Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Is the current system we live under Fascism?


Recommended Posts

OK we don't have the military dictatorship but you might recognise that the system does have many characteristics of fascism particularly the merger of corporation and state.  

I had a quick look at wiki's article on the economics of Fascism: 

----

The first fascist movements arose in the last years of World War I. They were a form of radical nationalism carrying a promise of national rebirth; they blamed liberalism, socialism, and materialism for the decadence they perceived in society and culture, and they expressed an appreciation for violence and the role of leadership and willpower in shaping society.[13]

One significant fascist economic belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening.[14] Different members of a fascist party would often make completely opposite statements about the economic policies they supported.[15] Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals. Long-lasting fascist regimes (such as that of Benito Mussolini in Italy) made drastic changes to their economic policy from time to time.

Fascism rose to power by taking advantage of the political and economic climate of the 1920s and 1930s, particularly the deep polarization of some European societies (such as the Kingdom of Italy and Weimar Germany), which were democracies with elected parliaments dominated by supporters of laissez-faire capitalism and Marxist socialism, whose intense opposition to each other made it difficult for stable governments to be formed.[16] Fascists used this situation as an argument against democracy, which they viewed as ineffective and weak.[17] Fascist regimes generally came into existence in times of crisis, when economic elites, landowners and business owners feared that a revolution or uprising was imminent.[18] Fascists allied themselves with the economic elites, promising to protect their social status and to suppress any potential working class revolution.[19] In exchange, the elites were asked to subordinate their interests to a broader nationalist project, thus fascist economic policies generally protect inequality and privilege while also featuring an important role for state intervention in the economy.[20]

Fascists opposed both international socialism and free-market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position.[21][22] They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[23] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[24][25] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[26] An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[27] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[28]

Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[13] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise. [...] Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social".[29] Stanley Payne argues that fascist movements defended the principle of private property because they held it to be "inherent to the freedom and spontaneity of the individual personality", but that they also aimed to eliminate the autonomy or in some cases the existence of large-scale capitalism.[30] Jurgen Kuczynski characterizes a fascist economy as a type of "monopoly capitalism", which preserves the "fundamental traits of capitalist production", such as the fact that production is carried out for the market by privately owned firms which employ workers for a certain wage.[31] He argues that fascism is "nothing but a particular form of government within capitalist society",[32] which instead does feature a major role for the state as was also the case in some early capitalist societies of previous centuries.[33]

Fascism operated from a social Darwinist view of human relations and their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[20] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[34] Fascist governments declared the trade union movement illegal and replaced it with labor organizations under the direct control of the government, which ensured that workers could not undertake any effective economic action.[35] Membership in these labor organizations was compulsory,[36] their leaders were appointed by the ruling party rather than elected by the members[37] and they were presented as a new type of unions which would serve to harmonize the interests of workers and businesses.[38] However, in practice they primarily served the interests of major business owners, who were able to lobby the ruling party to appoint the leaders they desired.[39] In order to maintain and increase the profits of industry, fascist states eliminated the possibility of mass protest and then cut wages either directly or indirectly.[40] Strikes were strictly banned and prison sentences could be given to employees who stopped working as a group.[41]

Fascist governments in both Italy and Germany privatized state-owned enterprises at certain times.[42][43][44] These privatizations were carried out in the early stages of both regimes (1922–1925 for Italy and 1934–1937 for Germany) and represented a reversal of the policies of the democratic governments which had preceded them. The democratic governments had brought a number of industries under state ownership and the fascists decided to return them to private ownership.[45] In doing so, they went against the mainstream economic trends of their time, when most Western governments were increasing state ownership.[46][47] Fascist privatization policies were driven by a desire to secure the support of wealthy industrialists as well as by the need to increase government revenues in order to balance budgets.[48][49] Significantly, fascist governments were among the first to undertake large-scale privatizations in modern times.[50]

In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade, supporting protectionism. Fascists believed that too much international trade would make the national economy dependent on international capital and therefore vulnerable to international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments.[51] Furthermore, fascism was highly militaristic and as such fascists often significantly increased military spending. Recruitment into the military was one of the main policies used by fascist governments to reduce unemployment.[52]

Fascism and capitalism

Fascism had complicated relations with capitalism, which changed over time and differed between fascist states. Fascists have commonly sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism and relegate it to the state.[53] However, fascism does support private property rights and the existence of a market economy and very wealthy individuals.[54] Thus, fascist ideology included both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist elements.[55][56] In practice, the economic policies of fascist governments were largely based on pragmatic goals rather than ideological principles, and they were mainly concerned with building a strong national economy, promoting autarky, and being able to support a major war effort.[57][58][59]

----

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

There's a lot more covering Hitler and Mussolini and yes I know we don't have that sort of system but many of the characteristics are definitely there.

Don't you agree ?

@zugzwang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No it isn't. I could give you pages why it isn't but this is pretty much like the Americans who claim Nazis were Communists because National Socialism contains the word Socialism.

Fascism is something that gets thrown out quite often as words people have heard but not fully understood. Wiki articles are also not the best definition to go by as these same groups battle to edit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Staffsknot said:

No it isn't. I could give you pages why it isn't but this is pretty much like the Americans who claim Nazis were Communists because National Socialism contains the word Socialism.

Fascism is something that gets thrown out quite often as words people have heard but not fully understood. Wiki articles are also not the best definition to go by as these same groups battle to edit it.

Well what would you describe it as then? 

The most famous regimes of fascism are Italy and Germany (Hitler). Now I know we don't have the military dictatorship that they had but if you drill down many similar policies can be found. I highlighted a few of them and I don't know how you can argue they don't exist in our current system. 

Crony corporatism in particular and special benefits for big corporations and/or the direction of "investment" and also the "third position" (where have you heard that before.. think New Labour!) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio, meaning 'bundle of sticks', ultimately from the Latin word fasces.[17] The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio[19]—a bundle of rods tied around an axe,[20] an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate[21] carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.[22][23]

The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[24] 

 

The idea is that the needs of society are more important than the rights of the individual. Any sticks which are the wrong shape to fit in are whittled down or discarded.

Fascism is a left wing ideology, because right wing ideology is about the rights of the individual.

We live in a fascist society; see the attempts to coerce the young into having an experimental medical procedure "for the greater good" by progressively removing their rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Locke said:

The idea is that the needs of society are more important than the rights of the individual. Any sticks which are the wrong shape to fit in are whittled down or discarded.

Fascism is a left wing ideology, because right wing ideology is about the rights of the individual.

We live in a fascist society; see the attempts to coerce the young into having an experimental medical procedure "for the greater good" by progressively removing their rights.

Right-wing ideology is about the rights of capital over labour.

Tommy Robinson and Jeremy Corbyn are emphatically not on the same side and never have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

Quote

The Battle of Cable Street was an event that took place in Cable Street and Whitechapel in the East End of London, on Sunday 4 October 1936. It was a clash between the Metropolitan Police, sent to protect a march by members of the British Union of Fascists led by Oswald Mosley, and various anti-fascist demonstrators, including local trade unionists, communists, anarchists, British Jews, Irish dockers, and socialist groups.

220px-Battle-of-Cable-Street-red-plaque.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Locke said:

The idea is that the needs of society are more important than the rights of the individual. Any sticks which are the wrong shape to fit in are whittled down or discarded.

Fascism is a left wing ideology, because right wing ideology is about the rights of the individual.

We live in a fascist society; see the attempts to coerce the young into having an experimental medical procedure "for the greater good" by progressively removing their rights.

Facism is a left-wing ideology is about the most absurd thing you've written in a highly competetive field

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warlord said:

Well what would you describe it as then? 

The most famous regimes of fascism are Italy and Germany (Hitler). Now I know we don't have the military dictatorship that they had but if you drill down many similar policies can be found. I highlighted a few of them and I don't know how you can argue they don't exist in our current system. 

Crony corporatism in particular and special benefits for big corporations and/or the direction of "investment" and also the "third position" (where have you heard that before.. think New Labour!) 

 

Cherry pick bits and anything can be any ideology.

We have a welfare system - look at just that we're socialists.

We have a monarchy and hereditary legislators ( HoL) which makes us feudalism.

We have a state religion which can vote on state business ( HoL) which is an element of a Theocracy.

See how looking at a couple of aspects doesn't make it true. Your opening statement is essentially if we discard the fact we don't have bits of what are visible in all the Fascist regimes in history but have a couple of things they did that means we are.

Or to put it another way a motorbike is a car because it has steering and an engine just forget about the number of wheels or bits that don't make it a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Right-wing ideology is about the rights of capital over labour.

Tommy Robinson and Jeremy Corbyn are emphatically not on the same side and never have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

220px-Battle-of-Cable-Street-red-plaque.

 

It is really disturbing to see how people like Locke can express such a lack of the understanding of the basics of a political spectrum, which even had Fascist regimes setting out explicitly their hatred of left-wing ideology and the Anti-Commintern Pact - all historical fact.

It is the same amongst right wing Americans who claim Fascism and Communism are the same without actually having the first clue. Apparently D-Day was the first step in the war against Communists and Socialists... Then when suits ANTIFA are left-wing commies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Cherry pick bits and anything can be any ideology.

We have a welfare system - look at just that we're socialists.

We have a monarchy and hereditary legislators ( HoL) which makes us feudalism.

We have a state religion which can vote on state business ( HoL) which is an element of a Theocracy.

See how looking at a couple of aspects doesn't make it true. Your opening statement is essentially if we discard the fact we don't have bits of what are visible in all the Fascist regimes in history but have a couple of things they did that means we are.

Or to put it another way a motorbike is a car because it has steering and an engine just forget about the number of wheels or bits that don't make it a car.

I like the term "corporatism" or "crony corporatism" as a way of describing the system.

Yes, you can still make it here with an ingenious idea and starting from 0 so we're still semi-capitalist although when you get to the higher levels this capitalist system is perverted and big business has many special privileges 

Do you agree with this assessment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Or to put it another way a motorbike is a car because it has steering and an engine just forget about the number of wheels or bits that don't make it a car.

They are both motorised vehicles. Just like left wingers are collectivists and communism, fascism and socialism are subcategories.

11 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Fascist regimes setting out explicitly their hatred of left-wing ideology and the Anti-Commintern Pact

Mafia families frequently fight and murder each other over territories- does that mean some of the Mafia groups aren't Mafia groups?

12 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Apparently D-Day was the first step in the war against Communists and Socialists

WWII was a tag team cage match between various brands of socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Locke said:

 

Fascism is a left wing ideology, because right wing ideology is about the rights of the individual.

 

So is leftwing ideology, surely? 

Did you sleep through the origins of the Labour movement - I'm not saying that's where they are now, but it was definitely built and fought off the back of individual rights. The right to work (and the right to a fair wage), the right to affordable homes, the right to universal education etc. Woman's sufferage and all the rest as well (working class women were branded as Marxists when it spread down from the upper and middle classes for instance).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nowhere near, and TBH the question sounds like another case of "if something isn't 100% one thing it must be the other."

You can make a good case for the system having taken steps in the direction towards it, which are to be condemned for having the shades of fascism but that's nowhere near enough to label it as such overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Cherry pick bits and anything can be any ideology.

We have a welfare system - look at just that we're socialists.

We have a monarchy and hereditary legislators ( HoL) which makes us feudalism.

We have a state religion which can vote on state business ( HoL) which is an element of a Theocracy.

See how looking at a couple of aspects doesn't make it true. Your opening statement is essentially if we discard the fact we don't have bits of what are visible in all the Fascist regimes in history but have a couple of things they did that means we are.

Or to put it another way a motorbike is a car because it has steering and an engine just forget about the number of wheels or bits that don't make it a car.

Spot on this.

We have a mix of many things. All but completely totalitarian societies do.

And we also have proles getting swept along with rightwing ideology as well of course, and a government of ex-journalists using their MSM contacts to help with the sweeping. It's not socialism it's nationalism that is appealling to folk in Hartlepool right now. 

Powerful thing nationalism, which has largely helped keep Americans in their place (hence their lack of social mobility etc).

Edited by byron78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Locke said:

The idea is that the needs of society are more important than the rights of the individual. Any sticks which are the wrong shape to fit in are whittled down or discarded.

Fascism is a left wing ideology, because right wing ideology is about the rights of the individual.

We live in a fascist society; see the attempts to coerce the young into having an experimental medical procedure "for the greater good" by progressively removing their rights.

🤣🤣🤣

Thank you for the giggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

It isn't fascism we have lots of free trade agreements.

Also normally in a fascist state there are not other parties allowed.

The obvious example of a fascist state is China of course.

The two party system is basically a one party state is it not ?

Labour has supported the tories on all their covid related policies, lockdowns etc. what is the difference ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iamnumerate said:

It isn't fascism we have lots of free trade agreements.

