[AFAIK]

**I'd appreciate it if only those who identify themselves as fascists respond to this thread**

Suppose that a Japanese man dislikes the demands that his society places upon him. He doesn't want to be "the nail that stands out [that] is hammered down". He learns of a country where people are free to pursue their own interest with minimal interference from the state and makes plans to emigrate.

If you* learn of his plans or caught him trying to leave how would you react/ respond? What do you feel the states' policy should be towards such a man? Why? What is your justification?

During Japan's period of isolation all foreign travel was illegal and any foreigners entering the country would be killed. Sailors feared being shipwrecked off the coast of Japan because if they made it to land without drowning they still faced death. Subsequently they tended to give Japan a wide berth.

**I'd appreciate it if only those who identify themselves as fascists respond to this thread**

[Fasces]

It depends on the individual - a highly skilled or educated person in whom the nation has invested a great deal of resources is, and should be, less free to emigrate than an unskilled laborer, in order to prevent brain drain. However, the question is far too broad: the degree to which a developing nation can allow or benefit from emigration is different from a first world state. Whether fascists allow emigration or not varies on whether or not it serves the national interest to do so.

In the example of Japan, giving the stunning decline in birth rates, the state should think very hard before it allows emigration to compound the process of depopulation.

[AFAIK]

It depends on the individual - a highly skilled or educated person in whom the nation has invested a great deal of resources is, and should be, less free to emigrate than an unskilled laborer, in order to prevent brain drain.

Good point. In China under Maoism the state paid for people's university education. In exchange those that received scholarships had to work in the job/ career that the state required.

However, the question is far too broad: the degree to which a developing nation can allow or benefit from emigration is different from a first world state. Whether fascists allow emigration or not varies on whether or not it serves the national interest to do so.

So the policy is flexible depending upon the circumstances of the nation. Is fascism only compatible with a nation- state system? How easy is it for fascist states to co-operate with one another? Is nationalism a strongly held value?

In the example of Japan, giving the stunning decline in birth rates, the state should think very hard before it allows emigration to compound the process of depopulation.

How would/ could Japan institute and justify such a policy in an era in which goods, services and capital are allowed to flow freely over international borders?

[Fasces]

Fascism is only compatible with the nation-state system because fascism is nationalist. However, ideologies that are very similar to fascism can, theoretically, shed the aspect of nationalism, or redefine it for a multinational state (though how effective this might be is open to debate.) That being said, nationalism is a necessary aspect of fascism, in the same way that capitalism is a necessary aspect of liberalism.

The recognition that each national group should be sovereign is at the heart of fascist thinking. Though some radical movements in history have gone further and declared the superiority of their own group over others, this was not applied consistently (Hitler, for example, held the Nordics and English in high esteem, even if he believed the Germans to be superior to the Slavs or Jews) and several movements (Integralism in Brazil) have outright rejected the notion of racial or national superiority.

There is nothing wrong with nation states engaging in mutually beneficial trade and cooperation - as long as all nations are sovereign and able to do so without duress. Fascist states do not, by definition, need to go to war - while fascism is a militaristic ideology that emphasizes competition between nations, this militarism can be expressed in peaceful campaigns. Mussolini had the Battle for Grain or the Battle for the Lira. The Space Race is another example of healthy international competition without warfare.

How would/ could Japan institute and justify such a policy in an era in which goods, services and capital are allowed to flow freely over international borders?

By not allowing goods, services, and capital to flow freely over international borders. The state still retains control of these processes in the modern world, even if more and more states are taking a hands off approach.

[AFAIK]

ideologies that are very similar to fascism

Socialism?

By not allowing goods, services, and capital to flow freely over international borders. The state still retains control of these processes in the modern world, even if more and more states are taking a hands off approach.

Easier said then done. Japan has signed up to TPP. The USA wouldn't be very tolerant of such a move.

[Fasces]

Socialism?

Socialism is egalitarian, not paternalist.

Socialism is... socialist, not corporatist.

Socialism is internationalist, not nationalist.

Socialism is not a similar ideology to fascism. I was talking about Falangism, or Integralism, or even social democracy.

Easier said then done. Japan has signed up to TPP. The USA wouldn't be very tolerant of such a move.

I am not a Japanese policy-maker or an expert in Japan. I am not trying to create a comprehensive plan of action, nor do I particularly want too.

Japan should dissolve all agreements. If the United States declares war, then so be it - if Japan is not willing to fight for its sovereignty, it does not deserve to have it. If it is too intimidated to do so, then it should accept its status as an in-sovereign client state of the American hegemony.

[AFAIK]

Socialism was a terrible guess. Since it has it's own dedicated board it is unlikely to be subtly different from fascism.

I am not a Japanese policy-maker or an expert in Japan. I am not trying to create a comprehensive plan of action, nor do I particularly want too.

Japan should dissolve all agreements. If the United States declares war, then so be it - if Japan is not willing to fight for its sovereignty, it does not deserve to have it. If it is too intimidated to do so, then it should accept its status as an in-sovereign client state of the American hegemony.

I was asking for your ideological perspective on the issue. Thank you for sharing it.