推荐一篇讨论法西斯主义本质特征的短文，简单而深刻，非常值得一看
内容本身和中国毫无关系，且主题观点我并不完全认同，但其中一些关于法西斯主义的描述和定义非常直白深刻，我从中摘录下来。
The core of fascism, I would argue, is not to be found in the end-stage calamities to which it often inexorably leads. Rather, it is this: the people compete against each other, endlessly, but power unifies. ...... At the same time, people are divided against each other, ranked in ceaseless competition.
我认为法西斯主义的核心，无法在其必然导致的末期崩溃性灾难中找到，而是这样：人民相互竞争，但是权力团结在一起。 ...... 在同时，人民彼此分裂对抗，在永无休止的竞争之中被排名
Fascism is neither leftist nor rightist in any traditional sense. Fascists learn that they can lie with impunity there’s no one above them for the public to appeal to. The fascist will use socialist, capitalist, royalist, revanchist, communist, populist, nationalist, or religious symbology as needed
法西斯主义既不是左派也不是右派，他们知道自己的谎言不会受到惩罚，因为没有高于他们的存在让公众上诉。法西斯主义者将根据需要变成社会主义者，资本主义者，保皇党，复仇主义者，共产主义者，民粹主义者，民族主义者或宗教象征主义。
（这句话的意思是，因为法西斯极权主义者本身高于一切，没有能够因为言行不一来处罚他们，所以他们不需要保证自己的思想-语言-行为相一致，他们可以根据需要和策略随便采用和更换任何一种主义和思想，所以政治主义对他们是不重要的）
Loyalists see a man so fervid he occasionally gets a detail wrong; opponents see a person unconstrained by truth or apparent logic. When intelligent people are called out on their support for someone so obviously divorced from truth, they often use the Thiel defense: they’re taking him seriously, but not literally.
（在他撒谎时）他的忠诚者会看到他是如此热情，以至于偶尔弄错一些细节问题；他的反对者将看到一个（如此强大，以至于根本）不会被事实和显而易见的逻辑所束缚的人。当聪明人被要求去支持一个可以如此不加掩饰的背离事实的人时，他们会采用Thiel defense，他们会把他（和他的话）认真看待，而是不是从字面理解他的意思。
对于精英阶层，法西斯主义会采用与对普通民众相同的分而治之的办法，让他们互相竞争和对抗。 However, there’s one rule, and it’s absolute: the competition can never be seen from below.
然而有一条规则是绝对的：这种（上层之间的）竞争绝不能被下面的人看到。
Court intrigue within power is fine, so long as it stays there. To the public, though, they must present a unified front
权力内部的内廷阴谋是可以的，但对于群众，他们必须组成一条团结的战线。
Fascism requires this unity among power because it does not present itself as a brand of politics. Rather, fascist is bigger (as in, more totalitarian) but also harder-to-see than regular politics, toward which it project disdain. It presents itself as post-political.
法西斯主义要求权力之间具有这种统一性，因为它不会把自己表现为一种政治的类型。 相反，法西斯主义比普通类型的政治更加宏大，但也比常规政治更难以捉摸。因此，法西斯主义（对普通的政治）不屑一顾。 它是后政治（超政治的？）的。
If people became aware of a debate within power, this would suggest that alternatives existed, and the sense of inevitability in the fascist’s movement would be compromised.
如果人民觉察到权力内部的争论，这将表明可能有一种更好的方案的存在，而法西斯主义运动（以及举措）的必然性必然会受到影响
It is shocking how readily people will accept authoritarianism if fed a the halfway-coherent argument that there are no alternatives.
你会惊讶于：当人民被灌输一种“现在没有其他选择”的半合理的观点时，他们是多么容易接受极权主义
I mentioned that fascist governments are mendacious and will present themselves as needed: if they need to seem populist, they’ll seem populist. If socialism is en vogue, they’ll become left-authoritarians. If a veneer of capitalism suits their needs, they’ll take the right.
我提到过，法西斯主义政府是撒谎成性的，并且会根据需要展示自己的身份：如果他们需要看起来像民粹主义者，他们就会看起来像民粹主义者。 如果社会主义风靡一时，他们将成为左派独裁者。 如果单板的资本主义适合他们的需求，他们就会采取正确的行动。
One must not only follow orders, but pledge fealty to inflexible managerial supremacy with every action.....
