Democratic fascism can exist, and it should. People will embrace the success and equality that fascism can bring. We just need the backstop of democracy in case an authoritarian tries to emerge.
What would you call our system if the government set wages, prices, and supply quotas for all of the industries?
If socialism can be perfected with a democratic backstop, even in the face of millions and millions killed at the hands of socialist regimes, why can't fascism also be perfected in the same way?
Fascism is also an economic structure, and probably the most effective one in history. You don't hear many stories about people starving to death because their fascist economy didn't work.
Fascism is an economic system that allows business owners to provide the products that the population demands, allows workers to either unionize or not unionize and then negotiate the value of their labor with the business owner. It has the added benefit of a government that monitors movement in both the national and global economy and give advice or incentive on how production can maximize profits for both capital investors and the labor market.
So you also think that fascism isn’t an economic structure?
It's not. A fascist dictatorship can certainly manipulate the market or take an active, nationalization role in the market, but it isn't an economic structure.So you also think that fascism isn’t an economic structure?
From the first article: “Fascism is a brutal economic system”
Economic Theory
Economic theory is about the fundamentals of economics and how they apply to current events. Learning about economic theory may help you better understand the global economy.www.thebalance.com
Fascism - Econlib
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal...www.econlib.org
I don't think combining those words makes much sense. That's like saying "Socialist Capitalism". Fascism at it's core is authoritarian in nature. Democracies can absolutely elect fascists. Those fascists will beat at the foundations of democracy. Either the state devolves into a fascist authoritarian regime, or democracy survives. But they do not co-exist. At least not in reality, even if they pretend they do.
Ok, let's work with that. The tenets of fascist economics, state before individual, planned industrial harmony (private ownership with government direction), mercantilism, and protectionism, do not require a dictatorship for implementation even though that's all we've seen so far in this world. The economic system does require a very strong central government leading the charge. But that federal government can bend to the whims of referendums and elections as easily as it can be the embodiment of a single person or small group. Especially as that strong central government seeks more and more to serve the interests of society rather than the will of the people they are elected to represent. Then it becomes an authoritarian democracy. Now, in the name of serving society (things like equity and social justice), if that authoritarian democracy then enacts controls on corporations and industry to set wages, tells companies how much they can make and when they are making more than their fair share, directs what can and cannot be built, provides benefits (such as loans and tax credits and such) to companies not based on their market abilities but on some social profile (such as diversity or minority-ownership), and so on, then they are building a fascist economic structure directed by a democratic government.
foreignpolicy.com
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ B.F.
Ok, let's work with that. The tenets of fascist economics, state before individual, planned industrial harmony (private ownership with government direction), mercantilism, and protectionism, do not require a dictatorship for implementation even though that's all we've seen so far in this world. The economic system does require a very strong central government leading the charge. But that federal government can bend to the whims of referendums and elections as easily as it can be the embodiment of a single person or small group. Especially as that strong central government seeks more and more to serve the interests of society rather than the will of the people they are elected to represent. Then it becomes an authoritarian democracy. Now, in the name of serving society (things like equity and social justice), if that authoritarian democracy then enacts controls on corporations and industry to set wages, tells companies how much they can make and when they are making more than their fair share, directs what can and cannot be built, provides benefits (such as loans and tax credits and such) to companies not based on their market abilities but on some social profile (such as diversity or minority-ownership), and so on, then they are building a fascist economic structure directed by a democratic government.
The problem is that the overall direction of America hasn't been undone by an election. Power is being consolidated in the federal government no matter who has held the federal government. The Senate and Congress has allowed their power to be eroded by the Executive branch (even with the impeachments of Trump). Packing the SCOTUS means that the Executive would then hold political power over the entire Judicial. More and more House Representatives are fighting national battles rather than local ones. You have major cities in America that have had one-party rule for 100 years or more. Social media is now filtering political speech in the digital public square to steer discourse. America will always be a democracy, and I believe that we'll always have individual ownership of property and corporations. But the federal government is evolving into a directive and controlling force. What will result won't be democratic socialism, it's going to be a democracy sitting above an economy that employs fascist economic principles. Biden even addressed this in the State of the Union:
"That was the message he laid out Wednesday night in a State of the Union-like address to Congress, where he directly connected bolstering the U.S. economy to the competition to “win the 21st century” against China. And Biden veered from his prepared remarks to deliver a stern warning to lawmakers: China thinks the United States is moving too slowly.
