Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[Communal concils]

A strong and centralize Socialist state run by one party.A state that exist solely to advance the economy and to prevent any forces from destroying that system.

That's funny, because that kind of government tanks the state it controls

Most of those nations failed because of social reforms to liberalism. in the 1980's Marxist-Leninist leaders were opening to market and social reforms, so they die from those decisions.

[Frostnia]

That's funny, because that kind of government tanks the state it controls

Most of those nations failed because of social reforms to liberalism. in the 1980's Marxist-Leninist leaders were opening to market and social reforms, so they die from those decisions.

No, not really. The Soviet Union was already starving its people long before it fell.

[Dushan]

Democracy shouldn't exist. The Masses need a more effective government.

Such as?

Joining the Klingon Empire!

[Estanglia]

I'm assuming you're referring to Mussolini's Italy. They may not have started the war, but they participated in it when the option of sitting out was available as Franco's Spain (a regime often considered fascist) proved.



Because that statement can easily become not true or twisted to not include you by an all-powerful government.

That is true. Adolf Hitler was not a trustworthy person, but Mussolini would have had to have foresight to have known that. He did not, unfortunately, and so ensured Italy's demise in the process. Spain under Francisco Franco was not Fascist. The Falangists were, but Franco was not. He was a conservative who shared the nationalist ideals of the Spanish Fascists but not their ideology. He was, ultimately, an opportunist and his reign is rather disappointing as a result; though still better than modern Spain.

The idea that the government would abuse such a statement to further an ulterior motive is a worst case scenario. So long as the ruling party is filled with true ideologues, it should not be a concern.

The worst-case scenario is what worries me. The worst-case scenario in an actual democracy is you have someone in charge who is dictatorial, or the country slides into a state where voting is merely symbolic, both of which can be prevented with proper, enforced checks and balances, with violence as a last resort. For fascism, the worst case scenario is far worse.

It's also the main reasons I'm libertarian: the less the government controls, the less it can corrupt, the less harm it causes and the longer it takes for harm to start.

Democracy shouldn't exist. The Masses need a more effective government.

What's more effective for the masses than a government that can be replaced by them with little effort more than putting a piece of paper in a box?

Because shit governments deserve opposition. Preventing it from being expressed peacefully doesn't remove the opposition. In fact, it could make the opposition violent.

If you do not agree with the government, then change it peacefully through legal means. If that is not possible, then leave the country. It is that simple.

And opposition can be legal.

I am aware of the fallibility of people; that is why I oppose the mob rule intrinsic to liberal democracy. Tell me: why do you think a small concentration of individuals chosen by merit with all the power of the state is less desirable than the entire population of a country - which would include all manner of Fifth Columnists and just in general ignorant or misinformed people - with that same power?

The fact that people should have the ability to choose who leads their country, even if they're misinformed, alongside a general mistrust of people in power (unless they are actually doing good things and sticking by their promises, are transparent etc.), and democracy having quite an easy way of removing unpopular leaders.

[Communal concils]

A strong and centralize Socialist state run by one party.A state that exist solely to advance the economy and to prevent any forces from destroying that system.

A Socialist State does not exist to solely advance the economy, that is a Capitalist State. You are right about strength and centralization, but neither Socialism nor Capitalism is the proper route.

I see no use in corporatism. Eventually, your bourgeoisie will back stab your system. So to remove them would allow the state to form a new system.

[Estanglia]

Sooo when does the "shooting at eachother" bit start?

I give it a few decades at best.

[Communal concils]

Most of those nations failed because of social reforms to liberalism. in the 1980's Marxist-Leninist leaders were opening to market and social reforms, so they die from those decisions.

No, not really. The Soviet Union was already starving its people long before it fell.

Tsarists Russia has been doing that for way longer. The Soviet Union at least overcame the issue of constant famines. The nation industrialize, which allow at least some resemblance to the first world.

[Communal concils]

Every society is oppressive to someone.

As for North Korea, they will change overtime. However, international sanctions hinder this.

