Would anarcho-fascism be possible?

[Scam of God]

The only states that could genuinely be called totalitarian in this period were Nazi Germany and the Stalin Union. But even then the term has its disadvantages, some historians of the soviet period don't even use the term anymore for this reason. There are always cracks somewhere.

Quite a few historians of Germany in the '30's and '40's would dispute the label being applied to the Nazi state as well.

Hannah Arendt is alive and well and messing up our understanding of political terminology.

No State that supports Christianity could possibly be totalitarian!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The only states that could genuinely be called totalitarian in this period were Nazi Germany and the Stalin Union. But even then the term has its disadvantages, some historians of the soviet period don't even use the term anymore for this reason. There are always cracks somewhere.

Quite a few historians of Germany in the '30's and '40's would dispute the label being applied to the Nazi state as well.

Hannah Arendt is alive and well and messing up our understanding of political terminology.

No State that supports Christianity could possibly be totalitarian!

Not seen a better example of totally missing the point (from someone that isn't stupid) for quite a while...

[Citizen James]

A lot depends on how you define your terms.

The theme of minimal or non-existant government with omnipresent corporations is actually fairly common in science fiction, especially the cyber-punk subgenre.  Books you might find interesting (if you're bored) include Neuromancer (the William Gibson classic which coined the term cyberspace), Snow Crash (Neil Stephenson - and perhaps one of my favorite novels of all time), or Jenifer Government (Max Berry - based on that very principle).

I think the problem with such a concept is that it has, essentially, been tried before to a limited extent - the infamous company towns of the 18th and 19th centuries.  In essence large corporations become the de-facto government.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum is no different.   Either people get together for mutual protection (in essence forming a democracy, or if they codify it - a constitutional republic), or else the strong grab or fight over power (like various Somali warlords).  The stable form of the latter is essentially feudalism. 

I have a fairly positive view of human nature - but not that positive.   There are some who do right because of philosophical values, but there are also those who only do right for fear of the law.   And that second group is why the common ideal of libertarians and communists (a world where no laws are needed and all people are just) simply cannot happen.  The big question is how big that second group is - and how much of a trade-off we need to keep the baser instincts of the less noble of us in check while allowing the more noble to soar.

[Хahar 🤔]

I've also heard about 'anarcho-monarchism' (which I think actually has a very small base of supporters) and 'anarcho-feudalism'. They seem unlikely, but nevertheless, there may be some chance it could be possible.

Anarcho-monarchism seems like what Libertas argues. Anarcho-feudalism is anarcho-capitalism, but more honest.

[SPC]

I've also heard about 'anarcho-monarchism' (which I think actually has a very small base of supporters) and 'anarcho-feudalism'. They seem unlikely, but nevertheless, there may be some chance it could be possible.

Anarcho-monarchism seems like what Libertas argues. Anarcho-feudalism is anarcho-capitalism, but more honest.

Care to explain why, in an age when over 95% of the population is not involved in agriculture, that land would become a better store of value than money? Considering that feudalism is impossible in an urban environement, why would feudalism prevail over capitalism in an country that's mostly urban and suburban?

Side note: I could see anarcho-monarchism being achievable so long as the "king" were nothing more than a figure head

[minionofmidas]

It's what you are if you take Ayn Rand's ramblings seriously, basically.

[12th Doctor]

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

[Mint]

I've also heard about 'anarcho-monarchism' (which I think actually has a very small base of supporters) and 'anarcho-feudalism'. They seem unlikely, but nevertheless, there may be some chance it could be possible.

Anarcho-monarchism seems like what Libertas argues. Anarcho-feudalism is anarcho-capitalism, but more honest.

I wouldn't say more honest, more like more realistic.

[Swing Voter]

Is there such thing as a hot cold?

[k-onmmunist]

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

....

I'm speechless.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

....

I'm speechless.

     I don't think that's a serious party.

[12th Doctor]

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

....

I'm speechless.

     I don't think that's a serious party.

I'm not entirely certain.  I was completely skeptical at first as well, but whoever put their site together did a Hell of a job making it sound ideologically credible.  Especially with their manipulation of the idea of the organic state, and their concentration of Euro-paganism.