Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 78

Thread: Understanding Fascism

  1. #1

    Default Understanding Fascism

    I'm sure this isn't a new thing, but there's a lot more talk about what Fascism is among "Anti-Fascists" or others who oppose Fascism than avowed Fascists explaining what Fascism is.

    This is a strange Assymstry, you can easily find Socialists describing Socialism. And self-described Liberals* describing Liberalism, albeit through my unscientific method of searching YouTube the names of all three ideologies I found three different results.

    Fascists: No Fascists
    Socialists: Primarily Socialists describing socialism, some Conservatives and Liberals
    Liberalism: Mix of Socialists, Liberals and Conservatives.

    The only Fascist literature I could think that describes what Fascism is of off-hand Is Mein Kampf and Mussolini's Doctrines of Fascism. From other perspectives, there's been decades of research to study Fascism. Wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to different definitions. Orwell wrote an essay during WW2 to describe how everyone is a Fascist if you don't like them.

    But this is all the study of an ideology from the outside perspective. There's very few Fascist intellectuals writing what Fascism is. And very few who would call themselves Fascism. Fascist is functionally used as an insult. Nowhere is this as evident as when Democrats call Republicans Fascists and Anti-Fascists being described as "The real Fascists."

    I think we are making a mistake in focusing on Fascism at all. You can find various powers which called themselves Fascism, but had little in common beyond extreme authoritarianism, which is an aspect of many regimes, not just Fascist ones.

    If you want to define a term, one way of doing it is to take a variety of things and then categorise them. And then work out how to include what you want and exclude what you don't. How do you define Fascism without including the USSR and Communist China? They're all authoritarian, they all had concentration camps, they are all genocidal regimes. But we think of Communism as being fundamentally different.

    Where do the South American regimes fit in? Is Pinochet [Chilean Dictator] a Fascist? Is a military Junta Fascist? What if they call themselves Socialist? Is a racist socialist a Fascist?

    *I'm referring to people who follow the ideas of philosophers like Locke and Mill here, not the left-half of American politics.

  2. #2
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    The term Fascism is used very loosely and is not associated with a lot of scholarship, rather ranting demagogues and propaganda.

    Strictly Fascism is associated with Mussolini's political party. Its a dreary mess of socialism, nationalism, fairy tales and stupidity.

    It has its imitators including Hitler and the Iberian dictators, but strictly Hitler's Nazi party practiced its own political doctrine much more concerned with Jews and German national identity than Italian Fascism which was more about trains and the Roman Empire. British Fascists and similar movements in the US, Australia etc. explicitly reference the word Fascism but seem more drawn to Hitler than Mussolini. As both Adolph and Benito were ranting demagogues who appealed to irrational fantasies of the past they were thought to be similar and the earlier term fascism was applied to Hitler's movement.

    Mussolini initially opposed Hitler's rise to power but (like the craven dog he was) fell into line in the hope of some scraps once the WAllies proved weak. This confirmed the natural confusion mentioned above.

    Once the "fascists" became the enemy of the rest of the World in 1939 a lot of Fascist parties went quiet and shut down.

    If you want to understand say British Fascism look up some contemporary newspaper reports of Mosley in Britain or fascists in other countries.

    There's a good article by Umberto Eco broadly discussing the issue called IIRC "Ur Fascism". I think he lists a few comon features thet they mostly share (with odd combinations or omissions) like violence, mass marches, ruthless power politics, militarism, central direction of the economy combined with an alliance with plutocrats, control and/or suppression of trade unions, insane re-imagined history, and silly uniforms.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  3. #3
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Personally, I don't view nazism as fascism - its just too much of a unholy bastard between socialism and fascism, with unbothered racial obsession applied on top. That's not fascism, it a wretched bastard and construct, with elements of fascism. I think the textbook example of fascism is Mussolini's Italy 1922-1936 - before its pact with Nazi-Germany. Another good example of fascism would probably be Franco's Spain. And yet another would probably be militaristic Japan of the 1930's. If you want to understand actual fascism - look at the relevant Italian manifestos and writings. That is the source. Once you realize Nazism is a separate and different movement - it becomes less problematic to define (and understand) fascism. Its hyper-collectivism, -nationalism and -authoritarianism. State and nation is all, while the individual is nothing - that sort of thing....

    - A

  4. #4
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Certainly Nazism continues the trend of nationalism to identify the Nation (which originally meant an ethnic group) with the state, but thats not really collectivist. In practice Nazi Germany was not Socialist: private ownership of production was retained. There was central direction (as you can see in constitutional monarchies, republics, dictatorships, etc etc).

    It was anti-intellectual as well, rubbishing and rewriting scholarly and establishment world views in favour of shoutable slogans.

