It is my opinion that fascism is a great form of government.
It creates a unified society, a strong government that gets things done.
I am sure most people would not agree with me and I would love to hear arguments against a fascist government.
Fascism includes manipulation of the people by making sure they believe something that is not true and subsequently letting those people act on that. In that sense fascism thrives on making its populace mentally ill. It is a bad form of government that will inevitably create its own degeneration, followed by its own destruction because it thrives on making its own populace mentally ill.
Good luck with your Utopia.
In my mind, Fascism represents a particularly intrusive form of Government. Typically, individual rights are not respected, government is heavily involved in the economy, and militaristic and aggressive foreign policy is pursued (at least in the examples I can think of - maybe not necessarily).
I suggest judging all forms of government based on the degree to which they violate individual rights. Fascism scores poorly that scale.
As for “getting things done”, no government is good at that. Better for government to get out of the way…
Like communism and capitalism, fascism is more of an economic system than it is a form of government. That makes sense, since it arose as an alternative to both capitalism and communism. You’ve got a lot of big-time fascist thinkers (including el Duche) straight up saying that “Fascism is corporatism” the two are synonymous. Couple that with how they essentially took Robespierre’s conception of the General Will writ large and the political elements of fascism fall into place. Considering that, let’s look at your points:
That is the end goal of fascism, yes. However, how well is that actually achieved? Most fascist states, even the long-surviving ones, have been marked by periods of civil strife/war and, provided they survive long enough (like Franco’s Spain or Saddam’s Iraq) a drawn out asymmetrical civil war. So, I’m not so sure that a unified society is actually created.
No problems here, that is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. Trains running on time and all that. The question is whether that particular juice is worth the squeeze.
It looks good on paper but in the end you have to add the human factor. The human factor tends to screw up the most Utopic situation. What is that saying ? Is it total power corrupts totally?? I know its something to that effect. All forms of economy/governing look great on paper but, we humans are not designed to always follow instructions, there is always that left over nut.
Can you elaborate on the definition of fascism you’re working with?
I understand the term to mean private ownership of assets - public (government) dispensation/use/control of the assets. In effect, one person has the right to own, but not the right to use, property.
Can you explain how fascism unifies a society?
Fascism is commonly understood as the union between state and media, thus creating a propaganda machine which forms the unity. Mussolini is famous for this.
There’s no definition for “Fascism” in the OP; almost as if there’s only one definition that everyone knows and agrees on.
…
[edited Oct.24/2010, 11:28AM]
Most businesses in the good old USA are fascistic. You see where that got us. Both communism and fascism inevitably fail because they are partial solutions to whole problems. Let’s get real.
Agreed.
Isn’t the whole U.S. a fascist state (despite being nothing more than an alliance and not a state/nation at all) at this point, by pretty much any definition?
to Dairdo and Azathoth en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Nope the U.S, is a multi-party system not a single party like fascism.
According to this statement, you would say religions make people mentally ill.
They make you believe in something that might not be true and let you act on it.
Eran brings up a good point regarding about personal rights but what says we are entitled to individual rights?
If you remove everything people have told themselves to feel important, nothing. We essentially have the same rights as a rock, tree or a cow about to be slaughtered.
Many have brought up the point that there has yet to be a completely successful example of fascism but there really hasn’t been a real world government that has stuck to It’s principles so the only thing this proves is that all governments are equal
P.S. sorry for taking so long to reply, real life got in the way
I suppose Fascism - as defined in theory by Wikipedia - is perfectly functional as a system of organizing people. The downfall, in my opinion, is that as an authoritarian system Fascism seems to be non-voluntary. Individuals in proximity to a fascist society can be co-opted by force and made to participate under threat of violence. Threat of violence is an excellent short-term motivator, but humanity’s long history seems to tell us that in the long term if people are denied a choice of lifestyle within a system, they will opt out, through violent overthrow if said system has made that the only way to do so by employing violence and coercion as its primary tools of motivation.
Certainly a fascist-collective society could function as one of many social organisms in the human world and thrive, but I feel that if the entire world were all-fascist all-the-time the people would eventually tear down what they had created since social evolution would likely be prohibited as it typically is in the societies we have seen strive for a practice of fascism in the real world. Life can’t be stopped from evolving, and humans, being alive, will always be changing and evolving. And successful evolution demands the freedom for people to test and try new and different ways of doing things socially and economically, a notion that seems opposed by Fascism which demands a single, organic, cohesive society embracing a unified economic system and center of authority. If a system prohibits them from evolving, I believe it will rapidly become obsolete.
No, the institutions forcing people to use a certain doctrine as a rulebase do that. Not believing in itself, nor religion in itself.
NP, it happens.
I opt out of this mess.
More accurately with regards to America, it is the union of state and corporations, and those corporations include the media. This is showing up in a very sinister way in this round of elections over here. Not only are corporations and the rich elite buying elections for the extreme neofascist right, but they are also using foreign money to do so.
People who still have some sanity left are calling for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution: Separation of State and Corporation.
As if the left is not neofascist 
Both sides want to control our reigns. Power corrupts even the well intentioned. You can start a really good governing body and in time it will be corrupted.
I agree - concerned U.S.-ians need to stop focusing on the right-left fiction. It’s a false dichotomy. Both dominant parties are sponsored by the same corporate interests creating what is essentially a one-party system with two fronts wearing two different colors to convince people of how very different they are. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are interested in halting the slide towards corporate fascism here because corporate fascists put bread on both their tables and fuel in both of their private jets. The so-called party divide is a fiction. Fascism has characteristics that can be described as leftist and characteristics that can be described as rightist, therefore both parties are fully capable of serving the interests of neo-fascism. In fact, the two form practically a perfect thesis-antithesis system for synthesizing fascism.
Note:
If you think you can stop the corporations from gaining control you are a bit late…The United States of America is registered as a company…
In classifying forms of government, I think we need to proceed in the following order when considering relevant factors:
- What is the scope of power of government
- How does government conduct itself within its scope
- How is the leadership of government determined
Much too often, the order is reversed, with “Democracy” (which technically only applies to the last aspect) seeming the be-all and end-all of government.
In this order, totalitarian governments should all be grouped together, whether technically communist, fascist or otherwise (one can envision totalitarian monarchies or aristocracies, for example).
Modern social-democracies have an effectively-smaller scope (although the boundary is fluid) than totalitarian states. They may have comparable scope in magnitude, but very different in character than, say, 19th century England or US.
At the opposite end from totalitarian governments we will find free-market anarchy in which there is no government. Just short of truly free society is Minarchy, a system of government in which the state limits itself to property protection (while still criminally taxing to fund its operations, and violently prohibiting competition in the property protection business.
One the scope of government is determined, different forms may be differentiated based on how they conduct themselves. Here, the difference between Communism and Fascism comes in, with the former being (theoretically?) committed to both public ownership of the means of production and an internationalist agenda, with allegiance being (theoretically?) to economic class rather than nationality.
Fascism, on the other hand, is different in both its commitment to national interests as supreme and its acceptance of some forms of quasi-private ownership of means of production. “Quasi” because the rights of private owners are severely restricted and subject to the dictates of the state.
In respect to its treatment of private property and the relationships between private companies and the state, today’s Social Democracies (including the US, different from its Western European brethren in degree but not principle) exhibit Fascist tendencies. However, they fall far short of Fascism’s totalitarian aspects.
Last and least important is the question of how the identity of the rulers is determined. You can have democratic elections (as in early '30s Germany, or current-day US and many an African nation), hereditary transmission (as in monarchies, but also North Korea or Syria) or oligarchic elections (as in China). I see the forms of electing leadership as the least important aspect of government classification.
Query:
Do you know Ayn Rand?
I ask because of the capitalistic anarchism.
Note:
I do not think capitalism is compatible with anarchy.