[nucklepunche]

I keep repeating myself, but I am not advocating the military be in charge. I'm simply saying we can learn something from the military (and I speak as an American). I think meritocracy is a good point of fascism, that being said I think fascism's fetishism for the military is foolish. That being said we can still learn something from them without making the military the paramount of society.

[Suska]

A boat serves a similar purpose. When things are serious or say, there's no where to run away to, things get dealt with. Thing is, if those things aren't voluntary they have names; press ganging and fascism. Despite the perfume people are spritzing on the term fascism lately there's no ideal there apart from escalation of violence until collapse.

[Cartertonian]

Why do you think you see people like Prince William rising through the ranks?

Er...

Just on a point of order, Flight Lieutenant Wales got where he is in the military in much the same way as any other SAR pilot. If he just wanted to pretend to be in the RAF and play with helicopters, there's no way we'd be letting him anywhere near a SAR Squadron in an operational post.

Special arrangements may have been made to enable his training, but no corners have been cut or blind eyes turned in respect of that training. He is a bona fide, operational pilot...currently working on gaining his captaincy.

[starman2003]

...I am not advocating the military be in charge.

In principle, I don't think they should be in charge either. Government should be in the hands of visionary statesmen with a modern secular ideology. But the military will most likely have to get rid of the present democratic system when its goof ups finally become unbearable. Of course the military can't take over under present, "normal" circumstances. But they should end fairly soon.

[Suska]

Ive sometimes thought that to an outsider a Utopia would look a lot like a military organization, with a touch of brainwashing cult. We are too cynical to let such a thing happen. On the other hand, if it was actually voluntary and philosophical, it would actually be Utopia. Such things are not for the fat cells of the human race.

[starman2003]

....if it was actually voluntary and philosophical, it would actually be Utopia.

There's no way a new fascist/wholist system will come about through the conscious choice of most people here. IMO it would have to be rammed down their throats by a severe crisis. Even if an elite is convinced of the philosophical correctness of a new authoritarianism, it can't count on voluntary conversion or transformation.

[ralfy]

Also, fascism is not necessarily meritocratic.

[starman2003]

I suppose the more conservative or religiously oriented forms of fascism have been the least meritocratic. But the really state-activist, secular types have been more so, or at least they should. To get a lot done, you need a lot of talent.

[CounterChaos]

If you want to impose meritocracy by putting a paramilitary force in charge of society, then the police force would probably be a better choice than the armed forces.

Nope bad idea...Police would be locals and would end up playing favorites among friends and family..Military though, would draw its forces from a huge area, individuals that would not have local induced biases. It would work quite well I think. Advancement up the chain would ensure leadership change-mandatory two year service for non-career would train for civil duties as well-and you cannot come close to matching the organizational skills. I'm retired American military.

[PlateauPliant]

Police would be a good idea. They have a vast intelligence network. They can blackmail pro-capitalist dissidents into working for them just the way the police in capitalist countries busted somebody's father's henchman Kumander Bilog, then incumbent Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army and is now working for Dirctorate of Intelligence, Philippine National Police. They are a tightly knit clan. They surrender to one superior, right or wrong.

In addition, police are tolerant and patient. They know that somebody's father's henchman just cannot be arrested invoking freedom of speech and assembly. The military cannot be bought by mere paid lip service by somebody here thereby alienating them towards socialism and Joma's son following the footsteps of his father leading them in his own war against capitalism. (He is not retired military. I know. I am an intelligence officer in PNP in defense of Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (Moscow oriented) a political party bent of achieving power through parliamentary struggle. His father professes armed struggle).

[starman2003]

Nope bad idea...Police would be locals...

Sure, the military can better represent the country as a whole--exactly the spirit a new regime needs. The police outlook is indeed too local; a new regime should be focused on maximizing national power vis a vis other states. But it shouldn't really be a question of either/or; both would be important in the regime.

[PlateauPliant]

Due to their intrinsic knowledge of the law, the police are not against communism invoked and aspired through lawful means. Their opposition to terrorism and terrorist communism is the root cause why people want them to dominate. We have examples of terroristic acts committed by the father of one of the posters here like planting land mines, killing resistant civilians, extortions, murder, robbery, and all sorts of terroristic acts which any ordinary God-fearing normal person would dare not commit. The military have no accountability. They can empty the state coffers without checks and balances just like the soldiers of a military junta in an Asian country. Who likes terrorism. Only the devil commies like them. Not good commies like those of PKP (Moscow or Cuban oriented). No wonder somebody's terrorist son do not like the local policemen, pro-communist or pro-capitalist. Good is good, evil is evil. How can evil be good, how can good be evil? Tanong lang, Janos Sison hiding under the nom de guerre _____.

[CounterChaos]

But it shouldn't really be a question of either/or; both would be important in the regime.

I disagree...There is nothing difficult about scheduled rotation from one small outpost (town) to another one for policing. To become entrenched in one area for a long time can lead to collaboration and corruption. Rotation also is good for moral and prevents stagnation while offering an educational world-view for the soldier; as well as provides access to different racial character traits and cultural diversity lessons for the locals (another world-view education).

[Amanita]

I don't think there's necessarily any stringent relationship between the military and meritocracy. A case in point is the Prussian army which operated on pure aristocratic terms. The concentration of power by an elite minority generally ensured that the same upbringing, values and set of principles traversed the multiple generations that controlled it. Nazi meritocracy undermined this and in addition to genuine merit, the ability to impress one's superiors with whatever means, backstab comrades and dishonouring one's self and principles also became crucial aspects to advancing position. In practice, which is all that matters, meritocracy will always rest on the whims of those persons in power at any given moment, whose judgement should be deemed neither infallible nor disinterested. As in modern corporations driven by the pursuit of profit to be meritocratic, the abilities to badmouth or bewray companions or suck cock can very well be considered marks of talent or duty and their performers be rewarded. I don't think there's actually any happy medium. Aristocracy obviously stifles innovation and may occasionally subordinate superior to inferior whereas meritocracy is conducive to resentment, pique and conflict, chaotic and exhaustive and the placing of he that is most able at the top is absolutely no given.

[starman2003]

..the placing of he that that is most able at the top is absolutely no given.

Still more likely than under democracy or monarchy.

[Invictus_88]

An army doesn't make money, though. It costs money, so that the rest of a society is safe and stable and so able to make money enough for the army and for all its other needs.

How would a nation run to a military philosophy be able to make money?

[starman2003]

How would a nation run to a military philosophy be able to make money?

The military wouldn't encompass all of society. Even Sparta had some civilian workers. Of course, if a militaristic society is hegemonistic, it can rely largely on tribute.

[Potemkin]

Even Sparta had some civilian workers.

They were called 'Helots', and constituted the majority of the population. But starman2003 is essentially right: no army since the time of the ancient Roman Republic has been expected to be self-funding. It doesn't have to be - a society can be dominated by and governed by the army without everyone necessarily being in the army. I think the idea is that workers, and industrial production in general, would be organised and controlled (and possibly even owned?) by the military in an example of what Marx derisively called "barracks communism".

[Dave]

Examples of "barracks communism" societies?

Third Reich, 1935-1945
Empire of Japan, 1932-1945
USSR, 1941-1988
DPRK

[Tainari88]

Excessive nationalism along with militarism gone wild is what fascism depends on. National Socialism is not a system conducive to negotiation. When a society starts thinking they have a right to everything including wealth and territories that belong to other groups...you got problems.