Understanding Fascism

[mishkin]

Checking out the fascist or pseudo-fascist regimes, I don't think they venerated the collective, unless by the collective you mean the idea of the nation or the fascist movement itself.

I think most people have a pretty good idea of what fascism means, although I admit that a lot of people on the left immediately label someone a fascist (or something as fascism) when they show any hint of ... any of the points indicated by Kritias. I suppose you can say that we are quite susceptible to anything that might sound like fascism.

[Kritias]

I don't think this list is entirely complete, or even accurate. What's missing is the quasi-religious veneration of the collective, in this case the state (which they have in common with socialists), and the way in which the fascist economy is organized.

Veneration of the state is a tactic more than a belief; but I could counter-argue this falls under tenet d. As for the organization of the fascist economy, there's actually no economic approach to fascism. Fascism is a social, not a primarily economic doctrine like socialism.

Well, that would be the result of a skewed world view (which has been promoted by the so-called "Left" and has now infected many on the "right" as well) in which "fascism" is synonymous with "stuff I don't like".

Ironic. The Right excels for decades in this "stuff I don't like = communism" skewed world view. Here are some examples for you: 1 2 3 4

I think most people have a pretty good idea of what fascism means, although I admit that a lot of people on the left immediately label someone a fascist (or something as fascism) when they show any hint of ... any of the points indicated by Kritias. I suppose you can say that we are quite susceptible to anything that might sound like fascism.

Is that really true though? Because all the people I've seen accused of being 'fascists' tick most of the boxes when they have been yapping about moral decline, how civilization is threatened by X social group, yada yada yada.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don't think this list is entirely complete, or even accurate. What's missing is the quasi-religious veneration of the collective, in this case the state (which they have in common with socialists), and the way in which the fascist economy is organized.

You’re correct, as the first paragraph of the Wiki article on Fascism as well as the dictionary definition shows. Rhetoric centered on moral decay brought about by the political left is, at best, a high level description of conservative political philosophy in general, not fascism. Even that, though, is not comprehensive, since a central theme of Marxist philosophy is the decadence, degeneracy and decay of capitalism will lead to total collapse as a consequence of the social and moral crises presented by excess capacity and mass unemployment. Ironically, the idea of production outpacing consumption is precisely the problem facing the communist growth model in China today.

[Kritias]

YouÂ’re correct, as the first paragraph of the Wiki article on Fascism as well as the dictionary definition shows. Rhetoric centered on moral decay brought about by the political left is, at best, a high level description of conservative political philosophy in general, not fascism. Even that, though, is not comprehensive, since a central theme of Marxist philosophy is the decadence, degeneracy and decay of capitalism will lead to total collapse as a consequence of the social and moral crises presented by excess capacity and mass unemployment. Ironically, the idea of production outpacing consumption is precisely the problem facing the communist growth model in China today.

You missed the point.

Moral panics have been the conservatives' way since ancient times. Just read anything of Cicero's and you'll see how often he complains about the moral degradation of the republic. Conservatives see moral decay but they generally attribute this to "the times", "luxury", "having it easy", "greed" and other vague points. Fascists use this talking point to score big with the conservatives. Historically they have been very successful in radicalizing conservative-minded individuals to their cause by this tactic.

Just thinking society has lost its way doesn't make you a fascist. But IF IN ADDITION to that, you also blame a very specific group(s) of people whom you hold responsible for KNOWINGLY acting in a way that furthers this moral decay, you think the only solution to this is to find a GREAT LEADER, and that what every citizen must do everything in their power to FOLLOW THE LEADER to go back to GREATNESS... Then, yeah. You're a fascist.

I didn't understand the connection between the decay of capitalism to moral degradation in society. What do you mean by that? And what does it have to do with what I was writing?

[Muizer]

I don't think this list is entirely complete, or even accurate. What's missing is the quasi-religious veneration of the collective, in this case the state (which they have in common with socialists), and the way in which the fascist economy is organized.

