Pluses of Fascism?

[lpetrich]

It wasn't just hate. Fascism offered robust social welfare | Aeon Ideas

After coming to power, the Italian fascists created recreational circles, student and youth groups, sports and excursion activities. These organisations all furthered the fascists’ goals of fostering a truly national community. The desire to strengthen (a fascist) national identity also compelled the regime to extraordinary cultural measures. They promoted striking public architecture, art exhibitions, and film and radio productions. The regime intervened extensively in the economy. As one fascist put it: ‘There cannot be any single economic interests which are above the general economic interests of the state, no individual, economic initiatives which do not fall under the supervision and regulation of the state, no relationships of the various classes of the nation which are not the concern of the state.’ Such policies kept fascism popular until the late 1930s, when Mussolini threw his lot in with Hitler. It was only the country’s involvement in the Second World War, and the Italian regime’s turn to a more overtly ‘racialist’ understanding of fascism, that began to make Italian fascism unpopular.

...
Nazi Germany remained capitalist. But it had also undertaken state intervention in the economy unprecedented in capitalist societies. The Nazis also supported an extensive welfare state (of course, for ‘ethnically pure’ Germans). It included free higher education, family and child support, pensions, health insurance and an array of publically supported entertainment and vacation options. All spheres of life, economy included, had to be subordinated to the ‘national interest’ (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz), and the fascist commitment to foster social equality and mobility. Radical meritocratic reforms are not usually thought of as signature Nazi measures, but, as Hitler once noted, the Third Reich has ‘opened the way for every qualified individual – whatever his origins – to reach the top if he is qualified, dynamic, industrious and resolute’.

The Nazis were big on highway construction, building lots of autobahns. These roads greatly impressed one of their conquerors, US General Dwight David Eisenhower. When he became President, Eisenhower pushed for the US having its own national socialist roads: the Interstate Highway System.

Largely for these reasons, up till 1939, most Germans’ experience with the Nazi regime was probably positive. The Nazis had seemingly conquered the Depression and restored economic and political stability. As long as they could prove their ethnic ‘purity’ and stayed away from overt shows of disloyalty, Germans typically experienced National Socialism not as a tyranny and terror, but as a regime of social reform and warmth.

There can be no question that violence and racism were essential traits of fascism. But for most Italians, Germans and other European fascists, the appeal was based not on racism, much less ethnic cleansing, but on the fascists’ ability to respond effectively to crises of capitalism when other political actors were not. Fascists insisted that states could and should control capitalism, that the state should and could promote social welfare, and that national communities needed to be cultivated. The fascist solution ultimately was, of course, worse than the problem. In response to the horror of fascism, in part, New Deal Democrats in the United States, and social democratic parties in Europe, also moved to re-negotiate the social contract. They promised citizens that they would control capitalism and provide social welfare policies and undertake other measures to strengthen national solidarity – but without the loss of freedom and democracy that fascism entailed.

Donald Trump's support of thuggery and scapegoating of ethnic minorities fit all too well. But there is more to be said: How Colin Woodard's 'American Nations' explains the 2016 presidential election - Portland Press Herald

As he notes, the various "American Nations" voted for their usual candidates, though with the Midlands with barely for Hillary Clinton.

This election was an exception in this regard, and I think it is because it did not feature a clear choice between individual liberty and the common good. Trump, alone among the 17 candidates for the Republican nomination, did not run on a “less government and less taxes make more freedom” agenda, but rather as a European-style ethno-nationalist, promising robust government intervention and social programs for a subset of Americans and extra-legal or extra-constitutional punishment for others. Once in office, Trump’s administration may well pursue oligarchy-friendly policies, but what he promised supporters on the campaign trail was government-led protectionism, industrial intervention, infrastructure spending, and the replacement of the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific.” Social Security and Medicaid would be protected and the swamp of Washington drained of its lobbyists. He was, in libertarian versus collectivism terms, the most communitarian sounding Republican nominee since Richard Nixon.

