What can we learn from Fascism?

[Mr. Hair]

For the record, in this thread when I type about Fascism, I'm referring to the Italian model from the 1920's, which is generally acknowledged to have created the basic template for a modern Fascist regime. Think trains, marshes and short bald men.

I'm not particulary concerned about National Socialism, a rather different beast. As such, arguments that, for example, directly relate to the practice of concentration camps need not apply.

-----

Fascism. Does this ideology, in itself, remain a relevant political philosophy to this day and a legitimate alternative to the current social-democratic system prevalent in most modern nationstates; or has it been, to mangle the musings of an old Trotskyist, consigned to the ash heap of history?

If the former, what lessons, both positive and negative, can such countries learn from the arguments and results of Fascism? Additionally, are there any areas in your nation's social, political and/or economic aspects in which you would like to see Fascist reforms take place?

If the latter, how do you explain such a relatively sudden reversal of fortunes? Is it due to changes in international geo-politics, refinements of contemporary economic wisdom, a stigma carried over from the end of the second world war, technological advances, a mixture of the above; or something else entirely?

Could a 21st-century Fascist government conceivably successfully embrace a democratic structure, or do the radical changes required in order to establish such a regime inevitably lead to an authoritarian adminstration?

Finally, within your own country can you imagine a Fascist revolution in the foreseeable future being i) possible ii) justified, and should such an incident take place what do you imagine to be the immediate ramifications?

I hope for replies, not least because I'm not entirely sure of my answers to these questions... *smiles*

 

[GloriaPatri]

Fascism. Does this ideology, in itself, remain a relevant political philosophy to this day and a legitimate alternative to the current social-democratic system prevalent in most modern nationstates; or has it been, to mangle the musings of an old Trotskyist, consigned to the ash heap of history?

Yes, it does. It's actually the system we function under right now. I'm not saying that George Bush is the next Hitler or anyting - I'm talking about economic fascism/corporatism (atleast in America). We do not live under a free-market, but a corporatist economic system where a select few corporations and the government are allied with eachother to make sure both don't lose their power.

If the former, what lessons, both positive and negative, can such countries learn from the arguments and results of Fascism?

That is a terrible ideology that restricts the freedom of the masses for the gain of a tiny minority.

Additionally, are there any areas in your nation's social, political and/or economic aspects in which you would like to see Fascist reforms take place?

Nope.

If the latter, how do you explain such a relatively sudden reversal of fortunes? Is it due to changes in international geo-politics, refinements of contemporary economic wisdom, a stigma carried over from the end of the second world war, technological advances, a mixture of the above; or something else entirely?

Most freedom loving people saw the flaws in fascism and decided to not tolerate it. If you look at the people opposing FDR's New Deal program you will see that many American's were denouncing it as fascism and socialism.

Could a 21st-century Fascist government conceivably successfully embrace a democratic structure, or do the radical changes required in order to establish such a regime inevitably lead to an authoritarian adminstration?

It already has.

Finally, within your own country can you imagine a Fascist revolution in the foreseeable future being i) possible ii) justified, and should such an incident take place what do you imagine to be the immediate ramifications?

I could forsee a libertarian revolution. We already live under economic fascism so there wouldn't be much to revolt against. Maybe some idiots want to set-up an authoritarian government, but we're already halfway there.

 

[Mr. Hair]

Yes, it does. It's actually the system we function under right now... We do not live under a free-market, but a corporatist economic system where a select few corporations and the government are allied with eachother to make sure both don't lose their power.

If I recall correctly, Corporate economics is/was focused on subjugating the private sphere towards fulfilling the aims of the state as well as recognising it's ultimate authority, but without direct government interference. This is/was partly attempted through the establishment of state-funded and managed trade unions for entire sectors of a nation's industry, which included both workers and managers/owners of a particular company.

'Tis the reason Fascism used to be hailed as the 'middle way' between Capitalism and Socialism. The economic label does often throw people however.

EDIT* That, at least, was the theory.

 

[GloriaPatri]

If I recall correctly, Corporate economics is/was focused on subjugating the private sphere towards fulfilling the aims of the state as well as recognising it's ultimate authority, but without direct government interference. This is/was partly attempted through the establishment of state-funded and managed trade unions for entire sectors of a nation's industry, which included both workers and managers/owners of a particular company.

Yes. To go even further corporations are "allowed" to form with permission from the government. Corporations pay off politicians and pressure them into passing laws that benefit them at the expense of the tax payers and other businesses.

Regulations are a good example. They are put into place to prevent smaller businesses from competing with the larger ones.

 

[Yerda]

Regulations are a good example. They are put into place to prevent smaller businesses from competing with the larger ones.

Anti-monopoly legislation?

