What is fascism? And for that matter...

[CynicalIdealist]

What differentiates fascist authoritarianism from non-fascist authoritarianism? Furthermore, what countries today could be referred to as "fascist?" Was Saddam Hussein a fascist dictator?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, here's a pro-fascism political-activist group that I've been in debates with many times before:

http://www.prothink.org

[Rjevan]

Fascism is defined as a totalitarian dictatorship which features a corporatist economy. Usually fascist nations promote extreme nationalism, chauvinism, sexism, militarism etc., as well as it claims that the will of the nation is embodied in a the current leader, who therefore holds all state power.
Maybe you want to have a look at the characteristics and history of fascism here: http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm

As you will see, many authoritarian dictatorships do not meet these criteria, same goes for your example: Saddam Hussein, the Ba'ath party and Ba'athist Iraq were not fascist.

[StoneFrog]

Fascism doesn't have to have a dictator but seems to always have one. Its whole principle is nationalism, it works to have everyone within the nation to show strength. If you look at the fascist symbol the pile of logs and an axe bound together, symbolizes unity and strength. It denounces Capitalism and Individualism, everyone has to work for the greater good of the state. It also claim that society requires a class structure, and works on figure heads to lead the nation.

Fascism needs:
-Big military force
-Pyramid like governing structure
-Nationalizing of labor and production of key industries


You will find State-Socialism and Fascism share somethings in common, but they are not the same, just very similar.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fascism is defined as a totalitarian dictatorship which features a corporatist economy. Usually fascist nations promote extreme nationalism, chauvinism, sexism, militarism etc., as well as it claims that the will of the nation is embodied in a the current leader, who therefore holds all state power.
Maybe you want to have a look at the characteristics and history of fascism here: http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm

As you will see, many authoritarian dictatorships do not meet these criteria, same goes for your example: Saddam Hussein, the Ba'ath party and Ba'athist Iraq were not fascist.

The Baath Party of Iraq was certainly Fascist. It was modeled after fascism in Europe. It was a pan-Arab supremacy nationalist movement that was vehemently anti-communist and anti-union.

[The Ben G]

What is Fascism you say?

Well, Its Authoritarian, Nationlist, and EVIL.

That basically sums it up.

[cmdrdeathguts]

What differentiates fascist authoritarianism from non-fascist authoritarianism? Furthermore, what countries today could be referred to as "fascist?" Was Saddam Hussein a fascist dictator?

All the way through the history of capitalism, there have existed fringe far-right groups who have venerated the state and vitriolically opposed - often physically - the progressive and revolutionary movements of their time. There are examples religious and secular, mystical and rationalistic, tiny and massive.

Fascism as a word came to be associated with these movements at a time when intense tumult throughout the world allowed them to grow to the point where they truly threatened to take power in and of themselves. Europe was devastated by WWI, and haunted ever more insistently by the workers movement. In 1929, there was the Wall Street Crash. And so, the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis took power in major European states. Given that the same chaos produced both, and similar movements elsewhere, it is unsurprising that - despite obvious ideological differences - the Fascists and Nazis had very similar features. Both organised large paramilitary divisions, which they used to crush the workers movement. Both came to power as an option of last resort for the bourgeoisie (Mussolini was appointed by the King and Hitler by Hindenburg). Both promised to and indeed did construct profoundly anti-democratic regimes, knitted together by noxious national myths.

There is a lot of chaos in today's world, but it is a different chaos. 'Classical' fascism today exists at a profoundly low level, and the basic truth is, that's because the communists and the workers movement are in no sense a present threat for the Western bourgeoisie. You do not need millions of armed BNPers to crush the SWP - in fact, today, you do not even need to crush the SWP at all. What does a fascist do when his historical calling is faint and distant from him? It seems from the historical evidence that he acts like a Trot, attempting to pursue a less 'scary' agenda which will nevertheless yield state power or provoke the apocalyptic race war or whatever.

At the end of the day, there is no characteristic state form of fascism apart from that of the authoritarian state in general. What does seem to me characteristic of states arising from Fascist takeovers is the persistence of forms of mass mobilisation under the new regime. The Blackshirts lasted as long as Mussolini; and while the SA was purged and emasculated by Hitler in order to gain Army support, the persistence of mass mobilisation 'by other means' is a likely contributor to the otherwise militarily wasteful holocaust. This is not unique to fascist regimes, but nevertheless characteristic of them.

Was Ba'athist Iraq fascist? In the end, the Ba'athists vacillated over the fate of the communists - something Hitler and Mussolini never did. There was a protracted period in which the Iraqi Communist party was permitted to operate openly, which ended with the infamous purges when Saddam came to power. The same is true of Iran, which is often today described as a 'clerical fascist' regime.

