Facism

[AmScray 355]

... and in particularly, 'La dottrina del fascismo' , or, Italian Facism.Please, explain to me how this isn't the best system of national governance. Yes, I realize the term itself as some baggage associated, but I'm quite confident that if it were repackaged and represented as something else (kinda like how communist tenets evolved into 'socialism' to lose their hard edge), it would be quite popular.If you don't know what these things are, all the better since you will probably be more likely to approach them honestly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism

[Oggmonster 0]

Communism looks good on paper too.Anyone with the motivation and desire to run a system like this is an *******, and not deserving of so much power.Fascists walk funny, and wear funny hats.

[Balloon guy 158]

Communism looks good on paper too.Anyone with the motivation and desire to run a system like this is an *******, and not deserving of so much power.Fascists walk funny, and wear funny hats.

These are the 4 major points against communism...good job making a succinct and cogent argument

[custom36 4]

Fascists walk funny, and wear funny hats.

[ahosang 0]

... and in particularly, 'La dottrina del fascismo' , or, Italian Facism.Please, explain to me how this isn't the best system of national governance. Yes, I realize the term itself as some baggage associated, but I'm quite confident that if it were repackaged and represented as something else (kinda like how communist tenets evolved into 'socialism' to lose their hard edge), it would be quite popular.If you don't know what these things are, all the better since you will probably be more likely to approach them honestly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism

Neo-fascists have in recent times:1) dropped the imperialistic/warrior ideas, LDO - the classic heroic ideal would presumably be re-introduced through education system rather than ranting in public2) accepted some form of democracy as a norm in modern world, as opposed to the strict hierarchical elitism of classical Fascism3) concentrated the message on economics + national well-being rather than racial purity.Problems with classical fascism:1) Without conflict to generate and maintain spirit(or acquire resources), fascist corporatist economics tends to favour a middle class which will create tensions from above and below. Competing ideologies then attack. Societies need to rapidly improve or expand towards some goal to keep the thing going. 2) Ruling elite will be hard to maintain without resorting to totalitarianism and oppression3) Fascism tends to rely heavily on rhetoric and visions which won't be attained(see point 1). 4) The leadership cult which is almost an essential component of Fascism in a voluntary format means that changes in key personnel can weaken the system (ie leader needs to be maintained despite failings, poor decisions etc)and others...

[ahosang 0]

In before "ObamaMao ftw!!!".

[hblask 1]

I think we should just go to a system where everyone loves one another and always does the right thing, and magic unicorns shower us with magical dust.Hoping for that has a lot better odds than hoping that a position of absolute power will attract anyone other than sociopaths.

[AmScray 355]

I think we should just go to a system where everyone loves one another and always does the right thing, and magic unicorns shower us with magical dust.Hoping for that has a lot better odds than hoping that a position of absolute power will attract anyone other than sociopaths.

The worst possible system is "freedom". Humans must be managed. Be it in form of governance or whatever little 'gods' they've created, being told what to do is an innate desire of the modern man. Facism just came along too soon, when the free-will of people hadn't been entirely whipped out of them. We've arrived at that point now, though. A benevolent fascist state would be like a soothing, cool steak on the black-eye of confusion that is social liberty. China seems to have the right model. Now, they just need to ditch 'communism' and adopt a more fascist approach and I doubt anyone will be able to touch them for a few hundred years, until they eventually their system attains such success that they buy into free-market lies. Then, they jump the shark.

[AmScray 355]

Neo-fascists have in recent times:1) dropped the imperialistic/warrior ideas, LDO - the classic heroic ideal would presumably be re-introduced through education system rather than ranting in public2) accepted some form of democracy as a norm in modern world, as opposed to the strict hierarchical elitism of classical Fascism3) concentrated the message on economics + national well-being rather than racial purity.Problems with classical fascism:1) Without conflict to generate and maintain spirit(or acquire resources), fascist corporatist economics tends to favour a middle class which will create tensions from above and below. Competing ideologies then attack. Societies need to rapidly improve or expand towards some goal to keep the thing going. 2) Ruling elite will be hard to maintain without resorting to totalitarianism and oppression3) Fascism tends to rely heavily on rhetoric and visions which won't be attained(see point 1). 4) The leadership cult which is almost an essential component of Fascism in a voluntary format means that changes in key personnel can weaken the system (ie leader needs to be maintained despite failings, poor decisions etc)and others...

This is a great and tremendously thoughtful post. I'll reply to it later when I have time.

[ahosang 0]

The worst possible system is "freedom". Humans must be managed. Be it in form of governance or whatever little 'gods' they've created, being told what to do is an innate desire of the modern man. Facism just came along too soon, when the free-will of people hadn't been entirely whipped out of them. We've arrived at that point now, though. A benevolent fascist state would be like a soothing, cool steak on the black-eye of confusion that is social liberty. China seems to have the right model. Now, they just need to ditch 'communism' and adopt a more fascist approach and I doubt anyone will be able to touch them for a few hundred years, until they eventually their system attains such success that they buy into free-market lies. Then, they jump the shark.

Freedom is a toughie, and why its so contested. The degrees of 'negative' and 'positive' freedoms which our liberal elite attempt to bestow on all of us is surely OTT, and probably isn't congruent with the degree of effort which we have collectively exerted. Debatable, but there you go...China is very close to fascism with points 1 and 3 on my first list addressed in some way. They have a long-standing culture and history already, so leadership don't need to develop as much ethno-symbolic myth. A NATIONALIST outlook to be sure...

[strategy 4]

NATIONALIST

I was really hoping to be in before thisseriously though, ahosang is a really smart guy. no sarcasm or anything.

[hblask 1]

The worst possible system is "freedom". Humans must be managed. Be it in form of governance or whatever little 'gods' they've created, being told what to do is an innate desire of the modern man. Facism just came along too soon, when the free-will of people hadn't been entirely whipped out of them. We've arrived at that point now, though. A benevolent fascist state would be like a soothing, cool steak on the black-eye of confusion that is social liberty. China seems to have the right model. Now, they just need to ditch 'communism' and adopt a more fascist approach and I doubt anyone will be able to touch them for a few hundred years, until they eventually their system attains such success that they buy into free-market lies. Then, they jump the shark.

Benevolent is the key word. If you are lucky, you will get a leader like that once in 500 years. Mostly, that's not who wants that job bad enough to get it.But yeah, in the absence of that one tiny problem, the case for benevolent dictator is a strong one. Pretty much anyone on this forum as a benevolent dictator would be better than anyone who voluntarily goes into politics under any system. But those same people are the ones who vie for the dictator position, too.

[ahosang 0]

This is a great and tremendously thoughtful post. I'll reply to it later when I have time.

Thanks, look forward to your reply. Another point is the dynamic of where you say fascism's merits is in relation to the existing order(Marx would say something about base and superstructure). You remarked re fascism's 'time'.I believe that fascism came at a very good time for its ideals when there was confusion about materialistic realities vs transcendent realities. It just happened to be squeezed by competing ideologies from Russia and the infant 'West'. Then went into military conflict and got destroyed(and discredited due to Nazi Germany LDO). In today's Western world, the spiritual(and the heroic ideal) has been dissolved for a more materialist/individualist worldview. There is no idea likely to bind a Western nation apart from economic/materialist, but that would probably require a movement from the bottom up. But in that instance, there would not likely be an embrace of elite leaders due to anti-elitism teachings(leaders yes, but not the elitism of such). The ideas of fascism can come again though through some turmoil, but not likely through slow development.IMHO, if the West is able to sustain its materialistic excess(unlikely with present policies), societies are far more likely to degrade(not a pejorative) into ACism/libertarianism rather than adopt the spirit of fascism.

[ahosang 0]

...

[hblask 1]

The best way I've seen it described is, in order from best to worst, the ordering of types of govt is:1. Benevolent dictator2. Democratic republic3. Socialism/Communism/Nationalism/etc4. Tyrannical dictator.Since 1 always degrades to 4, we live with 2, which is reasonably sustainable, with the help of an occasional revolution.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

A person should not believe in an "-ism," he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."-Ferris Bueller:

[dapokerbum 0]

A person should not believe in an "-ism," he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."-Ferris Bueller:

Good thing there isn't an -ism in Benevolent Dictator

[Mercury69 3]

Dissenters will be taken out back and shot

[Roll the Bones 74]

I was really hoping to be in before thisseriously though, ahosang is a really smart guy. no sarcasm or anything.

Yeah, can I get a translator?

[ahosang 0]

...

[hblask 1]

Hehehehe.... you said "diaper bags".... hehehehehe.