> What if even billionaires can’t disrupt the system we have built?
Had this read "What if successful businessmen leading a unified government can't disrupt the system?" I'd raise an eye brow and see what they had to say.
Instead, without the flowery language of helping out, this argues directly that we ought to dismantle the distribution of power and give it to one man - ordained by wealth - in the name of efficiency.
It looks like, swims like, and quacks like fascist ideology.
What even is fascism anymore? Is populism fascist? The ancient Romans had a concept of temporary dictators for emergencies. Was that fascism? I recently read Starship Troopers, which many people say is a cautionary tale about fascism. It’s not cautionary, but it really leaves me wondering what the hell is the common theme amongst all these examples of fascism except maybe being a threat to the status quo. The book wasn’t even totalitarian, which is what most people mean when they say fascist.
It's a long article but includes a pretty good descriptive definition of fascist movements. (search "taxonomy" to skip to the definition)
He spends some time on the specific issue that no single instance of fascism, even the original italian model, explicitly manifests every single point of the definition. And some of them show up prominently in systems that it doesn't really make sense to call fascist. So every government has some of these elements to different degrees, the point where they have "enough" of them "strongly enough" to be considered fascism is kind of a judgement call.
But that doesn't mean the individual points aren't concrete or can't be evaluated straightforwardly into a working definition. Some of the things that differentiate contemporary fascism from "mere" dictatorship are:
- attachment to an idealized syncretic national history
- machismo and contempt for the weak
- positioning in opposition to an "enemy" that is so powerful it justifies immediate pervasive violent action but is also somehow degenerate and weak
Had this read "What if successful businessmen leading a unified government can't disrupt the system?" I'd raise an eye brow and see what they had to say.
Instead, without the flowery language of helping out, this argues directly that we ought to dismantle the distribution of power and give it to one man - ordained by wealth - in the name of efficiency.
It looks like, swims like, and quacks like fascist ideology.