Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86

Thread: Fascism: Would it work.

  1. #61
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    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 authoritarians and Totalitarians have naive believes that leaders of these states have their best interests in mind

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    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 why put in safeguards, such as Constitutions to dilute mob rule and promote limited government.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    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.
    No, their central banks and other corporatist policies encouraged them to

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Everyone at this time period, including Roosevelt and Churchill, recognized that the Italians and Germans had done a tremendous job managing their economies.
    That doesn't mean that they were right

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Again, this was due to Nazism, not fascism, the two are not interchangeable.
    You said Fascist governments didn't have a problem with internal rebellion, I just showed that some did

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Federalism had a lot in common with fascism. It advocated a strong centralize government, massive state intervention in the Economy, and a militaristic spirit.
    But it wasn't fascism. It has more in common with Modern Liberalism or Neo-Conservatism.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    This was because of a war that was started by a mad man, not because of fascism.
    You're the one who mentioned Allied firebombing.


    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    That just shows that Germany hadn't been fascist long enough, and the allies implemented Fascistic economic reforms as well, by the way.
    No it just shows that they didn't have an economic base. any of the Allies did expand government involvement in their economies during the 1930s, and they suffered because of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    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.
    Hyperinflation was mostly over by the late 1920s thanks to the Dawes Plan. However, many were still angry at the Weimer Republic and thought that it represented a pathetic shell of the Second Reich.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    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.
    So far, so has every Fascist nation. Over the course of history, I'd say that nations like America and Britain have done better than Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Only because of the war.



    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.
    It lacked the ability to sustain itself in that war, because it had a smaller economic base than the Allies
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-27-10 @ 03:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    84

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Many authoritarians and Totalitarians have naive believes that leaders of these states have their best interests in mind
    Many authoritarian regimes have ran governments to the betterment of the nation. Just look at the Spanish Miracle.

    That's why put in safeguards, such as Constitutions to dilute mob rule and promote limited government.
    The Constitution doesn't work, there is still cronyism in the United States, just look at the bailouts. Also, just take a look at how the constitution was trampled on during the Civil War.

    No, their central banks and other corporatist policies encouraged them to
    With the support of the people.

    That doesn't mean that they were right
    It is widely recognized that the Germans and Italians ran very efficient economies.

    You said Fascist governments didn't have a problem with internal rebellion, I just showed that some did
    Plenty of democracies have problems with rebellions and military cues as well. In fact, that's how many fascist regimes came to power.

    But it wasn't fascism. It has more in common with Modern Liberalism or Neo-Conservatism.
    Yes, modern liberals and Neo-Conservatives are very close to being fascist parties.

    You're the one who mentioned Allied firebombing.
    Fire bombings, and mad men, have nothing to do with fascism.

    No it just shows that they didn't have an economic base. any of the Allies did expand government involvement in their economies during the 1930s, and they suffered because of it.
    Actually, if the war had dragged on a little longer, the Germans would have won.


    Hyperinflation was mostly over by the late 1920s thanks to the Dawes Plan. However, many were still angry at the Weimer Republic and thought that it represented a pathetic shell of the Second Reich.
    So, the fascists never had hyperinflation.

    So far, so has every Fascist nation. Over the course of history, I'd say that nations like America and Britain have done better than Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.
    No Fascist government has ever failed, all of them were destroyed from without, or gave up their power voluntarily.

    It lacked the ability to sustain itself in that war, because it had a smaller economic base than the Allies
    No, they were just out numbered.
    Last edited by John2.0; 05-26-10 at 12:24 AM.

