You know it is hard to be a fascist. For one, there is not a Fascist Party. Well there are radical parties that call themselves fascist, but they are about as attuned to what fascism is as I am attuned to the macroeconomics of Borneo. If anything, it is the assumptions of most people about what they think they understand that so often drives me crazy.
One of the most wonderful things about this site <Originally posted on Ornery.org> is that whatever your personal ideas are, you are welcome here. There are a few stipulations to this acceptance. The hardest for most new members to figure out is that whatever the idea is you must defend it and defend it with a well-constructed philosophical intent. Often we have scared off more than a few new members because we tend to be rather vicious.
One of my favorite new members is the infuriating Pete. Exasperation is defined by Pete. Actually, he nearly caused me to blow a gasket at one point. I was extremely close to disowning this site until I realized that Pete, who is philosophically closest to me among all the members, was a fascist.
What struck me as most insanely funny was that when I had finally pinned down what bugged me about Pete, it turned out to be the simple fact that we are ideologically living in the same neighborhood. Someone said it is easier to get along with your ideological polar opposites. Everard and I can not be farther separated on an ideological spectrum, but he and I get along famously. I am sure most of you have noticed Pete and I seldom agree on anything other than the basics.
The reason may be Pete’s perception of his ideology. Having spent a significant portion of my college career studying fascism, I have more than the average conception of fascism to go on when making observations. Things I recognize, as being fascist will not be seen the same way by someone who has not wasted as much time on fascism as I have. In fact, I am often amazed by comments made by people who would never even guess what they are proposing or believing is fascist ideals.
A great example of the many times that this happens on Ornery that occurred a few weeks ago on a thread started by Cedrios, I think. In short, a proposal was made by a left-wing member on how to change the Electoral College. What was amazing is that most people assumed the proposal was left wing in origins and would more likely lead to left wing liberalism. The fact remains, the proposal could have been taken from any of the fascist governments that were formed in the 20TH century.
I guess what I am trying to get at is that while almost none of the members of Ornery consider themselves to be fascist, many of you support some ideas and programs that are totally fascist. As time has gone by, many of you have come to realize that what you equate as fascism has radically changed. To the collective horror of many members, many of you have agreed with some of my posts. To agree with a fascist idea, may mean that what you think of, as fascism may not in fact be what fascism really is.
How does one become a supporter of fascism? That question is reasoned but beyond the scope of any explanation. No one can completely explain all of the reasons why he believes what he believes philosophically. I refuse to explain it all to anyone. I will try to explain why there is a philosophical integrity to fascism that is often obscured by the common perception of what fascism is.
First, you need to drop everything you ever thought you knew about fascism. Fascism is not Black Shirts or Peronist agitators. Fascism is not a Nuremberg Rally. Fascism is not anything you think it is. In fact, what it is may be similar to your perception of what you wish political and governmental operations could be.
Fascism is primarily an ideology that recognizes inequality. Fascism is inherently not politically correct. It does not require generalities like democracy. It does not require servitude of monarchial governments. It does not require uniformity of communist governments. It does not require plurality of socialism. What fascism requires of adherents is a recognition that there is and always will be differing levels of opportunities and capabilities in any human culture or society.
I live in the real world. I recognize that I am not the best looking guy in the world, so no matter what my qualifications otherwise may be, being a movie star is out of my league. I recognize that some people are just less smart than others are. I recognize that some people lack ethical controls in their day to day lives. I recognize that some people have through effort created lives far beyond the general scope of the average member of society. Fascism does not contradict the reality.
In a fascist system, excellence is rewarded, and failure is mitigated. What a concept! Have you ever wondered about the way your current government works? What is rewarded? What is penalized? I would like you to consider the “War on Poverty” and what its results have been. We have as a government decided that we would commit resources from economically successful members of our society and install self-perpetuating programs intended to remove poverty and raise the general economic health of those below an artificial income limit. The results are depressing. Trillions of dollars have been thrown at the problem, and none of it has managed to stick to the wall. We have the exact same level of poverty since LBJ launched the war. The reality is that under a fascist system the resources never would have been squandered the way they have been.
In a fascist system, one of the keys is corporate success. Unlike a communist or socialist system, the success is based on individual accomplishments being coupled with corporate support. A need or goal is recognized by the government. There is usually some form of incentive appropriate to the desired goal, and a leader is already evident, or is available for the execution of the tasks needed to reach the goal. The essential difference is that unlike other systems, corporate energy, whether industrial, governmental, public or private, is expected to contribute to a rapid attainment of the goal.
Would you like an American example of a fascist plan that worked? Why would I even expect to be able to find any fascist example in America to begin with? The greatest example of a fascist style task, which was executed by America, would be the rather spectacular Moon landings.
I am now sure there are people who are laughing, but let us look at it systematically. Remember the tenet of fascism we are currently investigating is twofold. The first is goal identification and the second is corporate mobilization to reach the goal. The best common example of American fascism is the NASA program that first got us into space, and then landed us on the Moon.
First, the head of the government recognized a goal. JFK said I want to be on the Moon by the end of the decade. Next, a certain ex-NAZI was asked to figure out how to do it. Remember when JFK made his challenge, NASA was a skeleton agency, and outside of some slightly modified German A-4 and A-6 rockets, American missile technology was not even close to our rival nations. JFK gave Von Braun whatever resources and technical expertise he needed to come up with a plan. To execute this plan, every single company with any part of the plan germane to its industry was asked to bid competitively on the contracts. It is a famous fact that we wound up going to the Moon on what amounted to a shoestring budget.
Then we got busy. General Mills came up with the food for the manned flights. Morton Salt came up with the fuel for the engines. Sperry Rand came up with the computers. General Dynamics and Hughes came up with the systems and protocols. Lockheed engineered the Saturn V. Every single company involved was the lowest bidder, and produced the best product it could. Excellence was demanded and results were expected to be positive.
