Does fascism require a mass party to be considered "fascism"?

[Os Cangaceiros]

(I was unsure where to put this thread, but ultimately decided to put it here.)

The question is fairly simple. This question gets debated especially in relation to Japanese fascism during the 1930s (and to some extent before then). Some people argue that since Japan didn't have a mass party*, unlike Spain, Nazi Germany and Italy, it cannot be considered truly "fascist". Others, however, point to Japan as exhibiting other qualities that it shared with Germany, such as being a late blooming world power with weak democratic traditions. Was Japanese fascism actual fascism? Or should a different term be used to describe it?

*Although this was unsuccessfully attempted in Japan.

[Jack]

Fascists generally try to gain power through democracy, because they worship the state so most of the time would not want to destroy it.

Japan was not fascist, it did not follow corporatism, but was more like a 18th century monarchy in the 20th century.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fascists generally try to gain power through democracy, because they worship the state so most of the time would not want to destroy it.

Japan was not fascist, it did not follow corporatism, but was more like a 18th century monarchy in the 20th century.

There are a number of similarities between Nazi Germany and Japan, though...notable that they both industrialized later on in the game, both had "Great Power" aspirations, both had weak bourgeois democratic traditions, ethnic nationalism and strong militarism. Some Japanese scholars like Maruyama Masao accept the fascism theory, as well (although some do not).

[Jack]

Those similarities are unrelated to Fascism. Italy boomed in industrialization in the 1890's, Fascists took power in 1922.

Korea (South and North) have the same other things you have mentioned, that doesn't mean that Fascists will come to power. Fascism is a way for the bourgeoisie to crush the workers movement, it does not arise unless there is something it is viciously opposed to, like the workers movemnet. Think about it, in Germany the FAUD had about 150,000 members, the Communist and Socialist parties were booming, and there had been a revolution just 10 years prior, Fascists came in to crush this, they had to appeal to the working class through socialist programs, but the idea was the same. In Italy the USI had 500,000 members just after WWI, the CPs and SPs were gaining power, so the Fascists came in to crush this. In Spain the CNT had 1.5 million members, and a liberal-left coalition had just been voted in, peasants began to seize lands to the bourgeois called upon Franco.. and you know the story. Same goes for Portugal and Argentina.

In Japan the workers movement was small, and were largely subdued, along with the peasants. The Emporer had been in power without the workers movement, and was left over from Feudal times. Because of nationalistic support you could call the Fascist, but their economic policies have nothing to do with it. Also, the emphasis for worship (literally they were made to worship) was with an individual, the emporer, not the state.

[Rebel_Serigan]

Facists my come in as a mass in order to crush a worker revolt but I do not think you have to crush a worker's rebelion in order to be facist, it just tend to walk hand in hand. if one looks at everything by the exact definition then no, Japan was not facist, but if you look at the theory then yes, they were facist. While a puppet monarch still sat on the throne Tojo was the one who was really in power. Tojo modeled himself and his ruling system after Musilini and portrayed his entire military and civil systems as great and golden (Guilded if you will) he displayed an obvious commitment to facism dispite the fact that he was not by exact definition a facist. Put down the dictionary and just look at other facists states and then Japan, there were too many similarities for them to be ignored. Facism is an ideal just like communism and socialism, so the ideas are what count not the mirroring of a deffinition.

[Raúl Duke]

In Japan the workers movement was small, and were largely subdued, along with the peasants.

Not sure if it was small or not but the Japanese government was so paranoid of them that during the Great Kanto earthquake of 1922 they decided to repress them. I suppose the Japanese state did fear a lot these people.

It's difficult to say if Japan was fascist or national socialist. The Japanese also had strong relevance for the monarch, much more devotion then in Spain and more so then in Italy.

