What would life be like under a Fascist or Nazi Government?

[Muad'Dib]

First off forget any part of race and eugenics.

I don't care about that.
Let's just assume that all of those annoying lesser people have been killed leaving only blond haired and blue eyed ubermensch walking about.

I want to know how the government would be run and what the world would be like, as opposed to other forms of government. The economy, jobs, even art and culture, how would these be affected? Also, how would the world work and look from a fascist ideal?

I ask because I still am having trouble with finding a clear definition of what Fascism is.


PS. Please no "It would look a lot like Bush's Ashcrofts Amerikkka does now!" responses.

[Spoke]

The word "fascism" derives from "fasces," a bundle of sticks bound around an axe handle, and used as a symbol of the Roman state. (For an example of how this looks, see the back of a dime. Roosevelt on the front, fasces on the back. Oh, the irony.)

The fasces was intended to convey the idea of strength in unity. It is easy to break small individual sticks, but difficult to break a bundle of small sticks. This is also the core idea of fascism: strength in unity -- all citizens united in the service of the state (or the race).

To get an idea of what a futuristic fascist state might look at (well, if it were attacked by giant alien bugs, anyway), rent Starship Troopers.

[Bryan Ekers]

With no constitutional backing guaranteeing individual protections, your life continues at the whim of whstever faction has power at any given moment. Climbing within the government power structure is no longer a matter of appealing to the people or delivering on promises, but by eliminating and/or terrorizing one's opponents and their supporters. As a result, the higher positions are open to the most ruthless people, since natural checks to block them (i.e. a free press) are nonexistent. Voicing public opinion on any issue invites thugs to pay you a "visit". It's not fair? It's not just? Too bad.

[Guinastasia]

[Beavis and Butthead]
That would like, suck.
[/Beavis and Butthead]

I don't know of any other way to put it. I think it would be pretty much being paranoid all the time, no freedom of ANYTHING.

[Muad'Dib]

No, no, you guys don't understand. I want to know what some of the mechanics would be like under an ideal Fascist system. How would they try to run the economy and what not? If you asked someone what life would be like under communism they would tell you about collective farms and state run industries. Not the KGB making people "disappear".

[HPL]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
[Beavis and Butthead]
That would like, suck.
[/Beavis and Butthead]

I don't know of any other way to put it. I think it would be pretty much being paranoid all the time, no freedom of ANYTHING.

I'm reading 1984 for the 2nd time just now and this perfectly sums it up.

[HPL]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
[Beavis and Butthead]
That would like, suck.
[/Beavis and Butthead]

I don't know of any other way to put it. I think it would be pretty much being paranoid all the time, no freedom of ANYTHING.

I'm reading 1984 for the 2nd time just now and this statement sums it up perfectly.

[Go alien]

A fascist (or Soviet communist) state is basically a tinpot dictatosrsip. In the USSR's or Germany's case it was writ large. With the whole economy dedicated to the service of the state, the only industry that matters is the defence industry. Everything else is subservient to that, less a bit of cream for the elite. As a result, innovation would only be channeled into weaponry. With no interest in economics, with no wealth creation for anybody except the state and with no interest in the well being of the indivdual, the state would be unable to compete against a liberal democracy. For example, the USA won the Cold War by being better than the USSR at everything, especially wealth creation. Remember, the Soviet elite craved Western luxuries, not the other way round. Even with its vast natural resources, the command economy of the USSR ran out of steam. Compare it to Japan. Japan had to import everything but still outcompeted the USSR in every market it was allowed to (i.e. except defence).

Alien's law of economics: the more a government, of any stripe, tries to regulate and direct the economy, the less efficient it becomes. As evidence, I offer the USA, the EU and the USSR.

[Bryan Ekers]

I think Ayn Rand beat you to it, GA, but the point holds true.

Technological innovation (as well as scientific discovery generally) of any kind is a creative process that can't be forced at gunpoint. Captalist democracies offer scientists and engineers financial rewards and recognition, and when the scientist hits a dry spell, there's no-one standing there with a rifle saying "Produce! Now!"

Fascism might offer them some kind of wealth (i.e. a taste of what the power elite get) but when the State needs something, it won't matter if you're suffering the scientific equivalent of writer's block. Since a thug with a weapon has become the ultimate expression of the system's power, the system can casually kill or torture people it finds displeasing. I suppose it's okay, as long as you're born into the right political family, and your family doesn't fall into disfavour, leading to the execution or expulsion of all its members....