[Dimentio]

Was Ba'athist Iraq fascist? In the end, the Ba'athists vacillated over the fate of the communists - something Hitler and Mussolini never did. There was a protracted period in which the Iraqi Communist party was permitted to operate openly, which ended with the infamous purges when Saddam came to power. The same is true of Iran, which is often today described as a 'clerical fascist' regime.

You forget that Mussolini waited three years - until 1925 - before wiping out the socialist party of Italy.

[RadioRaheem84]

The ideology of Baath Socialism is the same as National Socialism. Nothing really socialist about it just racist nationalism, one heavily based on cultural supremacy.

[RadioRaheem84]

Speaking of syndicalists going over to fascism in the 30s. It turns out that the US has some a National Syndicalist Party that embraces fascism and think that the US is the "New Rome". Easy to see how syndicalists turned nationalist and later fascist in the 30s and how syndicalism formed the basis of Italian Fascism.

http://www.freewebs.com/nationalsyndicalistparty/index.htm

http://www.americanfascistmovement.com/

[RadioRaheem84]

It was never Fascism, Nazism or even Libertarianism that really scared me if the right wingers ever ascended to power. It was always Christian Falangeism.

Christian Falangist Party (http://www.falange.us/)
American Falange (http://www.falange.org/)
Falconist Party (http://falconistparty.tripod.com/)

Not that these parties will ever gain momentum or anything but that the danger was always in the right wing christian conservatism and how they wouldn't mind a junta cleaning up the "socialist" menace.

[ChrisK]

Fascism is a form of Bonapartism. Bonapartism is a form of government in which the state is held by a third class, due to the main competing classes being too weak to maintain power. This first happened with Napoleon Bonaparte, when the newly forming capitalist class was too weak to maintain power and the monarchists were too weak to take power back. Napoleon took over and gave various liberal concessions to the Republicans while maintaing dictorial power. Such a form of government necessarily cannot hold itself up, it eventually falls and one of the other classes takes control. With Napoleon the monarchists took power.

The most famous example of Bonapartism is that of Louis Napoleon taking France when the capitalists didn't have the ability to maintain power against the working class, but the working class wasn't powerful enough to take over. Louis Napoleon's rise and fall is written about in detail by Marx in The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. (Another example explored by Engles is the rise of Otto von Bismark in various articles).

Using Nazi Germany as an example:

Two classes too weak to hold power. This was certainly the case in Germany when the Nazi's took power. The capitalists were destroyed by WWI and the working class was weakened by a failed revolution.
Concessions made to the other two classes. The demands of employment were given to the workers (and the use of socialist rhetoric). The capitalists were given greater industry.
Fell to one of the other classes. Much like after wars the two Bonapartes fell to the other classes, Germany fell to the control of capitalists.
Ergo, it was a Bonapartist state.

[Guerrilla22]

Past examples include Nazi germany and Italy, of course as well as Spain, Greece and Portugal.

[RadioRaheem84]

Past examples include Nazi germany and Italy, of course as well as Spain, Greece and Portugal.


Not Greece and not totally Portugal. Spain is still iffy as the Fascists joined the Carlists and Franco's nationalists.

Oswald Mosely, the die hard fascist, has admitted that Spain was not as fascist as what people determined in the media. Same with Greece. He said that these were strictly military regimes and were not theoretically Fascist. Fascism incorporated elements of the military state but has its own characteristics.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I found this online about fascism and I don't know if this will help answer your question or not. Many people have different views on what is fascisma and how it works. Must of the time it is used as a insult.

14 points of fascism


1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and“terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

[RadioRaheem84]

I never went by the 14 points. I just think it does a diservice to the actual upper case Fascist theory and practice.

Maybe Fascism delved off to just being a right wing military junta rule but it didn't start out that way at all and had an underlying ideology that was not really right wing in any traditional sense.

[Aesop]

Rejvan has summed up what fascism is pretty well in addition:

Fascism is deeply elitist (social Darwinism) In contrast to traditional humanist or religious values, such as caring, sympathy and compassion, fascists respect a very different set of martial values: loyalty, duty, obedience and self-sacrifice. When the victory of the strong is glorified, power and strength are worshipped for their own sake. In addition fascists traditionally believe that society is composed of three kinds of people. First, there is a supreme, all-seeing leader who possesses unrivalled authority. For example, The Duce, the Führer. Second, there is the ‘warrior’ elite, exclusively male and distinguished, unlike traditional elites, by its heroism and the capacity for self-sacrifice For example, this role was given to the SS. Third, there are the masses, who are weak, inert and ignorant, and whose destiny is unquestioning obedience. For example, these people are the workers/low rank military members.