    Was Franco's Spain really Fascist? My ignorant eyes see a lot of Carlist continuity in the church/state/army nexus, as with South American dictatorships. Nazism and Fascism were rule by party bosses who installed themselves in power by exerting violent and often illegal pressure on the electoral apparatus, not generals like the Caudillo: German and Italian generals obeyed the political leadership, often to the bitter end.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  5. #5
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Certainly Nazism continues the trend of nationalism to identify the Nation (which originally meant an ethnic group) with the state, but thats not really collectivist.
    Maybe I am reading you all wrong here, but I don’t buy the notion that nationalism by default supposedly means that state and nation should be merged into one entity. That is just not true. Its true for fascism (and Nazism), but that don’t make it true for plain nationalism. Your statement there fails to make that distinction and that strikes me as dishonest.

    Secondly, if we look at the idea of fusing state and nation - as put to practice - and especially so by fascist-regimes and Nazi-Germany (and various Marxist regimes too) it is a matter of collectivism, the extreme kind. If in doubt, see clips of the Nürnberg Nazi-party rallies. YouTube have plenty of such footage. It is mass-manifestations, mass-meetings, grand scale public displays and events of various sorts etc. Nazi-Germany was full of it and fascist Italy had its fair share as well. Its Rome all over again essentially. Pomp and ceremony in order to illustrate and manifest something supposedly higher and grander then the mere mortal individual. It’s unbothered hyper-collectivism, and the public reinforcement of the same…

    Thirdly, I would say that Fascism typically views nation primarily in terms of culture and history - while race is simply ignored. Nazism typically views nation in terms of race and history - and in that order - while culture is largely ignored. Incidentally, much in the same way as any Marxist movements (communism, socialism and so forth) would view culture (or traditions) in that context. It is deemed unimportant. After all, it shall all be replaced with something (supposedly) better anyways in these movements, including Nazism. Only fascism strive to restore and rebirth perceived past glory into some updated modern world version of it. In contrast, Nazism is ultimately about building a new mythical and "pure" future - while relying on a mixture of both new and old ideas and ideals to lead the way. Thus both movements do look at the past in order to achieve their respective goals - but - they do it for different reasons. Fascism wants to restore and revive it - Nazism wants to create something new by using it. By contrast all the Marxist movements are about building some new mythical future (from scratch) by abandoning and destroying the past as they are hostile towards it. Fascism and Nazism are not - but for different reasons. In short, they are clearly not the same...

    Fourthly, if we look at fascism and Nazism and their worldviews, yet more differences appear. Both does historically style themselves as remedies to what was perceived shameful and corrupt times – brought by some supposed decadence of sorts. In fascism, the scapegoat is typically spelled democracy, liberalism and/or various Marxist movements. It is thus all a matter of “unhealthy” ideas, ideals and culture. If we look at Nazism, we see something different as this movement is hell-bent on casting a specific people - the Jews (universally) – as the scapegoat, regardless of ideas, ideals and culture. Everything is (supposedly) the Jews fault (universally) in the Nazi perspective - this is radically different, and this in multiple ways. In short, it is not the same - yet again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    In practice Nazi Germany was not Socialist: private ownership of production was retained. There was central direction (as you can see in constitutional monarchies, republics, dictatorships, etc etc).
    There are a lot of common ground between socialism and Nazism - even in practice, I think. Claiming that socialist notions and ideas was not present or practiced in Nazi Germany - due to one specific detail (private ownership) - would be both false and dishonest, I think. Even Hitler himself declared that he was inspired by the “pure” bits of both Marxist movements and conservatism/traditionalism – I am paraphrasing here, but something of the sort.

    If we look at the Nazi view on class - for instance - it is basically socialist in terms of “certified” Germans at least. The practiced open indifference to class was even enforced and publicly staged with various events in which (sometimes prominent) Nazi-officials, bankers and other rich folk was “encouraged” and expected to sit, eat and share the same simple lunch as the random workers and farmers beside them – all while them trusty propaganda cameras were rolling, of course. Another example that comes to mind here are the ideas and circumstances behind the "Volkswagen" - all that does strike me as rather socialist as well. Anyhow, there were probably lots of other socialist notions and expressions happening in the Reich at various levels. I would be surprised if there are not plenty of clips at Youtube that suggests it - feel free to dig around folks...

    Btw, “central direction” is/was typically practiced by socialist regimes as well - so its hardly a defining marker for either fascism or Nazism (or much else), due to the fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    It was anti-intellectual as well, rubbishing and rewriting scholarly and establishment world views in favour of shoutable slogans.
    Well, I agree… That said, all Marxist movements where more then happy to do the very same – in fact, they still do, last time I checked. As far as I can tell, there is little that credibly suggests that this was somehow limited to or distinct for fascism, or even Nazism for that matter. It is all a matter of the actual perspective applied here, and where and how we draw the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Was Franco's Spain really Fascist?
    Yeah, I think so… After all, Franco’s Spain corresponds to most (if not all) traits that can be traditionally viewed as fascist. It essentially ticks all criterions… An excessively powerful leader/dictator - he was formally given more authority then even Hitler and Mussolini had (and that is saying something). An overt personal and leader-cult practiced and encouraged by the regime. A clearly authoritative and oppressive regime in general - repeatedly incarcerating or killing perceived dissidents and other supposed "enemies of the state", right? And, lets not forget all the hyper-collectivist, -conformist and -nationalist ideals the regime routinely advocated. Furthermore, the use of the past (history and culture) as both an ideal and excuse for radical/extreme changes and measures while in power – this in order to secure that magic revival and rebirth of past Spanish glory. Even his very own party - the Falangists (or some such) - self-identified as fascist. Yup, I think all that combined definitely counts and corresponds as fascist. Feel free to prove me wrong…

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; August 03, 2020 at 04:54 AM. Reason: Grammar...

