What is more intrinsic to fascism: a strong government with weak individual liberties, or extreme social conservativism?
Nationalism combined with strict conformity. A hierarchy where critics are branded as treasonous. The type of government is inconsequential. Fascism combines elements of liberalism and conservatism with the overarching goal of enforced conformity.
Two things. First, widespread poverty and people fearing for their livelihoods. And second, when the people and democratically-elected body become too complacent and allow too much power to slip out of their hands. Many mistake legal power for power, the two are not the same; real power is structural. You put all the power into the hands of the executive during a time of crisis and the executive might just seize the power. Many leaders who later turned dictator tried to silently purge the leadership of the military and intelligence before they openly consolidated power, by then there was no one to stop them. In fact, often times the laws were already in place that could allow the executive to rule by decree, all the dictator had to do was to prevent those laws from becoming rescinded (not that difficult).
Hard to tell what you are asking. Fascism starts as a merger of govt and big business in which the 2 work together for their common interests, but as the power of the govt grows, business becomes the pawn of the govt. In both 1920's Italy and Germany, both countries were poor and weak. Mussolini and Hitler were both strong leaders and excellent speakers who were able to take advantage of the situation - a weak government, weak economy, and disgruntled population disgusted with the current political leaders and policies. Each leader first built a very strong base of support in their population, then built their respective governments into formidable powers.
Fascism, is the term the left calls others when they don't like someone, or want to shut down debate. The term can be interchangeable with racism, or nazi, or Far right Like for example "You hurt my feelings, you'r a fascist". Or "you believe in protecting your life, so you're a fascist". In honesty fascism really depends on which side of the fence you're on. If you're on the Left it means far right. and if you're on the right, it means far left. Perfect example is Hitler was a socialist (he even said so himself), however the left are so embarrassed to associate with him, they has disowned Hitler and the Nazis saying it had nothing to do with socialism, when it clearly does (it's even called national socialism). They have even gone as far as to say he is far right.
First, authoritarism and nationalistic militarism. Fascism works like an army camp. I's say the second defining trait is the economic aspect: They steer the private entreprise into collaboration instead of competition. That made the success of Fascism before WWII; "With Mussolini, the trains are on time". Fascism is a peculiar mix of left-wing strong governance and right-wing social values, positionning them more at the center of the simplified political spectrum. I also take Mussolini as the Fascist reference rather than, say, Hitler.
Which aspect is more fundamental to fascism: the super-strong government playing a heavy role in the lives of the people, or just being very socially conservative? Yes, the question is: which is more critical to fascism? Maybe phrasing it like this might help: which of the following is more fascist, 1) a government which holds and exercises the authoritarian power that the Nazis did but which isn't socially conservative, or 2) a government which does not hold the authoritarian power that the Nazis did, but which is extremely socially conservative?
Fascism by definition holds authoritarian power, so your #1 is true, and #2 is irrelevant. Social conservatism by itself has almost nothing to do with fascism.
Social Conservatism is actually not very characteristic of fascism, contrary to popular belief. Technically, fascism is a upper-centre political ideology. Essential to its belief system is the idea of authoritarianism, nationalism, survival of the fittest, and militarism. Take it from me, social conservatism is not really that fascist, even if it attracts majority right wing voters.
"Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." - Good 'ol Addie "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative". - Good 'ol Addie Economically, Hitler wanted private companies, but only support their privatisation if it benefited the country's efforts. If it did not, he would see to it that they where whipped back into shape. Socialists would just absorb that company, and make it government funded.
During the 1920's and 30's fascism was the rage of the world, is was very popular. Most people in Europe and America were saying fascism might be the way to go. Mussolini got the trains running on schedule in Italy and even Joseph Stalin was empressed that Hitler took Germany from being the biggest basket case in the world to being a prosperous nation. Even FDR tried following Hitlers examples with the the NRA (National Recovery Administration) and creating the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) Except Hitler built the autobahn while FDR built hiking trails. But as history has shown us, “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out."
I'd say the strong central governance... but it's still very far from fascism. All modern nations have rather large governance. Show me a country with little central government and I'll show you a third-world cesspool of corruption.
This depends on what you're asking me: My formulation of Fascism in the 21st century? Or Fascism as it was known by its father(Mussolini) and it's distinct cousin in Nazi Germany? If you're asking me about my formulation of Fascism, I've always stated that every government is authoritarian in nature: IE: Every government is bestowed with authority. A government that isn't, is anarchist. Mr. Sweden basically had this huge argument with me before, and I'm not inclined into it again. Because people won't agree. But it's like saying a police officer without a badge is NOT a police officer. He's a police officer as long as he's legally recognized as one. What you want to ask me, is about the degree of civil liberties. As for the US particularly, I hold that the degree of civil liberties isn't so much changing, as the way we use our civil liberties. Our civil liberties cannot take priority over the need of the Nation. It is the Nation which ensures and enriches these civil liberties, and therefore it is the Nation that must take priority. Think of Fascism as a tenant who finally realizes that people are crashing into his place(country) and it's time to pay dues and rents. America, for far too long has been politically and financially abused by those who call themselves Americans(both at the top and bottom), and yet contribute so very little to the country. In short, what HailVictory said: In the ideal world, individual and State would work together in components, to realize the greater good of the mission. In this sense, virtually very little would change at all. In fact, removing the bickering and politicization that creates winners and losers, would enable a stronger America for it. The Fascist State wishes to utilize the components of everything from farming to industry, to the betterment of every single unit in the country. As long as the country maintains its order and discipline, the so-called "authoritarian state" doesn't have to do anything. It's a mistake that people make, to presume that Hitler/Mussolini wanted to micromanage everything. If so, they wouldn't have created subdivisions in many areas.