Also fascism is anti-rational/anti-intellectual. To fascists, people do not have the capability to understand reasoned analysis but need to be inspired by emotions and the Romanisation of the past. Its ideas have little coherence, but rather seek to exert the mythic appeal of the past to stimulate political action. They also draw from the anti-enlightenment philosopher Herder, who rejected universalism as ahistorical: each nation is animated by its particular collective spirit, its ‘Volksgeist’, a product of its unique history, culture and particularly language, which in turns means they believe that communities are natural and we all have innate loyalties forged by the past. In simple terms this is a bonehead ideology. Fascist anti-intellectualism also leads to a stress on strength or physical prowess; this is reflected in a glorification of the body and the ‘life-force’ of military power.

In addition, Fascism embraces an extreme version of chauvinistic and expansionist nationalism i.e. war and conquest. This means nations are not equal and interdependent, but natural rivals in a struggle for dominance. Therefore, Fascism seeks to assert the superiority of certain nations over others. Fascism seeks to promote more than mere patriotism. It seeks to establish an intense and militant sense of national identity. Central to the ideology is the idea of ‘palingenesis’, which means rebirth/ or prospect of national regeneration in which national greatness is guaranteed.

The way fascism differs from traditional dictatorships such as Saddam is that whereas traditional dictatorships aim to exclude the masses from politics, Fascist dictatorships set out to recruit them into values and goals of the regime through constant propaganda. Therefore, fascist regimes engaged in the widespread use of plebiscites and rallies. In addition to the anti-intellectualism and extreme chauvinistic nationalism it would be an error to call saddam a fascist.

Hope this Helps.

[RadioRaheem84]

It would not be an error to call Saddam a fascist. Have you ever read what Baath Arab Socialism was all about? If you had you would know it was inspired by the fascist parties of Europe.

[Aesop]

It would not be an error to call Saddam a fascist. Have you ever read what Baath Arab Socialism was all about? If you had you would know it was inspired by the fascist parties of Europe.

I admit that I am not that well read in that department; however I am pretty aware that Iraqi was not totalitarian regime that believed in creative destruction. Also the fact that the ideology of the ba’ ath party may be inspired by fascist does not make them fascist, although they may be a right wing dictatorship.

It would help if you could provide some evidence and tell me how they are a fascist organisation, rather than just say how they are.

[RadioRaheem84]

I admit that I am not that well read in that department; however I am pretty aware that Iraqi was not totalitarian regime that believed in creative destruction. Also the fact that the ideology of the ba’ ath party may be inspired by fascist does not make them fascist, although they may be a right wing dictatorship.

It would help if you could provide some evidence and tell me how they are a fascist organisation, rather than just say how they are.

Of course. I wouldn't leave a comrade hanging like that. Well, most of the stuff I read before on the fascist connections to Arab Baath Socialism were by pro-war liberals like Paul Berman who wrote Terror and Liberalism. While the connections were a bit far fetched, the sources provided were enough to damn the Baathists. Sati al-Husri was an influential Arab Nationalist who inspired Michel Aflaq (the found of Baathism) who was himselff inspired by German Nationalist philosophy that later inspired Nazi theotricians. The ideology was laregly based the living and breathing nation of the Arabs and how it must come together to fulfill its destiny. Imperialism, International Communism, and Pan-Islamism were all threats.

It had more to do with the times than any actual real ties to Fascism. The emergence of nationalism in the 30s and 40s, the rejection of communism and imperialism, racial identity politics, cultural supremacy, socialism being re-defined to include private property and private enterprise, the emphasis on the state. These were all present in Arab Baath Socialism.

Saddam's Iraq was extremely authoritarian, revolved around a cult of personality, was anti-socialist, anti-union, anti-democratic. Saddam talked about the glories of pan-Arabism and scapegoated Kurds, Shias and Persians as lesser people. It was a state focused on Arab supremacy and authoritarian rule. It was very much closer to Fascism than most of the states leftists were against in the Cold War.

[RED DAVE]

The important issue is fascism is that it is a form of capitalism.

Fascism arises when the working class can't take power and the bourgeoisie, based on its normal political processes, can't hold on to it securely. Then, there arises a mass movement, pro-capitalist (but with some socialist trappings), based on the lower-middle class, which has the purpose of crushing the working class and securing the rule of the bourgeoisie.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

The important issue is fascism is that it is a form of capitalism.

Fascism arises when the working class can't take power and the bourgeoisie, based on its normal political processes, can't hold on to it securely. Then, there arises a mass movement, pro-capitalist (but with some socialist trappings), based on the lower-middle class, which has the purpose of crushing the working class and securing the rule of the bourgeoisie.

RED DAVE

How do you figure this? Where do people get these interpretations of Fascism from? The movements didn't start out this way. Do you guys mean that the movement ended up this way or were created to maintain bourgeois control from the very beginning? Is this a matter of what they preached and what they practiced?