The Inner Fascist

Post Reply New Topic

Ordinary people supported Fascism and Nazism, and even today people support positions that could hypothetically lead to a sort of fascism if taken to their logical extreme. So most people would have some predispositions that could manifest as fascism under the right circumstances. The fascist wishes to impose their sense of order on society. For a Christian Evangelical, this could mean a world without homosexuals and other "sinners"; the libertarian could impose free-market values on others, preferring to remove the "moocher" element from society; the liberal may want to impose environmental-protection laws that become almost draconian; etc. Really, for almost any position, you can see how someone could force extremely coercive laws to get everyone to go along. Some people merely have a stronger desire to have others behave as they see proper than others.

The desire to conform is a broken form of the desire for companionship, to belong. So to belong, some have the urge to make those around them like them to be understandable.

Thoughts?

That the impulses that lead to totalitarian uniformitarianism are endemic and in these times rampant I could hardly deny, having oft said so meself in many contexts.

That a large component is the drive [observed even in the vegetable kingdom, think maples and walnuts and the genus Penicillium] to make oneself comfortable and / or safe by eliminating competition [as opposed to my preferred technique of avoidance] I am unlikely to dispute.

But I am NOT convinced that for the majority the drive is to make the Other more comprehensible.

I'll agree that the average person's positions, if taken seriously, would probably lead to Fascism. (Heck, I think that's the reason I spent some time as a neo-fascist)

I think that not all ideologies view themselves as being matters of imposition though. For example, Robert Nozick, a major libertarian thinker, really wanted to remove laws, so that there was freedom of choices. This goes hand in hand with the libertarian idea of markets, but for Nozick, as well as likely a few other libertarian thinkers, this also meant the freedom of individuals to basically find their own in some form or fashion(even through communal efforts), as these efforts would no longer face any degree of official suppression.(Note: how much impact is a relevant question, but it does not get to the core of that idea.)

I don't think that the desire for conformity has to be necessarily a matter of companionship though. Many minds are black and white, and their moral requirements are not really deeply connected to anything overly concrete. Conformity can really be just the way of saying "let's make the world *RIGHT*, instead of *WRONG*".

Those damn libertarians always trying to impose their freedom on people!

First of all, I wouldn't call Pinochet a fascist, an authoritarian dictator yes but not a fascist.

Second of all, I assume you're referring Milton Friedman, he didn't really have anything to do with Pinochet actually. He just gave some lectures at some colleges down there in the mid 70s and met with Pinochet briefly to give him some economic advice. He declined honorary doctorates from the two universities he was speaking at because he didn't want people to think he supported the dictatorship of Pinochet. His "rational" was also correct in that economic freedom always eventually leads to more political freedom.

I recognise my inner fascist, and I don't allow him to set policy.