[starman2003]

That's not the definition of Fascism...

But a key component, and I meant authoritarian rule by the greatest man is best, regardless of whether a system is technically fascist.

who are your ideological heroes?

Frankly I don't much relate to any of the intellectual antecedents of fascism or its actual leaders. Why look back at that stuff now, a whole century (and a gazillion advances in knowledge) later? We should be devising a new system.

[Figlio di Moros]

You don't think ubiquitous computing or neuroinformatics would have an impact on your "Greatest Man" theory? Why not let society operate as one giant brain? Advances in technology alone increases the need for a wide variety of specialists, why wouldn't a future system require collaboration between various fields and disciplines on an equitable basis? And how would you even determine "the Greatest Man"?

While we're working out practical issues, it doesn't seem you've adjusted to the last ten years, let alone the last thousand.

[mikema63]

I meant authoritarian rule by the greatest man is best

By what measure? I can garuntee you I can find something he's worse at than somebody else, that's why humans have the whole society thing going.

[Poelmo]

I meant authoritarian rule by the greatest man is best

That was never the problem: the problem was selecting the greatest man and his successors. Even the greatest, most just kings usually had an heir who was a monster, or they themselves became senile at old age (and no one wanted to be the one to bring that up), that's one of the major reasons for democracy.

[starman2003]

By what measure? I can garuntee you I can find something he's worse at than somebody else..

I meant in his grasp of the totality of things, the big picture. Of course many people have more knowledge, in highly specialized areas.

[starman2003]

By what measure? I can garuntee you I can find something he's worse at than somebody else..

I meant in his grasp of the totality of things, the big picture. Of course many people have more knowledge, in highly specialized areas.

Even the greatest, most just kings usually had an heir who was a monster...that's one of the major reasons for democracy.

They often had a son who was a monster e.g. Commodus, after Marcus Aurelius. But the solution is meritocratic authoritarianism, not the hereditary system, or democracy.

Why not let society operate as one giant brain?

I believe it was Streiber who indicated alien societies are like that, so maybe...

[AFAIK]

China has term limits and a certain level of meritocratic consideration.

That answer is variable - it depends on your own values and what you hope to see in your ideal society. Fascism is authoritarian - is this a strength of a weakness? Fascism promotes esoterism - is this beneficial or negative?

Your question is meaningless. Learn comprehensively about the ideology, and determine the weaknesses for yourself.

I'm curious what shortcomings, if any, those who self identify as fascists envision.

[Pants-of-dog]

You mean like properly financing infrastructure, R&D, healthcare and education in the '30s? Or do you mean incorporating science into social standards, such as dual-inheritance theory, EvPsych, psychological and biological studies of interethnic differences, MMT, etc? Because, from where I'm standing, not only did Fascism adopt new technologies and better standards above and beyond liberal-capitalism at the time, but our lib-cap hegemony consistently ignores and even demonizes sound science that runs contrary to their ideological goals. This is an assumption that's not only quickly refuted by facts, but the hyprocrisy of the assumption itself laid bare.

There is no historical evidence of this.

In fact, the opposite occurred. The Nazis made up their own science to counteract Einstein's "Jewish physics".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

Such as the attempt to overthrow FDR, or are we talking filibustering? Again, it's a completely false notion, as there's no indication of "palace revolutions" or Fascist state's being less stable at all.

...except Mussolini's untidy end, you mean.

