The "Fascism rises from the ashes of defeated workers movement" idea

[bailey_187]

There are a few big examples this can be applied to like Italy, Hungary and Germany. All had substantial workers movements, that were defeated, and were followed by the rise of fascism

But what about other countries that saw serious and popular fascist movements such as Romania? AFAIK, there was never a paticularly strong workers movement in the first place due to its association with Hungarian border revisionism and Russian aggression. Yet Romania saw the rise the Iron Legions which by the late 30s acheived a substantial number of votes, despite, according to many historians, the vote being rigged against them.

Im not so familiar with Eastern Europe other Fascist movements and their popularity, but in many areas, the post-ww1 years saw no substantial workers movement to be defeated, yet much of Eastern Europe saw fascist movements and/or the adoption of fascist style politics by those already in power

So is it wrong to say that "fascism comes out of the defeat of the working class"?

[chegitz guevara]

So is it wrong to say that "fascism comes out of the defeat of the working class"?

Yes, it is wrong. Fascism came out of the failure of the worker class to take power when it has the strength to do so.

It's debatable whether the Iron Guard can be considered a fascist movement. Despite similar ideologies with fascism, its class base was the peasantry and students. Other groups who followed fascist ideology were similarly constituted. We can really only talk about two fascist governments, Italy and Germany, and in Italy, fascist control wasn't complete. In other countries, like Spain, Romania, Hungary, etc. fascists had to form coalitions with conservatives to have a taste of power.

Fascist groups can arise at any time, and grow, but it's only when the bourgeoisie is desperate that they turn to them for support. In Germany, Italy, and Spain, while workers revolution may not have been on the immediate agenda, the workers were so powerful that nothing could be done without their permission. The bourgeoisie could not simply shift the burden of the economic downturn on the workers, so the workers needed to be smashed, but that state was not useful in this regard as it had divided sympathies. Hence, the ruling class turns to the only thing that could smash a mass movement ... another mass movement. As the fascist movement in Spain was actually very small, as opposed to Italy's and Germany's, it took a civil war to smash the workers.

What we've seen in the United States recently, however, is a fascist movement unconnected to the existence of a powerful workers movement. The Tea Party exists not to smash the workers, but to smash a wing of capital which is seeking to get out from under the thumb of the FIRE sector of the economy (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate), and the energy and "health" sectors, which now dominate U.S. capitalism/imperialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Blue Labour arose from the shit of New Labour.

[Tim Finnegan]

What we've seen in the United States recently, however, is a fascist movement unconnected to the existence of a powerful workers movement. The Tea Party exists not to smash the workers, but to smash a wing of capital which is seeking to get out from under the thumb of the FIRE sector of the economy (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate), and the energy and "health" sectors, which now dominate U.S. capitalism/imperialism.
That sounds like an interesting analysis- would you be able to elaborate or link to an elaboration on it?

[Ocean Seal]

What we've seen in the United States recently, however, is a fascist movement unconnected to the existence of a powerful workers movement. The Tea Party exists not to smash the workers, but to smash a wing of capital which is seeking to get out from under the thumb of the FIRE sector of the economy (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate), and the energy and "health" sectors, which now dominate U.S. capitalism/imperialism.
I don't really understand this part. What group wants out of the FIRE sector of the economy, and why? Does any good come out of this?

[chegitz guevara]

Manufacturing capital, for example, wants out from underneath FIRE's thumb. Companies like GM and Chrysler, to name two companies, were crushed by health insurance costs. Moving to a public health care system would allow them to shift that burden onto the state, but it would also deprive the insurance industries of a guaranteed source of income. Rather than see that happen, the insurance industry funded the Tea Party to ensure there was no possibility of a public option, let alone single payer.