North Korea is oppressive to everyone. I don't think even the most disadvantaged westerner has it worse than a North Korean citizen. Not only that, but lifting sanctions would legitimize the government and cement their control even further over the populace

Sanctions actually makes the people like the government more, they have an enemy to blame.Honestly, America is just waiting to turn it into Libya.

[Frostnia]

No, not really. The Soviet Union was already starving its people long before it fell.

Tsarists Russia has been doing that for way longer. The Soviet Union at least overcame the issue of constant famines. The nation industrialize, which allow at least some resemblance to the first world.

Tsarist Russia sucks too. I'm pretty sure Lirenia mentioned this earlier, but "he did it so I can too" isn't an argument. Don't know what you're talking about with the famines, unless you're one of those communists who doesn't think the Holodomor happened. Life generally sucked in the Soviet Union.

[Badb Catha]

I am aware of the fallibility of people; that is why I oppose the mob rule intrinsic to liberal democracy. Tell me: why do you think a small concentration of individuals chosen by merit with all the power of the state is less desirable than the entire population of a country - which would include all manner of Fifth Columnists and just in general ignorant or misinformed people - with that same power?

It is not a matter of thought, but a matter of fact. National Socialism had many good ideas and ultimately can be traced back to Fascism proper, but it distinct from Fascism due to it's inherent struggle being based not in spirit, but in genetics. It was spiritually hollow; materialistic; godless. This is physicality is what separates it from metaphysical Fascism.

Who chooses them? How do we know they're going to have merit? What's to stop a government that can't be criticized from abusing its power? Sure, democracy isn't perfect. It's just the least bad system. Overall, people better know what's best for them than some people whose merit is uncertain.

So? It still has the structure of fascism. It still betrayed its own people. Lest you forget that the Italians introduced anti-Semitic laws and handed over its Jewish population to the Nazis

They are chosen from within the party based on their dedication to serving the nation. Fascism values patriotism and loyalty. You seem to be making the false assumption that a Fascist government does not serve the people. This is untrue. It does not take orders from the people, but this does not mean it does not work in the people's best interest.

There is no sure-fire way to prevent a powerful government from abusing it's power, but Fascism is not without it's checks and balances anymore than a democratic government is. The difference is that in a Fascist system the bureaucracy is absent, thus allowing for quicker and more effective response to tyranny or corruption. The Paramilitary wing of the party is to ensure that the government complies with the ideals of Fascism; it's members indoctrinated in their youth of the importance of being ideologues and staying true to the party's beliefs. They would thus place Fascist principles over the power of the current leadership. Likewise, Fascism is not an autocracy that invests all power into a single person. Supreme power would be in the leader's hands, of course, but additional power would be given to high-ranking party members as well. This is what makes the Fascist State a republic. This is why and how Mussolini was arrested by the Grand Council of Fascism after a vote of no confidence.

The Italian Social Republic was a puppet state of the Third Reich. Mussolini was a figurehead and the Italian Fascists had no power in government. Mussolini continuously opposed the persecution of Jews throughout his rule over the Kingdom of Italy.

This is not universally effective, which is what he was referring to. Islamic theocracy would fail to function outside of a Muslim-majority country.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&p=35507118#p35507118

This would require the complete errosion of national traditions in favor of Islamic ones in order to succeed, which would destroy the country's nation identity. Therefor it is undesirable.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Who chooses them? How do we know they're going to have merit? What's to stop a government that can't be criticized from abusing its power? Sure, democracy isn't perfect. It's just the least bad system. Overall, people better know what's best for them than some people whose merit is uncertain.

So? It still has the structure of fascism. It still betrayed its own people. Lest you forget that the Italians introduced anti-Semitic laws and handed over its Jewish population to the Nazis

They are chosen from within the party based on their dedication to serving the nation. Fascism values patriotism and loyalty. You seem to be making the false assumption that a Fascist government does not serve the people. This is untrue. It does not take orders from the people, but this does not mean it does not work in the people's best interest.

