What can we learn from Fascism?

[Quiddity]

I never said anything about non-democratic systems or non-market economies.

My point was merely that antitrust laws and regulators are a necessity for well-functioning markets, which is a total tangent from the OP, I know and I'm sorry:sorry1: so let's just leave it there.

Actually I agree with you there. But I just believe it should be at a bare minimum. The more you regulate where you shouldn't, the less free the market really is.

 

[PureX]

Hunger?
What economic system gurantees a greed-free society? None that I know of. At least a free market society gives you a chance to beat it. I can't say the same of the more socialistic systems.

A lot of people confuse socialism with communism. Socialism only makes essential products and services community owned. All the rest is still on the free market. And it makes sense. The free market system doesn't work for essential products and services because they buyers can't refuse to buy and this creates monopolies that will then exploit everyone and skew the whole system. But if we let everything that is NOT a necessity be governed by free markets, then when someone tries to exploit the buyer the buyer can go somewhere else, or go without. The fact that he can go without is the crucial difference. It's what keeps mutual greed from running creating ad hoc monopolies.

And really, the essential goods and services are more properly owned by the public, anyway. We should collectively own our electric utilities, and water and sewer systems, etc., as we built and maintained them from the start.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

I suppose I should try and get this back on track, then:

Fascism. Does this ideology, in itself, remain a relevant political philosophy to this day and a legitimate alternative to the current social-democratic system prevalent in most modern nationstates; or has it been, to mangle the musings of an old Trotskyist, consigned to the ash heap of history?

I doubt that Fascism as defined by Mussolini has any modern day relevance. It's hard to actually define fascism because there are hardly any actual "fascists" left now a day to claim ownership of the term, so its' definition is pretty much made by its' opponents. It is therefore applied to any and all sorts of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that don't necessarily strictly fit he bill.

If the former, what lessons, both positive and negative, can such countries learn from the arguments and results of Fascism?

Positive: the trains ran on time.
Negative: pretty much everything else.

Additionally, are there any areas in your nation's social, political and/or economic aspects in which you would like to see Fascist reforms take place?

God spare me! No.

If the latter, how do you explain such a relatively sudden reversal of fortunes?

The Axis lost the war. The ideology was thoroughly discredited. The Italians hung Mussolini, indicating that perhaps they weren't really that keen on the idea after all, despite the trains.

Could a 21st-century Fascist government conceivably successfully embrace a democratic structure,

Like a Communist party, a Fascist party could theoretically be elected, but they wouldn't stay in power very long unless they changed their tune or subverted democracy. Having said that, there are certain elements of fascism that could coexist with democratic institutions, at least for a time. Being in a more or less permanent state of war is helpful.

Finally, within your own country can you imagine a Fascist revolution in the foreseeable future being i) possible

Aha! The meat and potatoes here. Just as Rome transitioned from a Republic to an Empire, it is possible, indeed likely that this country will transition towards a more authoritarian form of government that may incorporate elements of fascism. There are signs it is already occuring. Many of our founding fathers believed that liberty was a temporary condition and that all societies naturally tended towards tyranny over time. They wrote the constitution to prevent this happening. Time will tell just how good a job they did.

should such an incident take place what do you imagine to be the immediate ramifications?

This country defines itself primarily by its ideals. If those ideals are abandoned, it is not clear what will replace them as a source of national identity. Attempts to unify the country around religion, ethnicity or culture will necessarily fail because the country is too diverse. The country would most likely be torn apart by bloody civil wars and tribal savagery.

Swiss bank accounts, anybody?

 

[Quiddity]

A lot of people confuse socialism with communism. Socialism only makes essential products and services community owned. All the rest is still on the free market. And it makes sense. The free market system doesn't work for essential products and services because they buyers can't refuse to buy and this creates monopolies that will then exploit everyone and skew the whole system. But if we let everything that is NOT a necessity be governed by free markets, then when someone tries to exploit the buyer the buyer can go somewhere else, or go without. The fact that he can go without is the crucial difference. It's what keeps mutual greed from running creating ad hoc monopolies.

And really, the essential goods and services are more properly owned by the public, anyway. We should collectively own our electric utilities, and water and sewer systems, etc., as we built and maintained them from the start.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was confusing the two. A socialistic society can only really work if the concensus can agree on the basics. I'm sure that can be done with enough dialogue, but the problem is (for reasons I'm still trying to crunch) that countries set up similar to the US seem to do much better then it's socialistic neighbors. Why is that? (note: this came from my socialistic economic professor).

The truth of the matter is that if you give people a pieace of bread, they will take the whole loaf (not all the time, but more then not). This is the default response. The response is not education and motivation.

 

[PureX]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was confusing the two. A socialistic society can only really work if the concensus can agree on the basics. I'm sure that can be done with enough dialogue, but the problem is (for reasons I'm still trying to crunch) that countries set up similar to the US seem to do much better then it's socialistic neighbors. Why is that? (note: this came from my socialistic economic professor).