[ComradeOm]

Whatever about the categorisation of Japanese 'fascism', I do not consider a mass party to be a prerequisite for fascism. I talk about about the relationship between the NSDAP and German state in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1405411&postcount=45) (contrasting with the CPSU) and its clear to me that the Nazi party itself was, functionally, little more than a propaganda machine designed to mobilise the masses. Once Hitler was in power he ruled almost exclusively through existing state structures

In the case of Japan, where democracy was even less established, it may be that this need to mobilise support, in order to pressure the political establishment, was not present/necessary. But I'm afraid that I know very little about inter-war Japan

[Os Cangaceiros]

Sorry I forgot to respond to this.


Those similarities are unrelated to Fascism.

Ethnic nationalism and militarism are certainly part of fascism as a political philosophy. You're right about the speed of industrialization not being a direct part of fascism, though. I just find some of the similarities between Germany (a country that Japan has always admired for its political system) and Japan interesting.


Fascism is a way for the bourgeoisie to crush the workers movement, it does not arise unless there is something it is viciously opposed to, like the workers movemnet.

While organized labor was never particularly powerful in Japan before World War Two, you can certainly make the case that many in the Japanese state thought that society was beginning to "come apart at the seams", on some level. Taisho Japan was the first era in Japanese history where political parties began to take shape and have influence, and political parties were one of the things that many of the Japanese bureaucrats (and later, technocrats) were very distrustful of. Many social movements began to make a presence around this time, including feminism and labour.

There were more spectacular events, as well, including the Rice Riots in 1918. The riots in urban centers began to have anti-capitalist overtones. In fact, the result of this riot was the downfall of the last oligarch cabinet, and the establishment of the first Party cabinet. The previously mentioned Kanto earthquake should also be mentioned, as it was a prime example of socialist hysteria being directed at a segment of the working class, in this case Korean immigrant workers. The famous Japanese anarchists Osugi Sakai and Ito Noe were murdered in it's aftermath. These events, along with the Toranomon assassination attempt against the emperor definitely had an impact in Japan, and helped lead to the Peace Preservation Act, a Draconian act largely aimed at leftists. (As well as the Public Order Police Law, aimed at unions.)

Also, some of the more liberal Japanese academics were beginning to question whether the Emperor was really so important after all, and not simply one organ of the state.

So I would argue that there was a certain level of concern amoung the Japanese leadership about the status of things in Japan, even if the threat wasn't immediate.


The Emporer had been in power without the workers movement, and was left over from Feudal times.

It's worth noting that the Japanese Emperor was mostly a puppet. He was a puppet during the Shogunate, and he continued to be a puppet during the Meiji period, as well, as most of the real machinations of the Japanese state were controlled by the oligarches.


Because of nationalistic support you could call the Fascist, but their economic policies have nothing to do with it.

Many of the main ideas of the Japanese bureaucrats were fascist ones, such as the idea that capital should be seperated from management, and that private and public interests should be fused (economically speaking).


Also, the emphasis for worship (literally they were made to worship) was with an individual, the emporer, not the state.

The state and the Emperor were often portrayed as being one and the same. People in Japan were taught that they were to defend the state and the Emperor with their lives. For example, in the Rescript on Education, which was in every Japanese school, it is written that Japanese citizens should "always respect the Constitution and observe the law; should emergency arise, offer yourselves courageously to the state." Obviously the Emperor played a pivotal role in the Japanese state, but it's also clear that some elements of 19th century Europe's political system rubbed off, as well.

[Pogue]

Well Franco was very clearly fascist (some historians doubt this, but I think that opinion is bollocks and our intepretation of fascism is more mature as to say 'He wasn't excactly like Mussolini so it doesn't count'), but the Falange weren't a mass party at all. They were in fact very small, but they basically filled the gap and need the wealthy landowners and ruling classes needed when they thought revolution was going to spread through Spain, plus they were brutal and knew how to supress people. They also had roots in the military. The thing with fascism is its the pursuit of the wealthy classes so even if its small it normally has military officers and wealthy families on side, and it usually arises when the ruling classes are fearful of socialism, so they flood to it then. It doesn't need a mass party either practically or ideologically, although it often forms one after or slightly before it takes power. Mainly it needs the support from the ruling class its so easily receives as well as the military which it often has.