There is no sure-fire way to prevent a powerful government from abusing it's power, but Fascism is not without it's checks and balances anymore than a democratic government is. The difference is that in a Fascist system the bureaucracy is absent, thus allowing for quicker and more effective response to tyranny or corruption. The Paramilitary wing of the party is to ensure that the government complies with the ideals of Fascism; it's members indoctrinated in their youth of the importance of being ideologues and staying true to the party's beliefs. They would thus place Fascist principles over the power of the current leadership. Likewise, Fascism is not an autocracy that invests all power into a single person. Supreme power would be in the leader's hands, of course, but additional power would be given to high-ranking party members as well. This is what makes the Fascist State a republic. This is why and how Mussolini was arrested by the Grand Council of Fascism after a vote of no confidence.

The Italian Social Republic was a puppet state of the Third Reich. Mussolini was a figurehead and the Italian Fascists had no power in government. Mussolini continuously opposed the persecution of Jews throughout his rule over the Kingdom of Italy.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&p=35507118#p35507118

This would require the complete errosion of national traditions in favor of Islamic ones in order to succeed, which would destroy the country's nation identity. Therefor it is undesirable.

There is a reason why I linked my post to there. Please respond in that thread so there's no threadjack.

[Badb Catha]

A Socialist State does not exist to solely advance the economy, that is a Capitalist State. You are right about strength and centralization, but neither Socialism nor Capitalism is the proper route.

I see no use in corporatism. Eventually, your bourgeoisie will back stab your system. So to remove them would allow the state to form a new system.

The bourgeoisie hold no power in the Fascist state, so they cannot "back-stab" the system. That is impossible. If they were to move against the state they would be arrested for treason.

Removing the social class system is impossible without leading the country to ruin. Socialist states have proven this time and again when their policies to eliminate inequality only weakened the stability of their countries. This is why Fascism proposes a far superior alternative: the mending of class relations. If all work for the betterment of the state - rich and poor - then there can be no division.

[Communal concils]

Democracy shouldn't exist. The Masses need a more effective government.

What's more effective for the masses than a government that can be replaced by them with little effort more than putting a piece of paper in a box?

It takes longer to actually do any policies when there is so many division in opinion. Not only that, put uneducated people could be convinced by just how a person looks. There is no concern for the well being of a society, or about the future. It's all treated like sports.

[Kustonia]

If Europe's population was allowed to shrink, the problem would fix itself in my view, via people becoming poorer and thus- having more children on average. Which poor people tend to do for whatever reason. In this way, Europe will remain majority European, just with a marginally smaller population across the board. I don't care if the economy of Europe goes downward in output, what's more important is that Europe stays White.

Why does it matter if Europe stays white?

Because Whites have built Western Civilization and are the sole proprietors of it. Other races of people have civilizations of their own to go back to, but Whites don't. Other races of people are beginning to replace the native White populations to seize power. Differentiation and True Diversity will end, which I don't think anyone is looking forward to.

[Badb Catha]

That is true. Adolf Hitler was not a trustworthy person, but Mussolini would have had to have foresight to have known that. He did not, unfortunately, and so ensured Italy's demise in the process. Spain under Francisco Franco was not Fascist. The Falangists were, but Franco was not. He was a conservative who shared the nationalist ideals of the Spanish Fascists but not their ideology. He was, ultimately, an opportunist and his reign is rather disappointing as a result; though still better than modern Spain.

The idea that the government would abuse such a statement to further an ulterior motive is a worst case scenario. So long as the ruling party is filled with true ideologues, it should not be a concern.

The worst-case scenario is what worries me. The worst-case scenario in an actual democracy is you have someone in charge who is dictatorial, or the country slides into a state where voting is merely symbolic, both of which can be prevented with proper, enforced checks and balances, with violence as a last resort. For fascism, the worst case scenario is far worse.

It's also the main reasons I'm libertarian: the less the government controls, the less it can corrupt, the less harm it causes and the longer it takes for harm to start.

Democracy shouldn't exist. The Masses need a more effective government.

What's more effective for the masses than a government that can be replaced by them with little effort more than putting a piece of paper in a box?

If you do not agree with the government, then change it peacefully through legal means. If that is not possible, then leave the country. It is that simple.

And opposition can be legal.

I am aware of the fallibility of people; that is why I oppose the mob rule intrinsic to liberal democracy. Tell me: why do you think a small concentration of individuals chosen by merit with all the power of the state is less desirable than the entire population of a country - which would include all manner of Fifth Columnists and just in general ignorant or misinformed people - with that same power?

