I can't find the source right now, but someone said that believing in democracy is like believing in the metric system.
And there's another (Churchill's?) one saying that it's the worst government system, except all the others. Not very exciting definitions, more like cynics' choice.
I have no idea whatsoever the hidden meaning here.
Democracy is very flawed in many aspects in my opinion, starting with the fact that it is the rule of majority over minority.
Yet all other systems of governance seem much worse to me (any rule of minority over majority system like monarchy or dictatorship for example). Monarchy for example is great as long as your monarch is a sensible, smart, and empathetic person - but terrible when the ones after them aren’t.
I really can’t come up with a better alternative to democracy (aka majority rule) even if I think many of the problems in contemporary western society stem from that majority rule.
Of course there are many more devils in the details and democracies can vary widely across the spectrum.
To me a socialist (as in social, as in having the interest of „the people“ as guiding principle) democracy seems to be the best system humans have been able to come up with so far - the best as in resulting in a good outcome for the biggest portion of people. The Nordic states seem to have gotten it right in most aspects, even if there are many problems even there.
I wonder if there are any other good propositions or systems of governance that have been tried and proven that I have been missing (Spain's anarchist or Mexican syndicalism comes to mind, but I know too little about them to pass any judgement - plus they have been very localised systems afaict)
Popular support for fascism is almost exclusively predicated on strong emotions felt about vague/changing subjects. Fascist speakers excelled at driving their audience into a frenzy.
Democracy is not consistently about this, and there's also rational debate about it. Rational debate wasn't the focus of fascism, and in fact it was actively shunned -- fascism was about sacrifice, blood and belief, not reason.
Someone else linked to the reflections on the language of the Third Reich, and how it was meant to drive emotions and irrational thinking.
Fascism cannot coexist with reason. Other forms of evil might, but not this one.
I hope you can understand this is a topic that exceeds the scope of an HN comment. If you want to read about this, there's tons of literature.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but I stand by what I said: go read about fascism, there's plenty written. There are no shortcuts and I won't provide a history lesson for you here.
> Where exactly do you see a lack of logic?
Nothing you described is "logic"; it is a set of axiomatic beliefs. "Might makes right" is not logic, it's a belief. There's very little that is logical about fascism. In fact they had to reject and persecute science because the world wasn't what fascism described.
I mean, they did have a bunch of contradictory foundational ideas, is that what you mean? But there was hardly a logical core to it.
Fascism, as historically understood centers around certain key principles such as the ones I provided above (authoritarian leadership, nationalism, and collectivism over individualism etc). These principles form a coherent, if morally contentious, framework. The logic in this context refers to the internal consistency and the cause-and-effect relationships within the ideology. For example, the fascist belief in authoritarian leadership is logically connected to its emphasis on national unity and strength, as authoritarianism is seen as a means to achieve and maintain this unity.
Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern. The ideology posits that strength (might) is necessary for national revival and dominance, and therefore, actions that lead to increased strength are justified (right). This is a form of logic, albeit one that many find ethically objectionable.
Regarding the rejection and persecution of science, this was not a reflection of the inherent logic of fascism but rather a consequence of its authoritarian nature, where any dissenting ideas, including scientific ones, were suppressed to maintain control.
Moral and ethical criticisms of fascism are valid, but they are distinct from an analysis of its logical structure. The logical coherence of an ideology is separate from its moral standing, and it's possible to examine the former without endorsing the latter.
It's not my argument alone: a lot has been written about fascism and its lack of logical core! There isn't a lot of "logical structure" to it. I don't think "as historically understood" fascism forms a self-consistent logical core; I think it is well studied that is amorphous, illogical and inconsistent, and that's the historical consensus.
> However, identifying the logical structure of an ideology doesn't necessitate endorsing its moral standing.
To be clear, I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you support fascism either, and I understand what you're trying to argue. I just think the consensus of people who studied fascism is different to your opinion.