The truth of the matter is that if you give people a pieace of bread, they will take the whole loaf (not all the time, but more then not). This is the default response. The response is not education and motivation.

I don't know what criteria your professor is using, but I'm quite certain that if we were to ask the poeple who live in socialist countries how they feel about their quality of life, there, as opposed to capitolist countries, I think we'll find that they are quite happy with their socialist systems. And in fact most of the first-world nations are moderately socialist (nationalized medicine, education, energy, etc., but free markets for all non-essentials).

 

[NuGnostic]

A lot of people confuse socialism with communism. Socialism only makes essential products and services community owned. All the rest is still on the free market. And it makes sense. The free market system doesn't work for essential products and services because they buyers can't refuse to buy and this creates monopolies that will then exploit everyone and skew the whole system. But if we let everything that is NOT a necessity be governed by free markets, then when someone tries to exploit the buyer the buyer can go somewhere else, or go without. The fact that he can go without is the crucial difference. It's what keeps mutual greed from running creating ad hoc monopolies.

I know what you mean,but that ain't quite true,Socialism to use a slightly simplistic definition means the workers own the means of production. This could be through a collective or very,very democratic state or just individually.
Communism on the other hand means a stateless,classless society, run along the maxim of "to each according to his needs,from each according to his ability.".

Btw the Soviet union etc were neither socialist nor of course communist(they never even claimed to be communist.).

 

[Mr. Hair]

I suppose I should try and get this back on track, then:

*smiles*

A fruball-worthy action if ever I saw one!

Positive: the trains ran on time.
Negative: pretty much everything else.

I'd disagree. Fascism certainly was the cause for a lot of 'negatives' for Italy and the Italian people, but for much of the regime's existence it was largely popular and it did bring about a number of benefits and improvements. For example, under Mussolini Italy was able for the first time to develop a strong, central (And for the most part peaceful) national identity, which was characterised by the signing of the Lateran Treaties with the Holy See in 1929. Its often forgotten that in 1922 Italy was a very new and in some ways quite artificial nation, headed by an unsure and unstable democratic government.

It also weathered the effects of the Great Depression with much less fuss then many of the traditional democracies managed, among other achievements.

The Italians hung Mussolini, indicating that perhaps they weren't really that keen on the idea after all, despite the trains.

Much of that lack-of-keenness - *looks hopefully around for a thesaurus* - has been attributed to Italy's poor fortunes during the war and Mussolini's association with the German puppet government post-mid-1943. Unlike most other participating nations, in Italy there was never large-scale support among the public for taking part in the second world war.

While the Fascist administration was not especially popular during the interwar period and it does remain difficult and unwise to attempt absolute statements on how the population at large regarded it, due to the highly charged and potentially intimidatory nature of life within the Fascist society, heavy use of propaganda and the strict censorship laws adhered to, it does appear that a majority at least passively accepted the state of affairs and a significant minority actively supported it. (Although it's somewhat difficult to distinguish between approval for the state in general, and approval for Mussolini in particular)

Mussolini did, after all, continually require the backing of the reigning monarch of that period, as well as Parliamentary and Senate approval, both of which did retain at least a vestige of the previous democratic system. Such support was given until the very dearth of his rule.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't know what criteria your professor is using, but I'm quite certain that if we were to ask the poeple who live in socialist countries how they feel about their quality of life, there, as opposed to capitolist countries, I think we'll find that they are quite happy with their socialist systems. And in fact most of the first-world nations are moderately socialist (nationalized medicine, education, energy, etc., but free markets for all non-essentials).

I'd be curious to see which countries you'd consider socialistic. For sure, not the US, right?

 

[Capt. Haddock]

Mostly peaceful? Always struck me as rather belligerent, actually, but I can see your point about forging national identity in what was a fairly new and "artificial" country.

It also weathered the effects of the Great Depression with much less fuss then many of the traditional democracies managed, among other achievements.

Its' economy was also weaker and less industrial than the traditional democracies, so they had less to lose.

Much of that lack-of-keenness - *looks hopefully around for a thesaurus* - has been attributed to Italy's poor fortunes during the war and Mussolini's association with the German puppet government post-mid-1943.

How likely is it that people would have continued to support it much longer if that hadn't been the case? In any event, like you say, it's not like they really had a choice. When the regime exhibited weakness, its opponents went for the jugular. While it was still strong, most people kept their mouths shut and played along. Sounds like most authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. I grew up in two military dictatorships (in Argentina and Uruguay) and it was the same: most people kept their mouths shut and minded their own business, but only a tiny percentage of the population actually supported them. Most people couldn't wait for the day those b4$74rds fell off a cliff and died, but they were too scared (and not hungry enough) to do anything about it.