As with a fundamentalist system, there is no firm standard by which governmental behaviour can be limited. If a fascist system is dedicated to a particular but vague idea (the elimination of witchcraft, racial purity, adherance to Allah) then any member can make wild accusations and claims at any time, and the system will happily support them if the accused person is inconvenient in any way. Thus, an accusation of being a witch in 1600s Salem, a Jew in 1930s Germany or a heretic in 1990s Afghanistan could easily be a death sentence, since the individual has no protection and the accusation is impossible to disprove. If someone in the government wants you dead, or simply doesn't care if you live or not, then you are just plain screwed. In time, the system either collapses because everyone has been accused and no-one is safe, or it has to be destroyed from outside. Either way, I'm not planning to retire in a fascist neighborhood. They're simply not stable enough to last.

[Go alien]

Never read any Ayn Rand, so I wouldn't know. But it comes as no surprise that somebody beat me to it. I always assume there's a pretty good chance that any conclusions I draw have previously been drawn by somebody else.

[RickJay]

I'm a little disappointed; I don't think any of the answers so far are accurate.

If you look at Nazi Germany in 1938, I think it becomes obvious that for the most part, life in a modern fascist dictatorship would continue more or less the way it does now. Germans in 1938, if they weren't Jews, were mostly doing pretty good. For Hans, Frida and Jurgen, Germany was a perfectly nice place to live, not really any worse than it was ten years earlier. There's nothing about a Nazi-like government that prevents free enterprise from providing consumer goods or prevents scientists and engineers from inventing stuff. If you aren't openly opposed to the government, you could quite easily live your life as happily and freely as you do now. I'm assuming here the country, unlike Nazi Germany, doesn't get overrun by Allied armies.

For the ordinary schmoe, the only principal differences would be the astonishing level of government propaganda you'd be subjected to - parades, posters, a state-controlled media - and the fact that your kids might have to do obligatory military service.

But things would be very, very different indeed for the 1% of people who openly say anything bad about the government; they're dead meat. The thing about fascist governments is not that they directly oppress and impoverish everybody. They INDIRECTLY oppress everybody by directly oppressing the few. When Kevin at 164 Maple St. is taken from his home at 2AM by the secret police and is never seen again, everyone else on Maple St. will learn to shut their yaps pretty quick. You can lead your life comfortably - as long as you stay in line. And you'd be afraid to say boo, because anyone could rat you out as a traitor, and there's nothing stopping the Gestapo from killing you.

[Go alien]

RickJay, good point, especially on the repression aspect. But I would argue that by 1938, the Nazis had been in power such a short time, the full impact of living under tham had yet to be felt.

The economic boom that kept the majority happy was funded by massive unfunded government expenditure that ran up debt. It was only kept going beyond 1938 by seizure of Czechoslvakian gold reserves after the annexation of said country. (I read this recently in a book I have at home and cannot for the life of me remember the title.)

The German economic system was ramshackle, it required ongoing conquest to finance it. Germany was going bust from the late 30's and the invasions of Poland, France, et al became mandatory to keep the state's economy going.

According to the (unknown) book mentioned above, without conquest, the economy would have collapsed. Indeed, had Britain and France actively supported the Czechs, the war would have started sooner but also ended sooner, with the German economy ruined. I concede that this is mere speculation, but it does highlight the fact that the German economy was extremely fragile. If the economy had collapsed, there would have been plenty of challengers to Hitler, just as he challenged the Weimar Republic.

[Spoke]

The word "fascism" derives from "fasces," a bundle of sticks bound around an axe handle, and used as a symbol of the Roman state. (For an example of how this looks, see the back of a dime. Roosevelt on the front, fasces on the back. Oh, the irony.)

:smack:

Can't believe no one has called me on this. The fasces was on the reverse of the Mercury Head dime (http://www.coinfacts.com/dimes/mercury_dimes/mercury_head_dimes.html). It was replaced, on the Roosevelt dime, with the torch of Liberty. (So, the reverse of the Roosevelt dime is not ironic, but entirely fitting.)

Should have checked my change before posting.)

[Bryan Ekers]

spoke: you realize that in a fascist system, you'd be strapped to a chair in a dank basement by now while a friendly interrogator from the Ministry of Love asks you "So what exactly did you mean when you said it was ironic, Comrade? You can tell me, we're all loyal citizens here. Aren't you a loyal citizen? Franz, give him 50 volts, schnell."

When word of your fate reaches your neighbors, each of them will take a moment to shiver in terror and mull over everything they've ever said, wondering if they ever mis-spoke and not daring to say they miss spoke, for he is now an unperson.

[Narile]

Also, remember that in a Fascist state, the means of production, while technically perhaps owned by an individual, the control of that production is in the hands of the state.