And it worked, especially in rural parts of Yankeedom and the Midlands where most people belong to Trump’s “in” group: white, native-born Christians. Trump flipped scores of rural Yankee counties that had voted for Obama twice, including eight in Maine (earning one of that state’s four electoral votes), a half dozen in the rest of New England and more than two dozen in that upper Mississippi valley aggregation.

This, combined with a substantial decline in turnout in Milwaukee and Detroit, was enough to eek a narrow victory in two Yankee states, Michigan and Wisconsin, and to doom Clinton’s prospects in Ohio, giving Trump the White House. Trump won precisely because he abandoned trickle down economics on the campaign trail; it will be interesting to see if his Yankee and Midland supporters stick with him if he embraces it in office.

More similarity with Fascism -- social democracy for "worthy" people.

 

[untermensche]

Trump has all the inclinations of a fascist dictator. He has been a petty dictator with servants his entire adult life.

It is all he knows. To be the king giving orders.

He is in a system that tried to safeguard against fascist dictators, by separating power.

He is certainly going to test the system.

So far the courts tested have held up.

But if Trump gets one more servant of wealth on The Court, they call themselves originalists, he may get his way more often.

 

[LordKiran]

It wasn't just hate. Fascism offered robust social welfare | Aeon Ideas

The Nazis were big on highway construction, building lots of autobahns. These roads greatly impressed one of their conquerors, US General Dwight David Eisenhower. When he became President, Eisenhower pushed for the US having its own national socialist roads: the Interstate Highway System.

Largely for these reasons, up till 1939, most Germans’ experience with the Nazi regime was probably positive. The Nazis had seemingly conquered the Depression and restored economic and political stability. As long as they could prove their ethnic ‘purity’ and stayed away from overt shows of disloyalty, Germans typically experienced National Socialism not as a tyranny and terror, but as a regime of social reform and warmth.

There can be no question that violence and racism were essential traits of fascism. But for most Italians, Germans and other European fascists, the appeal was based not on racism, much less ethnic cleansing, but on the fascists’ ability to respond effectively to crises of capitalism when other political actors were not. Fascists insisted that states could and should control capitalism, that the state should and could promote social welfare, and that national communities needed to be cultivated. The fascist solution ultimately was, of course, worse than the problem. In response to the horror of fascism, in part, New Deal Democrats in the United States, and social democratic parties in Europe, also moved to re-negotiate the social contract. They promised citizens that they would control capitalism and provide social welfare policies and undertake other measures to strengthen national solidarity – but without the loss of freedom and democracy that fascism entailed.

Donald Trump's support of thuggery and scapegoating of ethnic minorities fit all too well. But there is more to be said: How Colin Woodard's 'American Nations' explains the 2016 presidential election - Portland Press Herald

As he notes, the various "American Nations" voted for their usual candidates, though with the Midlands with barely for Hillary Clinton.

This election was an exception in this regard, and I think it is because it did not feature a clear choice between individual liberty and the common good. Trump, alone among the 17 candidates for the Republican nomination, did not run on a “less government and less taxes make more freedom” agenda, but rather as a European-style ethno-nationalist, promising robust government intervention and social programs for a subset of Americans and extra-legal or extra-constitutional punishment for others. Once in office, Trump’s administration may well pursue oligarchy-friendly policies, but what he promised supporters on the campaign trail was government-led protectionism, industrial intervention, infrastructure spending, and the replacement of the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific.” Social Security and Medicaid would be protected and the swamp of Washington drained of its lobbyists. He was, in libertarian versus collectivism terms, the most communitarian sounding Republican nominee since Richard Nixon.

And it worked, especially in rural parts of Yankeedom and the Midlands where most people belong to Trump’s “in” group: white, native-born Christians. Trump flipped scores of rural Yankee counties that had voted for Obama twice, including eight in Maine (earning one of that state’s four electoral votes), a half dozen in the rest of New England and more than two dozen in that upper Mississippi valley aggregation.

