Thursday, February 13, 2014
Facism
I think we can all agree that todays presentation on facism was very interesting and thought provoking. Nathan offered a very peculiar proposition, facism would work and be prosperous if the leader/ruler used love rather than fear to rule. This is very true, but is it possible? No, as I brought up in class Jesus was a leader who tried to lead with love but was still unsuccessful. It came up that he was hubris because he walked around proclaiming himself the son of God. Yes, he did, I wasn't objecting that he didn't people just cut me off before I could finish. He didn't walk around proclaiming himself as the son of God to be hubris but more so in an altruistic sense. He was letting the people know who he was and what he was there to do, he was the son of God sent by the messiah to lead people in the right direction to a better, happier life. Wasn't that the main argument of the presentation, that when we have a leader who is more concerned with the well-being of others than his own it will work? Then why didn't it work? It didn't work because despite Nathans objections we are human and we aren't perfect. As a part of human nature when someone has that much success there's always someone who gets consumed with jealousy and does something to take that power away. In this case it would be Judus who was one of Jesus very own disciples. I know some people aren't very religious and don't believe in God so another example would be the Zulu leader Shaka. Shaka was a great leader who was loved by everyone and he wasn't hubris but still he was killed by his half brother over jealousy. Facism will never work because it puts one person higher than the rest of the people which will result in failure due to jealousy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, how would fascism work if it wasn't based on a certain amount of fear? The idea of the state being the ultimate authority is the keystone of the entire ideology, meaning any dissenters are going to punished. This does not mean that they are necessarily going to, say, get whacked, but it does mean that the state is going to use a little fear to keep everyone in line with the ideology. Also, fascism's nationalistic rhetoric naturally promotes the idea of difference; that mentality of "Us and Them" that was made so famous by... Pink Floyd, I guess. It not only gives people something to fear more than the outstanding government, but also implies that a greater world can be created through military conquest, just so long as the people all stay firmly united under it. All of this just further promotes the system's use of fear to govern. However, such nationalism also has inherently 'loving' elements to it, too. So long as the people continue obeying the government and don't change their ethnicity, they get all the cool perks. And besides, 'Fascism' is not 'genocide'. Slaughtering those you conquer is not part of the fundamental ideology, but rather more of an 'add-on'; part of the 'bonus package', so to speak. Fascism stresses the superiority of one group over the others, not the inferiority of any one group. This doesn't quite mean 'love' for those not part of the superior group, but it does mean treatment potentially a whole lot more loving than the Holocaust. So, I do think Fascism can produce a viable form of government, at least in the short-term. Perhaps in the long run I am wrong; those who it marginalizes will ultimately revolt and overthrow the tyrannical government and set up a society where everything is perfect and people get along and get to "equally share misery". But, for the time being, I'll put my faith on Machiavelli's word, in that a Fascist government could successfully rule so long as it doesn't let the people's fear turn into hatred. Now, does this mean it's a good idea by any means? Ignoring the fact that that question is totally subjective, I'd say hell no. But, you know, people have thought up dumber ones. Whether it be in the form of one ethnicity, or one family, or literally just one person, idiocy always seems to find its way to power. Perhaps this is democracy in its truest form; people base their governments off of what they know best.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of your argument Ina, I think you are correct. Humans are not perfect, and there is no feasible way for any of us to rule in a successful fascist manner on love alone. However, I do not particularly agree with your examples.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Shaka's people loved him, yes, but each tribe he overtook was then controlled based on the fear he installed in them when he slaughtered their families, friends, and respected elders. Second, Jesus is a hard subject to take on simply because so many people believe different things about him and what he stood for. He taught love and compassion and kindness, sure, but one thing is for sure, he did not try to rule by peace alone. As stated in Mark 16:16, Jesus proclaimed: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." To me, that doesn't sound like Jesus trying to get everyone to love him, it sounds like him striking the fear of God into all whom may be listening. I think he knew that not everyone was going to believe everything he was saying, so he squashed the naysayers by literally telling them to go to hell. Nevertheless, using your example as a premise, I do believe Jesus was successful in the long run. If you think about it, millions of people still follow his teachings today and rely on him as a spiritual leader and depend on him/God to guide their future.
To be honest, I cannot think of a fascist leader who attempted to rule by means of love alone, possibly because it is impossible to do so. Peter is right, fascism may be viable so long as the ruler is feared (but not hated). To be loved by your people is a valuable bonus, however, in order to gain and maintain control of a large population they must first and foremost be governed by a rule of law ... and be afraid of the repercussions of breaking the law, for fear of repercussions.