Redalgo, I am with you when it comes to engaging fascists into discussion. There may be a possibility to change their views, even if such change might not come instantly. Such a discussion requires them first of all having an opportunity to express their positions, to be able to address them adequately afterwards. As such any (normal/ sane) comment is a potential discussion killer.
I am, however, afraid, that you may be getting lost in that discussion process among all your counterpart's politeness and interest. So allow me to suggest some points for your next discussion:
Let's use the example of fascism, for instance. Learning more about it has enhanced my wisdom as a political thinker. It taught me the ins and outs of totalitarianism, gives a powerful critique of democracy that in part sways me to be careful about placing too much trust in popular demand and the quality of decisions made by the masses, and offers a unique insight into the politics of survival - running things with the overall success and fitness of the country as a priority instead of our mainstream fascinations with notions of freedom, equality, and justice.
That's quite an amalgam of unrelated concepts. Let's try to untangle it:
1)
Democracy's weakness is that it depends on the quality of decisions made by the masses. That is correct, as long as we are talking about direct democracy. In a representative democracy, however it is (a) the quality of decisions made by elected representatives and (b) the quality of the masses' decisions on whom they elect as representative. That's already a difference, and a potential safeguard. Furthermore, what is the alternative? Technocracy? Who chooses the technocrats, and what would make a technocracy so different from a representative democracy, aside from having less possibility to get rid of the technocrats should they prove to have been the wrong choice? Or just the fascist "leadership principle"? Who chooses the leader? God? No, that would be absolutism. Oh, it's "the people", "the masses". Fine, except that we should "be careful about placing too much trust in popular demand and the quality of decisions made by the masses". Hence, we need rules, safeguards, internal and external controls - none of which fascism commonly has on offer. You see, it's a non-argument, and you can try to convince a fascist by using his own words.
2.)
Things should be run with the overall success and fitness of the country as priority. Nothing wrong with that. The interesting question is: How does your counterpart define "success and fitness"? Material well-being? Personal satisfaction of as many people as possible with their lives? Equality in opportunities, coupled with adequate satisfaction of basic needs? In that case, the postulation would enhance, not contradict "our mainstream fascinations with notions of freedom, equality, and justice". Or is he talking about something else, some mystic ideal of country/ nation that exists independently of and unrelated to the individuals that are commonly believed to make it up? What is this ideal then? Ask him, de-mistily that ideal. I am sure, whatever he will come up with, can and must ultimately be related back to individuals.
3.
Notions of freedom, equality, and justice: This is more than just notions, it is fundamental safeguards. From a technocratic point of view, you can call it risk management. Any authority, as well intended and selected it may be, can make mistakes. The less the authority is controlled, the greater the risk things go massively wrong, for an individual (subject) or the nation as a whole. Freedom is about risk diversification - higher autonomy for decision means many but smaller, uncorrelated risks, and reduces the overall risk (if you need empirical proof, compare the economic performance of market and centrally-planned economies). Freedom is furthermore about innovation - remove it, and you get stagnation. Equality ensures that innovation and risk diversification can actually occur, as there are sufficient individuals that have the possibility to take their own decisions. Justice, finally, is a safeguard against public authorities and individuals, willingly or unintended, damaging other individual's rights and, thereby, overall welfare. Call it quality control. So, ask your fascist counterpart whether a car company should operate without R&D and quality control. In the next step, you may transfer that analogy to politics and society in general..
Fascists offer us a conceptual model of society as being a corporate superorganism in competition with others - a useful perspective I turn to sometimes - and in some way are arguably more humane in managing social conflict than socialists of Marxist persuasions (e.g. promoting class collaboration instead of inter-class violence, and in consulting with interest group representatives as a formal part of the policymaking process rather than lop-lopsidedly deferring to organized labour).
I don't think the "corporate superorganism" perspective is unique to fascists - a whole academic discipline, namely sociology, is devoted to researching and analysing the division of labour, roles and functions within societies. Again - ask for details. What about social mobility? What about sub-cultures, which allow individuals to experiment with and change roles & functions? Most importantly - what about adaptability? Human organisations in the 21st century cannot be compared to bee-hives - their environment is much more complex and dynamic, and failure to adapt will cost dearly to any institution and its members. How do you build resilience? Growing stings (not that they help a lot when a Grizzly comes along..)?
When it comes to "humane management of social conflicts", let's not forget that the first stage of fascists' "humane management" was sending union leaders, and leaders of the political parties that supported them, into concentration camps.
Many fascists know the power of symbolic capital, as well, which is arguably even more important to manage than the economic sort that my comrades on the left tend to fixate on most.
Such symbolism is definitely worth studying, and de-mystifying, whenever possible.
Poll
