Fascism is good - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Fascism is good
in Politics

By FascismFascism 317 Pts
Fascism in history may have been bad due to racism, and intolerance, but the fundamental principles of fascism aren't evil. Capitalism and Socialism both have their strengths and weaknesses. Fascism combines their strengths. 

Persuade me why fascism is bad. 
yolostideaarongMax_Air29northsouthkoreacomey_testifySilverishGoldNovaGhostyEmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  1. Is fascism generally bad?

    37 votes
    1. Yes
      70.27%
    2. No
      29.73%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Fascism is not good due to its horrible acts in history such as World War Two and the Holocaust which killed millions of Jews and people. The from of government was not successful in many ways in Nazi Germany, Germany, etc.
    Max_Air29George_HorseMarcusTulliusCiceroSilverishGoldNovaGhostyBear_with_meZombieguy1987
  • @yolostide Every type of government and country had its fair share of horrible acts in history. It doesn't make their fundamental theories evil. It is not required that fascist countries have to kill millions of Jews. 

    The Roman Empire had a type of fascist government. It was successful. 
    Max_Air29Zombieguy1987
  • The Roman Empire was not completely successful and that is proven due to its span not being around now. Nazi Germany was under fascist rule during modern times and proves that it is not successful for the past, modern, or future globes.
    George_HorseMarcusTulliusCiceroZombieguy1987
  • Fascism said:
    @yolostide Every type of government and country had its fair share of horrible acts in history. It doesn't make their fundamental theories evil. It is not required that fascist countries have to kill millions of Jews. 

    The Roman Empire had a type of fascist government. It was successful. 
    No, it was not. Rome fell.

    Before the dictators of Rome appeared, Rome was a republic. That is what built the greatness of Rome. It was so successful it took several dictators to destroy it.

    BaconToesPogueZombieguy1987
  • Fascism can only be implemented through dictators and oligarchies. It is a form of theft of property by the government. It has never worked. People don't like to have control of their property and labor stolen from them. It always turns brutal to any dissidents that want to speak out.


    northsouthkoreaBaconToesZombieguy1987
  • There is an end to everything. That doesn't mean it isn't successful. Martin Luther King is dead, but successful because he accomplished something. The roman empire conquered a large amount of the world, and spread its technology and ideas around. It accomplished an aim or a purpose. That is what makes it successful. If something isn't successful because it ended, then everything is unsuccessful, or bound to be unsuccessful. @Nightwing @Max_Air29

    It took 20 countries and an idiotic leader to take down Nazi Germany. If that isn't the case, who knows what a fascist nation can accomplish. By the way, I don't support Nazism. Nazism is racist, and doesn't represent all of fascism. 

    The timeline of Rome:
    http://www.softschools.com/timelines/roman_empire/timeline_9/
    Both the republic and the dictators made mistakes. The dictatorship in Rome lasted longer than the republic. The dictatorship continued the Roman empire with the Byzantine Empire, but everything is bound to fall eventually. Plus what your argument implies here is that the republic was making Rome great, but right after the dictators came everything went downhill. Rome was developed by the dictators as well, although I agree, it was a dictator which made it fall in the end. However, my next argument proves that fascist can be a republic anyways. 

    Fascism can't "only be implemented through dictators and oligarchies." There are many types of fascism, some which are democratic. Even during world war II, there were fascist parties who supported democracy, including some in fascist Italy. 

    Fascism doesn't steal property from anyone. It implements a command economy. 
    BaconToesZombieguy1987
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    edited October 2017

    The defining characteristics of fascism are that is it is authoritarian, nationalist, and anti-rationalist. As an authoritarian system it is opposed to individual rights and of course...personal worth. The individual only exists to serve the powers that be and this is the reigning symbol, one straw can crack and breaks easily but a hay bale is strong. Instead of giving power to the people, to help each person reach excellence, fascism makes the individual a faceless member of a mob.

    Except for the Great Leader...of course.  Fascism is based on a dark romanticism. While romanticism has its bright side, it can also be abused to turn people against rationality, to make them think that reason or logic is unnecessary rather than helping them to see that reason is necessary but not sufficient. Fascism creates a romantic tale of a people struggling against a foe; at their head, a Great Leader who embodies the divine order of the cosmos, a divine order than has been disturbed but will now be set straight. The allure of fascism is that you, friend, can be part of that legendary struggle!  Join our Great Leader, let some of his cosmic energy fill you up!

    The problem here is that this struggle requires an enemy. As a nationalist system fascism will always include some people and exclude the rest, and those excluded are the enemies. The Italian Fascists and the Nazis used ethnic nationalism, racism, and antisemitism to do the including and excluding, but really any us-versus-them dynamic will do.

    Fascism seeks the total mobilization of society under that Great Leader — nothing held back, everything devoted to the cause. Anything less might leave space for reason to spring up; a constant state of crisis keeps the rational faculties submerged. And so the fascist state must continually find enemies to fight. It can never be at peace.

    And that is why even if you don’t care about individual rights, even if you don’t care about human rights or democracy or egalitarianism or rationality or any of the other gifts of Athena that we have neglected so badly, fascism still fails. A fascist state will eventually be forced to make enemies out of some part of itself — to eat itself. It cannot last. But it can certainly do a lot of damage before it falls apart.


    agsrMissDMeanorGhostyEmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • FascismFascism 317 Pts
    edited October 2017
    @Vaulk
    "The defining characteristics of fascism are that is it is authoritarian, nationalist, and anti-rationalist. As an authoritarian system it is opposed to individual rights and of course...personal worth. The individual only exists to serve the powers that be and this is the reigning symbol, one straw can crack and breaks easily but a hay bale is strong. Instead of giving power to the people, to help each person reach excellence, fascism makes the individual a faceless member of a mob." 

    Just because a government is authoritarian doesn't mean it is opposed to individual rights and personal worth. Extensive authoritarianism is bad, however, not all fascist governments have this characteristic. The authoritarianism is to keep businesses and the economy in check. It isn't to regulate individual behaviour. Nazi Germany doesn't represent all fascism. Having unity doesn't mean making everyone a faceless member of a mob. It means cooperating and working together to achieve a common goal. Giving power to the people has obviously not helped each person reach excellence. Every class is fighting for itself in this world. Fascism allows people to have personal property unlike socialism, but also doesn't give all the power to the upper class. Fascism suppresses businesses that harm the lower classes, and keep the businesses that support the economy in power. 
    There is even a theory that if the American government suppressed businesses that supported Nazi Germany by giving it oil, Nazi Germany might not have even had enough oil to drag out the war to the extent it had done so. I don't know if the theory is completely accurate, but a fascist government in place of the American government would never have let that happen. This isn't facelessness. It is unity. 

    "Except for the Great Leader...of course.  Fascism is based on a dark romanticism. While romanticism has its bright side, it can also be abused to turn people against rationality, to make them think that reason or logic is unnecessary rather than helping them to see that reason is necessary but not sufficient. Fascism creates a romantic tale of a people struggling against a foe; at their head, a Great Leader who embodies the divine order of the cosmos, a divine order than has been disturbed but will now be set straight. The allure of fascism is that you, friend, can be part of that legendary struggle!  Join our Great Leader, let some of his cosmic energy fill you up!" 

    This describes the process which ww2 fascists used to become dictators. Doesn't represent fascism, and once again, unity isn't like being in a faceless mob. 

    "The problem here is that this struggle requires an enemy. As a nationalist system fascism will always include some people and exclude the rest, and those excluded are the enemies. The Italian Fascists and the Nazis used ethnic nationalism, racism, and antisemitism to do the including and excluding, but really any us-versus-them dynamic will do.
    Fascism seeks the total mobilization of society under that Great Leader — nothing held back, everything devoted to the cause. Anything less might leave space for reason to spring up; a constant state of crisis keeps the rational faculties submerged. And so the fascist state must continually find enemies to fight. It can never be at peace.
    And that is why even if you don’t care about individual rights, even if you don’t care about human rights or democracy or egalitarianism or rationality or any of the other gifts of Athena that we have neglected so badly, fascism still fails. A fascist state will eventually be forced to make enemies out of some part of itself — to eat itself. It cannot last. But it can certainly do a lot of damage before it falls apart."

    This is plain false. Fascism doesn't need an enemy to fight. It needs a to goal achieve. This is because it has a command economy. Normal capitalism sort of just develops on its own, but a command economy required planning, which in turn, requires a goal. This is where unity comes in. If everyone is just trying to make profits, this goal will never be achieved. 

