its very hard to have socialism that isn't dictatorial or close to it.

particularly the types of things he was arguing for

if he didn't want to end up in the cross-hairs of his own ideology, he would need to have one person at the head, otherwise political opponents would weaponize the different pieces against each-other

well fascists beleive in nationalizing labor while socialists beleive in socializing it. nationalized labor would put bussinesses in control of government that the people would have democracy over and thus be able to directly effect the direction of power that corporation has while socialism usually does some degree of wealth and labor sharing amongs the employees of an industry

Aussie was against democracy and wanted a dictator

a degree of labor sharing coudl become so extreme that the entire country population is sharing the labor

well beleive it or not, the italian fascists had a democracy though its was one of those democracys no one was inspired to compete with any except the leading party

and were encouraged strongly not to compete with the ruling party

though it was also a time of war

russia has an election

they must be a democratic communist country

My argument against fascism in general was that no one should be trusted with that much power to have that much control over the populace.

And until we can find out the perfect human being, uncorruptible by power and completely virtuous consistently, fascism is out of the question.

yes

And that's why we need to make him

An AI?

Well I also argued that Fascism only works in a very rigid society.

yes

and yeah

trusting one person with that much power to have that much control over the populace has worked for humanity for 7000 years

usually because theres mischaracteration of a system where one person has full control over the direction of a nation that they have no responcibilty to the population, they CAN abuse that responcibility, but many cases where that occurs such rule does not contenue uncontested

Techno-facism.

did you mean "hasn't worked"

wewlad.

Technofascistfuture

I'm sorry, i'm with the Abortionist's argument here

I legit wouldn't mind being ruled by an omnipotent computer mind

technocyptofacist

Don't dictate what I can do with my fleshy bits if you don't have fleshy bits.

no i mean HAS worked. all of our current accomplishments fall onto the shoulders of 7000 years where monarchy has been the dominant governing system

fuck you meat machine

I for one, welcome our new fascist RNN overlords

theres a reason for that

wash your penis

ah okay

i think for most of that time the average population sizes they ruled over were much smaller compared to your average country size now, no?

because the population is not responcible for you fucking up the country and abusing your responcibility to direct the nation in a monarchy, only you have that responcibility. in a democracy everyone in the nation is partly responcible for the fuckup that the power they put into their representitves. that absolvement of responcibility from the power up top is basicly still rolling dice on whether or not the people in power will respect its people, it just rolls it faster and gives those people of power the ability to turn the responcibility of the voters against them to distract the population against eachother rather than against the governemnt

this is also why most dictatorships still have a "democracy"

because if they got rid of the democratic system even though they force their population only to elect them, they would be directly held to the people

with 100% voter turnout and no votes for the opposition...

ofcourse, if they get rid of you they have to fight through all the people who still beleive the democracy is right