"Fascism" isn't ancient. It was invented in Italy in the early part of the 20th Century. Hitler "co-discovered" fascism along with Mussolini. The Nazis didn't "pervert" fascism, they were practicing it. However, genocide is not an essential feature of fascism.

My understanding is that the trains didn't run any more 'on time' in Italy when Mussolini was in power than when he wasn't in power.

If by fascism you mean authoritarian government operating a command economy, it doesn't appear that the fascist economy is far more productive than any other, and maybe less so. Authoritarian governments do tend to get their way within their own borders, and if their objectives have any merit, they tend to be achieved. But at what cost? Mussolini carried out a fairly extensive urban renewal project in Rome (employing some early midcentury modern style) which was fairly good, by standards of the day.

What is wrong with fascism is that it is authoritarian, dictatorial, intensely nationalistic (or ethnically focused) and militaristic. Pig-headed, in other words. It tends to create the social circumstances that encourage authoritarian, violent behavior among followers. It tends to idolize the strong male figure in the form of a ruling general.

Obviously when I say "fascism" I have in mind something very different from what the Nazis perverted into their own ideology.

Obviously? Most scholars take Nazism to be an exemplary case of 'Fascism.' What do you mean when you say fascism?

I've been told it's the most efficient form of government and most productive of all possible. — Question

Who told you that and what kind of tattoos did he have?

Obviously when I say "fascism" I have in mind something very different from what the Nazis perverted into their own ideology. — Question

Maybe you better make clear what that is. Which fascist regimes would fall under your definition? And since radical nationalism, aggression and human rights abuses are part and parcel of fascism, how was the Nazis employment of it in principle perverse?

[Cross-posted with csal]

That's enough to persuade me.

Just needed someone else to give me some idea what they think.

@casl & Baden

I always thought fascism was socialism taken to the extreme. The most efficient use of public funds has always been in my understanding spent through infrastructure and the military along with 'taking care of the population'.

I've been reading Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism with an old friend, largely in order to appraise contemporary sounds of alarm.

I'm still less than halfway through it, but my impression is that, in Paxton's view, 'fascism' is something that flourishes by exploiting blind-spots in the State. It sets up de-facto mini-governments and police forces in order to garner the support of marginalized folk. A 'fascist' organization makes a name for itself, first, by violently maintaining order in places beyond the scope of a limited state. Then, having gained recognition, the organization (and/or its leaders) begin to cut political deals with the establishment, slowly getting their foot in the door. It comes closer to the mainstream while keeping its alternate force in reserve.

What makes fascism feasible, then, is that it is capable of providing an alternative state to those marginal regions and groups who fall through the bureaucratic gaps. But its weakness is that it wants to remain that kind of alternative state, even while in power. It has to maintain a sense of being a movement separate from the state, even when it is the state.

Fascism's roots do, indeed, lie in socialism (as well as nationalism, militarism, futurism). It wants to be a radical, unified, overthrowing, restoring movement. But it also wants to be in power. And that doesn't really work (unless you have a war deferring the realization of that essential contradiction.)

One way to look at fascism is as a movement that wants to make Mobilization, a necessarily provisional state of affairs, something permanent.

"Nazi" is short for "National Socialist' (Nationalsozialismus). There were, initially, some socialist features in the Nazi program,, but they were fairly rapidly lost.

"Socialism" used properly is a form of economic democracy. The workers -- the great majority of the people -- run the economy. Can democracy be carried too far? I suppose it can; then one would end up with a kind of anarchic society. That might work on a small scale, for hundreds of people. Millions? probably not.

The Nazi state intended to take care of the general population, and initially it was able to improve the quality of life of Germans (the good, pure Germans, anyway). Once full scale war got under way, however, the needs of the military took precedence over everything else. The daily calorie quota of the typical German was reduced. Initially the reduction was noticeable, but as the war ground on, the reduction became more severe.

I always thought fascism was socialism taken to the extreme. The most efficient use of public funds has always been in my understanding spent through infrastructure and the military along with 'taking care of the population'. — Question

You should check out Moussolini's rather lucid writings on fascism, where he explicitly ditinguishes fascism from socialism along the lines of the emphasis on economics, as well as the primacy of class warfare:

"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of the so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various sodal groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production ... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. ... And above all Fascism denies that class war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society. These two fundamental concepts of Socialism being thus refuted. nothing is left of it but the sentimental aspiration-as old as humanity itselftowards a social convention in which the sorrows and sufferings of the humblest shall be alleviated."

The differences become sharpest however, where Moussolini discusses the function of the state, which is totally alien to any socialist conception of it:

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. ... 'For us Fascists, the State is not merely a guardian, preoccupied solely with the duty of assuring the personal safety of the citizens; nor is it an organization with purely material aims, such as to guarantee a certain level of well-being and peaceful conditions...

The State, as conceived of and as created by Fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact in itself... The State is the guarantor of security both internal and external. but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people. as it has grown up through the centuries in language, in customs, and in faith. And the State is not only a living reality of the present, it is also linked with the past and above all with the future, and thus transcending the brief limits of individual life, it represents the immanent spirit of the nation." (Mussolini,The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism; this particular document is only a couple of pages long. Well worth the read if you're interested).

Very interesting passage.

But it does seem like a good opportunity to bring up one of Paxton's big talking points: the self-explanations offered by fascists should be taken with a grain of salt. What they said isn't always in line with what they did (in fact, it usually wasn't.) It's a familiar historicist point, but one that is somehow often overlooked in this particular case. We're eager to deconstruct the self-narratives of the guardians of western democracy, but willing to take the statements of fascists at face value.

The differences become sharpest however, where Moussolini discusses the function of the state, which is totally alien to any socialist conception of it:

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. ... 'For us Fascists, the State is not merely a guardian, preoccupied solely with the duty of assuring the personal safety of the citizens; nor is it an organization with purely material aims, such as to guarantee a certain level of well-being and peaceful conditions...

The State, as conceived of and as created by Fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact in itself... The State is the guarantor of security both internal and external. but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people. as it has grown up through the centuries in language, in customs, and in faith. And the State is not only a living reality of the present, it is also linked with the past and above all with the future, and thus transcending the brief limits of individual life, it represents the immanent spirit of the nation." (Mussolini,The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism; this particular document is only a couple of pages long. Well worth the read if you're interested). — StreetlightX

Strangely enough, I don't see that as a distinct from of socialism. Like I said it is socialism taken down to its most extreme and logical form.

But, I would wager that nowadays fascism has no enemy to fight or at least to fight and win, of course, if you aren't the dominant power in the world already. The weapons of the past are absolutely nothing compared to what is available nowadays.

Furthermore, it seems fascism is exclusive to homogenous societies where division and differing views are not common.

I would also like to mention that any state that treats defense and security as a national goal (The US for example) is very prone to any form of fascism in any degree. The US is committed to maintaining its budget to maintaining its military force and comparative advantage contra other nations. This has proven, contrary to what others think, beneficial to its national interest.

One of Paxton's big talking points is that the self-explanations offered by fascists should be taken with a grain of salt. What they said isn't always in line with what they did (in fact, it usually wasn't.) It's a familiar historicist point, but one that is somehow often overlooked in this particular case. We're eager to deconstruct the self-narratives of the guardians of western democracy, but willing to take the statements of fascists at face value. — csalisbury

Yeah, that's fair enough. It's probably a matter of distinguishing between fascism-as-idea and fascism-in-practice, depending on the kind of discussion at stake. The notion of fascism as a kind of permanent mobilization is very interesting - it seems to resonant very strongly with Trotskyist or even Maoist strains of communism (permanent revolution...), while making the state a kind of kind of permanent Vanguard (a la Lenin without the 'withering away'). But again, it's this focus on the state which I think really distinguishes the two, where, to paint it broadly, the state works for the people, and not the people for the state.

Strangely enough, I don't see that as a distinct form of socialism. Like I said it is socialism taken down to its most extreme and logical form. — Question

What do you understand by socialism?

What do you understand by socialism? — StreetlightX

I understand socialism to be placing the interests safety and welfare of the citizens by a nation above all other concerns. That's about as concise as I can present the concept without idiotizing it.

But again, it's this focus on the state which I think really distinguishes the two, where, to paint it broadly, the state works for the people, and not the people for the state.

Yeah, that's legit. I was also very unclear in my post above, when I said Fascism wants to remain separate from the state despite being the state. It would be more accurate to say that, on an ideological and ideal level, it totally wants to be the state, but, since that doesn't really pan out (it always finds itself forced to cater to - or at least cut deals with- entrenched powers) there ends up being a de facto dual state. The fascists fail to live up to their fantasy. That's where the mobilization thing comes in. If things settled, it would become clear the fascist state was not the unified absolute-everything it's claimed to be. But if everything's running at a high-pitch, it's easier to delude oneself and others, that there's a unified fascist state growing stronger every day, heading toward perfection.

I don't believe that the logical form of socialism, taken to its extreme, is a fascist society. I'm not sure what lead you to believe that, @Question.

It's all just words, I suppose, so if that's what socialism means for you --

I understand socialism to be placing the interests safety and welfare of the citizens of a country above all else. That's as concise as I can present the concept without idiotizing it. — Question

, then I can keep track in this discussion. But it wouldn't be how I'd put things, and it's a pretty confusing way of talking, considering that it excludes what we usually term fascist Germany.