So, what happens when these unfortunate people, suffering managerial adversity, attempt to appeal to higher “meritocracy”? They are crushed; the system requires it. The unspoken agreement among corporate bosses is never to let the little people pit them against each other. Whether the little people are right is immaterial. Anyone who tries this must be destroyed.
一个人不仅需要遵从指令，还必须在每一个行为上对不可变的最高权威宣示效忠..... 那么，如果一些不幸的人受到管理层面上损害，所以想向更高层的权威上诉时会发生什么？ 他们会被镇压，因为系统需要这么做。大佬之间的一条不言而喻的共识是，绝不能因受到下面的人的利用，而互相对抗。所以上诉者无论对错，一定要被摧毁。
Ethics, laws, and even public perceptions have flexibility, but managerial unity must never be challenged.
道德，法律以及公众的看法都可以通融，但管理层面上的团结性绝不能被挑战。
It will never allow real elections. It will use the strangest lies to test loyalty; those who value truth too much become a problem that must be dealt with.
它将永远不允许真正的选举。 它将使用最荒诞的谎言来测试忠诚度； 那些过于重视事实的人将成为必须解决的问题。
原文
The dual opposite of a republic would be a society where the governed must compete, merely to survive. Meanwhile, the powerful are immune to challenge from below. There is only one political party and it will always be that way. Those with power have no responsibilities to those below them because power is subject to no appeal but itself.
That sounds like an unimaginable dystopia, right? That would never, ever emerge from a free society. Right?
It has already done so. Consider the corporate workplace. Regular employees are ranked and pitted against each other– and against the hungry masses, for management is happy to remind its subjects of the desperate millions ready to take more abuse and less pay. Stack ranking and annual reviews exist largely as a mechanism through which executives remind the little people that they aren’t a permanent part of the company– they are a resource that will be used up and discarded. Meanwhile, corporations rely on a self-dealing one-party government called “management” that uses every bit of power it has (which is, all of it) to keep the underlings where they are. Power begets power. It does not accept limitation; who has the right to limit it? Certainly, there shall be no separation of powers. Power is allowed and expected to unify– managers protect their own, and those who do not learn this one rule do not remain in management for long.
Of course, individual corporations are too small to indulge in the end-stage horrors for which fascism is known: international belligerence, extreme racism, repression and disinformation. In comparison to state-level fascism, the corporation’s fascism-lite seems benign. Is it? It’s hard to say, because state-level fascism seems, likewise, harmless to the general public when it sets in.
The core of fascism, I would argue, is not to be found in the end-stage calamities to which it often inexorably leads. Rather, it is this: the people compete against each other, endlessly, but power unifies.
Under fascism, power’s disparate forms– cultural, political, religious, state, economic, legal, and social power– congeal into an inflexible fasces. Industrialists, political officials, mediapersonalities, and sundry middling bureaucrats and managers form a one-party system that cannot be appealed. At the same time, people are divided against each other, ranked inceaseless competition. Those judged to rank at the bottom– a small percentage that must be called “work-shy”, or “below expectations”, or Lebensunwertes Leben— must be punished. This is not always done out of hatred for the unlucky; it’s done to terrify the middle-ranking majority.
Fascism is neither leftist nor rightist in any traditional sense. Fascists learn that they can lie with impunity; there’s no one above them for the public to appeal to. The fascist will use socialist, capitalist, royalist, revanchist, communist, populist, nationalist, or religious symbology as needed. A corporation will declare itself a meritocracy and punish anyone who says it is not so. Truth doesn’t matter; the closest thing there is, is reputation, which the fascist manipulates masterfully.
Donald Trump lies so frequently not because it is part of a political strategy, but because he’s taking his corporate tricks into the public theater– with mixed results. His lies are of a kind that would pass easily in the corporate world; it is good for us that, in presidential politics, he’s out of his depth. What one must understand about Trumpian lies is that anyone who would recognize them as lies is not part of his intended audience. These lies exist to rally the loyal and to frighten– not convince– the opposition. Loyalists see a man so fervid he occasionally gets a detail wrong; opponents see a person unconstrained by truth or apparent logic. When intelligent people are called out on their support for someone so obviously divorced from truth, they often use the Thiel defense: they’re taking him seriously, but not literally.