Fascism (regardless of whether it's right or wrong -- and I believe we both believe it to be wrong) is highly illogical. There's not much to it beyond its propaganda. It's riddled with inconsistencies, it's not just "wrong" but there's not much to it beyond appeals to emotion.
> Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern
We both agree it's a belief system. I disagree it's logical. Not everything with an "idea" (or a bunch of ideas) is logical. "Ideas" are not enough for something to be called logical.
Again, this is not my argument alone. A lot has been written about fascism espousing what I'm saying here.
It bears repeating again, just in case: I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you're "defending" fascism either; that's not what I'm disagreeing with. I'm rejecting your assertion that fascism is logical (if mistaken). I'm asserting it's both illogical and mistaken. I would accept something evil and logical can exist, it's just that fascism is not it!
I am not aware of any experts who have studied this ideology and concluded that it lacks logical structure. If you maintain that such experts exist, could you please provide citations for their arguments along with the relevant sources? Assuming you reference these experts, you should be able to accurately cite their specific arguments and sources. So please provide precise citations relevant to the context of our discussion, along with the sources.
I will argue that you are still conflating between the ideological content of fascism and its logical structure. An ideology can be logically consistent in how its principles interconnect and support each other, even if those principles are based on fallacious premises or lead to unethical conclusions. The fascist emphasis on nationalism and authoritarian control logically leads to policies that suppress dissent and prioritize state power over individual rights. This is a LOGICAL progression of ideas within the framework of the ideology.
You assert that not everything with an "idea" is logical. While this is true, the logical coherence of an ideology is not just about having ideas but about how these ideas are systematically interconnected and rationalized within that ideology. Fascism has demonstrated a certain internal logic in how it articulates and rationalizes its principles, such as the belief that a strong authoritarian leader is necessary for national unity and that individual rights can be sacrificed for the greater good of the nation.
You mention that fascism is riddled with inconsistencies. If these inconsistencies disrupt the internal logic of the ideology, then please identify them.
So if you want to effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, then go beyond stating the consensus of scholars (appeal to authority) and to specifically identify where the ideology fails to maintain logical consistency. Without these specifics, your thesis relies too heavily on an appeal to authority and a general dismissal of the ideology without addressing its internal logic.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic.
In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have nothing against you, I've explained my point, and I'm not going to give you a history lesson here, "explain" anything to you, or keep reading your walls of text. HN is not suitable for this.
Have a nice day!
> Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic.
Your responses emphasize a reliance on expert consensus without offering specific examples or references to support your stance. While it's true that an appeal to authority is not fallacious when the authority is relevant and credible, the essence of the argument still requires substantiation beyond just stating that experts agree with a viewpoint. Merely stating that experts agree with a position, without providing any direct references or examples is akin to saying "Trust me, I'm right because experts say so" rather than, "Here's the evidence or arguments presented by experts that support my view."
> In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have nothing against you, I've explained my point, and I'm not going to give you a history lesson here, "explain" anything to you, or keep reading your walls of text. HN is not suitable for this.
Stating that you won't provide a "history lesson" or implying that the other person's efforts constitute mere "walls of text" came across as dismissive and disrespectful.
If the conversation isn't aligning with your expectations, it might be more productive to articulate this directly and respectfully. You could say something like, "I appreciate the depth of your inquiry, but I feel that this platform isn't the right place for such an in-depth discussion, or I don't have the resources/time/depth of knowledge to provide the detailed response this topic deserves." instead of writing that you will not teach someone history or "explain" anything to that person.
Ideologies aim to harness people's emotions to gain support. Democracy, fascism, and communism all possess underlying logic. By analyzing these ideologies dispassionately, without moral judgments, one can discern the logic in each of them.
When encountering opposition, there are numerous ways to resolve conflict and achieve one's goals. These include discussion, compromise, and litigation, but also extend to extreme measures like murder and genocide. While one cannot deny the existence of these methods, their acceptability depends on individual values.