21st Century Fascist

Once again, 3d is correct. We're not talking about a military coup. This is about a free, fair election in which a fascist holds the lead. Which isn't impossible. Fascism is a deeply reactionary ideology - given the right economic and social conditions, it can gain a lot of speed.
 
Rose said:
Once again, 3d is correct. We're not talking about a military coup. This is about a free, fair election in which a fascist holds the lead. Which isn't impossible. Fascism is a deeply reactionary ideology - given the right economic and social conditions, it can gain a lot of speed.
Click to expand...

Indeed it can. And it will inevitably be wrapped in the national culture, making it appear all the more normal and accepted. It's almost like there should be some sort of option for situations like that, where democracy fails.
 
Unicron said:
Indeed it can. And it will inevitably be wrapped in the national culture, making it appear all the more normal and accepted. It's almost like there should be some sort of option for situations like that, where democracy fails.
Click to expand...

I wish there was. We see democracy as this great end, under which people will always elect those best for them. But it's not. It's more complicated than that. Because even within democracy, suffering exists, disaster can strike, undermining people's better judgement, and some people hold power over others, and can overpower and deceive them. Even elected officials can make a mess, and behave contrary to the interests of the public. Even democratic citizens can choose the wrong leader.

Historically, democracy has failed pretty frequently. You hit the nail on the head in saying there should be some defence against this, so to limit the harm done when it does.
 
Rose said:
I wish there was. We see democracy as this great end, under which people will always elect those best for them. But it's not. It's more complicated than that. Because even within democracy, suffering exists, disaster can strike, undermining people's better judgement, and some people hold power over others, and can overpower and deceive them. Even elected officials can make a mess, and behave contrary to the interests of the public. Even democratic citizens can choose the wrong leader.

Historically, democracy has failed pretty frequently. You hit the nail on the head in saying there should be some defence against this, so to limit the harm done when it does.
Click to expand...

Democracies always fail. The question, or the most pertinent one at least, is can they recover from such a failure.
 
Im totally down for some nationalism and paranoia. And if you think that as a whole under one rule a people can achieve more than by themselves . . .
 
Rose said:
If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

hitler.gif
Click to expand...

I have been through real life morality tests in which I passed but I know that how one reacts can often depend on the circumstances around them. In that respect it is truly impossible to answer your question. Oh sure you may be sure you know how you would react any made up scenario....but you don't and you can't.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
Fascism need not be autocratic, so long as the collusion of government and business is peaceful and the public is content. Mussolini took power via a political coup and cemented his control with oppression.

One could argue that the Auto and Financial bailouts were fascism, and the public largely supported them.
Click to expand...
SAY WHAT?! 3D you amaze me how you consistently pull stuff like this out of your ass. Keynesian economics played a significant role in the downfall of 20th century Fascism. Where do you come up with this stuff? LOL

I mean yea you could argue that Keynesian standard principles applied in those two economic crisis would be fascism. You'd be completely and totally wrong but you could argue that!
 
Sardonic said:
Hold an election, but most likely, I would be dead because a majority would have elected the fascists.

I hold to my ideals of democracy or a democratic republic. I could not live where I had to fear my thoughts and words.
Click to expand...
You couldn't possibly know that without knowing what the exact circumstances that were surrounding your life during such an event. What if you were a young wife with children would you take such a stance knowing it would cost your children their life or would you keep silent and endure it so as to protect them? One could think of a zillion circumstances that could alter your behavior and decisions even if you are the most principled of people.
 
Last edited:
Unicron said:
I see you haven't read enough of my posts to detect the inherent meaning behind them.

Anyways, systems can become so entrenched and stagnated a purge is required on them. Something like a modern Sulla.
Click to expand...
There were no such purges under Sulla. There were proscriptions but that wasn't against the landed aristocracy which comprised the Roman ruling class. Sulla was an intensely conservative aristocrat who was trying to preserve the traditional exclusivity of the Roman Senatorial class. Sulla had essentially annihilated the political opposition of the populares faction at the battle of the Colline Gate. Sulla's proscriptions were largely an economic measure cause of the Social War and the First Mithridatic War that left the Roman state bankrupted. Sulla's proscriptions did not purge a stagnant and entrenched system. In fact it did the opposite. Sulla's constitution further entrenched the Senatorial class as Rome's premiere legal authority and extremely limited the influence and power of the Roman Assemblies. His proscriptions decimated the Roman equestrian plutocratic class from which populares resentments towards the Senate had grown but the main purpose of Sulla's proscription was to preserve the exclusivity and perogatives of the Aristocratic Senatorial class and to provide much needed revenue for the bankrupted Roman treasury.
 
Threedee said:
Sulla fucked over Rome.
Click to expand...
That's not a fair assessment. It would be fair to say that Marius and Sulla created the historical precedents that lead to the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Principate under Augustus. That wasn't a bad thing either. The Roman Republic had become an utterly corrupt oligarchy that was also completely incompetent at governing a world wide empire. The aspirations of a handful of Roman aristocrats and novus homos had precipitated nearly 100 years of civil war and domestic chaos that very nearly ended Roman rule of the western world. Had not Sulla marched on Rome then it would have been very probable that Sertorius would have and if he hadn't then Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo certainly would have had he not died untimely.
 
Unicron said:
No, the generation that came to power AFTER Sulla fucked over Rome. Sulla was the last great hero of the Republic.
Click to expand...
I think that's fair to say though ultimately Sulla's reforms failed and so did the Republic largely through the precedents he himself had set. Though to be honest Sulla probably only postponed the inevitable end of the Republic by a generation.
 
Threedee said:
Sulla tried to manage the instability that had come about, but there was no reason for him to try and establish a long term dictatorship. It set everything up. Remember, back then it was all about establishing precedent. Assassinating Gaius Gracchus got people assassinating one another when not a single one had occurred in the Republic's history. Establishing a dictatorship that lasted set another.
Click to expand...
Again, not true. There were many very good reasons for Sulla establishing the Dictatorship. Primarily the fact that the Roman form of Republican government which had been designed to govern a small city state was utterly incompetent at managing a world wide empire. Sulla's reforms were hugely unpopular with the equestrian order as it limited their ability to exploit the Roman provinces, which to state the obvious, were hugely popular in the provinces. Sulla saw the need for a strong central government ran by an autocrat as needed to restore order. Where Sulla failed was when he walked away from this Dictatorship and handed governance back to an inept and self serving Senate. His reforms ended up barely lasting ten years and Julius Caesar was spot on right when he criticized Sulla for "...not knowing his political ABC's.". Though I would agree that the precedents of Marius's military reforms and Sulla's setting the precedent of marching on Rome did lead directly to the collapse of the Republic. Though that probably would have happened anyways.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
SAY WHAT?! 3D you amaze me how you consistently pull stuff like this out of your ass. Keynesian economics played a significant role in the downfall of 20th century Fascism. Where do you come up with this stuff? LOL

I mean yea you could argue that Keynesian standard principles applied in those two economic crisis would be fascism. You'd be completely and totally wrong but you could argue that!
Click to expand...

Actually, if you click on Taichi's link, you can learn a little about the origins of fascism. It was not invented in the 20th Century by the likes of Mussolini. Economic collapses gave way to the rise, not the invention of fascism.

Of course, modern day fascism would likely be focused strictly on economics and wouldn't have all of those social crusades that the link and people, generally, tend to focus on.

Furthermore, it was war, not Keynesianism that destroyed fascism in the 20th Century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top