Argument against the idea of the USA becoming more fascist

[gejyspa]

I'm not suggesting "marketplace of ideas" as the bulwark against the RISE of fascism. I'm suggesting that use of technology that isn't controlled by the government makes bringing down authoritarianism regimes that are already in place easier. They are much harder for the governement to controll, and potentially more far-reaching than instruments of the past (i.e. underground printing press).

[Diego]

i think the differences between fascism and socialism are just in branding, they are both about enormous, collectivist states, and uphold the greater good over the individual(s)

[Chris]

i think the differences between fascism and socialism are just in branding, they are both about enormous, collectivist states, and uphold the greater good over the individual(s)

So you are saying that the differences between today's Sweden and Nazi Germany are just branding?

[Henkie]

Fascism can be awesome too you know...

[Snickie]

Well, Nazi Germany was led by an economic genius who also had a hankering to take over the entire world. I don't know about Sweden, but we're not hearing about them forcing countries to become of the Swedish political party and satellite nations and them rolling tanks through Finland or Denmark or wherever they'd be interested in in the first steps of taking over the world.

[Henkie]

Hitler - holocaust - expansion = Perfection.

The problem is... The effects of the holocaust and the expansion were crucial to the existence of the Nazi empire.

[Diego]

i think the differences between fascism and socialism are just in branding, they are both about enormous, collectivist states, and uphold the greater good over the individual(s)

So you are saying that the differences between today's Sweden and Nazi Germany are just branding?

affirmative, the idea that we all pool resources managed by big gov't so that we (the german Volken, the good people of Sweden, insert group here) are collectively better off than otherwise is still the predominant form of thought. add aggravation to sweden's people (like the treaty of versailles) then add a mad dictator to point at the enemy (say, muslim immigrants) and you suddenly magically shifted a population from leftist to rightist. it's all statism

[Chris]

So you are saying that the differences between today's Sweden and Nazi Germany are just branding?

affirmative, the idea that we all pool resources managed by big gov't so that we (the german Volken, the good people of Sweden, insert group here) are collectively better off than otherwise is still the predominant form of thought. add aggravation to sweden's people (like the treaty of versailles) then add a mad dictator to point at the enemy (say, muslim immigrants) and you suddenly magically shifted a population from leftist to rightist. it's all statism

Fascism and Socialism have big government in common. But why is that of central importance? The outcomes of Nazi Germany and today's Sweden are completely different. Nazi Germany brought death and disaster on millions, including its own people. Today's Sweden has a democratic government, does not start wars, and its people are happy (as seen on surveys) and have a high standard of living.

You say that if some bad things happen, Sweden could become worse. OK. That's true of just about any people, any country, any society, any time. Nothing is unconditional. However, Sweden and some other socialist countries have created what their citizens consider to be a good society. Your disapproval seems to stem more from anti-government prejudice than from an objective examination of facts.

[Diego]

an objective examination of the facts presents little objective differences between the core values of socialism and fascism

the lack of bellicosity on part of sweden perhaps causes its society to last under a collectivist model for a longer time, but
a) standards of living of nazi germany were not half bad, and germans were happy, mostly
b) population happiness does not reduce potential of populace becoming a deranged beast. individualism is a lid you can put on the pandora's box of collectivist-altruist ethics.

[RedQueen.exe]

Yes, if you take Sweden and add all the things that can create a fascist country, you can wind up with a fascist country. What you would also need to demonstrate is why this wouldn't also happen under other sorts of governments.

Showing that they have some similarities isn't sufficient, you also have to demonstrate that the things it has in common uniquely predispose it to fascism. It does not appear that Sweden is any more likely to turn fascist than the US. In fact, probably less so.

Whatever their economic policies, there is quite a non-trivial difference with respect to civil liberties to say the least, and it was hardly Nazi Germany's economic policies that people took issue with.

I feel like this is a variant of "Hitler was an X, Y is an X, therefore fascism!" dressed up in a nicer suit.

[Chris]

There is a huge difference between the core values of fascism and social democracy (which is the variant of socialism in Sweden and most advanced economies). For one thing, fascism has nothing but contempt for democratic process. A fascist party may participate in elections, but once in power, it moves immediately to end democratic process and install itself permanently. (This is happening right now in Hungary.) The rhetoric of fascism glorifies a strict authoritarian hierarchy, with a single male war chief at the top. This male leader supposedly embodies the whole nation, much as medieval kings referred to themselves as "France" or "England." Social-democratic governments have participated in the peaceful transfer of power many times over and recognize the legitimacy of elections that they lose. A core tenet of socialism of all kinds is that the economic entities such as corporations should be democratically accountable. You may disagree with that idea and think it's a bad one, but it is the opposite of the fascist ideal of a single will being imposed on the whole nation.

When I mentioned fascists and war, it isn't a coincidence. Fascists believe that war is a great and glorious thing. They believe that war is a unique forge of virtue, personal and national. Such a view goes completely against the modern consensus, that war is hell. Fascists don't think of war as a necessary evil; they love it. The Nazis, among other fascists, saw war as part of a Darwinian evolutionary process that weeds out the weak and lifts up the strong. (Such a doctrine has nothing to do with real evolutionary biology, which has a considerably more complex view.) Social Democrats are not paragons of virtue when it comes to war, but they look much more like their conservative rivals in the democratic process than they do fascist parties.

[RedQueen.exe]

The Nazis, among other fascists, saw war as part of a Darwinian evolutionary process that weeds out the weak and lifts up the strong. (Such a doctrine has nothing to do with real evolutionary biology, which has a considerably more complex view.)

At risk of derailing, it has frequently struck me as blindingly stupid when either societies or religious apologists claim that evolution and natural selection has these sorts of moral implications. It is about as absurd as stating that the theory of gravity should or does lead to favoring thinner (or larger) people. Particularly so, because natural selection does not mean survival of the strong, or the most intelligent, or the fastest, what have you, it means survival of those most adapted to their environment.

The problem comes from people hearing the term "survival of the fittest" with completely the wrong idea about what the word fittest is being used to describe there.

[Diego]

alright, i will make a long post detailing the relationship between socialism and fascism, but i'd like to mention quickly that the fact that they dissent in rhetoric elements is more or less trivial, since the rhetoric masks the essence of both. placeholder for a longer post.

[Snake_byte]

Fascism is awesome... When appropriately applied

Agreed!

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

-Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949 [13]

[Chris]

alright, i will make a long post detailing the relationship between socialism and fascism, but i'd like to mention quickly that the fact that they dissent in rhetoric elements is more or less trivial, since the rhetoric masks the essence of both. placeholder for a longer post.

In the article I linked to earlier, historian Robert Paxton goes into detail about how much fascist rhetoric is opportunistic, quickly abandoned when convenient to do so. However, he identifies several "mobilizing passions" (pp. 6-7) that have been consistent throughout the life of fascist movements. A couple of them may be held in common with socialism, but the others are not.