What is actually in neo-Nazism/Fascism that makes it so appealing?

[RadioRaheem84]

When there is crisis in a nation, it seems like Neo-Nazism, Fascism or right wing nationalism/populism takes center stage in addressing social ills for the vast majority of marganilzed people.

What makes it so darn popular? What does it give to people intellectually and socially that left wing or progressive activism does not?

How can wanting more and "better" capitalism, more adherence to the State, and less civil liberties fix the crisis? Wouldn't people want a total change in the status quo?

[El Louton]

Because they place the blame on another scapegoat -Muslims, Jews, Blacks etc.
People want someone to take the blame and this is why Fascism does well in crisis;.

[SocialistTommy]

because there are many ignorant people who believe that 'foreigners' are the ones who caused the crisis in the first place, so they automatically turn to radical politics....you only have to look at the horrific situation the Weimar government were in during the 20's.
But, even though he was a complete bastard, Hitler was very clever in the way he persuaded the German people to follow him.

[Nox]

At the end of the day, it always, always, always, always, always, always, always boils down to simple hatred and intolerance.

I've yet to come across a single fascist who bases his views on anything else.

[Azraella]

When people are in a pickle, people tend to want answers. Look at the conditions of Germany pre-WWII they were not in the best of shape. Guess what? Some charismatic dude with a chip on his shoulder started to scapegoat others for the problems of the country. Nationalism is bad. I do not love my country. I love the principles that the US was founded on, I even love some of the brilliant things the founding fathers said, but I can't love this country. When 9-11 happened, I was subjected to racism and nationalism and apparently I was anti-American because I did not wish to engage in the behavior. It isn't Islam's fault because my brother was killed, it's assholes that want to manipulate people.

We tend to want to identify as a label...



That is one of the great difficulties in experiencing the unconscious—that one identifies with it and becomes a fool. You must not identify with the unconscious; you must keep outside, detached, and observe objectively what happens.... it is exceedingly difficult to accept such a thing, because we are so imbued with the fact that our unconscious is our own—my unconscious, his unconscious, her unconscious—and our prejudice is so strong that we have the greatest trouble disidentifying.


This quote is pretty reflective of our tendency to do this. Nazis and fascists rely on extreme cultural identity to control a populace. Nationalism is a terrible thing that allows us to be manipulated. The same goes for other mutable characteristics like religion or politics.

Just some quick thoughts at this point.

[ВАЛТЕР]

People look for a common enemy that they can point out and say "that is the bad guy" because they want a simple answer to the worlds problems. They want a visible enemy that they can confront.

[Nox]

But, even though he was a complete bastard, Hitler was very clever in the way he persuaded the German people to follow him.

Yup, he had the perfect scapegoat - a group of foreign people (how dare they come here and ruin our country) living a very closed lifestyle (they are suspicious/mysterious) and with different religious beliefs (how dare these anti-jesus scum set foot in the holy roman empire!).

What's in the brackets is what a German citizen at the time would have thought about them with all of Hitler's propaganda

His timing was also perfect - Germany was an economic disaster and Communism was gaining huge popularity amongst the working classes, he used this to add some social policies (which were never implemented) to win over the workers.

I think that he hated all foreigners just the same, there was no 'special' hatred for the Jews, he just used the Jews to get in to power.

[NewSocialist]

many people view the system as natural. plenty of them don't even know what the word capitalism means. so during crisis, the system is the last thing they think to blame, not to mention the vast amount of media disinformation they're fed.

in the end, it's the left's fault that fascism gains ground among the people though. our fragmentation and not having done our part to educate the people on the true causes of crisis is what empowers fascism.

[Red Future]

The Militant image is easy for young men with low confidence and a sense of social worthlessness to identify with.Many SA recruits were attracted to the uniform and "macho" and "herioc" image it gave as the "party of the savoirs of Germany".

Secondly and more simply it was seen as a way of impressing women.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think it's more than just blaming scapegoats. It has to do with the idea of how "great" a society was before (or so they think) the mess they were in and that reliving that era and regaining their national strength must come through a concentrated effort.

I think one of the posters hit it on the nail, they presuppose that capitalism is natural and that the social order they lived under was always that way. So they come up with a philosophy wrapped around that notion.

They don't even have to know it's capitalism, they just know that the society and the social relations they live under are natural and have to be strengthend.

That is why at the end of the day right wing nationalist, fascist, or Nazi politics is all about promoting the status quo with a tougher fist.

[Iron Felix]

Wouldn't it sound appealing to a simplistic mind when someone tells them that they are part of a priviliged master race that is in everyway superior to others and that every problem they face is the fault of some external vermin enemy like immigrants, and that because of your superiority and the inferiority of the enemy, it's ok to treat the enemy unfairly?

Just blame everything on someone else and all is well.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Because they fear what they don't understand, people different then them. Not very many of the Nazis and fascists of today call themselves those things though.

[RadioRaheem84]

We should also note that in the United States, the business community has made a unique effort to channel right wing populist anger away from it flirting with fascism, and steered it toward libertarianism.

Has anyone noticed that every day workers are using words like "collectivism", "statism", "socialist" for everything Federal, conflating Nazism/Fascism with socialism, etc.?

If you analyze the average talking points of any Tea Bagger, you get a lot of Randian, Libertarian junk. It's not even really about family values or the moral agenda anymore. It's straight libertarianism.

[Ocean Seal]

Because people have too much of a respect for flags, because nationalism is constantly pushed on us by the ruling class, because Nazism is representative of the ruling ideology taken to an extreme which during times of crisis causes emotional people to cling to that ideology.

[L.A.P.]

Fascism and right-wing populism first and foremost get more attention because the bourgeois ideological state apparatus would of course give more attention to that than revolutionary leftism. I mean, just look at the attention the Tea Party protests recieved compared to the Occupy protests, and look how much larger the Occupy protests started out than the Tea Party. Fascism was basically a reaction against the growing popularity of communism. This is especially seen in the pseudo-radical imagery of fascism; the red flag, the "anti-"capitalist rhetoric, the populism. Ideologically, fascism appeals to the petite bourgeoisie by rejecting certain aspects of the capitalist system while ultimately keeping the institution of private property and capital. And let's not forget the use of scapegoats (immigrants, heretics, etc.) in order to distract the people from capital and the bourgeoisie.

Understand that in a crisis that the radical right already have an upper hand, that's what the bourgeoisie have them for.

[Iron Felix]

It would be best if we used the real definition of libertarianism, rather than the American one. Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman...they were real libertarians.

[SocialistTommy]

Yup, he had the perfect scapegoat - a group of foreign people (how dare they come here and ruin our country) living a very closed lifestyle (they are suspicious/mysterious) and with different religious beliefs (how dare these anti-jesus scum set foot in the holy roman empire!).

What's in the brackets is what a German citizen at the time would have thought about them with all of Hitler's propaganda

His timing was also perfect - Germany was an economic disaster and Communism was gaining huge popularity amongst the working classes, he used this to add some social policies (which were never implemented) to win over the workers.

I think that he hated all foreigners just the same, there was no 'special' hatred for the Jews, he just used the Jews to get in to power.

Exactly !, he couldn't blame the Muslims or any other 'un-aryan' race because quite frankly, they were not in Germany at that time.

[Ballyfornia]

Scapegoating

[RadioRaheem84]

But there is still an intellectual appeal to it all. I don't think that people are just passive lemmings.

[Azraella]

But there is still an intellectual appeal to it all. I don't think that people are just passive lemmings.

[url=http://cogprints.org/4275/1/Group_Defense.pdf]You might be interested in this paper[url]. I think the ideas are applicable to fascism and it's appeal.

[tachosomoza]

They like the sense of power, they like the uniforms, they like the fluff. Most neo-nazis/white trashionalists are in reality methamphetamine/heroin addicts or criminals looking for something to latch onto so that their worthless lives have meaning.

[Black_Rose]

You might be interested in this paper[url]. I think the ideas are applicable to fascism and it's appeal.




