What are some major downsides to fascism?

>>128570138
I assume in some ways like all collectivist ideologies it obstructs individualism for the greater social good (although this may be necessary but it is a drawback of sorts)

>>128571969
Not really. Hitler said that the elites have proven their worth through selection, and therefore have a right to lead.

>>128570138
You will never be able to tolerate normies ever again, and will fluctuate between wanting to save western civilisation and wanting to watch all the normies suffer in the third-world shithole they desire so much.

>>128570138

America will inevitably come and wreck your shit.

File: 30b0756a1ef52c50ab986291586e3bbcab7826dd07de215a19fae42b5c19a0e3.png (175KB, 1039x1353px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1039x1353px

>>128572293

This

In terms of drawbacks: It is well known that most economic prosperity is created with a free market. But as we see today, for this to happen we sacrifice culture and traditions. Fascism would restict the market compared to today, meaning less economic prosperity (even though it would be far from a communist shitole) while gaining/keep culture and traditions.

When you no longer can import people en masse, then some jobs simply might not be taken because the needed person is not available. I don't think this is bad is it might save our people. There is a trade off for everything and in todays world, we know that "the market/economy" is like the holy grail and fuck everything else. Changing that is an imperative.

But who the fuck needs a new pc/smartphone every year when you have a great family/community to do stuff with, even publicly funded programms to keep the people busy where they can engage in social services on their own will, having fun with it and keeping society clean (not talking about genocide here folks).

>>128570138
Fascism is just as anti-freedom as communism

>>128572162
Wut, I don't know how that has anything to do with what I said. Ultimate individual freedom comes from true capitalism-libertarianism, obviously these Ideologies for their own reasons are not practical, we see that now. All I've said is all forms of collectivism even to a small degree obstruct individualism.

>>128572721
Pretty much exactly what I mean just better said, although could we really get the same amount of technological advancement from this systems? It doesn't seem likely, sure if countries are high IQ European paradises it will help but there's still the lack of incentive the free market provides..

File: 1488044938497.jpg (166KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1024x512px

>>128570138
pretty much none. As a matter of fact, it works so well that it creates so much prosperity that it leaves no work left for the ones who come after it. Who then become lazy, hedonistic and degenerate as we are in today.

>>128572748
>Ultimate individual freedom comes from true capitalism-libertarianism
Why? Money creates powerful people and they use that to earn more money. If you let the wealthy elite control society, they will happily sell out every one of their countrymen into slavery. The only actual guarantee against that is a strong and moralistic government. Natsoc isn't a collectivist economy like the USSR tried and failed to implement. It is a free economy driven by government spending and controlled currency.

Not even that different from what we have now, but the difference is that the corruption is too deep in ours.

File: hitler-smile-.gif (999KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 500x400px

>>128572293
no fear
Reality is always hard to bear at the beginning.
Carry the knowledge in your heart and learn the high art of self-control.

Welcome to the circle brother.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPjtO4YqJYc

>>128570138
You will become an enemy of the jewish world order and be destroyed. Bonus points if you don't let them bait you into becoming the attacker but the end result stays the same.

>>128570138
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoqMBCQTfuk

>>128570138
Lack of individualism if that's your cup of tea.

For me personally, it's Fascism's horrible track-record on sexuality. The NSDAP's Lebensborn program was intended to, in part, aside from promoting genetically desirable people to have children, remove the stigma and shame from unwed women giving birth. Single mothers were sometimes referred to as "Hitler's brides," and if I recall correctly, there's even a quote from Hitler regarding his desire to scrub the equivalent of a German pejorative for "Single Mother" from the German vocabulary.

The Italian Fascists, who the Germans drew inspiration from, weren't much better. Mussolini had mistresses, but much worse is the fact that casual sex, practically analogous to modern free love, was a hallmark of squadristi culture. Especially early on. Some journal entries from early Blackshirts allude to casual sex and hookups being awfully widespread.

It goes beyond the PNF, though. When D'Annunzio took Fiume with his "futurists" and, really, proto-fascists, a culture of drug-fueled orgies took root. Speaking of drug-fueled orgies, how can we forget about Evola? While not a proper Fascist, he certainly frequented those circles. Aside from his own drug-fueled orgies, he dabbled in sex magic and all sorts of other nonsense.

On economy, general philosophy, etc. Fascism is pretty good. On the subjects of marriage and sexuality it's awful. We need neo-Puritanism/Victorianism in that regard.

>>128570138
Probably 80% of the music you enjoy will get banned

Same with any media entertainment and you would have morality laws on the books.

Also forced conscription, forced conformity with all of the social norms under punishment of law.

>>128573311
Sure I agree with that but all I'm saying is that no matter what, even a small degree of collectivism obstructs individualism period, the ideal form of government if it actually worked would be communism it really wouldn't be capitalism at all I don't think anyone would argue this, but humans are individualists humans need incentive humans have a drive for self-actualization. Natsoc can never allow for (at least publicly) all out individualism, you'd have rampant degeneracy and we'd be right back to where we are today.

First of all, Fascism is an amalagamation of left wing and right wing ideas. It is not far right.

There are very few downsides to fascism. It is much preferable to social democracy/ liberal democracy.

>>128570138
Well.
Like in any hard authoritarian govrement the individual somewhat have to sufferfor the common good of many or in this case the common good of race. And some of those idividuals could be geniouses of their time and the govrement threats them as a threat. So some individuals will have to sufffer of the common good of many. But I think it's your choice to make that it's or it's not an acceptable price for stability.

>>128573794
>lack of individualism
look at pic related>>128573147

>>128573811
I already dont listen to 90% of the music and avoid 95% of the movies/series. So its okay, many anons are on the same path. Who needs degeneracy when you can promote real artwork instead.

>>128570138
Nothing.

>>128570138
Others will be quite cross and simply no one will invite you to their fancy dinner parties.

Fascism is good for war time but not a sustainable economically once bloodshed is over. A transition to National Socialism would be better for the long term, as it allows private enterprise.