Fascism is good

Fascism

@Grenache ;
In this case it applies, since it is not fundamental in fascism to commit a genocide of Jews, or even to commit genocide. It is fundamental, however, in the Aztec religion to perform sacrifice. 

If a civilization didn't do sacrifice, then there is no way that it is the same as the Aztecs societally. 

However, if a civilization doesn't commit genocide, there is still a way it could be fascist. 

To sum it up, just because an ideology hurt people, doesn't make its fundamentals wrong, but, in the same manner, it doesn't make its fundamentals right either. We can't determine if an ideology is good or not this way. To evaluate an ideology, we have to criticize its core philosophy and not just a couple of examples of it. 

slavedevice

@Fascism

I believe in National Socialism.  I am a racial SEPERATIST.  Fascism isn’t really a RELATIVE Term.  I think Christians are fascist- they have influence over the populous that vote.  It’s not a FREE SECULAR country.  So relative to me as a Pagan - America is Fascist 

Fascism

@slavedevice ;
I'm a cultural separatist. I agree fascism isn't a relative term, but then why do you refer to America as fascist relative to you in your very next sentence? 

BTW, America is authoritarian, but doesn't have a mixed economy or enough nationalism to count as fascist. 

Pogue

Fascism said:

@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"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond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. 

Fascism said:

@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 c 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. 

Fascism found in history? You said, "When I made this debate, I was referring to the fascism found in history". So Nazis. 

1. Please link that source. 
2. Authoritarianism- the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. So you do advocate for fewer freedoms. 
3. "Fascism is generally connected to the idea that one's own group, community or people is superior to other peoples and, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, condones racism and xenophobia – hatred and fear of minorities, other peoples and other nations." Nationalism has some link to racism and race superiority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism http://www.societasviaromana.net/Collegium_Historicum/fascism.php. ;
4. "Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability". 
5. To be fascist, you do not need everything that marks a fascist. 
6. Post the argument, please. 
7. Ok, it is bad because of the reasons listed below. 
"1. One reason why imperialism hurt the world is that it started racism.  The idea that one race is better than another.  Africa and Asia were weak less powerful nations so the people that occupied the lands were seen as lower than the more powerful Europeans coming in with their big weapons and superiority.  

2. Also, another thing that imperialism did is cause conflict and rivalries between countries trying to gain control of the areas full of the most resources and therefore profit for them. It also caused big problems with the natives to the land who were getting taken over, they had no control of their own homeland.  There was also the Boer War (Boer's were Dutch settlers in Africa) the war was between the British and the Boers's.  Britain won and forced the Boer republics to join the Union of South Africa, a controlled nation.

3. Lastly,  with new people going to different places, the spread of disease was very high.  Europeans were more susceptible to malaria and African's were probably more susceptible to diseases of Europe.  Just as Europeans killed Native Americans in America, the same thing probably happened in many places of the world. 

Mike

Fascism said:

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....

Again, thanks for sharing your philosophy on fascism, dependent on "the definition that is used commonly by historians and scholars." Yet you failed to show evidence of fascism outperforming a free republic form of governance such as the first 200 year historical evidence on the US Constitution’s performance.

You gave examples of failed systems of government which you claimed were fascist. As for communism, its structure, like fascism, goes against the physical constructal law and is doomed to fail on its own merit in units of generational time.   

The constructal law is new and I understand, relative to those who are uninformed, the conservative nature of historical acceptance of new paradigms will filter through a repository of short-lived anecdotes to preserve the status quo. For many, this new concept will not be forthcoming until historical issues are scrutinized in light of this new way of perceiving nature. Examining the constructal law using symmetry will open new doors in our next evolutionary phase, including philosophical reformations from those historians and scholars’ boasting about fascism.  

My recommendation, you should focus on the latest research in social evolution as a function of the constructal law. I understand Professor Adrian Bejan (the one who discovered the physical constructal law) is slated for another reward at the Franklin Institute next month. It’s all about understanding those patterns throughout the universe of which we and our social systems are part of.     

Your belief in fascism relative to empirical evidence over the past few centuries, is like arguing a concept from the Dark Ages over today’s scientific understanding. On that note, I must move on leaving the Dark Ages in the past.

Fascism

@Pogue ;
"Fascism found in history? You said, "When I made this debate, I was referring to the fascism found in history". So Nazis."
Yes, but not only Nazis. 

"Please link that source."
Which source? The source for the definition? I already posted that in the definition itself. 

"Authoritarianism- the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. So you do advocate for fewer freedoms."
Yes. 