  6. #6
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Maybe I am reading you all wrong here, but I don’t buy the notion that nationalism by default supposedly means that state and nation should be merged into one entity. That is just not true. Its true for fascism (and Nazism), but that don’t make it true for plain nationalism. Your statement there fails to make that distinction and that strikes me as dishonest.
    You're reading me wrong. No disrespect intended, if you speak two languages you're twice as smart as me, but you misunderstand what nationalism means in English plain and simple.

    I'm guessing the terminology has different nuances in English than Swedish? The word nation comes from the Latin meaning a group of common birth and equates with the term race. I believe its a relict of the 19th century nationalist movements that the term became a synonym for state rather than race. In the KJV its a synonym for tribe or ethnicity.

    The merging of nation, language (and by extension culture), and polity in popular imagination has been the labour of Nationalist movements worldwide. People refer to the Australian nation which is a stupid phrase, we are a Commonwealth of states with many nationalities. Even US presidents refer to their United States as a nation (I mean Lincoln was a backwoods hick so some ignorance is to be expected, or maybe he was just speaking to his audience's level of understanding ;-)).

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Secondly, if we look at the idea of fusing state and nation - as put to practice - and especially so by fascist-regimes and Nazi-Germany (and various Marxist regimes too) it is a matter of collectivism, the extreme kind. If in doubt, see clips of the Nürnberg Nazi-party rallies. YouTube have plenty of such footage. It is mass-manifestations, mass-meetings, grand scale public displays and events of various sorts etc. Nazi-Germany was full of it and fascist Italy had its fair share as well. Its Rome all over again essentially. Pomp and ceremony in order to illustrate and manifest something supposedly higher and grander then the mere mortal individual. It’s unbothered hyper-collectivism, and the public reinforcement of the same…
    This is not collectivisation in the dictionary sense (although it may be in Swedish) which refers to the economic reorganisation of villages under Eastern European Communism. I guess its a reasonable poetic use of the term in English but strictly speaking its an economic not a political or social term, rather like Socialism itself. The fusing of state and nation is the chief theme of Nationalism. There was literally no collectivisation in Nazi Germany. There was a nationalist fusion of nation and state that was carried to the degree of genocide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Thirdly, I would say that Fascism typically views nation primarily in terms of culture and history - while race is simply ignored. Nazism typically views nation in terms of race and history - and in that order - while culture is largely ignored. Incidentally, much in the same way as any Marxist movements (communism, socialism and so forth) would view culture (or traditions) in that context. It is deemed unimportant. After all, it shall all be replaced with something (supposedly) better anyways in these movements, including Nazism. Only fascism strive to restore and rebirth perceived past glory into some updated modern world version of it. In contrast, Nazism is ultimately about building a new mythical and "pure" future - while relying on a mixture of both new and old ideas and ideals to lead the way. Thus both movements do look at the past in order to achieve their respective goals - but - they do it for different reasons. Fascism wants to restore and revive it - Nazism wants to create something new by using it. By contrast all the Marxist movements are about building some new mythical future (from scratch) by abandoning and destroying the past as they are hostile towards it. Fascism and Nazism are not - but for different reasons. In short, they are clearly not the same...
    I'd Google Kultur if I were you, Nazism intensified the Second Reich's idolisation of Kultur as a German value to be preserved. They definitely looked back to an imagined past if anything more intently than Fascism (Italy's connection to SPQR may have been tenuous but it was less fabulous than the Third Reich's connection to the Germani described by Tacitus).

