Why is Fascism considered Bad?

[Stormhound]

Let's just say it's not them most effective way of running your country if it involves the death or/and oppression of countless numbers of your own people.

Mass murder is not inherent to Fascism.

[The League of Liberty]

Nationalism is good, In moderate amounts. Fascism's problem isnt nationalism. In america, You can burn the flag, In a fascist country, that would get you killed. we HATE flag burning, but its a right. Dissent, any opinion speaking ill of the government or country as a whole is suppressed. Nationalism must include the love of freedom of speech and expression, otherwise it goes into an all-out police state. Also, Mussolini didnt help its image. Just as Stalin didn't help socialism, and Fidel Castro Communism. If we look at capitalism, communism and socialism, Capitalism seems like the worst of the three. Communism is everyone is equal. Not in capitalism, we have classes. In socialism, the government is positively involved in the peoples lives, providing massive relief, welfare, education, healthcare. The welfare program is socialism. I doubt anyone would say they are against there elderly grandparent or parent receiving in house care from the state would they? Thats socialism. Denmark, a beautiful country, is very socialist, as is Switzerland, Finland, The Netherlands,Canada,Ireland,New Zealand, Belgium. Of course, so is China. Im glad to live in a representative democracy, a republic. But I cant say Im as happy living in a capitalist one. Money is the root of all evil. We worship it as a god, and we forsake our morals for it. I sometimes wonder if america would be better off with the whole everyone's equal idea. Because we arent. our founding fathers would be ashamed.

Our founding fathers certainly would be ashamed, but probably for different reasons than you are assuming. The central tenet American government was founded upon is that every individual has certain rights and freedoms that are inherent. Capitalism gets a bad wrap, but it is the only economical system that can coincide with freedom.

Regarding the OP, most people view fascism as bad because

Fascism on the other hand, is the antithesis of a free, fair, democratic society.

[Alto Mantovano]

mainly because vae victis

however I've never quite understood why communism isn't seen badly, even though it caused many more deaths.

[Aurinsula]

Let's just say it's not them most effective way of running your country if it involves the death or/and oppression of countless numbers of your own people.

Mass murder is not inherent to Fascism.

Then why has no fascist regime ever managed to avoid perpetrating it?

[Alto Mantovano]

Mass murder is not inherent to Fascism.

Then why has no fascist regime ever managed to avoid perpetrating it?

as I hinted in my post, it's the same with communism.

[Aurinsula]

Then why has no fascist regime ever managed to avoid perpetrating it?

as I hinted in my post, it's the same with communism.

Communism is not the issue here.

[Alto Mantovano]

as I hinted in my post, it's the same with communism.

Communism is not the issue here.

True, but it can relate to it.
Why has no communist regime ever managed to avoid it?

[Bunkeranlage]

Because it's been soiled by Hitlerism and the Duce Cult.

[Stormhound]

Mass murder is not inherent to Fascism.

Then why has no fascist regime ever managed to avoid perpetrating it?

Because Fascist Italy was the only (orthodox) fascist regime, and there were other factors in those atrocities than the doctrine of Fascism?

[Aurinsula]

Then why has no fascist regime ever managed to avoid perpetrating it?

Because Fascist Italy was the only (orthodox) fascist regime, and there were other factors in those atrocities than the doctrine of Fascism?

But surely it's relevant that every time it's been tried, it's always involved mass murder? I mean, correlation isn't causation, but you have to admit the possibility is there.

[Alto Mantovano]

Because Fascist Italy was the only (orthodox) fascist regime, and there were other factors in those atrocities than the doctrine of Fascism?

But surely it's relevant that every time it's been tried, it's always involved mass murder? I mean, correlation isn't causation, but you have to admit the possibility is there.

Not like it had been tried many times

[Stormhound]

Because Fascist Italy was the only (orthodox) fascist regime, and there were other factors in those atrocities than the doctrine of Fascism?

But surely it's relevant that every time it's been tried, it's always involved mass murder? I mean, correlation isn't causation, but you have to admit the possibility is there.

Can you list the times it's been tried? The only instances that come to my mind at the moment are Fascist Italy and Post-Civil War Spain, and Franco pretty much went out of his way to purge Fascist and anti-capitalist elements of the Falangist Party.

[Zottistan]

The tendency towards bureaucracy and corruption is an issue, if you want to focus purely on the pragmatics.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Because, in any Western nation with a decent literacy rate, it doesn't work.

