• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fascism: Would it work.

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.

Democratic governments have only had a resurgence in Western civilization from the ancient Greeks only in the last 300 years, and before that the trend has been for governments to become more democratic rather than less so.

Only because of the war.

Nations go to war all the time, and if a fascist government cannot survive a war, then it is a failure.

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.

And yet the people of that nation could not get rid of a fascist dictator despite said dictator being a madman, which shows another weakness of a fascist government.

Then I guess 95% of the Governments in history were Tyrannical.

Yes, they were.

Also, I could name you plenty of democracies where the people did have a say in the Government that were Tyrannical.

That is true. However, such democracies tend to be less tyrannical than fascist governments, especially democracies in which the power of the people is checked, but not prohibited by, an established constitution that allows for regular changes in government.

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

Indeed. The quelling of the Whiskey Rebellion was not an act by a tyrannical, dictatorial government. It was done to halt an unjustified rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was enacted by farmers who were angry at a federal excise tax on whiskey, which was a major source of income for farmers who would use their extra crops to make whiskey so it would last longer and even use it as a form of currency since whiskey would last longer than their crops. They were outraged over the tax and tried to revolt. However, Hamilton and Washington were able to stop it.

This was because Washington, who was elected President via a democratic process, did not mandate the tax by fiat without regards to opposition, which is what a fascist government would be able to do. Rather, Alexander Hamilton recommended the whiskey tax to Congress to help pay down the federal debt the U.S. incurred for the Revolutionary War. The House of Representatives and the Senate, both democratically elected chambers of the legislature, debated the measure, wrote bills, passed a bill in both houses, compromised the bills between the two chambers, wrote a final single bill, passed a vote in both houses on that, and presented it to George Washington, who signed it into law.

The rebels shouted that they were suffering taxation without representation; that is untrue - they were being taxed with the people being represented via the House of Representatives and the states being represented via the Senate. Therefore, they were not suffering tyranny like they did under the British Empire, in which Parliament did not allow the colonies any representation in the House of Commons nor the House of Lords.

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.

Yes, Imperial Japan did have dictators. While they technically had a monarchy, in truth Japan was ruled by the military. So while the Empire of Japan did not have a singular dictator, it had a group of dictators in the leaders of the military establishment who were the ones who effectively made policies for Imperial Japan.
 
Last edited:
Democratic governments have only had a resurgence in Western civilization from the ancient Greeks only in the last 300 years, and before that the trend has been for governments to become more democratic rather than less so.

Yes, but your forgetting that the only reason that fascist governments existed at all was because Democracy had failed in those nations where fascism came to power, and people wanted a change in order to ensure stability, and often times it was the people who instated the fascist dictator. I would remind you that Hitler came to power through the democratic system.:shock:

Nations go to war all the time, and if a fascist government cannot survive a war, then it is a failure.

As a matter of fact, there were plenty of fascist nations that did not go to war, and I'm sorry, but merely losing a war does not prove that the Germans were incapable of fighting one effectively, and is hardly a justification for saying that all fascist governments will always be incapable of fighting wars.

Yes, they were.

And ya know what, the French revolution was more harmful than many of them.

And yet the people of that nation could not get rid of a fascist dictator despite said dictator being a madman, which shows another weakness of a fascist government.

So what, we typically can't get rid of bad presidents right away either. Besides a fascist government does not necessarily always have to be run by a life long dictator, it could be run by an administration that would chose a new chairman every now and then. Sort of like China.


That is true. However, such democracies tend to be less tyrannical than fascist governments, especially democracies in which the power of the people is checked, but not prohibited by, an established constitution that allows for regular changes in government.

How about democratically elected Hugo Chavez an Ahmadinajad.
Indeed.

The quelling of the Whiskey Rebellion was not an act by a tyrannical, dictatorial government. It was done to halt an unjustified rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was enacted by farmers who were angry at a federal excise tax on whiskey, which was a major source of income for farmers who would use their extra crops to make whiskey so it would last longer and even use it as a form of currency since whiskey would last longer than their crops. They were outraged over the tax and tried to revolt. However, Hamilton and Washington were able to stop it.

There was no need for the whiskey Tax, the citizens had full right to be angry. This is an example of democratic tyranny.

This was because Washington, who was elected President via a democratic process, did not mandate the tax by fiat without regards to opposition, which is what a fascist government would be able to do. Rather, Alexander Hamilton recommended the whiskey tax to Congress to help pay down the federal debt the U.S. incurred for the Revolutionary War. The House of Representatives and the Senate, both democratically elected chambers of the legislature, debated the measure, wrote bills, passed a bill in both houses, compromised the bills between the two chambers, wrote a final single bill, passed a vote in both houses on that, and presented it to George Washington, who signed it into law.

Perfect example of how tyranny can be legislated in a democratic society.

Yes, Imperial Japan did have dictators. While they technically had a monarchy, in truth Japan was ruled by the military. So while the Empire of Japan did not have a singular dictator, it had a group of dictators in the leaders of the military establishment who were the ones who effectively made policies for Imperial Japan.

There was still a plurality of rulers, and the government had the support of the people.
 
Last edited:
... but merely losing a war does not prove that the Germans were incapable of fighting one effectively, and is hardly a justification for saying that all fascist governments will always be incapable of fighting wars.

Considering that they were fighting two superpowers on two fronts and were outnumbered 5 to 1, they fought surprisingly well. If they hadn't wasted so many resources on the Final Solution, they may have done even more damage before their inevitable defeat.
 
Considering that they were fighting two superpowers on two fronts and were outnumbered 5 to 1, they fought surprisingly well. If they hadn't wasted so many resources on the Final Solution, they may have done even more damage before their inevitable defeat.
And perhaps if they hadn't gone to war with anyone, and hadn't killed off so many people in concentration camps, they would still be around...
 
Yes, but your forgetting that the only reason that fascist governments existed at all was because Democracy had failed in those nations where fascism came to power, and people wanted a change in order to ensure stability, and often times it was the people who instated the fascist dictator. I would remind you that Hitler came to power through the democratic system.:shock:

Yes, and you're forgetting that the only reason why we don't have any long-running fascist governments is because people and their culture naturally evolve and differ faster than a dictatorial government, meaning that the fascist government eventually loses support of the majority of people and falls. And while Hitler did come to power through a democratic system, he only maintained power through oppression via the military, the Waffen-SS, and the Gestapo.

As a matter of fact, there were plenty of fascist nations that did not go to war, and I'm sorry, but merely losing a war does not prove that the Germans were incapable of fighting one effectively, and is hardly a justification for saying that all fascist governments will always be incapable of fighting wars.

Then, likewise, just because an economic crisis happens during the history of a democratic government is no justification that democratic governments are unable to weather through or prevent an economic crisis.

And ya know what, the French revolution was more harmful than many of them.

I won't argue that. But then again, it could be argued that the French revolutionary government became a fascistic government in itself by pursuing such bloody tactics against counter-revolutionary elements. It was not until the factions of the French Revolution stopped using violence as a political solution and allowed opposition to it a voice in politics and government that it truly became a democracy.

So what, we typically can't get rid of bad presidents right away either.

No, we cannot get rid of a bad President right away. However, we do have limited terms, and term limits, for President mandated in our Constitution. This allows for a peaceful change of government within our constitutional democratic republic.

Besides a fascist government does not necessarily always have to be run by a life long dictator, it could be run by an administration that would chose a new chairman every now and then. Sort of like China.

However, China has a one-party system that officially endorses the Communist Party of China, which means they have a dictatorial party controlling the government. Until members of opposition parties are allowed representation in the Chinese government, it is no better.


How about democratically elected Hugo Chavez an Ahmadinajad.
Indeed.

Would you have endorsed them if they came to power through a military coup to control their governments?

There was no need for the whiskey Tax, the citizens had full right to be angry. This is an example of democratic tyranny.

That is absolutely not the case. The tax on whiskey was to help pay down the debt, and it was not tyranny because the people elected their Representatives democratically. And the U.S. government does not endorse a particular political party and suppresses opposition to it. Therefore, it is not tyranny.

Perfect example of how tyranny can be legislated in a democratic society

Then what's the difference between "tyranny" and "legislating"? Because apparently you see none.

There was still a plurality of rulers, and the government had the support of the people.

But the people had no way to change the government if it lost the support of it's people. None of the military was elected to it's position to rule over the people, and because they were the military they could use force of arms to prevent a change should the people demand one. And, again, it lost the war. And the Japanese reaction to their defeat in World War 2 was that their nation renounced the use of the military and armed conflict to resolve disputes with other nations in their new constitution. In order to ensure that the military would never put the people of Japan in such dire straits as it did during World War 2 and it's aftermath, the Japan banned a military force for their government. That says how much the people really liked having a military fascist dictatorship in charge of them.
 
Last edited:
And perhaps if they hadn't gone to war with anyone, and hadn't killed off so many people in concentration camps, they would still be around...

Indeed. Germany lost a lot of their educated people, especially scientists and engineers, because of the policies their dictatorial government implemented.
 
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.

The Great Depression was mostly brought on by a Federal Reserve who had an inflationary monetary policy in the 1920s which fueled a huge stock market bubble, cut off the money supply after 1929, and in 1930 the US enacted a large tariff. Much of Europe was devastated by WWI. People demand a strong state when they think a weak one was at fault, but this is often not actually the case

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.

I could go on about how the New Deal lengthened the Depression. The stock market didn't really recover until the late 1940s.
 
And perhaps if they hadn't gone to war with anyone, and hadn't killed off so many people in concentration camps, they would still be around...

The war with France and the war with the Soviet Union were inevitable. War with the United States and Britain could have been avoided, and if they had successfully pressured Japan into leaving us alone, they would have had allies against the Russians; the Soviets would have invaded Poland eventually if the Nazis hadn't beaten them to it.
 
Yes, and you're forgetting that the only reason why we don't have any long-running fascist governments is because people and their culture naturally evolve and differ faster than a dictatorial government, meaning that the fascist government eventually loses support of the majority of people and falls.

No, the only reason we don't have a long running fascist government is because the leaders did not provide any way for another leader to take power after their own death. They usually just handed the government over to a King, the people never had anything to do with it. Again, what Fascist government was ever overthrown by the people?

Then, likewise, just because an economic crisis happens during the history of a democratic government is no justification that democratic governments are unable to weather through or prevent an economic crisis.

Just about every Democratic government has failed, and the United States is on the path to failure as well. We actually do have examples of fascist governments that did not fail.

I won't argue that. But then again, it could be argued that the French revolutionary government became a fascistic government in itself by pursuing such bloody tactics against counter-revolutionary elements. It was not until the factions of the French Revolution stopped using violence as a political solution and allowed opposition to it a voice in politics and government that it truly became a democracy.

This again proves that the people have the ability to be just as tyrannical as a King or dictator.

No, we cannot get rid of a bad President right away. However, we do have limited terms, and term limits, for President mandated in our Constitution. This allows for a peaceful change of government within our constitutional democratic republic.

So, China has this ability too.

However, China has a one-party system that officially endorses the Communist Party of China, which means they have a dictatorial party controlling the government. Until members of opposition parties are allowed representation in the Chinese government, it is no better.

Hey, guess what, China is doing just fine.

Would you have endorsed them if they came to power through a military coup to control their governments?

Not necessarily.

Then what's the difference between "tyranny" and "legislating"? Because apparently you see none.

So, if Congress one day votes to kill the Jews off, is that "tyranny", or is it the "will of the people".

That is absolutely not the case. The tax on whiskey was to help pay down the debt, and it was not tyranny because the people elected their Representatives democratically. And the U.S. government does not endorse a particular political party and suppresses opposition to it. Therefore, it is not tyranny.

You yourself said that the whiskey tax was a heavy burden on the income of the farmers, making it tyranny.

Let me ask you this, if congress did vote to instate "taxation without representation", would that be tyranny?

But the people had no way to change the government if it lost the support of it's people.

Why do the people need to be able to change the government? And who says the people would govern any better?

And the Japanese reaction to their defeat in World War 2 was that their nation renounced the use of the military and armed conflict to resolve disputes with other nations in their new constitution. In order to ensure that the military would never put the people of Japan in such dire straits as it did during World War 2 and it's aftermath, the Japan banned a military force for their government. That says how much the people really liked having a military fascist dictatorship in charge of them.

Don't you mean that the United States forced the Japanese military to disband, and also played a vital role in drafting Japan's constitution?
 
Last edited:
That's because people buy into naive and idealistic notions of Democracy that are ultimately harmful to the people and the nation in general.

Many authoritarians and Totalitarians have naive believes that leaders of these states have their best interests in mind

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.

That's why put in safeguards, such as Constitutions to dilute mob rule and promote limited government.

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.

No, their central banks and other corporatist policies encouraged them to

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

That doesn't mean that they were right

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

You said Fascist governments didn't have a problem with internal rebellion, I just showed that some did

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

But it wasn't fascism. It has more in common with Modern Liberalism or Neo-Conservatism.

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

You're the one who mentioned Allied firebombing.


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

No it just shows that they didn't have an economic base. any of the Allies did expand government involvement in their economies during the 1930s, and they suffered because of it.

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.

Hyperinflation was mostly over by the late 1920s thanks to the Dawes Plan. However, many were still angry at the Weimer Republic and thought that it represented a pathetic shell of the Second Reich.

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.

So far, so has every Fascist nation. Over the course of history, I'd say that nations like America and Britain have done better than Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.

Only because of the war.



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.

It lacked the ability to sustain itself in that war, because it had a smaller economic base than the Allies
 
Many authoritarians and Totalitarians have naive believes that leaders of these states have their best interests in mind

Many authoritarian regimes have ran governments to the betterment of the nation. Just look at the Spanish Miracle.

That's why put in safeguards, such as Constitutions to dilute mob rule and promote limited government.

The Constitution doesn't work, there is still cronyism in the United States, just look at the bailouts:roll:. Also, just take a look at how the constitution was trampled on during the Civil War.

No, their central banks and other corporatist policies encouraged them to

With the support of the people.

That doesn't mean that they were right

It is widely recognized that the Germans and Italians ran very efficient economies.

You said Fascist governments didn't have a problem with internal rebellion, I just showed that some did

Plenty of democracies have problems with rebellions and military cues as well. In fact, that's how many fascist regimes came to power.:lol:

But it wasn't fascism. It has more in common with Modern Liberalism or Neo-Conservatism.

Yes, modern liberals and Neo-Conservatives are very close to being fascist parties.

You're the one who mentioned Allied firebombing.

Fire bombings, and mad men, have nothing to do with fascism.

No it just shows that they didn't have an economic base. any of the Allies did expand government involvement in their economies during the 1930s, and they suffered because of it.

Actually, if the war had dragged on a little longer, the Germans would have won.


Hyperinflation was mostly over by the late 1920s thanks to the Dawes Plan. However, many were still angry at the Weimer Republic and thought that it represented a pathetic shell of the Second Reich.

So, the fascists never had hyperinflation.

So far, so has every Fascist nation. Over the course of history, I'd say that nations like America and Britain have done better than Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.

No Fascist government has ever failed, all of them were destroyed from without, or gave up their power voluntarily.

It lacked the ability to sustain itself in that war, because it had a smaller economic base than the Allies

No, they were just out numbered.
 
Last edited:
No, the only reason we don't have a long running fascist government is because the leaders did not provide any way for another leader to take power after their own death. They usually just handed the government over to a King, the people never had anything to do with it. Again, what Fascist government was ever overthrown by the people?

Which in itself is another flaw of fascist governments - they are not self-sustaining after the leader of the government is taken out of power.

Just about every Democratic government has failed, and the United States is on the path to failure as well. We actually do have examples of fascist governments that id not fail.

And yet we don't have many surviving to the modern day.

This again proves that the people have the ability to be just as tyrannical as a King or dictator.

Yes. However, it is easier and more self-sustaining for a nation to use democratic methods that allows for government representation of the opposition than it is to rely on a single person or entity to maintain government.

So, China has this ability too.

But it does not have the ability to install non-members of the Communist Party to political offices.

Hey, guess what, China is doing just fine

Tell that to the political dissidents and missionaries in China, the Tibetans, and the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Not necessarily.

And yet you've been supporting a system that allows an individual or small group to come to power and/or maintain that power through the use of military force over it's own populace.

So, if Congress one day votes to kill the Jews off, is that "tyranny", or is it the "will of the people".

Well, Congress can't just vote to kill the Jews off. One reason why is because we have something called checks and balances and a Constitution that can impose limits on the government for the benefit of the people. While Congress may pass a resolution to kill the Jews, it is the President who is in command of the military agencies and the federal law enforcement agencies who would have to enforce that law, which the President can choose not to enforce. Also, the Supreme Court has powers of judicial review over the laws and acts of Congress and the President, and they could rule summarily kill all Jews as a violation of due process guaranteed to the people by the Fifth Amendment and is a violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. So while our government is democratically elected, even the people's will is checked by the Constitution.

You yourself said that the whiskey tax was a heavy burden on the income of the farmers, making it tyranny.

I didn't say it was a heavy burden on the income of the farmers. I said the farmers didn't want to pay the tax. Just like there are people now who don't want to pay the income tax, despite the tax not being much of a burden on them.

Let me ask you this, if congress did vote to instate "taxation without representation", would that be tyranny?

Congress can't do that so simply.

For one, there would be Representatives and Senators who would oppose such a measure. This is because our government allows opposition parties to run for and be elected to Congress.

For another, only Congress has the power to pass taxes, not the President nor the Supreme Court. And because Congress is an elected legislative body of representatives of the people, we have an inherent system of "taxation with representation."

And Congress cannot pass a law that the President or the Supreme Court to pass taxes because it would be a violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court would rule it as such, and therefore strike the law down as unconstitutional and render it null and void.

Why do the people need to be able to change the government?

Because people in a culture and society change over time, and the needs of the people, nation, and government change over time. If the government does not allow itself to change over time, it can lose out on a lot of valuable resources, especially technical and technological advancements, and become a weaker country because of it.

Don't you mean that the United States forced the Japanese military to disband, and also played a vital role in drafting Japan's constitution?

While the U.S. did force the Japanese military to disband after the war, and the U.S. had a vital role in the drafting of Japan's constitution, historical sources say that the idea for Japan to renounce it's ability to wage war was brought up by the Prime Minister, and even if it wasn't the Japanese Diet did not oppose the article even though it opposed other articles and had them changed.
 
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.

That says it all... people aren't perfect.
 
Which in itself is another flaw of fascist governments - they are not self-sustaining after the leader of the government is taken out of power.

No, that's a flaw of dictatorship. Fascism again doesn't need a dictator. Nations like China do have the ability to pass the torch, as do monarchies.

And yet we don't have many surviving to the modern day.

I believe most nations these days do largely lean fascist, as far as economics goes.

Yes. However, it is easier and more self-sustaining for a nation to use democratic methods that allows for government representation of the opposition than it is to rely on a single person or entity to maintain government.

Not necessarily. In fact, the longest running single government was the Roman Empire, which was not democratic, an in fact had a lot in common with fascist Germany.

But it does not have the ability to install non-members of the Communist Party to political offices.

So, why is this a problem? What is so much better to have a two party system? In fact, i would argue that the two parties in the USA are largely one big party, the only differences are rhetorical.

Tell that to the political dissidents and missionaries in China, the Tibetans, and the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Tell the Catholics in early 20th century Mexico that democracy always represents human rights. Besides, from a purely objective stand point, the Chinese government and economy are doing just fine.

Well, Congress can't just vote to kill the Jews off. One reason why is because we have something called checks and balances and a Constitution that can impose limits on the government for the benefit of the people. While Congress may pass a resolution to kill the Jews, it is the President who is in command of the military agencies and the federal law enforcement agencies who would have to enforce that law, which the President can choose not to enforce. Also, the Supreme Court has powers of judicial review over the laws and acts of Congress and the President, and they could rule summarily kill all Jews as a violation of due process guaranteed to the people by the Fifth Amendment and is a violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. So while our government is democratically elected, even the people's will is checked by the Constitution.

Those checks an balances worked out well for the Slaves and native Americans too, right?:mrgreen


I didn't say it was a heavy burden on the income of the farmers. I said the farmers didn't want to pay the tax. Just like there are people now who don't want to pay the income tax, despite the tax not being much of a burden on them.

Taxes on tea didn't effect income that much either but...

Congress can't do that so simply.

For one, there would be Representatives and Senators who would oppose such a measure. This is because our government allows opposition parties to run for and be elected to Congress.

For another, only Congress has the power to pass taxes, not the President nor the Supreme Court. And because Congress is an elected legislative body of representatives of the people, we have an inherent system of "taxation with representation."

And Congress cannot pass a law that the President or the Supreme Court to pass taxes because it would be a violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court would rule it as such, and therefore strike the law down as unconstitutional and render it null and void.

If you think the government follows the constitution to the letter, I don't know what to tell you.

Because people in a culture and society change over time, and the needs of the people, nation, and government change over time. If the government does not allow itself to change over time, it can lose out on a lot of valuable resources, especially technical and technological advancements, and become a weaker country because of it.

The Romans didn't have any trouble developing.

And yet you've been supporting a system that allows an individual or small group to come to power and/or maintain that power through the use of military force over it's own populace.

So are you.

While the U.S. did force the Japanese military to disband after the war, and the U.S. had a vital role in the drafting of Japan's constitution, historical sources say that the idea for Japan to renounce it's ability to wage war was brought up by the Prime Minister, and even if it wasn't the Japanese Diet did not oppose the article even though it opposed other articles and had them changed.

Show me that it was the "people" who did this.
 
Last edited:
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.

How do you reconcile the inevitable corruption between business leaders intertwined with the government? On a more practical note, how do you expect to maintain a consumer economy during peacetime with centralized control? Note that every nation of power and influence today has a market economy, as the the military power of the USSR was not enough to forestall its demise. China has managed to gain massive influence by its switch to a market economy, using it to further nationalistic goals.

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.

You are correct, but most practical implementations of "communism" have actually been quite nationalistic. Stalin killed international utopian socialism, while Ho Chi Minh wore a communist hat purely out of political practicality. Other than rhetoric, the end result is quite similar.
 
How do you reconcile the inevitable corruption between business leaders intertwined with the government?

Corruption is inevitable. Full stop. Every government has it. Our corporate leaders are already fully intertwined with our democratic government, and I would say that it is already well past time that they returned the favor.

On a more practical note, how do you expect to maintain a consumer economy during peacetime with centralized control?

There's a link in my post, to Technocracy, Inc., that explains my economic beliefs. In the meantime, I would say that our government is likely to collapse before we ever experience peacetime conditions. Even if our nation-building exercises in Iraq and Afghanistan miraculously succeed, there's always Iran-- and Mexico, if conditions along our southern border are any indication.

You are correct, but most practical implementations of "communism" have actually been quite nationalistic. Stalin killed international utopian socialism, while Ho Chi Minh wore a communist hat purely out of political practicality. Other than rhetoric, the end result is quite similar.

The Soviet Union refused to embrace the corporation and eventually collapsed. China only embraced corporatism after experiencing decades of economic failure. I reject Socialism because I don't want my nation to suffer the same fate, even in the short term.
 
No, that's a flaw of dictatorship. Fascism again doesn't need a dictator. Nations like China do have the ability to pass the torch, as do monarchies.



I believe most nations these days do largely lean fascist, as far as economics goes.

Fascism is not an economic system. It is a reaction, a political behavior. It has only attained power through collaboration with existing conservative government officials. Once it attains power, the fascist regime will remove parts of the government or create new ones that allow it to achieve its overall goal of an internal "cleansing" of those it feels are contributing to the nations decline, expansion so the country can achieve its desiny of master race,nation (whatever), and social darwinism so only the strongest and best (meaning there "master race") survive. War has been the choice of every fully mature facsist regime to achieve these ends. Fascisms has never had a coherent economic system, the only economic policies made by facsist regimes were those made for reasons of national pride, or to fully control its citizens so no one differed from its ideal, or to prepare the nation for war to achieve the goals previously stated. Those facsist regimes that failed to fully radicalize, faded from power. Those who were not helped to power by existing government officials never came to power.

Just to get my point across:

A facsist organization within the US is the KKK. What are its goals? What are its economic policies? Why has it never attained power?
 
Last edited:
Fascism is not an economic system.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

Benito Mussolini

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benito_mussolini.htm

Once it attains power, the fascist regime will remove parts of the government or create new ones that allow it to achieve its overall goal of an internal "cleansing" of those it feels are contributing to the nations decline, expansion so the country can achieve its desiny of master race,nation (whatever), and social darwinism so only the strongest and best (meaning there "master race") survive. War has been the choice of every fully mature facsist regime to achieve these ends.

False. Your again talking about Nazism, not fascism. As a matter of fact, there were many fascist regimes that were not racist. For example, the Austrian Fascists under Doflus were very tolerant of jews, and did not display any desire for a master race.

War has been the choice of every fully mature facsist regime to achieve these ends.

False. Many fascist regimes were non-violent, including Franco's Spain, Salazar Portugal, Dolfus Austria, Greece and many others.

Those facsist regimes that failed to fully radicalize, faded from power.

No they did not. They gave up their power willingly. No fascist regime was ever removed by the people.

A facsist organization within the US is the KKK. What are its goals? What are its economic policies? Why has it never attained power?

The KKK is not Fascist, it is racist, the two are not necessarily synonymous.

Those who were not helped to power by existing government officials never came to power.

False. Many fascist regimes came to power through civil war.
 
Last edited:
Corruption is inevitable. Full stop. Every government has it. Our corporate leaders are already fully intertwined with our democratic government, and I would say that it is already well past time that they returned the favor.

It can be limited. While some industries are as a corrupt as you claim, most are actually open competitive markets. The U.S. is build on a consumer consumption economy, and most of those goods are sold through fairly honest competition. Its not even close to a perfect system, but it has consistently beat out the competition.


There's a link in my post, to Technocracy, Inc., that explains my economic beliefs.

I looked through some articles, and nothing came up about a centralized method of determiner consumer good productions. What objective measure would the state planners have to decide how many ipods to produce or what color snuggy is right for the people? Historically, centralized control over the economy only works well when you have simple goals like "make as many tanks and planes as possible".

In the meantime, I would say that our government is likely to collapse before we ever experience peacetime conditions. Even if our nation-building exercises in Iraq and Afghanistan miraculously succeed, there's always Iran-- and Mexico, if conditions along our southern border are any indication.

From an economic perspective we are at peace. No war since WW2 has required to we alter our lavish domestic production even while we fight wars.

The Soviet Union refused to embrace the corporation and eventually collapsed. China only embraced corporatism after experiencing decades of economic failure. I reject Socialism because I don't want my nation to suffer the same fate, even in the short term.

China's success came from embracing the market, not the corporation. Currency (manipulation) and market economics are crucial to China's success. Replacing the government employees with private ones in a command economy is just moving around the deck chairs on the titanic. The core inability to allocate resources for consumer use remains in either case.
 
Many authoritarian regimes have ran governments to the betterment of the nation. Just look at the Spanish Miracle.Fascism has a similar problem

Many democrats also had/have the interests of their people in mind Look at the Founding Fathers. There will be self serving leaders in both systems

The Constitution doesn't work, there is still cronyism in the United States, just look at the bailouts:roll:. Also, just take a look at how the constitution was trampled on during the Civil War.

Fascism has a similar problem. It still allows for the trampling of human rights and a whole other group of problems.

With the support of the people.

Again Constitution. If you want to pull out how it was trampled, look at how Fascist rulers trampled over the rights of civilized society.

It is widely recognized that the Germans and Italians ran very efficient economies.

It is widely recognized that they were not able to really pull out of the Depression. Poverty remained.

Plenty of democracies have problems with rebellions and military cues as well. In fact, that's how many fascist regimes came to power.:lol:

Never said that they didn't. You're the one who asserted that Fascism would fix this problem.

Yes, modern liberals and Neo-Conservatives are very close to being fascist parties.

No they are not. They don't favor economic planning, restrictions of freedom of speech, or a whole host of things. Face it, Hamilton wasn't a Fascist.

Fire bombings, and mad men, have nothing to do with fascism.

You are the one who brought it up.

Actually, if the war had dragged on a little longer, the Germans would have won.

Germany had absolutely no economic base to carry out war. It's men and resources were depleted. The Weremacht in the Battle of Berlin fought with old men and boys. Defeat was inevitable. They were close to the A-Bomb, but so was America.


So, the fascists never had hyperinflation.

When did I say that they did? Most democracies never had it either. Germany only experienced it as a result of war reparations.

No Fascist government has ever failed, all of them were destroyed from without, or gave up their power voluntarily.

Because there were very short-lived and few in number. Again, why is crushing opposition leaders in the best interests of the people?

No, they were just out numbered.

The Japanese were able to overrun China for a while. Finland almost defeated the USSR. Numbers aren't everything.
 
Many democrats also had/have the interests of their people in mind Look at the Founding Fathers. There will be self serving leaders in both systems

Yes, but democracies always fail because they put special interest groups ahead of the greater good. It is only when a strong authoritarian leader steps in and takes care of business that anything gets one in a democracy. Just look at the civil war. Abraham Lincoln was probably the most fascist leader we ever had.

