of economics supported by libertarians like Milton Freidman.

 

[Mell]

''Fascism does not neccesarily have to be Tyrannical.''

But, it always is anyway.



''AMERICAN FASCISM.''

Dont be stupid. Are you by any chance a fan of 'Liberal Fascism, by Goldstein''? What a heap of scrambled concepts that is.



''False, in fact Germany and Italy did very well under fascism.''

Don't be stupid! The US practically had to economically rebuild the entire of Europe after defeating fascism.



''No fascist state was ever overthrown from within.''

And? They were overthrown by a number of factors, including failure within.



''Fascism rises in times of crisis because people realize that it is the most effective means of dealing with them. ''

As somebody pointed out before, economic problems cause unrest. It has happened more than once in history that citizens choose a fasicist leader, because of fear of uncertainty. Fascism still did not work, in any country.

 

[samsmart]

Fascism does not neccesarily have to be Tyrannical.

Fascism, by it's very definition, in which the people support the state over their own interests, is tyrannical.

Potugese Fascism, Austrian Fascism(pre nazi), Greek Fascism, Spanish Fascism (granted, it was partially tyrannical, but it was a better alternative than communism), Polish Fascism (yes, poland was partially fascist before it was conquered) and, dare I say it, AMERICAN FASCISM.

And how many of those states are still fascist?

False, in fact Germany and Italy did very well under fascism. Also, many elements of the new deal were modeled after fascist Italy.

Well, they couldn't have done much worse during the Great Depression.

No fascist state was ever overthrown from within.

Hitler was nearly assassinated multiple times during the Nazi regime, so it's not like those within the state didn't try.

Fascism rises in times of crisis because people realize that it is the most effective means of dealing with them.

Until the crisis is over, when they realize that fascism causes more harm than good.

 

[John2.0]

Fascism, by it's very definition, in which the people support the state over their own interests, is tyrannical.

A strong state is in the best interests of the people.

And how many of those states are still fascist?

And how many of those states since they became democracies are on the brink of economic collapse.:shock:

Well, they couldn't have done much worse during the Great Depression.

Italy and Germany came out of there economic crises because of Fascism.

Hitler was nearly assassinated multiple times during the Nazi regime, so it's not like those within the state didn't try.

Hitler was nearly assassinated three times because he declared war on half the world.

Until the crisis is over, when they realize that fascism causes more harm than good.

False. Prove that any fascist state was ever overthrown from the inside.

But, it always is anyway.

No it is not.

Dont be stupid. Are you by any chance a fan of 'Liberal Fascism, by Goldstein''? What a heap of scrambled concepts that is.

Alexander Hamilton was the first American fascist.

Don't be stupid! The US practically had to economically rebuild the entire of Europe after defeating fascism.

Don't you mean the US had to rebuild europe after he blew the bee jesus out of it with firebombers?

And? They were overthrown by a number of factors, including failure within.

Such as.

As somebody pointed out before, economic problems cause unrest. It has happened more than once in history that citizens choose a fasicist leader, because of fear of uncertainty. Fascism still did not work, in any country.

Economic crises come around because of the inefficiency of Democracy and laisse-faire capitalism.

 

[samsmart]

A strong state is in the best interests of the people.

Not when the state acts against the interests of the people.

And how many of those states since they became democracies are on the brink of economic collapse.:shock:

That's like saying that it was only after I drank tea in the last 5 years, I got cancer, so I should blame the tea for that cancer

Italy and Germany came out of there economic crises because of Fascism.

Yes, but it wasn't sustained.

Hitler was nearly assassinated three times because he declared war on half the world.

And how many of those times were by his own officers?

False. Prove that any fascist state was ever overthrown from the inside.

I said there were attempts at overthrow, which shows that fascism isn't always well-received within the state it takes part in. And should the assassination attempts by Hitler's own officers succeeded, we would have had at least one.

No it is not.

Yes it is. When the people have no say in the politics of the government that rules them, they have an inherent tyrannical government.

Alexander Hamilton was the first American fascist.

No, Alexander Hamilton was a federalist who believed in a strong centralized government. However, he did not believe in a tyrannical, dictatorial government to rule the people.

Don't you mean the US had to rebuild europe after he blew the bee jesus out of it with firebombers?

Yes, because the fascist governments could not properly wage war, which shows another flaw in it's system.

