Is there such a thing as "benign fascism"?

[JamesBond007]

As preposterous and oxymoronic as many would find it, I do think there have been occasional examples:

Salazar. Helped modernise Portugal significantly through a massive schoolbuilding programme and a concurrent massive fall in illiteracy and poverty. Eventually died of illness, and his regime fell a few years later due to misguided and daft colonial wars in Africa.

Peron. Vastly improved the lives of Argentina's working classes - for a while poverty and unemployment became minimal in Argentina. Eventually overthrown by the military who became increasingly antagonised by him, along with the church and oligarchy.

Not really, maybe in instances when Western civilization is being threatened a temporary fascism can be a 'necessary evil' but that would have to function kind of like anabolism and catabolism but breaking down a fascist government back down into a democratic western government is the tricky part. Anyway, in America both democrats and conservatives are for 'big government' so the differences between them are false and misleading.The point is that the only real political divide is between small government (whose harm is limited) and Big Government (whose harm seems to be unlimited) -- a divide which really translates into the question of how much taxes should the government be allowed to impose on us.

The short answer is no :

The free society will always eclipse the unfree one; for while totalitarianism may forbid the bad, it can never compel the good -- something which arises spontaneously among free men.

[Tooting Carmen]

Not really, maybe in instances when Western civilization is being threatened a temporary fascism can be a 'necessary evil' but that would have to function kind of like anabolism and catabolism but breaking down a fascist government back down into a democratic western government is the tricky part. Anyway, in America both democrats and conservatives are for 'big government' so the differences between them are false and misleading.The point is that the only real political divide is between small government (whose harm is limited) and Big Government (whose harm seems to be unlimited) -- a divide which really translates into the question of how much taxes should the government be allowed to impose on us.

The short answer is no :

The free society will always eclipse the unfree one; for while totalitarianism may forbid the bad, it can never compel the good -- something which arises spontaneously among free men.

Wouldn't you agree that the divide between particularists and universalists (both can be found among both Left and Right) is at least equally important? The divide between those who believe that different peoples and nations have the right to maintain their own languages, cultures and political sovereignty, however 'irrational' they may seem to outsiders, and those who believe in multilateralism if not global government, along with a single language and culture for the world in the name of either the brotherhood of mankind or efficiency and reason?

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

As preposterous and oxymoronic as many would find it, I do think there have been occasional examples:



Peron. Vastly improved the lives of Argentina's working classes - for a while poverty and unemployment became minimal in Argentina. Eventually overthrown by the military who became increasingly antagonised by him, along with the church and oligarchy.

[Tooting Carmen]

What's this got to do with the thread?

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

What's this got to do with the thread?

The fruits of peronism.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Modern China, for all intents and purposes, is a fascist country. It's not really communist at all, economically they're just state capitalist, socially they're very right wing. If we ignore Mao's reign, Tianamen and the treatment of Uygurs(although this is more like forced assimilation, not ethnic genocide, more like cultural), I think you can argue they were benign if you're willing to ignore those 3 things.

If Cuba wasn't so anti-capitalist you could make a case for them too, as outside of economics it's pretty much a socially right-wing dictatorship, but their straight up socialism disqualifies them.

Portugal is probably the best example. If Mussolini's Italy wasn't Imperialist it could've been up there too.

[Tooting Carmen]

Modern China, for all intents and purposes, is a fascist country. It's not really communist at all, economically they're just state capitalist, socially they're very right wing. If we ignore Mao's reign, Tianamen and the treatment of Uygurs (although this is more like forced assimilation, not ethnic genocide, more like cultural), I think you can argue they were benign if you're willing to ignore those 3 things.

Except we cannot ignore those things. (Don't forget the Tibetans and Falun Gong movement too).

If Cuba wasn't so anti-capitalist you could make a case for them too, as outside of economics it's pretty much a socially right-wing dictatorship, but their straight up socialism disqualifies them.

Other than the regime's obsessive homophobia in its early years, it was socially quite progressive for its time when it came to race, women's rights, abortion, divorce etc.

EDIT: It was also anti-pornography and anti-prostitution for a long time (though even that isn't necessarily right-wing - radfems etc), although with the growth of tourism in Cuba those traits have been somewhat, well, relaxed...

Portugal is probably the best example. If Mussolini's Italy wasn't Imperialist it could've been up there too.

Maybe.

[Tarlus Magnus]

mussolini was a shitty and weak ideological opportunist (he was lefty socialist), and at the end were views very hypocritical, he pretended to be a strong emperor (even though he was a really bad conqueror) and the italian people pretended to be his obiedent soldiers even though many of them didn't take much seriously him. He did good things tho, like almost wiping out criminal organizations, reclaim the vast swampy plains of italy (especially in the south), improved roads networks.

[Tarlus Magnus]

potato power (iknow how original)

[Tooting Carmen]

mussolini was a shitty and weak ideological opportunist (he was lefty socialist), and at the end were views very hypocritical, he pretended to be a strong emperor (even though he was a really bad conqueror) and the italian people pretended to be his obiedent soldiers even though many of them didn't take much seriously him. He did good things tho, like almost wiping out criminal organizations, reclaim the vast swampy plains of italy (especially in the south), improved roads networks.

And eliminated diseases like polio etc. Anyway, I think leaders like Peron and Salazar have been victims to the cult of absolutism, i.e. not judging or taking into account the time/place/social background of the person in question, and imposing your own judgement instead. Yes they were autocratic and authoritarian, but they weren't really that murderous and they did far more to advance education, welfare and worker's rights in their countries than anyone before them.