fascism...but how?

i have noticed that people reject the idea of fascism simply upon the action of past fascist societies. Whats actually wrong with being a fascist. Anybody who knows their political philosophy knows ho Adam Smith is. After reading his work one begins to understand the merits of fascism.

Looking at the world one can hardly say that we are currently acting in any way that we could wish to be universal law. Surely then the best form of government will require a form of control, for the sake of the people.

I think its important at this stage not to confuse fascism with fascist Italy and fascist Germany. Sure the concept is there, but it doesnt speak truely or fascism. Putting aside the terrible things these governments did, what were the people like. With the government in control, how much evil was done by the people to one another (I obviously understand that germany was indeed at war and people did suffer, but not from one another, the suffering was caused by external forces).

it was said in the french revolution that it was necvessary for the government to be evil so the people did not have to be, or something along those lines. Maybe this is reasonable.

The problem with this is fascism would work, providing the ruler ruled not for himself, but for the people. A dictator for the people....
Someone who was not surcome to corruption..

I'd like to think what everyone elsethinks bout this..i might add something later to try make my ideas clearer. But if we were able to implement a system along these line would it not put an end to the disguised tyrrany of democracy, which causes so much pain. A government should be for the people, and looking at the world today, i can hardly say the democrats are for the people (generally speaking of course, i hardly wish to discriminate too much)...

The main fault of fascism seems to lie in that ideologies requirement of an enemy. Perhaps if Hitler had named religious extremists as the bad guys instead of picking on the Jews alone he might have been termed the 'Leader of the Free world.'
I do not agree with the rascist agenda of the Nazi party but a lotof its methods are effective and should be used today, but, will not be since they are tainted by their association with that party. I see however that many watered down versions have been implemented by many of the world's leading 'Democracies'. What is democracy anyway if not bi-partisan fascism.

It is interesting to note that the Philosopher King in Plato's Republic (utopia) can easily be called a fascist by definition.

I read the WEalth of Nations in order to get my Economics Degree, and to me, everything that Adam Smith wrote about could be refuted in some way in today's society, if one has enough merit to argue it, but he was often times citing one thing, and again having it cited in a different context in a different way.... i almost got the feeling that he felt that the invisible hand was more of a guiding influence, rather than a market equilibrium that "came about" by market forces...

in my view, I felt that he was a person who thought that the market equilibrium was influenced and brought to a halt by a group, rather than by market forces that had less direct market influence.


Im not saying that he wasn't a great political philosopher, and I definitely understand my field much better after reading his works, but I felt that I was correct in my feelings, just was unable to prove them in any real concrete way. Adam Smith seemed to have a writing method that allowed interpretation in various ways in our times



This argument always brings me back to Book 2 of the Wealth of Nations, the chapters concerning the meetings of guilds, and how they only meet "in order to fix prices"

[edit on 11-20-2004 by slugfast]

www.oldamericancentury.org...

Originally posted by TrueLies
www.oldamericancentury.org...

i've seen this site numerous times,
but it is always a good read