[Jackal]

IMO my view represents real world fascism (I really don't like that term) or authoritarianism, as actually practiced in the greatest states, whereas yours reminds me of Roehm--idealistic, perhaps, but naive.

Hardly, you have already downplayed two "authoritarian" governments earlier in this thread. If anyone is making an effort to use real world examples against ideas, it is you.

In fact that's the way it's always been, and for a very good reason. The goal of fascism/authoritarianism is to maximize state power, and to achieve that, the individual must sacrifice, in terms of material wealth as well as perogatives. For a state to have many tanks, for example, its people can't have many cars.

Of course an individual must sacrifice but this does not mean a state cannot have a high standard of living. I would say Nazi Germany in particular would have had developed a standard of living for its citizens that would have rivaled that of the United States if they did not cause World War II and/or had won. The problem is that no regime has lasted long enough to base this off of.

No way. Serious authoritarian systems--those bent on aggressive statism--tended to have low standards of living compared to advanced democracies in particular. Hitler insisted that wages be kept low, and soviet workers worked long hours for very little in the thirties.

The standards of living in Nazi Germany was the same, if not just slightly worse, than in the United States during the time period. The reason Nazi Germany kept wages low was an answer to coming out of the Great Depression (in which the USA instituted its own policies). As a result, there was less unemployment in Nazi Germany than there was in the United States, so everyone had a job so that they can purchase food.

[starman2003]

Of course an individual must sacrifice but this does not mean a state cannot have a high standard of living.

Like having your cake and eating it too. Sure, people can have a decent standard of living in a sacrificial system, but a high one? It would be oxymoronic.

I would say Nazi Germany in particular would have had developed a standard of living for its citizens that would have rivaled that of the United States if they did not cause World War II and/or had won. The problem is that no regime has lasted long enough to base this off of.

There's the USSR. Long after it won, it engaged in rivalry with the west (militarily and in space) which was economically very costly, hence required great sacrifice on the part of ordinary Russians. It's likely that, even had the reich won in the sense of withstanding its enemies and forcing them to accept its existence and dominance over much of europe, it would've had pretty much the same priorities and policies.

The standards of living in Nazi Germany was the same, if not just slightly worse, than in the United States during the time period.

Na, Americans (for one thing) were far more likely to have cars. This impressed German POWs arriving here; even before the war, adolf thought of the VW to provide a supposedly practical way for Germans to have cars like americans. The US had way more land and natural resources than the reich and US standard of living mirrored this.

The reason Nazi Germany kept wages low was an answer to coming out of the Great Depression (in which the USA instituted its own policies). As a result, there was less unemployment in Nazi Germany than there was in the United States, so everyone had a job so that they can purchase food.

Na, basically the idea was to ensure maximum emphasis on State goals rather than individual ones. If workers received high pay, they'd blow it on cars, so the state couldn't build as many tanks as it needed for blitzkrieg. (The reich workers never did get their VWs ) The nazi slogan "The common interest before self" and Goering's slogan "guns before butter" were indicative of the prevailing spirit and priorities.

[Jackal]

Na, basically the idea was to ensure maximum emphasis on State goals rather than individual ones. If workers received high pay, they'd blow it on cars, so the state couldn't build as many tanks as it needed for blitzkrieg. (The reich workers never did get their VWs
) The nazi slogan "The common interest before self" and Goering's slogan "guns before butter" were indicative of the prevailing spirit and priorities.

You have sources on this?

And you are referring to the war-time economy of Germany. I am quite sure that the war-time economy of the United States produced far more military equipment than they did cars (or at least relative to production before).

[starman2003]

You have sources on this?

Quite an old one--Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

And you are referring to the war-time economy of Germany. I am quite sure that the war-time economy of the United States produced far more military equipment than they did cars (or at least relative to production before).

The key difference was that the reich was on a war footing before conflict actually started. Any dope can accept major sacrifices in an obvious emergency, but this is difficult before conflict (or other crisis) actually begins, in a democratic system.

