Post: #1

I remember when I was going for my undergrad in Manhattan, I had this crazy political science Professor who told us that "Facism is the best form of Government".

He went into details about how historically that many great empires were formed from the result of a facist, or quasi-facist form of Government. When I got home that night I told my father what the professor had said (my father was also into politics), and I was in shock when my father agreed with the Professor.

My father said that when you have an "effective" leader in charge, a facist goverment can make tough discissions almost spontaneous, unlike a Democracy that can get boggled down in bullshit. (Almost everyone agreed the socialism never works)

So last night I started watching a documenatry on Hitler, and it was amazing what he was able to accomplish after he took office. He was involved in politics for over 10 years before he was able to take over, and a big part of his rise in popularity came during the Great Depression. He promised a change In Germany, and his system was pretty insane:

A) One party system with the Furher in charge
B) Lock up all dissidents
C) Revoke any treaties with other countries that weren't favorable to Germany
D) Jump start the German economy with spending on infrustructure, and military spending. Created the "autobahn", etc.
E) Expand the German empire by invasion. (he considered some of the invaded countries part of the Aryan empire anyway)
F) After he invaded a new terrority he would lock up more dissidents.

In only several years he took Germany from absolute poverty, to an economic and military powerhouse that invaded half of Europe.

The "one-party" system intrigues me. If we had a competent leader with total power, our entitlements programs and federal budget would have been fixed YEARS ago. It would take 2 seconds for a decision to move social security from 62, to 65. If you don't like it, tough shit...

But of course historically we have seen what happens when facists get too much power and go crazy, but i'm starting to get fustrated with our current congressional system. What do you guys think?

Just like a CEO running a business, you make a decisision good or bad, and if it doesn't work out you get the boot. But isn't it better than NO decision?

Post: #2

if facism is the blending of government and corporate interests how is that not what the US is?

Post: #3

Facism only has one party. I would say China is more facist than the U.S.

Post: #4

(03-03-2013 10:18 PM)bacon Wrote:  if facism is the blending of government and corporate interests how is that not what the US is?

That's not exactly what fascism is. Fascism allows corporations as long as they are overall subservient to the government's needs. In contrast with socialism where the state itself would absorb the roles of corporations.

(03-03-2013 10:16 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  The "one-party" system intrigues me. If we had a competent leader with total power, our entitlements programs and federal budget would have been fixed YEARS ago. It would take 2 seconds for a decision to move social security from 62, to 65. If you don't like it, tough shit...

But of course historically we have seen what happens when facists get too much power and go crazy, but i'm starting to get fustrated with our current congressional system. What do you guys think?

Just like a CEO running a business, you make a decisision good or bad, and if it doesn't work out you get the boot. But isn't it better than NO decision?

"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." - James Madison. I think Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and so many other dictatorships are perfect examples of why giving ultimate authority to one person does not work. That's why utopias fail--because, given unchecked power, humans will be humans and abuse that power.

The reason why it works with CEOs is because there is competition and limit to their power. A good CEO has to navigate company politics but also do good and create more value in his company. If his skill isn't good, he can be replaced or the company itself will fall. A dictator has automatic power over every issue in the entire country, with no legitimate competition to check his power.

Post: #5

I am unabashedly anti-democracy, and believe that for anything larger than a medium-sized city, monarchy is the best form of government, in the end. History shows us that it is, indeed, the government-type that has the most permanence. Ideally, governments should be structured so that they are as local as possible, so that you don't end up with asinine policies which benefit one small minority being foisted off on an entire population of millions. A man has a chance to actually see and know his town or county officials, his circumstances don't matter a whit to committees and legislative bodies 2,000 miles away. In the Middle Ages, something like this was the norm. The king ruled, and could get things done when they needed to get done, but he was limited in his ability to be a tyrant (as we think of the term today) by local nobles, who handled most of the government of their territories and were very protective of their rights against encroachment by the central government. This effectively prevented police states. Of course, because communications were so slow and difficult, and travel took so long, governments of whatever type didn't work as well, but nowadays this would not be an issue. Politicians today are incapable of solid and decisive leadership, because they are elevated at popular whim and can be removed just as quickly. They pander to public opinion, which is usually idiotic, and their own interests lie in getting as high as they can, and profiting as much as they can by their position, for as long as the rules let them. A monarch, on the other hand, is not hindered by the necessity of being popular in the short term (he only has to prevent people from getting so ticked that they decide to revolt, which is not difficult -revolutions never actually come from "the people," but from upper middle-class and upper class turncoats) and is born to power -he doesn't have to put on a facade to convince people to vote him into office. Furthermore, he is, humanly speaking, interested in having something to pass on to his children, so it's in his interests to govern well and wisely, instead of trying to strip the country in the short time he's in control. Instead of learning politics by convincing uneducated people to vote for him, he is generally taught from the cradle how to rule.

There have of course been bad kings as well as good kings, but good kings can be truly great, and I'm not aware of very many truly "great" presidents or bureaucrats. I am, however, aware of many truly awful elected leaders, many of whom could put an "old fashioned tyrannical king" to shame.

Interesting historical note, by the way: in the 1930s, GM and a few other big corporations saw what was going on in Germany and concluded that the US would be much better off under a Hitler or Mussolini than a Roosevelt. They approached Gen. Smedley Butler to see if he would be willing to lead a coup. Unfortunately for them, he was not.

The US was not intended to be a centralized popular democracy. When the Constitution was drawn up, the territory and population were both much smaller, and state governments had much more (indeed, ultimate) control. Unfortunately, with the Civil War, ("War of Northern Aggression") the question of federal or state supremacy was decided by force of arms in favor of the former, and since then states have been little more than bureaucratic divisions, while the federal government has grown into a monstrosity.

Post: #6

Fascism=Big Money + Big Government.
Isn't it what you have in the US right now?

Post: #7

I see the US as becoming more quasi-socialist more than anything. When more people are on the "dole", then actually work, isn't that socialism?

All I know is that when it takes 6 years to negotiate something obvious like moving social security from age 62 to 65, we have a problem.

I like what Ovid said, nothing will ever beat a government with a competent King. But when you get a bad King, all hell breaks loose. Aka Hitler, Mussolini, ...

Post: #8

While the US is showing some fascist tendencies-- civil liberties have been trampled left and right by both the Bush and Obama administrations-- the US is far from fascist in most respects.

The US has protected political speech. (Yes, politicians try to sneak around amendment 1 when they can get away with it. But in fascism there is no sneaking. Lock up the dissidents.)

The US has negative (or at least pragmatic) attitude towards ethnocentrism and ultranationalism.

Democratic elections and a meaningful division of authority between branches of government.

I could probably come up with more examples but none of those traits I listed are compatible with real Fascism.

Post: #9

There is no arguing in a fascist system over Government actions, all we DO is argue over Government actions in our current democracy.

Post: #10

FDR come to mind?

Most beloved president ever.
Put millions of the jobless people to work.
Built tons of public works.

Can you imagine government hiring muralists and poets to make art in 2013? This board would have a heart attack.

....

The system we have now serves the interests of those in power.
We have a military that gladly serves corporate interests.
The politicians fall over themselves to give the business community whatever it wants.

For the most part the citizen gets a few things here and there, but 1/2 or slightly more than half are more than willing to give their rights and liberties over to the powers that be.

Conservatives love law and order.
Liberals love social welfare programs.
Conservatives love the "freedom to contract"
Liberals technocratic solutions.

None of those things actually change the balance of power.

WIA

Post: #11

Fascism comes from the fasces, originally an Etruscan symbol later addopted by the Roman Empire. You'll notice they're part of the Lincoln monument, and the main symbol of the US Senate, appearing many places in the Capital.



The same idea is expressed in America with phrases like, "United we stand, divided we fall".



"In unity there is strength".



or Ben Franklin's "Join or Die" used in the Colonial Revolution



Plato's Republic postulates, and most scholars agree, that the most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictator.

But as Polybious's discovery of anacyclosis shows, there is no "best" form of government between Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy.Over time, all governmental systems decay and fall into their bad version: Monarchy declines into Tyranny, Aristocracy into Oligarcy, and Democracy into Mob rule. And the solution to the bad version of a governmental type is to sweep it aside and replace it with the next in the anacyclosis cycle. What allowed the Roman Republic to last so long, and why America is a constitutional Republic that has lasted so long, is having a legal framework that lets the people transition between the three (or if you prefer, six) forms of government, without a revolution each time.

The anacyclosis cycle is: Monarchy -> Tyranny -> Aristocracy -> Oligarchy -> Democracy -> Mob rule -> Monarchy ...

Post: #12

Statism

Post: #13

(03-03-2013 11:20 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  I see the US as becoming more quasi-socialist more than anything. When more people are on the "dole", then actually work, isn't that socialism?

All I know is that when it takes 6 years to negotiate something obvious like moving social security from age 62 to 65, we have a problem.

I like what Ovid said, nothing will ever beat a government with a competent King. But when you get a bad King, all hell breaks loose. Aka Hitler, Mussolini, ...

Great thread topic. The thing is I think you are right in theory. I'm absolutely fed up with this gridlock as well which is par for the course in a two party government. However, how do we define who is a competent autocrat? Yours idea? Mine? The billionaire, the poor workers? It sounds wonderful to have fascism when you happen to agree with that single party. How would you feel if you despised them? You'd feel like the left under Pinochet, or the right under Chavez.

Democracy can suck shit with gridlock and incompetence but it does limit the downside. Whereas fascism has boundless potential for corruption. Not to even mention all the evil like political prisons and silence of dissent that go with these type of governments. Not sure if a benign fascism is even possible.

Post: #14

Democracy is just going to lead to a bunch of dumb fucks voting for bread and circuses.

Fascism shits on individual rights though and as such I can't give it any credence as the best form of government.

The problem is that power corrupts and if a government can use its power to control law then law stops being about preventing injustice and becomes a tool for evil men.

Freedom/individual rights/ non-state courts > fascism > shit > democracy.

Post: #15

(03-03-2013 11:01 PM)Ovid Wrote:  The US was not intended to be a centralized popular democracy. When the Constitution was drawn up, the territory and population were both much smaller, and state governments had much more (indeed, ultimate) control. Unfortunately, with the Civil War, ("War of Northern Aggression") the question of federal or state supremacy was decided by force of arms in favor of the former, and since then states have been little more than bureaucratic divisions, while the federal government has grown into a monstrosity.

Indeed, the South before the war was a more aristocratic society than the more democratic, industrial North.

Post: #16

I would only want fascism if I was in charge

Post: #17

The only CEOs that matter serve shareholders - the large one (rich people and fund managers). At the end of it all is money and profits. $$ is the only real leader in our system

Post: #18

(03-04-2013 12:48 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:20 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  I see the US as becoming more quasi-socialist more than anything. When more people are on the "dole", then actually work, isn't that socialism?

All I know is that when it takes 6 years to negotiate something obvious like moving social security from age 62 to 65, we have a problem.

I like what Ovid said, nothing will ever beat a government with a competent King. But when you get a bad King, all hell breaks loose. Aka Hitler, Mussolini, ...

Great thread topic. The thing is I think you are right in theory. I'm absolutely fed up with this gridlock as well which is par for the course in a two party government. However, how do we define who is a competent autocrat? Yours idea? Mine? The billionaire, the poor workers? It sounds wonderful to have fascism when you happen to agree with that single party. How would you feel if you despised them? You'd feel like the left under Pinochet, or the right under Chavez.

Democracy can suck shit with gridlock and incompetence but it does limit the downside. Whereas fascism has boundless potential for corruption. Not to even mention all the evil like political prisons and silence of dissent that go with these type of governments. Not sure if a benign fascism is even possible.

Strangely, I believe this is whole point to America's rather strange relationship with guns.

When an establishment comes to power, it will work to retain that power and pass it from generation to generation. I believe the key to maintaining a healthy and thriving democracy is social mobility.

Social mobility. If the members of each generation know public service, the plight of the working poor, and charity then these members will also have a better chance at empathizing with all members of society. If you're confined to a narrow social circle or class, your ability to empathize with other parts of society must necessarily be limited (paging Romney).

Social mobility is where it's at. That's why I am a big fan of mandatory national service, inheritance tax, progressive tax rates, and a very, very limited government.

Post: #19

Most of the World's empires weren't fascist governments, so the 'professor' was talking nonsense.

The Hitler example, along with Mussolini and other early 20th Century fascists, were basically cults of personality which lasted less than 20 years. That isn't even comparable to the Great Empires - Britain, France, Spain, Russia etc. which lasted hundreds of years.

In terms of expansion/invasion, the Greeks/Romans weren't fascist, neither were the Anglo's/Saxons/Vikings, not the Mongols nor the Huns.

In short, there is about as much reason to believe in fascism as there is in Communism: Another system which can't work in reality.