A corporate executive (and an established fascist) can say anything, because he’s in a milieu that admires bullies– “tough leadership” is the corporate term of art for the sorts of people who smashed science projects in grade school– and because he’s surrounded by people who are paid to behave as if they believe every word he says (and to rat out nonbelievers).
Trump’s problem is that he still has to deal with the 50-plus percent of the population that won’t put up with his mendacity. A president cannot, at the current time, fire the public.
Republics are set up to force politicians to compete, in an effort to make
sure that elected officials work on behalf of the public. Ours isn’t
perfect, but the system does does a decent job. Voters don’t fire
incumbents often enough, one might argue, but political officials know that
they can.
While republics strive for responsible government, fascism imposes
competition on the people, to render them accountable to the elite– against
which no one and nothing can compete.
What about competition within the elite? Surely, that must happen, even
under fascism– right? Of course, it does. The same divide-and-conquer
techniques that fascism uses against the public, the dictator will use
against his lieutenants and middle managers. Such bureaucrats and seneschals
are happy to squabble for the boss’s favor. However, there’s one rule,
and it’s absolute: the competition can never be seen from below. (As a
corollary, mid-ranking hierarchs cannot court popular support.) Court
intrigue within power is fine, so long as it stays there. To the public,
though, they must present a unified front.
Fascism requires this unity among power because it does not present itself
as a brand of politics. Rather, fascist is bigger (as in, more totalitarian)
but also harder-to-see than regular politics, toward which it project
disdain. It presents itself as post-political. Current exigencies, it argues
, require a union of power to make swiftly the decisions that are inevitable
and beyond appeal. Those could not, it must always say, have been made any
other way. If people became aware of a debate within power, this would
suggest that alternatives existed, and the sense of inevitability in the
fascist’s movement would be compromised.
When fascism runs smoothly, the governed do not perceive themselves as under
a self-serving elite, or having a repressive government. Authority assures
them that, for each concession it demands of them, there were no other
options. We had to shoot the protesters, because if hostile nations found
out about internal dissent, they’d take advantage of our weakness. We have
to fire 5% of our workers every year, because otherwise nothing will get
done.
It is shocking how readily people will accept authoritarianism if fed a
halfway-coherent argument that there are no alternatives.
I used to write a lot, between 2010 and 2015, about organizational dynamics.
As a result, I got a lot of letters from people facing managerial adversity
at their workplaces.
I mentioned that fascist governments are mendacious and will present themselves as needed: if they need to seem populist, they’ll seem populist.
If socialism is en vogue, they’ll become left-authoritarians. If a veneer
of capitalism suits their needs, they’ll take the right. The corporation’s
lie is meritocracy, and it’s so pervasive that people believe in it. So,
when they face managerial adversity, they believe that “performance” can
save them. (It can’t.) Or, they go over the boss’s head, or to the company
’s HR department. After all, if it were a meritocracy, it would reward when
a good employee rats out a bad manager, right? Of course, that move almost
never works. If anything, the afflicted employee gets fired faster.
Corporate “performance” is mythical. It’s a word they made up that sounds
objective but, in fact, means whatever the corporates want it to mean. (It
is, arguably, unintentionally honest. Succeeding in the corporate world has
nothing to do with performance in the sense of being good at one’s job; but
it is a performance in the theatrical sense.) Corporate “meritocracy” is
a litmus test for ideological compliance and personal loyalty to management.
One must not only follow orders, but pledge fealty to inflexible managerial
supremacy with every action. In the United States, one must remember that
managers do not work for companies. (I’ll bust the “shareholder” myth,
some other time.) Rather, companies work for their managers.
So, what happens when these unfortunate people, suffering managerial
adversity, attempt to appeal to higher “meritocracy”? They are crushed;
the system requires it. The unspoken agreement among corporate bosses is
never to let the little people pit them against each other. Whether the
little people are right is immaterial. Anyone who tries this must be
destroyed. Even if the worker could somehow prove to HR that he was a “high
performer” (whatever that means) who had a bad boss, his “boss-killer”
reputation would follow him, he would be unable to join another team, and he
’d be terminated within time for that reason alone. To do that is to break
the one rule the corporates actually care about. Ethics, laws, and even
public perceptions have flexibility, but managerial unity must never be
challenged.
Fascism, like corporate management, requires a one-party system. It will never allow real elections. It will use the strangest lies to test loyalty; who values truth too much becomes a problem that must be dealt with. Even when disloyalty is deserved, for the bureaucrat or manager was incompetent or abusive, fascism will not tolerate it. Fascism would rather
kill innocents than risk division from below.