    When trying to refute fascism, don't look at one particular type of fascism. In this case you only described ww2 fascism. The myth that all fascism is anti rational, and constantly needs an enemy is a result from the incompetent leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler. Mussolini didn't invent fascism. He merely popularized a name for it and gave it a country. 
    northsouthkoreaGhostyEmeryPearson
  • Fascism is not good in anyway. It is responsible for the death of many innocent Jews and people.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaZombieguy1987
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    edited October 2017
    @Fascism

    Look I might just be completely ignorant on the following point...but what instance of Fascism are you referencing?  You've been adamant that not all Fascism is one way or the other and that the examples I used were narrow focused upon bad instances.  So what exactly would be your prime example of a flourishing Fascist Country in today's World?
    comey_testifyEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk , Fascism is a horrible system that is responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and people. It has been used by Nazi Germany and Germany as well. Other countries have used it, but failed.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • @northsouthkorea @comey_testify All types of governments have committed atrocities in history. The system itself isn't bad, but people who used it are bad. The fundamental rules for fascism are not inherently bad. There were countries which used fascism without failing. I've already mentioned the Roman Empire, but as I will explain in my next argument, Spain has also been successful, to a certain extent. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • FascismFascism 317 Pts
    edited October 2017
    @Vaulk
    Fascism usually has the following characteristics: 
    Corporatism - this is the middle ground between French Integralism, where all businesses are combined into one and forced to work together, and free-market capitalism, where businesses are separate and have a mostly free economy, with some exceptions. 
    Nationalism - not necessarily racism. 
    Authoritarianism - strict government control. 
    Elements of both capitalism and socialism - both have their strengths and weaknesses. Combing their strengths is the purpose of fascism. 
    Collectivism - opposite of individualism. 
    Defined class structures - makes it easier to appeal to each group individually, and organize citizens into groups of interest. Also prevents incompetents from doing jobs they weren't trained to do. 
    Militarism - spending a lot on military 
    Freedom of speech for the educated only - prevents idiots from voting, and causing cancer. 

    I believe that collectivism should be kept at a low level, nationalism should be kept at a high level, and everything else to be at a mediocre level. 

    I don't really believe in a particular type of fascism, but my beliefs most closely associate with late 1970s falangism. This type of government supports capitalism more than socialism, monoculturalism, freedom of speech from the educated only, limited collectivism, and authoritarianism. I don't completely agree with this type of fascism, since it is an autocratic dictatorship, but it is probably the closest. In reality I believe in a collective group of fascism types. 

    Spain was the fascist country which used falangism. Early Falangism was actually a failure, but it developed and changed over the years to become an effective governing style. Spain's failing economy was brought up to compete with other European nations, before falangism ended when Franco the dictator died. This is the problem with an autocratic dictatorship, since once the dictator dies, the whole system can be destroyed or changed. 

    I wasn't necessarily defending a type of fascism. I was just defending the characteristics of fascism which I listed above, which are evident in every fascist organization, at different amounts. 
  • Fascism said:
    There is an end to everything. That doesn't mean it isn't successful. Martin Luther King is dead, but successful because he accomplished something. The roman empire conquered a large amount of the world, and spread its technology and ideas around. It accomplished an aim or a purpose. That is what makes it successful. If something isn't successful because it ended, then everything is unsuccessful, or bound to be unsuccessful. @Nightwing @Max_Air29

    It took 20 countries and an idiotic leader to take down Nazi Germany. If that isn't the case, who knows what a fascist nation can accomplish. By the way, I don't support Nazism. Nazism is racist, and doesn't represent all of fascism. 

    The timeline of Rome:
    http://www.softschools.com/timelines/roman_empire/timeline_9/
    Both the republic and the dictators made mistakes. The dictatorship in Rome lasted longer than the republic. The dictatorship continued the Roman empire with the Byzantine Empire, but everything is bound to fall eventually. Plus what your argument implies here is that the republic was making Rome great, but right after the dictators came everything went downhill. Rome was developed by the dictators as well, although I agree, it was a dictator which made it fall in the end. However, my next argument proves that fascist can be a republic anyways. 

    Fascism can't "only be implemented through dictators and oligarchies." There are many types of fascism, some which are democratic. Even during world war II, there were fascist parties who supported democracy, including some in fascist Italy. 

    Fascism doesn't steal property from anyone. It implements a command economy. 
    The only way to implement a command economy is to command the property of others. That's effectively theft.

    Rome lasted and prospered until fascism came in the form of the Roman dictators.

    Rome was a republic for almost 500 years. The rule of dictators was for less then 150 years before Rome began to suffer burnings, sackings, confiscatory taxes, and eventually its fall. I'll take the republic.

    Dictators of fascism don't suffer pretenders to the throne. Italy didn't either.

    A republic can be successful as long as the republican form of government is maintained. Once a constitution is abandoned, its all over.

  • @Fascism.

    So I must've missed it so I guess I'll re-post here: What flourishing Fascist Countries are there in existence today?  Looking for "Today", meaning: Currently. 
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • FascismFascism 317 Pts
    edited October 2017
    @Vaulk There are none. No one even dares to look into a possibility of a fascist government, since they won't get support. They only look at the atrocities fascist dictators have done in the past, but they don't look at it as a possibility as a good form of government. 

    This doesn't make it a bad government form. People nowadays only study what has already been studied to look book smart in front of their friends, or gain popular support. No one is trying to try new things. Every type of government was initially formed with speculation. Leaders speculated that certain type of government would work, and tried it out. There doesn't have to be a fascist country as of now. Nowadays a politician is more likely to repeat the same mistakes the past made, instead of coming up with new solutions. I'm always glad to hear a leader or macroeconomist comes up with a new idea. 

    WW2 is relatively recent and it shows that fascism has potential, if you don't commit genocide, and don't declare war against 20 countries. Spain is even more recent at the late 1970s. 

    There are only fascist movements and organizations today. No countries. 
  • @Nightwing
    That isn't theft. That is called the people's entitlement to the state. If a command economy is theft, then taxation is theft, since both of them control the wealth of the citizens for the greater good. America itself has resorted to command economy during times of crisis or war: The Civil War, WW2, The Great Depression, WW1. Other countries do this as well. Germany as of now has a form of command economy, and its economy is booming. 

    I've already proven that fascism can have democracy. Also the dictatorship continued into the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire. The only difference is that they don't have Rome, so they couldn't be called the Roman Empire anymore. The Byzantine Empire flourished with dictatorship.  

    "Dictators of fascism don't suffer pretenders to the throne. Italy didn't either."
    What do you mean here? Sorry I didn't understand the point your trying to make here. 

    "A republic can be successful as long as the republican form of government is maintained. Once a constitution is abandoned, its all over."
    Agreed. The government needs rules. 
  • You know, the Swastika isn't fundamentally evil, it never was and actually never will be as the Nazis in Germany did not create the Swastika and had zero influence or impact on what it was created to be.  This being said, who here would consider flying the Swastika on their home, office or even on your car? 

    Fascism is similar in that it's not fundamentally Evil however the prominent example of Fascism in history is...well it's really bad.  So until anyone here is willing to proudly fly the Swastika...I'd contend that there's equal reason behind rejecting Fascism as well.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Fascism said:
    @Nightwing
    That isn't theft. That is called the people's entitlement to the state. If a command economy is theft, then taxation is theft, since both of them control the wealth of the citizens for the greater good. America itself has resorted to command economy during times of crisis or war: The Civil War, WW2, The Great Depression, WW1. Other countries do this as well. Germany as of now has a form of command economy, and its economy is booming. 

    I've already proven that fascism can have democracy. Also the dictatorship continued into the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire. The only difference is that they don't have Rome, so they couldn't be called the Roman Empire anymore. The Byzantine Empire flourished with dictatorship.  

    "Dictators of fascism don't suffer pretenders to the throne. Italy didn't either."
    What do you mean here? Sorry I didn't understand the point your trying to make here. 

    "A republic can be successful as long as the republican form of government is maintained. Once a constitution is abandoned, its all over."
    Agreed. The government needs rules. 
    It is theft. It is the taking of the control of property by force.

    Taxation can certainly be theft. It doesn't have to be.

    America's history of major wars was not a command economy. It was an economy based on producing articles of war, since that was where the market was. There have been attempts by the government of the United States to place price controls on things too. That IS fascism, and it has never worked. It always produces shortages and mismanagement of that thing. It is also illegal under the Constitution of the United States. Cities do it too with things like rent control programs. Same result.

    Democracies are destructive forms of governments. That's why the United States is not organized as one.

