Debate Response

As a strong anti-statist, I obviously had a hard time arguing that fascism is 'a viable form of government that fulfills the needs of the governed' today. And while I ultimately think the anti-fascists did have a stronger case as Zak decided here, a couple points are worth noting.

1. Arguments for fascism seem absurd to our ears. Charlie and company repeatedly raised concerns over who would arbitrate a uniform moral standard under fascism, an objection a fascist would reject as based on the faulty assumption that a diversity of moral opinions is intrinsically valuable (thus Charlie would be begging the question since he seeks to prove that diversity is more valuable than uniformity). But it makes sense to us because we feel a deep skepticism toward the unlimited mandate given to the state if it is to create such a moral standard. Fascism's high estimation of order and security also strike us as sinister and insidious. All this shows the degree of desperation and hopelessness felt by citizens of Germany and Italy who supported fascist movements. 'Common sense' is completely irrelevant in uncommon times.

2. We really had no good response to Mia's (I think?) point that fascism is inherently militaristic, because it is. The logic of fascism works by creating enemies and framing everything in very bellicose, militant terms (the 'war' of production). This tends to lead to the real thing.

3. Cas mentioned in class that the wished we had discussed the economic advantages of fascism to a greater extent. I touched on that in my opening statement, arguing laissez-faire capitalism had atomized society and turned people into egotistic savages in constant competition with one another. Fascism, we tried to argue, would direct the energies of capitalism in a productive direction such as by ensuring full employment and the placing the private sector under the supervision of wise government.