Consider a state lead by an all powerful leader at the apex of a hierarchical society with very little vertical mobility except for that afforded by inter-personal relations (cronyism, nepotism, clientelism). It could describe both a fascist and a communist regime. The difference is that the fascists would say this is the way things ought to be, whereas the communists would make excuses for it or try to hide it. This de facto similarity does not mean that there are no further differences without consequence or substance. To the people living under these regimes the differences matter greatly. As an example, just consider career opportunities for women.

As for the use of the word 'fascist' outside of the context of regimes, I would personally apply it to people who subject themselves voluntarily to hierarchical clubs that instill loyalty to 'higher causes' denoted by flags, emblems and similar symbols through oaths, honor codes, chants and other bonding rituals. This is pretty broad. It could be anything from armed militias to biker clubs to hardcore football fans, even religious orders I suppose. IMHO these are manifestations of a fascist mentality: To voluntarily relinquish your own personal agency, responsibility etc and put yourself in service of whoever is leading your club.

[antaeus]

As for the use of the word 'fascist' outside of the context of regimes, I would personally apply it to people who subject themselves voluntarily to hierarchical clubs that instill loyalty to 'higher causes' denoted by flags, emblems and similar symbols through oaths, honor codes, chants and other bonding rituals. This is pretty broad. It could be anything from armed militias to biker clubs to hardcore football fans, even religious orders I suppose. IMHO these are manifestations of a fascist mentality: To voluntarily relinquish your own personal agency, responsibility etc and put yourself in service of whoever is leading your club.

There's something interesting in here to tease out. I'm not sure what to put my finger on just yet.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who lead both fascist and communist movements, states etc (or gangs for that matter) are expressing the same personality traits, they're just taking the most convenient pathway available to them and that the pathway of choice is coincidental based on their individual circumstances.

And while there are all sorts of justifications for these causes, and they are important for those who believe in them, the belief structures again are a means to an end for the ambitious. A tool box of tricks to manifest legitimacy.

[Muizer]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who lead both fascist and communist movements, states etc (or gangs for that matter) are expressing the same personality traits, they're just taking the most convenient pathway available to them and that the pathway of choice is coincidental based on their individual circumstances.And while there are all sorts of justifications for these causes, and they are important for those who believe in them, the belief structures again are a means to an end for the ambitious. A tool box of tricks to manifest legitimacy.

Well, the hiearchy of clientelism is both the means and the end of the fascist state. There are recurring nationalistic, ethnocentric and religious themes in the fascist rhetoric, but in the end their yardstick is loyalty. You do not get to argue with your patrons about what it means to be nationalistic, because it is whatever they say it is. To betray your leader is to betray your country.

Communist regimes cannot be like this. Communism involves formulating party ideology and policies and so, as flawed and corrupted as those regimes may seem to us, they are not entirely without public accountability.

[Kritias]

As for the use of the word 'fascist' outside of the context of regimes, I would personally apply it to people who subject themselves voluntarily to hierarchical clubs that instill loyalty to 'higher causes' denoted by flags, emblems and similar symbols through oaths, honor codes, chants and other bonding rituals. This is pretty broad. It could be anything from armed militias to biker clubs to hardcore football fans, even religious orders I suppose. IMHO these are manifestations of a fascist mentality: To voluntarily relinquish your own personal agency, responsibility etc and put yourself in service of whoever is leading your club.

I don't agree with this. Fascism goes way further than being a football hooligan, a hell's angel or singing the national anthem before a game of basketball (for Americans, we don't do this in Europe). Fascism grinds down personalities until the person is the manifestation of the state which can never be weak or wrong, regardless of reality. A hooligan can obsess over their team and still think they are garbage on the pitch; a fascist will never think fascism can do wrong. When they see the historical examples, they see a job well done and dream to have the power to continue it.

