Fascism solves problems in a direct, if unimaginative, fashion: by pretending they are not there. — Banno

I would say in the past issues were projected as having causes separate from their actual causes. Germans thought their sorry state of affairs was due to the outcome of WWI, Italians believed that corruption (I think?) was dragging the country down.

(Y)

Insightful essay on Facism on Aeon. It points out that during the 1930's - before WWII - the appeal of fascism was that it offered employment, growth and hope to millions of people who had been severely traumatized in the aftermath of WWI and the Depression:

...for most Italians, Germans and other European fascists, the appeal was based not on racism, much less ethnic cleansing, but on the fascists’ ability to respond effectively to crises of capitalism when other political actors were not. Fascists insisted that states could and should control capitalism, that the state should and could promote social welfare, and that national communities needed to be cultivated. The fascist solution ultimately was, of course, worse than the problem.

More here.

what's wrong with fascism? — Question

Many things, but I'll mention two: anti-intellectualism and violence. WW1 and socio-economical unrest pushed people to embrace fascism. But where did fascism come from? The ideas of the ideology didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere: they have a history, and they appear elsewhere too, in philosophy even.

The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin de siècle theme of that time. The theme was based on a revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society and democracy. The fin-de-siècle generation supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism and vitalism. The fin-de-siècle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution. The fin-de-siècle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals. They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society. — Wikipedia

The ideas of the ideology didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere: they have a history — jkop

This is true. For instance, National Socialist ideas had a history. Eugenics, for example, wasn't invented solely in Nazi Germany. The US and UK both had a eugenics movement which was a part of the progressive platform. Antisemitism, of course, wasn't invented by Hitler (but it was implemented with a hitherto unprecedented severity and extremity). Hitler wasn't the first ruler to think of expanding territory at his neighbors expense.

On a Marxist note, 20th century fascism was implemented using the means of production at hand--electronic communication, industrialized production, and much improved data processing facilities (like Hollerith punch cards and fast punch card readers and sorters). In an earlier time it would have been far more difficult and time consuming for fascism to organize itself. Germany and Italy got their fascist act together with stunning rapidity.

Germany and Italy got their fascist act together with stunning rapidity. — Bitter Crank

Well, Germany, in particular, because they had lots of Germans to implement it. X-)

Low-blow!

I was only referring to their legendary efficiency and organisational ability. I don't mean that there's anything intrinsically fascist about Germany - it would apply to almost anything you wanted to organise. Why do you think they've gone from defeat in WW2 to the dominant economic power of Europe?

Oh, well then look at Japan for the matter. Nothing unique of Germans. I wonder why Japan became part of the axis circa WWII?

It is worthwhile to observe that the vast majority of national governments in human history have not been democratic.

What do you mean to say by that?

Surely, democracy would tell us something about that.

I mean that the vast majority of governments in human history have not been democratic. If that observation makes us uncomfortable, perhaps we should ask why.

Were Mussolini's theories as quoted here all that far from the reality fascism?

I want to be clear that I, personally, have very little knowledge of fascist-era Italy, but, according to Paxton, the answer is yes.

The composite nature of Fascist rule in Italy was even more flagrant [than the composite nature of Fascist rule in Germany.] The historian Gaetano Salvemimi, home from exile, recalled the 'dualistic dictatorship' of Duce and King. Alberto Aquarone, the preeminent scholar of the Fascist state, emphasized the 'centrifugal force' and 'tensions' Mussolini confronted in a regime that still, "fiteen years after the March on Rome," had "many features derived directly from the Liberal State." The prominent German scholars of Italian Fascism Wolfgang Schieder and Jens Petersen speak of the "opposing forces" and "counter-weights"...Even Emilio Gentiles, most eager to demonstrate the power and success of the totalitarian impulse in Fascist Italy, concedes that the regime was a 'composite' reality in which Mussolini's "ambitions of personal power" struggled in "constant tension" with both "traditional forces" and "Fascist Party intransigents," themselves divided by "muffled conflict" among factions. — Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism, p. 120)

All of which is to say that the hyper-unified state Mussolini waxes ecstatic about in the text Street quoted was, at best, a kind of regulative ideal, something to work toward and, at worst, an utter politcal-rhetorical fiction. (In truth, it was probably somewhere between the two.)

Thinking about difference between socialism and fascism.

Socialism treats all men as equal, Marx's notion is not about equality per se, he says

"To each according to his contribution" and "from each according to their ability; to each according to their needs"

Fascism is all about the state. Men are not equal, their role in society is given to them by the state, the motherland. The state is an 'organic' whole (see interesting note about historic German geostrategy here) which is not totalitarian. Men's roles in such a society are similar to the role of a man as part of a medieval trade guild, at least as I understand it.