  3. #63
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    No, the only reason we don't have a long running fascist government is because the leaders did not provide any way for another leader to take power after their own death. They usually just handed the government over to a King, the people never had anything to do with it. Again, what Fascist government was ever overthrown by the people?
    Which in itself is another flaw of fascist governments - they are not self-sustaining after the leader of the government is taken out of power.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Just about every Democratic government has failed, and the United States is on the path to failure as well. We actually do have examples of fascist governments that id not fail.
    And yet we don't have many surviving to the modern day.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    This again proves that the people have the ability to be just as tyrannical as a King or dictator.
    Yes. However, it is easier and more self-sustaining for a nation to use democratic methods that allows for government representation of the opposition than it is to rely on a single person or entity to maintain government.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    So, China has this ability too.
    But it does not have the ability to install non-members of the Communist Party to political offices.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Hey, guess what, China is doing just fine
    Tell that to the political dissidents and missionaries in China, the Tibetans, and the Republic of China on Taiwan.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Not necessarily.
    And yet you've been supporting a system that allows an individual or small group to come to power and/or maintain that power through the use of military force over it's own populace.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    So, if Congress one day votes to kill the Jews off, is that "tyranny", or is it the "will of the people".
    Well, Congress can't just vote to kill the Jews off. One reason why is because we have something called checks and balances and a Constitution that can impose limits on the government for the benefit of the people. While Congress may pass a resolution to kill the Jews, it is the President who is in command of the military agencies and the federal law enforcement agencies who would have to enforce that law, which the President can choose not to enforce. Also, the Supreme Court has powers of judicial review over the laws and acts of Congress and the President, and they could rule summarily kill all Jews as a violation of due process guaranteed to the people by the Fifth Amendment and is a violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. So while our government is democratically elected, even the people's will is checked by the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    You yourself said that the whiskey tax was a heavy burden on the income of the farmers, making it tyranny.
    I didn't say it was a heavy burden on the income of the farmers. I said the farmers didn't want to pay the tax. Just like there are people now who don't want to pay the income tax, despite the tax not being much of a burden on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Let me ask you this, if congress did vote to instate "taxation without representation", would that be tyranny?
    Congress can't do that so simply.

    For one, there would be Representatives and Senators who would oppose such a measure. This is because our government allows opposition parties to run for and be elected to Congress.

    For another, only Congress has the power to pass taxes, not the President nor the Supreme Court. And because Congress is an elected legislative body of representatives of the people, we have an inherent system of "taxation with representation."

    And Congress cannot pass a law that the President or the Supreme Court to pass taxes because it would be a violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court would rule it as such, and therefore strike the law down as unconstitutional and render it null and void.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Why do the people need to be able to change the government?
    Because people in a culture and society change over time, and the needs of the people, nation, and government change over time. If the government does not allow itself to change over time, it can lose out on a lot of valuable resources, especially technical and technological advancements, and become a weaker country because of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Don't you mean that the United States forced the Japanese military to disband, and also played a vital role in drafting Japan's constitution?
    While the U.S. did force the Japanese military to disband after the war, and the U.S. had a vital role in the drafting of Japan's constitution, historical sources say that the idea for Japan to renounce it's ability to wage war was brought up by the Prime Minister, and even if it wasn't the Japanese Diet did not oppose the article even though it opposed other articles and had them changed.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,831

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Any governmental system can work, given perfect conditions. But only a few can work well without those perfect conditions. Fascism, along with Communism, works only in perfect worlds, but people aren't perfect.
    That says it all... people aren't perfect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-27-10 @ 03:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    84

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Which in itself is another flaw of fascist governments - they are not self-sustaining after the leader of the government is taken out of power.
    No, that's a flaw of dictatorship. Fascism again doesn't need a dictator. Nations like China do have the ability to pass the torch, as do monarchies.

    And yet we don't have many surviving to the modern day.
    I believe most nations these days do largely lean fascist, as far as economics goes.

    Yes. However, it is easier and more self-sustaining for a nation to use democratic methods that allows for government representation of the opposition than it is to rely on a single person or entity to maintain government.
    Not necessarily. In fact, the longest running single government was the Roman Empire, which was not democratic, an in fact had a lot in common with fascist Germany.

    But it does not have the ability to install non-members of the Communist Party to political offices.
    So, why is this a problem? What is so much better to have a two party system? In fact, i would argue that the two parties in the USA are largely one big party, the only differences are rhetorical.

    Tell that to the political dissidents and missionaries in China, the Tibetans, and the Republic of China on Taiwan.
    Tell the Catholics in early 20th century Mexico that democracy always represents human rights. Besides, from a purely objective stand point, the Chinese government and economy are doing just fine.