The core of fascism, I would argue, is not to be found in the end-stage calamities to which it often inexorably leads. Rather, it is this: the people compete against each other, endlessly, but power unifies. ...... At the same time, people are divided against each other, ranked in ceaseless competition.
我认为法西斯主义的核心，无法在其必然导致的末期崩溃性灾难中找到，而是这样：人民相互竞争，但是权力团结在一起。 ...... 在同时，人民彼此分裂对抗，在永无休止的竞争之中被排名
Fascism is neither leftist nor rightist in any traditional sense. Fascists learn that they can lie with impunity there’s no one above them for the public to appeal to. The fascist will use socialist, capitalist, royalist, revanchist, communist, populist, nationalist, or religious symbology as needed
法西斯主义既不是左派也不是右派，他们知道自己的谎言不会受到惩罚，因为没有高于他们的存在让公众上诉。法西斯主义者将根据需要变成社会主义者，资本主义者，保皇党，复仇主义者，共产主义者，民粹主义者，民族主义者或宗教象征主义。
（这句话的意思是，因为法西斯极权主义者本身高于一切，没有能够因为言行不一来处罚他们，所以他们不需要保证自己的思想-语言-行为相一致，他们可以根据需要和策略随便采用和更换任何一种主义和思想，所以政治主义对他们是不重要的）
Loyalists see a man so fervid he occasionally gets a detail wrong; opponents see a person unconstrained by truth or apparent logic. When intelligent people are called out on their support for someone so obviously divorced from truth, they often use the Thiel defense: they’re taking him seriously, but not literally.
（在他撒谎时）他的忠诚者会看到他是如此热情，以至于偶尔弄错一些细节问题；他的反对者将看到一个（如此强大，以至于根本）不会被事实和显而易见的逻辑所束缚的人。当聪明人被要求去支持一个可以如此不加掩饰的背离事实的人时，他们会采用Thiel defense，他们会把他（和他的话）认真看待，而是不是从字面理解他的意思。
对于精英阶层，法西斯主义会采用与对普通民众相同的分而治之的办法，让他们互相竞争和对抗。 However, there’s one rule, and it’s absolute: the competition can never be seen from below.
然而有一条规则是绝对的：这种（上层之间的）竞争绝不能被下面的人看到。
Court intrigue within power is fine, so long as it stays there. To the public, though, they must present a unified front
权力内部的内廷阴谋是可以的，但对于群众，他们必须组成一条团结的战线。
Fascism requires this unity among power because it does not present itself as a brand of politics. Rather, fascist is bigger (as in, more totalitarian) but also harder-to-see than regular politics, toward which it project disdain. It presents itself as post-political.
法西斯主义要求权力之间具有这种统一性，因为它不会把自己表现为一种政治的类型。 相反，法西斯主义比普通类型的政治更加宏大，但也比常规政治更难以捉摸。因此，法西斯主义（对普通的政治）不屑一顾。 它是后政治（超政治的？）的。
If people became aware of a debate within power, this would suggest that alternatives existed, and the sense of inevitability in the fascist’s movement would be compromised.
如果人民觉察到权力内部的争论，这将表明可能有一种更好的方案的存在，而法西斯主义运动（以及举措）的必然性必然会受到影响
It is shocking how readily people will accept authoritarianism if fed a the halfway-coherent argument that there are no alternatives.
你会惊讶于：当人民被灌输一种“现在没有其他选择”的半合理的观点时，他们是多么容易接受极权主义
I mentioned that fascist governments are mendacious and will present themselves as needed: if they need to seem populist, they’ll seem populist. If socialism is en vogue, they’ll become left-authoritarians. If a veneer of capitalism suits their needs, they’ll take the right.
我提到过，法西斯主义政府是撒谎成性的，并且会根据需要展示自己的身份：如果他们需要看起来像民粹主义者，他们就会看起来像民粹主义者。 如果社会主义风靡一时，他们将成为左派独裁者。 如果单板的资本主义适合他们的需求，他们就会采取正确的行动。
One must not only follow orders, but pledge fealty to inflexible managerial supremacy with every action.....
So, what happens when these unfortunate people, suffering managerial adversity, attempt to appeal to higher “meritocracy”? They are crushed; the system requires it. The unspoken agreement among corporate bosses is never to let the little people pit them against each other. Whether the little people are right is immaterial. Anyone who tries this must be destroyed.
一个人不仅需要遵从指令，还必须在每一个行为上对不可变的最高权威宣示效忠..... 那么，如果一些不幸的人受到管理层面上损害，所以想向更高层的权威上诉时会发生什么？ 他们会被镇压，因为系统需要这么做。大佬之间的一条不言而喻的共识是，绝不能因受到下面的人的利用，而互相对抗。所以上诉者无论对错，一定要被摧毁。
Ethics, laws, and even public perceptions have flexibility, but managerial unity must never be challenged.
道德，法律以及公众的看法都可以通融，但管理层面上的团结性绝不能被挑战。
It will never allow real elections. It will use the strangest lies to test loyalty; those who value truth too much become a problem that must be dealt with.
它将永远不允许真正的选举。 它将使用最荒诞的谎言来测试忠诚度； 那些过于重视事实的人将成为必须解决的问题。
原文
The dual opposite of a republic would be a society where the governed must compete, merely to survive. Meanwhile, the powerful are immune to challenge from below. There is only one political party and it will always be that way. Those with power have no responsibilities to those below them because power is subject to no appeal but itself.
That sounds like an unimaginable dystopia, right? That would never, ever emerge from a free society. Right?
It has already done so. Consider the corporate workplace. Regular employees are ranked and pitted against each other– and against the hungry masses, for management is happy to remind its subjects of the desperate millions ready to take more abuse and less pay. Stack ranking and annual reviews exist largely as a mechanism through which executives remind the little people that they aren’t a permanent part of the company– they are a resource that will be used up and discarded. Meanwhile, corporations rely on a self-dealing one-party government called “management” that uses every bit of power it has (which is, all of it) to keep the underlings where they are. Power begets power. It does not accept limitation; who has the right to limit it? Certainly, there shall be no separation of powers. Power is allowed and expected to unify– managers protect their own, and those who do not learn this one rule do not remain in management for long.
Of course, individual corporations are too small to indulge in the end-stage horrors for which fascism is known: international belligerence, extreme racism, repression and disinformation. In comparison to state-level fascism, the corporation’s fascism-lite seems benign. Is it? It’s hard to say, because state-level fascism seems, likewise, harmless to the general public when it sets in.
The core of fascism, I would argue, is not to be found in the end-stage calamities to which it often inexorably leads. Rather, it is this: the people compete against each other, endlessly, but power unifies.
Under fascism, power’s disparate forms– cultural, political, religious, state, economic, legal, and social power– congeal into an inflexible fasces. Industrialists, political officials, mediapersonalities, and sundry middling bureaucrats and managers form a one-party system that cannot be appealed. At the same time, people are divided against each other, ranked inceaseless competition. Those judged to rank at the bottom– a small percentage that must be called “work-shy”, or “below expectations”, or Lebensunwertes Leben— must be punished. This is not always done out of hatred for the unlucky; it’s done to terrify the middle-ranking majority.
Fascism is neither leftist nor rightist in any traditional sense. Fascists learn that they can lie with impunity; there’s no one above them for the public to appeal to. The fascist will use socialist, capitalist, royalist, revanchist, communist, populist, nationalist, or religious symbology as needed. A corporation will declare itself a meritocracy and punish anyone who says it is not so. Truth doesn’t matter; the closest thing there is, is reputation, which the fascist manipulates masterfully.
Donald Trump lies so frequently not because it is part of a political strategy, but because he’s taking his corporate tricks into the public theater– with mixed results. His lies are of a kind that would pass easily in the corporate world; it is good for us that, in presidential politics, he’s out of his depth. What one must understand about Trumpian lies is that anyone who would recognize them as lies is not part of his intended audience. These lies exist to rally the loyal and to frighten– not convince– the opposition. Loyalists see a man so fervid he occasionally gets a detail wrong; opponents see a person unconstrained by truth or apparent logic. When intelligent people are called out on their support for someone so obviously divorced from truth, they often use the Thiel defense: they’re taking him seriously, but not literally.
A corporate executive (and an established fascist) can say anything, because he’s in a milieu that admires bullies– “tough leadership” is the corporate term of art for the sorts of people who smashed science projects in grade school– and because he’s surrounded by people who are paid to behave as if they believe every word he says (and to rat out nonbelievers).
