Democratic fascism
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
Meanwhile they’ve defined and crystallized an enemy (Trump) and used the caricature to minimize anyone who disagrees with their actions. As long as they can keep people focused on the evil or stupid “Trumpets,” people will stay angry and tunnel-visioned on whatever they’re being presented by that propaganda arm. I wouldn’t make the Nazi comparison, but there are a great many things in place for a revolution. I said it before and I’ll say it again, we’re very similar to Cuba before Che and Castro led that bloody revolution.
I ask, because the guy I've been coaching is debating a guy tonight that calls himself a "democratic socialist" and communist. Instead of taking that head-on and allowing the debate to be dictated by his nonsensical rationale, we're going to try and flip the script by calling for democratic fascism. Force the guy to attack our nonsense position instead of defend his own. By the time it's all said and done, just point out how he spent the last hour attacking a concept that is equally as silly as his own.
Democratic fascism would be mob rule with a small and powerful centralized government that picks the winners and losers. Those that go along with the groupthink are lauded and allowed to own companies and those that deviate are persecuted and forced to sell. Wages and prices are set by majority vote and the government dictates education, research, and production.
The difference would be ownership and earnings. Socialism would require public ownership and then owners would be managers and their earnings would be capped at the publicly set amount. The rest would go to the government coffers. Politicians would be artificially limited in income but would live large on the hog in office and would have great retirement benefits.
Democratic Fascism led to Spain being the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world for 25 years and pulled thousands out of poverty. They went from an agrarian economy to an industrialized nation in record time. Their auto industry averaged almost 22% growth annually for nearly 30 years, which led to high paying jobs.
Under francisco Franco, Spain went from being a 3rd world nation to the 9th largest economy in the world between 1955 and 1974. They did away with the autocratic approach to the economy in favor of market based principles. Allowing businesses to function based on market conditions, democratic fascism was a resounding success.
I dont really know what democratic fascism is, since fascism and democracy are basically opposites. But, I dont understand your debate tactic. Why cant you just debate his positions, or at least argue your own, instead of having to "flip the script"? It isnt really a debate if you are going to basically argue for something you dont even believe in as some sort of gotcha.
Because when you debate people that espouse democratic socialism, they create a moving target that can never be pinned down. It's just silliness. We figured that it might be fun, instead of poking holes in something that the opponent just continually moves the goalposts on, create a false equivalency that he has to attack. My posts above show pretty good examples of "democratic fascism" at work and how successful the system can be if implemented correctly.
Franco wasnt a "democratic fascist" though, he took power through a military coup, there is no "democratic" in that. But just to be honest, I still dont understand the debate tactic. If someone moves the goal posts, then call them out for doing so. Basically making up a narrative to argue, that you dont even believe, doesnt sound like much of a debate to me. Maybe it will work out better than I expect, but I dont really understand the tactic, just to be honest.
In your scenario, is Biden Batista? You can't be serious with this example. It makes zero sense.
So the bloody revolution will come from the left? Last I checked, our government insurrectionists came from your crowd.
His fascist system was overwhelmingly popular when he allowed the Opus Dei aligned technocrats replace the falange in organizing the economy. I'd say that popularity is a form of democracy. The people wanted fascism because it was pulling people out of poverty and Spain was becoming an economic juggernaut
Let's look at the list of economic/political systems that have been proven to be superior to socialism and communism:
The fascist Nazis would have taken out the USSR had capitalist USA not stepped in.
Capitalist USA took out communist USSR
Communist China had to beg fascist Taiwan to invest in the mainland in return for transitioning to free market capitalism
Monarchial Japan beat the living hell out of communist china even though it had a tiny population in comparison
Religious autocracy of Afghanistan, with a bunch of goat herders took out the mighty socialist USSR
The fascist Nazis would have taken out the USSR had capitalist USA not stepped in.
Capitalist USA took out communist USSR
Communist China had to beg fascist Taiwan to invest in the mainland in return for transitioning to free market capitalism
Monarchial Japan beat the living hell out of communist china even though it had a tiny population in comparison
Religious autocracy of Afghanistan, with a bunch of goat herders took out the mighty socialist USSR
But Democratic Socialism is a real thing. Democratic Fascism is not. A country cannot be both Democratic and Fascist at the same time. It is possible for a country to be socialist and Democratic.
Popularity isnt a synonym for Democracy, you're argument is a stretch, to say the least. Throughout history there have been people elected Democratically who ended up not being popular. On the other hand, there are some people not elected, who have been popular, but that doesnt suddenly mean it is a Democratic system.
Successful in what sense? It was a short lived ideology that was mostly defeated in about 20 years or so.
You realize you are talking about a very short time frame dont you? Plus, being elected Democratically, and then making your country fascist, doesnt mean your country is still Democratic.
No, because Fascism and Democracy can't co-exist. Hitler literally enacted emergency powers (and the emergency was likely caused by the Nazi's in the first place) and eroded Democracy, to become a dictator.
Exactly. He just didn't do it right. The economic and governmental theory behind fascism is sound, and in fact it's really what most people want. Personal pride, egalitarianism, strong social structure, sound economic fundamentals, a strong and well paid labor force, low levels of poverty, government assistance to strategic business interests. The list goes on and on.
The problem is that it leads to totalitarianism as power is coalesced into the central planning agency. Or, in our case, it would coalesce into inverse totalitarianism.
He didnt do it right because there is no such thing as doing it right. You cant be a fascist and democratic leader at the same time. Plus nothing you said is restricted to fascism, they are just platitudes. Most of those things are wanted by American's as well, both right and left. The difference, is that in a Democratic country, you can vote out leaders who you dont feel help provide those things (or whatever things you care about). In a fascist country, you cannot vote out those people out because it is a basically a totalitarian government.
In democratic fascism you can vote the leader out. That's what makes it democratic.
Nothing. That's the brilliance of it. You get all of the benefits of pure fascism with a hedge against totalitarianism and none of that genocide bull crap.
I wasnt asking you a question. I was saying, that being able to vote out leaders, makes it not fascism. There isnt necessarily a settled definition of fascism. Mussolini is the person most associated with it, but there are varying opinions of what is and isnt fascist. The one thing that really isnt debatable. is that to be fascist, you have to be authoritarian, and elections either dont exist, or are rigged.
It makes it not totalitarianism or dictatorship. The financial system of fascism can be in place with a democratically-elected governance apparatus.
That's where you are wrong. Fascism absolutely doesn't have to be authoritarian. There is a spectrum here and we can pinpoint the exact spot on the spectrum that is best, go with that, and rely on democracy to avoid going too far down the spectrum.
Fascism provides the most effective social safety net that has ever been imagined. The government largely leaves things alone until a deficiency arises, which affects the wages of laborers, and then steps in and says "hey guys, let's maybe focus on making tomato paste instead of noodles for a while because we have too many noodles right now and not enough tomato paste." It keeps people working in high wage jobs with the benefit of seeing the economy from 30,000 feet that a company can't see on the ground.
It sounds like you're more opposed to authoritarianism than fascism. That's why democratic fascism is the best of both worlds.