 

[PureX]

For the record, in this thread when I type about Fascism, I'm referring to the Italian model from the 1920's, which is generally acknowledged to have created the basic template for a modern Fascist regime. Think trains, marshes and short bald men.

Fascism (IPA: [?fæ??zm]) is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism.

The word fascism stems from the Italian word fascio (plural: fasci), which may mean bundle, as in a political or militant group, or a nation. The term also comes from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates. The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity; a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break. The Italian Fascisti were also known as Blackshirts for their style of uniform incorporating a black shirt.
- from wikipedia​

Fascism. Does this ideology, in itself, remain a relevant political philosophy to this day and a legitimate alternative to the current social-democratic system prevalent in most modern nationstates; or has it been, to mangle the musings of an old Trotskyist, consigned to the ash heap of history?

Fascism will never be consigned to the trash heap of history because it is in the nature of human beings to default to using force when they seek "unity" and find pluralism. In fact, it's in the nature of many human beings to default to using force whenever they encounter resistance to their own will, of any kind. I would even go so far as to say that fascism is the natural default of all human societies, when they do not deliberately seek out and practice an alternative.

If the former, what lessons, both positive and negative, can such countries learn from the arguments and results of Fascism? Additionally, are there any areas in your nation's social, political and/or economic aspects in which you would like to see Fascist reforms take place?

The lesson of fascism is that it doesn't work very well, or for very long, because it seeks to force the many to conform to the will of the few. And soon the many will rebel. For this reason fascism tends to be predatory. It can maintain it's forced cohesion better, as long as it's force is seen as being mostly imposed on "others". So fascism tends to need to create scape-goats within, and conquests without, to act as these "others".

If the latter, how do you explain such a relatively sudden reversal of fortunes? Is it due to changes in international geo-politics, refinements of contemporary economic wisdom, a stigma carried over from the end of the second world war, technological advances, a mixture of the above; or something else entirely?

I see no sudden reversal of fortune for fascism. There have always been plenty of fascist nations on Earth and there still are. And as each generation tends to have to learn the same lessons as their parents, all over again, I suspect that there always will be.

Could a 21st-century Fascist government conceivably successfully embrace a democratic structure, or do the radical changes required in order to establish such a regime inevitably lead to an authoritarian administration?

Fascism can pretend to be democratic, I suppose, and get away with it for a time, but it is by definition not really democratic.

Finally, within your own country can you imagine a Fascist revolution in the foreseeable future being i) possible ii) justified, and should such an incident take place what do you imagine to be the immediate ramifications?

The fascists are always among us. Fascism is built into our nature as human beings. Fascism will be the automatic default of any society that does not clearly identify an alternative form of government and act persistently to protect it. Here in the U.S., the later generations have fallen ignorant of the hard-earned lessons of those who came before us, and so we are now sliding back into fascism, at an alarming rate. And many of us foolishly think this is good.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Anti-monopoly legislation?

Yes, that's one form. Monopoly's only arise when government regulates and intervenes in the economy.

 

[PureX]

Yes, that's one form. Monopoly's only arise when government regulates and intervenes in the economy.

That's simply not true. Monopolies can arise anywhere at any time. They can be the result of buying government regulations that secure the monopoly, or they can be the result of having no regulations to prevent a monopoly.

 

[GloriaPatri]

That's simply not true. Monopolies can arise anywhere at any time. They can be the result of buying government regulations that secure the monopoly, or they can be the result of having no regulations to prevent a monopoly.

Nope. All monopoly's have formed because of government regulation or handouts. AT&T is a good example. Monopoly is impossible in a free market.

Anti-trust laws were used against companies who were selling things cheaper, better, and at a greater quantity than their competitors. It is one of the reasons why one of the official policy's at GM was to never let their market share top 45%. What happened because of this? Japanese and German car makers soared past them. It only serves to keep prices high, production lower, and to serve people who can not compete honestly.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Monopoly is impossible in a free market.
.

How so?

Collusion is more profitable than competition. Cartels and/or monopolies are a natural tendency of free markets, especially in network industries and industries with high entry barriers.

 

[GloriaPatri]

How so?

Because of competition.

Collusion is more profitable than competition.

Sure, for a very small minority allied with the government.

Cartels and/or monopolies are a natural tendency of free markets, especially in network industries and industries with high entry barriers.

No, they are not. It may be a natural tendency for companies to want to use government to create a monopoly for their gain. I would like anyone to show me an example where a monopoly was formed purely in the free market and not because of some sort of government intervention.

EDIT: If anyone wants to discuss this further they should make another thread. Let's get back to the original topic.

 

[Quiddity]

Somebody correct me on this but not all authoritarian governments are facist right?