    Your fixation on the end of Rome is not the point. The point is that life under dictatorial Rome was miserable.

    The only form of government with 'rules' is a republic. No other form has any 'rules.'. They operate at the whim of a dictator, oligarchy, or whatever the most powerful mob is. They can do anything. No rules.

  • @Vaulk
    I know about the swastika. Indian culture used it as a symbol of good luck, and other good elements of life. Native Americans also used it. 

    "Fascism is similar in that it's not fundamentally Evil however the prominent example of Fascism in history is...well it's really bad.  So until anyone here is willing to proudly fly the Swastika...I'd contend that there's equal reason behind rejecting Fascism as well."

    So just because other people don't know the truth about fascism, no one should accept fascism? I don't care about other people's delicate feelings. The truth doesn't care either. The truth is that, fascism isn't fundamentally evil, and since I know that, I am fascist. 

    I'm not saying you should be fascist because you believe fascism isn't fundamentally evil. There is more to believing in something, but the reason to not be fascist shouldn't be because other people are ignorant about what it is. 

    "So until anyone here is willing to proudly fly the Swastika...I'd contend that there's equal reason behind rejecting Fascism as well."

    Just because people think the Swastika is bad in every culture doesn't stop me from proudly flying it. It is part of my culture, and I although I haven't flown a flag with the symbol on it literally (because they weren't made for usage on flags.), I have used it proudly in other situations. 

    This logic implies that you can only use the swastika in India, which is not true. The swastika is good in my culture and the way I express it isn't evil. The only situation where I shouldn't use it, is when I'm clearly going to get a lot of attention from people who don't know what it is, for my own safety. 
  • @Nightwing
    "Taxation can certainly be theft. It doesn't have to be."

    Same thing with a command economy. It can be theft, if used at a high rate, but if it used at a low level, it most certainly isn't theft. 

    "America's history of major wars was not a command economy."

    During WW2, the USA stopped American businesses from collaborating with Nazi Germany. That falls under the definition of a command economy. During the Great Depression, FDR also implemented a command economy. 

    "That IS fascism, and it has never worked."

    Works now. Look up mixed economy. It is a form of command economy which has low levels of government intervention, but it still works. Much of Europe is now even going towards a mixed economy.

    The United States is a democratic republic. It has democracy and a republic. It isn't pure democracy, but still a type of democracy. 

    "Your fixation on the end of Rome is not the point. The point is that life under dictatorial Rome was miserable."

    The republic wasn't all good either. Life back then was generally miserable. 

    "The only form of government with 'rules' is a republic. No other form has any 'rules.'. They operate at the whim of a dictator, oligarchy, or whatever the most powerful mob is. They can do anything. No rules."

    Yes I agree. I would like the government to have restrictions and a constitution. 
  • NightwingNightwing 53 Pts
    edited October 2017
    Fascism said:
    @Nightwing
    "Taxation can certainly be theft. It doesn't have to be."

    "Same thing with a command economy. It can be theft, if used at a high rate, but if it used at a low level, it most certainly isn't theft. "
    Yes it is. It is the taking of property by edict, not by a vote of the people being taxed.

    "America's history of major wars was not a command economy."

    "During WW2, the USA stopped American businesses from collaborating with Nazi Germany. That falls under the definition of a command economy. During the Great Depression, FDR also implemented a command economy. "
    That is not a command economy. That is restriction of trade with the enemy. International trade is subject to treaties and agreements you know.

    "That IS fascism, and it has never worked."

    "Works now. Look up mixed economy. It is a form of command economy which has low levels of government intervention, but it still works. Much of Europe is now even going towards a mixed economy."
    No, it doesn't. Everywhere it is tried the portion of economy managed by the government proves to be a disaster.

    "The United States is a democratic republic. It has democracy and a republic. It isn't pure democracy, but still a type of democracy. "
    The United States is organized as a federated republic. There is no such thing as a democratic republic. The two terms are exclusive of each other. The vote we take to elect certain officers to that government is not democracy. It is part of the republic. That vote runs UNDER the constitutions involved.

    "Your fixation on the end of Rome is not the point. The point is that life under dictatorial Rome was miserable."

    "The republic wasn't all good either. Life back then was generally miserable. "
    The Republic of Rome is what made Rome great. Life was very profitable under Rome as a republic. The logical extension to your argument that 'life back then was miserable' is that ALL life is miserable.

    "The only form of government with 'rules' is a republic. No other form has any 'rules.'. They operate at the whim of a dictator, oligarchy, or whatever the most powerful mob is. They can do anything. No rules."

    "Yes I agree. I would like the government to have restrictions and a constitution. "
    Then why argue for fascism? That form of government does not have a constitution.


  • @Nightwing
    The format in which you responded is kind of confusing. Sorry if I miss something. 

    "That is not a command economy. That is restriction of trade with the enemy. International trade is subject to treaties and agreements you know."

    Command economy - 
    an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by a government.

    So basically, an economy which is controlled by the government is a command economy. FDR's plan for The Great Depression was a command economy. Just like in WW1 and WW2, he artificially raised the prices of goods, and regulated trade, and income. This is a command economy. Although it isn't used extensively, it still counts as one. 

    "No, it doesn't. Everywhere it is tried the portion of economy managed by the government proves to be a disaster."

    It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Modern Japan, US, Modern China, Early Soviet Union, Social Democracy, etc. A command economy fails when there is no defined goal. In Nazi Germany's case, the goal was to take over some land with military power, which is why it succeeded. Early Soviet Union also succeeded because it had a clear goal. However, over time the goal was blurred, because of the people not willing to work towards it anymore. This is why it failed. If the Soviet Union had capitalism, then the people would have still been willing to work and it still would have succeeded. China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization. 

    "The Republic of Rome is what made Rome great. Life was very profitable under Rome as a republic. The logical extension to your argument that 'life back then was miserable' is that ALL life is miserable."

    Explain to me how life was better under the republic. Also my statement "life back then was miserable" implies that life back then was generally more miserable than modern day life, in a developed nation. 

    "Then why argue for fascism? That form of government does not have a constitution."

    This would be proven wrong due to the fact that there were and are fascist movements where a constitutional republic is supported: AFM is an example. 

    "The United States is organized as a federated republic. There is no such thing as a democratic republic. The two terms are exclusive of each other. The vote we take to elect certain officers to that government is not democracy. It is part of the republic. That vote runs UNDER the constitutions involved."

    I think it is best not to argue under this topic, because there are different uses for the word republic. My use referred to "representative democracy". Also it doesn't really matter in this debate. 
  • Fascism said:
    @Nightwing
    "Command economy - 
    an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by a government.

    So basically, an economy which is controlled by the government is a command economy. FDR's plan for The Great Depression was a command economy."
    It was also illegal, and caused the downturn to be a Great Depression.
    "Just like in WW1 and WW2, he artificially raised the prices of goods,"
    FDR implemented price controls. They never work. The action is illegal in the United States Constitution.
     "and regulated trade, and income."
    He is not allowed to do that under the Constitution.
    "This is a command economy. Although it isn't used extensively, it still counts as one."
    Big hairy deal. It deepened the downturn into the Great Depression.
    "It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany,"
    Yes, it was. Germany couldn't even feed its war machine anymore.
    "Francoist Spain,"
    Same thing.
    "Fascist Italy,"
    Same thing.
    "Imperial Japan,"
    Same thing.
    "Modern Japan,"
    Modern Japan is not a fascist or socialist nation. It is now organized as a republic.
    "US,"
    The United States is organized as a republic, not as a fascist government.
    "Modern China,"
    Chins is organized as a socialist government, not a fascist one. It is suffering badly under it, too.
    "Early Soviet Union,"
    The USSR is organized as a socialist government. It is suffering too.
    :A command economy fails when there is no defined goal."
    A command economy fails...period.
    "China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization."
    China is not capitalism. It is a socialist nation. It is falling apart. It is NOT doing well at all. I suspect a violent revolt will rock China yet again in the near future.
    "Explain to me how life was better under the [Roman] republic."
    It's what make Rome great. It produced the wealth that made Rome the society that it was, before the dictators came along.
    "Also my statement "life back then was miserable" implies that life back then was generally more miserable than modern day life, in a developed nation. "
    This is a fallacy, known as 'presentism'. It is the imposition of today's standards on yesterday.
    "This would be proven wrong due to the fact that there were and are fascist movements where a constitutional republic is supported: AFM is an example."
    Fascism and republics are mutually exclusive. What is the 'AFM'?
    "I think it is best not to argue under this topic, because there are different uses for the word republic."
    Only one. A republic is a government by law, not by men. It is government by a constitution, agreed upon by the people of that nation.
    "My use referred to 'representative democracy'."
    Democracies fail, usually quickly. It is mob rule. There is no constitution to stop it. The little guy gets crushed, and the usual result is anarchy, followed by an oligarchy or dictatorship.
    " Also it doesn't really matter in this debate. "
    It does. Indeed, you are still trying to say the two are compatible.