Also normally in a fascist state there are not other parties allowed.

The obvious example of a fascist state is China of course.

Worth noting that Nazi Germany was still trading with America and American companies right up to 1941.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Warlord said:

The two party system is basically a one party state is it not ?

 

It's a good point. 

Much more pronounced in America of course. Now that is a country that could fall in facism pretty easily. Many traits already in place.

Edited by byron78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Warlord said:

The two party system is basically a one party state is it not ?

Labour has supported the tories on all their covid related policies, lockdowns etc. what is the difference ?

The pretend "choice" is the difference. The reality of power incentives are that people with power do things that benefit themselves, if there is an ancillary benefit to the public its not altruistic, its there in order to further your power e.g. win elections.  Overhauling a system is hard e.g. actually educating the young to be productive, highlighting inequality of wealth with non productive multi generational rent seekers (like the Blairs as an example). You don't do these things if you want to stay in power, you simply manage the narrative and work around the edges. Margret thatcher was probably the last senior politician that had conviction and tried to implement it. Blair showed you can "spin" your way to victory and that is the way forward ever since. Style and short termism over substance.

Edited by katchytitle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Warlord said:

The two party system is basically a one party state is it not ?

Labour has supported the tories on all their covid related policies, lockdowns etc. what is the difference ?

I don't like our system but it is better than a one party state.  I would prefer a PR system like in Denmark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS ('Crony capitalism') is probably the closest thing to the system we have 

:

Crony capitalism is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of free enterprise, but rather as a return on money amassed through collusion between a business class and the political class. This is often achieved by the manipulation of relationships with state power by business interests rather than unfettered competition in obtaining permits, government grants, tax breaks, or other forms of state intervention[1][2] over resources where business interests exercise undue influence over the state's deployment of public goods, for example, mining concessions for primary commodities or contracts for public works. Money is then made not merely by making a profit in the market, but through profiteering by rent seeking using this monopoly or oligopoly. Entrepreneurship and innovative practices which seek to reward risk are stifled since the value-added is little by crony businesses, as hardly anything of significant value is created by them, with transactions taking the form of trading. Crony capitalism spills over into the government, the politics, and the media,[3] when this nexus distorts the economy and affects society to an extent it corrupts public-serving economic, political, and social ideals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Take note @zugzwang , @byron78

Supporters of capitalism also generally oppose crony capitalism and supporters such as classical liberals, neoliberals and right-libertarians consider it an aberration brought on by governmental favors incompatible with free market.[43][44] Such proponents of capitalism tend to regard the term as an oxymoron, arguing that crony capitalism is not capitalism at all.[45][46][47] In the capitalist view, cronyism is the result of an excess of interference in the market which inevitably will result in a toxic combination of corporations and government officials running sectors of the economy. For instance, the Financial Times observed that, in Vietnam during the 2010s, the primary beneficiaries of cronyism were Communist party officials, noting also the "common practice of employing only party members and their family members and associates to government jobs or to jobs in state-owned enterprises."[48]

Some advocates prefer to equate this problem with terms such as corporatocracy or corporatism, considered "a modern form of mercantilism",[49] to emphasize that the only way to run a profitable business in such a system is to have help from corrupt government officials.

Even if the initial regulation was well-intentioned (to curb actual abuses) and even if the initial lobbying by corporations was well-intentioned (to reduce illogical regulations), the mixture of business and government stifle competition,[50] a collusive result called regulatory capture. Burton W. Folsom Jr. distinguishes those that engage in crony capitalism—designated by him political entrepreneurs—from those who compete in the marketplace without special aid from government, whom he calls market entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs such as James J. Hill, Cornelius Vanderbilt and John D. Rockefeller succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. For example, the political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad in railroads were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies or in some way use government to stop competitors.
 

Edited by Warlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Locke said:

They are both motorised vehicles. Just like left wingers are collectivists and communism, fascism and socialism are subcategories.

Mafia families frequently fight and murder each other over territories- does that mean some of the Mafia groups aren't Mafia groups?

WWII was a tag team cage match between various brands of socialism.

You mean they are both motorised vehicles like Communism and Facism are both political ideologies. I don't think you've thought throught this line in the slightest

 

1 hour ago, Locke said:

WWII was a tag team cage match between various brands of socialism

Please readjust your grip on reality and facts the current one appears tenuous and you might fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.