This, combined with a substantial decline in turnout in Milwaukee and Detroit, was enough to eek a narrow victory in two Yankee states, Michigan and Wisconsin, and to doom Clinton’s prospects in Ohio, giving Trump the White House. Trump won precisely because he abandoned trickle down economics on the campaign trail; it will be interesting to see if his Yankee and Midland supporters stick with him if he embraces it in office.

More similarity with Fascism -- social democracy for "worthy" people.

If you want an example of how faschism gives the people social wellfare, just look at North Korea. They keep those vital to the running of the state well cared for and let the rest rot on the vine.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Nazis were big on highway construction, building lots of autobahns. These roads greatly impressed one of their conquerors, US General Dwight David Eisenhower. When he became President, Eisenhower pushed for the US having its own national socialist roads: the Interstate Highway System.

But was that, in EITHER case, a social plus?
Eisenhower pushed for the highway system in order to be able to move the military quickly across the country to where they were needed if we were attacked.

Was that the same thinking of the Nazis?

 

[LordKiran]

The Nazis were big on highway construction, building lots of autobahns. These roads greatly impressed one of their conquerors, US General Dwight David Eisenhower. When he became President, Eisenhower pushed for the US having its own national socialist roads: the Interstate Highway System.

But was that, in EITHER case, a social plus?
Eisenhower pushed for the highway system in order to be able to move the military quickly across the country to where they were needed if we were attacked.

Was that the same thinking of the Nazis?

We should also point out that the Nazis were big on hiding their economic troubles behind big state construction projects that gave people temporary jobs and lead to short term windfalls.

 

[Will Wiley]

Trump has all the inclinations of a fascist dictator. He has been a petty dictator with servants his entire adult life.

Yes he does. And he has it all set up for him. While people here were masturbating about Obama (who continued the slide from Bush), he oversaw many dangerous policies.

Slouching Towards Nuremberg?
from July 2012

Strange things are happening in the United States these days, and every day seems to bring additional scary news. The similarity to the erosion of civil liberties in Germany during the 1930s is a bit too close for comfort. Many will regard this statement as hyperbole, and, to some extent, it is. But let’s take a close look at what is going on before we dismiss the comparison out of hand.

Obama prepared the way in some regard. Now you have Trump who could just do it. Mind you I don't think he will. But he has the ego and the conviction, and belief that he is right. he also has a Democratic Party in opposition that is a laughable joke.

Most of the morons here post about how erratic he is , or some nonsense, but the danger is not that he is erratic, but single minded unflinching and convinced he is right.

 

[Will Wiley]

From the article I linked to.

I. The creation of a political climate in which the police are out of control, arbitrarily free to intimidate anyone for virtually anything

II. The persecution of whistleblowers, protesters, and dissenters

III. The dramatic expansion of the surveillance of American citizens on the part of the National Security Agency (NSA)

IV. The corruption of the judicial system by means of show trials of Muslim activists

V. The construction of political detention centers, also known as Communication Management Units (CMU’s)

VI. The shredding of the Bill of Rights by means of the National Defense Authorization Act

VII. Future scenarios: The “disappearing” of intellectual critics of the U.S. government?

None of these things happened under Trump, but the people here who complain so loudly about Trump were as I say, masturbating as they worshipped Obama while these things came to pass increasingly

 

[Tigers!]

The trains ran on time?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The trains ran on time?

There was a journalist (whose name I forget) who lived in Italy during the rise of Mussolini and left before WW2 started, who reported from Italy. He noted that in fact, the trains did not run on time under Mussolini.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Femi-Nazis.

 

[LordKiran]

Here's a plus.

People who are part of the primary culture/ethnicity/religion/whatever get a state by and for them. It's a relative plus dependent entirely upon who you ask.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because a fascist country had a good social welfare system doesn't mean that it's a characteristic of fascism.