  • @Nightwing
    "It was also illegal, and caused the downturn to be a Great Depression. ... FDR implemented price controls. They never work. The action is illegal in the United States Constitution."

    It was illegal in the US, but it shouldn't be illegal. It was done for a solution for the Great Depression, it didn't cause the Great Depression. It didn't work when FDR did it, but it worked in WW1 where the same plan of controlling price worked. What FDR did wrong was that he didn't implement his controlling of price to accomplish his goal. He thought that after increasing prices, the economy will do it itself, but unlike in WW1 where the economy had incentive for the war, there was no incentive during the Great Depression. 

    "'This is a command economy. Although it isn't used extensively, it still counts as one.'
    Big hairy deal. It deepened the downturn into the Great Depression."

    The original reason I brought this up wasn't because I was trying to prove that it works. I was trying to prove that it doesn't infringe people's rights. I also used other examples which prove that it works if done right. 

    ""It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany,"
    Yes, it was. Germany couldn't even feed its war machine anymore.
    "Francoist Spain,"
    Same thing.
    "Fascist Italy,"
    Same thing.
    "Imperial Japan,"
    Same thing.
    "Modern Japan,"
    Modern Japan is not a fascist or socialist nation. It is now organized as a republic.
    "US,"
    The United States is organized as a republic, not as a fascist government.
    "Modern China,"
    Chins is organized as a socialist government, not a fascist one. It is suffering badly under it, too.
    "Early Soviet Union,"
    The USSR is organized as a socialist government. It is suffering too.
    :A command economy fails when there is no defined goal."
    A command economy fails...period.
    "China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization."
    China is not capitalism. It is a socialist nation. It is falling apart. It is NOT doing well at all. I suspect a violent revolt will rock China yet again in the near future."

    In each one of these countries I mentioned, I was referring to there economy, not there governmental form, or there military success. The original conversation had to do with a command economy, and if it actually benefits the economy or not. Not if fascism as a governmental form succeeds or not. Here are the quotes of the conversation:

    You: "No, it doesn't. Everywhere it is tried the portion of economy managed by the government proves to be a disaster."
    (referring to a command economy)

    Me: "It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Modern Japan, US, Modern China, Early Soviet Union, Social Democracy, etc."

    So to counter what you said:

    "It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany,"
    Yes, it was. Germany couldn't even feed its war machine anymore.

    Nazi Germany's economy itself was doing good. Their downfall was caused by declaring war against too many people, and causing racism which cost them much. They also ran out of natural resources by not trading with other countries. The military suffered due to bad leadership, but the economy was doing fine. 

    "Francoist Spain,"
    Same thing.

    Francoist Spain was never a war machine. Its economy started off faltering because they were leaning towards socialist values and it had an extensive command economy. But afterwards, they relaxed their control and turned into a mixed economy favoring capitalist values, which led them to have an improving economy. They didn't fail because of their command economy, rather because it was an autocratic dictatorship. This led to confusion after Francisco Franco died, and led fascism to go out of Spain. 

    "Fascist Italy,"
    Same thing.

    Fascist Italy, like Nazi Germany, went out of its economic depression due to a command economy. 

    "Imperial Japan,"
    Same thing.

    Imperial Japan suffered not because of a command economy, but because of lack of resources on its lands, to supply its military. If it had traded with other countries, then this wouldn't have happened, as they were doing better when the US was trading with them beforehand. 

    "Modern Japan,"
    Modern Japan is not a fascist or socialist nation. It is now organized as a republic.

    Yes, but we're talking about command economies. Right after WW2, the US, in an attempt to restore Japan's economy, used a command economy to bring it up. It is true that it doesn't have a command economy as of now, but its economic restoration is partially credited to the mixed economy that the US put in. 

    "US,"
    The United States is organized as a republic, not as a fascist government.

    WW1. FDR tried copying it, as stated before, but didn't use the right method. 

    "Modern China,"
    Chins is organized as a socialist government, not a fascist one. It is suffering badly under it, too.

    The people are suffering, but the economy isn't. We are talking about the economy. 

    "Early Soviet Union,"
    The USSR is organized as a socialist government. It is suffering too.

    During the end it suffered because it lost incentive. If it had turned into a mixed economy, then its economy would have still lasted like China's. 

    :A command economy fails when there is no defined goal."
    A command economy fails...period.

    My statement was based on my examples. The examples were refuted for being unsuccessful or not being fascist, but not whether or not the command economy worked. 

    "China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization."
    China is not capitalism. It is a socialist nation. It is falling apart. It is NOT doing well at all. I suspect a violent revolt will rock China yet again in the near future.

    China is still socialist, but it is adopting capitalist values. https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist
    Chinese people now have private property, businesses, and differing classes. 
    However, I do believe that China will have a revolt due to its mistreatment of its people, but that's not about the economy. 

    "Explain to me how life was better under the [Roman] republic."
    It's what make Rome great. It produced the wealth that made Rome the society that it was, before the dictators came along.

    There was wealth produced during the dictatorships too. The height of the Roman Empire was during the reign of a dictator. Standard of living was also at its peak during a dictatorship. 

    "Also my statement "life back then was miserable" implies that life back then was generally more miserable than modern day life, in a developed nation. "
    This is a fallacy, known as 'presentism'. It is the imposition of today's standards on yesterday.

    The reason this fallacy was made was to prevent people from saying things such as "Life under the rule of Genghis Khan was bad compared to today. Therefore, Genghis Khan was bad." The statement I made was different. I was stating that "Life under the dictatorship was bad, but so was life under the republic. Compared to today, both of them were bad." I'm not saying that the republic and the dictatorship were both bad because they don't meet today's standards, but that they are both equally bad in the eyes of someone from today, therefore you can't only blame the dictatorship for bad living standards. 

    AFM is American Fascist Movement. This isn't the only one. The Unity Party of Alberta, Integralists, Early Traditional Fascism, and other nameless movements. 
    Also I don't see why "fascist can't be a republic". Originally, fascist writers never put this requirement. They even referred the Roman Republic as fascist. Look at my previous arguments for what fascism is. It is authoritarian, but that doesn't mean there can't be a republic. Just because a bunch of WW2 leaders didn't have a republic doesn't mean fascism can't have a republic. 

    "I think it is best not to argue under this topic, because there are different uses for the word republic."
    Only one. A republic is a government by law, not by men. It is government by a constitution, agreed upon by the people of that nation.

    Language is malleable. My usage refers to the common usage of a republic. Even if it isn't correct in a scholarly perspective, it is still applicable. A republic also doesn't require a constitution. There is a reason some governments are called republics, and others are called constitutional republics. 

    "My use referred to 'representative democracy'."
    Democracies fail, usually quickly. It is mob rule. There is no constitution to stop it. The little guy gets crushed, and the usual result is anarchy, followed by an oligarchy or dictatorship.

    Same thing with a republic. Only if it's a constitutional republic does it have a constitution. I was only telling you my definition of republic which I use, but as I previously stated, I support a constitutional republic, which is a constitutional representative democracy. 

    "Also it doesn't really matter in this debate. "
    It does. Indeed, you are still trying to say the two are compatible.

    I was talking about the argument of what republic means. 
    SilverishGoldNova
  • @Fascism


    "It was illegal in the US, but it shouldn't be illegal. It was done for a solution for the Great Depression, it didn't cause the Great Depression"
    Wrong. It CAUSED the Great Depression. It's what made an ordinary downturn into the Great Depression.
    "It didn't work when FDR did it, but it worked in WW1 where the same plan of controlling price worked."
    It failed under Pres. Wilson too.
    "What FDR did wrong was that he didn't implement his controlling of price to accomplish his goal."
    Both implemented price controls.
    "He thought that after increasing prices, the economy will do it itself, but unlike in WW1 where the economy had incentive for the war, there was no incentive during the Great Depression."
    Both cases failed because both tried to manipulate the economy.
    "The original reason I brought this up wasn't because I was trying to prove that it works."
    It didn't work.
    "I was trying to prove that it doesn't infringe people's rights"
    It DOES infringe on people's rights. People have the right to charge whatever they wish for their services. They do NOT have the right to expect people to actually pay their asking price.
    "I also used other examples which prove that it works if done right"
    It doesn't work. It has never worked.
    "Nazi Germany's economy itself was doing good."
    No, it wasn't. Do not confuse the disaster of the Versailles treaty with a good economy.



