What is fascism and how do we know we have it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fascism is the greatest dirty word in politics imo. It will never lose its power like typical swear words because it has the power of the Nazis behind it. You can call a million different things fascist and people will still take it seriously as if you just dropped some serious knowledge on them just because you injected that single word into your complaint. But what is fascism and how do we know if we actually have it?

Here is a short (23 pages) pdf, The Five Stages of Fascism by Robert Paxton that attempts to define and single out what fascism and fascist policies might actually be. http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five Stages of Fascism.pdf It's a good read imo, but my first question to everyone is if he got anything wrong.

A second, much more simplified attempt at knowing if there is fascism within our countries politics is a one page article called the Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism by Lawrence Britt. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

This second page is a lot easier to digest, but my second question for you guys is to look at the general accuracy of the second article after reading the first and say whether or not the characteristics are indeed a good guideline to calling out fascism, or if they are the kind of general vague kind of descriptions that allow anyone to be targeted as the next Hitler.

I ask this because I see the second article float around a lot among other forums I go on (particularly the left ones) and everyone loves having big circle jerks about it, picking out so and so politician for being 10 out of 14 or 11 out of 14 and etc.

[SwordsMaster]

If you wonder if you have it, you probably do.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you wonder if you have it, you probably do.

I disagree with this. People in general are stupid and as I have said above, they like to throw that word around everywhere. People in Arizona will wonder if there is fascism running around because the state government put red light cameras at intersections to prevent speeding. Whether or not this is a good policy is besides the point. It certainly ain't fascism, despite the tea party "wondering" out loud if it is so.

[SwordsMaster]

One day you have speed cameras, the next you're invading Poland. Say it ain't so.

[Rhyfelwyr]

"Fascism" is unfortunately one of those words that now has a lot of different meanings which are seen as legitimate.

You can use it to describe authoritarian policies nowadays, or you can use it to describe a political movement (or maybe more accurately a series of political movements) that came about in the twentieth century.

For the latter, what regimes count as fascist really depends on how strict you are with the definition of it. If you just go along with the rampant nationalism part, then Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal come under it. But then if you look at the attitudes that it supposedly takes towards modernisation and embracing industrialisation, then they don't. Nazi Germany's obsession with racial purity was unique. Mussolini wasn't particularly antisemitic.

I also don't agree with the first article in that fascist movements isolate themselves and don't attempt to export their models to other countries. Oswald Mosley was a big fan of creating a EU-style fascist superstate.

If I had to define fascism I would say that it was a 'third way' between capitalism and communism. Most fascist movements had a working-class/lower middle-class core, and so it shoudln't be surprising that they took a very left-leaning, socialist approach to the economy (at least in their theory in the early days, before necessity took them down another route). What made them different from the left was that they combined this with the nationalism of the right.

Remember what Mussolini said he didn't like about the left was that it was too materialistic... fascism was basically leftism with a bunch of emotional/abstract social values added on.

[Ronin]

a slight burning sensation when going to the bathroom is normally the first indication. :P

the term is hard to define.....for example here in Portugal we normal refer to Salazar's regime as fascist even if it does not meet every single bullet point........it felt fascist enough for the people sent to jail for thought crimes and maybe that's enough of a definition.

[Fragony]

Facism is force, it can come from all directions, left, right, green or brown it doesn't really matter where it's comming from. It's the murder of individualism

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The best I can remember from history class is that it rejects socialism by being against ideas of the class system, promoting instead national unity, and focuses on a bunch of things that are supposed to make the country more unified like war, purity based on ancestry or race, common education, with a push for strength and so on. I read part of the first article but he seemed to be overcomplicating things.

hmm, this is what I remember reading:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp


Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].

Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.

In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.

*********

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.


Anyway, it's misused so much that I don't trust anyone who just drops the word without a more detailed explanation. And don't get me started on the "neo-[loaded word]" formulation that some people with just enough intellect to be intellectually dishonest use.


1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

:dozey:

On my own browsing, I would have skipped that article simply based on the title "Fascism, Anyone?". Where does "[],anyone?" come from anyway? Glad to see my filter works that efficiently.

Add "proto[loaded word]" formulations to what I said about "neo" above. Also "Modern [fill in]" formulations as well.

[Fragony]

Classical facism is a class-based ultra-nationalist militaristic society, so any nation state really (yes that came from me)

[Hax]

Right, and it doesn't even have to go hand-in-hand with discrimination of an ethnic or religious group. In Late Ottoman Turkey, for example (that is, before the Armenian Genocide), the Young Ottomans declared that everyone in the Empire was a citizen of the Ottoman State, regardless of racial or religious affiliation.

[Fragony]

Right, and it doesn't even have to go hand-in-hand with discrimination of an ethnic or religious group. In Late Ottoman Turkey, for example (that is, before the Armenian Genocide), the Young Ottomans declared that everyone in the Empire was a citizen of the Ottoman State, regardless of racial or religious affiliation.

'Young Turks' big difference they were anti Ottoman

[Hax]

Yes, that's why I explicitly said "Young Ottomans" rather than "Young Turks". The Young Turks were more ethno-nationalist.

[Fragony]

My bad

[PanzerJaeger]

Fascism gets a bad rap because of the excesses of the '40s and because the ideology did not have a major patron after the Second World War celebrating its virtues. In theory, it was a viable third way between communism and capitalism, almost an earlier form of 'compassionate conservatism', to borrow a phrase from that modern neo-proto-fascist George W. Bush. People could still excel, but there was always a place for everyone in society who was willing to work for the betterment of the nation as a whole. Harnessing the collective will of a nation towards certain goals in the way that fascism did can unlock national potential in a way that neither of the other ideologies can.

The problem, of course, was the accumulation of power by the political class. Absolute power... etc. The ideology requires strong military and industrialist classes, and the problems start when they are made impotent - usually by internal security agencies.

[a completely inoffensive name]

and of course, it just so happened that every fascist leader has appeared on the "most evil human" list.

[Slyspy]

Excesses? Ha, small wonder that few were happy to extoll the virues of facism!

Betterment of the nation as a whole? Who determines this and why?

Collective will? What does this mean?

The honourable, paternalistic leaders of the military and the industrial complex betrayed by those ever power-hungry political classes. As if they themselves are entirely separate from the politicos.

[PanzerJaeger]

and of course, it just so happened that every fascist leader has appeared on the "most evil human" list.

I've never seen that list, but I'm sure most communist leaders also made it. Such dopey lists are usually written by Western historians, so self-affirming results shouldn't be too surprising.

[Papewaio]

Fascism gets a bad rap because of the excesses of the '40s and because the ideology did not have a major patron after the Second World War celebrating its virtues.

Surely some of the South American governments could be considered facist lite as well as some of the middle east ones.

=][=

I think the problem with Facism is the same as what happened to Russia... is that the power was too centralised and too controlled in a lot of instances... thereby limiting growth in people, structures, organisation and economies.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Fascism gets a bad rap because of the excesses of the '40s and because the ideology did not have a major patron after the Second World War celebrating its virtues. In theory, it was a viable third way between communism and capitalism, almost an earlier form of 'compassionate conservatism', to borrow a phrase from that modern neo-proto-fascist George W. Bush. People could still excel, but there was always a place for everyone in society who was willing to work for the betterment of the nation as a whole. Harnessing the collective will of a nation towards certain goals in the way that fascism did can unlock national potential in a way that neither of the other ideologies can.

The problem, of course, was the accumulation of power by the political class. Absolute power... etc. The ideology requires strong military and industrialist classes, and the problems start when they are made impotent - usually by internal security agencies.

Perhaps in the same way that communism would have been wonderful if only they'd done it right? :inquisitive:

[Viking]

The interesting question is not when we have fascism, but when we have an authoritarian regime. Whatever other labels we could pin on it is a mere bonus.

[Slyspy]

Perhaps in the same way that communism would have been wonderful if only they'd done it right? :inquisitive:

Exactly!

I've always regarded facism as the individual existing for the state while in communism the state exists for the individual. But this assumes that they actually work, which they don't because people get in the way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exactly!

I've always regarded facism as the individual existing for the state while in communism the state exists for the individual. But this assumes that they actually work, which they don't because people get in the way.

I think you have that backwards, or possibly sideways.

Facism is about the "Nation", which is the people as a race, which is why it usually turns racist. Communism talks about "the people" but is really interested in how they fit into the organs of the state as tiny cogs in the machine.

Both are intended to benefit "ordinary citiznes" and both are utterly lacking in compassion, unlike Conservativism and Liberalism, both of which give the individual intrinsic value.

Oh, and before you ask: Socialism is Communism-Lite, it still leans far to far in the direction of the individual as a statistic.

[Ironside]

I think you have that backwards, or possibly sideways.

Facism is about the "Nation", which is the people as a race, which is why it usually turns racist. Communism talks about "the people" but is really interested in how they fit into the organs of the state as tiny cogs in the machine.

Both are intended to benefit "ordinary citiznes" and both are utterly lacking in compassion, unlike Conservativism and Liberalism, both of which give the individual intrinsic value.