    Well, Congress can't just vote to kill the Jews off. One reason why is because we have something called checks and balances and a Constitution that can impose limits on the government for the benefit of the people. While Congress may pass a resolution to kill the Jews, it is the President who is in command of the military agencies and the federal law enforcement agencies who would have to enforce that law, which the President can choose not to enforce. Also, the Supreme Court has powers of judicial review over the laws and acts of Congress and the President, and they could rule summarily kill all Jews as a violation of due process guaranteed to the people by the Fifth Amendment and is a violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. So while our government is democratically elected, even the people's will is checked by the Constitution.
    Those checks an balances worked out well for the Slaves and native Americans too, right?:mrgreen


    I didn't say it was a heavy burden on the income of the farmers. I said the farmers didn't want to pay the tax. Just like there are people now who don't want to pay the income tax, despite the tax not being much of a burden on them.
    Taxes on tea didn't effect income that much either but...

    Congress can't do that so simply.

    For one, there would be Representatives and Senators who would oppose such a measure. This is because our government allows opposition parties to run for and be elected to Congress.

    For another, only Congress has the power to pass taxes, not the President nor the Supreme Court. And because Congress is an elected legislative body of representatives of the people, we have an inherent system of "taxation with representation."

    And Congress cannot pass a law that the President or the Supreme Court to pass taxes because it would be a violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court would rule it as such, and therefore strike the law down as unconstitutional and render it null and void.
    If you think the government follows the constitution to the letter, I don't know what to tell you.

    Because people in a culture and society change over time, and the needs of the people, nation, and government change over time. If the government does not allow itself to change over time, it can lose out on a lot of valuable resources, especially technical and technological advancements, and become a weaker country because of it.
    The Romans didn't have any trouble developing.

    And yet you've been supporting a system that allows an individual or small group to come to power and/or maintain that power through the use of military force over it's own populace.
    So are you.

    While the U.S. did force the Japanese military to disband after the war, and the U.S. had a vital role in the drafting of Japan's constitution, historical sources say that the idea for Japan to renounce it's ability to wage war was brought up by the Prime Minister, and even if it wasn't the Japanese Diet did not oppose the article even though it opposed other articles and had them changed.
    Show me that it was the "people" who did this.
    Last edited by John2.0; 05-26-10 at 12:55 AM.

  6. #66
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Ideally, I would like to abolish currency altogether and replace the market economy with a 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.
    How do you reconcile the inevitable corruption between business leaders intertwined with the government? On a more practical note, how do you expect to maintain a consumer economy during peacetime with centralized control? Note that every nation of power and influence today has a market economy, as the the military power of the USSR was not enough to forestall its demise. China has managed to gain massive influence by its switch to a market economy, using it to further nationalistic goals.

    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.
    You are correct, but most practical implementations of "communism" have actually been quite nationalistic. Stalin killed international utopian socialism, while Ho Chi Minh wore a communist hat purely out of political practicality. Other than rhetoric, the end result is quite similar.

  7. #67
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    How do you reconcile the inevitable corruption between business leaders intertwined with the government?
    Corruption is inevitable. Full stop. Every government has it. Our corporate leaders are already fully intertwined with our democratic government, and I would say that it is already well past time that they returned the favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    On a more practical note, how do you expect to maintain a consumer economy during peacetime with centralized control?
    There's a link in my post, to Technocracy, Inc., that explains my economic beliefs. In the meantime, I would say that our government is likely to collapse before we ever experience peacetime conditions. Even if our nation-building exercises in Iraq and Afghanistan miraculously succeed, there's always Iran-- and Mexico, if conditions along our southern border are any indication.

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    You are correct, but most practical implementations of "communism" have actually been quite nationalistic. Stalin killed international utopian socialism, while Ho Chi Minh wore a communist hat purely out of political practicality. Other than rhetoric, the end result is quite similar.
    The Soviet Union refused to embrace the corporation and eventually collapsed. China only embraced corporatism after experiencing decades of economic failure. I reject Socialism because I don't want my nation to suffer the same fate, even in the short term.

