Pogue
21st March 2009, 21:56
My politics teacher told me fascism is being taken off the curriculum for politics courses in some colleges as of next year because its becoming ahistory lesson as there have been no major fascist movements since the collapse of the Spanish and Portugese regimes in the 70s/80s.
I mentioned groups like the Front Nationale, BNP etc and he said its by no way consensus that they can be considered as fascists in the proper political usage of the term. Apparently, theres something like a checklist of 6 points a group must adhere to in order to be considered fascist in the true sense of the word, and these modern groups don't count.
He also says he doesn't think Franco could be considered a fascist, and although he didn't mention this, I am aware that there are debates as to whether or not Hitler could be either, as he deviated from Mussolini's fascism.
I'd say both Hitler and most definatly Franco were fascists, so I'd disagree with him.
The point is, is it worthwhile or valuable or even true to call groups like the BNP fascist? When I think why I'm opposed ot the BNP, its because they are racist, segregationalist, homophobic, authoritarian idiots. Most people's opposition would come from their personal opposition to such things, as opposed to an understanding of fascism as an contemporary and historical movement and understanding the ened for opposition to it.
Do you consider the BNP/FN/National Front etc to be a modernisation/contiunation of the fascist movement that was saw at the early-middle of the 20th century, or do you think this term is out-dated now, and we should instead refer to the BNP as something different?
Perhaps White Nationalists, which they most certainly are, white supremacists, simply racists, etc. I only fear that the term fascist is so misunderstood, broad and disputable it could end up weakening our case against them, or at least confusing it, rather than strengthening it. Maybe we should solely focus our critique on the concrete facts - these groups (NF, BNP etc) are racists, homophobes, nazi apologists, etc. Obviously, they have influences from all over the place, and historically and in the cases of neo-nazism, neo-fascism would side with and favour the Nazis and fascists such as Hitler, Franco etc, and they have alot of influence from fascism (the BNP being a natural contiunation of the British fascist tradition started by the Hitler loving Oswald Moseley), but is it really accurate or effectiv ein these days to refer to them as 'fascist'.
So in summary I'd like to venture two propositions as to the BNP and their relation to fascism. Perhaps later we could do a poll -
1. They are fascists, in the historical sense of the word, but have merely changed it to modern circumstances and made their own version. Calling them fascists is accurate, and neccesary for understanding the danger they fit and their role in modern day politics.
2. They are a mix of modern day racists, white supremacists, segregationalist homophobes with a belief in 'British Nationalism'. Basically, they are racists with many influences from many different ideologies/beliefs that are all fundamentally racist/xenophobic, and fascism is just one influence. Calling them solely fascist is misleading and misses the point of their modern day racism.
If you feel I haven't done good job with these categories say so. But I'd like to open debate on this, because I want to make sure we make clear who they are and why we oppose them, and I think our reliance on always just labelling them as 'fascists' and just leaving it at that is potentially dangerous if its proven to not be enough, if you all follow. Basically, its a term oft misunderstand which has limited impact on some people and I don't think its sufficiently clear or impactful in order to show people what they really believe in. We need to make things clearer.
Thanks
I mentioned groups like the Front Nationale, BNP etc and he said its by no way consensus that they can be considered as fascists in the proper political usage of the term. Apparently, theres something like a checklist of 6 points a group must adhere to in order to be considered fascist in the true sense of the word, and these modern groups don't count.
He also says he doesn't think Franco could be considered a fascist, and although he didn't mention this, I am aware that there are debates as to whether or not Hitler could be either, as he deviated from Mussolini's fascism.
I'd say both Hitler and most definatly Franco were fascists, so I'd disagree with him.
The point is, is it worthwhile or valuable or even true to call groups like the BNP fascist? When I think why I'm opposed ot the BNP, its because they are racist, segregationalist, homophobic, authoritarian idiots. Most people's opposition would come from their personal opposition to such things, as opposed to an understanding of fascism as an contemporary and historical movement and understanding the ened for opposition to it.
Do you consider the BNP/FN/National Front etc to be a modernisation/contiunation of the fascist movement that was saw at the early-middle of the 20th century, or do you think this term is out-dated now, and we should instead refer to the BNP as something different?
Perhaps White Nationalists, which they most certainly are, white supremacists, simply racists, etc. I only fear that the term fascist is so misunderstood, broad and disputable it could end up weakening our case against them, or at least confusing it, rather than strengthening it. Maybe we should solely focus our critique on the concrete facts - these groups (NF, BNP etc) are racists, homophobes, nazi apologists, etc. Obviously, they have influences from all over the place, and historically and in the cases of neo-nazism, neo-fascism would side with and favour the Nazis and fascists such as Hitler, Franco etc, and they have alot of influence from fascism (the BNP being a natural contiunation of the British fascist tradition started by the Hitler loving Oswald Moseley), but is it really accurate or effectiv ein these days to refer to them as 'fascist'.
So in summary I'd like to venture two propositions as to the BNP and their relation to fascism. Perhaps later we could do a poll -
1. They are fascists, in the historical sense of the word, but have merely changed it to modern circumstances and made their own version. Calling them fascists is accurate, and neccesary for understanding the danger they fit and their role in modern day politics.
2. They are a mix of modern day racists, white supremacists, segregationalist homophobes with a belief in 'British Nationalism'. Basically, they are racists with many influences from many different ideologies/beliefs that are all fundamentally racist/xenophobic, and fascism is just one influence. Calling them solely fascist is misleading and misses the point of their modern day racism.
If you feel I haven't done good job with these categories say so. But I'd like to open debate on this, because I want to make sure we make clear who they are and why we oppose them, and I think our reliance on always just labelling them as 'fascists' and just leaving it at that is potentially dangerous if its proven to not be enough, if you all follow. Basically, its a term oft misunderstand which has limited impact on some people and I don't think its sufficiently clear or impactful in order to show people what they really believe in. We need to make things clearer.
Thanks