Is fascism that bad?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a hard-core liberal democrat. But it seems to me that compared with other authoritarian systems out there, fascism wasn’t completely horrible, and that fascism’s “good” name was destroyed by association with Naziism, which, while adopting several portions of fascism, added the obviously evil racialism to it.

Is racialism an inevitable outgrowth of fascism? Was Mussolini-style (pre-German alliance) evil? Whatcha think?

Sua

Its fine until they drag you out into the street and shoot you for talking bad about the government. If you got someone in power that doesn’t abuse his position, then fascism can work, but anyone who would want to be in charge of a fascist government is going to abuse their power, so it is inheriently flawed.

Racialism is not an outgrowth, but works well with it. Mussolini solved alot of problems, he got rid of unemployment (by putting everyone in the army…), he helped mobilize the country, but he was off his rocker and decided to go play real-life Risk. Some people in Italy knew war was coming, and knew they’d have to lose it in order to get rid of the guy.

I’m not surprised that an admitted hard core liberal finds fascism attrative.I find absolute liberalism to be completely fascised. Liberals want to run every aspect of our lives telling us what to think, how to raise our kids, protecting us from ourselves (seat belt/helmet laws)who we can and cannot hate, what to think, what kind of products we’re allowed to own, etc, etc.:mad:

Fascism, whether it be from the left or right, is bad because it denies a human being his natural yearning to live free and do & think as each individual feels is best for himself, not what some leader or group thinks is best.
Fascism enslaves the masses either in body or mind, or both.

Please. Let’s not go there.

“Conservatives are fascist because they want to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body - they want to tell me what I can and can’t watch on TV, and what kind of music is ‘appropriate’ for my children - they want the right to ‘state-sanctioned murder’ - etc.”

We can toss up these arguments until the cows come home and the only thing it’ll prove is that liberals think conservatives are wrong and conservatives think liberals are wrong.

Good call, Jack. Before too many people start trotting out that tired anti-liberal shit, let’s make something clear.

Nowhere in the OP do I see Sua saying that fascism is in any way attractive.

Thanks for the defense, andros and jack.

pkbites - have you any knowledge of what “liberal democracy” means? Didn’t think so. The U.S. and all of Western Europe are properly defined as “liberal democracy” - the term means a (representative) democratic form of government with safeguards to protect minority POV’s from oppression by the majority. In the U.S., we call it the Bill of Rights.

And FTR, my political beliefs are that of a classic (19th Century) liberal - minimal government involvement in the daily and economic life of the population, so as to extend as far as possible the individual’s sphere of autonomous action. In the U.S., we are sometimes referred to (inaccurately) as “neo-conservatives” - yet another example of U.S. politics botching the meaning of words.

Since the point of this thread obviously went WOOOOOSSHING over your head, I’ll use small words to explain. There are gobs of authoritarian systems out there, but only three have devolved into curse words - Naziism, Fascism, and Communism. My question is - does fascism deserve to be lumped in with the other two?

It doesn’t mean I like fascism. My point is - when was the last time someone insulted you by calling you an “absolute monarchist”?

Now take a deep breath, pk, and try your answer again.

Sua

It’s not that Fascism got a bad rap, but that Communism somehow managed to avoid it, at least in the minds of many in the West. You’re right in that Fascism does not always lead to racial genocide - at its base, it’s simply a philosophy that the state has pre-eminence in deciding the course of society and the affairs of men. There have been a number of fascist governments, including Spain and Italy, and today there is a Fascist government in Turkey.

The dictionary difference between Fascism and Communism is that in a Fascist society the means of production remain in private hands, but control over them is exercised by the state. In a Communist society, the means of production are owned by the state, and there is no private ownership.

But that’s a trifling difference. Both Fascists and Communists are totalitarian, both believe that the rights of individuals are subordinate to the state, and both inevitably trample all over their citizens.

I think what pkbites was getting at is that the liberal regulatory society we are becoming has a lot more in common with Fascism than with Communism. Modern liberals don’t want the state to own everything, but they do want the state to be able to exercise control over more and more aspects of our economic lives.

Heh, this question reminds me of an old Star Trek episode (“Patterns of Force”) Admittedly, the severely misguided John Gill started out with Naziism, not just generic fascism.

OK, seriously, I (unlike pkbites) do understand the point of the original post. I’d join in in pointing out that any fascist system has a potential for corruption stemming from their lack of checks on whoever is Duce. I’m also not sure that any fascistic system could permit freedom of speech and free press and other things I hold dear. (I can imagine a benevolent laissez-faire dictator, who doesn’t hold elections and who makes all of the decisions by himself which would normally be made by elected representatives in a democratic republic, but who voluntarily refrains from censorship or interfering with other personal liberties, but I don’t know if that would qualify as “fascism” per se. Of course, the problem of finding a sufficiently benevolent dictator who can be trusted not to exceed the proper bounds of government would still apply.) I think fascism also implies a certain amount of centralized state control (but not ownership) over economic affairs, probably to a greater extent than would be wise. I’d also point out that democracy (allowing the adult citizens of free country to have the ultimate say-so in their own governance) has value in addition to simply being a way to guarantee social stability or personal liberty. Finally, I think even generic fascism had a strong nationalist component, which would make it very easy to slip into some sort of racism or chauvinism, potentially leading to the sort of atrocities found in Naziism. (I think Milosevic’s Serbia was kind of fascistic, and we saw where that lead.)

All that said, I’m not sure that generic fascism by itself would inevitably lead to the sort of mass killing that Naziism and Communism do. (We could also have a whole separate debate about Communism: was it Leninist Communist, or Stalinist-corrupted Leninist Communism, which led to mass murder? Personally, I’m inclined to think Leninism itself was pretty corrupt, but it’s certainly a topic which gets debated a lot.)

