• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fascism: Would it work.

Fascism is not an authoritarian dictatorship. Those examples you listed are examples of authoritarian dictatorships, they failed to radicalize, they are not fascists. The KKK is a perfect example of fascism, as is Nazi Germany, as is Italy under Mussolini. Fascism has nothing to do with corporatism and everything to do with a radical political behavior. Your question from the start of the thread should have been: Dictatorships, can they work?

This is blatantly false. Fascism is an an economic ideology. Benito Mussolini was the founder of fascism, and he himself said it was corporatism. The examples you mentioned were fascist states, by there own admission. The KKK is not fascist because it pre-dates fascism. Racism is older than fascism. As is radicalism. Your attempt to claim that these regimes were "not" fascist is pathetic. It would be like saying the soviet union wasn't really communist.
 
I hate copying and pasting quotes, so I'll just post here. You point out numerous problems with democracies. I'll admit, that many of the criticisms are well founded, but the thing is, fascism has the same problems. You have corruption, violence (sometimes from without and sometimes from within when fascists repress certain groups), overcontrolling people's lives in both systems.

Fascism operates off of the assumption that people are too savage, ignorant, or immoral to govern themselves so someone has to do it for them. What I never got about this Hobbesianism is that the leaders are themselves imperfect humans. They are not only subject to to the same limitations of their subjects, but these people have to govern other people's lies. People are so diverse, in so many different situations, that usually even the savage, ignorant, and immoral now their lives and how to fit into society far better than any distant government. That is why Fascism doesn't work.
 
This is blatantly false. Fascism is an an economic ideology. Benito Mussolini was the founder of fascism, and he himself said it was corporatism. The examples you mentioned were fascist states, by there own admission. The KKK is not fascist because it pre-dates fascism. Racism is older than fascism. As is radicalism. Your attempt to claim that these regimes were "not" fascist is pathetic. It would be like saying the soviet union wasn't really communist.

Fascism has its roots in America in the KKK. The original version of the KKK had many similarities with fascism and is very similar to the early fascists in Europe, and the KKK in the 20's defenitely was fascist. Fascism is hardly an ideology and even less so an economic one. Different Fascist regimes have hardley any universal value other than social darwinism. So unless you are going to say Mussolini was the only fascist cannot agree with your opinion. Corporatism was used in Italy, but I don't think it is an essential part to understanding fascism. It was probobly used as a practical way to unite the country towards the leaders goal.
 
Last edited:
Fascism has its roots in America in the KKK.

That's nonsense. Prove it.

Fascism is hardly an ideology and even less so an economic one.

Fascism was an ideology. It was founded by Benito Mussolini, he was the one who coined the term. All regimes which called themselves "fascist" believed in corporatism. You're attempt to try and turn Fascism into some kind of racial supremecist ideology is pathetic.

Corporatism was used in Italy, but I don't think it is an essential part to understanding fascism.

No, all fascist regimes embraced corporatism and used it in their rhetoric. By the way, Italian fascism was not founded on racial supieriority.

It was probobly used as a practical way to unite the country towards the leaders goal.

No, Mussolini said it was the "proper" term for fascism, as did other fascist leaders.

Your analysis of fascism is blatantly wrong, you obviously dont have much experience on this topic, and are just going off common myths that you have heard in popular culture.
 
Last edited:
That's nonsense. Prove it.
You could just look at the many similarities.

...It is further back in American history that one comes upon the earliest phenomenon that seems functionally related to fascism: the Ku Klux Klan. Just after the Civil War, some Confederate officers, fearing the vote given to African Americans by the Radical Reconstructionists in 1867, set up a militia to restore an overturned social order. The Klan constituted an alternate civic authority, parallel to the legal state, which, in its founders' eyes, no longer defended their community's legitimate interests. In its adoption of a uniform (white robe and hood), as well as its techniques of intimidation and its conviction that violence was justified in the cause of the group's destiny, the first version of the Klan in the defeated American South was a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in interwar Europe. -Robert Paxton, the anatomy of fascism


Fascism was an ideology. It was founded by Benito Mussolini, he was the one who coined the term. All regimes which called themselves "fascist" believed in corporatism. You're attempt to try and turn Fascism into some kind of racial supremecist ideology is pathetic.

In no other place did fascist regimes differ more than in economic policy. It was used as a way to unite the nation and further its interests. Corporatism in Mussolini's case was a means to an end and is in no way a necessary condition for a group to be considered fascist.


No, all fascist regimes embraced corporatism and used it in their rhetoric. By the way, Italian fascism was not founded on racial supieriority.

It does not have to be racial superiority. They all do feel they are the victims of national decline however, and they are not afraid to use violence against those who they feel are contributing to the decline or oppose them from achieving their "destiny."
 
