To put it very simply, the use of a Fascist government to attain "compassionate goals" such as better science, better living standards, and a more productive society.
Those words made my brain hurt. To be honest, i dont exactly know what facist means, i just know its bad. TO be compassionately bad usually just requires some anasthetic.
Alright, I'll explain Fascism, in my honest opinion, is something sociopolitical than insitutional. A nation with a democratic form of government can be considered fascism if its citizens have a natural proclivity towards cohesion. Fascism's etymology sheds a light on this concept. Fascism comes from the word "fasces", which were bundles carried by ancient roman lictors and which signified both civic strength to unity (the bundled up rods) and the authority the state (the union of indiciduals) had (the axe within the bundle). Fascism is largely maligned today due to its association with the belligerent regimes of Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's German Reich, but however, fascism has philosophical its roots in the concept of "an organic state", a state whose principles are universal enough for all citizens to sublimate their personal interests in favour of the interest of the state voluntarily while retaining his individuality when it comes to personal decisions. Fascism, thus is a state, where all individuals are motivated towards a national goal, whatever the national goal may be. Is fascism categorically evil? No. Is fascism, then, categorically good? no. Whether fascism is good or bad depends upon the "national goal" discussed above. If the goals of a fascist state are goals that will ameliorate humanity, then I doubt whether that brand of fascism is anymore evil than some other form of government.
dude, Im not a total retard, but those first two paragraphs are unreadable to me. But youre saying that facism is people all working toward a common goal? or more like, Everyone is doing the same thing cuz thats what theyre told?
Well, it is very technical. It is best explained through analogies Well, you would probably acknowledge the fact that everybody had a personal philosophy(ie his/her way of living out life) and there are philosophies that are satisfactory to two or more people having different philosophies. It is just like solving a jigsaw puzzle, person A solves portion A of the puzzle and says that "life is this" and person B solves some other part of the Jigsae puzzle and says "life is that" and let' say that person C bring together two parts of the puzzle together and uses pieces of his own to solve the entire puzzle, to come up with a theory that will satisfy them both. So, in our analogy, the state is "person C" and person A and person B do what is good for person C, not because they are told to, but because, they see it as the only means of absolute unity among themselves.
That makes ALOT more sense. So isnt fascism supposed to be compassionate to begin with? if person A is republicans and person B is democrats and person c is the entire govt., the govt tries to satisfy both the demos and the repubs.
yes, "Ideal" fascism, or "the organic state" is supposed to be the most advanced form of government in theory. But it is just an ideal, much like "perfect" communism (i.e Marx's vision of communism) or anarchy. Well, under fascism, there are no "real" political parties, because "Person C" takes over, and becomes bosses of both person A and person B. So basically, there will be one party, with an ideology that is the syncretic mix of both democrat and republican ideologies.
It dosent sound possible to me. I think communism would have more of a chance of working, as long as people werent lazy assholes and did their job. So how come people throw the word fascist around like its an insult?
Well, actually, I differ from you, because, I think that fascism is much more likely to work because under fascism, there is a boss to make sure that people work, and that people are not "assholes", under communism (the thoretical variant of it), there is no boss and not to mention, there are mass inefficiencies and starvations that results from a non-capitalistic economy. Fascism, can exist side by side with the concept of Capitalism, while communism is diametrically opposed to it. "Fascist" is thrown around as an insult, becuase people who don't know about it understand it as an insult, devoid of any meaning.
In theory I suppose it could work quite well, but in practice I just don't see it happening, too much opportunity for corruption.
Actually, the city in which I grew up in was itself a corporation, which I suppose is in a way similar.. And it did work quite efficiently to be honest.
Yes, this may sound opposed to what you generally understand "fascism" to be, but a good fascist government must have checks and balances. I understand Imperial Rome, and Naploeonic France to be proto-fascist governments. Yet, they had some form of Checks and Balances. And as I have said, Fascism is something sociopolitical rather than institutional, thus it can be implemented under a variety of constitution, and I am sure we can make one with checks and balances. BTW, Communist leaders are more likely to be corrupt than fascist leaders.
Yeah, the commies had no bosses, so no work got done. Just make some govt officials look over the people and make sure theyre working, and nobody will starve to death. Then you might get into the overworked, slave labor. BUt it would be better than everyone thinking, "hey, Im gonna get paid anyway, so why go to work?" and the insult thing, I knew it meant something, just never knew what. I never called anyone fascist, either, cuz i didnt knwo what it meant. I got an education today. Now its time to smoke a bowl.
Yes, Corporatism isn't as bad as people make it sound. And yes, it is an integral part of fascism. Fascist Corporatism bears more resemblance to syndiacalism than anything else, but it is still fundamentally capitastic. It may sound paradoxial, but this will clarify once and for all what corporatism is... it is syndicalism without unions.