    I don't agree Italian Fascists ignored race, IIRC they spent a lot of spittle defending Italians as pure Aryans. A quick Google shows speeches by Mussolini on the subject connected to the theme of the White Man's burden, so while nowhere near as desperately toxic as Nazi racism it was an element of their ideology or at least the rhetoric that serves as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Fourthly, if we look at fascism and Nazism and their worldviews, yet more differences appear. Both does historically style themselves as remedies to what was perceived shameful and corrupt times – brought by some supposed decadence of sorts. In fascism, the scapegoat is typically spelled democracy, liberalism and/or various Marxist movements. It is thus all a matter of “unhealthy” ideas, ideals and culture. If we look at Nazism, we see something different as this movement is hell-bent on casting a specific people - the Jews (universally) – as the scapegoat, regardless of ideas, ideals and culture. Everything is (supposedly) the Jews fault (universally) in the Nazi perspective - this is radically different, and this in multiple ways. In short, it is not the same - yet again.
    Look there is a difference in "the bad guy", and yes Nazis are obsessed with Jews (as part of the "stab in the back" myth as well as a convenient Bete Noire). However Jews are actually closely identified with a number of ideas and ideals, they are somehow "behind the banks but also they are closely identified with Communism/Bolshevism. Perhaps the Nazis confused rhetoric allows us to see this point differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    There are a lot of common ground between socialism and Nazism - even in practice, I think. Claiming that socialist notions and ideas was not present or practiced in Nazi Germany - due to one specific detail (private ownership) - would be both false and dishonest, I think. Even Hitler himself declared that he was inspired by the “pure” bits of both Marxist movements and conservatism/traditionalism – I am paraphrasing here, but something of the sort.
    I can only think you're not quite grasping what Socialism means in English where it definitely describes an economic system. Most Socialist countries have been politically totalitarian (only Israel 1948-1970's springs to mind as an exception) so that may be where confusion has crept in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    If we look at the Nazi view on class - for instance - it is basically socialist in terms of “certified” Germans at least. The practiced open indifference to class was even enforced and publicly staged with various events in which (sometimes prominent) Nazi-officials, bankers and other rich folk was “encouraged” and expected to sit, eat and share the same simple lunch as the random workers and farmers beside them – all while them trusty propaganda cameras were rolling, of course. Another example that comes to mind here are the ideas and circumstances behind the "Volkswagen" - all that does strike me as rather socialist as well. Anyhow, there were probably lots of other socialist notions and expressions happening in the Reich at various levels. I would be surprised if there are not plenty of clips at Youtube that suggests it - feel free to dig around folks...
    I'd say the concept of Volksgemeinschaft as practised in Nazi is a continuation of Second Reich policies and reflects the nationalist element, not the Socialist. The explicit racism is the opposite of most Socialist states which usually preach internationalist values. Israel as a Socialist state practised (and as a Capitalist state still practices) positive discrimination for Jewish people wishing to become citizens, but nothing like the abject racism of Nazism

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    , “central direction” is/was typically practiced by socialist regimes as well - so its hardly a defining marker for either fascism or Nazism (or much else), due to the fact.
    I am pointing out that similarity. Your conclusion is unclear. Warm blood can be validly a defining feature of both birds and mammals (for example), there's no reason central direction can't be a defining feature for more than one political system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Well, I agree… That said, all Marxist movements where more then happy to do the very same – in fact, they still do, last time I checked. As far as I can tell, there is little that credibly suggests that this was somehow limited to or distinct for fascism, or even Nazism for that matter. It is all a matter of the actual perspective applied here, and where and how we draw the line.
    I'd split the hairs as they are worth splitting. Socialism appeals to a sort of faux-philosophical "scientific political thought" but vaguely gets into statistics and economics. Nazism is much rawer, straight up pseudo science when it bothers to appeal to any kind of thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Yeah, I think so… After all, Franco’s Spain corresponds to most (if not all) traits that can be traditionally viewed as fascist. It essentially ticks all criterions… An excessively powerful leader/dictator - he was formally given more authority then even Hitler and Mussolini had (and that is saying something). An overt personal and leader-cult practiced and encouraged by the regime. A clearly authoritative and oppressive regime in general - repeatedly incarcerating or killing perceived dissidents and other supposed "enemies of the state", right? And, lets not forget all the hyper-collectivist, -conformist and -nationalist ideals the regime routinely advocated. Furthermore, the use of the past (history and culture) as both an ideal and excuse for radical/extreme changes and measures while in power – this in order to secure that magic revival and rebirth of past Spanish glory. Even his very own party - the Falangists (or some such) - self-identified as fascist. Yup, I think all that combined definitely counts and corresponds as fascist. Feel free to prove me wrong…

    - A
    Aside from the incorrect use of the term collectivist here this makes a lot of sense.

    That's good to know the Phalangists called themselves fascist, I mean that's half the battle in defining these half-baked ideologies. Once again I think in Franco's Spain there is a deal of continuity with Carlism, such as ultramontane Catholicism (not part of Fascism at all).
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  7. #7
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Spoiler for Collectivism
    Collectivism - according to two of the most established dictionaries around, it can mean two things...

    "1. The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
    1.1 The ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system."
    (Oxford dictionary)

    "1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution also : a system marked by such control
    2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity"
    (Merriam-webster dictionary)

    As it stands - I am using the Oxford "1." and Merriam-webster "2." meanings of the term - while you are using the Oxford "1.1." and Merriam-webster "1." meanings of the term. Its hardly surprising that confusion of the concept follows as a result, considering these exceptional circumstances. Both are seemingly correct, as far as I can tell (on this note). All the same, Wikipedia defines "collectivism" as follows....

    "Collectivism is a value that is characterized by emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over the self. Individuals or groups that subscribe to a collectivist worldview tend to find common values and goals as particularly salient[1] and demonstrate greater orientation toward in-group than toward out-group."

    And further down...