Sam Stone – I think you’re giving pkbites too much credit with regards to having understood the question.

Slight hijack, but it seems to me that any political philosophy (i.e., any great “ism”) has more than one aspect.

First, there is the general philosophy and values.

Then, there are the details - the government practices that are associated with that philosophy; the specific laws that are passed, etc.

I know it’s a cliche, but often the devil is in the details.

Well, I think another problem is that most people have a poor definition of “fascism.”

But they have a very well developed connotation, which is closely associated with Naziism and despotic authoritarianism.

But as I understand it, that is not what fascism is really about. Perhaps someone with a better historical or analytical understanding that is provided by a dictionary entry can enlighten us.

Well, I frankly don’t think it’s that well-developed of a term; even if you leave out its use as a general ephitet (“The board moderators are a bunch of fascists!” “No, it’s the trolls who are fascists!”), it’s been used to cover a lot of different political systems. However, the Britannica notes that

Just reading up on its philosophical basis from the Britannica article, I’d have to maybe strengthen my skepticism of fascism leading to anything good. I think its rejection of individualism, its glorification of the state, and its explicit reliance on force and violence would inevitably lead to a pretty bad outcome–maybe not the Holocaust, but this isn’t some semi-benevolent dictatorship like Atatürk’s Turkey (which shared many features with fascism–nationalism, statism, and a “strong leader”–but doesn’t seem to have the philosophical basis and, I don’t know, style of later, self-identified fascists). A semi-fascist regime like Atatürk’s might have at least some redeeming features, but a full-blown, self-conscious fascist state is likely to be pretty nasty.

According to my dictionary (DoubleDay, 1975), fascism is “any authoritarian system of government characterized by state economic control, militaristic nationalism, propaganda, and the crushing of opposition”.

authoritarian - not inherently bad, but not most people’s cup of tea

state economic control - a characteristic of any authoritarian government … i’m not sure why they included it in the definition

militaristic nationalism - i am not a fan of nationalism … i believe it leads to racism, intolerance, and wars

propaganda - bad because it usually involves some type of deceit

crushing of opposition - very bad … no one with a dissenting opinion is allowed to be heard

So, in conclusion, i would say that yes, fascism is a pretty evil form of government and it would probably spur racism.

I also think it’s humourous that someone in this thread said that liberals were fascists. In another thread i read in the Pit earlier today, someone else said that liberals were unpatriotic (which, if you weren’t paying attention, is an opposite quality of fascism). There’s nothing like a little knee-jerk partisan slamming.

Well, the way authoritarianism is often characterized (especially when it’s being contrasted with totalitarianism), it could include a dictator or oligarchy who ruled without any outside checks and who tolerated no political dissent, but who were willing to leave people’s economic affairs alone as long as they didn’t make any political waves.

Since no less an authority than Mussolini characterized fascism as “totalitarian” (in fact, he seems to have invented the term), I’d say that’s another black mark for fascism.

I’ve always thought of authoritarianism as a political philosophy rather than a form of government. It’s opposite of libertarianism on the 4-way compass, with liberalism and conservatism on the other two spokes. An authoritarian government is just one that doesn’t allow much individual or economic freedom. It’s possible for an authoritarian government to be democratic (although usually it isn’t).

Although looking at the definition of authoritarian in my dictionary (and at dictionary.com), it seems to suggest the same philosophy as a modern day conservative (with a hint of tyranny thrown in). Considering that, my dictionary’s definition of fascism makes a bit more sense. I guess it’s pretty hard to argue the finer points of political systems unless you first agree what the actual systems are.

Note that Mussolini seriously considered allying with France and Britain rather than Germany.

If he had done that, Hitler would have invaded, giving Mussolini the aura of the underdog - and after the war the allies would have restored him to power and Italy might still be Fascist today!

Interesting alternate history.

He’d also have made the SDMB run on time! :smiley:

If you want an example of a Fascist state the allies supported during WWII look at The KMT in China. They were more Facist then the Japanese.

I would say that even among authoritarian Governments Fascism is worse. Not only do they crush all disenting oppinions but their Militaristic leanings make this form of government the most dangerous. It creates rougue states who threaten the peace (Much like Germany, and Italy in the 30’s)

Fascism is the bastard child of the aristocratic principle… at its core is the belief that people can be divided into two classes, the leaders and the led. Some people, by virtue of their innate drive, intellect, or general Uebermensch-ness, are suited to being in charge. The rest of us should just let them take over and do what they tell us, since they will obviously make better decisions about how to run things than we would.

Obviously, it’s not intrinsically a racist philosophy; equally obviously, it lends itself rather easily to a racist interpretation. It also lends itself to moral relativism; whatever the Glorious Leader wants to do is “right” by definition, since the Glorious Leader is better than everybody else. This causes problems when Glorious Leader is a psychopath…

The central problem with it is that, well, there aren’t two easily divisible classes of people. You can’t pick out a single group who are intrinsically skilled at governing. “Being in charge” is not a single skill, it’s dependent on numbers of different qualities, and someone can be very skilled in some of them (Hitler was a great orator), but suck at others (Hitler was lousy at delegating authority).

From what I’ve seen, the closest thing to successful modern fascist state is Singapore. Although the current leadership is fairly benign, as long as you don’t want many political freedoms, the long-term future for this kind of political setup is pretty dismal. Also, Singapore serves as a bad example for mainland China, since it gives them an inflated idea that they can have economic prosperity within an authoritarian state.

I think fascism is an outgrowth of conservativism. It’s certainly a deliberate rejection of liberalism, which emphasizes that human beings are rational, independent actors who are self-governing. It shares with conservativism, at least, the idea that human beings are part of an organic society, and I think that’s why conservative parties backed the fascists in Italy, Spain, and Germany.