Wow, I see decades of propaganda (the evil Russian commies will come to America to eat you with your clothes altogether) has worked. The irony is that due to American economic, foreign and most of all financial policy the yellow commies (i.e. the Chinese) might do exactly that.
The Chinese haven't been proper Communists in several years now-- they've been liberalizing their economic sector and privatizing more and more industries since before I was born. Even as Communists, they never abandoned their nationalistic core and their government has tried to maintain many (if not
enough) of their pre-Communist cultural traditions. If anything, I would say that they are on my side of the fence already-- and frolicking deeper and deeper into the tall green grass there.
I know you're a fascist, but you can't seriously believe that fascism "can work" because it is grounded in "human nature". Maybe at the level of ethnic groups living in complete isolation (good luck finding one) and owning every square inch of their own land (once again, good luck finding one that does). But in most countries (and even the city states of old) there are usually a half dozen ethnic groups sharing the land in one way or another. All of who can have equally legitimate claims to the nation. So how could fascism possibly work if there isn't a single ethnic group that can lay claim to the nation?
By abolishing ethnicity within the nation-- assimilate or exterminate. As long as the members of every so-called "ethnic group" within the nation consider themselves members of the nation first, and puts the interests of the nation first, then Fascism works as intended. This is what Roosevelt meant when he campaigned against ethnic discrimination: no more discrimination between German-Americans and Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans, no more division on ethnic lines, but a simpler system of ethnicity in which there were Americans, immigrants who wished to
be Americans, and immigrants who knew which way the border was and were welcome to start walking that way.
A "legitimate claim" to a territory is nothing more than having both feet on the territory and a weapon to defend it with. The only illegitimate claims are from those whose blood fertilizes the soil, making it richer for the legitimate sovereign. And you may have trouble with this, because it is alien to liberal systems of diplomatic relations and international law, but that is
also Fascism functioning as intended. Nations are
supposed to rise and fall, in accordance with the cycle of life, and thereby promote the natural evolution of the human species and human culture on the whole.
Now let's take a look at fascism.
Fascism is uses nationalist dogma to unite a group of people under a leader of the state. The appeal of fascism is that the whole nation can be directed by its leader to pursue singular goals without opposition and attain them.
The problem I have with fascism is that it is a philosophy of exclusion. Because of the nationalist doctrines fascism espouses, it excludes the ideas and discoveries that other nations think up. It even excludes new thinking from within itself. Because of this, fascist countries are unable to adapt quickly when its leaders are opposed to the changes that must be adapted to.
If you are going to analyze Communism in its ideal state, I think it is only fair that you analyze Fascism in the same fashion. Ideally, Fascist nationalism
learns from other nations and adapts to them by watching them from the outside, and seeing the results of their new ideas. Ideally, Fascism promotes innovation by encouraging people who love the State to improve upon it-- criticism without disloyalty. In practice, it does fall short of these ideals because leaders are not perfect and because-- surprise-- the people most critical of the State are often not people who wish to
improve the State, but people who are
opposed to the State.
In the ideal Fascist government, the Leader is surrounded by intelligent and loyal advisers-- whose egos and ambitions are only
partially tempered by love of nation-- and he listens to them because he knows that's why he picked them. In the ideal Fascist government, everyone fights to win both because they know they're right
and because they're jockeying for favor, and they're focused on proving the merit of their own ideas rather than discrediting and sabotaging the ideas of others.
Also, while communist ideology is revolution from the bottom-up, fascist ideology is revolution from the top-down. Fascism, by its very ideology, holds that a small group of people should have power over a larger group of people, usually justified by racial superiority but nowadays may be justified by economic superiority - that is that the wealthy deserve to run things because they have wealth.
Ideally, Fascist hierarchy is a matter of meritocracy-- superior loyalty and superior prowess-- in which the few given power to rule the many are chosen on the basis of proving
worthy to do so. In practice, racial purity too often substitutes for loyalty and wealth too often substitutes for prowess, but is that not also too often the case within the supposed liberal democracies as well? These are problems that the visionary Fascist must seek to overcome, but they are hardly unique problems to Fascism itself.