Fascism works if you can control the information. Once the printing press was invented, long-term totalitarian rule in Europe and the Americas was eventually doomed. Royals held on for a good long while, but you can only keep control for so long once everybody gets to have an opinion and disseminate it. Different opinions mean dissent from the party line, and soon you have Protestantism breaking out all over, and revolutions, and democracies, and Constitutions, and weird individualists and eccentrics, and competition, and capitalism, and so on. Sure, fascism raises its head in the West every now and then, but any sort of totalitarian rule generally collapses under immense public dissatisfaction. The only ones who seem to be able to hold on in the Information age are communists, particularly the Castros, and even they're only hanging on through sheer chutzpah and spite.

[Aurinsula]

But surely it's relevant that every time it's been tried, it's always involved mass murder? I mean, correlation isn't causation, but you have to admit the possibility is there.

Can you list the times it's been tried? The only instances that come to my mind at the moment are Fascist Italy and Post-Civil War Spain, and Franco pretty much went out of his way to purge Fascist and anti-capitalist elements of the Falangist Party.

There is no meaningful difference between those two ideologies as practiced, or between those two ideologies and Nazism, or the other similar regimes that appeared in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal, Thailand, Japan, China, and Croatia.

[Skeckoa]

The subject says it all. But allow me elaborate. I'm not really looking for an answer that is like " They take our freedoms and kill innocents!" While make no mistake, I think that's bad, it's not really the type of con I'm looking for. I'm looking for something that would more or less hamper the government's ability to act altogether, rebellions/revolutions aside. Would the economy be bad? Would it turn into a civil war? I'm simply curious on what Nationstates thinks is a non-moral flaw to Fascism


TL;DR: Why is Fascism bad without giving an answer based around ethics or morals?

You want everyone to be loyal and put the state's interests before themselves? Only if people get benefit from that, then they will, but that is not really the case. Maybe if they had some say, but wait, it's anti0democratic, oh well.

You want to be inventive, but wait, that is some peskyness of the capitalist class directing the nation, and that is just evil. Nationalized for you, wait, not even nationalized, just put into the hands of the state. But the state is meritocratic, so it's fine that the state runs things,

but wait, who decides that meritocracy? The state as well. Well shit, that seems circular. But as long as we all hold similar values to be self-evident can we have a national understanding of right and wrong, but wait, people don't agree. Well, what are you going to do? Make them agree? Public schooling was made for that speciic purpose anyway, oh damn, resistance. Well shit. Can't have Italians fighting Italians, but wait, those northerners don't consider themselves Italians, who is to decide which nation is which, well obviously oppressor states just let their smaller neighbors live in peace, don't mind that war is the greatest manifestation of the nation's power, but wait, with all these inefficiencies, turns out that we suck at fighting wars that people don't want to fight. Grrr... Should have stayed socialist Benito.

[Ozgaard]

OOC: By the wikipedia article on the term, I have no problem with it. Nationalism and patriotism are good in and of themselves. The only problem appears if along with this nationalism is included racism. This is not necessary but it occurs depending on how a nation identifies itself. If a nation is predominantly of one "race", they have a higher likelihood of actively oppressing minority races within the nation. If, however, a nation identifies itself by an ideology instead, then what is ostracized are minority philosophies (for example, a capitalist society would ostracize communist and socialist philosophies). Bringing everyone together against a common enemy is a good thing so long as the common enemy is worth fighting, but without a plan for after the success of that endeavor, a fascism is doomed to cannibalize itself into corruption.

Just my opinion on the matter. Could care less if anyone agrees or not.

[Threlizdun]

The subject says it all. But allow me elaborate. I'm not really looking for an answer that is like " They take our freedoms and kill innocents!" While make no mistake, I think that's bad, it's not really the type of con I'm looking for. I'm looking for something that would more or less hamper the government's ability to act altogether, rebellions/revolutions aside. Would the economy be bad? Would it turn into a civil war? I'm simply curious on what Nationstates thinks is a non-moral flaw to Fascism


TL;DR: Why is Fascism bad without giving an answer based around ethics or morals?

Why do you need an answer other than ethics or morals? If "they take away our freedoms and kill innocents" isn't enough of a reason for you as to why it's horrible, then you need to seriously reconsider your priorities.

[Risottia]

Would the economy be bad? Would it turn into a civil war? I'm simply curious on what Nationstates thinks is a non-moral flaw to Fascism

The economy would suck so much that the country will have two choices:
1.start aggression wars to gain new resources - thus ending up fighting wars they can't win (see Italy, Germany, Argentina)
2.become subservient to more powerful countries (see Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Chile, Greece)

Why is Fascism bad without giving an answer based around ethics or morals?

Laws and constitutions aren't just about ethics or morals.

[Risottia]

Let's just say it's not them most effective way of running your country if it involves the death or/and oppression of countless numbers of your own people.

Mass murder is not inherent to Fascism.

Fascism is founded on violence and murder, as acknowledged by Mussolini himself in a rather famous speech at the Camera dei Deputati.

[Stormhound]

There is no meaningful difference between those two ideologies as practiced,

This is hardly relevant, as Fascism was never achieved in either Italy or Spain (the latter wasn't even Fascist).

or between those two ideologies and Nazism,

Except biological determinism, one of the most important elements to Nazism, was heavily opposed by nearly all original Fascists such as Balbo. Both Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher of Fascism, despised it, and one of Gentile's students claimed in 1929, that one of the duties of Fascists was to recognize all human beings as deserving respect if only because they're human and carry the mark of divine creation.

From what I read on Falangism, they had some views on race that would have sent a Nazi into a rabid frenzy. If you think there is no meaningful difference between an ideology that regards ethnic mixture as the source of a nation's strength and another that regards ethnic purity as the only meaningful ideal, I really don't know what to say.

or the other similar regimes that appeared in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal, Thailand, Japan, China, and Croatia.

I'm not too familiar with most of the examples you provided, admittedly. However, Salazar wasn't Fascist, merely a corporatist. Japan was imperialist, and the attempt at founding a Fascist party didn't really go anywhere.

[Risottia]

There is no meaningful difference between those two ideologies as practiced,

This is hardly relevant, as Fascism was never achieved in either Italy

Mussolini would disagree with you if could get near a pc, but he's still stuck in piazzale Loreto. Eh, traffic jams here can be quite a mess.

[Stormhound]

This is hardly relevant, as Fascism was never achieved in either Italy

Mussolini would disagree with you

While I'm interested, it doesn't matter either way.

Eh, traffic jams here can be quite a mess.

I'm not saying it's ghost Mussolini.

But it's ghost Mussolini.

[Aurinsula]

There is no meaningful difference between those two ideologies as practiced,

This is hardly relevant, as Fascism was never achieved in either Italy or Spain (the latter wasn't even Fascist).

or between those two ideologies and Nazism,

Except biological determinism, one of the most important elements to Nazism, was heavily opposed by nearly all original Fascists such as Balbo. Both Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher of Fascism, despised it, and one of Gentile's students claimed in 1929, that one of the duties of Fascists was to recognize all human beings as deserving respect if only because they're human and carry the mark of divine creation.

From what I read on Falangism, they had some views on race that would have sent a Nazi into a rabid frenzy. If you think there is no meaningful difference between an ideology that regards ethnic mixture as the source of a nation's strength and another that regards ethnic purity as the only meaningful ideal, I really don't know what to say.

or the other similar regimes that appeared in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal, Thailand, Japan, China, and Croatia.

I'm not too familiar with most of the examples you provided, admittedly. However, Salazar wasn't Fascist, merely a corporatist. Japan was imperialist, and the attempt at founding a Fascist party didn't really go anywhere.

It doesn't matter that "fascism was never achieved." They were fascist parties espousing a fascist ideology. Saying that their namesake referred to some hypothetical future state, yet to be achieved, is meaningless. What differences existed in their theoretical underpinnings, their loftiest ideologies, made no difference whatsoever to the actual functionality of the State or the public's relationship to it.

Do you believe, and can you evidence, the notion that "ethnic mixing... strength," in whatever country that was present, provided a meaningful difference in the lives of individuals to states that espoused "ethnic purity... ideal?"

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Because Fascism, by its very nature, defies the Rule of Law in a nation. In order to have a powerful leader able to circumvent the law, this person needs to be above the law to act. A government that is above the law will defy the law. There is no legal security for anyone, no safety, you can't get out of your door without the fear of being arrested. There is absolutely no protection from the government overriding the rights of the individual and that of the masses, which in turn creates an environment hostile to art, critical thought, objective education and investments. A peaceful, safe Fascist society cannot exist.