So, what's wrong with fascism? — Posty McPostface

Well, if you are OK with a cult of tradition, rejection of modernism, action for the sake of action, persecution of criticism, fear of difference, appeals to frustration, conspiracy theories, an enemy who is too powerful but whom we can defeat, life as struggle, hero-worship, machismo, and populism, then I suppose Fascism is fine.

Please keep in mind that I'm playing devil's advocate with the concept of fascism here. Not to be taken too seriously despite the atrocities that have happened despite the good intents of whoever may have been an actual proponent of fascism in the past, if anything good can be gleaned from fascism itself... So, just making that clear as it should be.

rejection of modernism — Banno

This is interesting. So you would say that fascism rejected modernism?

Nazi Germany was ahead of it's time in terms of exploiting science, technology, and engineering to build a whole list of wonder-weapons. Is this not some technomodernism in practice?

Of course. A good thread, a worthy question.

Fascism does not have to be consistent, so it can happily both worship technology while rejecting the spirit of modernism in favour of a myth of tradition. Depravity followed from the enlightenment; the people must return to blood and earth.

This is why China is not a fascist nation.

Fascism is often equated with nationalism and both are frowned upon.

I am a nationalist. That is, I am one who strongly believes that a nation's top priority is it's own citizens' best interest.

I'm wondering - honestly wondering - what's wrong with a nation's government that puts the interest of it's own citizens as a top priority?

By the way, I hate the fact that Trump talks in terms of "America first".

Just to add to my previous post, but it was ultimately that same fascination with building wunderweapons that was Nazi Germany's undoing. Eugenics was (thank God no longer so) a very modernist conception of the future welfare of a nation. People were incentivised to embrace new technology like the radio and vegetarianism. All these seem like modernist visions for a better future society to live in, in my opinion.

In terms of economics, fascism always sought to minimize costs and maximize utility on a national scale. So, modernism is a de facto necessity to enhance and embrace such an ideal. So, we disagree on that front at least.

I'm wondering - honestly wondering - what's wrong with a nation's government that puts the interest of it's own citizens as a top priority? — creativesoul

Nothing; that's what a government is for. But see Honig's essay.

Cooperation leads to far more good than does competition That's a fact that is perverted by the mythology, though less so the reality, of capitalism.

Nations succeed when they appear to be gracious global citizens. Watch China to learn how this works.

modernism is a de facto necessity to enhance and embrace such an ideal. — Posty McPostface

How?

I'm wondering - honestly wondering - what's wrong with a nation's government that puts the interest of it's own citizens as a top priority? — creativesoul

Well, as long as it's not at the detriment of someone or some other nation, then there's nothing wrong with that. Fascism proved otherwise, however.

By appealing to enhanced efficiency or betterment of living standards through modernism? Standard economics I suppose.

I'd even go as far and say that modernism was a template for the fascist ideals and proteges to be based on in terms of culture aesthetics and socio economic upheavals.

This is a pretty standard interpretation, I think?

That looks irrelevant. Take a look at the relevant sections of Eco's essay. Modernism, with an emphasis on new thinking, criticism and the rejection of myths, flies against the romance of the myth of a noble past that is central to Fascism.

But only very superficially.

Weren't the early fascists not all or mostly motivated positivists?

I'm wondering - honestly wondering - what's wrong with a nation's government that puts the interest of it's own citizens as a top priority?
— creativesoul

Nothing; that's what a government is for. But see Honig's essay.

Cooperation leads to far more good than does competition That's a fact that is perverted by the mythology, though less so the reality, of capitalism.

Nations succeed when they appear to be gracious global citizens. Watch China to learn how this works. — Banno

Nice. I see that as well.

I'm thinking in general terms about the best interest of citizens. In particular, I'm thinking about when it comes to conflicts of interest between corporate interests and the citizens(workers'). Now I am not against spreading wealth and opportunity around the world... I just think that there's acceptable and unacceptable means to achieve this. In one word "outsourcing"... American jobs and formerly good paying ones to other countries(well the company generally moves it's entire operations overseas only to ship the same products back to the US to sell to the folk who lost their job.) Prices don't go down. Cost certainly does.

There are all sorts of problems with this...

A government putting necessary regulations in place, but allowing a company to skirt all of it, and incentivizing doing so to boot - all in the guise of the greater good...

Interested in what others think about this.

Eugenics was (thank God no longer so) a very modernist conception of the future welfare of a nation — Posty McPostface

Eugenics isn't dead brother/sister... not by a long shot!

Weren't the early fascists not all or mostly motivated positivists? — Posty McPostface

Were they? If so, they weren't very good ones.

:lol:

Eugenics isn't dead brother/sister... not by a long shot! — creativesoul

Hmm, where is it still in practice, I mean on a national scale?

Were they? If so, they weren't very good ones. — creativesoul

What do you mean?

I thought they were disenfranchised mediocre white males.

I thought they were disenfranchised mediocre white males. — Banno

I'm thinking more along the lines of the intelligentsia and where they drew their inspiration from to envision a fascist society.

Eugenics isn't dead brother/sister... not by a long shot!
— creativesoul

Hmm, where is it still in practice, I mean on a national scale? — Posty McPostface

Would it need to be on a national scale out in the public domain in order to be taking place under a different guise? The knowledge for eugenics has never been more complete.

Were they? If so, they weren't very good ones.
— creativesoul

What do you mean? — Posty McPostface

Positivists would've called Hitler's notion of Arian heritage nonsensical.

Would it need to be on a national scale out in the public domain in order to be taking place under a different guise? The knowledge for eugenics has never been more complete. — creativesoul

Yeah, but CRISPR is making all that nonsense obsolete. Just watch what new gene therapies will come about to the public in the coming years.

Positivists would've called Hitler's notion of Arian heritage nonsensical. — creativesoul

Yeah, well, I don't disagree with that. I just thought that the intelligentsia and other thinkers of fascism thought that to be some perversion of their ideology. Again, I might have to read up on the origins of fascism, any handy books anyone cares to recommend?

So look to Heidegger, especially his nostalgia for being; the return to a mythical romantic past. He would now be called a post modernist; he still rejected modernism.