“I spent a lot of time with President Xi—traveled over 17,000 miles with him, spent over 24 hours in private discussions with him,” Biden said. “He’s deadly earnest on becoming the most significant, consequential nation in the world. He and others, autocrats, think that democracy can’t compete in the 21st century with autocracies, because it takes too long to get consensus.”
But even in a consensus-driven system, Biden has made one thing clear: He’s running the show."
Biden Goes Off-Script on China
The U.S. president’s first 100 days in office show foreign policy is (nearly) all about domestic policy.
All of the examples that I can think of definitely equal evil. This is anecdotal but I was traveling to Santo Domingo DR a lot for work a few years back and read a lot about their fascist history. Really crazy story that I never heard anything about in history class. Rafael Trujillo was the dictator and he was beloved when he took power via coup but ended up abusing power and killing tons of his people. Circling back, I do think it’s inherently evil and the objective is to consolidate power into the hands of the ruling class.
Democracy is authoritarian because 51% can dictate to 49% what the 49% has to do.
Yet democratic authoritarianism exists. It generally appears where the electorate is directed or lead through propaganda to vote in the way the elite requires.
Ten years or so ago, I had the opportunity to visit the country of Qatar, which at the time, was ruled by Sheikh Al Thani who seized power in 1995 in a bloodless coup.
Pretty good example, and it shows that nationalism also isn't inherently bad. Qatar isn't out there trying to hurt other countries, they just focus on what is best for their own country. The US used to hold this belief.
Good points. But I think there's an important thing to keep in mind - those economic tendencies are a direct result of the political ideology. Corporations are expected to put national interests first because that's what the ideology demands and the corporations have to maintain the backing of authoritarian rulers to survive. So if similar economic scenarios arise in the absence of the fascist political ideology, that's just something completely different to me.Ok, let's work with that. The tenets of fascist economics, state before individual, planned industrial harmony (private ownership with government direction), mercantilism, and protectionism, do not require a dictatorship for implementation even though that's all we've seen so far in this world. The economic system does require a very strong central government leading the charge. But that federal government can bend to the whims of referendums and elections as easily as it can be the embodiment of a single person or small group. Especially as that strong central government seeks more and more to serve the interests of society rather than the will of the people they are elected to represent. Then it becomes an authoritarian democracy. Now, in the name of serving society (things like equity and social justice), if that authoritarian democracy then enacts controls on corporations and industry to set wages, tells companies how much they can make and when they are making more than their fair share, directs what can and cannot be built, provides benefits (such as loans and tax credits and such) to companies not based on their market abilities but on some social profile (such as diversity or minority-ownership), and so on, then they are building a fascist economic structure directed by a democratic government.
The problem is that the overall direction of America hasn't been undone by an election. Power is being consolidated in the federal government no matter who has held the federal government. The Senate and Congress has allowed their power to be eroded by the Executive branch (even with the impeachments of Trump). Packing the SCOTUS means that the Executive would then hold political power over the entire Judicial. More and more House Representatives are fighting national battles rather than local ones. You have major cities in America that have had one-party rule for 100 years or more. Social media is now filtering political speech in the digital public square to steer discourse. America will always be a democracy, and I believe that we'll always have individual ownership of property and corporations. But the federal government is evolving into a directive and controlling force. What will result won't be democratic socialism, it's going to be a democracy sitting above an economy that employs fascist economic principles. Biden even addressed this in the State of the Union:
"That was the message he laid out Wednesday night in a State of the Union-like address to Congress, where he directly connected bolstering the U.S. economy to the competition to “win the 21st century” against China. And Biden veered from his prepared remarks to deliver a stern warning to lawmakers: China thinks the United States is moving too slowly.
“I spent a lot of time with President Xi—traveled over 17,000 miles with him, spent over 24 hours in private discussions with him,” Biden said. “He’s deadly earnest on becoming the most significant, consequential nation in the world. He and others, autocrats, think that democracy can’t compete in the 21st century with autocracies, because it takes too long to get consensus.”
But even in a consensus-driven system, Biden has made one thing clear: He’s running the show."
Biden Goes Off-Script on China
The U.S. president’s first 100 days in office show foreign policy is (nearly) all about domestic policy.
What is 'nationalism' in a part of the world where people are one generation removed from tribal governance?
