What advantages do you see in the corporatist economics of fascism over communism, Korimyr? Having to satisfy the interests of corporate leaders when deciding national economic planning is far less efficient than simply ordering state run factories to produce what you need. It essentially combines the disadvantages of the market and command economy with no useful benefits.
Didn't work for Mussolini.
Didn't work for Hitler.
And no matter how many pretty speeches he makes blaming Bush, it's still not going to work for the Messiah.
technocratic system. I see corporatism and increased government involvement in the economy as the only effective midgame strategy for accomplishing this. Communism destroys economies by replacing management with politicians, while Fascism allows corporate leaders to continue doing their jobs as long as they work for the benefit of the State.
Communism also rejects the concept of the nation and believes that all people are not only created equal, but that all people are essentially the same. The goal of Communism, though no Socialist State has ever achieved it, is the abolition of the State itself and the equality of all people. I consider these goals not only impossible, but actively detrimental to the good of the State and thus the people. Failing to recognize that some people are inherently superior and better suited to leadership than others leads Socialist States to tolerate inferiors in positions of authority and responsibility.
Despite some cosmetic similarities between my position and Communism, they are at heart opposing ideologies. Communism rejects and is actively opposed to nationalism, religion, authority, and the State. It seeks to tear down traditional institutions in order to promote pure, unadulterated materialism. Fascism, regardless of its economic policies, is first and foremost a spiritual and moral ideology and its goals for the State and for the People are spiritual and moral in nature.
That's because people buy into naive and idealistic notions of Democracy that are ultimately harmful to the people and the nation in general.Many would beg to differ.
No, its due to poor allocation of resources due to mob rule. People in a democratic system will always vote for more money, resulting in a high national debt. Fascist regimes have always dealt with national debts well and lived within their means. For the most part anyway.That's thanks to large government spending and too much government control of the economy
As for the government control over the economy. I think that a large part of this was due to the fact that western democracies let the banks run amok.
Everyone at this time period, including Roosevelt and Churchill, recognized that the Italians and Germans had done a tremendous job managing their economies.Not really, they still had unemployment and their economies didn't do very well. At best they were mixed.
Again, this was due to Nazism, not fascism, the two are not interchangeable.There were many others who went after them. Also, I don't see how brutally crushing the opposition is in the best interests of the people. People did resist Nazi Rule in the 1930s
Jewish resistance under Nazi rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federalism had a lot in common with fascism. It advocated a strong centralize government, massive state intervention in the Economy, and a militaristic spirit.Federalism is Fascism now? You need to define your terms.
This was because of a war that was started by a mad man, not because of fascism.Outside of Germany and Italy, it was pretty much all Axis done.
That just shows that Germany hadn't been fascist long enough, and the allies implemented Fascistic economic reforms as well, by the way.They didn't have enough of an economic base to take on the Allies
No, it was the Weimer Republic which was racking up an unsustainable economic debt that sent the nation into hyperinflation. It was the Fascists who cleaned up the mess.No, the crisis came about because of the humiliation and despair over leaders after WWI. About 1,000,000 people in Italy died, 2,500,000 in Germany. People were furious with their leaders and economic woes that had little to do with capitalism angered the people
Just about every Democratic nation in history has failed because the people are too ignorant to spend the Nation's money for the greater good.That's like saying that it was only after I drank tea in the last 5 years, I got cancer, so I should blame the tea for that cancer
Only because of the war.Yes, but it wasn't sustained.
Yeah, that was Hitler, but a large part of that was because of the fact Hitler was a mad man, not because he was a fascist.I said there were attempts at overthrow, which shows that fascism isn't always well-received within the state it takes part in. And should the assassination attempts by Hitler's own officers succeeded, we would have had at least one.
Then I guess 95% of the Governments in history were Tyrannical. Also, I could name you plenty of democracies where the people did have a say in the Government that were Tyrannical.Yes it is. When the people have no say in the politics of the government that rules them, they have an inherent tyrannical government.
Is that why he called in the army to put down the whisky revolt?However, he did not believe in a tyrannical, dictatorial government to rule the people.
Again, the two are very similar, and I would also like to point out that many fascist governments did not have dictators, e.g. Japan.No, Alexander Hamilton was a federalist who believed in a strong centralized government.
Last edited by John2.0; 05-25-10 at 07:52 PM.