Autocracies are very efficient, as long as the government is honest. But this cannot work for long, because human greed for power, wealth and fame, has a high tendency to take over the process. Communism and dictatorships provide vivid examples of this principle throughout the history. Democracy functions in relatively clumsy and slow motion, but the fact that its governance is much more in tune with all the citizens' well being, keeps it away from extreme tyrannies. ‘The rule that rules the least is the best’. Until some one comes up with more benevolent form of government, democracy is the best deal we have. If we can keep our government from meddling too much in our economy, we can have more effective democracy. As we have laws to restrain our emotions of violence, if we can find a way to restrain extreme greed, we can achieve much more progress and happiness. We need to make the wealth distribution more just.

If we can keep our government from meddling too much in our economy — Ashwin Poonawala

if we can find a way to restrain extreme greed — Ashwin Poonawala

We need to make the wealth distribution more just — Ashwin Poonawala

We can make the distribution of wealth more just, and greed can be restrained (not eliminated). But it will require government meddling in the economy. Tax law has aided and abetted the maldistribution of wealth and tax law will need to be changed to amend the maldistribution of wealth.

In the first place, business benefits a great deal from government meddling --

establishing fair trade practices
regulating trade (rationalizing it)
establishing something like a sort-of-level field
regulating competition
providing protection from foreign interference
providing essential infrastructure (ports, railroads, canals, airports, highways, etc.)

and so on. As Marx put it, "The government is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie.

One way to get at fascist values (as opposed to socialist values, or capitalist values, or democratic values...) is to taste the aesthetics of a regime. What do the uniforms look like? What style of march-step is used by the troops on parade? What sort of theatrics surround official events?

Perhaps there was something just "German" or Northwestern European about the torchlight parades at Nuremberg, presided over by Herr Hitler; maybe it wasn't all fascist. Germanic and Scandinavian people seem to like bonfires and nighttime rituals. It's difficult to imagine a Nuremberg kind of event in Washington. Similarly, I can't quite see British troops goose-stepping in front of the Queen.

Marches have a lot in common wherever they are written, but the Germans excelled at it. What does a movement's flag look like?

upper, Italian Fascist Party flag (the 'thing' on the flag is the 'fasces" -- a bundle and an axe)



The Nazi flag was red, black, and white, with the swastika. Is there something more threatening about red, black, and white than green, white and orange? Or red, white, and blue? Or red and yellow?

Red, white, and blue, of course, isn't exactly a Quaker color combination. Lots of military adventures have been undertaken under those colors.

How about the totenkopf on SS uniforms? (The SS wasn't the first to use the death head.)

Don't forget how much the futurists (and other avant-gardists) loved italian fascism!

Items 7-9 of the futurist manifesto:

7.Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.

8.We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.

9.We want to glorify war — the only cure for the world — militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman. — Marinetti

Marinetti — csalisbury

G r i m.

I think the structural problem that fascism has is it's totalitarian ideology, the totalitarian approach, which makes it prone to cronyism, corruption, repression and violence. Any political system that doesn't allow opposing views to at least to give them a say will end up as a very harmful system. Corruption will be rampant as the top-down model will not work in a complex society. If the extremely important safety valve of democracy doesn't exist, then the whole thing will fail sooner or later.

Germans seem to have cultural knack for order & efficiency, and the Italians a flair for design. [which do you think is more likely to get you laid, driving: a Porsche vs a Lamborghini, a Mercedes vs a Ferrari, a VW vs an Alfa Romeo?]. Germans & Italian fascists both shared a fascination for the color black.

Any political system that doesn't allow opposing views to at least to give them a say will end up as a very harmful system

Pax romana lasted approximately 206 years, the longest period of relative peace the Western world has yet experienced was achieved under totalitarian rule. How is rule by the mob better than rule by the boss?

I'll reduce fascism to its core: unity through force, instead of free association.
I felt the need to say this much, even though the thread can be considered as good as dead.

Maybe the former conservatives have begun to congeal into a FASCIST GLOB?

From what I've been reading (comparative fascism) doctrine is unimportant. Fascism is more about method and style than content. There usually is content somewhere, but it doesn't have to be an organizing principle. Opportunistically stroking resentments, prejudices, patriotism, religious atavism, militarism, poverty, and so on and doing so inconsistently even, can be a winning strategy. It doesn't matter what so much as how.

I don't think The USA is headed towards fascism, but that doesn't mean that someone won't try. Our method of governing (checks and balances, a 2 wingéd political party that pretty much monopolizes power, pretty much fixed periods between elections, etc) doesn't allow a whole lot of room for an upstart fascist party to acquire much power.

Fascism usually governs by dictatorship, but it isn't altogether required. The terror of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, labor suppression (post WWI), McCarthyism, and the suppression of labor's capacity to organize and exercise power (current) all took place within a regularly elected political system. The KKK was the closest we came to developing a proper fascist movement.

Moreover, it isn't necessarily the case that most of the population would be miserable under fascism if we had it. Some people would be, (make up your own list) but most people would probably find that things were, you know, OK. Meyer's study of working class German attitudes toward life under the Third Reich was that many people thought it was just fine -- well, except for the bombing they had to put up with and of course there weren't many Jews to include in the study.

Is Trump a FASCIST GLOBLET? He's certainly inconsistent in a number of ways, and appears to be opportunistic. He has a following who seem to not care what he does. They like his style of doing it. "Trump fucked us, but he did it with such panache--who can hold it against him? Fuck us again!"

I don't know whether Trump is a fascist globlet, but he could be a successful fascist yet. There is no formulae for fascists to get into power -- all they have to do is find a way. He is already in a very good position to do even worse and more inconsistent things. Stay tuned. — Bitter Crank

(@Bitter Crank, saw your comments here, so thought this thread is currently relevant and could use a bump. (Or maybe not, who knows!)

Good points about Trump riding the ragged edge of fascism. Even many of his supporters would say so. They might respond to any such accusations with a reply like “you say fascism like it’s a BAD thing! This is the NEW AND IMPROVED FASCISM. Now with WIFI and 30% less brutal violence!”

When I hear that word “fascism” the first word association for me is the word “power”. That comes from the whole Roman leader bundle of rods association. The concept that there is strength through the unity of the rods, seems more utilitarian than egalitarian (ie. we get to be “another brick in the wall”). The connotations of fascism are also the related concept of some mutant type of social Darwinism (In the jungle, might makes right for the survival of the fittest). Fascism seems to focus on the basic factors (brute force?) of society/civilization. All else above a certain frequency is cut, like some kind of YouTube compression algorithm. Because they would claim that all that fancy stuff (art, politeness, comparative religion, even certain scientific research) is distracting, effeminate, unproven, inefficient, and most of all... a waste of taxpayers money, folks! (that tired refrain)...

Some questions that occurs to me (and don’t have a definitive answer for):
Is (one type or another of) fascism the unavoidable destination or end result of Capitalism?
Or is it at least so in “our” Capitalism in the current world situation?

So, what's wrong with fascism? — Posty McPostface

If you ask this question again, we'll immediately take you outside, push you up against the wall and shoot you. What the heck, your family too, bullets are cheap.

If you ask this question again, we'll immediately take you outside, push you up against the wall and shoot you. What the heck, your family too, bullets are cheap. — Jake

I see what you did there. Irony.... erm, at least I hope it is! :sweat:

There is nothing wrong with fascism, if it is done right!

What did Zizek say about the Nazi's; the problem with them, was not that they went too far, but rather that 'they did not go far enough'. I think what he meant was, that they did not go the philosophical distance that would have allowed them to 'hate the hatred'.

Of course he is being his usual inflammatory self here, but there are things that should be hated, and fascism is the perfect vehicle for directed hatred. For example unless the world becomes ecologically and environmentally fascist, very very soon. There is a good argument that asserts that we are all doomed as a consequence of the democratic and capitalist 'ownership' of the current environmental 'issue'.

Arguably democratic-capitalism, contains its own fascism. It has its own built in set of edicts... fashion, materialism, pointless accumulation of material superfluity, both parents, to be working, status anxiety... and so on and on.

If one considers how capitalism has perverted 'women's rights' and has them working AND being mothers, one can see how democracy is just as fascist as fascism. If one considers the genocide that is effected by consumption and materialism: obesity, drug use, diabetes, suicide etc,... democracy arguably and observably contains more 'fascism' and more genocide than the Nazi's could have dreamed of. It (democracy/capitalism) also contains the potential for the end of humanity through ongoing ecological collapse.

Bring on the evolution of a 'new' and better Fascism (perhaps thats what Trump represents)... Any philosophers out there willing to start a club and get the ball rolling?


M

I see what you did there. Irony. — 0 thru 9

You dare accuse President Jake of irony??? To the gallows with you!!!

If there's a version of 'fascism' that's applicable to the US, I'd call it 'economic fascism'. Thoughts, not a very popular neologism?

Basically, it's the epitome of what Chomsky has been berating for the past X years.

I always thought fascism was socialism taken to the extreme. — Posty McPostface

Funny, that. :wink: I always thought that socialism was a left-wing political movement, while fascism exists at the other, right-wing, end of the political spectrum. But I also think that socialism is a mainstream view, like, say, capitalism. While fascism is a more extreme position. There are extreme left-wing positions too, of course, but does socialism describe them? I don't think so.

The extremes of political opinion seem to be authoritarian, each in their own way. They constrain the individual to act as a member of the pack, and follow their rules. This is their main failure: to neglect the necessary balance that must be found between the individual and the society they belong to. All workable (left- and right-wing) political movements achieve a balance of this kind. The extreme ones substitute authority for freedom, sometimes even when freedom would not oppose the views of the ruling, er, dictators.

Just my two pennyworth. :smile:

I always thought that socialism was a left-wing political movement, while fascism exists at the other, right-wing, end of the political spectrum. — Pattern-chaser

Well, yes. But, fascism is national socialism. So, logical conclusion? Maybe, maybe not.

Just my two pennyworth. — Pattern-chaser

Penny's are welcome. :_)