The result was the task was defined. A system for reaching a goal was put in place. Excellence was expected from both the leadership and the corporate components of the endeavor. Moreover, the result was that we were on the moon by the close of the decade.
Think about it from the standpoint of the abilities we had before the plan was started and what we were capable of after the plan was completed. 1963, the top of the line missile technology was barely advanced beyond German wartime technology. By the end of the plan we had assembled the largest most effective rocket, the world had ever seen. Yes the Soviets had the huge rockets, and the advantage of unlimited resources, but the fascist style program which we embarked upon got us there cheaper, faster, and safer than they could.
The Moonshot is a simple fascist example. Now stop and think about how you viewed the Moon program before you read this. Most of you would have thought it was a democratic plan. The only thing democratic about the plan was that the man who started it happened to be a Democrat. Fascist philosophy requires an optimization of leadership and corporate involvement. It also requires an optimization of available resources. I would hazard a guess that the budget available to the Soviets far outpaced the budget we used.
Therefore, fascism recognizes inequalities in ability and accomplishments. It is goal oriented and resource conservative. It is also timely in durations of tasks. Finally, it is based on results.
What could be better for a government that is able to do this? However, many of you correctly recognize that fascism also has a few pitfalls that it is prone to. The most obvious is dictatorship. Every fascist government has had this problem. Much of it has to do with the relative economics of the nations involved. To a lesser extent, education and social mobility has also been a factor in fascist dictatorships. After years of study I do not have an answer to why this is the eventual outcome of fascist governments. I think the best example of a successful fascist government is Spain. There was indeed a period where the fascist government took on all of the evils we commonly associate with public perceptions of fascism. The fact is though that Spain transformed from being a backwater, with uneducated peasants, and a rocky economy. By the time Juan Carlos took over in the peaceful transfer from fascism to democratic government, Spain was a modernized vibrant educated and cosmopolitan nation. Consider this carefully, Spain advanced into the modern Europe in less than 50 years.
Could America become a fascist government is a question I have been debating for the past 10 years of my life. When I was younger, the idea of my philosophy becoming the standard of the land was intoxicating. I felt that if a fascist government were to come to power, with its drive and its focus, it could solve the many problems we face. However, the idea seemed far off. During one college class discussion on this topic, my professor thought that the America of the 1990’s was far more vulnerable than many countries were before they adopted fascist governments. His point was that what made fascism so seductive was that it offered overnight fixes to problems that plague democracies. He stated that duration of 20 years might involve the emergence of a fascist government in this country.
Now imagine what I must have thought. A fascist government in America! All the problems we face would be handled. Poverty would be wiped out. Governmental red tape on entrepreneurs would vanish. Medical care would become universal and top of the line. As in all fascist governments, society would receive excellent education and social benefits. What my professor had offered was a vision of an almost utopian America.
However, I have aged. Moreover, every time I see our government adopt a fascist protocol I cringe. Every time I hear or read a comment that proposes a fascist idea, I cringe. If I were a fascist then why would I hate the furthering of my philosophy? The reason is education and diversity.
As I have gone on to think about why fascism fails in the real world, I have recognized the essential failure to it being able to avoid dictatorship and militancy. In every country where fascism has become the ruling government, the weakest part of the culture has been its education. Education is both the reasons why fascism develops, and why it terminates in dictatorship. Every country has had both limited and lacking education, or education based on lies and deceit sponsored by governmental agency. The second stage of the educational problem is that once a fascist government gets into power, it has universally installed a state directed education that corrupts and goes against classical education goals.
Then there is the problem of diversity. Fascism can not and will not tolerate diversity in a human culture. That means that no matter the intent of the fascist government originally, eventually a minority is singled out to provide the energy to keep up a perpetual “us” vs. “them” conflict. In short, fascism shares an Achilles’ heel with communism. It is a great idea on paper, but it will not and can not work outside the realm of political theory.
So am I a fascist? Yes I most emphatically am. Do I ever wish to see a fascist government in this country? I most emphatically do not. All the things that make fascism such a wonderful and powerful philosophy of political and governmental management does not outweigh that which makes actual fascism such a failure.
It can not be doubted that from the time fascism arises in a country until it either is peacefully replaced, or goes into a military conflict; the majority of the people ruled by a fascist system benefit greatly in all endeavors that are important to the day to day lives of citizens. However, the trains running on time, technological wonders, free healthcare, and social mobility do not make up for the concomitant militarism, persecution, and dictatorship which follows all fascist governments. Of all the fascist governments, only Spain’s was largely successful in avoiding most of the evils real world fascism encounters. Nevertheless, the level of evil was more than enough to tinge forever Spain’s history.
The reality is that human cultures have not evolved to a level to implement fascism or communism. In utopian worlds either would be a great system to live under, because on paper they both serve the human needs for cultural order and economic endeavor. Unfortunately, we still do not have the level of education needed to adopt either successfully. For either government to work, it would take a nation made up of theoreticians who are exclusively devoted to one political philosophy. To make matters worse it would have to be the only nation on the Earth.
I like the idea of encouraged capitalism. I like the idea of unlimited social gain. I like the idea of universal competency and education. I like the idea of government sponsored directives aimed at attaining previously impossible goals. I like the idea of racism and bigotry ceasing to exist. I like the idea of a government without a military industrial complex. I like the idea of commerce free from governmental artificial embargoes and trade penalties. I like the idea of social contracts that reward productive output. I like the idea of illegal activities being curtailed by prosecution and rehabilitation. I like the idea of technology being fostered and propagated by state sponsorship. I like the idea of effective elimination of poverty. I like the idea of streamlined laws with clear-cut reasons for existing and penalties that do not outweigh the offense.
Do you like some or all of those ideals above? If you do you may want to go have a stiff drink. Every one of those ideals has been part of every fascist government that has ever existed. And yes many of them were eventually changed in some way. It would be hard to argue that Germany did not have the world’s most powerful military industrial complex, but each fascist government has at least started with most of the above ideals. The true failure of fascism is that it is as applicable as utopia.
