Market Faceism(Aka What if Faceism and Coummism)

Good question of mines, Communism and Fascism Similar and Difference are neat understand. What It cold war Democracy vs Fascism rather Communism which into china-quese to Free-marketize Faceism.


What would free-marketize Facism look in nutshell
 
Last edited:
What would free-marketize Faceism look in nutshell

PinochetFriedman.jpg
 
A lot like Pinochet's Chile i guess.
Probably the only kind of fascism that is economically sustainable on the long term.
 
But doesn't really anwer the question

Chilean economic policy under Pinochet was heavily inspired by Milton Friedman and the free market economics of the Chicago School, the picture above is of a meeting between Friedman and Pinochet.

Well Question would it look like, I don't idea chile was like under Pinochet, Latin america was never something look at much
 
I'm not at all convinced by the Pinochet miracle.

There's not much difference between "disappearing" your political enemies and "disappearing" small business owners, wealthy, successful entrepreneurs, etc. All it takes is a dictator who can't see the difference and your lassiez-faire state is suddenly bankrupt. First they came for the communists...

The only reason Pinochet "worked" was he followed Chicago to the letter. Any system can work, for a time, as long as you follow its core principles strictly and remove outside interference. But would a Pinochet economy survive a 2008-style recession? Would a Pinochet economy survive threat of invasion, or external interference, or a global war? Probably not. And of course in the end it didn't work. He's gone and his regime is gone.

Fuhrerprinzip is probably more stable than Pinochet, because it creates a cult of personality. It didn't work under Hitler, because of his personality of pitting one person against another person and having duplication of the same level of authority. But imagine Fuhrerprinzip under someone like Stalin (obsessive micromanager rather than hands-off idealist) and it can be long term stable. Something like North Korea (god worship) would be "stable". With a low quality of living of course, but that's the price of not being a modern liberal democracy.
 
1984 is a pretty direct commentary on how the USSR edited history, actually.

Eh, somewhat. There were certainly elements taken from the Soviet Union in 1984, Syme being treated in a similar fashion to Yezhov, etc but the goal was a cultural translation of Zamyatin's We and as such most of the inspiration for 'English Socialism' comes from elements Blair had noted within English, or British, society. The regime itself secretly criticises the Soviet Union for not going far enough.
 
most of the inspiration for 'English Socialism' comes from elements Blair had noted within English, or British, society.

It's telling that one of the few figures of the past lauded by the Party is Oliver Cromwell, memorialized by a sculpture near Smith's workplace.

Also, I think you can make a case that Orwell views England in its Airstrip One incarnation as being Americanized, though my interpretation depends somewhat on reading Orwell's non-fiction, especially his cultural criticism.

Second Thoughts On James Burnham

Burnham's attitude toward current events, ie. assuming that whatever trend is strongest at a given time will hold into the future, is viewed by Orwell as typically American. It's also an attirude not far removed from the Party's view of history.
 
Top