Fascism existing outside the context of capitalism?

[RadioRaheem84]

There is always this separation of capitalism and fascism by the liberal and right wing press, as if it broke away from the capitalist mechanism of running society.

Yet, can it even exist without capitalism? I think not.

Fascism can be said to be a creation of mad theoreticians but in practice it was only given power by the business and political elite, and thus was given such powers to maintain the status quo, even at the loss of democracy for the bourgeoisie.

Here we're dealing with the same problem when it comes to explaining the current right wing movements that have sprung up as a result of the lower standard of living in the developed world.

The Tea Party, Radical Christian groups, the base of the GOP have elements of nationalism, racism and other things usually associated with fascist groups of yesteryear and today.

There are marked differences but does not the bourgeoisie use these elements to fight back reform and radicalism when it pleases? The ruling classes used the Blackshirts as well as the Brownshirts to marginalize radical and liberal elements in society that threatened their interests.

The same happened in 70s Chile with right wing proto-fascist groups like the Fatherland and Liberty Organization that conducted anti-radical violence against left wing groups backing Allende's reforms.

So three questions arise?

1.) Can Fascism be understood outside of capitalism?

2.) Is it a tool of the bourgeoisie?

3.) In times of dire crises can they allow the dismantling of their democratic bourgeoisie society in favor of fascism to protect their interests?

This begs a fourth; Are the current right wing movements in the United States proto-fascist?

[Sosa]

4.) Yes!, the Tea Party specifically.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

1.) I dont think so, the capitalist society is the very base for creating fascism. Currently, the best example of that is the rise of fascism in the former eastern bloc.

2.) Definatly, fascism is very much the reaction against the labour movement, but it can easely slipp out the hands of the borgeousie and start to turning against them.

[Widerstand]

1) I would say that fascism is an extreme form of the two pro-establishment forces of modern bourgeois society, namely: Integration, in the form of person cults, mass movements, massive indoctrination, beginning in early childhood, and total subordination of the individual under the "cause"; Repression, in the form of executions, jail sentences, massive observation and control and open encouragement of attacks on certain groups of the populace by all other groups.
Along with that, the capitalist element of oppression actually declines a bit (in proportion), while both sexual and racial oppression massively rise.

[Thirsty Crow]

1.) Can Fascism be understood outside of capitalism?

2.) Is it a tool of the bourgeoisie?

3.) In times of dire crises can they allow the dismantling of their democratic bourgeoisie society in favor of fascism to protect their interests?

This begs a fourth; Are the current right wing movements in the United States proto-fascist?

Fascism is a historical term denotating a specific, historical ideology, political economy and politics in general (meaning social politics that do not fall into the category of labour relations). As such, one would have to change the meaning of the term and provide solid, concrete arguments for such a change.
In my view, ideologies, political economy and different manifestations of political philosophy cannot be understood outside the context of productive relations and wider social relations. This is a basic methodological viewpoint, and I think that I do not have to provide arguments in its favour. Proceeding from this starting point, the answers to your questions would be:

1) No.

2) It most definitely is. To simplify the problem: fascism has historically functioned as a reaction to modernity (industrialism, more complex societies devoid of the traditional ties inherited from feudalism, the rise of parliamentary democracy, capitalism, with its conflicts and crises - the crown jewel of modernity)

3) Yes they can and yes they did.

As far as the fourth question is concerned, I doubt that the Tea Party can be considered "proto-fascist". White supremacy groups are clearly neofascist though.
And I have an objection regarding the term "proto-fascist" (and I used it as well before I came up with the objection :D). In my opinion, a better term would be "neo-fascist" since these movements are directly influenced by orthodox Fascist regimes, or other ultra-right regimes/ideologies which are connected to it. The "proto" element is borrowed from biology, and as such, it bears certain connotations which do not ring with contemporary phenomena you and I are talking about.



Along with that, the capitalist element of oppression actually declines a bit (in proportion), while both sexual and racial oppression massively rise.

Do you have any historical evidence for such a claim?
Did the government grant workers better conditions, more influence within the decision making process? Did they decrease minimum working hours?
Because, I think that crazed militarization has not been a favourable condition for a "relief" of capitalist exploitation.

[Devrim]

1.) Can Fascism be understood outside of capitalism?

2.) Is it a tool of the bourgeoisie?

3.) In times of dire crises can they allow the dismantling of their democratic bourgeoisie society in favor of fascism to protect their interests?

This begs a fourth; Are the current right wing movements in the United States proto-fascist?