[SpaciousBox]

Good discussion. I find both the questions and answers intriguing in both their ideology and straight up honesty. One slight issue that I see as over looked however is the continued right to rule of the state. If you block people from leaving, then surely those ideologically opposed to the fascist regime would simply end up causing trouble? In a hypothetical scenario that a fascist government were to be elected in the UK, I would imagine most people would just go about their lives, assuming the status quo was not too upset. It’s when you start implementing eugenics (or I guess if you were to have seized power, rather than been elected democratically) that people like me form militias against you. From here you end up either losing control of your population as they rebel, or having to enforce such an incredibly strict regime that very little actual nationalism ever grows. Slaves in their own homes, if you will, who certainly don’t like the state.

I find the idea of willing Fascism very interesting however. It had not quite crossed my mind that Fascism – just as any other leadership based ideology – would be looking to actually create a state where its citizens were happy, and willing participants in the continued expansion and growth of the new nationalist state. If this is the sort of system you are looking for, then surely allowing those to leave who do not want to be there is efficiently winning you control of the land without any overly drastic measures. The problem I see with this however is when your left with a very small percentage of the population, as everyone else moves away for protection, or rights, or whatever values the fascist regime has repealed. Even if your running of the state would make it a better state, do you honestly believe people would allow you to try? Or is the establishment of willing fascism only done with the next generation – who you indoctrinate into the ideology.

It does however come back to the main question I’ve always wondered about these sorts of ideologies. What exactly gives the Fascists the right to rule? Sure, if the occupants of the state enjoy their new regime then you are set for life. But it seems far more likely to me that people - especially in this day and age – would be less inclined to join the ranks of the new order, whichever method you pick. You may have their kids, but generally that still leaves you with the problem of the present generation, and so brings us back to your right to rule them. I should also point out that this question is not related to how good the new state would be, as generally that isn’t taken into account in a populations decision to accept or reject.

[starman2003]

Good discussion. I find both the questions and answers intriguing in both their ideology and straight up honesty. One slight issue that I see as over looked however is the continued right to rule of the state. If you block people from leaving, then surely those ideologically opposed to the fascist regime would simply end up causing trouble?

Not if there are sufficient means to control them. Fascists and communists were pretty good at that.

In a hypothetical scenario that a fascist government were to be elected in the UK,

I can't see that happening, there or here. IMO only a severe crisis, beyond the capacity of current institutions to deal with, can do it.

I would imagine most people would just go about their lives, assuming the status quo was not too upset. It’s when you start implementing eugenics (or I guess if you were to have seized power, rather than been elected democratically) that people like me form militias against you. From here you end up either losing control of your population as they rebel, or having to enforce such an incredibly strict regime that very little actual nationalism ever grows. Slaves in their own homes, if you will, who certainly don’t like the state.

The nazis had eugenics without inordinate resistance if any. A eugenics policy tends to target people who are relatively defenseless. Retards don't make good militiamen. They may have supporters among family etc but....you see the point.

I find the idea of willing Fascism very interesting however. It had not quite crossed my mind that Fascism – just as any other leadership based ideology – would be looking to actually create a state where its citizens were happy, and willing participants in the continued expansion and growth of the new nationalist state. If this is the sort of system you are looking for, then surely allowing those to leave who do not want to be there is efficiently winning you control of the land without any overly drastic measures. The problem I see with this however is when your left with a very small percentage of the population, as everyone else moves away for protection, or rights, or whatever values the fascist regime has repealed. Even if your running of the state would make it a better state, do you honestly believe people would allow you to try? Or is the establishment of willing fascism only done with the next generation – who you indoctrinate into the ideology.

Had fascist regimes lacked adequate support, to the point where there would've been a mass exodus, I very much doubt any would've arisen. It is true that a fascist/wholist regime, almost by definition, must be largely unpopular. If it were popular, there would be no need for dictatorship or fascism; the people could be counted on to reelect the regime elite. It is precisely because the masses largely oppose fascist/wholist government and policies that they must be undemocratic and coercive.

It does however come back to the main question I’ve always wondered about these sorts of ideologies. What exactly gives the Fascists the right to rule?

As I see it, only a very small fraction of humanity has much brains and knowledge. If you asked the average American to name the planets of the solar system, he'd bog down after mentioning krypton, where superman comes from. And it's not just intellectual deficiency; by far the worst is unwillingness to sacrifice at a time when it is the key solution to just about everything, from deficits and the environment to space. Saving the country, the world and building a really great future requires that the irresponsible masses be put in their place--by a dedicated elite. IMO the latter will arise and get its chance when the failings of the present system become unbearable.

