What if I thought that conflict were essential to human
progress, or that prosperity should be limited to an elite, that would use it wisely, rather than spread around to encourage mindless consumption among the masses? Why should I care about the community of nations, if I assume that only a people bound by a common culture, and perhaps even by blood (Ein Volk), can generate meaningful values?
Isn't this precisely what most people thought until quite recently? Why do you think our thinking changed? Because a few moral philosophers suddenly tapped into some mysterious external source of information and discovered that these attitudes were "wrong"? Or because we gradually learned that there were better ways of doing things, ways which made us more numerous, more prosperous, and more likely to survive?
Unless one can rationally dispute the ends of man, there is no reason not to prefer Fascism.
Many people have preferred Fascism, especially in its early stages, and especially in nations which have just undergone serious economic, political, or military stress. People initially prefer Fascism because it establishes order, controls crime, makes the trains run on time, restores respect for nation and currency, and generally makes things work. Fascist states have never been overthrown by rational disputation of the ends of man. They are overthrown because either the population of the state or that of neighboring states perceives the fascist regime as a threat and, in defense of their own interests, attacks it and bring it down. |