"Da! Herr Falkstein, Your Falkie's Widget works is to start making hotdog casings immediately! You don't own the proper equipment, then buy it, we want 300 miles of sausages by next Tuesday! Or, we will sell your company to someone else."

[Lumpy]

Originally posted by Muad'Dib
First off forget any part of race and eugenics.

I don't care about that.
Let's just assume that all of those annoying lesser people have been killed leaving only blond haired and blue eyed ubermensch walking about.

I want to know how the government would be run and what the world would be like, as opposed to other forms of government. The economy, jobs, even art and culture, how would these be affected? Also, how would the world work and look from a fascist ideal?Hmm.. hard to say because Nazism, at least as it existed in Germany in the 1930s, was as much about what the Nazis were against as much as what they were for. The National Socialists came to power by preaching to the defeated impoverished people of Germany that capitalism/democracy was a failed sham. So I'm not sure that the Nazis had a very clear idea of what sort of future they envisioned, beyond claiming that once all the jews and communists were dead everything would be rosy. I do think it might be something like the following:

Free enterprise would still be around, but all industries deemed vital to the national interest would be integrated into a state planning bureaucracy (the "socialist" part of National Socialist). There would be limits on finance- certain arrangements would be considered "too Jewish" to be allowed. Labor would be controlled by the party/state and strikes would not be allowed.

By the time the "blond haired blue eyed ubermensch" level had been achieved, eugenics would be an ongoing part of society. Every year doctors would euthanize infants and children deemed defective. Most felony crimes that didn't warrent a death sentence would stipulate sterilization for those convicted, to eliminate "criminal genes" from society. An elite core representing the party ideal would recieve subsudies for breeding. Scientists studying real genetics might have problems when their findings contradicted the body of myths and prejudices promoted as party doctrine.

There might be draconian laws against homosexuality, but how well they could be enforced I don't know. "Race mixing" (with the slave races of the tropics) would be forbidden, but again boys will be boys, so I imagine few would care how many mixed-race children were born to slave women.

Politically of course, any hint of dissension from the state would be suicidal. A big question would be if, having achieved it's aims, the Party settled down into a stable bureaucratic hierarchy, or if schisms/ factionism/ heresies would cause some ongoing ferment.

[Neidhart]

You wouldn't find anything on the radio but classical, European folk music, and Guy Lombardo-style "white" jazz - since all music with "African influences" has been removed from record shops and radio playlists.

[smiling bandit]

You wouldn't find anything on the radio but classical, European folk music, and Guy Lombardo-style "white" jazz - since all music with "African influences" has been removed from record shops and radio playlists.

Did you not see the OP saying specifically that Race or ethnic factors were not an issue?

In any event, this isn't entirey improbable - a lot of rack, R&B, and such contains ideas and messages not particularly devoted toward the "idea" Fascist state.

I noted a lot of you keep talking about Race. That is not, however, neccessary for fascism. Italy was fascist, and, although they did promote Italy above all else, it was not inclusive of concentration camps, elimination of racislly undesirable individuals, or genocide to my knowledge. Just wanted to point out something a lot of people didn't note.

[Spoke]

Yeah, and Spain had a fascist system under Francisco Franco for 36 years. So look at how Spain functioned during that time, and you may have an answer to the OP.

[Spoke]

Yeah, and Spain had a fascist system under Francisco Franco for 36 years. So look at how Spain functioned during that time, and you may have an answer to the OP.

[Spoke]

One other thing.

I note that several posters seem to be conflating Fascism with Communism. They are not at all the same thing. In fact, the communists and the fascists of 1930's Europe tended to be bitterly opposed to one another. (Hell, they fought a civil war against one another in Spain.)

While both systems are authoritarian, they start from very different places. Communism starts with the idea that everyone is equal, and enlists the power of the state to make it so. (Government as Robin Hood, if you will. In theory at least.)

Fascism makes no such assumptions. In fact, fascist leaders generally embrace (and are embraced by) the wealthy classes. The power of the state, rather than being enlisted in a Robin Hood role to equalize wealth, is often enlisted to preserve the status of the elite. (As in Franco's Spain.)

[tracer]

If you asked my survivalist buddy, he'd tell you that we're already living under a fascist government.

[Neidhart]

Nah - where's the all-encompassing ideology? The mammoth propaganda spectacles? The torchlight parades?

[jimmmy]

Here is a good site about daily life under Mussolini, the first true modern facist state that lasted the longest after Spain.


http://www.dickinson.edu/~history/dictators/mussolini_life.htm


Basically, they replace handshakes with salutes, get new calendars and are big on quotas: increasing # of children per family (which Germany had too), setting wages, trying to increase grain self-sufficiency. They set up alot mandatory youth groups and try mightily to control popular entertainment.