The fact that people should have the ability to choose who leads their country, even if they're misinformed, alongside a general mistrust of people in power (unless they are actually doing good things and sticking by their promises, are transparent etc.), and democracy having quite an easy way of removing unpopular leaders.

What you fail to realize is the ineffectiveness of a decentralized system. The more decentralized a system the more bureaucracy it creates, which takes up both time and resources. A decentralized government cannot defend the nation or provide needs for the people it rules like a centralized on can. This is why libertarianism, democracy, and similar decentralized beliefs are ultimately undesirable.

Opposition should not be legal. It sows division and create instability.

People should not have the ability to choose their leaders, especially if they are misinformed. Mistrust of people in power is often unwarranted, and democracy is demonstrably incapable of removing unpopular leaders as is evident in the US, the UK, Australia, etc.

They are chosen from within the party based on their dedication to serving the nation. Fascism values patriotism and loyalty. You seem to be making the false assumption that a Fascist government does not serve the people. This is untrue. It does not take orders from the people, but this does not mean it does not work in the people's best interest.

There is no sure-fire way to prevent a powerful government from abusing it's power, but Fascism is not without it's checks and balances anymore than a democratic government is. The difference is that in a Fascist system the bureaucracy is absent, thus allowing for quicker and more effective response to tyranny or corruption. The Paramilitary wing of the party is to ensure that the government complies with the ideals of Fascism; it's members indoctrinated in their youth of the importance of being ideologues and staying true to the party's beliefs. They would thus place Fascist principles over the power of the current leadership. Likewise, Fascism is not an autocracy that invests all power into a single person. Supreme power would be in the leader's hands, of course, but additional power would be given to high-ranking party members as well. This is what makes the Fascist State a republic. This is why and how Mussolini was arrested by the Grand Council of Fascism after a vote of no confidence.

The Italian Social Republic was a puppet state of the Third Reich. Mussolini was a figurehead and the Italian Fascists had no power in government. Mussolini continuously opposed the persecution of Jews throughout his rule over the Kingdom of Italy.



This would require the complete errosion of national traditions in favor of Islamic ones in order to succeed, which would destroy the country's nation identity. Therefor it is undesirable.

There is a reason why I linked my post to there. Please respond in that thread so there's no threadjack.

My point stands.

[Genivaria]

The worst-case scenario is what worries me. The worst-case scenario in an actual democracy is you have someone in charge who is dictatorial, or the country slides into a state where voting is merely symbolic, both of which can be prevented with proper, enforced checks and balances, with violence as a last resort. For fascism, the worst case scenario is far worse.

It's also the main reasons I'm libertarian: the less the government controls, the less it can corrupt, the less harm it causes and the longer it takes for harm to start.



What's more effective for the masses than a government that can be replaced by them with little effort more than putting a piece of paper in a box?



And opposition can be legal.



The fact that people should have the ability to choose who leads their country, even if they're misinformed, alongside a general mistrust of people in power (unless they are actually doing good things and sticking by their promises, are transparent etc.), and democracy having quite an easy way of removing unpopular leaders.

What you fail to realize is the ineffectiveness of a decentralized system. The more decentralized a system the more bureaucracy it creates, which takes up both time and resources. A decentralized government cannot defend the nation or provide needs for the people it rules like a centralized on can. This is why libertarianism, democracy, and similar decentralized beliefs are ultimately undesirable.

Opposition should not be legal. It sows division and create instability.

People should not have the ability to choose their leaders, especially if they are misinformed. Mistrust of people in power is often unwarranted, and democracy is demonstrably incapable of removing unpopular leaders as is evident in the US, the UK, Australia, etc.

There is a reason why I linked my post to there. Please respond in that thread so there's no threadjack.

My point stands.

People should not have the ability to choose their leaders

Then you inevitably have no quality control for leaders and you get people who are completely out of touch with the people and you've made revolution inevitable, good job.

[Communal concils]

Tsarists Russia has been doing that for way longer. The Soviet Union at least overcame the issue of constant famines. The nation industrialize, which allow at least some resemblance to the first world.