The communists on the other hand have distanced themselves from U.S.S.R as early as early 1930s when Trotsky wrote "The Betrayed Revolution" and laid bare all the shortcomings of Stalinism. In fact I have never heard a communist defend the USSR aside to note the importance of their fight against Nazism, and argue against glaring historical inaccuracies of the post-USSR literature.

The main difference between the two ideologies couldn't be more contrasting. Fascists really aimed to do what they did during WW2; and they are really defending the "necessity" of what they did. Their whole ideology revolves around genocide. One could even argue, like Jordan Peterson does in one of his lectures, that the war was a front for committing said genocide.

[Sir Adrian]

Kiritas is right. Fascism is the idea that the state reigns supreme and everyone and everything exists to be of service to the state. Much like communism, it reprograms the individual down at the most basic level until there is only the state and the state is perfect.

The communists on the other hand have distanced themselves from U.S.S.R as early as early 1930s when Trotsky wrote "The Betrayed Revolution" and laid bare all the shortcomings of Stalinism. In fact I have never heard a communist defend the USSR aside to note the importance of their fight against Nazism, and argue against glaring historical inaccuracies of the post-USSR literature.

The main difference between the two ideologies couldn't be more contrasting. Fascists really aimed to do what they did during WW2; and they are really defending the "necessity" of what they did. Their whole ideology revolves around genocide. One could even argue, like Jordan Peterson does in one of his lectures, that the war was a front for committing said genocide.

Then you have never heard a communist. Gheorghe Gehroghiu-Dej, petru Groza, Janos Kadar, Campeanu, whatshisname from Bulgaria, Iliescu, and many many others praised the soviet union often and loudly as the model all countries should follow. Until the 1968 Stalin was known as the father of nations and the Stalinist model was literally talked of as utopia in our century. Every single class at school and every single public event started with praises to marx, Lenin, Stalin, Ceausescu and whoever led the soviet union.

Not only did the communists praise the soviet union long and hard but they did so without the soviets even requiring it. The outside reactions to Gorby's reforms were extremely venomous, with Ceuasescu accusing him of betraying the great soviet ideal.

[antaeus]

Kiritas is right. Fascism is the idea that the state reigns supreme and everyone and everything exists to be of service to the state. Much like communism, it reprograms the individual down at the most basic level until there is only the state and the state is perfect.

Ultimately, it is all about where legitimacy is sourced from.

The reason why most vaguely fascist states fail, is because for all the talk of it being a system of subservience to the state, what it means by state, is usually manifest in the person who is the head of state. This person is the regime - Rather than the system itself. Legitimacy comes not from the state, but from the system of clientelism that raises an individual to the head of state. The same system ensures that when the head of state is no longer capable of being this (e.g. they die or they simply don't play the clientelism game as well as a subordinate does), that chaos will ensue as the façade of legitimate state systems fall away and reveals the real source of legitimacy - individual relationships.

In Communism on the other, as Muizer suggests above, legitimacy stems not from an individual, but as a matter of ideology. And is manifested through some form of council or election process. In practice, clientelism functions just as well within an ideological framework, and many communist states end up being pseudo fascist dictatorships that also fail when the grand leader does. But there is more potential for long term stability in a system that gains at least some legitimacy from an ideology that recommends a process of leadership, rather than a person who takes leadership.

In practice, As I mentioned above, my argument is that both systems tend to end up as being handy toolkits for exactly the same sorts of ambitious sociopaths to gain power, and once in power, keep them there. Visual displays aside, absolute communist leaders have no functional differences in practicing leadership to absolute monarchs, fascist or any other military dictators - they all end up as personal rule by dictate. They can all change state policy on a whim. This leads to the similarities being what fascinate me - rather than the differences.