How they tolerate and deal with dissent from any and all of this is their state signature, distinguishes them and is their calling card and has adequately been addressed.

[The Calculus of Logic]

i have trouble understanding what fascism is too. The best info i can find it that Fascism is a political idealogy that is based out of fear of communism, fear of globalism & fear of economic collapse. It is anti-communist, anti-globalist, nationalist and promises jobs. Perhaps fascism is to patriotism what communism is to socialism.

People would be treated as subjects instead of individuals, and the well being of the state and the state's standards would be paramount.

I would assume the economy would be capitalistic with the state maintaining the right to intervene at any moment it feels necessary.

Day to day life would be a subliminal service to the state (excessive respect given to the state, areas of education that service the state are held in higher regard, ideas that threaten the state are viewed more evilly).

Don't know if this helps, but here is some Nazi propaganda. I'm sure there is info about the 'perfect' fascist world in there.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#misc#misc#misc#misc

[Northern Piper]

You might want to read The Nightmare Years by William Shrier. He was an American journalist stationed in Germany and Austria during the 30s, and gives a personal account of how Nazism flourished and the effect it had on the population.

[WSLer]

As far as art and culture go, the art would probably be really awful. After the Nazis took off they gathered up all of the degenerate art from the major museums and shoved it all in a small house and opened it as an exhibit of degenrate art thinking that no one would want/bother to come see it. Within two weeks the lines to get in were something like 1/4 of a mile long.

Whoops.

Goebels was not happy.

The movies would probably run along the lines of propaganda ala Triumph Of The Will which while it is a great achievement in filmmaking isn't the only choice I'd like to have when I went to the cinema.

Of course, the elites in power would have access to the decadent films, paintings etc, because they are the elites.

[Johanna]

In Isabel Allende's novel House of the Spirits she describes a horrific fascist coup based on the real-life coup that overthrew and killed her cousin, President Salvador Allende.

It is seen from the perspective of a rich right-wing senator who initially supports the coup, thinking that militarist fascism will support his political ideals and also be profitable for him.

But the senator is disabused of this fantasy when it's brought home to him that the coup has nothing to do with his conservative ideals, and it is really all about raw brutality and absolute power. The fascists have no respect for him or anything else. The conservatives were mere dupes used by the fascists to seize power.

[robertliguori]

From my perspective, I'd say it would be short. Too many Americans have access to too many weapons.

[Cardinal]

In regard specifically to Nazi Germany, see Berlin Diary (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801870569/qid=1032147386/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-4706571-8670318?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by William Shirer, which can tell you what it was like to be a foreign journalist there before the war with America started.

[elmwood]

What about Apartheid-era South Africa? Not exactly fascist, but certainly oppressive. No free press, no privately controlled broadcast media (SA first got television in 1976!), apartheid ... comes close in some ways.

The white middle class in Apartheid-era ZA enjoyed material wealth that blew away what you would find in a typical North American suburb. Take a look online at South African real estate ads ... "2200 sq ft, 4 BR, 2 BA, maid's quarters." The built environment wasn't much different than that in North America. The cultural scene was considered bland, pop culture as known in Europe and North America at the time was nonexistent, and the uptight social and religious values of the Afrikaaners influenced government policy.

IMHO. fascist United States would be affluent, orderly, clean ... and dull as hell.

[elmwood]

What about Apartheid-era South Africa? Not exactly fascist, but certainly oppressive. No free press, no privately controlled broadcast media (SA first got television in 1976!), apartheid ... comes close in some ways.

The white middle class in Apartheid-era ZA enjoyed material wealth that blew away what you would find in a typical North American suburb. Take a look online at South African real estate ads ... "2200 sq ft, 4 BR, 2 BA, maid's quarters." The built environment wasn't much different than that in North America. The cultural scene was considered bland, pop culture as known in Europe and North America at the time was nonexistent, and the uptight social and religious values of the Afrikaaners influenced government policy.

IMHO. a fascist United States would be affluent, orderly, clean ... and dull as hell.

[elmwood]

What about Apartheid-era South Africa? Not exactly fascist, but certainly oppressive. No free press, no privately controlled broadcast media (SA first got television in 1976!), apartheid ... comes close in some ways.

The white middle class in Apartheid-era ZA enjoyed material wealth that blew away what you would find in a typical North American suburb. Take a look online at South African real estate ads ... "2200 sq ft, 4 BR, 2 BA, maid's quarters." The built environment wasn't much different than that in North America. The cultural scene was considered bland, pop culture as known in Europe and North America at the time was nonexistent, and the uptight social and religious values of the Afrikaaners influenced government policy.