At Sobibor, a Nazi death camp, 110-150 camp guards succeeded in killing 90,000-100,000 victims in three months (2). The model of power amplification through order provides a plausible explanation why the 3,500-6,000 prisoners present in the camp at any one time were not able to rebel against the guards (until the very end of the camp’s existence).
Because of the advantage in weaponry, clothing and physical shape of the concentration camp guard, a single guard can probably evenly battle 10-20 prisoners giving him the real power of P=10-20. Since the guards were careful to order the camp in various ways, their virtual power was much larger. If each guard was able to keep 35 prisoners ordered, his virtual power would make it seem as if he alone could battle 350-700 prisoners before they could get to him.

In the movie Escape from Sobibor, twelve prisoners attempted escaped from the Northern camp and failed. An extermination camp needs to deter escape attempts, especially coordinated escape attempts so its guards would not be overwhelmed. An individual escape attempt is deterred because an escapee risks losing his/her own life, but some individuals may organized a concerted attempt or willingly accept the risk of death. In the context of Sobibor, the prisoners working in the camp would soon be executed anyway after the camp ceased function after the Ghettos were liquidated - it happened during the closure of Belzec - so one's death from an escape attempt is certainly an acceptable risk. In this case, the weaponry of the guards is not satisfactory to deter individual escape attempts, thus a greater exercise of power would be need.

The twelve escapees were going to be publicly executed, but Gustav Wagner, the sadistic commander of the camp told the condemned to select one other prisoner each to be executed with them, or he will select fifty. Wagner's ultimatum was twelve or fifty. Twenty-four were killed by machine guns. It was not enough for Wagner to execute the escapees who presumably were willing to risk death, but he had to use his power to instill the notion that an escapee also risks the lives of those who were not involved in the escape attempt too.

------

I realize that authoritarian regimes, including reactionary imperialist regimes, do indeed threaten the lives of political opponents. Moreover, the threat and the occasional use of force on the populace would not suffice for some regimes; extermination of dissidents is often the objective as is the case in Suharto's Indonesia.I then deduced that a necessary condition for any revolution's success is that a critical mass of people must be willing to risk their lives to further the objectives of the revolution in order to overwhelm the enforcement apparatus of the oppressive reactionary regime. The system becomes vitiated if the threat of death (or torture) does not deter revolutionaries from engaging in a personally risky activity that has to potential to overthrow a reactionary regime.

This the primary reason why I celebrated Alfonso Cano's life as a FARC commander, regardless of FARC inability to cause political change:


What Cano and FARC brought to the Colombian peasants is hope -- the decision to engage an armed struggle is itself a rejection of fatalism and despair that would convince one to accept that the reactionary and imperialist forces possess enough military power to quell any resistance and that the peasants and proletariat should except a lifestyle of subjugation. In contrast, while living with the guerrillas, one is afforded with dignity. It is better for one to die while being a combatant that at least poses a credible threat to the opposition's supplies, transportation, physical infrastructure and personnel, than to be murdered by a death squad. FARC certainly has enough probity not to delude its recruits that life with the guerrillas is commodious or that even victory is assured or inevitable. A life of meaningful resistance and struggle will revitalize a a vacuous life devoid of meaning while being subjugated by a physically superior yet morally inferior party - it is better to die pursuing a noble, hopeful cause than to live a life of despair. Even if one dies in the revolutionary struggle even failing to accomplish any strategic or tactical objective, her struggle would not be in vain if her death just manages to sustain the fervent flame of revolutionary sentiment and hope. This does not mean a revolutionary readily embraces death, but she accepts it as a possible consequence of the struggle: to the contrary, a revolutionary has the moral obligation to do what is possible to ensure her own survival (as long as it does not endanger the strategic goals of the revolution); one's survival is a prerequisite for resistance, the capacity to inflict damage on one's enemy. I used a feminine personal pronoun here as a reference to the fact that [URL="http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8767"]45% of FARC guerrillas are female (http://cogprints.org/4275/1/Group_Defense.pdf).

[El Louton]

They like the sense of power, they like the uniforms, they like the fluff. Most neo-nazis/white trashionalists are in reality methamphetamine/heroin addicts or criminals looking for something to latch onto so that their worthless lives have meaning.

Or schoolkids.

[Coggeh]

They like the sense of power, they like the uniforms, they like the fluff. Most neo-nazis/white trashionalists are in reality methamphetamine/heroin addicts or criminals looking for something to latch onto so that their worthless lives have meaning.
Your kind of right in that to give their worthless lives meaning, the reason many join is out of complete alienation from capitalist society look at the amount of young people joining the EDL or in the past the NF in Britain, these aren't exactly middle class fascists, these are working class people stuck on the dole, with very little careers prospects and angry as hell (and obviously rightly so)
Their anger is then usurped by the idea of blaming immigrants or non nationals etc spread by the local BNP/NF/EDL organisers for their lack of jobs instead of the system which forced them out of the job or the gave them no opportunities in the first place. In reality their is no better point or argument for a political party/vanguard/organisation of the radical left than this Marx didn't counter Hegel for the craic when he said its not ideas that shape society but society that shapes ideas, the ability to go into working class communities and fight this because many of those who would/will/have joined far right parties could have very much so joined a radical left organisation because those in working class communities are looking and screaming for an outlet for their anger, we need to give them one, and crack the skulls of the fascists who try to brainwash them with their racist bullsh*t.

[Bronco]

I think a lot of is to do with the appeal of the rhetoric that is very successful in generating a sense of pride and entitlement, with both race and country, while at the same time creating a feeling that elements all around you are trying to crush that; in the shape of foreigners, Muslims, Liberals, Communists etc. it gives people something to identify with and feel a part of when feeling out of place and disillusioned with society and politics. White people are made out to be oppressed, to be the victim of massive injustice and wrongdoing, and that stirs up emotions. The whole thing is glorified to make it seem like some kind of a noble cause, fighting for the White man in his darkest hour in the "Racial Holy War"

It's important not to look at it too simplistically, anyone could fall victim to this kind of rhetoric and propaganda, it's not the case that all White Nationalists are just "criminals" or drug addicts, or people randomly filled with hate for no reason. The whole idea that white people are inherently superior to other races, and using bogus arguments like the white man having a higher IQ or the white man historically having been more "civilised", put people up on a pedastol and give them something they feel they can be proud of, something they can fight for, and something they feel like they're owed, when before they probably felt very little purpose or direction

[R_P_A_S]

Because everyone has equally a small penis.

[Экс-фашистских]

I would say because some people believe in Social Darwinism, totalitarianism, racial nationalism, capitalism, eugenics, dictatorship, etc. in a bundled package of awesome. :rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

The only neo-Nazis I've ever seen are social outcasts at school. The adoption of fascist views during a crisis can be seen as a false perception of interests.

[Omsk]

I really cant understand those people.

You are sieg-heiling,and you grandfather was shot/massacred/gassed/arrested/tortured by the Nazis?

It's just unbelievable.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I can easily see why youths are drawn to neo-nazi gangs, personally. They offer community in much the same way that, say, left-wing skinheads or antifa or whatever offers. Or non-political gangs like the Crips, even. Throw in a "higher cause" and it's all very intoxicating.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Isn't there a quote from Hitler in which he says that mass demonstrations make even the most dejected or disillusioned people feel like they're part of a "great dragon"? I think that's definitely part of the appeal of fascism, when you're rolling with your crew you feel powerful. It's the same with the left-wing I believe too, I remember reading an account from a young Greek anarchist in which he says (when he was roaming the streets with his friends):


It was like we were carrying a monster with us, and this monster was the reputation, the mythology of the anarchist movement

from: http://zinelibrary.info/files/greekzinefull.pdf

Gilles Dauve once wrote that the strenght of fascism was that it used the same kind of grass-roots organizational methods that the working class had traditionally used, only for very different ends.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

We should also note that in the United States, the business community has made a unique effort to channel right wing populist anger away from it flirting with fascism, and steered it toward libertarianism.

Has anyone noticed that every day workers are using words like "collectivism", "statism", "socialist" for everything Federal, conflating Nazism/Fascism with socialism, etc.?

If you analyze the average talking points of any Tea Bagger, you get a lot of Randian, Libertarian junk. It's not even really about family values or the moral agenda anymore. It's straight libertarianism.
I've noticed this. I've also found that when you point out that Mises was an apologist for fascism (http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=8a683ec6-41e0-43de-bd82-4f409dc815cb) they sort of plug their ears and say "lalalalalalalalalala".

[citizen of industry]

When there is crisis in a nation, it seems like Neo-Nazism, Fascism or right wing nationalism/populism takes center stage in addressing social ills for the vast majority of marganilzed people.

What makes it so darn popular? What does it give to people intellectually and socially that left wing or progressive activism does not?

How can wanting more and "better" capitalism, more adherence to the State, and less civil liberties fix the crisis? Wouldn't people want a total change in the status quo?

You're kind of looking at things through a historical-materialist lens though. Fascism isn't addressing capitalism, civil liberties, etc. It is all about the status quo. Marxism addresses economics. Fascism does not, and hence the reliance on scapegoat.

The appeal goes something like this: There is a crisis, people's economic needs aren't being met. Fascism is strong, it is violent and forceful. Its representatives are strong and forceful - big skinheads in fatigues. Some people are angry and the strength and violent rhetoric appeal to them, as a force capable of making immediate change, which the intellectual analysis doesn't. It also has it's symbolism, as we do. You are looking at things as an intellectual. Fascism does not. It is sufficient for them to say, "look at our pathetic and weak government! Look at the (enter racial slur here) stealing our jobs! We want change, and we will change! We'll give them a bullet in the head and cleanse our nation!" And for someone pissed off, hungry and marginalized, it is appealing.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with Sailor Jay that Fascism's greatest strength is its focus on action rather than intellectual analysis. Fascism is also effective at marshalling the symbols of cultural hegemony in a matter that can be quite appealing to the petit-bourgeoisie, in particular.

[citizen of industry]

I agree with Sailor Jay that Fascism's greatest strength is its focus on action rather than intellectual analysis. Fascism is also effective at marshalling the symbols of cultural hegemony in a matter that can be quite appealing to the petit-bourgeoisie, in particular.

Also, because it doesn't represent any real change to the economic system/status quo, it gets good play in the media and other ruling class "consent" building institutions, and capitalists can use it to their advantage.

We also are all about action, or should be, but when we put a big red column of 10,000 thousand workers shouting the end of capitalism, and a few fascists counter-demonstrate the column, the newspaper headlines look something like "Ultra-conservative party opposes communist demonstration" with a photo of two or three fascists. If 40,000 people march, and there are no fascists, it doesn't get any media at all.

[Bostana]

Because Right Wingers are lazy and refuse to help a little. So they blame someone else which makes it easier on them.

[Искра]

It's all about uniforms.

[robear]

There is a German film called "Die Welle." It shows the danger of fascism, and just how easily it develops. I highly recommend watching it.

In the case of Germany, after World War I and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles Germany was completely screwed over. Germany had to pay 226 billion marks of reparations, and to make matters worse France took over "das Saarland," a major manufacturing area. As soon as the Hitler and Nazi party entered the scene with promises of restoring Germany to its previous glory, the German people naturally followed him.

I feel most people didn't realize what they were getting themselves into. That is probably the case most of the time. Fascists don't just blatantly come out and say, "I'm fascist. I'm going to take away all of your rights." In most cases they lead the country down that path without the people even realizing what is happening.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

because there are many ignorant people who believe that 'foreigners' are the ones who caused the crisis in the first place, so they automatically turn to radical politics....
I think you mean reactionary politics.

[Renno]

You're kind of looking at things through a historical-materialist lens though. Fascism isn't addressing capitalism, civil liberties, etc. It is all about the status quo. Marxism addresses economics. Fascism does not, and hence the reliance on scapegoat.

The appeal goes something like this: There is a crisis, people's economic needs aren't being met. Fascism is strong, it is violent and forceful. Its representatives are strong and forceful - big skinheads in fatigues. Some people are angry and the strength and violent rhetoric appeal to them, as a force capable of making immediate change, which the intellectual analysis doesn't. It also has it's symbolism, as we do. You are looking at things as an intellectual. Fascism does not. It is sufficient for them to say, "look at our pathetic and weak government! Look at the (enter racial slur here) stealing our jobs! We want change, and we will change! We'll give them a bullet in the head and cleanse our nation!" And for someone pissed off, hungry and marginalized, it is appealing.

I would like to add, that humans (in a sociological way) tend to fall back, in a crisis, to 'sure' things. Things that are safe, confident and familiar. The bigger the crisis, the smaller people make their world.
Fascism states that, back in the days, everything was better. And that what is happening around us, is never better then what has been.
You can compare it to what happened, a couple of years after the iron curtain fell, that there were a lot of people voting on the former communist parties, because capitalism brought misery, but at least, back then, they had a job, free health care and so on. Even standing three hours in line for bread everyday, was a sure thing, and after that you had bread.

Fascism appeals to fear, makes things simple and makes the world 'easier' to live in. If you get rid of the scapegoat, everything is solved, simple.
And everyone lives happily ever after

As revolutionary left, we want a world that is based on the fact that we, as humans, cannot survive on our own. We are a social creature, we need each other, and we realize that. We say, to be happy, everybody needs to be happy.
This is not simple, it means the need for empathy, for consensus, for sharing and giving, for a progressive state of mind. This also means, that things are not certain, tomorrow can be completely different, and that is scary.

[Game Girl]

They take pride in their racial heritage. They think that because some of the greatest minds were white, that must mean all white people are superior.

In other words; These people have done nothing in life to be proud of. So, they join white nationalism in order to gain pride from a simple biological construct. It's pathetic and weak. Why should one be proud of their race? It is NOT an achievement and it does not determine who a person is.

[Firebrand]

I think the reasons are quite complicated
Basically when things go bad, and the economy is going down the pan, people get scared and angry.
People don't like being scared so they will try to bury their fear by increasing the anger. The anger is generally initially directed at the curent centre right govt, which can be seen to have failed. This makes people look to the extremes of the political spectrum for their ideas. That means that they will either turn to us or to fascism.

Now as far as i can see there are three reasons why some turn to facism over leftism
1) The left is fragmented and weakened by infighting. People looking for something to join to vent their anger at the status quo are confounded by the fact that there are millions of little groups all of which seem more intent on scoring points off each other then actually demanding change.

2) The bourgeoisie pander to the right. they know that if they can get certain right wing ideas embedded in peoples minds then when crises occur people will be more inclined to turn further right than to go left. Because if right wing ideas appeal to what people know then scared people will turn to them in a crisis. America has elevated this to an art form. I suspect they've gone easy on it in europe because they still remember what happened last time when the right got out of hand.

3) Fascists have a sense of theatre, they dress up in stupid outfits and march around chanting about how awesome they are. Never underestimate the appeal of this.

[Game Girl]

3) Fascists have a sense of theatre, they dress up in stupid outfits and march around chanting about how awesome they are. Never underestimate the appeal of this.

This is true.

Funny enough; I was looking through Stormfront one day and I noticed a thread about what Jews wear. This is what the guy said;

"Why do Jews wear those funny, stupid outfits?! LOL"

My initial thought was;

"I don't know. How come KKK leaders look like Dumbledore?"

Then again, the leaders ARE called Grand Wizards...LOL

[Firebrand]

This is true.

Funny enough; I was looking through Stormfront one day and I noticed a thread about what Jews wear. This is what the guy said;

"Why do Jews wear those funny, stupid outfits?! LOL"

My initial thought was;

"I don't know. How come KKK leaders look like Dumbledore?"

Then again, the leaders ARE called Grand Wizards...LOL

Its important to remember when trying to start a movement that people love fancy dress. It takes them back to their childhoods. However they know that unless there is an actual event they will look silly in fancy dress so when an excuse does arrive for them to dress up they will go for it. Hence why civil war re-enactments, carnivals, morris dancing, and other cultural events are so popular. (Also explains why at any wedding there is always someone in a kilt). The power of fancy dress, someone should write a psychoanalytical paper on it :laugh:

[citizen of industry]

Its important to remember when trying to start a movement that people love fancy dress. It takes them back to their childhoods. However they know that unless there is an actual event they will look silly in fancy dress so when an excuse does arrive for them to dress up they will go for it. Hence why civil war re-enactments, carnivals, morris dancing, and other cultural events are so popular. (Also explains why at any wedding there is always someone in a kilt). The power of fancy dress, someone should write a psychoanalytical paper on it :laugh:

Let's all wear Mao hats with red stars on them :D

[Ostrinski]

Let's all wear Mao hats with red stars on them :DFatigues and all.