The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Society Would Flourish Best Under Fascist Government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 103162
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Definitions for this debate:

SOCIETY: "A community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests". [1]

FLOURISH: Based on the ancient Greek translation "Eudaimonia" from Aristotelian ethics, meaning to achieve a life that is ethically pure or virtuous, or to ascend to the final stage in our human spiritual evolution by practicing virtue in daily life.[2]

BEST: Promising to affect (beneficially) the greatest number of people possible to the greatest extent possible; (FASCISM) Being the only ideology that adequately satisfies this utilitarian axiom. [3]

FASCISM: Anti-Liberalism ( NO to Capitalism and free markets), Anti-Communisim (NO to Marxism, creeping socialism, global cooperation and integration), Anti-Conservative (Anti-Status Quo, anti-aristocracy, rejection of "establishment"religion); A militarized and highly nationalistic society organized under a rigid hierarchy, directed at the top by an autocratic tyrant who enforces invasive laws upon the social and economic life of the people HE rules; "Involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture".

This debate consists of three rounds and will proceed as follows:
1. Acceptance
2. Debate
3. Rebuttal
Cite sources.

[4] My definition of Fascism for this debate Inspired by Stanley G Payne's definition of the term


Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. [1]
August Comte, the father of sociology, saw society as a social organism possessing a harmony of structure and function, while Emile Durkheim, the founding father of the modern sociology, treated society as a reality in its own right. [2]

Based on those two definitions, I can make an argument that society wouldn't flourish under a fascist government because it poses a grave threat to other societies who adhere to the democratic principles of man. Fascist governments installed during the Second World War such as Italy and Germany are allied with Japan to form the Axis, which ultimately ended in a failure by invasion from the Allied Powers such as United States and Great Britain.

Fascism is also communism as seen in the Cold War when Soviet puppet governments installed in Albania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, forming the Warsaw Pact to rival with the capitalist North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In short, fascism is not the only solution because it would recreate modern dictatorships like Duterte, Trump, Erdogan, Kim Jong-Un, Orban, and Putin, and putting their futures locked aside by extreme far-right nationalism. In my opinion, society would flourish in a democratic government with non-authoritarian leaders, liberal policies, and equality to all, creating like the Scandinavian countries and Canada. In short, society would flourish in an Athenian government.

Those are the only arguments that I stand for and I am willing to make a formal debate on the matter.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate. I accept my opponent's alternate definition for the term fascism.

For my first argument, I will demonstrate that SOCIETY FLOURISHES BEST UNDER FASCIST GOVERNMENT by first analyzing how both competing contemporary political models "Liberal Democracy" and "Marxism" have failed in their purpose of helping society to flourish, and next by illustrating how Fascism would likewise succeed.

*The Failures of Liberal Democracy*

By perpetuating market economics and limiting intervention by state policy in observance of free trade, I assert that the
state is passively declaring society's collective wealth as being synonymous with society's success. This is not a novel
concept. Today, when one intends to judge a nation's success they typically assess first the data relating to that nation's
GDP, income distribution, and standard of living. In fact, the Scandinavian countries my opponent listed in his argument as
being exemplary societies all score very highly for income distribution and standard of living, and as liberal democracies
would indeed appear successful. Beyond macroeconomics, this theory that the degree of something's success correlates
directly with the degree of its wealth in a liberal democracy can be demonstrated on a smaller, individual scale: For example, the fact that a rich person is generally perceived as being successful while a bum is generally perceived as being
a failure.

But if wealth is to serve as the definition for success, we must recognize that success in this liberal society, then, will no longer be defined (or be defined to a lesser extent) by tradtional systems of endowment, or by cultural mores and
attitudes, or by popular opinion. Therefore, by virtue of its being the source of all success in a liberal democracy
(rather than institutions of church or state), capital becomes the primary motivator of society and its ultimate aim, and
gradually capital forms its own independent culture with its own values and ethics. Eventually, the securing of wealth
becomes the highest moral imperative of a society.

I assert that such rampant materialism existing in a liberal democracy inevitably places culture in a state of moral crisis
that is detrimental to human flourishing. Market distribution of Wealth proves too arbitrary to serve as society's main
incentive. Excess wealth may be generated by manipulating existing wealth ad infinitum. Today, such practices have resulted in the creation of a new class of ultra-rich financiers and investment bankers. Donald Trump, a member of the ultra-rich, made billions of dollars renovating already existing properties under his brand. However, it is interesting to note that occupations arguably far more demanding on individuals and far more beneficial to society are absent from the class of the ultra-rich: including medical doctors, rocket scientists, artists, and philosophers. Is there a just reason that these
people, with all their dedication and sacrifice to their craft, with all their education, and considering their significant
impact on our culture, are not at least equally successful as Donald Trump, a real-estate mogul? There are none. Clearly, we as a society can not measure success by wealth because many very accomplished people are not rich, and some unaccomplished are. In fact, the promise of wealth in many cases attracts an individual's attention away from rewarding careers. For example, any individual who has ever felt compelled to give up on his passion because of "legitimate" financial concerns.

*Why Fascism is Better*

Under Fascist government, public policy would interfere in every facet of the nation's economic and social life. Rather
than perpetuate ideological deterioration by the influences of wealth, which are arbitrary and naturally inefficient under
liberal democracies, the state would allocate wealth where it should prove most helpful to the national agenda. Both
capital and labor would be but tools to the state. Society's children under a Fascist government would be indoctrinated at
school and at home, learning through discipline from an early age to endorse the national agenda and to desire to advance the agenda through their own lives, almost in a religious manner. All of society would be divided into a rigid military hierarchy, with each ascending tier representing greater responsibility and importance within the state, and all operating under one supreme ruler who holds the highest rank. Effectively, under a government such described, members of society would be chiefly concerned by their usefulness to the state. By creating a homogeneous culture with common values and beliefs that extend across the hierarchy, citizens are motivated to succeed foremost by their desire to aid the national agenda. Wealth would serve but an incidental privilege of rank. Fascism, then, would seem to reconcile the opposing influences of wealth and culture on a society, and would prevent the type of moral crisis I believe will inevitably befall all liberal democracies. A clear national agenda would dissipate the modern fog of moral ambiguity plaguing every decision we make as individuals in the liberal post-modern 21st century. As an example: when former Nazi officers were tried after WWII for their crimes, many argued that they did not feel morally culpable because they were just following orders from Hitler.

My opponent may argue that Fascism creates a population that is scared of its government, and he may ask how a
society that is afraid could possibly be said to have flourished. I would actually rebuke that fear is required for a society
to flourish. For a society to flourish it must practice elements of the lifestyle which public policy and the national
agenda decrees to be virtuous everyday out of fear of becoming an enemy of the state if it does not. Watch
society flourish very quickly.

*The Failures of Marxism*

An economy cannot survive without competition. 20th century Marxist regimes collapsed in part because of a lack of
enterprise, which is inherent to a classless society. Furthermore, the idea of classless socialism is inn achievable in
light of the fact that historically, government officers in Marxist regimes tend to evolve their own class. Beyond the
flawed economic theory there lies a weak understanding of justice, one which is based on a humanitarian charisma that
evaporates immediately following revolution. Marxist governments are the kinds which fail to inspire any lasting feeling of
solidarity or patriotism, due to their anti-nationalism, and these regimes typically end up holding their citizens hostage
(think Soviet Union, think North Korea).

*Why Fascism is Better*

Unlike in a Marxist government, Fascist intervention in the lives of citizens is designed to promote a society that is
competitive for the resources of the state. Individuals are recognized by the state for outstanding citizenship, and a new
hierarchy emerges from the population that in nature resembles nothing like anything found in Marxist literature.
Additionally, the emotive power of nationalist principles would give the Fascist state a longevity unseen by any Marxist
state. Unlike Marxist governments who resort to holding their own people hostage, the population under Fascist societies
are fiercely patriotic and in times of war are willing to defend their country and their way of life to the last man (think
Nazis, think Japs).


Society is better in a liberal democracy because minorities can defend themselves by pointing out how proposed laws would damage their position, and also protect minority beliefs and values against a powerful majority. [1]
Liberal democracies have rights for the ethnic groups, as well as other sectors such as the LGBT community, the elderly, the youth, the poor, and the working class.

Under a fascist government, freedom of speech is oppressed and any opposition to such laws was prohibited, unlike under a liberal democratic government where freedom of speech is a fundamental right and opposition can reflect their interpretative views on the big issues such as gender equality, socialism, free trade, and others.

Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, advocated equality when he won over Stephen Harper. Under him, he showed respect for the LGBT community, he openly criticized Donald Trump's actions, he even mentioned his father's legacy by French discourse because he is a Member of Parliament from Papineau, a Quebecois constituency.

The future generations adhere to such ideology and they will never look back to the dark days of World War II with a fascist government. It is better if society would flourish if equality is the norm, racism and sexism are oppressed, freedom of expression is encultured to the minds, bringing feminism and libertarianism, and most especially, keeping together from all aspects.

Debate Round No. 2


Before refuting my opponent's arguments, I would first like to comment that nowhere has he/she discussed WHY society should FLOURISH under liberal democracy, and not Fascism . The negation claims that a flourishing society somehow requires Western like free thought and political participation, but fails to elaborate or provide any evidence for this theory.

As I argued in the previous round: a society would more likely flourish under disciplinary policy that creates order and homogeneity among disparate cultures and enforces uniform loyalty to the state agenda. This is true because of the fact that under a liberal democracy, the only paradigm to which society gives its uniform loyalty and its entire future is to the motive for profit [1], which I assert imperils society to a culture of amorality and nihilism. Since the definition of FLOURISHING provided in the first round relates to the Aristotelian understanding, which fundamentally rejects nihilism, I conclude that human flourishing is actually threatened by liberal democratic philosophy.

Now, as for my opponent's argument:

"Society is better in a liberal democracy because minorities can defend themselves by pointing out how proposed laws would damage their position, and also protect minority beliefs and values against a powerful majority."

I do not advocate racism. A fascist ideology need not imitate Nazi policies which advocate racial "purity" or genocide(Research Falangism and Spanish Fascism). Early fascism, as conceived in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century, was a reaction against Marxism and was a purely economic ideology that was not racist. [2] The misconception that fascism = racism is a creation disseminated by the Western propaganda machine, a.k.a. my opponent's """free press"""", about which I will comment more below.

"Liberal democracies have rights for the ethnic groups, as well as other sectors such as the LGBT community, the elderly, the youth, the poor, and the working class."

Here, my opponent praises liberal democracy because he/she feels that ethnic groups deserve "rights". I argue that the existence of rights is a weak fail-safe to the democratic process designed to protect minorities from the interests of an oppressive Mob, of the type which only takes power in a democracy. Rights become unnecessary when the State substitutes for the Mob as the new political oppressor. Under a Fascist state, nobody, indiscriminate of ethnic background, would have use for rights, as the population would be exploited equally to assure maximum profit by the state.

My opponent also raises the issue of LBGT rights. These were rights created under a soft Liberal Democratic government to protect the LGBT group from perpetrators of the kind of extremist religious ideology that would be outlawed under a Fascist government. I would actually argue that LGBTs would feel safer under a Fascist government, than under a liberal democracy.

"Under a fascist government, freedom of speech is oppressed and any opposition to such laws was prohibited, unlike under a liberal democratic government where freedom of speech is a fundamental right and opposition can reflect their interpretative views on the big issues such as gender equality, socialism, free trade, and others."

Neg opines that press should not be influenced by state policy. However, our celebrated "free" newsmeadia is no more impartial or accurate than state-controlled news. News networks report distorted facts and stories that pander to popular sentiment. For example, throughout the 2016 US presidential campaign, major news outlets loyal to their center and left-center audience were almost unanimous in undermining Trump's far-right popularity, and before the election these same networks very famously forecasted a victory for Hillary Clinton. Worse than just being inaccurate, modern journalistic standards in the West are also hypocritical. "Free press" is not free. voices that contradict the agendas pushed my major news outlets are essentially squeezed out of the market.[3]

The free press, which functions on market principles, is subject to a market failure like monopoly. I assert that a monopoly on news/information by the state is preferable to monopoly by a corporation because misinformation propagated by the state is guided by an interest in the nation's preservation and well-being, whereas corporate networks are motivated solely by profit.

As for my final point: I would like the judges to imagine a circumstance wherein the US goes to war with a Fascist state that is as populated and advanced as itself, whether it is a nation of newly discovered aliens or maybe AI, or a new rogue regime come to power in Russia. The US would very likely be defeated, even in the nuclear age, by this new imaginary fascist Superpower. I say this because the American people lack the conviction and the pride in their own principles of government necessary to defeat an army of Kamikaze-level dedicated civilian-soldiers.

[1] Alexis de Tocqueville.


Vladimir Lenin once said, "Fascism is capitalism in decay." [1]

Why would he refute my arguments when he talked about how the dissatisfaction of "fake news" led to Donald Trrump's presidency based on his agenda of extreme far-right populism? Why would he argue that "free press" is not free? Why would he say that news networks report distorted facts and stories that undermines the popular sentiment?"

He made one miscalculation, that is, believing that equality would feel safer under a fascist government. According to the fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [2] In other words, equality would feel safer under dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and military citizenship.

One such example of a fascist government is when Benito Mussolini ruled Italy at the height of World War II. Under that government, he allied with Nazi Germany, gained greater influence in world affairs, pursuing territorial expansion, and participated in the Holocaust. What would a fascist government bring to society? Oppression of free speech, oppression of opposition, more focusing on war, and creating a government similar to Sparta.

Another example is when Francisco Franco ruled Spain from 1936-1975, where his goal is to turn his country into a totalitarian state similar to fascist governments in Italy and Germany. The consistent points in Franco fascism included above all authoritarianism, nationalism, National Catholicism, militarism, conservatism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism, as well as a frontal rejection of Freemasonry. [3] [4]

My opponent just defined FLOURISHING to conclude that human flourishing is threatened by liberal democratic philosophy, he also stated that "free press" isn't free because of the notion that modern Western journalism is hypocritical, and he argued that United States under a fascist state would likely be defeated because of the lack of American conviction and pride needed to defeat an army of Kamikaze-level dedicated civilian soldiers.

Three debate rounds had passed, but it all summed up with this reality: society will decline under that government because of the consequence it would bring. Society will flourish better under a liberal democracy.
I presented with the claims and historical facts. He, on the other side, gave references but lack its luster and clarity.

[2] John Horne. State, Society and Mobilization in Europe During the First World War. pp. 237"39
[3] Unearthing Franco's Legacy, p 31, and Paul Preston, "The Theorists of Extermination" essay in Unearthing Franco's Legacy, pp 42-67, University of Notre Dame Press
[4] "Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective"
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Adalman 2 years ago
I'd agree with pro. Con points to Italian and German defeat in WW2 to prove that it's inevitable that fascism will destroy society, but neglects to mention that that war was nearly inevitable due to the massive territorial changes, and political instability brought about by the end of WW1. Pinochet's Chile, and Franco's Spain prove that without massive foreign conflicts, and losing said conflicts, nations can flourish and thrive.

Furthermore con asserts that minority rights are an important function of democracy, when it is actually contrary to democracy - since democracy is de-facto the rule of the mob, it isn't necessary for minority rights to exist to be democratic: see classical Athenian democracy. I would argue that the existence of those rights are merely a function of notions of equality. Equality is not objective however, since all men are born with different innate abilities and potential.
Posted by nivac817 2 years ago
I agree with Con. But at the same time Con offered confusing arguments

-Con did not seem to adhere to the definition of Facisim, provided by Pro. Additionally Con repeatedly brought up racism, which was not tied in to the definition, provided by Pro. I think a major problem in this debate is both sides were arguing under different definitions of what Facisim is. Pro provided his definition, but then Con provided a definition that was significantly different.

-Con was arguing in defense of liberal democracies but also attacked liberal dmocracies as being "modern dictatorships, to include Trump, Erdogen, Putin, and Duerte. None of these countries are fascist, and in fact are democracies. Yet he argued that these leaders were evidence of Facisim hurting a country.

-And most importantly Con never addressed why Facisim was bad for a Country, under Pro's definition, but instead argued under his own definition.

All in all Con should have adhered to Pro's definition

However unfortunately i can't vote...... that's just my opinion though.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.