[Fasces]

How would the central autocracy even figure out what the "national interest" is, in those (many cases) in which there is a conflict between the interests of various groups within society?

The national interest can be defined as the creation and maintenance of an authentic national society that operates in accordance with the internalized values of individuals within the social organism. The creation of the institutions would require a national introspection in which fundamental values are discovered and defined and incorporated into the constitutional basis of that state.

Is it in the "national interest" that the automobile industry remains strong, even if that means that consumers pay more for their car purchases?

Yes.

Your system provides no solution for properly taking consumer priorities into account.

That is because the materialist cult of consumerism is not even a priority - but actively fought. It does not care if people don't have as many MP3 players to choose from and there isn't a new model every year. This cult is damaging to their spiritual wellbeing in the same way the availability heroin is damaging to a recovering junkie.

Again, you are incorporating assumptions into your critique which do not exist in this value system. This being a discussion about the structure of the fascist system, its value system needs to be assumed.

[Eran]

Fair enough. I'll try not to shift the perspective into the liberal, individual-centric one.

Instead, let me try and understand why anybody believes that the authorities (both the central autocracy and the industry-based representatives) will actually pursue the national interest, rather than their selfish self-interests.

What incentives does the central autocracy face that would make it likely that their decisions are, indeed, aligned with the national interest?

[mikema63]

Also you might have said it already but how is the national interest determined?

[Fasces]

Also you might have said it already but how is the national interest determined?

Eran, I'll get back to you in a bit. This question is just easier to stamp out in the few minutes I have.

The national interest, mikema, is the creation of an authentic national society that properly reflects the values internalized by the body politic of a national group. Each national group has different internalized values, meaning each society will look unique.

In the United States, for example, one might be tempted to think of liberal values of having been internalized. Yet words like greed or selfish, despite the best efforts of Gordon Gecko or Ayn Rand, have retained their negative connotations - making it difficult to make the case that these values have been internalized. Others, like individualism, certainly have, and a fascist society in the United States will likely retain a great deal of individual liberty one might not expect in other states.

[mikema63]

Oh well, thats a silver lining I suppose were that to happen.

[starman2003]

a fascist society in the United States will likely retain a great deal of individual liberty....

Sounds oxymoronic. I doubt authoritarianism can exist unless present values are undermined, due to crises and technical transformations. The process may take decades.

[Eran]

That helps, a little.

But we must recognise that national character is far from uniform, either in space or time.

In the case of the United States, for example, blue and red states seem to have very different priorities and values.

In the case of Germany or Japan, the national character during the 1930s appears very different from the current one.

Be that as it may, the big questions to be answered, imo, are:
1. Who determines what constitutes the current national character and/or interest, and what concrete policy decisions accord with that character?
2. What mechanism exists to ensure that such determination is accurate and honest? That it reflects the actual interests and character of the nation, as opposed to a distorted version of the latter, is viewed and understood by political leaders?
3. What mechanism exists to ensure that actual policies accord with that national interest (in actuality, not just rhetorically)?

[starman2003]

Be that as it may, the big questions to be answered, imo, are:
1. Who determines what constitutes the current national character and/or interest, and what concrete policy decisions accord with that character?
2. What mechanism exists to ensure that such determination is accurate and honest? That it reflects the actual interests and character of the nation, as opposed to a distorted version of the latter, is viewed and understood by political leaders?
3. What mechanism exists to ensure that actual policies accord with that national interest (in actuality, not just rhetorically)?

IMO nothing or nobody, in a democracy. In fact we have very strong mechanisms to ensure that the national interest is secondary at best. Lobbies, especially AIPAC, routinely trample on it. Of course, in an authoritarian system the ruling party or leadership decides.

[AFAIK]

I don't think one can find a correlation between democratic governance and less corruption in a system. Singapore is a one-party state, and is ranked fifth on the 2012 Corruption Perception Index.

Politicians in Singapore earn large bonuses if they meet preassigned targets. In order to achieve economic growth goals, current planners suggest dramatically increasing the population through immigration. This is hugely unpopular with citizens who are increasingly fed up with the high cost of housing and overcrowded transport.

Also check out politically motivated infrastructure such as unfinished train stations in districts that continue to vote the wrong way.

Lobbyists are incorporated into the state? Pretenders to the throne are invited to eat with the King?

I share many of Eran's concerns and sentiments.

------------EDIT----------------

Many Japanese private business corporations make a deliberate decision to hold their shareholder meetings simultaneously i.e. on the same day. Will fascist corporations attempt similar shenanigans in order to exclude those who wish to employ oversight?