Oh, and before you ask: Socialism is Communism-Lite, it still leans far to far in the direction of the individual as a statistic.

I'm not so sure: To put them as states into silly status, communism would be that you put a lottery every year about your job and switches it at that point, while facism would run with a brave new world breeding program. Both might treat people as cogs, but the cogs and the point of the state are very different.

Both ideas have heavy collectivitism, but the big focus about equality in communism does have a considerble influence, that's even notable in the flawed dictorships.

I'm curious about your opinion about Social Democracy then, since it usually got a heavy individulistic focus in there.

[PanzerJaeger]

Perhaps in the same way that communism would have been wonderful if only they'd done it right? :inquisitive:

Well, I disagree with communism on both the practical and conceptual levels. Even if it worked as intended, I would be against it as the very idea of enforced equity creates a kind of inequity all its own.

But yes, obviously the flaw in both systems is the leadership structure. Of course, one could say that in Western Democracy, real choice is illusory as the candidates are chosen by the power elite anyway - and no one could accurately claim that our system works for everyone, or even the majority. Just because it has lasted a bit longer doesn't make it superior.

I'll throw this out there. Modern China, while nominally communist, is actually well on its way to becoming the first successful fascist state. All the elements are there...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But yes, obviously the flaw in both systems is the leadership structure. Of course, one could say that in Western Democracy, real choice is illusory as the candidates are chosen by the power elite anyway - and no one could accurately claim that our system works for everyone, or even the majority. Just because it has lasted a bit longer doesn't make it superior.

America is somewhat different to other Western nations, in that you have a Two-party system virtually entrenched in your Constitution and Law, in most Western Nations parties can and do fall. Witness the 20th Century for the Liberals in England, for example.

[Beskar]

Well, I disagree with communism on both the practical and conceptual levels. Even if it worked as intended, I would be against it as the very idea of enforced equity creates a kind of inequity all its own.
I disagree, it is the agreement that a person is a person, in the similar sense we are both members on this forum and we are both subscribed to the same exact rules as everyone else on the member level. Basically Communism is a political ideology based around the thoughts of egalitarianism. A true 'communist' society would be totally democratic in social, political and economic circles with people having an 'equal voice' in these matters. While there might be posters who you might think of better than others, they are still end of the day, posters and not got special treatment. You may argue in your opinion that poster Panzerjaeger should have a gold plated name-badge and Beskar gets the dirt coloured one but then you are forcing an inequity on me and yourself. You may dislike how Prussian Iron keeps posting girlfriend threads and he might dislike your face painted in woad avatar, but end of the day, you both have the right to post your threads and choose your avatar.

Perfect Fascism is the pinnacle of totalitarianism, is the to total and absolute obedience to the state and it's leader who shall rule wise and prosper. While people may have wet dreams of the benevolent dictatorships of Adolf Hitler and Mussolini, the reality is far different with constant corruption and the lack of checks and balances which pot-hole it with many flaws.


I'll throw this out there. Modern China, while nominally communist, is actually well on its way to becoming the first successful fascist state. All the elements are there...
It is a fascist state and it is only 'communist' in name only. Though I would say the situation in China is improving with political liberation but then again, that is moving away from Fascism.

[Strike For The South]

I know it when I see it

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm with Beskar. For communists, the role of the state in the transitional socialist stage is not to enforce equality, but to remove the inequality created by the supposedly oppressive capitalist system. That is why they are not against property as is often claimed, they are only against bourgeoisie property. Similarly they are not big statists, for them the state just exists to remove the inequalities of capitalism before moving to a stateless society.


Facism is about the "Nation", which is the people as a race, which is why it usually turns racist. Communism talks about "the people" but is really interested in how they fit into the organs of the state as tiny cogs in the machine.

Both are intended to benefit "ordinary citiznes" and both are utterly lacking in compassion, unlike Conservativism and Liberalism, both of which give the individual intrinsic value.

I actually think there is no real difference between fascism/the far-right and conservatism (old school welfare state conservatism that is, not Thatcherism). I might be tempted to say fascism is a more extreme version, but I don't think thats right. I think the fact that the well-known historic fascist movements went the way they did not because of the fascist part, but they were more just a product of their time. The mid-19th century was a totalitarian time for the whole developed world, whether it was communist, fascist or democratic.

Being part of the weird and wonderful world of Ulster/Scottish loyalism, I know a lot of people, including myself, that identify as far-right/national socialist. When you know these peoples views though, they are basically the same as the old welfare state conservatism. Maybe just a slightly more crude and working-class version, but fundamentally the same.