Question Regarding Fascism

Size of government wasn't the topic back then. The Versailles government was rather good in spending money for luxury and this may have made the people angry, but this doesn't mean, they wanted a small government. They wanted a good government.

 

Rinos and Dinos? No, this is not what I wanted to say.

In the example of environmental protection a righty might argue, we don't cut down all these trees and build a factory, because this is the land of our forfathers and this how it was created by God.

A lefty might argue, we don't cut down all these trees and build a factory, because this is not sustainable and it lowers the life quality of future generations.

They can come to the same conclusion, but for different reasons.

 

Yes I understand that. The term right as pertaining to government was not used to decribe the size and scope of government. So it would be context that dictated which answer would be correct. Who were the first right wingers as presented to me, I will think of those who promoted small government. Only because thats what I typically hear. But it certainly doesnt mean that I lack the fortitude to grasp the concept as stated by someone earlier.

 

Small government is Adam Smith, it is actually a liberal idea, liberal in the European meaning of the word, not in the American meaning ...

 

Yes. Again a matter of context.

 

Adam Smith may have had the idea, but he did not go as far as Ayn Rand or Karl Popper later. Adam Smith is still serious economics, while Ayn Rand or Austrian school is complete nonsense, friendly spoken

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_watchman_state

 

So if I didnt pay my fire bill they would just let it burn down if it happen to catch ablaze.

 

They probably would have a private fire fighting company which gets the money from insurance companies. They fight the fire in your house, but without payed insurance you get a big bill later. Just like someone who has no health insurance ...

 

I can think of alot of problems they would have in doing so. What about roads bridges, dams and other parts of infrastructure. Are there any countries which practice this kind of privatization which enjoy a level of prosperity for doing so? Prosperity in terms of this privatized service.

 

Sure, France has many private roads, China has them, too, and these are big government countries ...

The classical example for a small government country is Chile and they have a left government now.

 

Congo is small government, but I think, this doesn't count, because it is still at war in some regions ...

The Wild West was small government.

 

Yes I am aware there are plenty which is why I asked that enjoy prosperity as a result of haveing privatized roads and varioous parts of the infrastructure.

 

Sure, I was refering to more like complete privatization. Or at least more infrastructure Being done privately than done by the gov.

 

I couldn't name one. The whole privatization thing is more ideological, too, when it comes to roads or energy. What do you want to do for competition? Build three roads from different companies next to another? Like in Railroad Tycoon or so

It is differently with phone lines because of satellites and TV networks ...

 

Yeah thats what I thought.

 

The example in this case would be Japan, the three Nexcos maintain most of the highways there.

 

They compete with each other, sorry too busy to do a search right now. If so how is it done, if you know. Certainly not like railroad tycoon,

 

They do not really compete, they have each a region of their own, East Nippon Expressway Company, Central Nippon Expressway Company and West Central Nippon Expressway Company, Nexco is short name for Nippon Expressway Company.

 

Most of the fascists who I have encountered dont consider themselves to be on any political spectrum. They consider themselves to be above such things.

 

Thats because they wish to establish a 'catch all party' However they frequently go back on many things they say they will do once in power of course.

 

Typically, yes.

Authoritarian-socialists can have fascist tenancies as well.

 

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

 

Again, can you quote a fascist saying fascism is left?

 

Isn't the difference in the ownership of the 'means of production'? In a left wing authoritatian regime the State owns everything, in the right wing version private enterprise is alowed.

 

In a Left Wing Authoritarian Regime like Stalin Russia, the state controls mostly everything but the state isn't self sufficient hence it would get "aid" from similar nations with the same type of Regimes.

Right Wing authoritarian regimes like Italy Benito Mussolini / Hitler National Socialist regime was the state controlled capitalism with a lot of Corporate profits financing the state to get the unemployment to zero while at the same time with "low wages" under the disguise of vacations and a bunch of perks. Coke is a famous product that created Fanta Orange during WWII to keep their profits in Germany. Businesses in either regime don't have any loyalty to any nation.

To say Private Enterprise was allowed in a Right Wing Fascist state is laughable. The State always come down to kill off competition. I bet you though a lot of people who work for the state rather work with the state than a "Market Based" Government. Cannot really blame the workers, blame the people behind the closed doors. CEO's and Highly Respected Politicians who are just bloodlines of older generations. People can be self sufficient to an extent. But they have to be an active part of their government or history just repeats itself.