Some prominent members of the Italian Fascist government had turned against Mussolini by this point. Among them were his confidant Dino Grandi and Mussolini's son-in-law Galeazzo Ciano. With several of his colleagues close to revolt, Mussolini was forced to summon the Grand Council of Fascism on 24 July 1943: the first time that body had met since the start of the war. When he announced that the Germans were thinking of evacuating the south, Grandi launched a blistering attack on him.[128] Grandi moved a resolution asking the king to resume his full constitutional powers, in effect, a vote of no confidence in Mussolini. This motion carried by a 19–7 margin. Despite this sharp rebuke, Mussolini showed up for work the next day as usual. He allegedly viewed the Grand Council as merely an advisory body and did not think the vote would have any substantive effect.[129] That afternoon, he was summoned to the royal palace by King Victor Emmanuel III, who had been planning to oust Mussolini earlier. When Mussolini tried to tell the king about the meeting, Victor Emmanuel cut him off and told him that he was being replaced by Marshal Pietro Badoglio.[129] After Mussolini left the palace, he was arrested by Carabinieri on the king's orders.[132]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mus ... d_arrested

Right, such monsters as Pinochet, or are we talking Lincoln's suppression of the writ of habeas corpus, Reagan's Iran-Contra affair, Clinton bombing the Balkans, Obama bombing Libya? Furthermore, the consistent, ongoing destruction of languages, cultures, and heritages throughout the world in the incessant clamor for global markets?

Fascist monsters like Franco:

The first decade of Franco's rule in the 1940s following the end of the Civil War in 1939 saw continued oppression and the killing of an undetermined number of political opponents. Estimation is difficult and controversial, but the number of people killed probably lies somewhere between 15,000 and 50,000 (see above, The end of the Civil War).

Subsequently, Franco's state became less violent, but during his rule non-government trade unions and all political opponents across the political spectrum, from communist and anarchist organizations to liberal democrats and Catalan or Basque separatists, were either suppressed or tightly controlled by all means, up to and including violent police repression. The Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) and the Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT) trade-unions were outlawed, and replaced in 1940 by the corporatist Sindicato Vertical. The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) were banned in 1939, while the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) went underground. The Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) went into exile, and in 1959, the ETA armed group was created to wage a low-intensity war against Franco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_ ... oppression

I'd take more stock in this if liberal democracy wasn't an inherently corrupt system that protects the politics-finance racket with an increasingly worn vaneer of legitimacy. We "elect" our politicians in little districts organized to guarantee certain politicians victory, providing no oversight for the "campaign contributions" (aka bribes) they receive from "lobbyists" (aka, business interests) and no protection against abuse of their power, such as insider trading protections allowing them to invest based on laws they haven't announced yet.

Furthermore, the majority of this country supports gun rights, preventing illegal immigration, and accessible healthcare. What has been our government's reaction? To ignore them and continue on supporting policies that only favor the haute-bourgeoisie, and feign concern "for the will of the people" by telling them what they ought to support and simply pretending they do.

If that isn't "no accountability, no exposure of corruption and failings, and the government falling out of tune with the will of the people", I don't know what the fuck is.

This is not an argument or even a rebuttal. it's just you saying "well those guys do it too!".

You're basically agreeing with Poelmo here.

Yeah, I'll let Rei handle this.

No need. We know Poelmo is correct because people tend to flee from authoritarian countries and try to flee to free ones.

[Fasces]

I'm curious what shortcomings, if any, those who self identify as fascists envision.

I'm opposed to the centralization of state power because it makes tyranny far too easy and tempting for the central administration. It also creates a philosophical difficulty when one attempts to define "nationality", at least in border regions. A decentralized, localized administrative base, with a unitary central administration limited to economic and scientific pursuits would be my ideal. I call myself an integralist for this reason, and am divergent from fascists on this.

This is impractical - modern states cannot function without a significant degree of centralization, and I accept this. Keeping this in mind, I am against the central state apparatus having control of the Armed Forces. They should be autonomous, to keep military power and political power distinct, and to provide a check against the tyranny of the state. The Armed Forces themselves should be composed of as small a professional segment as possible, with conscription being used to bolster manpower during times of need. In addition, having the military composed of the people has three benefits - it maintains a link between the people and military power, it creates a sense of national belonging and community, reinforcing principles of duty and responsibility, and it forces interactions between segments of society that would otherwise not do so.