But then. . . I don't know what's wrong with that. I don't think it's in the interests of the citizenry to be murdered for belonging to unclean categories, or for those in the clean categories to be mobilized into war machines for the domination of other countries. I don't think that the trenches of the losing side of World War I are in the interests of anyone to replicate within a bureaucratic machine. I don't believe that the suspension of democratic practices and the suppression of the press and the usage of propaganda are in the interests, safety, or welfare of the citizens -- even as the final and ultimate value.


But these are features of actual states that at least claimed to be fascist.

It would be useful to use different words, I think.

in short: the ideal state the fascists want only can exist as an mobilizing ideal. (so, yeah, a lot like permanent revolution.)

Most people who lived under fascism seemed to benefit from that form of government in the past dramatically. — Question

And if they didn't like it - then what? And how do you judge what will benefit 'most people' when they're given no say in the matter?

Fascism is far from productive.

Hitler borrowed prodigiously from Western bankers who were financing him as a bulwark against the Soviet Union.

By 1939 Germany was super-deep in debt, which it incurred building its war machine.

To get itself out of debt, it simply started killing tens of millions of people, invading and taking over countries, so that it could loot their resources and take over their land.

Fascism is about as productive as the Mongol Empire, and other colonial empires that depend upon mass killing, stealing, subjugation, and slave/ultra-cheap labor to maintain a debt-driven, economy.

It would be useful to use different words, I think. — Moliere

How else would you talk about this?

Quite interested in your input.

the ideal state the fascists want only can exist as an mobilizing ideal. (so, yeah, a lot like permanent revolution.) — csalisbury

Not necessarily, though that would be a sine qua non if the guiding premise for the existence of such a dire state of affairs would be for the need for security from a threat. And, nothing speaking to people like fear.

I mean, communism just doesn't make sense when presented with fascism and in many ways, I can see (devil's advocate!) why fascists thought communism was inferior to fascism. This is why in many ways Soviet Russia resembled more a fascist state (during certain periods) in my view than a communist one. A communist state is just economically unfeasible.

Well, in times of peace fascism would never arise. Only when people are unified against some common threat does fascism rear its ugly head.

Why not just the terms you used?

The

placing the interests safety and welfare of the citizens of a country above all else. — Question

taken to its logical extreme?


It would have the merit of not alluding to already well-used terms which have relatively entrenched meanings just because of historical and academic usage. Plus, it seems you're taking something of a theoretical approach anyways, so it would avoid referencing actual states which will run counter to what it is you want to say in the first place (as you already noted).

Well, in times of peace fascism would never arise. Only when people are unified against some common threat does fascism rear its ugly head. — Question

Well that sure is 'damning with faint praise'.

I understand socialism to be placing the interests safety and welfare of the citizens of a nation above all other concerns. — Question

Mm, but I would say that fascism inverts this formula: it's about the interests of the State over and above the welfare of individual citizens. Exactly how to articulate the limits of both the state and its citizens (along with other interests) is, I think, the very political problem that is grappeled with in both instances.

It would be more accurate to say that, on an ideological and ideal level, it totally wants to be the state, but, since that doesn't really pan out (it always finds itself forced to cater to - or at least cut deals with- entrenched powers) there ends up being a de facto dual state. The fascists fail to live up to their fantasy. That's where the mobilization thing comes in. If things settled, it would become clear the fascist state was not the unified absolute-everything it's claimed to be. — csalisbury

This is great. Just thinking with regard to the cultural revolution - which I'm more farmilar with - I feel like there's the same mechanics at work here but in the oppositite direction as it were; where Mao wanted to decalcify the Party so that it wouldn't become an entrenched, all-too-comfortable state apparatus - to set the people (the 'Mass Line' as he called it) in motion, Fascism wants instead to set the State in perpetual motion; and in both cases this motion - revolution and mobilisation, respectively - encounters it's limit in what 'drags behind' - The Party for the Chinese Communists, and everything-that-isn't-The-State for the Fascists. The neatness of this symmetry makes me suspicious, but it's a fun thought to have.

Government is a device for sorting social issues; that is, it is a problem-solving technique.

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

Mm, but I would say that fascism inverts this formula: it's about the interests of the State over and above the welfare of individual citizens. Exactly how to articulate the limits of both the state and its citizens (along with other interests) is, I think, the very political problem that is grappeled with in both instances. — StreetlightX

That's the key point I think, the good of the state is given priority over the good of the individuals. The problem is that there is no such thing as the good of the state, it's just an idea, a fantasy ideal, fictitious, just like how an atheist would receive the ideal of God. In reality, the good of the state is just whatever the leaders of the state designate as the good of the state, like a church designates the good of God.