[Muizer]

I don't agree with this. Fascism goes way further than being a football hooligan, a hell's angel or singing the national anthem before a game of basketball (for Americans, we don't do this in Europe). Fascism grinds down personalities until the person is the manifestation of the state which can never be weak or wrong, regardless of reality. A hooligan can obsess over their team and still think they are garbage on the pitch; a fascist will never think fascism can do wrong. When they see the historical examples, they see a job well done and dream to have the power to continue it

If you do not agree with me, that is fair enough, but do me the courtesy of providing relevant arguments. I made a distinction between a fascist mentality and how it may manifest outside of regimes (that is not at the state level) and a fascist state. IMHO it would be an immense mistake to view Fascism as a state ideology. Ideological qualifications of fascist regimes are IMHO mostly post-hoc (because in practice they are chosen opportunistically). Unlike is the case for communism, the core characteristic of fascism is not any statist ideal that can be abstracted from the way it is implemented. It is the nature of the implementation, the structure of clientelism that establishes a hierarchy through which the great leader and his clique can rule their subjects. I would definitely rank South American military dictatorships under the header 'fascist', for instance. Try to meaningfully abstract any ideology form their power structure and see what you're left with.

[Kritias]

If you do not agree with me, that is fair enough, but do me the courtesy of providing relevant arguments. I made a distinction between a fascist mentality and how it may manifest outside of regimes (that is not at the state level) and a fascist state. IMHO it would be an immense mistake to view Fascism as a state ideology. Ideological qualifications of fascist regimes are IMHO mostly post-hoc (because in practice they are chosen opportunistically). Unlike is the case for communism, the core characteristic of fascism is not any statist ideal that can be abstracted from the way it is implemented. It is the nature of the implementation, the structure of clientelism that establishes a hierarchy through which the great leader and his clique can rule their subjects. I would definitely rank South American military dictatorships under the header 'fascist', for instance. Try to meaningfully abstract any ideology form their power structure and see what you're left with.

I disagree, and here's why. The ideological qualifications can be chosen post-hoc as you say (depending on the specific needs of the new regime) but there's always the same five tenets which I write in a previous post; there's always some historical reference point of greatness, an internal enemy(-ies), and a moral panic to polarize the masses under the Great Leader. Clientelism isn't only a feature of authoritarian regimes; there's thousands of cases where clientelism is the deep modus operandi of capitalism. These last four years Trump and his cronies exhibited just how well capitalism and clientelism can go hand in hand. So, even though clientism is very prevalent in fascist regimes, I don't think that it's is power structure.

I believe that fascism is a statist ideology; the kind of ideology that puts the state in the service of private interests - in early 1930s, the Nazis sold off all public ownership shares in steel, shipyards, mining, banking, public utilities, railways etc. Nazi Germany privatized its assets as soon as the government was in place, and kept on privatizing everything throughout the war. Just a little something for those who believe the Nazis were socialists. Mussolini equally privatized all state monopolies from 1922 to 1925. The trend of fascists taking power and using that power to sell off anything owned by the state to private interests can be seen anywhere fascist regimes have been installed.

Simply put, the power structure of fascism is unbridled capitalism on steroids.

[Ludicus]

. Much like communism, it reprograms the individual down at the most basic level until there is only the state and the state is perfect... Until the 1968... the Stalinist model was literally talked of as utopia in our century

Monolitism is not socialist. It was born in 1903, when Lenin imposed "democratic centralism" on the London Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party. The concept against which socialists have always fought, from Martov, through Léon Blum's rupture with the Communist International, to the Portuguese Socialist 's fight against Stalinism.
On a separate note, I think that freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. I also think that political careerism coexists badly with the freedom to think.

[Muizer]

I disagree, and here's why. The ideological qualifications can be chosen post-hoc as you say (depending on the specific needs of the new regime) but there's always the same five tenets which I write in a previous post; there's always some historical reference point of greatness, an internal enemy(-ies), and a moral panic to polarize the masses under the Great Leader.

