Fascists: Where do the names come from?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, so most people know this about fascists but I've never understood why or heard a good general explanation: why do fascists take their political tendency names from the radical left?

A friend of mine ran into a member of the Bay Area National Anarchists and she took them at their name and spoke with them and later asked me if I knew of them or worked with them. I almost choked on the meal I was having with her. I explained to her that they are fascists, but she didn't believe me because, you know, modern fascists with sense enough not to dress as NEO-NAZIs like to keep the disgustingness of their politics on the down-low. She said: "but they were talking about autonomous communities and living in an environmentally sustainable way".

So when I got home I sent her some links about the group and what they really are all about. But as I was doing a search, I came to the wikipedia "fascism" page and saw that the following were how they categorized fascist political traditions:

National-Syndicalism (Itlay)
National-Socialism (Germany)
National-Anarchism
National-Bolshevism

So I can guess that National-Syndicalism came about with the logic of reaction during workers movements: "worker-syndicalism is divisive and tearing the country apart - what we need are not unions based on class and the workplace, we need the nation to be one solid union".

The same could go for National Socialism - but what about the others? Are they just following the trend or what? It doesn't make that much sense in a modern context for national-anarchists to try and pose as real anarchists because it's not like the left has a huge mass following right now. So what is it?

[which doctor]

I can't give you and solid reason, but it's no coincidence that when the question of socialist revolution gets posed, so does the question of fascism. For instance, you have Mussolini who was a member of the Socialist Party, the Nazi's came to power after a defeated worker's revolution, and in Russia during the revolution you have people like the Black Hundreds.So as the possibility of socialism gets ever nearer, one has to be all the more vigilant of the threat of fascism.

[black magick hustla]

Well, fascism arose when the socialist and communist parties were massively popular, which means a lot of fascists were probably ex-socialists. Mussolini was member of the left wing of the socialist party. So historically, this is why that happened - the whole "revolutionary" discourse was dominated by socialists so that was the only language available for people who considered themselves revolutionists, like the fascists. I dont think it is because of some conspiracy or whatever.

Keep in mind also that socialist groups can attract people who like being extreme for extreme sake. So what is the craziest thing you can think of? anarcho-nationalism, hell yeaz.

[Chambered Word]

They like to represent themselves as pro-worker while also maintaining an emphasis on the nation. As I understand it, fascism is about forging an alliance between the classes, so it makes itself look attractive to both the working and ruling class through quasi-socialist rhetoric and blind nationalism.*

It seems like a trend is emerging where fascist groups just tack on 'National' in front of every leftist ideology they can think of. It worked for Hitler, didn't it?






*Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the concept.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, fascism arose when the socialist and communist parties were massively popular, which means a lot of fascists were probably ex-socialists. Mussolini was member of the left wing of the socialist party. So historically, this is why that happened - the whole "revolutionary" discourse was dominated by socialists so that was the only language available for people who considered themselves revolutionists, like the fascists. I dont think it is because of some conspiracy or whatever.

Keep in mind also that socialist groups can attract people who like being extreme for extreme sake. So what is the craziest thing you can think of? anarcho-nationalism, hell yeaz.

Right, but I guess I was more curious about the most recent groups. I guess that national-anarchism is relatively new and probably developed in the US as a reaction to the anti-globalization movement. In this case it would fit with the traditional development of this kind of politics.

I didn't mean to suggest it is some sort of conspiracy, I just wonder what their thinking is since in it's essence, fascism is a reaction against working class movements. I mean, we have anti-fascist organizations... we don't go around naming them something like "the Ku Klux multi-racial and worker solidarity Klan".

[Die Neue Zeit]

National syndicalism was the precursor to Italian fascism, and was intimately linked with the radical syndicalism of Sorel (i.e., "general strike mythos"). Most syndicalists then regarded any form of political action with disgust, like many left-communists do today.

[revolution inaction]

I think that national-anarchism was invented by tory southgate to atract young people by copying the radical image of anarchists.
The original national-bolsheviks where a tendency in the nazi party that was eliminated by the faction around hitler.

[black magick hustla]

Its also interesting how fascist movements had a left wing. The falangist JONS had as a left wing Ledesma and his National Syndicalists, who spoke of a proletarian nation, and they got purged. the NDSAP had one to until it got liquidated in the night of long knives.

[Kowalsky]

Ok, so most people know this about fascists but I've never understood why or heard a good general explanation: why do fascists take their political tendency names from the radical left?

when mussolini founded tha fascist movement in 1919, his programme (the so called sansepolcro programme) still had strong leftist points, se he called his movement after the name of the peasants in sicily.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

It is my understanding that many early Nazis, etc. were influenced by left wing ideas. For example if you were start off with the socialist ideal then say well how are we gunna get this in, well we need to make people act like how we want, hmm we are gunna need an army to do that, and leader to organise it all, but we can't have leaders change half way through, he must be a dictator, how can we keep this perfect?, well our people traditionaly match the socialist idea ao we must kill those we percieve to not match the socialist ideal (jews, gays, etc.). So on and so forth, it is very easy to conclude as a Nazi and begin as a communist if you arnt careful.

[RadioRaheem84]

WWI split the leftist camps into two main groups; anarchist and nationalist, leftist internationalist and national socialists.

The original fascists were mostly part of the national syndicalists movements in Italy and Spain. The Italians took their platform from the proto-fascist government of Gabrielle d'Annunzio and his corporatist structure. The Spanish took to the teachings of Jose Antonio Primo De Rivera and his Spanish Phalanx movement.