Yeah, that's legit. I was also very unclear in my post above, when I said Fascism wants to remain separate from the state despite being the state. It would be more accurate to say that, on an ideological and ideal level, it totally wants to be the state, but, since that doesn't really pan out (it always finds itself forced to cater to - or at least cut deals with- entrenched powers) there ends up being a de facto dual state. The fascists fail to live up to their fantasy. That's where the mobilization thing comes in. If things settled, it would become clear the fascist state was not the unified absolute-everything it's claimed to be. But if everything's running at a high-pitch, it's easier to delude oneself and others, that there's a unified fascist state growing stronger every day, heading toward perfection. — csalisbury

In actuality, "the state" exists only as a concept, it's an evolving idea, as Hegel described. The fascist has to create the illusion that the state is a real existing entity, in order to talk about what's good for the state. So the fascist state is separated out, individuated, and opposed to, that which is not the fascist state. This creates the logical illusion that the state has properties, what is of the state, and what is not of the state, supporting the illusion that the state is a real entity. It is only by conceiving of the state as an actual living entity that we can talk about the needs, and therefore "goods", of the state. In our real, natural condition, "the state" just refers to the mechanisms set up to serve the needs of the people. That "the state" even has an existence as a clearly defined idea, is highly dubious, and that's the Hegelian notion that Marx attacked. "The state" does not even exist as an idea, its just some vague notion that we have, concerning the human condition.

But it does seem like a good opportunity to bring up one of Paxton's big talking points: the self-explanations offered by fascists should be taken with a grain of salt. What they said isn't always in line with what they did (in fact, it usually wasn't.) — csalisbury

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

"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of the so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various sodal groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production ... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. ... And above all Fascism denies that class war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society. These two fundamental concepts of Socialism being thus refuted. nothing is left of it but the sentimental aspiration-as old as humanity itselftowards a social convention in which the sorrows and sufferings of the humblest shall be alleviated." — StreetlightX

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. ... 'For us Fascists, the State is not merely a guardian, preoccupied solely with the duty of assuring the personal safety of the citizens; nor is it an organization with purely material aims, such as to guarantee a certain level of well-being and peaceful conditions... — StreetlightX

Ironically, that's almost spot-on Soviet-style socialism as it really existed (as opposed to the far-fetched communist and socialist theories). The "class warfare" as such was only a socialist feature at the outset. But historically, both socialism and fascism find some out-groups to terrorize and discriminate against (that's where mobilization comes in).

I understand socialism to be placing the interests safety and welfare of the citizens by a nation above all other concerns. That's about as concise as I can present the concept without idiotizing it. — Question

One old definition would be the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. While there are a zillion interpretations of this, as an old socialist I would divide the interpreters of such a definition into two strands:
- voluntarists, bottom-up socialists who believe in various mutual forms of organisation, whose 19th century origins would lie in Owenite communities and at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries as those who originally built up socialism through unions and the workplace, and took the parliamentary route
- Statists, Communists whose origins would lie in Marx and Engels, and by the early 20th century would be with leaders of the Second International, which at least notionally excluded anarchists, and who advocated and took the revolutionary route to power

I think these broad differences have remained, with socialist feminism, initially named I think by Marx's daughter Tussy in the 1890's, emerging as a whole new strand of thought in the West in the 1970's. Many of the parliamentarians became 'social democrats' who made their peace with capitalism while capitalism accommodated itself to the vote, workers' rights and pensions. The socialists of South America have had a foot in both libertarian and Statist camps.

So, what's wrong with fascism? — Question

It's fascism.

in short: the ideal state the fascists want only can exist as an mobilizing ideal. (so, yeah, a lot like permanent revolution.) — csalisbury

Right, exactly. Fascism only works (well?) when there's conflict and strife. The fascist state runs on fumes and always has to expand and consume to make up for this deficiency.

Mm, but I would say that fascism inverts this formula: it's about the interests of the State over and above the welfare of individual citizens. — StreetlightX

It depends on the presumption you want to assert here. Is it that citizens are capable of making decisions that are in their own best interest or that the State can decide what is best for the individual.

Exactly how to articulate the limits of both the state and its citizens (along with other interests) is, I think, the very political problem that is grappeled with in both instances. — StreetlightX

In fascism, the State has no limits. Its power is absolute and made so-so that the best interests of the individual can be fulfilled. If you remove any authoritarian doctrine that 'everyone must be happy because we (the State) say it so' then you have the utopia many fascists dreamed about. Which sort of brings me to my next line of thought as to whether fascism is necessarily authoritarian or can it exist without such shortcomings?