[starman2003]

This is impractical - modern states cannot function without a significant degree of centralization, and I accept this. Keeping this in mind, I am against the central state apparatus having control of the Armed Forces. They should be autonomous, to keep military power and political power distinct,

Military forces autonomous....politicians must fund them, and the decision to go to war is a political one, to attain political objectives. I don't see the point of being a statesman if he can't even control his nation's armed forces....

and to provide a check against the tyranny of the state.

Nothing wrong with "tyranny" if it is essential to solve pressing problems or meet key challenges. The slavic people owe their survival to Stalinist "tyranny" in the '30s, resulting in rapid industrialization, militarization and a more monolithic state capable of coping with invasion.

The Armed Forces themselves should be composed of as small a professional segment as possible,

That would probably place a great state at a disadvantage relative to others.

with conscription being used to bolster manpower during times of need.

Generals and politicians might define "need" differently..

[telluro]

Fascism was destroyed in the mid 20th century, in part because of the errors of its leaders but mainly just because the fascist nations just happened to be too small in relation to potential enemies to make a quest for hegemonization a great idea. In other words it wasn't authoritarianism that led to defeat; indeed it is remarkable that such relatively small countries as Germany got as far as they did, at first.

I don't think this is entirely correct. Germany is not today a small country and has ample resources and industry to dominate the economy of the European Union. Nazi Germany, particularly at its height, was much bigger and could have done much more.

The reasons why Nazi Germany lost WWII were twofold and related: the first is as Poelmo mentioned characteristic of any one-man rule, wherever one finds it, especially in Hitler's case if he were unstable or had no realistic correlation between the planning maps and the battlefield; and the second, the opening and mismanagement of several war fronts at once.

A more careful winter strategy for the invasion of Russia and the attempt to deal with one enemy before making another might have resulted in a different history.

[pugsville]

Stupidity. There is a strong crank element to fascist leaders, they have vision, but it's based on their gut instincts, and tend to make grand statements and start actions they really have no understanding of. Through the sweep of History, fascist leaders are just remarkable how such men managed to rise to the top at all, why often masterful with national politics they views of world politics are just fantasist without any sort of touch of reality at all.

Corruption. Fascistic governments tend be Government by cronies, normally incredible grasping thugs without any real administrative or Military skills to recommend who tend just take everything they can (which is quite a lot in a fascist nation as they tend to be totally outside the law) , the actual leader is often uninterested in accumulating wealth himself, they tend to select the most venal, incompetent, corrupt nobodies they can find (Perhaps the trick to ooking like you personally are a genius and always right is surround yourself with pretty dumb non-entities, who will booast your ego as long as you let them rape the nation)

[telluro]

Both those qualities exist and to a large extent in other political set-ups as well. Democracy for example did not rid us of stupid leaders. In fact, they are still the norm. And the very fact that it's based on votes and money makes sure that it never gets rid of corruption either.

Also, you'd need to qualify what you mean by corruption in Fascism. You'll note that for example, Fascism in Italy was the only regime that was capable of breaking up the Sicilian Mafia (but not destroyed completely), otherwise ruling openly and uninterrupted between Garibaldi and Berlusconi. Granted, when the incorruptible Iron Prefect (Cesare Mori) revealed Mafia connections in the Fascist Party, he was "given a transfer", but otherwise this story is just not replicable in most liberal democratic regimes, where all politicians are more beholden to the rich than to their voters. It's also a story that tells us at least that Mussolini and the Fascist elite may have been dumb shit, but not so much that important work wasn't delegated to competent individuals.

[starman2003]

Nazi Germany, particularly at its height, was much bigger and could have done much more.

The US, British empire and USSR vastly outstripped nazi resources in men, raw materials and industrial capacity. The US alone had over half of world oil production, the Germans maybe 2%.

The reasons why Nazi Germany lost WWII were twofold and related: the first is as Poelmo mentioned characteristic of any one-man rule,

The Roman Empire and others, did pretty well under one man rule.

wherever one finds it, especially in Hitler's case if he were unstable or had no realistic correlation between the planning maps and the battlefield; and the second, the opening and mismanagement of several war fronts at once.

Both sides goofed at times. An army was lost at Stalingrad; the russians lost many armies. The British got it at singapore and elsewhere. The difference was that the allies had the means to recuperate fully and then some, the reich didn't. Still, their ability to get as far as they did says much about the efficacy of authoritarianism. It's noteworthy, further, that resistance to them wasn't overly impressive until they attacked another totalitarian state.

[Someone5]

I am asking about structural flaws inherent to the system.

Fascism has a fundamental legitimacy problem. Fascist systems don't derive their authority from the consent of the governed (as even monarchies managed with their systems of divine right), rather they build their power on a basis of force, fear, and intimidation. Ultimately fascism has an inherent structural instability stemming from this lack of legitimacy--fascist systems can persist only as long as the groups in power can maintain enough power to keep the rest of the population cowed.

Unfortunately it can only do that by issuing rights to certain groups at the expense of other groups (thereby establishing a ruling coalition of oligarchs), and that internal tension can only be relieved by continual strife (either internal or external). They have a very difficult time adapting to sizable shifts in geopolitical power, changing modes of economic production, resource depletion, and other structural causes of widespread social change. Not to mention the fundamental threat posed by other ideological systems. Democracies solve this problem by developing political cultures where (almost) everyone will accept the result of votes--but genuine fascism can't rely on such mechanisms for very long because the world outside keeps changing and people keep reacting to those changes (thereby causing unavoidable changes in interests among groups that used to be aligned).

In the end, the only stable form of government is one that builds itself from the consent of the governed. That doesn't necessarily have to mean democracies and republics, but that's the prevailing political wind in the modern era.

[pugsville]

Fascism an Absolute Monarchies are very reliant on the character of one man and the people he personally chooses to carry out his will. While corruption and stupidity are problems with all forms of Government and are always present in some way, these forms of gOvernment without any checks of balances or significant power groupings, just have no real way of stopping the stupid and corrupt just going all the way.

[starman2003]

Fascism an Absolute Monarchies are very reliant on the character of one man and the people he personally chooses to carry out his will. While corruption and stupidity are problems with all forms of Government and are always present in some way, these forms of gOvernment without any checks of balances or significant power groupings, just have no real way of stopping the stupid and corrupt just going all the way.

Sure they can get the worst of both worlds, or the best--"absolute power under the guidance of virtue and wisdom" as Gibbon characterized the age of good emperors. A modern totalitarian system is based on a secular ideology. The raisen d'etre of the whole system is to further some grand goal or ideal. That may not preclude corruption or mistakes, but it can help spell an end to those responsible. There have been many examples of authoritarian leaders who were overthrown or assassinated, by those in their own regimes.

[Someone5]

Fascism an Absolute Monarchies are very reliant on the character of one man and the people he personally chooses to carry out his will.

I would point out that fascism can be institutional--while most of them have been dictatorships established within the context of a cult of personality, that isn't actually necessary. And monarchies are definitely not cults of personality, because they pass on over generations.

[starman2003]

I would point out that fascism can be institutional--while most of them have been dictatorships established within the context of a cult of personality, that isn't actually necessary.

Sure they are based on a party and its ideology. Btw on the subject of failings, maybe the present shutdown and possible default will help undermine Fukuyama's thesis and induce more people to question democracy.

[Someone5]

Sure they are based on a party and its ideology.

Okay? A party and its ideology is an institutional thing.

Btw on the subject of failings, maybe the present shutdown and possible default will help undermine Fukuyama's thesis and induce more people to question democracy.

Why? A "government shutdown" has nothing to do with democratic peace theory. If anything the fact that such a thing can happen without a civil war following is evidence in favor of the idea that democracies are better at dealing with problems non-violently.