However, adopting fascism as a personal political philosophy is far from stupid or evil. If you can not understand the fascist process of implementation of policy, and the ideals that it uses as goals in political interaction, then you have a far darker view of human culture than I do. Go back and reread the ideals of fascism again. Ask yourself if you agree with these ideals or not. I think you will find, as most people who have done this at my urging have found, that fascism offers more to political philosophy and goals than might at first be expected.
It is my task to challenge your misconceptions. It is my task to make you rethink your own political theory. It is also my task to challenge your consistency. Would you like to live under a government with the ideals of fascism? If you were honest with yourself, you would probably have to think in the affirmative.
Now that is one heck of a rant…
QED
GDL
create a fascist government. First you need a free market economy, which is of sufficient health and diversity to gainfully employee the vast majority of the citizens. Second you need one heck of a tradition of nationalism and national identity. You also need a heaping amount of educated people for it to even have a chance.
Fascism exists as a means of constructing and regulating human activity in such a way that uniformity of productivity and happiness is assured. Uniformity is a nice way of saying government beauracrcy. But unlike some types of government there is a demand of performance placed on leadership and general cadres, which make up a beauracracy. Leadership may be based on political favor, political clout, or personal ambition. The key is that even if the leader has no predilection to understanding or running the particular bureaucracy, he is expected to produce results. No positive results or goal attainment means no longer occupying the leadership position.
As we go along in this paper I think it would be helpful to use historical and real life examples. Since most of you are familiar in a passing way with Nazi Germany, I will primarily use that country as a reference. For effectiveness of leadership of bureaucracy I will refer you to Albert Speer and his take over as leader of economic wartime production. Remember this man was by training an architect. However he was given control of German wartime production. Considering the conditions of the German economy during the war it is amazing to note that the economy increased the output in unreal ways. For example, the aircraft industry in Germany produced more aircraft in the few short months of 1945 than it did in the pervious full year of 1944. The system Speer had put in place was highly effective. It is highly likely that if Germany had actually gone to a wartime economy in 1939, instead of in late 1943, they probably would have won.
What is the possible drawback to having single leaders making decisions for entire sectors of beauracrac? A classic case in point would be the take over of the autocratic and nobility laced German High Command ( O.K.W.) by Hitler. It can be argued in both directions that Hitler’s take over of the O.K.W. was either positive or negative in outcome. For the purpose of discussion in the terms of this paper I submit that his take over of O.K.W. was an unmitigated disaster. The reason Hitler failed the army so badly was that the normal check for incompetency, i.e. replacement of non-performing leadership was not available. No Staff officer was willing or able to remove Hitler from his leadership position. It is ironic but if it had not been for the leadership concept in fascism which prevented Hitler’s removal` O.K.W. probably could have won the war.
So one of the basic facts of a fascist system is the adoption of leadership of bureaucracy to attain goals. The goal attainment is also constrained by the expectation of timely execution. All fascist governments base their various programs and projects on defined goals with undefined means of reaching those goals. The government asks those in leadership to attain the goal, seeks expertise from the beauracry, which determines the methods to meet the goals. This is where education comes in. If the population has a low or uneven education level, then there is no way for the beauracrcy to cope with the demands placed upon it.
It is interesting to understand that the education level is key to successful fascist government. Without knowledgeable and technically skilled people, the likelihood that any government goal will be reached is low. To combat this problem, every fascist government has to have a system of education in place, which not only meets the classical goals of education, but also encourages the strange concept of individual freedom to think for the welfare of the whole community. This means that a person must have the understanding of classical Western education, with the concomitant creativity and critical thinking that such education brings. The person must also take the classical base and think in terms of his individual efforts as it relates to the greater concept of community goals.
To illustrate this let us use an example from another super state ideology. In the Communist governments that have existed, the education system has similarities with the above fascist education program. There is a difference though. No matter how educated a Communist Citizen is, his avenue of inquiry to a problem is programmed explicitly by the State. A Communist beaurocrat is given a goal to reach, but is also given the policy he must use to attain that goal. In the fascist system, the goal is asked for, but the steps taken to reach it are left up to the bureaucrat. It is only after the goal has been reached that the fascist government establishes the on going system of policies to maintain the goal.
Without adequately educated citizens, no goal attainment is possible because there is a low likelihood that anyone assigned a goal could ever figure out an efficient way to reach and maintain the goal. In fascism, permanent policy is established only after the results have been reached. Which are both strength and a weakness. If the policy has become long-standing then there is the risk that declining effectiveness may not be recognized quickly. In fact to over turn the policy it will often take a unilateral directive from leadership on a higher level.
The problem with real world fascist education systems is that the two goals it has often compete to the point that a myopic education based on results but not free critical thinking is the eventual outcome. The true danger to the citizens of a fascist state is the development of a “group-think” mentality. Instead of creating creative critical thinkers, the education produces people who think along solidified party ideological lines. That is most often the result of the leadership concepts of fascism.
Leadership is seen in Darwinian terms in fascist philosophies. Under a fascist system, leadership is predominately based on ability. Fascism is largely effective in that leadership is constantly added to. For example, a low-level government official is limited only by his ability to exercise leadership. With each success he moves up in scope of power and ability to exert more policy and decision-making. Eventually he finds himself in the position of originating goals and leaving others below him to figure out how to implement the policy. The check and balance to his leadership is failure. In fascism failure results in a diminishing of powers. Even for the really high leadership the effect of failure leads to a lack of real power or influence. A classic example of this is in Peronist Argentina. Eventually the old leadership only had the power to officially rubber-stamp all government policies, the lower levels of government were making all the decisions. Unfortunately for Argentina, the people making the decisions happened to be members of the military.
Fascism and military forces do not mix well. It seems the only fascist government which ever figured that out was Spain. One of the bad things about fascism is that the military already has a nacessent form of fascism. It is not without just cause that military forces have been derided by the left as fascist institutions. When the concept of goal attainment is considered, no other part of any government is more focused on successful attainment of goals. If the military fails in attaining a goal, civilian governments automatically minimize the leaders responsible for the failure. However if the military succeeds then the awards and additional powers granted to them flow like water from waterfalls. Under a fascist system the military is very likely to take all the power it can manage to take.