    "Collectivism was an important part of Marxist–Leninist ideology in the Soviet Union, where it played a key part in forming the New Soviet man, willingly sacrificing his or her life for the good of the collective. Terms such as "collective" and "the masses" were frequently used in the official language and praised in agitprop literature, for example by Vladimir Mayakovsky (Who needs a "1")..."
    (Wikipedia)

    ..."it played a key part in forming the New Soviet man, willingly sacrificing his or her life for the good of the collective." The same were also true in Nazi Germany (or facist Italy btw).


    Spoiler for Nationalism
    "Nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group ... "
    (Encyclopedia Britannica, bolding and underscoring mine)


    ...Or the interests of other nations (or nation-states), I would add. Again, none of this does automatically mean that the state will also enjoy that same allegiance and/or devotion. As outlined above.


    Spoiler for Socialism
    Socialism, according to the same two dictionaries...

    "1. A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
    (Oxford dictionary)

    "1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
    (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    Thus it is evident that it is more then a mere economic doctrine. With that established, I would say that if we look at how socialism has been put to practice around the world (historically) - the same familiar traits and patterns emerges with little deviation. In short, it is repeatedly anti-individualist, anti-capitalist, anti-nationalist (internationalist), anti-democratic, anti-choice (the state makes all choices for the citizen, or strive to do so). It is overtly controlling, assumingly fostering and clearly collectivist - eagerly centralizing the government and insistently state-expansionist. Often tax-excessive, keen on grand scale social-engineering and typically oppressive and intolerant towards dissidents and any unwanted/undesirable (public) opinions and ideas. That is how I would sum up the most typical traits that socialism carries. There are probably more beyond that as well, but these are the most common traits I see - time and time again...


    ***

    And finally, some direct replies for you...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    However Jews are actually closely identified with a number of ideas and ideals, they are somehow "behind the banks but also they are closely identified with Communism/Bolshevism.
    Ironically, you are essentially making my point for me... There is no consistency there - communists and bankers - the two don't go together, thus their ideas and ideals as such does not matter much at the end of the day. The fact that they are Jews is the only (supposedly) meaningful commonality they have - and that detail means everything to the pure Nazi. Race thus trumps all ideas and ideals... That's the Nazi way... The Fascist way is about ideas and ideals, not race.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I'd say the concept of Volksgemeinschaft as practised in Nazi is a continuation of Second Reich policies and reflects the nationalist element, not the Socialist.
    Indifference to class is a socialist/communist ideal, not a nationalist one... The fact that the state was actively enforcing and advocating that practice is straight out of the box socialist - that is what socialist states do. Again, Nazism and socialism do have common ground, and this is just an example of how socialist ideas and ideals was present and practiced in Nazi Germany (to various extents). More so then most socialists (or Nazis, for that matter) would care to admit, I would imagine. After all, Hitler was to some extents inspired by "pure" parts of Marxism too, by his own admittance. So it should not be that surprising that such elements was present and expressed in the Reich as a result.

    All the same, this circumstance does not make Nazi-Germany a socialist state - nobody here have made any such claim. I certainly haven't. Nazism is (still) a distinct movement separate from both fascism and socialism due to its very own special mix of ideas, traits and elements, or so I would argue.

    - A
    Last edited by Axalon; August 10, 2020 at 01:28 PM. Reason: Grammar...

  8. #8
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Personally, I don't view nazism as fascism - its just too much of a unholy bastard between socialism and fascism, with unbothered racial obsession applied on top. That's not fascism, it a wretched bastard and construct, with elements of fascism. I think the textbook example of fascism is Mussolini's Italy 1922-1936 - before its pact with Nazi-Germany. Another good example of fascism would probably be Franco's Spain. And yet another would probably be militaristic Japan of the 1930's. If you want to understand actual fascism - look at the relevant Italian manifestos and writings. That is the source. Once you realize Nazism is a separate and different movement - it becomes less problematic to define (and understand) fascism. Its hyper-collectivism, -nationalism and -authoritarianism. State and nation is all, while the individual is nothing - that sort of thing....

    - A
    Nazism is widely seen as a form of Fascism. Its extreme völkisch (quasi racist) orientation made up the separate term of "Nazism", but merely only used outside of Germany.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism ... based on more than 305 sources.

    The ones who can read german, have here better explanations: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalsozialismus
    The science about Nationalsozialismus is most advanced in Germany itself, or let say, most reliable. And i personally belong to a (german) generation, where the grandfathers/mothers were directly involved as adults, just with 1st hand information.

    EDIT

    As one can still see the underlying motive to put Nazism close to Socialism in this thread: You won't find serious experts, who actually sign "Nazism = form of Socialism".

    A pseudo-intellectual linkage of Nazism with Socialism is nowadays a trial of right wing conservatives and other right wingers, who dis-identify themselves with the far right Nazism or just Fascism in whole. The motive is to cut the linkage of right wing politics and politicians from fascists and facist regimes from the right position in the spectrum.

    And it is an appearance outside of Germany. Actually, i never heard of a conservative in Germany, which could be taken as at least halfway proper person with political knowledge, who claimed, Nationalsozialismus was a form of Socialism.