I think you are missing my point here, which is that by being chosen opportunistically and post-hoc to suit the wants and needs of the regime, they do not form an operational independent ideological point of reference. Nobody could hold Mussolini to account for failing to faithfully emulating ancient Rome. It was entirely up to him to decide whatever he wanted that to mean.

Clientelism isn't only a feature of authoritarian regimes; there's thousands of cases where clientelism is the deep modus operandi of capitalism. These last four years Trump and his cronies exhibited just how well capitalism and clientelism can go hand in hand. So, even though clientism is very prevalent in fascist regimes, I don't think that it's is power structure.

The difference is that in fascist regimes, clientelism is pervasive to the point of being unavoidable, from the top to the very bottom of society.

I believe that fascism is a statist ideology; the kind of ideology that puts the state in the service of private interests - in early 1930s, the Nazis sold off all public ownership shares in steel, shipyards, mining, banking, public utilities, railways etc. Nazi Germany privatized its assets as soon as the government was in place, and kept on privatizing everything throughout the war. Just a little something for those who believe the Nazis were socialists. Mussolini equally privatized all state monopolies from 1922 to 1925. The trend of fascists taking power and using that power to sell off anything owned by the state to private interests can be seen anywhere fascist regimes have been installed. Simply put, the power structure of fascism is unbridled capitalism on steroids.

Of course selling of publicly owned resources to private parties makes perfect sense from a fascist perspective. It means that those resources, formerly at the mercy of the whims of bureaucrats, are now controlled by your personal clients. As long as you have the powers of the state at your disposal to enforce their loyalty, that is cementing your power, not a move towards a free market.

[Cyclops]

I don't think the Fascist and Nazi privatisation of state assets was an ideological move, more of an opportunist tactic to satisfy collaborators. Did quasi-Fascists in Iberia nationalise state assets too?

The focus on the army was more ideological, as instruments of conquest to "restore" an imaginary past to present reality, but that didn't stop Fascists and Nazis from having paramilitary arms too.

I don't think Nazism was any more capitalist than it was communist, its violent and opportunist, and actually not very intellectual at all. Given they positioned themselves as the parties of "anti-communism" (another movement with a mission to rewrite history) they attracted support from capitalist and conservative factions so they had to offer those factions sops like privatisation.

[Ludicus]

someone is at home right now struggling to adapt that diagnosis to a leftist he knows and to be able to say "they are the new fascists"

Ah, yes... it occurred to me the life and story of Primo Levi. In 1943, Primo Levi joined the Fratelli Rosseli batallion of the Action Party, a liberal-socialist party. It's program insisted on the abolition of monarchy, Italy was to be a democratic republic based on Socialist principles, the nationalization of major industries, land reform, worker’s rights management in sharing profits, and an European union of free and independent states.
The Italian Auschwitz survivor observed, in a 1974 essay,

Every age has its own fascism. There are many ways of reaching this point, and not just through the terror of police intimidation, but by denying and distorting information, by undermining systems of justice, by paralyzing the education system, and by spreading in a myriad subtle ways nostalgia for a world where order reigned

Primo Levi also sensed that the fascism...

....was every far from being dead; it was only hidden, encysted. It was keeping quiet, to reappear later under a new guise, a little less recognizable, a bit more respectable, better adapted to the new world that had issued from the catastrophe of World War II which fascism itself had provoked

Well, that rings a bell?

Did quasi-Fascists in Iberia nationalise state assets too?

Not at all. You’re quite right.
Here, under the old regime, Portugal's private sector was dominated by some forty great families. This film portrays the State protection to families that dominated the country's economy, their strategies for power and wealth accumulation. "Owners of Portugal" is a documentary about one hundred years of economic power.Do you imagine yourself going through an economics newspaper, of a distant future, say like...2150? its hard to imagine what you would find. You can’t guess the newspaper’s format, let alone the key players in the facts. Well imagine that one of your ancestors,reader of the 19th century business chronicles,would return to Lisbon to continue his readings. Wouldn’t he be amazed to find the same names from the big families...will they still be there in 2150?
Documentary, Owners of Portugal (english subtitles) on Vimeo

[Kritias]

I think you are missing my point here, which is that by being chosen opportunistically and post-hoc to suit the wants and needs of the regime, they do not form an operational independent ideological point of reference. Nobody could hold Mussolini to account for failing to faithfully emulating ancient Rome. It was entirely up to him to decide whatever he wanted that to mean.

