What would stop the leader of a country from just killing everyone and going crazy?
This question assumes a conception of anthropology that is A) crazy b) liberal and C) completely counter to all observable human history, so it is an irrelevant question.
How is absolutism not fascism?
Firstly, we have to define fascism, and the problem is that different political traditions have different understandings of fascism. I have covered this briefly here. If we are talking about the original fascist tradition, then it should be noted that Gentile himself in the Doctrine of Fascism specifically rejects absolutism, which I will quote now:
“It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people”
Further to this, fascism was aggressively republican, and placed the states governing tool of law as primary, making it a state enshrining a voluntarist ethical system. It was in essence a rather Frankenstein development which managed to crawl back to some sanity as a result of Gentile’s curious absolute idealism which rejected man as prior to the state (which clashes with the republicanism, so it would have been interesting to see how that issue would have played out.) It was however flawed, and very much anti-absolutist.
If we are talking about the communist/ liberal tradition (both pro-fascist or anti-fascist positions) then you probably could call it fascist, but that isn’t a hard thing to do; everything from George Bush to green frogs has been labeled technically fascist in the communist/liberal tradition.
Fnargl is logically impossible, isn’t it?
I don’t really understand this question. It seems to imply that the ruler is to manage everything, yet this isn’t, and has never, been claimed.
Secure power is impossible, isn’t it?
This all depends on definition. Secure power is really power that is not subject to challenge from other power centers within the same domain. A rejection of imperium in imperio. This implies that all subsequent delegations of authority by the central power are not confused as alienation of power, but merely delegations. These subsequent institutions have very clear remits, and zero incentive to enlarge their remit at the expense of central power. Any hint that this is occurring should be cause for the central power to wrap up this institution and reorganize appropriately.
If you are not a capitalist then you are a fascist/ communist/ socialist, aren’t you? Capitalism is right wing!
No. Communication on this point is frankly retarded. All of the hyper pro-capitalism masquerading as opposition to the current progressive system is funded by the very same elites within this system. Hayek, Friedman, the Chicago school and the rest did not fund their own research and careers, but were funded by the very same sources that funded the Civil Rights movement, feminism and gender ideology. It is all a matter of record. Without the De Jouvenalian model this is inexplicable, with it, it is obvious – all of these concepts are part of the same superstructure, as they all recognise the same precepts – the individual as prior to society, property as prior to society, society as a matter of sovereign individuals (that just appear) engaging in self interested trade, and all these precepts are subsets of the overall culture promoted by unsecure centralising power trying to achieve policy goals against other power centers in society – liberalism.
In short, capitalism is just applied anti-absolutism (side note: Gentile understood this as seen from the quote above), as it is pre-societal sovereign property which must as necessary come before ethics, societal cohesion and the sovereignty of the state – it is in effect utopian, and early proponents were very clear on this, extolling the world peace that was supposed to occur from trade of this property. Communism is acceptance of this pre-societal nature, and just seeks an equal distribution along these same terms.
Absolutism by placing property as post societal must of necessity reject capitalism by rejecting the claim of property being pre-societal and sovereign. It is not correct to talk about the recognition of property rights in this instance, as none must be recognised but the sovereign organisations. Secondary property is not a right, but a delegation. The sovereign has every motive to delegate effectively and to supply as much leeway as possible to the delegees, but the limits on the actions are directly linked to the sovereigns interests. This isn’t capitalism, despite a lot of people assuming that capitalism follows a pattern similar to this. Capitalism is as anti-state as communism, as again, communism is just a criticism of the distribution of secondary property, not a rejection of it – Marx is within that tradition.