    In other words: Here, almost everybody knows, that Nationalsozialismus is part of a far right ideology (its most extreme), and Sozialismus is a clear left economical system, or social order, and politologically just taken as ideology - of the three major ideologies: Liberalism, Conservatism and Socialism. In the political spectrum of left-right, Nazism is on the far right, Socialism once on the far left, todays center-left.

    Putting Nazism and Socialism content-wise or ideologically next to each other is a malapropism or corruption of the according terms and ideologies, just because the term Nationalsozialismus contains "sozialismus", it is based on pseudo-intellectualism. There are even conservatives (politicians) today, who used such a link-bridge for modern Socialdemocracy (in Europe). If it was not a serious theme, it was ridiculous.

    That said, of course known, originally the Nationalsozialismus derives from nationalist and völkisch oriented movements from post WW1 (but roots in 19th c.), which partially adored forms of Socialism. Just as the according time suggested, post WW1. As the old order of 19th c. broke, it was the reaction of some reactionaries to bind conservatism, nationalism, racism with a pseudo-socialism ... the sole valid linkage of Nazism and Socialism, with the goal to appeal the masses. Much like Mussolini's Fascism did as well (a mix of kind of political modernism and old order authorianism). In so far, Fascism, likewise Nazism, were kind of socialrevolutionary movements. Nonetheless, both, the Italian Fascist and the German Nazi (and all other European* fascist) movements saw themselves as bullwark versus Socialism, versus Socialists and Communists, literally as their deadly enemy. In the NS regime, that pseudo-socialist arm, quasi carried by the SA (and especially Strasser as quasi ideologue), were entirely disempowered (as they did their job, sotospeak), because of conflict between their rulers and Hitler and his closest clique. The SS, the Gestapo aside to the German police and SD quasi replaced the SA.

    * maybe you are not aware, that quasi every european country had ultra-nationalist/fascist movements
    Last edited by DaVinci; August 11, 2020 at 07:51 PM.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  9. #9
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by DaVinci View Post
    Nazism is widely seen as a form of Fascism.
    Yes I gathered that much... And I don't buy it... And, until the folks at Wikipedia (and yes, I checked the 4 relevant notes) or someone/something else can actually properly explain and substantiate why we should categorize these two - clearly separate entities as the same - I will continue to view them as separate movements. Because that is the most rational thing to do given such circumstances (as I understand them). If these movements clearly have separate, different and distinct traits somehow - as I have already outlined and explained - they should be viewed as separate concepts, due to the fact. As simple as that.

    Let me also point out that to bunch up Nazism with fascism make as much sense as claiming that communism is supposedly a form of fascism - due to the many similarities they actually have. Its ridiculous, and it is oversimplifying things - to a fault. That said....

    Quote Originally Posted by DaVinci View Post
    As one can still see the underlying motive to put Nazism close to Socialism in this thread: You won't find serious experts, who actually sign "Nazism = form of Socialism".
    This is all on you... I have not made any such claims, and neither have Cyclops, I think. As far as I am concerned - socialism is a distinct and separate movement from Nazism, and that goes for fascism too btw. Personally, I think such a claim makes no sense because it is oversimplifying things to a fault (yet again). Sure there are similarities, but there is no question (in my mind) that these are still separate entities/movements (and should be viewed accordingly).

    - A

  10. #10
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    Yes I gathered that much... And I don't buy it... And, until the folks at Wikipedia (and yes, I checked the 4 relevant notes) or someone/something else can actually properly explain and substantiate why we should categorize these two - clearly separate entities as the same - I will continue to view them as separate movements. Because that is the most rational thing to do given such circumstances (as I understand them). If these movements clearly have separate, different and distinct traits somehow - as I have already outlined and explained - they should be viewed as separate concepts, due to the fact. As simple as that.

    Let me also point out that to bunch up Nazism with fascism make as much sense as claiming that communism is supposedly a form of fascism - due to the many similarities they actually have. Its ridiculous, and it is oversimplifying things - to a fault. That said....



    snip
    I'm sorry, your approach makes no sense to me. Since we discuss in this forum section with the trial to keep things halfway on a academical level (some at least try ). Let me give the example: A guy studies the political history of the 20th century at university. He decides to write his diploma or master thesis about the right extremist movements. He suggests the title "The Historical Fascism in Europe". Along your thinking, the guy would exclude the Nationalsozialism from his work. Which is, according to the most experts and writings in the field, the quasi highest form of fascism, "German Fascism", "Nazi Fascism". Do you believe, the guy would get one point from the judging profs? "Try once more" would be the judgement. And with this hint, your analysis here in this thread must be placated as well, because it is full of gaps, simplification and wrong interpretation.

    I must take it, that you didn't study deep enough the according matter. You can begin with 1919, that's where the German fascist movement started to become violent. And initially had nothing to do with the NSDAP and the SA brownshirts, because that appearance was first in the very early founding phase. Whereas contact existed with Hitler, and interestingly enough, those first open violent fascists carried swastikas on helmets. German fascism existed and but Hitler's movement brought it to the extreme. Btw., for Hitler and his clique, Mussolini's Fascism was the basic pattern.