Economic crises come around because of the inefficiency of Democracy and laisse-faire capitalism.

So I suppose things like weather affecting crops which affects the agricultural industry which affects the economy has absolutely nothing to do with economic crisis then?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

A strong state is in the best interests of the people.

Many would beg to differ.

And how many of those states since they became democracies are on the brink of economic collapse.:shock:

That's thanks to large government spending and too much government control of the economy

Italy and Germany came out of there economic crises because of Fascism.

Not really, they still had unemployment and their economies didn't do very well. At best they were mixed.

Hitler was nearly assassinated three times because he declared war on half the world.


False. Prove that any fascist state was ever overthrown from the inside.

There were many others who went after them. Also, I don't see how brutally crushing the opposition is in the best interests of the people. People did resist Nazi Rule in the 1930s

Jewish resistance under Nazi rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alexander Hamilton was the first American fascist.

Federalism is Fascism now? You need to define your terms.

Don't you mean the US had to rebuild europe after he blew the bee jesus out of it with firebombers?

Outside of Germany and Italy, it was pretty much all Axis done.

Such as.

They didn't have enough of an economic base to take on the Allies

Economic crises come around because of the inefficiency of Democracy and laisse-faire capitalism.

No, the crisis came about because of the humiliation and despair over leaders after WWI. About 1,000,000 people in Italy died, 2,500,000 in Germany. People were furious with their leaders and economic woes that had little to do with capitalism angered the people

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Many would beg to differ.

Yes. And their policy failures bring about the kind of conditions in which people demand a strong State-- whether it be a Fascist State or some other system.

Not really, they still had unemployment and their economies didn't do very well. At best they were mixed.

They were much better in the Forties than they were in the Thirties-- as was the United States after FDR's sweeping shifts in US economic policy.

 

[rathi]

What advantages do you see in the corporatist economics of fascism over communism, Korimyr? Having to satisfy the interests of corporate leaders when deciding national economic planning is far less efficient than simply ordering state run factories to produce what you need. It essentially combines the disadvantages of the market and command economy with no useful benefits.

 

[samsmart]

Yes. And their policy failures bring about the kind of conditions in which people demand a strong State-- whether it be a Fascist State or some other system.

But as you've said, a state doesn't necessarily need a fascist state in order to be strong. We can have a strong state with democratic processes and do just as well.

They were much better in the Forties than they were in the Thirties-- as was the United States after FDR's sweeping shifts in US economic policy.

That's because the Great Depression was so bad that the government had to increase involvement in the economy in order to get their nation out of it, as opposed to the laissez-faire system that was common before. However, once the nations were out of the Great Depression, the nations could move away from a command economy controlled by a fascist government and towards a regulated economy of a democratic government.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Didn't work for Mussolini.

Didn't work for Hitler.

And no matter how many pretty speeches he makes blaming Bush, it's still not going to work for the Messiah.

 

[samsmart]

Didn't work for Mussolini.

Didn't work for Hitler.

And no matter how many pretty speeches he makes blaming Bush, it's still not going to work for the Messiah.

Because it didn't work for Bush either.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What advantages do you see in the corporatist economics of fascism over communism, Korimyr? Having to satisfy the interests of corporate leaders when deciding national economic planning is far less efficient than simply ordering state run factories to produce what you need.

Ideally, I would like to abolish currency altogether and replace the market economy with a technocratic system. I see corporatism and increased government involvement in the economy as the only effective midgame strategy for accomplishing this. Communism destroys economies by replacing management with politicians, while Fascism allows corporate leaders to continue doing their jobs as long as they work for the benefit of the State.

Communism also rejects the concept of the nation and believes that all people are not only created equal, but that all people are essentially the same. The goal of Communism, though no Socialist State has ever achieved it, is the abolition of the State itself and the equality of all people. I consider these goals not only impossible, but actively detrimental to the good of the State and thus the people. Failing to recognize that some people are inherently superior and better suited to leadership than others leads Socialist States to tolerate inferiors in positions of authority and responsibility.

Despite some cosmetic similarities between my position and Communism, they are at heart opposing ideologies. Communism rejects and is actively opposed to nationalism, religion, authority, and the State. It seeks to tear down traditional institutions in order to promote pure, unadulterated materialism. Fascism, regardless of its economic policies, is first and foremost a spiritual and moral ideology and its goals for the State and for the People are spiritual and moral in nature.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

A strong state is in the best interests of the people.

