Society Would Flourish Best Under Fascist Government

I accept my opponent's alternate definition for the term fascism. For my first argument, I will demonstrate that SOCIETY FLOURISHES BEST UNDER FASCIST GOVERNMENT by first analyzing how both competing contemporary political models "Liberal Democracy" and "Marxism" have failed in their purpose of helping society to flourish, and next by illustrating how Fascism would likewise succeed. *The Failures of Liberal Democracy* By perpetuating market economics and limiting intervention by state policy in observance of free trade, I assert that the state is passively declaring society's collective wealth as being synonymous with society's success. This is not a novel concept. Today, when one intends to judge a nation's success they typically assess first the data relating to that nation's GDP, income distribution, and standard of living. In fact, the Scandinavian countries my opponent listed in his argument as being exemplary societies all score very highly for income distribution and standard of living, and as liberal democracies would indeed appear successful. Beyond macroeconomics, this theory that the degree of something's success correlates directly with the degree of its wealth in a liberal democracy can be demonstrated on a smaller, individual scale: For example, the fact that a rich person is generally perceived as being successful while a bum is generally perceived as being a failure. But if wealth is to serve as the definition for success, we must recognize that success in this liberal society, then, will no longer be defined (or be defined to a lesser extent) by tradtional systems of endowment, or by cultural mores and attitudes, or by popular opinion. Therefore, by virtue of its being the source of all success in a liberal democracy (rather than institutions of church or state), capital becomes the primary motivator of society and its ultimate aim, and gradually capital forms its own independent culture with its own values and ethics. Eventually, the securing of wealth becomes the highest moral imperative of a society. I assert that such rampant materialism existing in a liberal democracy inevitably places culture in a state of moral crisis that is detrimental to human flourishing. Market distribution of Wealth proves too arbitrary to serve as society's main incentive. Excess wealth may be generated by manipulating existing wealth ad infinitum. Today, such practices have resulted in the creation of a new class of ultra-rich financiers and investment bankers. Donald Trump, a member of the ultra-rich, made billions of dollars renovating already existing properties under his brand. However, it is interesting to note that occupations arguably far more demanding on individuals and far more beneficial to society are absent from the class of the ultra-rich: including medical doctors, rocket scientists, artists, and philosophers. Is there a just reason that these people, with all their dedication and sacrifice to their craft, with all their education, and considering their significant impact on our culture, are not at least equally successful as Donald Trump, a real-estate mogul? There are none. Clearly, we as a society can not measure success by wealth because many very accomplished people are not rich, and some unaccomplished are. In fact, the promise of wealth in many cases attracts an individual's attention away from rewarding careers. For example, any individual who has ever felt compelled to give up on his passion because of "legitimate" financial concerns. *Why Fascism is Better* Under Fascist government, public policy would interfere in every facet of the nation's economic and social life. Rather than perpetuate ideological deterioration by the influences of wealth, which are arbitrary and naturally inefficient under liberal democracies, the state would allocate wealth where it should prove most helpful to the national agenda. Both capital and labor would be but tools to the state. Society's children under a Fascist government would be indoctrinated at school and at home, learning through discipline from an early age to endorse the national agenda and to desire to advance the agenda through their own lives, almost in a religious manner. All of society would be divided into a rigid military hierarchy, with each ascending tier representing greater responsibility and importance within the state, and all operating under one supreme ruler who holds the highest rank. Effectively, under a government such described, members of society would be chiefly concerned by their usefulness to the state. By creating a homogeneous culture with common values and beliefs that extend across the hierarchy, citizens are motivated to succeed foremost by their desire to aid the national agenda. Wealth would serve but an incidental privilege of rank. Fascism, then, would seem to reconcile the opposing influences of wealth and culture on a society, and would prevent the type of moral crisis I believe will inevitably befall all liberal democracies. A clear national agenda would dissipate the modern fog of moral ambiguity plaguing every decision we make as individuals in the liberal post-modern 21st century. As an example: when former Nazi officers were tried after WWII for their crimes, many argued that they did not feel morally culpable because they were just following orders from Hitler. My opponent may argue that Fascism creates a population that is scared of its government, and he may ask how a society that is afraid could possibly be said to have flourished. I would actually rebuke that fear is required for a society to flourish. For a society to flourish it must practice elements of the lifestyle which public policy and the national agenda decrees to be virtuous everyday out of fear of becoming an enemy of the state if it does not. Watch society flourish very quickly. *The Failures of Marxism* An economy cannot survive without competition. 20th century Marxist regimes collapsed in part because of a lack of enterprise, which is inherent to a classless society. Furthermore, the idea of classless socialism is inn achievable in light of the fact that historically, government officers in Marxist regimes tend to evolve their own class. Beyond the flawed economic theory there lies a weak understanding of justice, one which is based on a humanitarian charisma that evaporates immediately following revolution. Marxist governments are the kinds which fail to inspire any lasting feeling of solidarity or patriotism, due to their anti-nationalism, and these regimes typically end up holding their citizens hostage (think Soviet Union, think North Korea). *Why Fascism is Better* Unlike in a Marxist government, Fascist intervention in the lives of citizens is designed to promote a society that is competitive for the resources of the state. Individuals are recognized by the state for outstanding citizenship, and a new hierarchy emerges from the population that in nature resembles nothing like anything found in Marxist literature. Additionally, the emotive power of nationalist principles would give the Fascist state a longevity unseen by any Marxist state. Unlike Marxist governments who resort to holding their own people hostage, the population under Fascist societies are fiercely patriotic and in times of war are willing to defend their country and their way of life to the last man (think Nazis, think Japs).