CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:102
Arguments:107
Total Votes:131
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Fascism is Good (Please read my argument) (83)

Debate Creator

Fascism(23) pic



Fascism is Good (Please read my argument)

Fascism
Fascism referring to the fundamental political, economic, and societal ideology. Not the insult, or popular view of fascism. 

The original doctrine or principles of fascism promote the following:

Nationalism (ex: Our nationality is #1!)
Militarism (for defense and promoting other national interests)
Command economy (capitalism with government regulation)
Capitalism mixed with socialism (ie. capitalist values mixed with socialist values)
Authoritarianism (Strong central government)
Preservation of culture (falls under nationalism)
Individualism mixed with collectivism (so basically the middle ground between communism and ancap)
Corporatism (in essence, organization of society by major interest groups. ex: labor unions)

Argument
Nationalism isn't necessarily bad. Radical nationalism can lead to racism against immigrants, and cause the nation's culture to become stagnant, but normal amounts of nationalism is just a way of preserving culture. The immigrants would then have to assimilate. 
Ex: American schools teaching English as a core subject to immigrants and citizens alike. 

Militarism is necessary for defense, and protection of borders. 

A command economy is also good if it isn't radical. Too much command economy causes micromanagement in the economy. However, in a command economy where there is minimal government interference, the people can still enjoy personal freedom, with government regulations. These regulations are necessary to accelerate economic growth at times, and can also be useful in achieving goals. 
Ex: Government puts tariffs on foreign steel, so that national steel companies can grow. 

Too much socialism doesn't allow for incentive, and too much capitalism puts too much power on the rich. A mix of these two can take the advantages of both, while taking out the weaknesses. 

Individualism allows for incentive. Collectivism allows for people to work together for a common goal. 

Corporatism organizes different groups of people and makes it easier to appeal to all of them. 
Add New Argument

I can agree that a degree of tyranny is a sign of a strong leader but it's about moderating it and channelling the punishment at the right people.

Good examples of positive Fascism in this day and age include Brazil, New Zealand, China and quite a few efficient Sharia nations the best of which is Oman.

Fascism(23) Disputed
1 point

Eh, I personally don't think those examples are the best. They aren't that successful and China oppresses its people. I prefer Juan Peron and Subhas Chandra Bose.

2 points

Fascism is not kind. China is the Pinnacle of modern day positive fascism.

1 point

I don't even know where to begin. I'm glad this can be debated, but whenever I even consider it, the arguments literally flood my mind and make it insane to sort out...bundled together, they're just too strong, and they yell NO!

Fascism(23) Disputed
1 point

If you actually want to debate this then here, start with morality. You can begin there.

EldonG(550) Disputed
1 point

No, I really don't. I can be objective on a lot of things - even the good that Hitler did...but calling fascism good I just can't stomach.

1 point

Morality/Ethics are a useful place to start.

If you actually want to debate this then here, start with morality. You can begin there.

I am a libertarian (hence a free market capitalist) on the basis of two factors:

-1- Morals/ethics. I hold that freedom is an intrinsic good, that free will is absolute. What constitutes virtue is defined in terms of self-restraint relative to freedom and accountability: The ability for all to make beneficial choices is only possible if all people are equally free to make them. Of course, this includes the opportunity for people to choose to make foolish, lazy, destructive, and oppressive choices.

-2- What people actually are in practice (as opposed to in the ideal.) Not all people choose to be virtuous. Some people will choose to make foolish, destructive, lazy, and oppressive choices. Personal accountability is what places short term and long term limits on what people choose to do, and can do.

Good government must be founded on both these principles. Because of these two things, government should do the least possible.

Because of factor 1, the more government does for people, the more it frees them from natural accountability for their actions. This results in societies increasingly composed of foolish, lazy, destructive people, where there are ever fewer virtuous people to hold things together for the common good.

Because of factor 2, all governments tend toward despotism and waste, regardless of the initial form. The more power people in government have, the better they can avoid being held accountable for their choices. This builds naturally from factor 1.

As a result people should have as much freedom as possible, not be at all protected from natural factors of accountability, and governments should have as little power, and do as little as possible.

Morals/Ethics and realistic expectations of people are where fascism (by your purified definition) fails, and why it so quickly devolves into the brutal caricatures like Italian Fascism and Nazism. These are exactly the same aspects of life on which socialism, communism, monarchism, dictatorships, and welfare states fail.

I️ believe National Socialism is the best model in modern times. Also, it’s fact Jews instigated communism and the crooked monetary system of capitalism. The only thing SS did wrong was not just ship the Jews out maybe instead killing them

Fascism(23) Disputed
1 point

The SS was too authoritarian. It micromanaged the economy. Of course command economies are efficient, but they are also wasteful at times. National Socialism is good, but it is just too authoritarian. I prefer a less authoritarian form of fascism, but that is just my opinion.

marcusmoon(586) Disputed
-5 points
1 point

@Fascism.

Have you read Plato's most influential work The Republic? If so, please share your thoughts. If not, I highly recommend that you do as it is very relevant in respect to this topic

1 point

I haven't read the book, but I am familiar with some of the concepts. I agree with many of the things it suggests about the relation between an individual and the state. The individual is entitled to the state, and the state is entitled to the individual.

xMathFanx(1742) Clarified
1 point

@Fascism.

I think Plato's Republic is probably the most sophisticated pro-Fascist/quasi-Fascist society arguments I have encountered where there are points in the book that gives one (a person not at all sympathetic to Fascism or quasi-Fascist society) pause because there are various good points made.

I would highly recommend reading it if this is something you are deeply interested in (which it appears as though you are). Also, I would be happy to discuss Plato's Republic further if you like, I created a debate 1-3 weeks back on this matter (that didn't receive much attention). Link here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Plato sRepublicistheIdeallyJust_Society

While I don't believe that liberal democracy is the end of history, I don't think fascism is either. Let's go through your principles.

Nationalism - I believe that liberal democracy does a poor job instilling and utilizing a spirit of community. However, nationalism is not the answer. We have moral obligations to the communities we live in but a nation is not that community. The truth is that the concept of a nation is usually not rooted in anything real. In America, there are at least two conflicting national identities: one in the coasts and the other in the rest, in Canada at least two: the French and the English, Spain at least two, UK at least three. Nationalism usually just takes the form of the ruling party's concept of national identity. Now, If you say that there are groups of people out there that share some level of culture and history and the borders of nation states should roughly coincide with these groups I would agree with you. Similar people have similar interest and problems and it is more efficient if they deal with those themselves. But the idea of a "national identity" is not necessary. This is just a malicious meme that depends on scapegoating out-groups and general xenophobia. What is important is shared interests, not blood and soil.

Militarism - I am assuming this means an increase in the willingness to use military force from post-Cold War levels in US/Europe. This I disagree with. I really don't see how going back to pre-WWII levels of conflict in the civilized world is beneficial. I don't think we need perennial war over colonies or borders.

Command economy - This is ambiguous, so I am not sure if I disagree. It looks like you are advocating for protectionism, which I don't care for. It gets in the way of efficiency. I guess it makes sense for strategic resources if you are a militaristic country always on the brink of war but I disagree with the need for militarism.

Capitalism mixed with socialism - This is also ambiguous and could be used to describe most economies, so I am not sure if I disagree.

Authoritarianism - I really don't see much evidence in history that authoritarianism is good in the long run. Maybe you could make an argument that authoritarianism is good for quickly modernizing a state but that is only a temporary period.

Preservation of culture - This is a goal I care about as much as I care about the preservation of my genes. Which is not at all. If your view culture as a set of memes, as I do, the comparison is apt. Forgive my anthropomorphism, but you could say we are survival machines built by our genes and memes use our imitation and learning abilities to do the same for themselves. I think it is a viral and malicious idea to identify yourself with these patterns of information.

Individualism mixed with collectivism (so basically the middle ground between communism and ancap) - Ambiguous, but I would agree that we could mix more collectivism into our current societies.

Corporatism - I agree. This is something that countries like contemporary Germany does very well and we could learn from them.

It looks like we agree on the need for an increase in collectivism and solidarity but disagree on the need to bring with that the primitive xenophobic memes associated with in-group/out-group dynamics.

0 points

The world is a bundle of sticks. Burning that faggot is good.

^

Fascism in a nut shell.

2 points

While most fascist nations are not friendly towards gays, your pun makes very little sense as a counterargument to it.

Fascism doesn't actually say anywhere to be homophobic, it's just that many culture who happened to be fascist happened to have a prominent religion that hates gays.

TzarPepe(792) Clarified
2 points

A fascist is literally a bundle of sticks. It is on their flag.

A "faggot" is a bundle of sticks used for burning.

The reason why a homosexual might be called a "faggot" as a slur something to do with all this for sure.

You can be certain though that fascists are indeed faggots. They also really hate to be called that, even though that is totally what they are.... the faggots...

marcusmoon(586) Disputed
2 points

The world is a bundle of sticks. Burning that faggot is good.

Fascism in a nut shell.

That is not fascism by the pure definition (as presented in the prompt.)

Fascism in a nutshell is:

All citizens are children.

Fascism(23) Disputed
1 point

The bundle of sticks represent how unity can bring strength. One stick can break easily, but a bundle of sticks is harder to break.

^

Fascism in a nut shell.

TzarPepe(792) Clarified
2 points

A fascist is a bundle of sticks.

A bundle of sticks is a faggot.

Therefore, fascists are faggots.

Seems legit to me.

1 point

The world is a bundle of sticks. Burning that faggot is good.

^

Fascism in a nut shell

In other words...

Islam.

TzarPepe(792) Clarified
1 point

It depends on what you are talking about.

If by Islam you mean accepting God's sovereignty over all things, making peace with God's Kingdom, focusing your heart and mind on God, and practicing sincere charity, you are practicing good religion.

If by Islam you mean submission to created things that take the place of God.... Well, you are clearly following an anti-Christ.

Fascism(23) Disputed
1 point

Then why was it the western non-Islamic world which first used fascism?