I think it's all just definitions and rhetoric. Some of the countries with the strongest individual liberties are the poorest countries on the planet. Their people are perfectly free to eek out a subsistence living and do whatever else they want while the very few elite surround themselves with bodyguards, build palaces, and take whatever they please.
I really like this post, because it illustrates the point. The purpose of a government, any government should be to ensure the quality of its living(and the quality of the residents in it.) How it goes about this, doesn't really matter. As long as it's achieved. No system is perfect, and no system perfectly fits any country. As Americans know all too well from our failure in the ME. The problem with overly Liberal countries is that liberties taken in excess end up diluting resources faster. Certain "rights" are granted to individuals and groups, not out of rhyme or reason or any basis at all, but self interest. These self-interested people, have put in "political puppets", who they themselves are also politically self-interested. As the Founders professed with the downfall of Greece, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whom to have what for dinner. As a result, democracies always die leaving a need for a new foundation. The Fascist State, as an Organic State would not only build pillars, but sustain them over the long run. Whereas conservatism struggles to even refurnish the pillars, and because of conservative's stubbornness, they're even ineffective at being a counter to Liberalism, and thus managing change in an appropriate speed(as the original political theory stipulated). There's this misplaced fantasy, that needs to finally be debunked, that the Fascist State was a military state. If so, all States would be military states. Mussolini was far less aggressive than Hitler, only wanting to go to war in 1942, and he seized power in 1922. What was happening in that 20 year vacuum? Building his Fascist Italian state. If a state that arms its military state is Fascist, then all states are again Fascist by definition. It's the conservative motto "peace through strength" or as Mussolini coined it "A real peace with respect to diplomatic realities".
Third world cesspools of corruption? You mean like this place? The UAE, according to the World Bank, has the 6th highest gdp/capita. And it's tax burden, as reported by the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, is at 6.1%. I mean, I could have just pointed out that correlation is not causation, but I figured why not just show that prosperity does not require a large government?
It isn't a third-world country, but it is a cesspool of corruption and abuse. Would you rather live there?
ah. I won't quibble over it or ask you to provide citation. As I've already said, correlation is not causation, and you're still relying on it being so. This is irrelevant. It's like trying to tell someone that if they really think it's wrong to drone innocent people then they should just move.
No, I wasn't saying "If ya don't like it here then git tha hell back to middle'eest"; I was saying "would you rather live in such a governed country than in, say, the United States". Althought it isn't technically "fascism" (althought absolute monarchy comes close), UAE is quite authoritarian.
Oh come on. "identical" and "like" are different words. In regards to economic policy and the level of government burden placed on the economy? Absolutely. uh, yeah... not really. Just because it's central government has a lot of power, doesn't mean it is using it. Economically, the UAE is about as far away from authoritarian as it gets.
As long as you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about freedom of speech, press, religion, association, personal privacy, Due Process, human rights, Fascism is just grand!!!!! Communism, Fascism, Sharia, Absolute Monarchy, they are all evil. the best form of government is what most Western states have, that is a Social Democracy aka Social-Market economy, with a representative form of government.
Fascism is about a strong central gov't and weak individual liberties. Hitler and Mussolini were both involved with "social programs". Moi r > g View attachment 42727 Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
You can't dissociate the economics and social aspects of a given territory - they're part of a synergy. The UAE is socially authoritarian, verging on the totalitarian. What's good in earning money if you can't spend it?
Democracy is over-rated. Let's face it; Most people have no idea for what they are voting for. They get stuck on insignificant details. As a result, parties appeal to the lowest common denominator and have a vision of about 4 years. True democracy is mediocracy. People wants games and bread, not balanced budgets and well-planned development. Limited democracy would be better - only give someone the right to vote as soon as that person passes an elector's test, showing that he's got the interest and teh knowledge to do so. And anyway, have you seen the voting rates of late? What kind of democracy it is when an elected government takes power with 33% of the people, once abstentions are counted for, actually voted for it? And what happens to democracy when all parties are one and the same?
haha!! Southern racists use these "tests" to keep black people from voting. If folks can't vote, they shouldn't have to pay ANY taxes or ANY tolls or ANY fees. They should never be drafted. The most successful nations on Earth, are democracies.