Trump’s problem is that he still has to deal with the 50-plus percent of the population that won’t put up with his mendacity. A president cannot, at the current time, fire the public.
Republics are set up to force politicians to compete, in an effort to make
sure that elected officials work on behalf of the public. Ours isn’t
perfect, but the system does does a decent job. Voters don’t fire
incumbents often enough, one might argue, but political officials know that
they can.
While republics strive for responsible government, fascism imposes
competition on the people, to render them accountable to the elite– against
which no one and nothing can compete.
What about competition within the elite? Surely, that must happen, even
under fascism– right? Of course, it does. The same divide-and-conquer
techniques that fascism uses against the public, the dictator will use
against his lieutenants and middle managers. Such bureaucrats and seneschals
are happy to squabble for the boss’s favor. However, there’s one rule,
and it’s absolute: the competition can never be seen from below. (As a
corollary, mid-ranking hierarchs cannot court popular support.) Court
intrigue within power is fine, so long as it stays there. To the public,
though, they must present a unified front.
Fascism requires this unity among power because it does not present itself
as a brand of politics. Rather, fascist is bigger (as in, more totalitarian)
but also harder-to-see than regular politics, toward which it project
disdain. It presents itself as post-political. Current exigencies, it argues
, require a union of power to make swiftly the decisions that are inevitable
and beyond appeal. Those could not, it must always say, have been made any
other way. If people became aware of a debate within power, this would
suggest that alternatives existed, and the sense of inevitability in the
fascist’s movement would be compromised.
When fascism runs smoothly, the governed do not perceive themselves as under
a self-serving elite, or having a repressive government. Authority assures
them that, for each concession it demands of them, there were no other
options. We had to shoot the protesters, because if hostile nations found
out about internal dissent, they’d take advantage of our weakness. We have
to fire 5% of our workers every year, because otherwise nothing will get
done.
It is shocking how readily people will accept authoritarianism if fed a
halfway-coherent argument that there are no alternatives.
I used to write a lot, between 2010 and 2015, about organizational dynamics.
As a result, I got a lot of letters from people facing managerial adversity
at their workplaces.
I mentioned that fascist governments are mendacious and will present themselves as needed: if they need to seem populist, they’ll seem populist.
If socialism is en vogue, they’ll become left-authoritarians. If a veneer
of capitalism suits their needs, they’ll take the right. The corporation’s
lie is meritocracy, and it’s so pervasive that people believe in it. So,
when they face managerial adversity, they believe that “performance” can
save them. (It can’t.) Or, they go over the boss’s head, or to the company
’s HR department. After all, if it were a meritocracy, it would reward when
a good employee rats out a bad manager, right? Of course, that move almost
never works. If anything, the afflicted employee gets fired faster.
Corporate “performance” is mythical. It’s a word they made up that sounds
objective but, in fact, means whatever the corporates want it to mean. (It
is, arguably, unintentionally honest. Succeeding in the corporate world has
nothing to do with performance in the sense of being good at one’s job; but
it is a performance in the theatrical sense.) Corporate “meritocracy” is
a litmus test for ideological compliance and personal loyalty to management.
One must not only follow orders, but pledge fealty to inflexible managerial
supremacy with every action. In the United States, one must remember that
managers do not work for companies. (I’ll bust the “shareholder” myth,
some other time.) Rather, companies work for their managers.
So, what happens when these unfortunate people, suffering managerial
adversity, attempt to appeal to higher “meritocracy”? They are crushed;
the system requires it. The unspoken agreement among corporate bosses is
never to let the little people pit them against each other. Whether the
little people are right is immaterial. Anyone who tries this must be
destroyed. Even if the worker could somehow prove to HR that he was a “high
performer” (whatever that means) who had a bad boss, his “boss-killer”
reputation would follow him, he would be unable to join another team, and he
’d be terminated within time for that reason alone. To do that is to break
the one rule the corporates actually care about. Ethics, laws, and even
public perceptions have flexibility, but managerial unity must never be
challenged.
Fascism, like corporate management, requires a one-party system. It will never allow real elections. It will use the strangest lies to test loyalty; who values truth too much becomes a problem that must be dealt with. Even when disloyalty is deserved, for the bureaucrat or manager was incompetent or abusive, fascism will not tolerate it. Fascism would rather
kill innocents than risk division from below.