Tsarist Russia sucks too. I'm pretty sure Lirenia mentioned this earlier, but "he did it so I can too" isn't an argument. Don't know what you're talking about with the famines, unless you're one of those communists who doesn't think the Holodomor happened. Life generally sucked in the Soviet Union.

Holodomor did happen, but it's a miscalculation. Soviets were very aware about how backwards there nation was. Russia suffered from the first world war, then it had a civil war. It's only natural for a society to attempt reconstruction.
In terms of life for citizens, it sucked for those only considered the enemy. It's the case for all long lasting societies. The enemy of society suffers, but the loyal citizens enjoy the system.

[Kustonia]

I see no use in corporatism. Eventually, your bourgeoisie will back stab your system. So to remove them would allow the state to form a new system.

The bourgeoisie hold no power in the Fascist state, so they cannot "back-stab" the system. That is impossible. If they were to move against the state they would be arrested for treason.

Removing the social class system is impossible without leading the country to ruin. Socialist states have proven this time and again when their policies to eliminate inequality only weakened the stability of their countries. This is why Fascism proposes a far superior alternative: the mending of class relations. If all work for the betterment of the state - rich and poor - then there can be no division.

A very thorough analysis! Great job! I can tell you've studied fascism and are very well educated on the subject.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Other races of people are beginning to replace the native White populations to seize power.

Prove the underlined.

Differentiation and True Diversity will end

If indigenous Europeans went extinct there'd still be differentiation and diversity.

[Genivaria]

I see no use in corporatism. Eventually, your bourgeoisie will back stab your system. So to remove them would allow the state to form a new system.

The bourgeoisie hold no power in the Fascist state, so they cannot "back-stab" the system. That is impossible. If they were to move against the state they would be arrested for treason.

Removing the social class system is impossible without leading the country to ruin. Socialist states have proven this time and again when their policies to eliminate inequality only weakened the stability of their countries. This is why Fascism proposes a far superior alternative: the mending of class relations. If all work for the betterment of the state - rich and poor - then there can be no division.

The bourgeoisie hold no power in the Fascist state,

Of course they do by Fascism very nature, the entire idea is to give them a place in the government.

[Communal concils]

I see no use in corporatism. Eventually, your bourgeoisie will back stab your system. So to remove them would allow the state to form a new system.

The bourgeoisie hold no power in the Fascist state, so they cannot "back-stab" the system. That is impossible. If they were to move against the state they would be arrested for treason.

Removing the social class system is impossible without leading the country to ruin. Socialist states have proven this time and again when their policies to eliminate inequality only weakened the stability of their countries. This is why Fascism proposes a far superior alternative: the mending of class relations. If all work for the betterment of the state - rich and poor - then there can be no division.

If you can't eliminate inequality, then at least try to limit it. People will listen when they are taken cared of.

Instead of having capitalist, have economic planners that manage the economy. Industrialization, Mass production and welfare should be their purpose.

[Shrillland]

I should also note that if Marxists want to succeed, there needs to be internal competition that drives success, and doesn't come from internal power struggles else the economy will collapse.

They can't succeed either. Marxism is doomed to fail for the same reason that Randism is doomed to fail. It relies on universal harmony of thought without taking the concept of the individual into account.

[The Black Party]

Funny because society doesn't even have a clear consensus on what fascism even is. Fascism is hiding in the shadows!

[Genivaria]

If anything LIKE Fascism has any chance of ever being reborn in the West than it needs to lose the genocidal tendencies as well as the personality cults around 'dear leader'.

Fascist governments seem to have kept the authoritarian tendency to promise unity and justice and then proceed to destroy the rule of law to maintain their power with little thought of a reasonable succession of government.

[Jakobly]

I would say no. Here in the United States you're probably not going to get any more extreme elected officials than Donald Trump (not that he is a fascist), and he is deeply unpopular. A good chunk of the people who think fascism is inevitably rising are wannabe bolsheviks who want an ultimate showdown.

Edit: Also a lot of the "fascists" today are people who simply get mislabeled as such for disagreeing with the left.

Of course