 

[PureX]

Nope. All monopoly's have formed because of government regulation or handouts. AT&T is a good example. Monopoly is impossible in a free market.

Wow, they got you brainwashed, big time! 'Free markets are God. Free markets solve all world problems. Corporate profits are sacred. Nothing must stand in way of corporate profits, ...." *hehe*

Whew!

So what do you call it when, say, the big three oil companies use Katrina as an excuse to jack up the prices on oil they've had stored since before the storm, and every distributer down the line jumps on the bandwagon, basically because everyone else is doing it, and basically because they know they can. And by the way, the reason they know they can is because they all know that we all have to buy gasoline.

You don't seem to grasp that "free enterprise" works both ways. And that the goal of any business based on greed is to give as little as possible while getting as much as possible for it. So when your competitor raises his rates, so will you. And then so will everyone else. And what's stopping everyone from doing it when they all know that people will have to buy their product or services one way or another?

The only thing the free market works on are goods and services that are not essential, or are so diverse that no one can gain a monopoly (like food). With everything else, monopoly is not only the business goal, it's the automatic outcome unless the buying public can force business to behave socially. They won't do it otherwise.

The reason deregulation has failed so miserably is because we deregulated services that had no competitors, and that the public finds essential. In effect, our "deregulation" created automatic monopolies (which is exactly what the politicians and corporations behind it wanted). And they sold you a bunch of lies about the infallibility of free markets to get you to vote for them and their plan.

Anti-trust laws were used against companies who were selling things cheaper, better, and at a greater quantity than their competitors.

You're looking at only a tiny part of the picture. Huge corporations were using their size to run everyone else out of business. Sure, they were selling cheap at the moment, while they were running everyone else, off. But what do you think would happen once they got rid of all their competition? The answer is simple because business is fuels by greed, in America.

What happened because of this? Japanese and German car makers soared past them. It only serves to keep prices high, production lower, and to serve people who can not compete honestly.

Just the opposite is true. American car builders were building crap, and charging a fortune for it. The foreign car companies were building much better cars, and in some cases they were cheaper, too. So Americans started buying them and the american car manufacturers had to find a way of making better cars, cheaper. Since the CEOs weren't going to take any pay cuts, and the union line workers weren't going to take any pay cuts without an expensive fight, and no one was willing to work harder and smarter (like the foreign car manufacturers were) the CEOs decided to move many of their factories to third world countries where they could exploit the workers for their own gain.

See how an economic system based on greed is saving the day?

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Because of competition.

and what guarantees competition?

Sure, for a very small minority allied with the government.

For anyone who can get away with it. Why would I sell my widgets for $1 if I can sell them for $2? If I can cut a deal with other widget producers to limit competition and keep prices high, it is to our mutual advantage to do so. Everybody wants money for nothing and chicks for free.

No, they are not. It may be a natural tendency for companies to want to use government to create a monopoly for their gain.

It is a natural tendency to try to create non-competitive situations for yourself by whatever means you have at your disposal. Government may be one of them, but there are others: collusion and predatory pricing, for instance.

I would like anyone to show me an example where a monopoly was formed purely in the free market and not because of some sort of government intervention.

Well, the FTC still gets plenty of cases of companies engaging in anti-competitive behavior. If you go to countries where there are weak or poorly enforced antitrust laws (mostly the third-world), the examples of monopolies, oligopolies and cartels are legion.

There are "natural monopolies" too, like power grids, railroads and the like.

 

[Quiddity]

and what guarantees competition?

Hunger?
What economic system gurantees a greed-free society? None that I know of. At least a free market society gives you a chance to beat it. I can't say the same of the more socialistic systems.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Hunger?
What economic system gurantees a greed-free society?

I'm greedy and don't like to share, so I don't want competition. I want a monopoly. What's to stop me from having one?

 

[Quiddity]

I'm greedy and don't like to share, so I don't want competition. I want a monopoly. What's to stop me from having one?

My greed. I'm better, stronger, and faster then you.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

My greed. I'm better, stronger, and faster then you.

In which case, you'll end up with the monopoly, or we'll both agree to sign the treaty of Tordesillas and divide the world amongst ourselves

 

[Quiddity]

In which case, you'll end up with the monopoly, or we'll both agree to sign the treaty of Tordesillas and divide the world amongst ourselves

Sure it can happen, but just look at most non-democratic systems and the chances of monopolies is almost certain. Even in it's imperfections a free market has a better track record.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Sure it can happen, but just look at most non-democratic systems and the chances of monopolies is almost certain. Even in it's imperfections a free market has a better track record.

I never said anything about non-democratic systems or non-market economies.

My point was merely that antitrust laws and regulators are a necessity for well-functioning markets, which is a total tangent from the OP, I know and I'm sorry:sorry1: so let's just leave it there.