Eternal Lotharia wrote:Fascism is a failure in an attempt to return to the glory days of Rome and 1800's Prussia.
It'll always fail because they were unstable and their cronyism and conservatism stifled development, led to incompetence, etc.
Blind loyalty to the state is often signs of incompetence and corruption, not the absence of it.
That's why Fascism will fail:
It's very basis is against the very people it claims to protect, and dooms itself to blind ideology and best-case-scenario with very weak mechanics to solve such issues.
As a likely soon-to-be political candidate, I should advise you to prize people who criticize you and oppose you on many issues more than those who blindly say yes. For that drives development.
Fascism-and Authoritarianism for that matter-removes public debate in a way that creates real tension and danger, leading to decadence and lack of reason to reform. This causes economic and social immobility and leads to inevitable collapse.
The very people who want to craft such a state are thus the very reason such a system would fail.
You have a nice criticism of Fascism, but not Authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism is a useful tool in developing a society. In china, democracy solved nothing. No democracy could stop Warlords, backwards social views and constant fighting. Since it was unified under a authoritarian state, it had the chance to compete against powers that once whipped china with Imperialism. In places like Libya, authoritarianism stopped debates and clashes between tribes. What has democracy done for places like Iraq, Afghanistan and India.They are filled with disorder, and the citizens suffer from useless debates with in the state.
Debate exist only for one reason, and that is to show the superiority of your own views. Your enemy criticism is suppose to make you capitulate to their own. In fact, the advantages you said about authoritarianism are more common for democracies.