Aside the fact that by 'no operational independent ideological point of reference' you're basically describing modern politics in general (how can you objectively measure Obama's "change", Trump's "greatness" or Biden's "unity" in an objective non-partisan way?), the fascists in the 30s were very specific about their policies and what their successful implementation meant for them. When the Nazis were talking about "living space" it always meant invading Eastern Europe and ultimately the USSR. Hitler referred to this goal in his book and most of his speeches. Similarly, when Mussolini spoke of reviving the Roman Empire and making the Mediterranean the new "Mare Nostrum", his foreign policies followed that idea: control the Adriatic and Eastern Mediterranean by invading/controlling Albania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Libya and Egypt. All places he attempted to control.

The difference is that in fascist regimes, clientelism is pervasive to the point of being unavoidable, from the top to the very bottom of society.

Robert K. Merton writing about latent functions in capitalism pointed out how clientelism (he refers to it as bossism as the term was known at the time) permeates the entirety of US society in 1950s. The same found in the Yankee City series by Lloyd Werner during the 30s. Clientelism is a feature of capitalism; it so happens it carries well into fascism as well.

Of course selling of publicly owned resources to private parties makes perfect sense from a fascist perspective. It means that those resources, formerly at the mercy of the whims of bureaucrats, are now controlled by your personal clients. As long as you have the powers of the state at your disposal to enforce their loyalty, that is cementing your power, not a move towards a free market.

Well, most historians agree that in the case of Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria etc it was the capitalists who actually promoted and installed fascist governments and then used the power of the state to make the big bucks. Maybe you should read on the follow up trials of Nuremberg in 1946, where the Axis economic criminals were tried. Or you could see the documentary Fascism, Incorporated.

[Ludicus]

Clientelism is a feature of capitalism; it so happens it carries well into fascism as well

As painfully demonstrated in the above video.
-------

When the Nazis were talking about "living space" it always meant invading Eastern Europe and ultimately the USSR. Hitler referred to this goal in his book and most of his speeches. Similarly, when Mussolini spoke of reviving the Roman Empire and making the Mediterranean the new "Mare Nostrum", his foreign policies followed that idea: control the Adriatic and Eastern Mediterranean by invading/controlling Albania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Libya and Egypt. All places he attempted to control.

That's what history teaches us.
Fascist expansionism: between ideological visions and foreign policy-making: a study of territorial expansion in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany
KallisAA_1999redux.pdf (73.89Mb)

(...) From the viewpoint of the two fascist leaders, the Second World War was eventually fought with the determination to promote their long -term expansionist visions and to unify reality with utopia. The choice of war was consistent with fascism's ideological penchant for constant struggle, their sense of historic mission to advance a revolutionary international "new order ", and their radicalised objectives and methods in the second half of the 1930s. Mussolini's guerra parallela in north Africa and the Balkans in autumn 1940 originated from a commitment to a large - scale, long conflict which would dramatically reconfigure the balance of power in the Mediterranean region and would attain Italy's centuries -long dream of a mare nostrum. Hitler's decision to launch Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 was conceived as a total campaign of annihilation in an ultimate attempt to reclaim Germany's "historic Lebensraum" and to eradicate the Bolshevik- Jewish element from Europe. Both these decisions transformed the conflict from a conventional strategic struggle for limited political objectives into a war of far- reaching ideological ambitions and transcendental historic significance for the two regimes and the future of fascism.