""Fascism is generally connected to the idea that one's own group, community or people is superior to other peoples and, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, condones racism and xenophobia – hatred and fear of minorities, other peoples and other nations." Nationalism has some link to racism and race superiority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism http://www.societasviaromana.net/Collegium_Historicum/fascism.php. ;"
Like the definition states, fascism is only generally connected to racism. But like my definition implies, racism isn't required in fascism. I got the definition from the same source you provided. I will post the definition here with the scholarly articles that it comes from here again:
"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]"

"Post the argument, please."
Which argument? The argument that you don't need every single fascist characteristic to be fascist? The evidence for that is Francoist Spain like I stated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoist_Spain

"1. One reason why imperialism hurt the world is that it started racism.  The idea that one race is better than another.  Africa and Asia were weak less powerful nations so the people that occupied the lands were seen as lower than the more powerful Europeans coming in with their big weapons and superiority.  "
Imperialism doesn't require racism. 

"2. Also, another thing that imperialism did is cause conflict and rivalries between countries trying to gain control of the areas full of the most resources and therefore profit for them. It also caused big problems with the natives to the land who were getting taken over, they had no control of their own homeland.  There was also the Boer War (Boer's were Dutch settlers in Africa) the war was between the British and the Boers's.  Britain won and forced the Boer republics to join the Union of South Africa, a controlled nation."
Imperialism such as this I don't support. 

Imperialism is a broad term and there are many types. American influence on Western Germany after WWII was a good type of imperialism. The British Raj was a bad example. 

"3. Lastly,  with new people going to different places, the spread of disease was very high.  Europeans were more susceptible to malaria and African's were probably more susceptible to diseases of Europe.  Just as Europeans killed Native Americans in America, the same thing probably happened in many places of the world."
Fascism is separatist most of the time, so this does not apply. 

Fascism

Mike said:

Fascism said:

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....

Again, thanks for sharing your philosophy on fascism, dependent on "the definition that is used commonly by historians and scholars." Yet you failed to show evidence of fascism outperforming a free republic form of governance such as the first 200 year historical evidence on the US Constitution’s performance.

You gave examples of failed systems of government which you claimed were fascist. As for communism, its structure, like fascism, goes against the physical constructal law and is doomed to fail on its own merit in units of generational time.   

The constructal law is new and I understand, relative to those who are uninformed, the conservative nature of historical acceptance of new paradigms will filter through a repository of short-lived anecdotes to preserve the status quo. For many, this new concept will not be forthcoming until historical issues are scrutinized in light of this new way of perceiving nature. Examining the constructal law using symmetry will open new doors in our next evolutionary phase, including philosophical reformations from those historians and scholars’ boasting about fascism.  

My recommendation, you should focus on the latest research in social evolution as a function of the constructal law. I understand Professor Adrian Bejan (the one who discovered the physical constructal law) is slated for another reward at the Franklin Institute next month. It’s all about understanding those patterns throughout the universe of which we and our social systems are part of.     

Your belief in fascism relative to empirical evidence over the past few centuries, is like arguing a concept from the Dark Ages over today’s scientific understanding. On that note, I must move on leaving the Dark Ages in the past.

@Mike ;

"Again, thanks for sharing your philosophy on fascism, dependent on "the definition that is used commonly by historians and scholars." "
It's not exactly my philosophy. I'm basing this off of other philosophers. 

"Yet you failed to show evidence of fascism outperforming a free republic form of governance such as the first 200 year historical evidence on the US Constitution’s performance. "
I did provide evidence. My quote:
"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."

"You gave examples of failed systems of government which you claimed were fascist."
Not only do I claim that these governments are fascist, but also most historians. And you haven't provided evidence of why the ideology itself failed. 

"As for communism, its structure, like fascism, goes against the physical constructal law and is doomed to fail on its own merit in units of generational time.   The constructal law is new and I understand, relative to those who are uninformed, the conservative nature of historical acceptance of new paradigms will filter through a repository of short-lived anecdotes to preserve the status quo. For many, this new concept will not be forthcoming until historical issues are scrutinized in light of this new way of perceiving nature. Examining the constructal law using symmetry will open new doors in our next evolutionary phase, including philosophical reformations from those historians and scholars’ boasting about fascism.  My recommendation, you should focus on the latest research in social evolution as a function of the constructal law. I understand Professor Adrian Bejan (the one who discovered the physical constructal law) is slated for another reward at the Franklin Institute next month. It’s all about understanding those patterns throughout the universe of which we and our social systems are part of.     Your belief in fascism relative to empirical evidence over the past few centuries, is like arguing a concept from the Dark Ages over today’s scientific understanding. On that note, I must move on leaving the Dark Ages in the past."

I looked into constructal law and I'd like to learn more about it, but can you clearly explain how this connects to fascism and how it disproves the possibility of a good fascist government? 

funperson

"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"
-Merriam-Webster
Are we on the same page with the definition? This means heavy economic regulation, AKA the government putting a gun to people's heads and telling them how to run their businesses. Suppression of opposition means censoring certain speech, which requires putting people in jail for saying certain things. It's a dangerous philosophy that requires the gov't to tread on people's right to free speech, liberty, and property.

Fascism

@funperson ;
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. 

Bear_with_me

@Fascism

Fascism is built on ideas of militarism and totalitarianism right. I'm not an expert of fascism but looking at its history i would say it has a few major issues.

Militarism

I would argue that world war 2 wouln't have happened if it wasn't for the fascist ideology given the fact that it promotes expansionism, militarism and ultra nationalism. It supports survival of the fittest, a kind of social Darwinism. And such an ideology is prone to staring wars. And world war 2 was reasonable for tens of millions of deaths, even putting Nazi Germany's atrocities aside. This has resulted in out of any ideology fascism historically killing by far the most people per capital.

If you think im trying to miscarriage some aspect of fascism tell me because it is a complicated ideolgy and im no expert.

Totalitarianism

I think the fascist state restricts personal liberty far too much and this is not only immoral but also not practical. As when all the power in in the hands of one uncountable strong man like a dictator then there is nothing stopping him from using that power for his own interest and ignoring the good of the people.

This doesn't always happen and some dictators do rule in their countries best interest but more than not, they end up getting corrupt and not caring, as they are not accountable.

-I do have more points but i think those 2 are pretty good critiques

Vincent_Costanzo

Fascism is a system of government that necessitates big government. And as is overly apparent in every society ever, big government sucks at everything. Fascism, by its very nature, removes power from the individual and uses it for the state. The only way fascism can be maintained is by rallying the people against an external threat which leads to constant war. As fascist dictator Benito Mussolini said, Peace is merely an interlude in humanities natural state of war. This constant warfare if unsuccessful leads to the downfall of the fascist state. Small government and democracy has been, and remains, the correct formula for a country's prosperity, and for individual happiness.

Fascism

@Bear_with_me @Vincent_Costanzo ;

Let me define fascism for the purpose of this argument. 

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 ideologies. 

Here is a common definition historians use:

"One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: 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. 

And I am not making up the fact that nationalism, authoritarianism, and a mixed economy are the main elements and the others are not needed (although they usually exist in fascism). For example, Nationalist Spain is considered fascist by historians, but it wasn't militarized according to the same historians. In fact, throughout most of its existence it focused on defense and domestic policy economy rather than its military. Therefore, although fascism usually has militarism, militarism isn't required. 

Fascism

@Bear_with_me ;

Thank you for debating. 

Militarism:
Militarism, ultra-nationalism, and expansionism are all not required in fascism, but for the purposes of this debate, I will argue for the type of fascism I believe in which only supports nationalism, militarism, and the spread of ideology. 

I agree expansionism is bad most of the time and although many fascist nations were expansionist, many at the same time were not. Nationalist Spain for example wasn't expansionist. I do however, support the spreading of an ideology by a country. For example: America spreading democratic capitalism and removing communism. 

Militarism is useful for many things. 
Militarism facilitates the economy and gives new jobs. Nazi Germany went from having the worst depression the country had in its entire history, to sending the first man-made object to space in a matter of eight years. Militarism facilitates the production of weapons which strengthens the industry of the country and gives jobs to the people. 
Militarism is also great at defense for obvious reasons. 
Militarism doesn't necessarily have to be used for offensive reasons, but economic and defensive benefits are always there. 

Ultra-nationalism can lead to racism, but fascism only requires nationalism. The Roman Empire was one of the first fascist empires and it had a form of nationalism which wasn't racist. Nationalism can work if it applies to the entire country. For example, nationalism in Nazi Germany was bad because it excluded Jews, but nationalism in the Roman Empire worked because it included people of all races and cultures (mostly). Christians were discriminated against for a while, but it was good again after Christianity was accepted. 

Totalitarianism
Fascism isn't and cannot be totalitarian. The whole reason fascism experienced a revival in the late 1800s and 1900s was because it was a middle ground between the absolute rule of communism and the lack of regulation of democratic capitalism. Fascism is authoritarian, which is the idea that the government should have a lot of power, but compared to the Soviet Union, it was actually less regulatory. 

Also, fascism doesn't have to be a dictatorship. It can be a monarchy, a democracy, a republic, and oligarchy, or anything else as long as it is authoritarian. 

Mussolini stated that fascist ideologies have long differed in the fact that some were democratic in nature, while others weren't. He also stated that fascism ought to not be democratic because people are too to vote, but that was implied to be his own type of fascism, not all fascism. 

Most fascists don't support dictatorships, democracies, or any of the other things I mentioned. Most fascists are corporatists. To clear out a common misconception, corporatism has nothing to do with corporations except for the latin root "corpus" which means body. 

Corporatism is similar to the senate in the US, except instead of giving equal value to each portion of land (states), corporatism gives equal value to each industry, class, and sometimes ethnic group. This is a good solution to the majority oppressing the minority. For example, if red people were the majority in a country and they all wanted to kill all the blue people, they wouldn't be able to since the importance of red people is equal to the blue people even though the red people are the majority. This is a simplification and it isn't a perfect system, but I believe it to be superior to democracy and dictatorships. 

Fascism

@Vincent_Costanzo ;

Thank you for debating. 

Vincent_Costanzo said:

Fascism is a system of government that necessitates big government. And as is overly apparent in every society ever, big government sucks at everything. Fascism, by its very nature, removes power from the individual and uses it for the state. The only way fascism can be maintained is by rallying the people against an external threat which leads to constant war. As fascist dictator Benito Mussolini said, Peace is merely an interlude in humanities natural state of war. This constant warfare if unsuccessful leads to the downfall of the fascist state. Small government and democracy has been, and remains, the correct formula for a country's prosperity, and for individual happiness.

Fascism is a system of government that necessitates big government. 
I agree

And as is overly apparent in every society ever, big government sucks at everything.
China has made great advancements. Most of its population was in poverty, but now it is challenging the US for superpower status. Fascist countries in history have also been shown to be efficient. Nazi Germany went from having the worst depression in its country's entire history to launching the first man-made objects into space in a matter of eight years. This type of middle ground between communist complete government run economy and total capitalism has been shown to work many times in history. 
Fascism is also great at upholding its nation's culture, something which more libertarian governments have failed at doing. 

Fascism, by its very nature, removes power from the individual and uses it for the state. 
This is the common "In fascism everything you do is for the state," argument, but almost everyone ignores the second part: Everything the state does is for the people. The state is entitled to its people, and the people are entitled to the state. The overall picture is not for the state or the people, but for the nation. 

The only way fascism can be maintained is by rallying the people against an external threat which leads to constant war. 
This is not true looking at the fascist countries which haven't been expansionist, but still successful. Argentina for example. 


Small governments give too much power to businesses, and big governments give too much power to themselves. The whole reason fascism had a revival in the late 1800s and 1900s was because people wanted a middle ground. 

Bear_with_me

@Vincent_Costanzo

Militarism may not be in the ideology but i would argue that in practice fascism produces a lot of it (for example people say dictatorship is a by product of socialism (Marxist term) even though the ideology is pro democracy). Spain wasn't expansionist true, but it was always far to weak to attack the west or east so it wouldn't be rational.

I'm not saying any fascist nation just goes rough and attacks its nebours i'm saying if the nation is in a good position where it thinks it can gain out of it, it will go to war. This is because fascism values the idea of nationalism and thinks violence is legitimate in achieving goals.

I think expansionism is a very systemic problem with fascism.

MayCaesar

The premise of fascism is that the entire nation is united by a certain central idea, championed by the national leader. As such, fascism necessarily implies oppression of those who oppose that idea, or of those who are not considered a part of the nation. The idea of so much power being held by a single individual, or a small group of individuals, is also not very appealing and opens the room for abuse of power and for systematic change based solely on a few individuals' personal views - that can fluctuate drastically with time.

With regards to your argument about fascism combining the strength of socialism and capitalism, it is important to keep in mind under what framework these economical systems are combined. Combination of socialism and capitalism isn't necessarily non-viable; when, however, facilitated by a totalitarian regime, it removes basic economical freedoms and makes any economical activity a subject to optional severe regulations. Your business can be taken away from you, for example, if it is deemed as not serving the central societal goals. And on the other side, the welfare you are desperately needing might be denied, because the state doesn't see you as a part of the nation because of your ancestry or ethnicity.

I can see how fascism may be appealing from a certain perspective, but there is a reason why it's never worked well in practice. And same goes for communism, which is a counterpart of fascism: while championing somewhat opposite schools of thought, they are very similar in their totalitarian essence.

Zombieguy1987

Here's the problem with fascism, history has shown it's flawed, while the best example is Nazi Germany, remember that Japan and Italy were fascist too, and Italy just was screwed by Mussolini by getting into a war they were not prepared for, and japan for attacking America. Sure, some countries that were fascist worked... But a lot of fascist nations either fell into Civil War (like Italy) or were run by horrible leaders (like Hitler)

Also, other nations tried to combine Socialism and capitalism, and failed