Fascism operates off of the assumption that people are too savage, ignorant, or immoral to govern themselves so someone has to do it for them. What I never got about this Hobbesianism is that the leaders are themselves imperfect humans. They are not only subject to to the same limitations of their subjects, but these people have to govern other people's lies.

Fascism also recognizes that some people are better than others, and more suited to lead. Sure, leaders will have their flaws, but it is better to have a good leader with flaws than to suffer with no leadership because a perfect leader cannot be found.

It isn't that people are savage, ignorant, or immoral-- though many of them certainly are-- it's that they need direction. Even the most moral of people need leadership; they crave it, instinctively, which is why even the most degenerate of men can attract followers. Leadership, even bad leadership, is a rare commodity in high demand.
 
You could just look at the many similarities.

So, were the Vietcong "Fascist" then? They exhibited "victim" hood.

...It is further back in American history that one comes upon the earliest phenomenon that seems functionally related to fascism: the Ku Klux Klan. Just after the Civil War, some Confederate officers, fearing the vote given to African Americans by the Radical Reconstructionists in 1867, set up a militia to restore an overturned social order. The Klan constituted an alternate civic authority, parallel to the legal state, which, in its founders' eyes, no longer defended their community's legitimate interests. In its adoption of a uniform (white robe and hood), as well as its techniques of intimidation and its conviction that violence was justified in the cause of the group's destiny, the first version of the Klan in the defeated American South was a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in interwar Europe. -Robert Paxton, the anatomy of fascism

This is one historians take on Fascism. I'm sorry, but he is wrong. All Fascist regimes did, in fact, demonstrate a "corporatist" ideology. Salazar Portugal had a corporate state, Dolfus Austria had a corporate state and German did as well, that's why it was called "national Socialism".

By the way, not all Fascist regimes are overcome by a sense of "victim hood" either. Portugal, called itself fascist, and never declared war on any other country, nor did they victimize themselves. Austria as well, was never a "victim" state, nor was Italy for that matter.

Again, I would ask you to show me how the Fascists of Europe were "influenced" by the KKK. Give me one fascist leader who quoted any ku klux klan leader or practice.

In no other place did fascist regimes differ more than in economic policy. It was used as a way to unite the nation and further its interests.

That is simply not true. All fascist regimes instituted some form of "corporatism". I'll grant you that they were not exactly the same, but neither were all communist states, would you deny that communism is an economic ideology.

Corporatism in Mussolini's case was a means to an end and is in no way a necessary condition for a group to be considered fascist.

No, Mussolini did not define corporatism as a "means to an end". He very clearly said that Fascism itself was to be defined as corporatism. Since Mussolini is the founder of Fascism, I am inclined to take his word for it.

They all do feel they are the victims of national decline however, and they are not afraid to use violence against those who they feel are contributing to the decline or oppose them from achieving their "destiny."

Many fascist regimes did not seek to expand their power, and were only interested in improving their own society.
 
Last edited:
I don't think your question should be whether or not 'Fascism' would work but who it would work for. Under Pinochet, Chile tried its had at fascism and they only seemed to benefit the people at the top. A large percentage of Chileans remained slum dwellers who banded in cooperatives. Whether or not an economic system works is dependent on how many people can actually benefit from it. Considering the fact that on average the only ones who seem to benefit from Fascism the most are those in charge [i.e. the government] then no, I do not think 'Fascism' works.

Pinochet wasn't a fascist, he subscribed to the Chicago School of economics, he was authoritarian yes but he allowed far to much economic liberty to be properly labeled a fascist.
 
Government is a proven failure, it goes criminal 100 out of 100 times.
Basing a government on the mountain top will tumble down when the slave class dissolves the government resolve.
 
Fascism also recognizes that some people are better than others, and more suited to lead. Sure, leaders will have their flaws, but it is better to have a good leader with flaws than to suffer with no leadership because a perfect leader cannot be found.

How are we going to define better? How are you going to pick the right people for the job? What's to keep this power from corrupting them?

It isn't that people are savage, ignorant, or immoral-- though many of them certainly are-- it's that they need direction. Even the most moral of people need leadership; they crave it, instinctively, which is why even the most degenerate of men can attract followers. Leadership, even bad leadership, is a rare commodity in high demand.

And yet they can't all be led in the same direction. Every person is different. If someone really wants direction and can't find it themselves, have someone tell them what to do.
 
Government is a proven failure, it goes criminal 100 out of 100 times.
Basing a government on the mountain top will tumble down when the slave class dissolves the government resolve.

Then we might as well never organize ourselves into anything, and maintain tribal systems, if that. Just because government fails doesn't mean we should'nt try it; its a damn sight better then the alternative of every man, woman and child for themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom