Fascism

[Lozzer]

Forgetting the history of fascism, forgetting the inhibitions it asserts over freedom and liberty; is fascism efficient? The only arguments I've ever observed only concern the immorality of fascist governments, and not the factors which we should really judge fascism by. In debating Nazi sympathisers, I've found then often defend the Nazis by claiming 'Hitler saved the economy! He built grand motorways' etc etc. So does fascism 'work' so to speak? Can it 'work'? Lets suppose that freedom isn't a prerequisite for human existence, nor a necessity for human happiness (which in neither case it is); what's so wrong about a fascist government?

Discuss.

[Clinton Huxley]

Maybe we should get Nick Griffin to run the railways?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Forgetting the history of fascism, forgetting the inhibitions it asserts over freedom and liberty; is fascism efficient? The only arguments I've ever observed only concern the immorality of fascist governments, and not the factors which we should really judge fascism by. In debating Nazi sympathisers, I've found then often defend the Nazis by claiming 'Hitler saved the economy! He built grand motorways' etc etc. So does fascism 'work' so to speak? Can it 'work'? Lets suppose that freedom isn't a prerequisite for human existence, nor a necessity for human happiness (which in neither case it is); what's so wrong about a fascist government?

Discuss.

1930s Germany was a command economy. Hitler was building up a huge debt that couldn't be repaid by any other means than going to war. Not efficient at all. Albert Speer makes this point in his book.

[Drewish]

Fascism isn't really a form of government. It's a form of justifying Despotism. So yes, it could work. Just as all dictatorships can work. But work well? The necessity in Fascism of keeping the citizens infantile in their understanding of world politics could very well leave a nation crippled in ideological induced ignorance within a generation or two. Plus there's the need for a rallying enemy. Seems far to complicated for what it does. If you're going to have a dictatorship, then Communism or Monarchy seem like much better choices. Of course I may just be a little bias because of too many hours playing Civilization 3.

[Lozzer]

Is fascism preferable? Consider it this way, would you instigate democracy in a country full of lunatics? Majority rule doesn't work in madhouses, so surely fascistic dictatorship would be better? The sane person being the dictator of course.

[Rum]

I'm not sure if you mean fascist states or dictatorships - they do tend to go hand in hand but they aren't synonymous. Assuming you are thinking of Germany and Italy as your main examples in the early part of the 20th century (not forgetting Spain of course!), they were not efficient nor could they have been. People used to say about Hitler 'at least he kept the trains running on time'. In fact the evidence is that he didn't! Fascist states were also like sharks, in that if they stop moving they die because they can't breathe/survive. They require constant revolution and probably expansionist goals (I say probably because Spain's were relatively unambitious). So they were inherently unstable. They also rely usually on the charisma of one person. I can't think of one example of there being a succession - a successful one in any case.

Germany rebuilt itself following the devastation of WW1 and Hitler helped that by breaking treaties and building a war economy. Everyone was fully employed and many no doubt for a period were happy with the way things were going. All that changed of course pretty well the moment America stepped into the war.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is fascism preferable? Consider it this way, would you instigate democracy in a country full of lunatics? Majority rule doesn't work in madhouses, so surely fascistic dictatorship would be better? The sane person being the dictator of course.

Insert Churchill quote here.

[Rum]

double post - deleted

[Lozzer]

I'm not sure if you mean fascist states or dictatorships - they do tend to go hand in hand but they aren't synonymous. Assuming you are thinking of Germany and Italy as your main examples in the early part of the 20th century (not forgetting Spain of course!), they were not efficient nor could they have been. People used to say about Hitler 'at least he kept the trains running on time'. In fact the evidence is that he didn't! Fascist states were also like sharks, in that if they stop moving they die because they can't breathe/survive. They require constant revolution and probably expansionist goals (I say probably because Spain's were relatively unambitious). So they were inherently unstable. They also rely usually on the charisma of one person. I can't think of one example of there being a succession - a successful one in any case.

Germany rebuilt itself following the devastation of WW1 and Hitler helped that by breaking treaties and building a war economy. Everyone was fully employed and many no doubt for a period were happy with the way things were going. All that changed of course pretty well the moment America stepped into the war.

So what you're saying is that fascist states depend on the productions and fortunes from war? Much like pirates needing to pirate other ships! Awesome.

To sidetrack slightly, how come communist dictatorships seem to last longer than fascist ones?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So what you're saying is that fascist states depend on the productions and fortunes from war? Much like pirates needing to pirate other ships! Awesome.

To sidetrack slightly, how come communist dictatorships seem to last longer than fascist ones?

The term "perpetual crisis" is worth looking up, Lozzer.

Check the history of the countries with the longest lasting communist dictatorships for a democratic tradition. Some people will take stability at any cost.

[Lozzer]

The term "perpetual crisis" is worth looking up, Lozzer.

So Communist states spread fear of impending doom or something in order to get their peoples to work harder or something? I don't know, it doesn't come up well in Google.

[klr]

The term "perpetual crisis" is worth looking up, Lozzer.

So Communist states spread fear of impending doom or something in order to get their peoples to work harder or something? I don't know, it doesn't come up well in Google.

George Orwell is turning in his grave ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The term "perpetual crisis" is worth looking up, Lozzer.

So Communist states spread fear of impending doom or something in order to get their peoples to work harder or something? I don't know, it doesn't come up well in Google.

The militarized state needs an enemy. So if no enemy is available one will be found. "Jews", "capitalists", "communists", "fascists". All nebulous targets that can be fitted to the needs of the state. They've been doing it since the Hittites, at least.

[AshtonBlack]

From Dictionary.com:

Fasism (–noun)
1. ... a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Nope can't see anything wrong with that.

[The Dawktor]

From Dictionary.com:

Fasism (–noun)
1. ... a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Nope can't see anything wrong with that.

Yup, what could possibly go wrong with that???