  • "Just because a bunch of WW2 leaders didn't have a republic doesn't mean fascism can't have a republic."
    Fascism and republican forms of government are mutually exclusive.
    "Language is malleable. My usage refers to the common usage of a republic. Even if it isn't correct in a scholarly perspective, it is still applicable. A republic also doesn't require a constitution. There is a reason some governments are called republics, and others are called constitutional republics."

    The definition of a republic is a constitutional form of government; in other words, government by law, not of men. There is no other definition of a republic.
    There are certainly a lot of governments that call themselves a republic, but they aren't. This is usually a dictator or an oligarchy trying to cover up what they really are.

  • @Nightwing
    "Wrong. It CAUSED the Great Depression. It's what made an ordinary downturn into the Great Depression."
    The great depression started in 1929. FDR implemented his plan for a command economy after his was elected. He was elected in 1933. He didn't cause the Great Depression. He made it worse. 

    "It failed under Pres. Wilson too."
    No it didn't. It caused an economic boom. They shouldn't have continued it however. It was only good during the war. Plus I gave other examples of a command economy working anyways. 

    "Both implemented price controls."
    Yes but I said that FDR didn't do it in such a way to support his goal. He simply increased the prices, but nothing else. 

    "Both cases failed because both tried to manipulate the economy."
    It didn't fail in WW1. It also didn't fail in the previous list of countries I gave. 

    "It DOES infringe on people's rights. People have the right to charge whatever they wish for their services. They do NOT have the right to expect people to actually pay their asking price."
    Then in that case, there shouldn't be a minimum wage either, since it infringes on the right of people to pay their employees whatever they want. It is for the better of the society. 

    "It doesn't work. It has never worked."
    Then give an explanation to all the countries I listed. You dropped that argument. You only responded to Nazi Germany. 

    "No, it wasn't. Do not confuse the disaster of the Versailles treaty with a good economy."
    The Treaty of Versailles wasn't caused by the Nazis. Nazi Germany wasn't even the one which signed the treaty. Nazi Germany came to power afterwards. The economic disaster was caused by the Weimar Republic which also signed the treaty. Nazi Germany came in and solved these problems. 


    "The definition of a republic is a constitutional form of government; in other words, government by law, not of men. There is no other definition of a republic.
    There are certainly a lot of governments that call themselves a republic, but they aren't. This is usually a dictator or an oligarchy trying to cover up what they really are."
    Once again, language is malleable and their are many different definitions:

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=define+republic&oq=define+republic&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.692.2432.0.2744.16.15.0.0.0.0.156.1601.3j11.14.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.14.1600.0..46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.wS84eEXZ0_Q

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=republic&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=republic&sc=8-8&sk=&cvid=162CEF06AEA84977BF2F89A4BC4A4F55

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/republic

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

    None of these definitions say that a republic needs a constitution. The general definition of these online dictionaries is that a republic is a government which gets its power from the people. A democracy is therefore a type of republic in that sense. I support a constitutional representative democracy, which is a type of republic. Your definition might be right, but there are also other definitions. 
  • Here is a list of arguments which you dropped. Some of these points you only partially refuted, but didn't respond completely. 

    Fascism said:
    1. "Taxation can certainly be theft. It doesn't have to be."

    Same thing with a command economy. It can be theft, if used at a high rate, but if it used at a low level, it most certainly isn't theft. 

    2. "It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany,"
    Yes, it was. Germany couldn't even feed its war machine anymore.

    Nazi Germany's economy itself was doing good. Their downfall was caused by declaring war against too many people, and causing racism which cost them much. They also ran out of natural resources by not trading with other countries. The military suffered due to bad leadership, but the economy was doing fine. 

    "Francoist Spain,"
    Same thing.

    Francoist Spain was never a war machine. Its economy started off faltering because they were leaning towards socialist values and it had an extensive command economy. But afterwards, they relaxed their control and turned into a mixed economy favoring capitalist values, which led them to have an improving economy. They didn't fail because of their command economy, rather because it was an autocratic dictatorship. This led to confusion after Francisco Franco died, and led fascism to go out of Spain. 

    "Fascist Italy,"
    Same thing.

    Fascist Italy, like Nazi Germany, went out of its economic depression due to a command economy. 

    "Imperial Japan,"
    Same thing.

    Imperial Japan suffered not because of a command economy, but because of lack of resources on its lands, to supply its military. If it had traded with other countries, then this wouldn't have happened, as they were doing better when the US was trading with them beforehand. 

    "Modern Japan,"
    Modern Japan is not a fascist or socialist nation. It is now organized as a republic.

    Yes, but we're talking about command economies. Right after WW2, the US, in an attempt to restore Japan's economy, used a command economy to bring it up. It is true that it doesn't have a command economy as of now, but its economic restoration is partially credited to the mixed economy that the US put in. 

    "US,"
    The United States is organized as a republic, not as a fascist government.

    WW1. FDR tried copying it, as stated before, but didn't use the right method. 

    "Modern China,"
    Chins is organized as a socialist government, not a fascist one. It is suffering badly under it, too.

    The people are suffering, but the economy isn't. We are talking about the economy. 

    "Early Soviet Union,"
    The USSR is organized as a socialist government. It is suffering too.

    During the end it suffered because it lost incentive. If it had turned into a mixed economy, then its economy would have still lasted like China's. 

    :A command economy fails when there is no defined goal."
    A command economy fails...period.

    My statement was based on my examples. The examples were refuted for being unsuccessful or not being fascist, but not whether or not the command economy worked. 

    "China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization."
    China is not capitalism. It is a socialist nation. It is falling apart. It is NOT doing well at all. I suspect a violent revolt will rock China yet again in the near future.

    China is still socialist, but it is adopting capitalist values. https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist
    Chinese people now have private property, businesses, and differing classes. 
    However, I do believe that China will have a revolt due to its mistreatment of its people, but that's not about the economy. 

    3. AFM is American Fascist Movement. This isn't the only one. The Unity Party of Alberta, Integralists, Early Traditional Fascism, and other nameless movements. 
    Also I don't see why "fascist can't be a republic". Originally, fascist writers never put this requirement. They even referred the Roman Republic as fascist. Look at my previous arguments for what fascism is. It is authoritarian, but that doesn't mean there can't be a republic. Just because a bunch of WW2 leaders didn't have a republic doesn't mean fascism can't have a republic. 

    4. "Explain to me how life was better under the [Roman] republic."
    It's what make Rome great. It produced the wealth that made Rome the society that it was, before the dictators came along.

    There was wealth produced during the dictatorships too. The height of the Roman Empire was during the reign of a dictator. Standard of living was also at its peak during a dictatorship. 

  • Concerning: "Wrong. It CAUSED the Great Depression. It's what made an ordinary downturn into the Great Depression."
    "The great depression started in 1929. FDR implemented his plan for a command economy after his was elected. He was elected in 1933. He didn't cause the Great Depression. He made it worse. "
    The stock market crash caused a downturn that would have self corrected. FDR turned the downturn into the Great Depression. Oddly, the kind of speculation that fed the crash was caused by the horrible policies of his predecessors.

    Concerning: "It failed under Pres. Wilson too."
    "No it didn't. It caused an economic boom. They shouldn't have continued it however. It was only good during the war. Plus I gave other examples of a command economy working anyways. "
    It was not an economic boom. It is a highly speculative economy. It had no substance. Kind of like the Boom dot Bust crash of 2000. Both were caused by very similar factors. Both were caused by the government in exactly the same way.

    Concerning: "Both implemented price controls."
    "Yes but I said that FDR didn't do it in such a way to support his goal. He simply increased the prices, but nothing else. "
    FDR did it to support his goal of trying to dictate to the people what the 'normal' price should be. It failed. You can't kill the free market. It's immortal.

    Concerning: "Both cases failed because both tried to manipulate the economy."
    "It didn't fail in WW1. It also didn't fail in the previous list of countries I gave. "
    It DID fail as a result of WW1 and the costs of that war. Wilson's failure to implement the same kind of price controls that FDR later attempted in spades failed just the same way and for the same reasons.

    Concerning: "It DOES infringe on people's rights. People have the right to charge whatever they wish for their services. They do NOT have the right to expect people to actually pay their asking price."
    "Then in that case, there shouldn't be a minimum wage either, since it infringes on the right of people to pay their employees whatever they want. It is for the better of the society. "
    Correct. There shouldn't be a minimum wage. The minimum wage is a form of price controls. It results in putting people out of work entirely, not helping them make more money.

