What is 'creeping fascism'?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I was chatting with some people a good few months ago about the rise of the far-right Golden Dawn party in Greece and where it was getting it's support base from when someone mentioned the term 'creeping fascism' as an aside about certain countries in Europe. What was he referring to, exactly?

[Brutus]

Sounds like a movement that is fascist, but not openly. Maybe uses populist rhetoric

[The Jay]

It sounds like a spin off of "cultural marxism." I wouldn't give it too much credence.

[The Idler]

A recruitment tool for the stupid, paranoid and fearful.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

A recruitment tool for the stupid, paranoid and fearful.

This basically.


Describing the Golden Dawn as fascist might be accurate. But you have to understand that fascism only emerges under specific circumstances in societies where the patriarchal family unit still exists, since this unit is the "most basic unit of Fascism" as William Reich said. In societies such as the USA, where we have an abundance of ethnic and religious diversity, and where the family structure that bred fascism is dead. Even when we had the Tea Party movement, despite the fact that some on the left called it fascism, it's actually ideological content was vastly different from fascism. Even when we had the tea party movement, it could only take root in backward areas of the south where tenant and sharecrop farming were predominate before NAFTA wiped it out and replaced it with modern industrial methods of farming. So really there is no material basis for an American fascism to arise, and I can imagine that in most other western european countries there really isn't any place that hasn't been thoroughly modernized.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This basically.

Describing the Golden Dawn as fascist might be accurate. But you have to understand that fascism only emerges under specific circumstances in societies where the patriarchal family unit still exists, since this unit is the "most basic unit of Fascism" as William Reich said. In societies such as the USA, where we have an abundance of ethnic and religious diversity, and where the family structure that bred fascism is dead. Even when we had the Tea Party movement, despite the fact that some on the left called it fascism, it's actually ideological content was vastly different from fascism. Even when we had the tea party movement, it could only take root in backward areas of the south where tenant and sharecrop farming were predominate before NAFTA wiped it out and replaced it with modern industrial methods of farming. So really there is no material basis for an American fascism to arise, and I can imagine that in most other western european countries there really isn't any place that hasn't been thoroughly modernized.

How is the patriarchal family unit the "basic unit of fascism"? I am not trying to be confrontational, I just don't understand the claim entirely. I think that fascism is best described as a mass movement of the petite bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat and the declassed elements against the labour movement and for bourgeois Bonapartism. According to that definition, the Golden Dawn is definitely fascist, and the Tea Party contains fascist elements.

Also, is the patriarchal family really dead in North America? I am not that familiar with the situation in the United States, but both patriarchy and the Western family organisation seem to be largely intact there.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

How is the patriarchal family unit the "basic unit of fascism"? I am not trying to be confrontational, I just don't understand the claim entirely. I think that fascism is best described as a mass movement of the petite bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat and the declassed elements against the labour movement and for bourgeois Bonapartism. According to that definition, the Golden Dawn is definitely fascist, and the Tea Party contains fascist elements.


Well I'm not able to give you a complete answer here, but I'll do my best. Still I think that the best thing to do would be to read The Mass Psychology of Fascism, or at least the section on the family.

In short, fascism as an authoritarian model find's its economic base in the patriarchal family unit found in the middle classes. Fascism is the movement to reorganize society in the patriarchal family's image. This is where the actual content of fascism's ideology comes from, the authoritarianism, the secularism with religious overtones, the rabid nationalism, and the anti-capitalist rhetoric.


Also, is the patriarchal family really dead in North America? I am not that familiar with the situation in the United States, but both patriarchy and the Western family organisation seem to be largely intact there.


Depends where you are in the united states. We have a 50% divorce rate as the national adverage and 54% of children are raised in single parent households. 1/3 of which are raised by mothers. Now this weakens the mother's situation in society at large, but within the context of the family it is empowering insofar that the social ownership of the child is returned back to the mother when historically it belonged to the father in the traditional patriarchal family unit. In the South the patriarchal family unit survives, but it's on life support ever since NAFTA came in. Now we see anti-abortion legislation in the south designed to tie woman to their family units in the south, but this effort is largely redundant at this point.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well I'm not able to give you a complete answer here, but I'll do my best. Still I think that the best thing to do would be to read The Mass Psychology of Fascism, or at least the section on the family.

Probably; unfortunately, I have quite an extensive backlog of books and articles that I have to go through first.


In short, fascism as an authoritarian model find's its economic base in the patriarchal family unit found in the middle classes. Fascism is the movement to reorganize society in the patriarchal family's image. This is where the actual content of fascism's ideology comes from, the authoritarianism, the secularism with religious overtones, the rabid nationalism, and the anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Would this not imply that the various European royal and aristocratic dictatorships (the dictatorship of de Rivera, for example, or that of king Alexander), as well as nationalist movements in former colonial states (the Guomindang), are fascist? And I think there exists an obvious qualitative difference between such regimes and the regime of the PNF, NSDAP or the Iron Guard.


Depends where you are in the united states. We have a 50% divorce rate as the national adverage and 54% of children are raised in single parent households. 1/3 of which are raised by mothers. Now this weakens the mother's situation in society at large, but within the context of the family it is empowering insofar that the social ownership of the child is returned back to the mother when historically it belonged to the father in the traditional patriarchal family unit. In the South the patriarchal family unit survives, but it's on life support ever since NAFTA came in. Now we see anti-abortion legislation in the south designed to tie woman to their family units in the south, but this effort is largely redundant at this point.

Interesting; it seems my information was severely outdated. Thank you for the correction. Is this phenomenon distributed equally across the various ethnic and racial groups?

[Comrade #138672]

Of course, the patriarchal family unit is an element of Fascism, but it should not be understood as being the core of Fascism.

[Lokomotive293]

This basically.


Describing the Golden Dawn as fascist might be accurate. But you have to understand that fascism only emerges under specific circumstances in societies where the patriarchal family unit still exists, since this unit is the "most basic unit of Fascism" as William Reich said. In societies such as the USA, where we have an abundance of ethnic and religious diversity, and where the family structure that bred fascism is dead. Even when we had the Tea Party movement, despite the fact that some on the left called it fascism, it's actually ideological content was vastly different from fascism. Even when we had the tea party movement, it could only take root in backward areas of the south where tenant and sharecrop farming were predominate before NAFTA wiped it out and replaced it with modern industrial methods of farming. So really there is no material basis for an American fascism to arise, and I can imagine that in most other western european countries there really isn't any place that hasn't been thoroughly modernized.

Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary parts of monopoly capital. It is the most brutal form of bourgeois rule, and one that emerges out of a crisis of capitalism, when capitalism cannot be maintained by any other means.
There is ALWAYS a material base for fascism under monopoly capitalism, as monopoly capitalism IS the material base for fascism. To think otherwise would be more than dangerous.
The patriarchal family is also not the material base of anything, it is rather a part of the superstructure that comes along with the specific economic system (=material base). And, I would say it's pretty far-stretched to claim that the patriarchal family doesn't exist anymore in the US and Western Europe.

[Tim Cornelis]

Creeping fascism is presumably the notion that liberals are gradually introducing a police state. A ridiculous notion in my opinion.

As for YABM:
I'd propose a different reason why the US isn't very susceptible to fascism.
Fascism is based on palingenetic ultranationalism, a desire to revive a nation's golden age under the guidance of a unitary state. Its appeal arises in times of crises because it appeals to a golden age, or maybe because the nation is under attack by 'polaristic' (class struggle) leftists.
In any case, the 'golden age' of Scandinavia were the vikings, so we see Scandinavian and Germanic fascists sue viking symbolism extensively; the Russian golden age was Imperial Russia or Stalin's Russia and we see fascist sympathies for both; Dutch golden age was, well, the golden age, and we see Dutch fascists use the orange-white-blue flag of that time, and so forth. If we look at US, however, its golden age was that of free markets, the Founding Fathers, whom preached limited government. So palingenetic ultranationalism in the US becomes a 'moderate' palingenetic patriotism, in the form of a Tea Party (the name itself is tribute to the US' golden age period). It is not incidental that the right-wing authoritarian mentality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism) is so prevalent amongst conservatives that want 'limited government'.

The "golden age" period, of course, doesn't have to be a real golden age, it has to be perceived as such.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The "golden age" of the United States was the aptly named Gilded Age, methinks, and a return to the Gilded Age on the basis of bourgeois bonapartism and mass mobilisation of the reactionary layers of workers and the middle strata would be fascism. And in any case, ideologies should be situated in a class context, not judged according to their overt programme (the programmes of bourgeois liberals and conservatives are quite different; their class standpoint is the same).

[Rurkel]

If we look at US, however, its golden age was that of free markets, the Founding Fathers, whom preached limited government. So palingenetic ultranationalism in the US becomes a 'moderate' palingenetic patriotism, in the form of a Tea Party (the name itself is tribute to the US' golden age period).
True, the fact that all US ideological traditions are, in a broader sense, liberal (even the neo-confederates are republican-parliamentarianist) hinders a American "pure fascist" ideology. Still, the far-right usually doesn't value ideological consistency, and ideologies are remarkably mutable under stress of external pressure.