How'd that work for the Russians in the gulag, the Jews at Auschwitz and Treblinka, the Chinese under Mao, and the Cubans on the rafts trying to escape Castro?

Italy and Germany came out of there economic crises because of Fascism.

Germany in particular was in it's sorry economic state because it's government abused it's power and inflated the currency to eliminate internal debt. Aren't strong interfering governments just dandy?

Alexander Hamilton was the first American fascist.

Too bad for him. That particular disease doesn't have a cure. However, even Hamilton agreed that limitations on government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution were limiting and that the congress could not assume powers not specifically granted, and, oh, by the way, the phrase "general welfare" in Art I, Sect 8 is not a power.

Don't you mean the US had to rebuild europe after he blew the bee jesus out of it with firebombers?

Everyone had fun blowing up Europe that war.

Economic crises come around because of the inefficiency of Democracy and laisse-faire capitalism.

MAJOR economic crises come around because of the intrusion of government in the commercial sphere. The US Great Depression, caused by the Fed....The Great Recession, caused by Fannie and Freddie and the CRA.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Because it didn't work for Bush either.

No, fascism never works.

How many pretty speeches did Bush make blaming Bush?

 

[John2.0]

Many would beg to differ.

That's because people buy into naive and idealistic notions of Democracy that are ultimately harmful to the people and the nation in general.

That's thanks to large government spending and too much government control of the economy

No, its due to poor allocation of resources due to mob rule. People in a democratic system will always vote for more money, resulting in a high national debt. Fascist regimes have always dealt with national debts well and lived within their means. For the most part anyway.

As for the government control over the economy. I think that a large part of this was due to the fact that western democracies let the banks run amok.

Not really, they still had unemployment and their economies didn't do very well. At best they were mixed.

Everyone at this time period, including Roosevelt and Churchill, recognized that the Italians and Germans had done a tremendous job managing their economies.

There were many others who went after them. Also, I don't see how brutally crushing the opposition is in the best interests of the people. People did resist Nazi Rule in the 1930s

Jewish resistance under Nazi rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jewish_resistance_under_Nazi_rule Jewish_resistance_under_Nazi_rule

Again, this was due to Nazism, not fascism, the two are not interchangeable.

Federalism is Fascism now? You need to define your terms.

Federalism had a lot in common with fascism. It advocated a strong centralize government, massive state intervention in the Economy, and a militaristic spirit.

Outside of Germany and Italy, it was pretty much all Axis done.

This was because of a war that was started by a mad man, not because of fascism.

They didn't have enough of an economic base to take on the Allies

That just shows that Germany hadn't been fascist long enough, and the allies implemented Fascistic economic reforms as well, by the way.

No, the crisis came about because of the humiliation and despair over leaders after WWI. About 1,000,000 people in Italy died, 2,500,000 in Germany. People were furious with their leaders and economic woes that had little to do with capitalism angered the people

No, it was the Weimer Republic which was racking up an unsustainable economic debt that sent the nation into hyperinflation. It was the Fascists who cleaned up the mess.

That's like saying that it was only after I drank tea in the last 5 years, I got cancer, so I should blame the tea for that cancer

Just about every Democratic nation in history has failed because the people are too ignorant to spend the Nation's money for the greater good.

Yes, but it wasn't sustained.

Only because of the war.

I said there were attempts at overthrow, which shows that fascism isn't always well-received within the state it takes part in. And should the assassination attempts by Hitler's own officers succeeded, we would have had at least one.

Yeah, that was Hitler, but a large part of that was because of the fact Hitler was a mad man, not because he was a fascist.

Yes it is. When the people have no say in the politics of the government that rules them, they have an inherent tyrannical government.

Then I guess 95% of the Governments in history were Tyrannical. Also, I could name you plenty of democracies where the people did have a say in the Government that were Tyrannical.

However, he did not believe in a tyrannical, dictatorial government to rule the people.

Is that why he called in the army to put down the whisky revolt?

No, Alexander Hamilton was a federalist who believed in a strong centralized government.

Again, the two are very similar, and I would also like to point out that many fascist governments did not have dictators, e.g. Japan.

 

[samsmart]

No, fascism never works.

How many pretty speeches did Bush make blaming Bush?

None, but he sure did implement plenty of policies similar to Obama's.