  8. #68
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    No, that's a flaw of dictatorship. Fascism again doesn't need a dictator. Nations like China do have the ability to pass the torch, as do monarchies.



    I believe most nations these days do largely lean fascist, as far as economics goes.
    Fascism is not an economic system. It is a reaction, a political behavior. It has only attained power through collaboration with existing conservative government officials. Once it attains power, the fascist regime will remove parts of the government or create new ones that allow it to achieve its overall goal of an internal "cleansing" of those it feels are contributing to the nations decline, expansion so the country can achieve its desiny of master race,nation (whatever), and social darwinism so only the strongest and best (meaning there "master race") survive. War has been the choice of every fully mature facsist regime to achieve these ends. Fascisms has never had a coherent economic system, the only economic policies made by facsist regimes were those made for reasons of national pride, or to fully control its citizens so no one differed from its ideal, or to prepare the nation for war to achieve the goals previously stated. Those facsist regimes that failed to fully radicalize, faded from power. Those who were not helped to power by existing government officials never came to power.

    Just to get my point across:

    A facsist organization within the US is the KKK. What are its goals? What are its economic policies? Why has it never attained power?
    Last edited by drz-400; 05-26-10 at 12:34 PM.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-27-10 @ 03:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    84

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Fascism is not an economic system.
    "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

    Benito Mussolini

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au..._mussolini.htm

    Once it attains power, the fascist regime will remove parts of the government or create new ones that allow it to achieve its overall goal of an internal "cleansing" of those it feels are contributing to the nations decline, expansion so the country can achieve its desiny of master race,nation (whatever), and social darwinism so only the strongest and best (meaning there "master race") survive. War has been the choice of every fully mature facsist regime to achieve these ends.
    False. Your again talking about Nazism, not fascism. As a matter of fact, there were many fascist regimes that were not racist. For example, the Austrian Fascists under Doflus were very tolerant of jews, and did not display any desire for a master race.

    War has been the choice of every fully mature facsist regime to achieve these ends.
    False. Many fascist regimes were non-violent, including Franco's Spain, Salazar Portugal, Dolfus Austria, Greece and many others.

    Those facsist regimes that failed to fully radicalize, faded from power.
    No they did not. They gave up their power willingly. No fascist regime was ever removed by the people.

    A facsist organization within the US is the KKK. What are its goals? What are its economic policies? Why has it never attained power?
    The KKK is not Fascist, it is racist, the two are not necessarily synonymous.

    Those who were not helped to power by existing government officials never came to power.
    False. Many fascist regimes came to power through civil war.
    Last edited by John2.0; 05-26-10 at 01:22 PM.

  10. #70
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Corruption is inevitable. Full stop. Every government has it. Our corporate leaders are already fully intertwined with our democratic government, and I would say that it is already well past time that they returned the favor.
    It can be limited. While some industries are as a corrupt as you claim, most are actually open competitive markets. The U.S. is build on a consumer consumption economy, and most of those goods are sold through fairly honest competition. Its not even close to a perfect system, but it has consistently beat out the competition.


    There's a link in my post, to Technocracy, Inc., that explains my economic beliefs.
    I looked through some articles, and nothing came up about a centralized method of determiner consumer good productions. What objective measure would the state planners have to decide how many ipods to produce or what color snuggy is right for the people? Historically, centralized control over the economy only works well when you have simple goals like "make as many tanks and planes as possible".

    In the meantime, I would say that our government is likely to collapse before we ever experience peacetime conditions. Even if our nation-building exercises in Iraq and Afghanistan miraculously succeed, there's always Iran-- and Mexico, if conditions along our southern border are any indication.
    From an economic perspective we are at peace. No war since WW2 has required to we alter our lavish domestic production even while we fight wars.

    The Soviet Union refused to embrace the corporation and eventually collapsed. China only embraced corporatism after experiencing decades of economic failure. I reject Socialism because I don't want my nation to suffer the same fate, even in the short term.
    China's success came from embracing the market, not the corporation. Currency (manipulation) and market economics are crucial to China's success. Replacing the government employees with private ones in a command economy is just moving around the deck chairs on the titanic. The core inability to allocate resources for consumer use remains in either case.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •