I am not too afraid of fascism. I am a left of center, social-libertarian thinker (says the political test I took). But I am afraid of nasty dictatorships.
The McCarthy period in the US was a bleak page and under duress, such as with WW II, some US choices were equally bleak. Positioning one-self like a Rubin’s Vase against communism (with communism then being the Vase), one can easily see how US folks would fully embrace the duopoly (both parties then being the Two Faces). To maintain this stance, one must declare the political world as two-dimensional, like a flat-screen that portrays the two images as if there is nothing else possible.
If we keep telling the political story as if it were something simplistic and two-dimensional, then we human beings will never mature.
Simply put, there are four political forms:
A/ One party nations
B/ Two party nations
C/ Three to Five/Six party nations
D/ Full Specter democracy
If A were to be a fascist nation, that would be horrible. Naturally, nazi-Germany comes to mind as the tragic worst-ever fascist regime. Italy was a more benevolent fascist nation (until WW II started in earnest). Still, I have no respect for any nation that fits in with A, fascist, communist, capitalist (or all of the above, such as with China).
If B were to have a fascist party as just one of the two parties, I would be upset, really upset. In some perspective, one can declare the US as an extremely pro-business nation. The definitions of fascism are quite diverse and for some of the definitions one could put the US (partially) under that umbrella. Businesses do have a disproportional amount of influence in the United States, economically of course, but I mean to say politically; it is quite amazing how much power businesses have here.
Given the nature of people, one can come across the benevolent version of fascism and not notice it. In general, I am not afraid of this kind of fascism. What I dislike is that the truth is not spoken. There is always this spin involved, because the truth is automatically bent toward the benefit of the empowered entities. Folks are told they do not know everything and they end up believing it, walking away from the table where the decisions are made. Also, a duopoly does not give full power to the voters. Voting occurs in a game setup.
If C were to happen with one fascist party, I would not be too worried at all. If there are three to six parties, then there is a discussion going on. One can learn what the fascist folks think, and debunk part of their thinking. At the same time, some of the needs these folks have can get addressed. Fascist thinking often comes forth from a sentiment that others are given a privilege, and ‘we’ are not. By sharing better, by working out the differences better, the fascist tendencies can largely be resolved.
In D, with one or two parties fascist, I am not worried one bit. Nations with this system tend to be smaller nations (Interbellum Germany was the largest nation ever to have D as their system, and the much-divided center gave Hitler his power, not the voters). The outside world makes more important decisions than these small nations. They play along, and sometimes are the best experimental gardens because there is so much political freedom.
— -
Internationally, the US is an extremely important player, and it being a duopoly does worry me. While I don’t think fascism will ever be worse than McCarthy and Japanese encampments, I am worried about the export of fascism toward other nations. Competition is fierce here, we do not address all human needs like other nations do (or only to a mediocre level). For others to keep up with that competition, other nations may have to pull all their powers together to compete with the duopoly.
In that light, I suspect that the rise of nazi-Germany can partially be explained by British (and French) domination of the old world. The (economic) ropes in the hands of these two empires was so great that the Germans (and Italians, and Russians, and etc) had to turn their own nations into bulwarks to compete with the duopolies (US had become a powerful player too by the end of the 19th century).
— -
One improvement for the world, I would like to add, is when we rid the world of all As and Bs. These are the worst systems people can have. I am not talking about individuals here, because some can benefit tremendously. Even in a national setting, such as UK or US, one could claim a beneficial outcome for many people in these nations. Yet the downside is there, also when the stresses are exported to other nations. People are not represented in full-color options when living in a system of A or B.
As such, it would be great for the world if the UK and the US became democracies (today they have elections, but so did communist East-Germany with three parties even; they called themselves democratic).
In the US, for instance, there is only red and blue. There is no yellow, orange, or green, and so the system discriminates in a very stubborn two-dimensional manner (and will ignore needs that would have been addressed by these other political colors).
If the US and the UK became democracies (my preference is C, because D is perfect only for smaller nations), then we should see fascism diminish in the world, because the instigators of fascism would lose a powerful aspect: the rigidity of the two-party system that is a fascist aspect in itself.
Limit expression of power and one is automatically involved in a fascist direction (in a weak or strong fashion). Open up political freedom and one is always involved in an anti-fascist direction.
Voting should be free, and voting should lead to more than two empowered parties. Always.
In the American Truth, one can read that voters are indeed had as soon as they walk into the voting booth. The article also shows a way out, today.