IMHO. a fascist United States would be affluent, orderly, clean ... and dull as hell.

[Ranchoth]

What about the less-than-middile-class situation under Apartheid? I mean, from what I understand, the slums of South Africa today make Gotham City look like the Emerald City, but how bad were they under Apartheid?

[Latro]

The level of opression is of no matter in determining if a regime is fascist.
Fascism is a form of government where there is only 1 party and a single leader at the top (put plain and simply).
Thus Russia under Stalin was a fascist regime and so are the 'modern' Baaht (spelling?) movements of some arab nations, including Iraq.

The apartheid regime could be called an oligarchy, I suppose, but not fascist.

[Spoke]

Russia under Stalin was a fascist regime

Well, no.

Russia under Stalin was a totalitarian state, and fascist states are totalitarian states, but it does not follow that Russia was a fascist state. (See my last post.) Russia (or the Soviet Union, actually) was a totalitarian, communist state.

[Latro]

Hmm, no.
Where can you find any evidence for communism, except that they called themselves communists. There was no equality, those that belonged to the party held substantially more power than those who did not belong.
Given that they had a one party system and a revered leader, I would say that it was fascist.

[Spoke]

Ah, one of those "the Soviet Union wasn't real communism" types. :rolleyes:

Well, there's the fact that capitalism and free enterprise were not permitted in Russia. That is not the case in a fascist state. (See Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy.)

Once again your logic is flawed. The Soviet Union indeed had a one-party system, and a revered leader. Fascist states also have a one-party system and a revered leader. It does not follow that the Soviet Union was fascist.

[Go alien]

Communism, fascism - both one party kleptocracies with a tin-pot dictator running the show using lots secret police to maintain themselves. The only difference was in the propaganda.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Latro

The apartheid regime could be called an oligarchy, I suppose, but not fascist.

Well, I'd call apartheid era SA a limited representative democracy.

[Latro]

Originally posted by spoke-
Ah, one of those "the Soviet Union wasn't real communism" types. :rolleyes:

Well, there's the fact that capitalism and free enterprise were not permitted in Russia. That is not the case in a fascist state. (See Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy.)

Once again your logic is flawed. The Soviet Union indeed had a one-party system, and a revered leader. Fascist states also have a one-party system and a revered leader. It does not follow that the Soviet Union was fascist.

O.K. there was no free enterprise, that doesn't make it a real communist state.

Free enterprise was done away with, indeed with the communist ideal in mind, long before Stalin took power. He worked with what the Bolsheviks had left for him to use and turned that into a fascist state .
I am not convinced that lack of free enterprise, constitutes enough difference to call Stalinist Russia a communist regime, rather than a fascist. I don't think there can be such a thing as a 'totalitarian-communist state'. Communism is the direct opposite of totalitarian.

Anyway, the point was that the level of oppression wasn't a criterium,
you do agree on that one?

[Spoke]

Oh come on, Latro. Do you seriously think a communist state can exist without devolving into totalitarianism? Name one that has. A communist state pretty much has to be totalitarian. How else can you force people to abandon free enterprise, religion, ownership of property, etc.? Only through a single-party state with total power.

Communism is the totalitarianism of the left. Fascism is the totalitarianism of the right. Fascism is one type of totalitarianism. Communism is another type. Both are totalitarian, but they are not the same thing. The total power of the state is being used to different ends. (And yes, to answer your last question, they are both oppressive.)

[Latro]

I'm not saying that communism is a viable state form. I don't think it is. It relies too much on the good in man. You're right that such a state would, very likely devellop into something else.

But that something else then couldn't be called communism anymore. There has never been a true communist state.

[Beagle]

You Go alien: Communism, fascism - both one party kleptocracies with a tin-pot dictator running the show using lots secret police to maintain themselves. The only difference was in the propaganda. Therein lies a serious answer. Any time power is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, the state takes on the character of the individuals. Communism, fascism - tomato, tomAto. A "dictatorship of the proletariat" is just another dictatorship.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: "Communism is the only system which has been tried, has failed dozens of times, yet has 'never' been tried." -- Me

I wonder why it never works? spoke-: A communist state pretty much has to be totalitarian. How else can you force people to abandon free enterprise, religion, ownership of property, etc.? Only through a single-party state with total power. That's about right.

[vivalostwages]

Originally posted by spoke-
SNIP

To get an idea of what a futuristic fascist state might look at (well, if it were attacked by giant alien bugs, anyway), rent Starship Troopers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. For what the filmmakers claimed was a satire of that sort of state, it sure came off looking like propaganda in favor of the fascist/militaristic state.
Scary website, too, with music to match. www.starshiptroopers.com