Modern Fascism


#1

I just wonder what’s everyone’s thoughts on fascism? I think, if given a competent enough ruler, fascism could be successful. This has just come to my mind because this is what we’re talking about in my AP History classes and with the rise of fascism in Italy.


And to make it clear I don’t think Fascism has to be exclusionary of women or the LGBT community. So I think that while Fascism is an extreme it can be a social moderate sort of.


#2

Social ideals in a Fascist government, with the exception of ensuring family values are kept and patriotism and strong national identity is strives for, are honestly fair game. LGBT rights, women’s rights, etc. Fascism primary aim to in educate the population, protect the national identity of the population, and ensure that the law is obeyed by all.
I admire Giovanni Gentile for his ideas put forth in his writing and thought. A true Fascist that man was


#3

Yeah I’ve been flirting with authoritarian regimes and I rejected fascism at first because of the too close to connection to fervent traditionalism, which I don’t like. But while actually looking at the application of fascism by Mussolini and what has been written about it, I realized it isn’t that bad.


#4

The problem is that “family values” are rather arbitrary. Fascism heavily restricts personal freedom and forces people to give up their individuality for the sake of an obsolete ideal. However, from what you have been saying, there are other (and IMO better, though still not preferable) authoritarian systems. Bismarck-style reactionary movements, for example, encourage such things without expressively cracking down on opposing forces (so long as those forces do not turn violent)


#5

I do not like everything Mussolini put forth, however when I say family values I mean that we need to ensure that the family unit, above all, is secured. A nation with a non-existent or lax family unit leads to disorder; as the family unit is the base of all governments. I know you probably think anti-gay, religious, etc. stuff from family values, however I would beg to differ. The family values that I reference should install a understanding of authority in structure, parents to kids, kids among kids, infants to parents, etc. This will help the child understand the values of teamwork, cooperation, discipline, and other values that help the State actually function as a state.


#6

@GriffinO @thegaydespot @Ka1serTheRoll

You guys all seem rather unconcerned with giving rather authoritarian powers to a small group of people.

From my experience, in the modern day, due to the fact that it is difficult for the masses to overcome dictators, dictatorships seem to become corrupt rather quickly.

What measure would you suggest to prevent future hypothetical modern-day Fascist states from becoming corrupt as well?


#7

Well look at the US. We have a democratic oligarchy, honestly. With some fine-tuning, such as disassembly of the bi-party system, actually enforcing federal law, tighter restrictions on immigration and a much more imperialist policy (rather than interventionist) we would have a fascist state. Note how I say neo before Fascist; because of my American ideals I think a representative democracy is great, it has proven to work, and the current goal of the neo-Fascist is to convince others that Socialism and other bad left wing politics DON’T WORK.


#8

Interesting interesting. Are you in favour of or against total freedom of speech?


#9

Full free speech is best, only the strongest of the ideologies can survive in an environment where people are able to challenge and alter it. I say this because I am entirely confident that my ideology is more reasonable and better in practice than many of the insane left ideologies. Only Communists, Nazis, and Socialists need to stop people from speech.


#10

I’m a social libertarian, so I’m very much anti-autocracy. The problem with autocrats is that you basically roll the dice, especially with unelected autocrats (some societies, such as the Roman Kingdom and early Roman Empire had elected autocrats). While you may get lucky and get a Catherine the Great or Huey Long or someone who has good intentions and policies you’re almost just as likely, if not moreso, to get a selfish despot who wants nothing but power (Stalin, Cataline, pretty much every fascist leader in history except for Peron). In a democratic system, even an authoritarian one, it is easy or at least possible to depose an unpopular despot, but in an autocratic system this is MUCH more difficult. The more freedom people have, the more they question the government, which leads to more educated decisions. For example, if we didn’t have free press, the crimes of Richard Nixon would never be known, but with a free press and democratic system we were able to dethrone him before he could become a dictator, and without violence.


#11

My thing is that every government screws up at some point, no matter if it’s democratic, authoritarian, whatever. I’m just more in favor of an autocratic government, because if you have a competent leader actually train someone to be in line for succession, then you will be able to have some level of competence. I distrust the masses and I generally feel most people are incompetent enough to actually be involved in government. But like @GriffinO said in response to free speech, I feel that people can talk all they want, but if the government actually does it’s job, people will realize those who are against it aren’t the right choice. And if a government is starting to screw up then dissenting opinions will grow and the government will realize that it needs to get it together.


#12

Autocracy creates tyranny. If you do not believe that the masses are capable of making good decisions then a meritocracy or geniocracy might be a better fit than a full-on autocratic state. More checks and balances while still ensuring that the most competent people are in charge


#13

No lol because who decides what is considered as a merit? or creative intelligence? If the government starts off with one competent leader, and they actually raise a successor to be as competent as them, then I feel like if that continues, corruption is going to be a bit harder to sink into the government than any other way.


#14

Also I mean lol in like the nicest way, I don’t mean to like make your argument insignificant with that, its just a habit. But, imo being cruel sometimes can be more effective than being compassionate, though you have to mix the two in order for the people to want to stay loyal.


#15

But if your leader poses as a well-intentioned individual and becomes a tyrant then you’re fucked. This is the problem with autocrats, there are no checks or balances. You’re leaving far too much up to chance. In a democracy the keys to power are spread relatively evenly and tend to align with the needs and desires of the general populace, but in a dictatorship the keys to power are much more concentrated and much less likely to represent the interests of the common person, hence why benevolent dictators are something of a rarity. To quote Kanye West no one man should have all that power


#16

Well yeah but if you get a corrupt congress/parliament that can’t get anything done then what’s the point? What happens when one party gains significantly more power than others and starts to appoint the judges and civil servants? It’s the same thing. But if you start off with one competent autocrat, who raises a child to their standards, than that child can grow up and continue the sucession. In my opinion, the autocrat should not have children, their child is the successor they choose (preferable from a random orphanage or such). You are right though, it is often times led up to chance. I guess im just a more ‘the world can burn’ type person, but I feel as if the autocrat were competent enough and could raise a successor to be so also, the nation would be well off.


#17

That’s why the people directly appoint their own civil servants. My issue with you is that you have shown absolutely no methods of ensuring that the autocrat is competent in the first place. Having a monarch (preferably an elected monarch, similarly to that of the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth or the Roman Empire’s five good emperors) or similar figure to mediate in a government deadlock is actually a good idea, as it provides an emergency out. However, so long as things are running smoothly in the democratic process I see no need for one.


#18

The people/military. If you have compulsory military service, everyone will already have some combat skills. If those in the military are recognizing the country is going to hell, then they’d be the stopping force for the autocrat.


#19

Read “Blackshirts and Reds” by Dr. Michael Parenti. It will wipe out any love you might have for fascism.


#20

Unlikely