Logical Failure

It is possible to speak about what is often labelled fascism without centring moral judgement, and instead treat it as a systemic configuration whose failure follows from structural incompatibility rather than ethical evaluation. Moral objections may be justified, but they are not what makes this form unsustainable. The failure arises from how such a configuration relates to complexity, feedback, and scale. In field terms, it is a mode of organisation that attempts to stabilise itself through rigidity: narrowing identity, compressing difference, accelerating obedience, and suppressing ambiguity. This produces an immediate impression of order, but only by displacing instability beyond what the system can acknowledge. What is consumed in the process is not merely dissent or plurality, but future adaptive capacity.

This configuration can persist only under limited conditions. In loosely coupled systems, where economic, informational, and social structures are modular, instability can be exported or deferred. Local coherence is maintained by sacrificing peripheral resilience. In a globally integrated, technologically interdependent system, this strategy fails outright. Supply chains, financial networks, ecological limits, and communication systems are too tightly bound for stress to be isolated. Rigidity in one domain propagates disruption everywhere else. What appears locally as strength manifests globally as fragility.

From a field-logic perspective, the incompatibility becomes clearer. Complex systems persist by operating near their failure modes, continuously redistributing error, contradiction, and loss in order to sustain self-propagation and invariance under transformation. This dynamic is not a defect but a requirement for continuity. Fascistic organisation attempts to eliminate or suppress this process rather than inhabit it. By enforcing uniformity and silencing feedback, it removes the mechanisms through which correction occurs. Stability is simulated, not achieved. When correction finally arrives, it does so as cascade rather than adjustment.

Political affect intensifies within such systems precisely because effective control diminishes. Certainty, absolutism, and emotional escalation substitute for adaptive leverage. This is not evidence of strength or coherence, but of expressive overload: the system amplifying its own signals as its capacity to respond collapses. In a globally networked environment, this expressiveness feeds directly back into economic disruption, technological fragility, and ecological overshoot. The system becomes louder as it becomes less steerable.

The conclusion, then, is not that such a configuration fails because it is morally wrong, but because it is structurally incompatible with the conditions of a globally integrated civilisation. A technocratic planetary system depends on coordination, trust, temporal flexibility, and the ability to absorb error across scales. Rigid, inflexible political forms degrade these conditions simultaneously. What they fortify is not continuity but collapse, because they attempt to freeze a system that can only survive by remaining unfinished. In this sense, the failure is logical rather than ethical, even if the ethical failure remains real.