    The free market determines it's own prices. If your services are worth something to someone, they will pay for it. Your services are just like any other product in the economy. Want to get rich? Make yourself useful!

    Concerning: "It doesn't work. It has never worked."
    "Then give an explanation to all the countries I listed. You dropped that argument. You only responded to Nazi Germany. "
    I responded to all of them. Go back and read it again. Dropping this line of thought here. I am not a trained monkey to repeat responses to you that you want to ignore.

    Concerning: "No, it wasn't. Do not confuse the disaster of the Versailles treaty with a good economy."
    "The Treaty of Versailles wasn't caused by the Nazis. Nazi Germany wasn't even the one which signed the treaty. Nazi Germany came to power afterwards. The economic disaster was caused by the Weimar Republic which also signed the treaty. Nazi Germany came in and solved these problems. "
    The Treaty of Versailles put Germany under the conditions that brought Hitler to power. You can almost say that WW1 and this treaty caused WW2. Germany suffered its 2nd terrible defeat. Both wars were devastating to Germany's economy.

    Concerning: "The definition of a republic is a constitutional form of government; in other words, government by law, not of men. There is no other definition of a republic.
    There are certainly a lot of governments that call themselves a republic, but they aren't. This is usually a dictator or an oligarchy trying to cover up what they really are."
    "Once again, language is malleable and their are many different definitions:
    ...deleted Holy Links...
    None of these definitions say that a republic needs a constitution. The general definition of these online dictionaries is that a republic is a government which gets its power from the people."
    This actually an argument from false authority. Dictionaries are not authoritative of the definitions of words. They cannot replace textbooks on governmental structure and the history of Western Civilization.
    "A democracy is therefore a type of republic in that sense."
    A democracy is mutually exclusive with a republic. Republics have constitutions. Democracies do not. Democracies are mob rule that quickly decay to anarchy, usually followed by a dictator or oligarchy.
    "I support a constitutional representative democracy, which is a type of republic."
    There is no such form of government as a constitutional representative democracy. This is a phrase that came out the sad excuse these days for high school. It's a phrase of indoctrination double-speak.
    It sounds like you support a republic, such as the federated republic we are organized under in the United States. It that is the case, you cannot support fascism. They are mutually exclusive. You gotta choose one or the other. It can't be both.
    "Your definition might be right, but there are also other definitions."
    The definition I use comes from the study of governmental structures and from a study of Western civilization.

  • @Nightwing
    "The stock market crash caused a downturn that would have self corrected. FDR turned the downturn into the Great Depression. Oddly, the kind of speculation that fed the crash was caused by the horrible policies of his predecessors."
    OK makes sense. 

    'It was not an economic boom. It is a highly speculative economy. It had no substance. Kind of like the Boom dot Bust crash of 2000. Both were caused by very similar factors. Both were caused by the government in exactly the same way."
    The problem"
    FDR did it to support his goal of trying to dictate to the people what the 'normal' price should be. It failed. You can't kill the free market. It's immortal."
    Boom and busts are caused by malinvestment. So I agree that the investments had no substance. The people didn't know how to make investments. The demand dried up and all their investments were useless. In a command economy, the investments are regulated. After the boom there is no bust, just a flattening of economic growth. 

    "Correct. There shouldn't be a minimum wage. The minimum wage is a form of price controls. It results in putting people out of work entirely, not helping them make more money.
    The free market determines it's own prices. If your services are worth something to someone, they will pay for it. Your services are just like any other product in the economy. Want to get rich? Make yourself useful!"
    I'd rather have 10 out of 20 people having their life needs fulfilled, instead of 20 out of 20 people having some of what they need to sustain their family. The minimum wage should be to give the minimum amount of money to a person to sustain his life. If there is no minimum wage, then there would be more people with jobs, but none of them can sustain themselves anyways. This is what happened before there was a minimum wage. 

    "I responded to all of them. Go back and read it again. Dropping this line of thought here. I am not a trained monkey to repeat responses to you that you want to ignore."
    I will address this in another argument since I don't want to make this one too long. It will addressed in the next one. 

    "The Treaty of Versailles put Germany under the conditions that brought Hitler to power. You can almost say that WW1 and this treaty caused WW2. Germany suffered its 2nd terrible defeat. Both wars were devastating to Germany's economy."
    After the Treaty of Versailles, the government printed out money which destroyed the economy. Through a command economy, the economy went back up again. I agree that declaring war on every country Hitler sees was bad for the economy, but my original purpose of bringing this up was to prove that a command economy works. The command economy had nothing to do with declaring war on 20 other countries. 

    "This actually an argument from false authority. Dictionaries are not authoritative of the definitions of words. They cannot replace textbooks on governmental structure and the history of Western Civilization."
    Dictionaries don't replace other definitions, but they do give information on what the general public uses a word as. Dictionaries don't have authority, nor do textbooks. Language is malleable and different people use the same word in different ways. This is why I'm saying both of us are not wrong. 

    "A democracy is mutually exclusive with a republic. Republics have constitutions. Democracies do not. Democracies are mob rule that quickly decay to anarchy, usually followed by a dictator or oligarchy."
    In the way you use republic and democracy, this applies. 

    "There is no such form of government as a constitutional representative democracy. This is a phrase that came out the sad excuse these days for high school. It's a phrase of indoctrination double-speak.
    It sounds like you support a republic, such as the federated republic we are organized under in the United States. It that is the case, you cannot support fascism. They are mutually exclusive. You gotta choose one or the other. It can't be both."
    Fascism where the educated legal citizens choose a leader. I will stop using the word republic. 

    "The definition I use comes from the study of governmental structures and from a study of Western civilization."
    Sure I will use this definition from now on in this debate. 

  • "I responded to all of them. Go back and read it again. Dropping this line of thought here. I am not a trained monkey to repeat responses to you that you want to ignore."

    That doesn't make you a trained monkey. If anything it proves me wrong. Here are the arguments regarding my examples:

    Me:
    Fascism said:

    "No, it doesn't. Everywhere it is tried the portion of economy managed by the government proves to be a disaster."

    It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Modern Japan, US, Modern China, Early Soviet Union, Social Democracy, etc. A command economy fails when there is no defined goal. In Nazi Germany's case, the goal was to take over some land with military power, which is why it succeeded. Early Soviet Union also succeeded because it had a clear goal. However, over time the goal was blurred, because of the people not willing to work towards it anymore. This is why it failed. If the Soviet Union had capitalism, then the people would have still been willing to work and it still would have succeeded. China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization. 

    You:
    Nightwing said:
    Fascism said:
    @Nightwing ;
    "It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany,"
    Yes, it was. Germany couldn't even feed its war machine anymore.
    "Francoist Spain,"
    Same thing.
    "Fascist Italy,"
    Same thing.
    "Imperial Japan,"
    Same thing.
    "Modern Japan,"
    Modern Japan is not a fascist or socialist nation. It is now organized as a republic.
    "US,"
    The United States is organized as a republic, not as a fascist government.
    "Modern China,"
    Chins is organized as a socialist government, not a fascist one. It is suffering badly under it, too.
    "Early Soviet Union,"
    The USSR is organized as a socialist government. It is suffering too.
    :A command economy fails when there is no defined goal."
    A command economy fails...period.
    "China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization."
    China is not capitalism. It is a socialist nation. It is falling apart. It is NOT doing well at all. I suspect a violent revolt will rock China yet again in the near future.





    Me:
    ""It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany,"
    Yes, it was. Germany couldn't even feed its war machine anymore.
    "Francoist Spain,"
    Same thing.
    "Fascist Italy,"
    Same thing.
    "Imperial Japan,"
    Same thing.
    "Modern Japan,"
    Modern Japan is not a fascist or socialist nation. It is now organized as a republic.
    "US,"
    The United States is organized as a republic, not as a fascist government.
    "Modern China,"
    Chins is organized as a socialist government, not a fascist one. It is suffering badly under it, too.
    "Early Soviet Union,"
    The USSR is organized as a socialist government. It is suffering too.
    :A command economy fails when there is no defined goal."
    A command economy fails...period.
    "China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization."
    China is not capitalism. It is a socialist nation. It is falling apart. It is NOT doing well at all. I suspect a violent revolt will rock China yet again in the near future."