    Because you probably see that much difference between Nationalsocialism (not Nazism! as said, that's rather an anglo-american term) and Fascism: Please make a kind of matrix, and filter out where they differ that much, that one must see them as completely separate from each other in the motives and outcomes, with the effect (along your approach), that Nationsalsozialism belongs not into the term (family) of Fascism.

    You can also dig in other countries (not just Italy and Germany). As said, almost every country had (and has) their fascist movements. I suggest, we should keep it with Europe of the 20th century, when looking at the history of Fascism (as modern fascism aka post-fascism is a theme of its own). And of course, there are differences. It would be highly illogical if there weren't differences (because of the specifics per country and its protagonists). Nonetheless, they are all put into the category "Fascism" or "Fascist movements", because of the core motives, aspects and properties.

    Would you also exclude the Soviet Communism (or Stalinism for that matter) from "Communism" in a book about Communism, or merely about the (real-)Communist regimes of the 20th century, because the Mao Communism (Maoism) was pretty different? Or the Pol Pot regime etc., etc.?
    Last edited by DaVinci; August 14, 2020 at 10:57 AM.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  11. #11
    Axalon's Avatar She-Hulk wills it!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sverige
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by DaVinci View Post
    I'm sorry, your approach makes no sense to me.
    I can see that...

    Quote Originally Posted by DaVinci View Post
    ... And with this hint, your analysis here in this thread must be placated as well, because it is full of gaps, simplification and wrong interpretation.
    Well, if you feel that way - by all means present your case here and I will have a look at it. Since you apparently have all the experts on your side - all this should be a cakewalk for you. Start by producing the supposedly compelling reasons, evidence and explanations that convinced all them experts (and you) that Nazism is indeed a form of fascism somehow - and especially why it is not something unique and distinct enough to deserve a category of its own. Make me a believer! And don't forget to explain and substantiate all my relevant "gaps, simplification and wrong interpretation", alright?

    As for me, I have already written enough stuff here to make my case plain and clear enough I think - for most people, even for you. I have explained some rather important differences and distinctions already, that should be enough (see previous posts). If in doubt, read my posts, again... And again, if you have too... And again, until you can see it...

    Well, the ball is yours...

    - A

  12. #12
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,065

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Fascism is a invention of the left and Mussolini was a nice guy, summarily executed by a communist. Franco was a great patriot who fought communists. Salazar was not fascist. Wait, who is the guy in the photo on the desk?



    -----
    1) Mussolini was a paradigm for Franco and Salazar
    2) Hitler was not socialist.

    Primary source. Hitler's views on socialism Hitler vs Strasser, The Historic Debate of May 21st and 22nd ...
    Hitler debated over two days with Otto Strasser in May 1930. Who was Otto Stratter? Strasserism - Wikipedia
    I wish you an insightful reading.A small excerpt,

    Hitler: “..With us, the Führer and the idea are one, and each member of the party must do what the Führer, who is the is the embodiment of the idea and the only one who knows the ultimate goal, commands.”

    Me: “Mister Hitler, your statements denote the Roman Papist vision of the world like Fascist Rome, and I can only respond with the words of Luther: Here I stand, I cannot help it! I must reaffirm that in my eyes, the idea, here the National Socialist idea, is essential, and that my conscience is ready to make a choice when it arises or the divide between the idea and the Führer increases.”

    Him: “Yes, we diverge here considerably. You bring us back to democracy, and democracy is dissolved. Our organization is founded on discipline, and I will not let it be dismembered by a handful of writers...”
    Him: “Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
    Hitler's flirtations with fascism, more here, Mussolini and Hitler: The Forging of the Fascist Alliance ...

    Last edited by Ludicus; August 15, 2020 at 05:55 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  13. #13
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Axalon View Post
    [SPOILER=Collectivism]

    ...All the same, this circumstance does not make Nazi-Germany a socialist state - nobody here have made any such claim. I certainly haven't. Nazism is (still) a distinct movement separate from both fascism and socialism due to its very own special mix of ideas, traits and elements, or so I would argue.

    - A
    That's clearer to me, thanks, and you argue a reasonable case. I do agree Nazism got crammed into the same category as Italian Fascism for the convenience of journalists (maybe a bit like the word blitzkrieg got used because it sounded cool not because it was accurate?), and I agree its not entirely the same thing. Maybe Strongmanism is a better term for the plague of 20th century illegal rule? Or Napoleonism?
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  14. #14
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,065

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    There are differences between fascism and nazism, two faces of the same coin,top down elitist ideologies.For Hitler, the racial aspect was crucial:"Every revolution is fundamentally racial. There are no social, political, or economic revolutions. Combat always opposes an inferior racial sub-stratum to a superior ruling race"
    But race was also a factor in Mussolini's policy.Mussolini combined anti-Semitism and racism to form the fascist racial policy ( see the anti-Semitic legislation of 1938 and the Italian racial laws (Le leggi per la difesa della razza)
    For those who understand Italian.Hmm, you really don't need to understand Italian, just watch the video.