These movements were neither right nor left in the traditional sense. Primo De Rivera, for instance, disliked the liberal democracies as much as the Red internationalists.

For the most part, they began as syndicalists then evolved into corporatists and then later into fascists. Class warfare became class colaboration and the struggle of classes becamse the struggle of nations. I mean the whole ideology is extremely irrational and utterly nonsensical.

Fascist theotricians never really had a fundamental structure in their ideology except that it was nationalist, anti-Communist and anti-international finance, which were both regarded as diabolical schemes by the Jews according to National Socialism.

I would look at the Fascist movement in the same vein as I would look at the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the British counter parts:

A.) The Cold War split the American right into two camps; realists and idealists.

B.) The idealists were generally first social democrats and American liberals that crossed over to the Conservative camp because of their staunch anti-Comminism.

C.) The Neo-Cons advocate that the United States and its allies should use their military might to support "democratic" movements across the world instead of right wing dictators. They believed so much in free markets and liberal democracy that they believe that any country that the US "liberated" would be a flourishing liberal democracy in a short span of time. Their rhetoric was very "leftist" and very "democratic" but in short was brutally imperialist and reactionary right wing.

D.) Take leftists and liberals like Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens and Oliver Kamm. Three Brits who loved to champion liberal social democracies but ended up falling head first into the neo-con camp even as so far as to deride the Spanish people for voting socialist instead of conservative, some how trying to convince people that they weren't "leftist" enough because they didn't vote "right wing". :laugh:

E. ) The evolution became so grand that these people have admitted to not even identify with the leftist movement anymore and have totally crossed over into the rightist camp.

But no one in their right mind would call neo-cons, liberal or leftist, just because their rhetoric sounds liberal-ish.

[Aesop]

Fascists like to come across as the new radical alternative that aims to revolutionise society. When in fact fascism just re-vamps the old system to the needs of the bourgeoisie. The reasons why they call themselves national socialist, national anarchist etc etc and try to portray traits of ‘socialism’ like ‘jobs for all’. They ‘socialism’ is just a cynical attempt to elicit support from urban workers/poor.

[RadioRaheem84]

When in fact fascism just re-vamps the old system to the needs of the bourgeoisie.

What needs? Some bourgeois abhor fascism, especially liberals. It's a definite petit-bourgeoisie "ideology" that co-opts some of the ruling class and vice versa to squash leftist mobilization. The ruling class would prefer liberal democracy to anything else but would take fascism over socialism, communism any day.

[cska]

Responding to the OP, I think fascism is opposed to individualism among other things, which is part of capitalism. Thus, they have to reject capitalism, and some of the things they go to are pseudo-leftist economic structures.

[Comrade Akai]

They know they can never succeed, so they just want to make our movement look bad.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Right Wing in the States has resorted to usurp the entire leftist movement of the sixties and early seventies and turned it on it's head. Libertarian movements are increasingly using leftist rhetoric to gather supporters and right wing Republicans are constantly using populist language to round up an angry and frustrated population.

[Aesop]

What needs? Some bourgeois abhor fascism, especially liberals. It's a definite petit-bourgeoisie "ideology" that co-opts some of the ruling class and vice versa to squash leftist mobilization. The ruling class would prefer liberal democracy to anything else but would take fascism over socialism, communism any day.

Perhaps I didn't I wasn’t being clear. What I meant was that fascism does not being revolution in society, in fact it is a 'movement' which is essentially capitalist with just a revamped image of overt anti-unionism, racism and aggressive expansionism etc etc. Historically it gained support to combat strong workers movements such as in Italy. The fact that you say that the ruling class prefer liberal democracy is a moot point, for examples there are numerous examples of the ruling class fighting against universal suffrage, and not to mention some countries where it does not exist. What capitalism is concerned with is making a profit. The political form it takes is due to material circumstances.

[RadioRaheem84]

The fact that you say that the ruling class prefer liberal democracy is a moot point, for examples there are numerous examples of the ruling class fighting against universal suffrage, and not to mention some countries where it does not exist. What capitalism is concerned with is making a profit. The political form it takes is due to material circumstances.
Yes I agree that the ruling class has fought against several forms of universal suffrage but when that opposition starts to eat at profits, the ruling class tends to soften and campaign for things deemed liberal. For the most part the ruling class follows the path that will protect their interests. Their interests are more secured in a Fascist society than a Communist one and will side with the former over the latter any day of the week once liberal or social democracy has crumbled.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that the tea bag movement should always be looked as an extreme version of contemporary American politics. It shouldn't just be viewed as some extreme right wing off shoot that sprang forth out of a vacuum. If you speak to the general population in the country in a candid interview they will reveal a lot of right wing ideals that mirror the tea bagger movement. This nations is decidedly center-right in it's politics with the disagreement being just about how much of a redistribution of wealth is fair, not on whether the system is unfair.

The USA in some senses is totally gone as far as a nation that can be helped by leftist standards. Their conscious has been wholly manipulated by propaganda and the population insists on living the outlandish lifestyle we've been enjoying for thirty years. They don't want leaders who can pull the breaks on this, they want leaders who can adjust things to make things "fairer" in order to continue the American dream.
So the political spectrum in the US is still, centrist reformist liberal to extreme right wing. Still boldly anti-socialist in the real sense.