Yes, I know how the word comes from Fascio, a bundle or group of political powers (Mussolini and his group). But why is it always associated with Racism and Fear? I realize that Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were Fascist and were not good people, but some of the ideas like strong national control of the economy, and strong national idenity can begood, epecially for a new/recovering country. Does this always lead to a dictatorship and violence? Why does it seem that racism is always an integral part of fascism? Is it because the government looks for something to unite the people, so they choose an ethnic group that they can all focus on and make them scapegoats so they don’t see the real problem? Also is it possible to have a left leaning Fascist state? I in no way condone what past leaders of Fascism stood for and did, but am looking for an answer. I am not too clear on this subject, and woudln’t mind some websites explaining what it Fascism really is, and why it is bad.
I think a single point of view in a large, complex society is always going to be insufficient. Most systems benefit from feedback. Putting so much under the control of a system that’s so resistant to external refinement seems like a bad idea, whether you’ve got a homicidal short guy in charge or not.
Because absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Take a look at Singapore. You might be able to call that a benign fascist state.
I think one thing that always happens when you have something like strong national control of the economy is that no matter how good your planners are, they will eventually make a mis-step. Recovering from that mis-step will usually be much longer and more painful than a more market oriented economy.
For one thing, it’s not respectful of human rights, or human freedom. In a fascist state, the individual is seen as the servant of the state, instead of the state as the servant of the individual. Personally, I think this is a bad thing.
Fascism is more than just a theory about what the government should do. It’s a sort of political philosophy that preaches that the good of the nation is the only thing that matters, and dictates that people should view the world around them and live their lives according to this principle. The problem with the philosophy of fascism is that it leads to the conclusion that the leader(s) of the nation are always correct, and that everybody should do what they are commanded without questioning. Thus, there’s no method for holding the leader(s) accountable for what they do, which tends to be an invitation for corruption.
Also, it’s possible to have a strong national identity without using the philosophy that a single life is worthless.
Fascism (like Communism) requires the individual to give up freedom and individual decision for the good of the State, and in turn receives instructions to execute. Unfortunately, the wise leaders are never wise enough to run a country well, and even if they don’t fail, the end result isn’t better than what could be acchieved in a less rigid system. Singapore (if we can call it fascistic, which IMO we can’t) does work, but would it really work worse if it was a normal democracy? Japan works, South Korea works… Singapore could do well, too.
Also, as with communism, fascism is associated with the worst excesses of power misuse in history. They are almost always built on a scapegoat who are then destroyed for “the common good”.
In theory, there is nothing wrong with a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is that such a system depends on the goodwill of those in power, with no recourse short of revolution, to address grievances.
Democracies are also subject to corruption of those in power, but at least the people have a non-violent means of addressing the issue.
Part of the semantic reasons not covered by your statement is that, simply put, Fascism entails more than a strong state. Mussolini’s precurser’s coined the word Fascism off the idea of the Roman Fasces. Hence, Fascism is associated with those who created it.
[list=1]
[li]Historically, Fascist states kill a large number of their own citizens.[/li][li]Laws under this system are arbitrary, capricious, and can change overnight without warning.[/li][li]If the Leader decides that all members of a given group must die to protect the State, & you are a member of that group but uninvolved in any anti-State activities, it is unlikely any individual attention will be paid to your case.[/li][li]If your parents, or even your grandparents, even if they are dead, were members of the above group, you may be arrested or killed.[/li][li]Given all of the above, minding your own business & keeping your nose clean won’t neccessarily keep you out of trouble.[/li][li]There is usually no system of judicial appeal, because the State is placed above the individual. If you are arrested because of an error, you’re stuck.[/li][li]Art & literature are censored in the intrests of the State.[/li][li]Since the State’s intrests are paramount over your own, your ability to speak freely in public or in forums such as this will be severely curtailed.[/li][li]Throughout history, national leaders have rarely been regarded as insane, except retrospectively. If one man has absolute authority, the odds of some very bad things happening go way up.[/li][li]There would be no Straight Dope, because our beloved Cecil Adams would be too busy running the Resistance.[/li][/list=1]
Given time & coffee, I’m sure I could think of more reasons.
The leader is always right because he is the leader…and the leader is ALWAYS right.
There’s nothing wrong with Fascism that a little Communism won’t fix.
Marc
I think your problem with fascism starts right here. The idea of nationalism as a healthy phenomena is a little dated, don’t you think? Fascism rose from the smoldering fires of the European struggle for separate national unity that took off in a real way in the 16th century and led to a number of disasters with its first culmination in the Thirty Years War and the second in WWI. This in turn led to the gigantic crash of 1939. Nationalism rocks! The seven main perps in the game i.e. France, England, Russia, China, Sweden, Germany and Japan have managed to wipe out well over 150 million people before their time while playing it. If we do that often enough one thing is at least certain; Malthus can rest in peace.
Post that the litmus test on nationalism in the first half of the 20th century came out sour, we have dismantled colonialism, Europe is being united, South East Asia is trying to tear down the cultural barriers to trade and prosperity, the nastiness in Moscow has failed, China is opening its borders after about 1200 years and one of the strongest current political struggles is the one for Globalism. Don’t know were to fit a fascist state into that mix, do you?
Sure, we still have a long way to go and the EU and the US could certainly do better and continue to set good examples instead of quibbling over trade barriers, tariffs and other isolationist crap. As the say; Rome wasn’t built in a day.
But hey except for that, I can see great advantages with Fascism, it usually has a real positive effect on fashion, you just got to love your uniforms.
Sparc
PS Although it is remotely correct to bunch them all together as fascists, Hitler was a Nazi, which is slightly different in as much as that the focus is on ‘race’ rather than nation and that the anti-Semitic element forms the central pillar of this specific abomination of an ideology. Hitler equated ‘race’ and country to the point of absolute confusion. DS
Fascism is an awful system founded on a simplistic notion of unity. As someone pointed out, the only recourse for change in such a society is bloody revolution. It also presupposes the sound judgment of an absolutist leader, a ridiculous assumption, in my opinion. The sort of people who’d want to be a fascist leader are precisely the sort of unbalanced individuals you wouldn’t want running a country.
Democratic systems have given us more peace, freedom, and prosperity than any other system attempted. I don’t think that’s an accident. And the general health of our societies tends to ebb and flow with the health of our democracies. I don’t think that’s an accident either.
The real question is, why should unity be so highly valued? I prefer a society where you and I can disagree, and neither one of us has to kill the other.