    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  15. #15

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Fascism is a branch of revolutionary Marxism. Contemporary socialists typically deny the association between Mussolini's fascism, Hitlerism and socialism, but it was no coincidence that a variety of totalitarian, collectivist regimes and movements calling themselves "socialist" emerged at the end of the First World War.

    I expressed my thoughts on the matter more thoroughly here.



  16. #16
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    I agree they they do manifest some of the same basic traits. But I think the distinction is in where legitimacy is gained. Under a Marxist system, legitimacy stems from the collective, but under a fascist system, legitimacy stems from "whom ever earns the right". Effectively in practice, both systems (and any other variation or combination) manifest in similar ways.

    But I think the difference in where legitimacy is sourced (at least in theory) might explain why the two systems often came into conflict - their sources of legitimacy were in conflict. Even if the reality of their practice was similar. I think ultimately in practice, most variations of communism, Marxism, fascism all end up being about who ever earns the right, and use of the collective for both always became a tool for maintaining power, as with any other form of authoritarianism.

    The difference in the source of legitimacy also contributes as to why it's rare that a fascist government outlasts an individual leader, while Marxist governments at least have some staying power - thanks to the facade that everyone is in it together working for the betterment of all. Fascism seems to me to represent justification for collective mobilisation under strong-man rule, and the element of ongoing ad-hoc that this generates - it is inherently and purposely unstable.

    Although, in practice, as I said... differences can be cosmetic.
    Last edited by antaeus; August 17, 2020 at 08:19 AM. Reason: sneeze.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  17. #17
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Legitimacy in both cases stems from the state. The difference between a marxist system and national-socialist system is that in marxism the state is the workers, theoretically in reality it was run by a strongman, while in national-socialism and fascism the state is the nationality, in theory in reality it was run by a strongman. That's it. Everything else is the same or similar. Private enterprise was entirely subservient to the state. Private lives of citizens were meant to be subservient to the state. And if you look at it thoroughly there is no consistent difference between the treatment of gypsies or jews in fascist states and the treatment of the burgeois in communist states, with the caveat that marxism allows for bourgeois nationalities that are naturally opposed to the revolution such as romanians, ukrainians and baltics.

    Imho the systems came into conflict because they were two flavors of the same thing. Like Coca Cola vs Pepsi or Microsoft vs Apple, they were direct competitors for the leftist authoritarian vote.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; August 17, 2020 at 05:30 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  18. #18
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,958
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Fascism are usually considered to be right-wing, not left-wing. They fit the "authority and tradition" that characterizes the right wing more than the "reform and equality" of the left-wing.

    That's why the "Socialist" in "National Socialist German Worker's Party" doesn't refer to Marxist socialism. It was supposed to suggest fighting for the social welfare of the German people, or a societal movement. The Nazis and the Soviets were some of the most extreme authoritarians ever, but that's where the similarities end. The Nazis were ultimately unconcerned with economic policy compared to social and racial ones, while the Soviets were driven by a Marxist view of inequality and was almost totally concerned with economic policy to enforce their sense of equality. "Jewish Bolshevism" was a conspiracy theory propagated by the Nazis, so I doubt their mutual hatred was due to their similarities.
    Read the latest TWC Content and check out the Wiki!
    ---
    Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

  19. #19
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    Fascism are usually considered to be right-wing, not left-wing. They fit the "authority and tradition" that characterizes the right wing more than the "reform and equality" of the left-wing.

    That's why the "Socialist" in "National Socialist German Worker's Party" doesn't refer to Marxist socialism. It was supposed to suggest fighting for the social welfare of the German people, or a societal movement. The Nazis and the Soviets were some of the most extreme authoritarians ever, but that's where the similarities end. The Nazis were ultimately unconcerned with economic policy compared to social and racial ones, while the Soviets were driven by a Marxist view of inequality and was almost totally concerned with economic policy to enforce their sense of equality. "Jewish Bolshevism" was a conspiracy theory propagated by the Nazis, so I doubt their mutual hatred was due to their similarities.
    I think what people are starting to hint at, is that, the theoretical basis for each system becomes largely irrelevant in practice, as they all use the same tools to pool power in a small elite. The theoretical basis then becomes justification, or a source of legitimacy that may in fact have no real bearing on the actual practice in reality. Much like a medieval king claiming legitimacy from a godly anointment - when what really mattered was how much those in the king's inner circle stood to gain from the king's ongoing position. It's window dressing for totalitarianism that is completely ignored whenever need be (looking for Marx's opinions on modern China for example)
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  20. #20

    Default Re: Understanding Fascism

    While National-Socialism is definitely a type of socialism, the statement of the opposite is made mainly for political reasons, kinda why term "nazism" was invented in the first place as socialists didn't want to be associated with less popular branch of their own ideology.
    The two main counter-arguments are presence of private property and NSDAP's nationalism - which tend to ignore that pretty much every other socialist regime in history from USSR during Uljanov's NEP to modern-day communist China.
    Plenty of socialist regimes also have been highly nationalistic - especially in East Asia.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •