21st Century Fascist

[I'm Watermark]

If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

[canceled.2021.1]

If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

We are living with that right now and most people seem pretty cool wit it

[Phantasmal]

If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

I would not support it, I would be joining the revolutionary forces to overthrow the fascists.

[/MSG/]

If a fascist were about to win the U.S. presidential election, what actions would you back? Would you still support democracy in the face of severe authoritarianism and racial populism?

That's not Hillary Clinton/Chris Christie....

And I would clearly support our obviously superior leader who is fairly democratically elected, and would never suggest or even have subversisve thoughts. Never.

[I'm Watermark]

I would not support it, I would be joining the revolutionary forces to overthrow the fascists.

Then what? Would you establish a temporary dictatorship to purge the country of those forces which would've elected a fascist? Or just hold another election and hope for the best?

[Minister of Truth]

Fascism need not be autocratic, so long as the collusion of government and business is peaceful and the public is content. Mussolini took power via a political coup and cemented his control with oppression.

One could argue that the Auto and Financial bailouts were fascism, and the public largely supported them.

[I'm Watermark]

That's not Hillary Clinton/Chris Christie....

And I would clearly support our obviously superior leader who is fairly democratically elected, and would never suggest or even have subversisve thoughts. Never.

Even modern liberal democracies have power centres removed from the demos. So "fairly democratically elected" is typically a pipe dream. Then you have to recognize that elected leaders can be violent and oppressive as well. Elections don't protect you once the leader's in power.

[Phantasmal]

Then what? Would you establish a temporary dictatorship to purge the country of those forces which would've elected a fascist? Or just hold another election and hope for the best?

Hold an election, but most likely, I would be dead because a majority would have elected the fascists.

I hold to my ideals of democracy or a democratic republic. I could not live where I had to fear my thoughts and words.

[I'm Watermark]

Fascism need not be autocratic, so long as the collusion of government and business is peaceful and the public is content. Mussolini took power via a political coup and cemented his control with oppression.

One could argue that the Auto and Financial bailouts were fascism, and the public largely supported them.

You're absolutely right, but expecting successful fascism puts too much faith in the people it delegates responsibility to. Wouldn't you also say it lends itself to a strong hegemony?

[Minister of Truth]

Agreed, and I think that the same has proven true of socialism. People have a pipedream of democratically elected communal socialism, but just as with fascism, the people will most likely wind up squandering their political power and voting away their control over the economy to experts and demagogues.

[I'm Watermark]

Agreed, and I think that the same has proven true of socialism. People have a pipedream of democratically elected communal socialism, but just as with fascism, the people will most likely wind up squandering their political power and voting away their control over the economy to experts and demagogues.

In the case of socialism, it's a bit different. Socialism is what I was getting at with this thread. Historically, to prevent their opponents from becoming elected, socialists have seized power and established a dictatorship. While operating the dictatorship, they tried to convince the public of their ideas. Once this was completed, they could open up elections which their constituency (workers) would win. But before (or when) that happened, a string of capitalist-bloc-influenced reformists began transitioning away from socialism. The social question for fascists is how to maintain power. The social question for socialists is how not to have to.

[/MSG/]

Even modern liberal democracies have power centres removed from the demos. So "fairly democratically elected" is typically a pipe dream. Then you have to recognize that elected leaders can be violent and oppressive as well. Elections don't protect you once the leader's in power.

I see you haven't read enough of my posts to detect the inherent meaning behind them.

Anyways, systems can become so entrenched and stagnated a purge is required on them. Something like a modern Sulla.

[Minister of Truth]

So far, I would say that the only economic system which can work is welfare/mixed capitalism. Within a republican or parliamentary democracy, the forces of fascism, socialism, etc. will all fight for power, but none will prevail long-term, and we avoid the problems of autocracy.

[Minister of Truth]

I see you haven't read enough of my posts to detect the inherent meaning behind them.

Anyways, systems can become so entrenched and stagnated a purge is required on them. Something like a modern Sulla.

Sulla fucked over Rome.

[/MSG/]

Sulla fucked over Rome.

No, the generation that came to power AFTER Sulla fucked over Rome. Sulla was the last great hero of the Republic.