    In each one of these countries I mentioned, I was referring to there economy, not there governmental form, or there military success. The original conversation had to do with a command economy, and if it actually benefits the economy or not. Not if fascism as a governmental form succeeds or not. Here are the quotes of the conversation:

    You: "No, it doesn't. Everywhere it is tried the portion of economy managed by the government proves to be a disaster."
    (referring to a command economy)

    Me: "It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Modern Japan, US, Modern China, Early Soviet Union, Social Democracy, etc."

    So to counter what you said:

    "It wasn't a disaster in Nazi Germany,"
    Yes, it was. Germany couldn't even feed its war machine anymore.

    Nazi Germany's economy itself was doing good. Their downfall was caused by declaring war against too many people, and causing racism which cost them much. They also ran out of natural resources by not trading with other countries. The military suffered due to bad leadership, but the economy was doing fine. 

    "Francoist Spain,"
    Same thing.

    Francoist Spain was never a war machine. Its economy started off faltering because they were leaning towards socialist values and it had an extensive command economy. But afterwards, they relaxed their control and turned into a mixed economy favoring capitalist values, which led them to have an improving economy. They didn't fail because of their command economy, rather because it was an autocratic dictatorship. This led to confusion after Francisco Franco died, and led fascism to go out of Spain. 

    "Fascist Italy,"
    Same thing.

    Fascist Italy, like Nazi Germany, went out of its economic depression due to a command economy. 

    "Imperial Japan,"
    Same thing.

    Imperial Japan suffered not because of a command economy, but because of lack of resources on its lands, to supply its military. If it had traded with other countries, then this wouldn't have happened, as they were doing better when the US was trading with them beforehand. 

    "Modern Japan,"
    Modern Japan is not a fascist or socialist nation. It is now organized as a republic.

    Yes, but we're talking about command economies. Right after WW2, the US, in an attempt to restore Japan's economy, used a command economy to bring it up. It is true that it doesn't have a command economy as of now, but its economic restoration is partially credited to the mixed economy that the US put in. 

    "US,"
    The United States is organized as a republic, not as a fascist government.

    WW1. FDR tried copying it, as stated before, but didn't use the right method. 

    "Modern China,"
    Chins is organized as a socialist government, not a fascist one. It is suffering badly under it, too.

    The people are suffering, but the economy isn't. We are talking about the economy. 

    "Early Soviet Union,"
    The USSR is organized as a socialist government. It is suffering too.

    During the end it suffered because it lost incentive. If it had turned into a mixed economy, then its economy would have still lasted like China's. 

    :A command economy fails when there is no defined goal."
    A command economy fails...period.

    My statement was based on my examples. The examples were refuted for being unsuccessful or not being fascist, but not whether or not the command economy worked. 

    "China realized that it needed capitalism, and a mixed economy. Its economy is now developing at a good rate due to its realization."
    China is not capitalism. It is a socialist nation. It is falling apart. It is NOT doing well at all. I suspect a violent revolt will rock China yet again in the near future.

    China is still socialist, but it is adopting capitalist values. (Deleted Link)
    Chinese people now have private property, businesses, and differing classes. 
    However, I do believe that China will have a revolt due to its mistreatment of its people, but that's not about the economy. 

    Your next two arguments had nothing to do with the examples. Only Nazi Germany was addressed:
    Nightwing said:
    @Fascism


    "It was illegal in the US, but it shouldn't be illegal. It was done for a solution for the Great Depression, it didn't cause the Great Depression"
    Wrong. It CAUSED the Great Depression. It's what made an ordinary downturn into the Great Depression.
    "It didn't work when FDR did it, but it worked in WW1 where the same plan of controlling price worked."
    It failed under Pres. Wilson too.
    "What FDR did wrong was that he didn't implement his controlling of price to accomplish his goal."
    Both implemented price controls.
    "He thought that after increasing prices, the economy will do it itself, but unlike in WW1 where the economy had incentive for the war, there was no incentive during the Great Depression."
    Both cases failed because both tried to manipulate the economy.
    "The original reason I brought this up wasn't because I was trying to prove that it works."
    It didn't work.
    "I was trying to prove that it doesn't infringe people's rights"
    It DOES infringe on people's rights. People have the right to charge whatever they wish for their services. They do NOT have the right to expect people to actually pay their asking price.
    "I also used other examples which prove that it works if done right"
    It doesn't work. It has never worked.
    "Nazi Germany's economy itself was doing good."
    No, it wasn't. Do not confuse the disaster of the Versailles treaty with a good economy.




    Nightwing said:
    "Just because a bunch of WW2 leaders didn't have a republic doesn't mean fascism can't have a republic."
    Fascism and republican forms of government are mutually exclusive.
    "Language is malleable. My usage refers to the common usage of a republic. Even if it isn't correct in a scholarly perspective, it is still applicable. A republic also doesn't require a constitution. There is a reason some governments are called republics, and others are called constitutional republics."

    The definition of a republic is a constitutional form of government; in other words, government by law, not of men. There is no other definition of a republic.
    There are certainly a lot of governments that call themselves a republic, but they aren't. This is usually a dictator or an oligarchy trying to cover up what they really are.

    Am I missing an argument? 

    Also, what about my other post where I listed all the arguments you dropped. 
  • @Fascism

    govt control tends to fall into tyranny

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • @Medic Yes. That's why we constantly try to create a government which cannot fall into tyranny. The solution is not to have any government at all. 
    EmeryPearson
  • MedicMedic 165 Pts
    edited November 2017
    @Fascism

    Nonsense. Having no state and no guarantor of the monopoly on force just ensures that disparate groups struggle for a monopoly on force which ends up in a quasi-state actor having a monopoly on force but without the positives of a state. @Fascism

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • @Medic That's why I'm saying we should have a state. I'm not sure if I understood what you're trying to say here. 
  • Misread, disregard.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • What do you define as 'good' and what do you define as 'fascism'? This is the key discrepancy in this debate.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234 I already defined fascism. "Good" is just whatever is morally right. I can't list out every moral I believe in. It would be better if we just argue about it as we encounter it. 
  • MikeMike 88 Pts

    A republic (the philosophy of Charles de Montesquieu) is the best form of governance, its structure supports separation of powers with checks and balances between the branches of power.

    Another important concept of governance follows two basic forms: The first, the citizen is part of the state (government). The second, the state is an institution that is separate from the citizen. In the US, the state is an institution guided by the constructal evolution of a civil society driven by “unalienable Rights,” not by the dictate of the state.

    Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

    Capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

    The way I see it, Capitalism is based on freedom, where Socialism is based on State tyranny.

    Relative to freedom, the foundation to capitalism, I like Thomas Jefferson’s take on freedom:

    “Of liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

    MayCaesar
  • To keep this simple, your argument basically is any system of order is better than a system of disorder.  If facism stands for a particular kind of order and makes any progress whatsoever on it then by definition you say that's better than if we did not have that version of order.

    There can be a grain of truth to that.

    But that grain of truth can also be a poison pill.  It tries to legitimize something that hurt many people.  I side with the group that says it's not worth taking the poison pill just to get some form of order.  I trust the disorder more than the bootstrapped order.
  • Fascism said:
    @someone234 I already defined fascism. "Good" is just whatever is morally right. I can't list out every moral I believe in. It would be better if we just argue about it as we encounter it. 
    If your definition of 'good' is fluid, then this debate can never be won or lost because you'll adjust it to meet the evils of fascism.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • FascismFascism 317 Pts
    @someone234 My definition of good isn't fluid. 

    Start off by pointing out one of the evils of fascism and I will reply. Then you can judge if our morals are too far apart or not. Don't automatically assume that our differing morals will not allow for a good debate. 
  • FascismFascism 317 Pts
    @Grenache I already refuted this point many times in this debate. Every type of government has hurt people before. That doesn't make their fundamentals wrong. 
    Grenache
  • FascismFascism 317 Pts
    edited March 12
    @Mike A republic doesn't require checks and balances. A republic can be a republic with or without checks and balances. Checks and balances isn't exclusive to one type of government either. 

    It is improper to compare a republic against fascism. A republic is a type of government. Fascism is more than that. It is an ideology which can be applied societally, economically, and politically. A republic can, however, be compared to a monarchy or a dictatorship. 

    I agree that the people and the state are two different institutions. 

    With your definitions, you conclude that socialism is state tyranny. With that logic, I have just as much merit to conclude that capitalism is tyranny from big business. A mix of these types of ideologies is moral. It doesn't allow too much government power, but doesn't allow too much business power. 

    Like Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Capitalism fails to realize that life is social. Communism fails to realize that life is personal. The good and just society is ... a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism." 
    EmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    @Fascism
    Definition by https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

    Definition of fascism

    1often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 
    2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    By Wikipedia
    Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce. 

    It is also, 
    "Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[12] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[12] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[13][14][15][16] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[17]"

    This would now lead us to why these are bad. 
    This, for the majority, focuses on totalitarianism. This means that the state has no limits on its authority. Freedoms are oppressed. It is also not in favor of a democracy (which can be a republic). Instead, it favors dictatorship, which can be bad (sometimes it is good for the people). This ideology crushes opposition and so there would be no political diversity. Fascism also contains imperialism! The final thing to touch upon is that it exalts race above the individual. This is discrimination and racist. 
    someone234
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • MikeMike 88 Pts
    Fascism said:
    .... It is improper to compare a republic against fascism. A republic is a type of government. Fascism is more than that. It is an ideology which can be applied societally, economically, and politically. A republic can, however, be compared to a monarchy or a dictatorship.....


    Thanks for sharing your philosophy on “fascism.” If fascism is so great, where’s the empirical evidence?

    Again, a republic (the philosophy of Charles de Montesquieu) is the best form of governance, its structure supports separation of powers like those in the US Constitution with checks and balances between the branches of power.

    Relative to economics, the US supports and protects the “unalienable Rights” (via the Bill of Rights) of individuals’ and social entities (corporations, unions, markets, religious institutions, etc.) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. This structure of governance gives freedom to the civil society to evolve guiding the institution of government to make law (the legislature, congress) where the courts (judicial) interprets the law case-by-case via common law (aka judicial precedent) as the executive branch enforces the law. The key to what makes the US great is, a free society drives the institution of government to protect an evolving civil society (in culture, economics, technology, etc.), not by the tyranny of masterminds within government driving society via dictate. A subtle, but a very big difference.     

    Therefore, I submit to you the following empirical evidence: within a short period of 200 years of its formation the US citizen went from a four wheel horse-and-buggy to a four wheel moon rover; changed the world in technology, medicine, and food production like no other country or ideology in recorded history; even today, having both legal and illegal immigrants overwhelming our borders coming into the US. If there is another system of government better than a free republic like the US, please tell those immigrants about it!!!!!!  

    There you have it. Performance and results, trumps (no pun intended) any hypothetical dream of fascism. 

  • @Fascism
    Pointing out that every form of government has hurt people does not mean then that most or all are still fundamentally sound.  That would justify Aztec society as sound despite human sacrifices.
  • FascismFascism 317 Pts
    edited March 15
    @Pogue
    Pogue said:
    @Fascism
    Definition by https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

    Definition of fascism

    1often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 
    2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    By Wikipedia
    Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce. 

    It is also, 
    "Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[12] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[12] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[13][14][15][16] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[17]"

    This would now lead us to why these are bad. 
    This, for the majority, focuses on totalitarianism. This means that the state has no limits on its authority. Freedoms are oppressed. It is also not in favor of a democracy (which can be a republic). Instead, it favors dictatorship, which can be bad (sometimes it is good for the people). This ideology crushes opposition and so there would be no political diversity. Fascism also contains imperialism! The final thing to touch upon is that it exalts race above the individual. This is discrimination and racist. 
    There are many definitions of fascism, but in this debate, I refer to the definition that is used commonly by historians and scholars, instead of a definition that comes from a normal dictionary. Normal dictionaries use the definition of the word as it is used by the normal population. When I made this debate, I was referring to the fascism found in history and the philosophies of fascist ideologists. 

    Here is one of the definitions historians use. 

    "the fascist negations (anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism); nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership.[31][32][33] According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[34]"

    The important things to note about fascism, are the characteristics of nationalism, authoritarianism, and mixed economy. The other characteristics such as militarism are more minor, and you don't need to have these characteristics in order to be fascist. 

    For example, Nationalist Spain is considered fascist, but it wasn't militarized. In fact, throughout most of its existence it focused on defense. It focused more on its domestic policy economy than its military throughout its existence. 

    Refutations:

    "This, for the majority, focuses on totalitarianism. "
    Not totalitarianism, but authoritarianism.

    "It is also not in favor of a democracy (which can be a republic). "
    Fascism is (usually) corporatist in its method of relations between people and the government. This can allow the government to get its power from the people, while being authoritarian. Plus there were fascist republic movements in history. Two examples are the Roman Republic and the party of Subhash Chandra Bose. 

    "This ideology crushes opposition and so there would be no political diversity. "
    I disproved this with my previous refute. 

    "Fascism also contains imperialism! "
    Explain why this is bad. 

    "The final thing to touch upon is that it exalts race above the individual. This is discrimination and racist. "
    Fascism is nationalist and due to this, racism has been a side affect. Not all nationalism is racist. 
  • FascismFascism 317 Pts
    @Mike
    Mike said:
    Fascism said:
    .... It is improper to compare a republic against fascism. A republic is a type of government. Fascism is more than that. It is an ideology which can be applied societally, economically, and politically. A republic can, however, be compared to a monarchy or a dictatorship.....


    Thanks for sharing your philosophy on “fascism.” If fascism is so great, where’s the empirical evidence?

    Again, a republic (the philosophy of Charles de Montesquieu) is the best form of governance, its structure supports separation of powers like those in the US Constitution with checks and balances between the branches of power.

    Relative to economics, the US supports and protects the “unalienable Rights” (via the Bill of Rights) of individuals’ and social entities (corporations, unions, markets, religious institutions, etc.) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. This structure of governance gives freedom to the civil society to evolve guiding the institution of government to make law (the legislature, congress) where the courts (judicial) interprets the law case-by-case via common law (aka judicial precedent) as the executive branch enforces the law. The key to what makes the US great is, a free society drives the institution of government to protect an evolving civil society (in culture, economics, technology, etc.), not by the tyranny of masterminds within government driving society via dictate. A subtle, but a very big difference.     

    Therefore, I submit to you the following empirical evidence: within a short period of 200 years of its formation the US citizen went from a four wheel horse-and-buggy to a four wheel moon rover; changed the world in technology, medicine, and food production like no other country or ideology in recorded history; even today, having both legal and illegal immigrants overwhelming our borders coming into the US. If there is another system of government better than a free republic like the US, please tell those immigrants about it!!!!!!  

    There you have it. Performance and results, trumps (no pun intended) any hypothetical dream of fascism. 

    There are many definitions of fascism, but in this debate, I refer to the definition that is used commonly by historians and scholars, instead of a definition that comes from a normal dictionary. Normal dictionaries use the definition of the word as it is used by the normal population. When I made this debate, I was referring to the fascism found in history and the philosophies of fascist ideologists. 

    Here is one of the definitions historians use. 

    "the fascist negations (anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism); nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership.[31][32][33] According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[34]"

    The important things to note about fascism, are the characteristics of nationalism, authoritarianism, and mixed economy. The other characteristics such as militarism are more minor, and you don't need to have these characteristics in order to be fascist. 

    For example, Nationalist Spain is considered fascist, but it wasn't militarized. In fact, throughout most of its existence it focused on defense. It focused more on its domestic policy economy than its military throughout its existence. 

    Also, there were fascist republic movements in history. Two examples are the Roman Republic and the party of Subhash Chandra Bose. 

    Refutations:
    "Relative to economics, the US supports and protects the “unalienable Rights” (via the Bill of Rights) of individuals’ and social entities (corporations, unions, markets, religious institutions, etc.) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. "
    In fascism, corporatism can do the same. Like I stated before, fascism can be a republic, but it is usually corporatist. In this system, the institutions can protect social entities as well. 

    "within a short period of 200 years of its formation the US citizen went from a four wheel horse-and-buggy to a four wheel moon rover; changed the world in technology, medicine, and food production like no other country or ideology in recorded history; even today, having both legal and illegal immigrants overwhelming our borders coming into the US. If there is another system of government better than a free republic like the US, please tell those immigrants about it!!!!!!  "
    Nazi Germany went from a country experiencing its worse depression in history, to creating the first manmade object to reach space in 8 years. (1933-1941) It also created countless creations in rapid succession. Who knows what else it could have accomplished if it didn't make its mistakes. The biggest accomplishment of fascism is the stopping of the spread of communism. Also, one of the greatest and long-lasting empires was fascist. The Roman Empire. This is where most fascist philosophers got their ideas from, including Mussolini. The word fascism is even derived from Latin. 
    Plus, just because an ideology is hypothetical doesn't make it inferior to an existing ideology which has been successful. This is the nature of macroeconomics. If humans followed this logic, we would have never stumbled upon a republic in the first place for it to be tested. 
    EmeryPearson
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch