Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

Fascism is a successful model

Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 12:33:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, a treatise on fascism that reads like "we are what we decry". Enjoy.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the philosophy of "Fascism" is the best and most commonly used means of governing a large group of people.

For those that have only heard the word in an insult, fascism is an authoritarian and nationalistic worldview, that got negative connotations for some reason.

Fascism is actually all around the common person of today. Corporations are essentially fascist structures, with disloyalty or extreme incompetence punished by termination of employment, which is a (figurative) "death sentence" for working in that company.

A major facet of fascism is militarism. When large organizations, like the corporate example above, need to be visible, their personnel, or "citizens", are issued uniforms that make them clear-cut members of that group, promoting "nationalistic identity".

To continue the large organization example, most sufficiently large groups have an internal publication, or "press", with the content decided, or at least able to be vetoed, edited, or censored, by the upper management. This allows policy and current events to be communicated quickly and concisely.

To continue the example even further, the lowly line workers, or "citizens", are in no position to dissent against official policy lest their employment be terminated, or at least their lives will be made harder for the duration of their employment or until the folks in power forget.

The obsession with corporate secrets is roughly analogous for the obsession with national security by a formal government. In the private sector, those secrets could condemn the corporation in the public eye, profits would drop, and rivals would see weakness and start muscling in. In the public sector, the leaked information would cause unrest and rivals would see weakness and start taking liberties. Both are equally undesirable events for the leadership.

The more power and money accruing to the top rather than being distributed among the masses they rule over, the more that money can be invested in projects to improve the lot of everyone instead of salaries, e.g. corporate leaders send the money to R&D instead of giving people raises/bonuses when they have the money, or an ambitious official seeking to look good in the public eye sends the money back into bread and circuses.

The average person will dislike harsh restrictions placed by governments, but when a business says that their employees are to do something whilst on company time, be it keep to a code of conduct or wash their hands regularly regardless of what they've been doing, that's all fine and dandy, because the business's leadership has absolute power. In a fascism, the people will do what the government says OR ELSE.

Ascending to power in both a fascist nation and a corporation is demonstrating competence, resolve, and loyalty to a man, if not the word. Catching the attention of a larger group in power already requires one to stand out in a free society. In a more authoritarian society, rising to merit their attention means that one has proven that they likely to be a worthy investment.

Another major theme of fascism is that the average person has no say in terms of whoever is in power. The line worker of the corporation today has zero say in who will be the next CEO. That decision is made by his superiors, the board of directors who are the quite literal power behind the throne. These men and women are the leaders not through cronyism, but by virtue of having the financial wherewithal to purchase sufficient shares to make a decision, much like large corporations can, through "sweetheart deals", have a say in the governance of the people, with items like cheap land and little to no legislation governing the usage of said land beyond a nod to the human rights groups that would otherwise raise a fuss, being traded in exchange for contributions to the leader's personal coffers.

Profitability is another subject dealt with by fascism. In a fascist regime, the average person is not going to be making much money, because the fat cats are taking the profits from their labors. Ditto for a corporation, which is mandated by law to ensure profitability for the investors, but would otherwise be making a point of maximize profitability as a matter of survival. In an employer's market, they can afford to do this.

The concentration of power into a few individuals streamlines the decision-making process to a degree that is only seen in unlimited dictatorships. This allows policy changes to be presented, argued upon, voted upon, and implemented faster than democracies. Failed policies, noted by drops in profitability, are easy to identify and can be done away with in a timely manner, be it a poorly thought-out advertising campaign or rationing goods that were more abundant than expected causing them to go to waste.

Fascism legitimately exists by necessity. In a globalized world, clear-cut titles, ranks, and responsibilities are necessary at every level for an organization to survive. The higher up on the totem pole, the more responsible for the organization's well-being the person is, all the way up to the Inner Circle, who tread the thin line of the entity's continued existence by their very position. Every decision they make, they have to weigh heavily lest it have disastrous repercussions, and in some cases, refusal or failure to make a timely decision at all can leave a group in ruins.

Name one globalized cooperative business. Name one republic that doesn't have its leaders in corporate pockets (save the US, because President-elect Trump has OTHER nations' leaders in HIS corporate pockets). Only though concentrating meaningful decision-making power into as few hands as possible can a group compete, as otherwise it can and will be bogged down collecting and tallying votes. Maybe it could thrive in a vacuum, but the moment it has competition that knows what it's doing, it will collapse under the weight of its own inefficiency, and as long as humanity exists, there will be competition.

The main pitfall of fascism, that it gives too much power to too few, also is its main strength: Those in power have a vested interest in keeping the entity, be it private or public, running as best as possible. It screws over the common man in terms of freedom, but the institution will absolutely stand the test of time and protect its people, be they factory workers or civil servants, because they are its lifeblood. While they have no say in their governance, should a foreign power encroach upon their life, liberty, or property, their leaders will defend them to the best of their ability, as in the end, they are beholden to their people.

Take the case of gangs in a given area. As long as one is the only gang in power, the people have more clarity, safety, and safety as to what is going on, which is more often than not drug peddling. Independents and other criminals not of that particular gang are often discouraged violently to make an example, which essentially gives the common citizens some protection against such threats.

Re-read the example of gangs, but change "gangs" to "governments", "drug peddling" to "taxation, regulation, and government programs", and "Independents... gang" to "Foreign powers". Monopolies on violence are monopolies on violence wherever they may be.

In short, fascism is an excellent model for large organizations, nations with export-based economies, and the tin-plated dictators with delusions of godhood in charge of both.

=Chief Defenestrator=

Hey, want to play a fun video game? Try out Discovery Freelancer! I partake in a faction called The League of Navigators, and we are recruiting.

Discord link:

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