[SpaciousBox]

Interesting, so to put it in a sentence: No morality, no rights, no values, just pure and simple your view of what the future should be, and the most easiest method of getting there, regardless of the cost.

It's interesting, though somehow I can't quite see it ever coming about. Former fascist governments arose out of populist revolutions. There was no actual fascist ideology on the ground, it was more what ended up happening out of that revolution. Do you see a future where this is likely? In which case would the question of population movement be redundant anyway? For us to overthrow our democratic leaders and establish our own (most likely technocratic, for the purposes of the revolution) establishment then we as the people would need to be in some serious, serious trouble. I couldn't imagine population movement being possible in that level of depravity. Unless of course, you believe Fascism to be an ideology that may make a come back as a respectable, main stream, line of thought?

[starman2003]

It's interesting, though somehow I can't quite see it ever coming about. Former fascist governments arose out of populist revolutions. There was no actual fascist ideology on the ground, it was more what ended up happening out of that revolution.

I'm sure the Italian fascists like the nazis, already had an ideology and knew what they wanted prior to gaining power.

Unless of course, you believe Fascism to be an ideology that may make a come back as a respectable, main stream, line of thought?

I do see the idea of authoritarianism regaining respectability if or when democracy really screws up. It's even possible undisguised fascist movements could gain significant popularity. But I'm not betting on it and we shouldn't press our luck. Fascism is long gone and discredited with too much historical baggage. While a secular authoritarian system (which most people would have no trouble i fascist) is best and IMO inevitable, it had best have a new name, and also reflect 21st century knowledge and circumstances (and thinkers) instead of always harping on Mussolini and mosley etc.

[Social_Critic]

Uhu, so one of you guys wrote:

Allowing people to leave a state also can create problems since they may gain power outside of the state to influence policies towards it.

I left Cuba to escape a pretty lousy situation many years ago, and I do spend quite a bit of time creating problems for the Castroites. So I guess the comment is right, in the sense that we do escape because we don't like it, and we try to put pressure on these autocratic regimes to change.

I would also like to point out that, if I had remained in Cuba, I would probably be dead by now. I'm not exactly Mr Rambo, but there's no way I would have kept my mouth shut, joined the Communist Youth, and gone on to mouth the right baloney in school as I watched the communists (who today are fascists) destroy the country. So in my case the end points were obvious, either they caught me before I did something to them, I did something to them and then they caught me and had me shot, or I got away and did something to them from the outside.

I really don't have much of a solution for those of you who want to install autocracies, dictatorships, or otherwise want to control those of us who don't agree with you by unfair means. We happen to come out of the woodwork, crawl from under the rocks, and eventually, even if we have to wait 100 years, make sure things change. I suppose eventually you may develop a means to control our thoughts, I read recently they are working on machines to read our minds, and they are also working on killer robots and such niceties. But i also suspect those of us who you may wish to call the N'gumi are going to come up with something to turn you back. Or at least I hope so.

[starman2003]

I really don't have much of a solution for those of you who want to install autocracies, dictatorships, or otherwise want to control those of us who don't agree with you by unfair means. We happen to come out of the woodwork, crawl from under the rocks, and eventually, even if we have to wait 100 years, make sure things change. I suppose eventually you may develop a means to control our thoughts, I read recently they are working on machines to read our minds, and they are also working on killer robots and such niceties. But i also suspect those of us who you may wish to call the N'gumi are going to come up with something to turn you back. Or at least I hope so.

It occurred to me that even though communist regimes were stagnant, they might've endured had there been no western or alternative example. The Roman Empire was fairly stagnant but endured a long time, partly because there was no other place with a higher standard of living--the principal motivation for those who leave modern, sacrificial autocracies. If an authoritarian world government of the sort I envisage becomes reality, where will the libertarian die hards go then? Mars? Pluto? There are two problems: first, only an authoritarian system can emphasize space to the degree of colonizing/terraforming other worlds, and an authoritarian world government would certainly beat them to it.
Basically, authoritarian regimes arise because circumstances favor them, so they have enough support. I've long been convinced we live in an age in which real solutions are unpopular; ergo, democracy is essentially unworkable, and there's no alternative but coercive measures. It's not just new technology potentially strengthening authoritarianism. The breakdown of the present obsolete system will ensure it'll have enough support to win.