Fascism has a similar problem. It still allows for the trampling of human rights and a whole other group of problems.

Both systems allow for trampling of rights, that was my point.

I would also ask you how exactly you know that these supposed "rights" actually exist.

Again Constitution. If you want to pull out how it was trampled, look at how Fascist rulers trampled over the rights of civilized society.

The point is that the constitution has never been shown to actually restrain anything the US government does. The congress constantly violates the constitution, and then makes up lame excuses for breaking their own laws. This proves that the constitution is nothing but an empty document.

It is widely recognized that they were not able to really pull out of the Depression. Poverty remained.

Still did better than the Weimer republic, an poverty is not an indicator of economic efficieny.

Never said that they didn't. You're the one who asserted that Fascism would fix this problem.[/.quote]

No, I said fascism ensures that a strong government that is very unlikely to be overthrown. Again, show me one fascist government that was ever overthrown in a cue or rebellion.

Germany had absolutely no economic base to carry out war. It's men and resources were depleted. The Weremacht in the Battle of Berlin fought with old men and boys. Defeat was inevitable. They were close to the A-Bomb, but so was America.

This doesn't prove anything. Prove that the German military was weaker than the allies because of fascism, and not other factors.

When did I say that they did? Most democracies never had it either. Germany only experienced it as a result of war reparations.

No fascist government has ever had a failed economy, but democratic economies fail all the time.

Because there were very short-lived and few in number.

So.

Again, why is crushing opposition leaders in the best interests of the people?

It ensures stability, and leads to a strong economy and a prosperous nation.


The Japanese were able to overrun China for a while. Finland almost defeated the USSR. Numbers aren't everything.

Not comparable.
 
Historically, it looks like fascism comes to power when a nation is in trouble, but rarely stays in power for too long.

Some relatively peaceful fascist regimes work at fixing the problems in the nation that eluded the previous government, with some measure of success in some cases, and then eventually hand the reins of power back to a democratic system, willingly or through collapse following a leader's death.

Others seem to go off on wars of conquest, and in their overconfidence they overextend until they generate enough opposition to get themselves destroyed.

Neither of these types of examples seems to indicate that fascism is a type of government that can be stable long-term. The kind of expansionism engaged in by the Nazis, Italians and Japanese eventually end in defeat.

Absent that expansionism, "the people" put up with fascism while times are hard, but then when times get better they want their freedom back.

Fascism seems more like a short-term attempt at a solution when democracies get too screwed up to self-repair, rather than a long-term stable system of governance.
 
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."


False. Your again talking about Nazism, not fascism. As a matter of fact, there were many fascist regimes that were not racist. For example, the Austrian Fascists under Doflus were very tolerant of jews, and did not display any desire for a master race.

False. Many fascist regimes were non-violent, including Franco's Spain, Salazar Portugal, Dolfus Austria, Greece and many others.


No they did not. They gave up their power willingly. No fascist regime was ever removed by the people.

The KKK is not Fascist, it is racist, the two are not necessarily synonymous.

False. Many fascist regimes came to power through civil war.

Fascism is not an authoritarian dictatorship. Those examples you listed are examples of authoritarian dictatorships, they failed to radicalize, they are not fascists. The KKK is a perfect example of fascism, as is Nazi Germany, as is Italy under Mussolini. Fascism has nothing to do with corporatism and everything to do with a radical political behavior. Your question from the start of the thread should have been: Dictatorships, can they work?
 
Last edited:
From wikipedia.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[20]

Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[21] They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.[21]

Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment.[22] Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements of the Enlightenment.[23] In contrast, Fascists promote action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will.[24] They oppose liberalism — as a bourgeois movement — and Marxism — as a proletarian movement — for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[25] Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[26] They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly governing a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.[27]

Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but opposes its typical opposition to change and modernization.[28] Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers of pluralism and independent initiative to order in society.[28]

Fascists support a "Third Position" in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[29][30]

Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the publicity surrounding the atrocities committed during the period of fascist governments, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word,[31] often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum.[32]

... looks like this was written by a fascist or an admirer of fascism. 'Rampant' individualism? 'Severe' state control? Adjectives on fascism's terms.
 
Back
Top Bottom