Unfortunately for the civilian component of the fascist governments, as soon as the military exercises the power internationally the government falls apart.
Even in extreme cases of fascist failures, the government proves to be incredibly resilient. Partly this is because of the education of the population and the reliance on leadership judgment. To augment this resiliency, all fascist governments have beefed up domestic police powers. This insures that during periods of peace, domestic criminal activity is kept at an absolute minimum. In theory, the police powers should be no more ornery than those in any other system. But there is the tendency for the police powers to be standardized and streamlined in such a way that personal freedoms can be put at risk. To be fair, the average citizen in a fascist state will have nothing more than routine contact with police powers. But because of the efficiency of police forces, a citizen runs the risk of interference for unusual and mercurial offenses.
I suppose all that is needed to be said here is the word GESTAPO. Unfortunately for fascism this is the public perception of this philosophy. To be fair to fascism as a philosophy, the necessity of such an outcome must be discounted. There is no reason why a police power of a fascist state would have to be so abusive. Unfortunately there has yet to be a real life fascist government that has avoided this.
Under a successful fascist system you would have goal-oriented government. The population would be educated to use critical problem solving. Domestic policing ensures a safe and orderly society. But what would the physical structure of the government be? I suppose any system based on a western democracy would work. There is nothing in our Constitution, which would preclude a fascist government. Surprisingly, our Constitution may be ideal for the creation of a fascist government.
The nuts and bolts of our federal system mesh well with fascism. Governmental powers are extremely limited. Our federal government actually exerts most of its power through taxation and redistribution of funds to the several states. Under a fascist system this would probably become much more effective.
Fascism is a governmental philosophy of benign neglect. This means that if there is no need for a program or function, it will not be funded. The determination of governmental action on any specific item is based on need. Until someone recognizes that a need is apparent, the government just will not spend the money. In essence this means the dreaded political disease of “pork” simply does not exist.
Examples of this style of neglect date to the Great Depression. Prior to fascist assumption of power in Spain, Italy, and Germany each of those countries was experiencing massive budgetary problems, fiscal collapse, and gross unemployment. Once the governments were in place fiscal policy and governmental programs were gutted. Each program and policy adopted was based on results. Unlike the rest of the world, the only economies, which pulled themselves out of the Great Depression without outside aid, were the fascist nations. Think about it. All three of these countries were in states of complete collapse in all fundamental ways, but in short duration each became stable economically, politically, and socially. No other competing philosophy of government can make the same claim. In spite of Germany’s massive rearmament for a war, it is only fair to say that each of these countries was more focused on becoming economic powerhouses first, and combatants second. Unlike the United States, which needed to wartime economy to finally shake free of the Depression, Germany did not even adopt a state controlled wartime economy on a comparative scale until 1943.
How does the economy work under a fascist system? Policy is determined by need and goals. Innovation is encouraged and supported. For example, a fascist policy would seek efficiency of production and maximization of profits. This can, and has been taken to extremes. The economic output of slave labor in Germany is possibly the most dehumanizing instance of efficiency. There can also be excesses which are economically justified, but of limited value. An example of this would be the Zeppelin Fleet. Yes they made a profit, but it is only because of national prestige that these wonderful airships ever came into being. Another danger to the extreme capitalism which fascism employs is duplication of parallel efforts. The best example of this is again the German air force. It is amazing just how many different aircraft were produced. The government would issue the capabilities of the aircraft it wished to have available. Then every aircraft company would race to produce the craft. The upside to this was that aircraft were available almost overnight. The downside was that several competing aircraft wound up having to be evaluated at once, and were continually refined. The case of one such plane was the famous Stuka. Throughout the war, many new ground attack aircraft were produced for replacing the Stuka. After each evaluation the replacement aircraft were refined to the point that no aircraft was substantially better than the other aircraft.
The eventual result was that Stukas were produced right up until the end of the war. The replacement aircraft tied up resources for years. And finally, until Speer put a stop to the research, the Stuka was not improved by the Junkers Aircraft Company, but instead by ad hoc improvements in the field. The fact remains however that the superiority of each replacement aircraft was assured and was available in a faster time than otherwise would have been possible.
Under fascism entrepreneurs are supremely supported. If you have an idea or a service, you have the blessing of government non-interference. One of the stranger aspects of fascism has been the taxation of its civil and corporate members. In general taxation was specific. When a goal was defined, and taxation to support it was determined to be part of the policy implementation, the tax was specific. The concept of percentage tax was not as it is under our taxation system. Each tax you paid was almost a fee for services type. If you did not use the service then you did not pay the fee. A common gripe among homeowners in the United States is being taxed for schools, when they have no children. Under fascism such taxation simply does not occur.
It is interesting to compare social services under fascism to what we have. For example, healthcare has always been superior under fascism. There was a professional medical system, which had complete control over the fees for services. Because medical insurance was unneeded and care was compulsory, every citizen had healthcare, the government simply set standards of care, and the doctors made a profit and were free to innovate. Compare our system to either Italy’s or Germany’s system. By comparison ours is rather lacking. Another thing, which was superior to ours, was the benefits available to German workers. It is true that collective bargaining was lost as a right, but in exchange the workers received job security based on ability and competency. They enjoyed a workweek with hours, which we would find most desirable. Vacations were available to exotic locations for almost nothing. Imagine going to Disney World for the cost of one days pay and staying there for two weeks. In short the life of the worker meant job stability, advancement based on merit, world-class benefits, and a retirement to the same living standard. Compare that to our system where superior ability can land you in the unemployment line, where vacations are practically non-existent for the common worker, and a retirement, which often means a steep decline in standards of living. One more thing, which is obviously superior to ours, is that everyone was employed.
Entrepreneurs received as many benefits as workers. Imagine if Bill Gates did not have to spend huge amounts of money on lawyers. Well that is the reality that fascists exist in. Monopolistic policies are part of a fascist system. It is not the type of monopoly we are familiar with. In a fascist monopoly the entrepreneur does not constantly have to defend his products and services. The government only intervenes if innovation is lax or the entrepreneur is profiteering excessively. Using Bill Gates as an example, if he began charging two hundred percent markups on his products he would soon find himself either paying substantial penalties to the government, or find himself having to meet new product standards issued by the government. On the other hand, Bill Gates would benefit from protectionist policies from international competitions, and more than likely highly beneficial incentives from the government.
Steve Jobs would also love fascism. One of the basic laws of fascist philosophy is the continuation of competing economic activities. Just because Jobs does not have a monopoly like Gates would, does not mean that he would cease to exist. In fact, because of the governmental practices of support through funds granted for economic expenditure of capital, Jobs would be able to overnight achieve monopoly by exceeding the products made by Gates. In short, the best mousetrap enjoys the monopoly only until the government wishes to create a better one, or someone creates it on their own.
The concept I am trying to get across to the reader is that no matter what your position is in a fascist economy, you would benefit from a better economic outcome under fascism. In the economic portion of the government you would expect little interference. The government would be after standardizing and protecting both workers and innovators. If there is one universal success story when it comes to fascist governments, it is and always has been superior economies maximized to the highest potential.
Unfortunately the weakness of this maximizing is due to the fact that it all depends on the base economic activity available. A classic example of this would be the production of wine in Germany. Wine has been grown in Germany since Roman times, but in keeping with fascist principles, the government decide that the country had the capacity to become self sufficient in wine making. The base level of this sector of German economics was rather low when compared to other wine producing countries. However the government supported the effort. While the eventual outcome was economically justified, the resources used to do this were astronomical. My professor used this example one time to expose the excesses of fascist economics. By his determination, the money invested by the Nazis was not recouped until the mid 1960’s, even though the wine industry had been profitable immediately after the government intervention. What this means is that a fascist government can turn a profit for its investors, but may not make back its initial expenditure of finances for many years.
Like education, the economic capacity of a country largely determines how successful a government will be. Because of the style of taxation under a fascist system, the less activity the economy has, the less influence the government has upon the economy. Even with large industrial concerns available, being successful is not guaranteed.
Argentina is a great example of this. Cattle ranching used to account for most of the economic output of Argentina. The cattle ranches amounted to huge land owning companies, which exchanged profits for government support. The government used the taxes from the export of the cattle products it supported to create new industrial activities. These activities in turn supported a modernization of the industrial methods and capacities of the country. However, the United States launched an embargo against Argentine beef. All of a sudden the cash flow the fascist government was used to dried up. Finally because of internal domestic frustration and civilian failures caused by the collapsed of the cattle industry, the military launches its ill-conceived Falklands Campaign.
Remember, when a fascist nation goes to war it soon ceases to be a fascist state. And irrespective of the fact that Argentina had a Peronist President for twenty-four hours last week, the Peronists collapsed. The size of the industrial capacity and economic output available determines whether or not a fascist government survives because the basic underlying strength of fascism is capitalism. Without available capacity, no fascist government can survive. Perhaps most interestingly, Spain again proves to be the exceptional fascist power. Spain was able to take a non-existent economy with largely agrarian capacity, and over an incredibly long period of time managed to create a successful diversified self-supporting economy. In fact the Spanish economy became so successful that the government could not control it. Spain transitioned into a democratic representative Monarchy largely because fascism had been so successful.
Without a good base economy fascism will not exist. Without educated people fascism cannot exist. Without an adherence to exemplary efforts to reach goals, or the innovations needed to even recognize the goals, fascism will not exist. As you can see the odds of a fascist government working are very long. The most troubling ingredient for successful fascist governments is nationalism.
Nationalism is a Pandora’s box. The failures of fascism can be caused by corrupt education, economic collapse or even successive failure to implement policy. Nationalism only makes these problems more probable. Nationalism creates so many problems that the implications of negative effects are clear. If the government is not delivering on its promises, nationalism can be used to create blame. The economy is damaged and people are unemployed, so the government appeals to nationalism and singles out someone to blame. The government cannot overcome domestic problems so it appeals to nationalistic forces and launches a war against its neighbors. The list is endless. What is even more troubling is that nationalism can lead to the deification of the national leaders. With this deification, the ability to punish ineffective policy with the removal of power vanishes. Such is the dangers nationalism brings.
But for fascism to work there has to be some sort of nationalism. Without it, the underlying sense of commitment to community could not likely exist. Imagine the response to a government call for action, if the people’s first thought was that it did not include or require their attention because they felt the lack of national identity. Without nationalism, the sense of community and commitment to the greater good simple would not exist. I have often wondered if there could be a type of fascism based not on nationalism, but instead upon religious affiliation. Again that is something to consider, but if it did exist I am not sure it would really be fascism.
It has taken me several days to try to put down in text what fascism is. All in all, I still feel that I have poorly identified and described my particular philosophy. I began this because I realized that almost no one here, or anywhere else for that matter even has a clue what fascism is. In a way, it is easier to point out what fascism is by elimination of what it is not. What I am trying to convey is that fascism may not be as alien as you assume it to be prior to reading this. What is hard to get across is that in a very large measure, fascism my indeed be the most successful governmental system devised for governing a people, as long as two conditions are met. The first condition is that no fascist government can engage in military combat. This is not a bad condition. Fascist governments have proven themselves to be extremely fragile once the military is sent abroad. The second condition is the limitation of nationalism by means of education, which instills a respect of community without perversion into exclusionary tactics aimed at minorities.
The above paragraph used to be the end of this essay. But even after sitting on this for several days, I still feel I have not explained it well. There are so many factors involved in figuring out a philosophy. My attempt to boil it down into a couple of pages of text is essentially a task better suited to Tantalus. When I think that I have hit one part on the head, another idea seems to slip away. It is never going to be complete as long as people still do not understand. The best I can hope for is that people will maintain an open mind and ask critical questions.
We have much to do to educate ourselves. None of us have been able to completely adhere to the classic versions of our philosophies. You may be a Republican, but you support abortion. You may be a Democrat who thinks gays do not deserve special protection. You may be a communist who thinks personal wealth is good. Heck you may even be a Libertarian who thinks we should adopt expansionist international policy, None of us will ever exactly fit the philosophy we identify ourselves with.
I guess the best possible outcome would be if several proponents of the various philosophies tried to put down in text descriptions about their political beliefs. If everyone did this eventually some of the more neutral members might come to understand more completely where they fit on the political spectrum.
Anyway I look forward to attempting to expand the definitions I began. I hope I will have some company and some competing philosophies championed by others. Man I hate when I feel like I failed to put something down on paper, but that appears to be what has happened here. Enjoy it.
[This message has been edited by RedVW on a Laptop (edited January 01, 2002).]
To get a fuller wish list of what I want my government to be, please refer back to the Utopian Government thread. I had a bit of fun in doing that. I think you will find that the perceptions that people had about the wishes I have for a government to be surprising. To be frank, the constitution of the Wiemar Republic may be the best government on paper ever created. As for individuality concerning fascism. I think you are making an erroneous supposition about fascism philosophically vs. Historical fascism. The rank and file civilian in fascist countries, especially those who are educated by fascist schools is grossly unaware of their personal education outcome.
It is often the case that this lack of not being aware of the outcome manifests itself in the opinions the civilians hold. A great example is the judiciary of Nazi Germany. Once considered one of the most technical, and fair systems in Europe, eventually they became nothing but ministers and administrators in kangaroo courts. Instead of trying cases based on fact and based on judging criminal action, they instead began issuing party line judgments. However if you went back and asked most of these judges after the war what their perceptions were, they would almost universally claim they were simply judging the law as it was set in place by the Nazi government.
To any outside observer the facts prove otherwise. This is a danger in fascism. Remember how I said fascist governments tend to create a myopic view? Well this is a great case in point. The judges have absolutely no internal belief that they have done anything wrong. Individually they perceive no personal deception what they have done. They exonerate themselves as individuals, but willingly admit that the entire judicial system as a whole was rather corrupt. And that is the problem. As individuals of a fascist system they exerted actions as individuals, but do not admit to personal responsibility. It is the myopic result of education and propaganda that results in this outcome.
Fascism is most concerned with individual excellence , but often the application of this excellence to the society at large results in objectively defined failure. Here is a popular example of this type of failure. Oscar Schindler was a personal success, but part of an un holy system. The man was able to become fabulously wealthy as a Nazi party member. He was largely apolitical. His enrolling in the party was simply a business decision. But there is the single fact that no matter what his motivations were, he benefited from the society and how the society had chosen to run itself. Oscar was most assuredly a good person in total, but his individual excellence contributed to both the German war effort and the saving of his handful of Jews.
In Oscar you can find the dichotomy I am trying to express fully. He was successful in fascist terms because he was the model Nazi. Despite his occasional run ins with the Gestapo, even the Nazis could not find anything wrong with his life in fascist terms. But in the scope of working for evil by supporting the German Army he is totally guilty. As an individual he is one of excellence, but as a member of a fascist system he also committed fantastic errors in simply being part of the system.
So the problem fascism faces, is that when applied to the real world it has to find a way to set up an education system and avoid the myopic focus. I do not know how this can be done. How do you create critical thinkers without creating the seeds of the governments own undoing? I you have a free system of education in place, how do you deal with people who turn out to be against the government? The only way you do that is to control what they learn in the first place. If you control what they learn then you are not creating the individuals who have the critical thinking ability that fascism needs to work.
I guess you will just have to take my word that individual excellence is part of what makes up a successful fascist government. You will also have to understand that so far no fascist government has ever found a way to avoid this problem. Maybe the Peronists will do better in Argentina this time. I have my fingers crossed
Tim please keep in mind I have been unable to read ornery for the last couple of days so I may have skipped something. A it is I will get around to answering all your questions, As far as I know these were the big ones you had..
Always worth my time and apology accepted but not needed. I am used to new members making that type of comment every three or four months. Now let me see what I can do with your response.
The fact is that individual success is mandatory in a fascist system for the corporate happiness or success to even have a chance to work. Unlike the communist system, where personal success is judged in terms of the corporate success; or in a democracy where individual success is often totally excluded from either corporate success or failure; fascism depends completely on the well being of the individual. There is an inconsistency in historical and theoretical fascism on that ground however.
Especially in Italian fascism, the success of the individual was still considered necessary, but the primacy was shifted towards the corporate whole. When you consider that as fascism matured, the dictatorship was seen as the sole criteria of judging success and often-required personal sacrifice of individual happiness was justified for the greater good. Ironically this sacrifice seems to be more communist than fascist. It is not without truth that many historians have noted that the only difference between an Italian fascist and communist was the color of their armbands.
The lowest denominator of success in fascism still depends completely on the overall success of the individual. The one factor you have missed is the standard applied to judging that success. Not all people can be assumed to have the same ability or the same desire for success. If an individual wishes for more success, he will be able to find it. A good example of this is comparing a fascist worker to a socialist worker. In France labor laws limit the absolute amount of time one can spend working. No matter what drives a person, when the workday is done it is done. No matter how successful he wishes to be he cannot effectively increase his output even if it would make him happy. In the fascist system, if it makes him happy to work sixty hours a week he can. As a result, he is better off, and most likely the corporate body is better off.
I also do not think the achievement alone brings happiness. It is because achievement is possible that happiness and success for the individual is increasingly likely. Because each individual is free to do his best, the government as a whole can expect a progression of accomplishments. The reason for the successful attainment of accomplishments is that it is driven by people individually seeking to augment their own success. Communism seeks to be the political expression of altruistic motives for the benefit of all members equally. Fascism is the expression of human greed, which creates corporate success as a byproduct of the greed.
You have correctly repeated the failings of democracy. We are swamped with apathy. Just how many people skipped voting in the last election? In addition, lets not even concern us with the stupid and malicious sectors of the voting public. The problem is that democracy wholly depends on the good will and legality of the majority when it concerns the fate of the minority. It is not without cause that democracy has been termed the tyranny of the majority.
Historically our democracy has relied on an almost religious philosophy that shames the majority into sometimes supporting the rights of the minority. You use slavery as an example and I will use civil rights. Had it not been for President Johnson’s huge exertion of political coercion and back-room politics we would still have separate and unequal divisions along racial lines in this country. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Johnson was more concerned over augmenting his political power vs. the Dixiecrats, than he was in promoting the minority agenda. The minority agenda was simply a tool, which Johnson used to increase the overall power of his political party.
Our President did the right thing in light of our common political philosophical religion, but he did not do it for the motivations we now ascribe to the actions. That is why democracy is dangerous. Nothing is accomplished unless political power is invested or augmented. If you doubt me watch the budget go through Congress. The pork is there for a reason.
However, we thankfully have a federal democracy. This tends to localize political power. No matter how corrupt the political process gets it never allows for the creation of truly regional or national political cells. Well we did have a Civil War based primarily on divergent political goals, but that was rather exceptional when it happened. In addition, when that happened the federal government was still in early development and did not have the fiscal influence it enjoys today. Today’s political stability depends entirely on the fiscal power of the government. Take away the power to grant pork to the local level and I have a feeling the tyranny of the democratic majority would soon reveal itself.
It would seem however that all political systems depend on the education of its people. Apparently, governments no matter the political spectrum, depend on a public educated in the tenants of the political system. I would argue that democracy is the most vulnerable form of government where education is concerned. Democracy depends on the majority of its population being educated enough to keep the governmental system functioning. When the education falls apart is when democracy falls apart.
Right now, our system depends on the goodwill of its educated public. No wonder we are so concerned over it. But what if I could offer a different system where general apathy could be mitigated? In a fascist system, the educational system presumes that most people plainly do not care about the political process, but it encourages those who are. The vast majority of people educated in a fascist system will never make the jump to the exertion of political office. However, because in a fascist system those seeking office will tend to be self-motivated and successful individuals, the population in general can hardly make a poor choice. And yes, it is a fact that Germans elected Hitler. It just goes to show that even my political philosophy can commit error.
The Achilles heel in fascist education has been stated already on this thread. I still have no answer to removing from the educational process the seeds of fascism’s undoing. To create critical thinkers is a goal that makes the fascist state both work and destroy itself. What does a fascist system do if its education produces a communist? I do not have the answer, but the average citizen in a fascist system is usually better educated in classical terms.
Yet, you also nail down the problem of taxation and money. Unfortunately, you misinterpret the issue. You deride the tax refund. You think that more money would mean cleaner streets for example. I would argue that the streets are not clean because the government at the federal level has taken over that responsibility. Yet, your streets are not clean and you erroneously assume that just a few more dollars would correct the problem. Democratic Republics are as successful as the monetary and political influence that backs them up. In a fascist system, the streets are clean because someone came up with a program that worked. If he was not able to make a program that worked, he was eventually and rapidly replaced by someone who could.
You even admit to liking the ideal of the best and brightest leading a country. Yet, you miss the fact that that is what fascism brings to the playground. For some reason you single out the republican part for corruption, but I believe corruption is strangely apparent especially in democracy where money determine political power. In fascism, political power is only the result of your last accomplished task. Fail in your assigned roles and tasks and you will soon be without power. In fascism, the cream rises to the top, and when it curdles it sinks to the bottom. One thing that might surprise you is that in historical fascist states, corruption was nearly eliminated in all cases. Of course, there are exceptions, but the fact that Italy and Spain have zero institutional corruption is a direct result of the lasting influence of the fascist actions against corruption. In a supreme irony, more than one German death camp commander was put in jail for graft.
Any political system necessitates a minority leading a majority. The system you skirt around but do not name is called anarchy. I would also argue that the making of the bulk of human civilization has depended on such minorities being in power. Remember in all scales of judgment only Monarchy has been a champion of civilization historically. Also, remember that most of the ideals and forms of western culture are the direct results of governments based on monarchies. To take it even further it might scare you to know that the historical record of accomplishment of democracy is still weighted heavily towards expressions of international tyranny. Democracy under the modern western powers still has a way to go before it outweighs the excesses of Athens.
Under fascism, we have the freest form of social mobility. Theoretically in fascism not only does the individual’s social stature improve but also the stature of the entire state. As far as dissent, there is more than enough room for it in fascism. The only problem I have is when implemented fascism has universally adopted a dictatorship model. The fact that Spain and Argentine fascists successfully voted themselves out of office is an exception to the more general pattern of adopting a strict party line. What is unseen by you is that if a leader fails in fascism, he looses all political power. The leader’s own failure keeps him in check.
That pretty much covers your preamble. I hope that my comments serve to compare and contrast my views with the stipulations you have raised. However now it is my turn to attempt to reveal fallacies in your proposed political experiment. You choose three generations that is roughly seventy-five years. I propose to you that the nation you would crate would devolve into a tyrannical government. While I do not think anyone’s political beliefs can be contained in only six points, your philosophy scars the hell out of me.
The first item on your list deals with education. In addition, of all your items proposed this one is the scariest. On philosophical grounds, I disagree with sizably increasing education budgets. The reason I disagree with this is that for the past twenty-five years all we have done is increase the real dollar amount on a per student basis. Instead of resulting in huge increases in educational outcome, it has resulted either in a bare maintaining of achievement or in some cases a sharp decline. When you say increase funding, I say East St. Louis. Money alone will not and cannot lead to improved education.
While I do not take issue with an increase in the level of study about how our government works or augmenting civics instruction, I totally cringe at the focus of current events. Any society that removes its history from its education soon finds itself repeating previous mistakes. What you propose is a politicizing of the public classroom. You would reward the best defenders of their views. How could you ensure that when you also intend to introduce political indoctrination? The Democrats help the poor and unemployed and finance your schools. The Republicans look out for big corporations and increase only military spending. Do not worry about what the Democrats have done in the past; concern yourself only with the future.
You would remove the historical realities that our leaders have faced in the past. By not explaining just what is important about Washington Crossing the Delaware, you leave students without the means of formulating sound critical judgments about their government. Such systems have existed in other countries. Orwell has written about such systems. You have proposed Stalinism and Nazism in the educational process. In fact, the system you proposed made up the Nazi system of education during the years between 1939 and 1945.
Another item you propose is government payroll expenditure. In any system where what you have proposed has happened, corruption and political favoritism has been the result. The legitimate salary is usurped by payoffs and graft. You also seek to remove political contributions by corporations. I am not in favor of such contributions, but the reason they must continue is that the government has decided that it has the right to regulate and tax economic activities of corporations. Our country is based on the principle that taxation must be balanced by the right to representation. If you are going to eliminate the political contributions of corporations then you must by default also support the repeal of corporate income taxes and production-based tariffs.
Then you seek to level the playing field for personal contributions as well. Frankly any individual should have the right to spend his personal income in any way he sees fit. If he wishes to give $1,000,000.00 to an individual, he should be able to do so. My family gives money to campaigns. If you told my communist father that he was not allowed to give out more than $1000.00 in an election cycle he would be rather upset. In addition, I can imagine PACs turning to block grants. Like-minded individuals could form associations during the political cycle and each could provide the maximum contribution and pledge it to one candidate. If fifty members of the PAC agree, suddenly a check for $50,000.00 is in the candidate’s war chest. Since these associations exists for only one cycle of the election process, they would never have to worry about your five year maximum contribution level.
The system you propose would soon have titular head candidates representing political parties. To become a candidate you would most certainly have to be a committed party functionary. In addition no law exists that would prevent an individual for giving to the party. Party direct funding would be limited to $1,000.00, but I am sure that exchange of service and other consideration types of payoffs would continue the ever-increasing costs of being elected. Instead of electing independent people with party affiliations, we would be electing party representatives beholden to the party.
You seek to prevent this by your next point. The professionalization of political office holders has been attempted before. It might interest you to know that in most American political jurisdictions, you do not have to be a lawyer to be a judge. If this is so then why are almost all judges usually lawyers? The reason is that Bar associations have a vested interest in their control of the professional standards that they have imposed on the legal system. They have created arbitrarily dogmatic and doctrine heavy systems of insuring that most people cannot become lawyers. It also insulates competition and innovation. Look in your yellow pages and see just how few single practitioning lawyers there are. The entire profession has hyper-specialized and requires teams of lawyers working in partnerships to be sufficiently profitable. What you propose is such hyper-specialization across all elected positions.
Then you suggest that because of the professionalization of the political office seekers we would enjoy the best and brightest. I suggest that such a system would result in further corruption. Napoleon installed such systems on his rampage across Europe. While good on paper, it leads to schools and colleges devoted to producing students who can pass Byzantine tests. Passing the Civil Exam is still big business in European countries to this day. What is even more ironic is that often the schools that teach the students are also the same agents who are contracted to produce the tests. Consider the fact the College Board makes test like the SAT, but makes little money off the actual tests. It makes its money by teaching people how to take the test. Moreover, this is the type system you wish to emplace to weed out the less than qualified.
You seek to promote several political parties by installing the multi-vote. I.e. you allow a person to vote for all some or none of the office seekers. I have no idea what you seek to accomplish other than creating statistically anomalous vote outcomes. The fact is such a system may result in repeated run off elections. It may even make election impossible if neither candidate can get a clear majority as is required in some jurisdictions. After nine months of campaigning, neither candidate is approved, resulting in a new election cycle with new candidates and potentially empty offices as terms expire. In any case, that is not something that tends to lead to stability. Republics tend to fail if politically unstable.
The division of commander in chief roles has been tried many times in history. Moreover, while I can think of many instances where such an arrangement leads to failure and dictatorship, I can think of no instance where this lead to stability. The elegance of our current system is that no matter what happens, the military is always under civilian control and is already held in check by both the executive and legislative branches. What is even more important is that only one person has the responsibility of committing military force. I think that in an age where military actions may need to be decided in the time, it takes an ICBM to hit, having to consult two executives and getting them to agree could be disastrous. Finally, for one man to take over the government under our current system would require that Congress, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive office functionaries all submit. I do not think that could happen.
I am also disturbed about your proposal to expose the Supreme Court to electoral review. The beauty of the system is that the longevity of service removes to large degree political concerns about the cases it hears. For example if in the last presidential election, if all the members of the court had been replaced during the Bush presidency, I seriously doubt Gore would have bothered taking it to court. In fact, the longevity of service tends to ensure that court judgments are consistently middle of the stream choices. The average person almost universally concedes that the political judgments of the court are fair because of the non-extreme views.
Finally, there are three historical absolutes. They have no exception and yet you propose them. When a country seeks to drastically reduce its military expenditures, increase foreign aid, and seek outside agency to address geopolitical issues, it has always s ceased to be an effective country. The final part of your 75 years experiment would be the dissolution of the republic.
I am not sure what your personal political philosophy is. I have a feeling though that you innocently support tyranny or anarchy without realizing the fundamental flaws. While my political philosophy is far from perfect, it is the most realistic when compared to the current geopolitical environment and the underlying facts of human nature. Communism has never worked because it relies on the human capacity to give selflessly. Democracy works only as long as the threat of the majority is sufficient to cause various minorities to submit. Socialism works only as long as the economic output persists above the needs of the state. Fascism works because it appeals to individuality and the basic human fact called greed.
Posts