Post: #20

Every forum member by order of decree should have a copy of The Prince in his library.

Post: #21

(03-04-2013 04:35 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  Most of the World's empires weren't fascist governments, so the 'professor' was talking nonsense.

In a way, yes, you're right.

Fascism is nothing more than a 20th century revival of very old ideas (from Sparta and Ancient Rome, mostly). Such old ideas are eternal, because at their core humans don't change much over time.

Fascism has a very bad reputation these days, for obvious reasons. But fascism will return, under a new name, embodying the same old ideas that surface once every N generations or so. And because people care about labels more than they care about content and substance, they will welcome this crypto-Fascism when their lives become too chaotic, and when the society in which they live is too disordered and unpredictable.

Post: #22

(03-03-2013 10:16 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  I remember when I was going for my undergrad in Manhattan, I had this crazy political science Professor who told us that "Facism is the best form of Government".

He went into details about how historically that many great empires were formed from the result of a facist, or quasi-facist form of Government. When I got home that night I told my father what the professor had said (my father was also into politics), and I was in shock when my father agreed with the Professor.

My father said that when you have an "effective" leader in charge, a facist goverment can make tough discissions almost spontaneous, unlike a Democracy that can get boggled down in bullshit. (Almost everyone agreed the socialism never works)

So last night I started watching a documenatry on Hitler, and it was amazing what he was able to accomplish after he took office. He was involved in politics for over 10 years before he was able to take over, and a big part of his rise in popularity came during the Great Depression. He promised a change In Germany, and his system was pretty insane:

A) One party system with the Furher in charge
B) Lock up all dissidents
C) Revoke any treaties with other countries that weren't favorable to Germany
D) Jump start the German economy with spending on infrustructure, and military spending. Created the "autobahn", etc.
E) Expand the German empire by invasion. (he considered some of the invaded countries part of the Aryan empire anyway)
F) After he invaded a new terrority he would lock up more dissidents.

In only several years he took Germany from absolute poverty, to an economic and military powerhouse that invaded half of Europe.

The "one-party" system intrigues me. If we had a competent leader with total power, our entitlements programs and federal budget would have been fixed YEARS ago. It would take 2 seconds for a decision to move social security from 62, to 65. If you don't like it, tough shit...

But of course historically we have seen what happens when facists get too much power and go crazy, but i'm starting to get fustrated with our current congressional system. What do you guys think?

Just like a CEO running a business, you make a decisision good or bad, and if it doesn't work out you get the boot. But isn't it better than NO decision?

Except for that holocaust/WWII thingy.

Post: #23

(03-04-2013 07:01 AM)soup Wrote:  Except for that holocaust/WWII thingy.

Technically speaking, Nazi Germany wasn't fascist, it was "national socialist" (according to Hitler's definition). The true fascists were the Italians under Mussolini. People like to conflate "Authoritarian Nationalism" with "Fascism", but they are not the same thing. Both Hitler and Mussolini were heavily influenced by Sparta and Ancient Rome, but Hitler incorporated Nordicism and other racialist ideologies into it, whereas Mussolini focused on Statism.

Portugal and Spain in the 1930s were also "quasi-fascist", and they did not invade any country, or start any wars with other countries (though Spain had its civil war).

Fascism, Nazism, and its variants were reactions against the internationalism of American capitalism and Soviet socialism. In WWII, the two major internationalists (US and USSR) won, and the two major nationalists (Germany and Japan) lost. If Germany and Japan had won, the world today would have been very, very different.

Post: #24

Dictatorships (or fascist regimes, if you like) are inherently destined to slide into nepotism, robbery and then worse crime on a national level. You get a dozen generations of wise and benevolent kings, and then suddenly one of them turns into Pol Pot. While democracy has its flaws, I don't think any nation should risk such a thing.

As someone (Churchill?) once said, "Democracy is awful, but we don't have anything better."

That said, I'm always sad when dysfunctional democracies like USA or EU act stupidly and make Chinese-style dictatorship look appealing.

Post: #25

(03-04-2013 07:26 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  As someone (Churchill?) once said, "Democracy is awful, but we don't have anything better."

The same guy responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign. The same guy who happily burned to death 10,000s of German civilians in Hamburg and Dresden, despite the fact that war with Germany was avoidable. Luckily for him, history is written by the victors...