1) No.

2) Yes.

3) Yes, and no. Yes in that the bourgeoisie will foster fascism, but no in that it doesn't 'dismantle their democratic bourgeois society'. It maintains that society.

4) certainly not. Fascism does not mean 'any right wing ideology that we don't like'. It is a specific thing and one of its key features is being based on the back of smashed revolutionary movements, which certainly doesn't apply in the States today.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Along with that, the capitalist element of oppression actually declines a bit (in proportion), while both sexual and racial oppression massively rise.

I have to agree with Menocchio here. Fascist regimes have played a crucial role in raising levels of exploitation, but more importantly the 'capitalist element of oppression' is exploitation, not oppression, and they are two different things.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

3) Yes, and no. Yes in that the bourgeoisie will foster fascism, but no in that it doesn't 'dismantle their democratic bourgeois society'. It maintains that society.
It generally eliminates the bourgeois democratic institutions of that society, though.

[Thirsty Crow]

3) Yes, and no. Yes in that the bourgeoisie will foster fascism, but no in that it doesn't 'dismantle their democratic bourgeois society'. It maintains that society.

It does maintain the bourgeois society, but it does not maintain its "most civilized" political superstructure, i.e. parliamentary democracy.
Or am I wrong or missing something...?

[RadioRaheem84]

I love all the posts, thanks comrades.

I think that the bourgoise end up accepting the dismantling of their elite democracy in favor of fascism if it will still grant them their right to their riches.

Sometimes the fascism can overide their desires. I think that by the end of WWII, it was a monster that it could not stop.

Could it be said that fascism is the final nail on the capitalist coffin? The ultimate monster that it can muster against us?

[Jazzhands]

1.) Can Fascism be understood outside of capitalism?

If capitalism is understood by the relationship of oppressed/oppressor classes to the means of production and each other, then no. Fascism is a drastic measure designed to preserve the present societal structure. That's why it exists in the first place. It does not change the relationship between capitalist and worker, or people and capital.


2.) Is it a tool of the bourgeoisie?

Yes. Although fascism and Nazism had the most numerical support from the working-class and petty-bourgeoisie, there is nothing that says that other classes cannot use the bourgeoisie's weapon against themselves.


3.) In times of dire crises can they allow the dismantling of their democratic bourgeoisie society in favor of fascism to protect their interests?

This is the only way fascism has ever come into existence. Yes.


This begs a fourth; Are the current right wing movements in the United States proto-fascist?


No. They still have at least some desire to maintain what they think is parliamentary democracy. Fascists have no such illusions. They want to re-structure the whole state into a hyper-capitalist "emergency mode" for the bourgeoisie.

[RadioRaheem84]

No. They still have at least some desire to maintain what they think is parliamentary democracy. Fascists have no such illusions. They want to re-structure the whole state into a hyper-capitalist "emergency mode" for the bourgeoisie.

So then what are these new movements then?

I am sure they would be willing to suspend some sort of democractic rights in they felt they were in danger of "bolshevism".

[Thirsty Crow]

So then what are these new movements then?

I am sure they would be willing to suspend some sort of democractic rights in they felt they were in danger of "bolshevism".
We should keep in mind that "Fascism" is a historical term. In other words, the name itself bears direct connotations of specific historical conditions that led to the rise of this specific form of capitalist political ideology.
We may also ask ourselves (one of my favorite methods - ask and answer): to which phenomena do these (contemporary) ideologies relate?

Multiculturalism, for one. I believe that, in the US, as well as Europe, these "new" ultra-right movements react against the presence of other cultures, as well as ethnicities/races (Russia, for example, regarding the ethnicities/races; US, ultra-right Christian groups, regarding culture and - more specifically, religion - and social issues like abortion and LGBT rights; that is not to say).

The phenomenon of parliamentary democracy is particularly interesting here. I also think that there is a manifest reaction against this political system, particularly when the European "New Right" is concerned (American and European "New Right" differ from one another). For example, some loons from the French New Right movement (which was almost uniquely a cultural movement whose goal was cultural hegemony) actually suggested that a political system be constructed in which IQ tests would determine who should lead a country.

Bolshevism/communism: here the two strands unite. I think that their opposition towards workers' rights is heavily expressed. Not to mention the evil of communism. However, the situation in Europe is conflicting and odd if we keep in mind that there exists something as National Bolshevism (however its influence being weak).

These are the three basic phenomena which enter into a relationship with the before mentioned ideology/ies. And I think that we should judge them (ideologies) by their stance on, at least, these issues.
But, if we revert to the basic assumption - that "Fascism" is a historical term - we are forced to name them differently. In my view, "neo-fascist" would be OK since there are actual links between "the original" and "the copy".

[Devrim]

3) Yes, and no. Yes in that the bourgeoisie will foster fascism, but no in that it doesn't 'dismantle their democratic bourgeois society'. It maintains that society.


It generally eliminates the bourgeois democratic institutions of that society, though.


It does maintain the bourgeois society, but it does not maintain its "most civilized" political superstructure, i.e. parliamentary democracy.
Or am I wrong or missing something...?

Both Nazi Germany and fascist Italy had parliaments admittedly run under a one party system. They maintained a veneer of democracy. It transforms those institutions in the interests of the state, but doesn't dismantle them

They also attacked workers and minorities. Then again both Spain and the UK, both 'democratic' members of the EU have run death squads to murder separatists. Such is democracy.

Devrim

[Widerstand]

Do you have any historical evidence for such a claim?
Did the government grant workers better conditions, more influence within the decision making process? Did they decrease minimum working hours?
Because, I think that crazed militarization has not been a favourable condition for a "relief" of capitalist exploitation.

Clarification: When I said "in proportion", I mean that institutionalized and legalized sexism and racism make drastic rises, and that often the victims of those laws and institutions are the ones exposed to the most extreme exploitation.

[Kiev Communard]

Historically fascism was an instrument of saving capitalists from the excesses of their own system by autakization and anti-crisis public spending. Yet its militaristic underpinnings and inherent adventurism of fascist leaders made capitalist oligarchy turn to other, more reliable and safe tools, so I doubt we shall see anything resembling classical fascism in the future. Besides, the modern capitalism is too internationalized so that transnational corporations would not want to see the proponents of economic autarky come into power in any major state. The right-wing populism nowadays is quite another thing, of course.

[Yazman]

4.) Yes!, the Tea Party specifically.

Sosa, could you please elaborate on this? I am curious to hear what your thoughts on the tea party are. I have always suspected they are far right, but they do not come off as fascists to me.

They seem, to me, to be more like ancaps than fascists.

[RadioRaheem84]

The modern tea party is the manifestion of the old confederacy rearing its ugly head.

[iskrabronstein]

In a very simplistic sense one could advance that hypothesis, but the composition of the Tea Party on a national level is too ideologically disorganized for that to effectively describe it.

On a social level many Tea Party branches advocate policies typically associated with reaction or fascism, endorsing racist and authoritarian policies in the name of national security or prestige. But the actual political dynamic, the government structure increasingly adopted as a program by this movement, is decidedly decentralized - the influential right wing of the Tea Party endorses a view of local authority that effectively grants all interpretation and application of federal statutes to local sheriffs. Obviously this contrasts with the centralizing tendency manifested in classical fascism, so in a political sense the movements are clearly distinct.

But when looking at the possible consequences of a Tea Party victory as compared to the fascist states of history, there are clear parallels. Both regimes would effectively muzzle workers' organizations and retain the authority to suppress radical elements. Both regimes would strengthen the social power of corporate capital - the fascists by seizing and directing the state in order to direct the economy, and the Tea Party by weakening the state so that is unable to control and regulate the corporate powers running the economy. Both regimes would pursue targeted reactionary policies against minorities within society.

To be frank, quibbling about what to call these bastards is what we should have been doing two years ago. There may not be blackshirts marching through the streets, but this is certainly not a movement that we can allow to take power without opposition.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. Trying to identify this groups as perfectly fascist is spurious. They are against us and in a big way.

We might as well be sitting around trying to pinpoint just how fascist the Taliban really were when they were muzzling socialist and communists in the former DRA.

These people constitute the worst elements of this society at this point in time in it's historical development.

Simple as that.

[Red Commissar]

In regards to the last point, there could be some proto-fascist elements in the right populist sentiment that tends to periodically shoot up- the anti-corporate, pro-small business petit-bourgeois movements that bemoan the doom of their cherished "middle-class" position in society. We saw this in the Populists of the shade of William Jennings Bryan at the turn of the century, the likes of Huey Long in the Great Depression, the moral majority of the 1980s, and so on. This is of course discounting the groups that openly declared themselves to be Fascist or Nazi.

This does not mean that they in themselves can be considered fascist nor definitely lean that way. If conditions are right and they are sufficiently alienated by the powers that be in society, then they can take a turn to fascism and be bolstered by certain segments of the ruling class if the economic conditions are drastic enough (IE volatile working class). As I posted in another similar thread, a quote from Gramsci:


Neglecting, or worse still despising, so-called "spontaneous" movements, i.e. failing to give them a conscious leadership or raise them to a higher plane by inserting them into politics, may often have extremely serious consequences. It is almost the case that a "spontaneous" movement of the subaltern classes (i.e. Petite bourgeoisie, "middle-class") is accompanied by a reactionary movement of the right-wing of the dominant class, for concomitant reasons. An economic crisis, for instance, engenders on the one hand discontent among the subaltern classes and spontaneous mass movements, and on the other conspiracies among the reactionary groups, who take advantage of the objective weakening of the government in order to attempt coup d'etat."

This reactionary element if given the room could certainly transform a movement into a fascist entity. But the conditions are not right for them to garner support either from the people they wish to fool or the ruling class they wish to partner with.

In regards to the Tea Party, despite their claims to the contrary, they have been embraced wholly by the establishment. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingritch, Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Mark Rubio, and the rest of the self-styled luminaries of the Tea movement are all in one way connected to the ruling class. The function of the Tea party is essentially acting as a tool to try and establish a new political equilibrium favourable to their major supporters- directly on the Republicans and indirectly on the Democrats- not so much to save the save the system from out straight collapse as Fascism had arisen in- Obama and Bush took care of that for them.

So to me the popular claim of the Tea Party being proto-fascist, while there is a possibility, it will certainly not go in that direction. It is a certainly a possible embryo for one if the conditions are correct, which they are not.

And I think this leads into the rest of your points- the one problem we have with fascism is that many on the left simply employ it as a pejorative in the same manner that those on the right might employ socialism. They justify this use by using rather flimsy standards to classify something as "fascist" or "socialist", rather than taking a genuine look at the social and political relations in those societies arising from the economic structure.

It's a tough job to exactly say what fascism entails because characteristics of its system is seen in other systems. This requires us to go beyond the left-right political deal, and to recognise that Fascism's real goal in the end was to secure power and establish "order". For that reason a lot of their claims and programs end up differently once they get into government as opposed to the time when they were trying to cater to the masses.

Mussolini's fascists were employed by certain industrial backers on the heels of the Red Biennium, the time of mass worker discontent and struggle in Italy following WW I, that presented a clear threat to Italy's already floundering and weak economy. They needed someone to prevent the fragile structure from imploding and a communist revolution from taking place. The Liberal government of Italy at the time, led by Giovanni Giolitti, turned a blind eye to the rise of the fascists and their violent action towards trade unionists and Communist agitators, seeing the elimination of these factors favourable.

Running alongside this was of course the attempts to fix the system through more "democratic" means, as seen by the successive liberal governments after WWI, at one point even led by the reformist Bonomi. Of course when these failed the industrialists of the north and the landowners of the south sought another ally, and that came in the form of Mussolini and his fascists.

It is worth noting that Mussolini initially did not have a firm hold on the fascist movement, it was challenged by different people, most notably Gabriele d'Annunzio (the guy who went up to Fiume with nationalists of various shades and declared the "Italian Regency of Carnaro") who casted Mussolini as a political hack not willing to follow the "true" principles.

Nazi's were a similar case- while attempting to cater to the working class (tossing "socialism" in their party name, embracing economic stances similar to social dems, etc) found support from other elements of society- notably the "middle-class" who were feeling squeezed out and of course the Industrialists who came to see the Nazis as the way to prevent worker agitation reaching high levels.

In this way I can't see Fascism existing outside of capitalism. While some of their supporters may claim to the contrary, it is still firmly rooted in capitalist principles of private ownership and "reward", though for different purposes than the laissez-faire advocates.

[Jazzhands]

So then what are these new movements then?

They're just really stupid people. They have no ideology and no actual goal, both of which fascism has, no matter how nebulous its ideology and goals may be. The Tea Party sustains itself solely on misdirected rage and making themselves look like they're a mass movement as opposed to the creation of a blogger designed to pack the front of town halls to make themselves look bigger.


I am sure they would be willing to suspend some sort of democractic rights in they felt they were in danger of "bolshevism".

This is true, but fascism is not just authoritarian anti-communism, and authoritarian anti-communism is not unique to fascism. If you're talking about just simple right-wing totalitarianism, then yes, the Tea Partiers would likely be very supportive of such a government. But if you're talking about pure, Mussolini/Hitler fascism, then no.