Is all tradition fascist?

[MarcoTheBee]

I'm new here, and I enjoy reading through a lot of your posts and threads even though some of the opinions expressed on here may not be agreeable to me. I want to make a longer thread in the near future talking about my experiences with leftism and how it was presented to me and ask you guys about certain aspects of leftism and how it pertains to what I grw up with, but right now i just want to get a quick question off of my chest before I go to bed.

I was lurking a few weeks back and I remember seeing a post that stated that the preservation of any traditions is fascist. And I have to ask myself, is this true? I mean no one replied to his/her post in agreement, but I had a feeling he wasn't the only one who would have agreed with him/her.
So guess my question is; is all keeping of some sort of tradition inherently fascist? Wouldn't that make singing happy birthday every year or cutting cake fascist or building a snowman everytime it snowed? I mean, I understand how some traditions can be perceived as fascist, but c'mon is EVERY tradition fascist?

[Skyhilist]

I don't think all traditions are fascist, because there are plenty of traditions that aren't inherently reactionary.

It's a family tradition in my house to burn the xmas tree after xmas (which I celebrate not religiously but just as a fun thing, since hey, it's xmas). We don't do it because it's a tradition. We do it because it's fun as shit. Surely I am not a fascist for enjoying such a tradition?

Tradition for the sake of tradition might be fascist or at least be fascist-oriented. Traditions stay around for a multitude of reasons though depending on the tradition itself and the group who practices it. Things that stay the same though for a given period of time don't always stay the same just because they happen to be traditions.

[#FF0000]

Traditions aren't themselves fascist. Nothing necessarily fascist about holidays or yearly events or traditional arts or cultural things. Reactionaries like fascists (sometimes) and radical traditionalists (always) and even run of the mill conservatives, to some extent, fetishize "tradition" and attribute a whole lot of power to them, as if they are anchors that society needs or else is lost.

[RedBen]

in a word, no. all institutions tends to perpetuate themselves but not all are fascist.

[Comrade #138672]

Traditions aren't themselves fascist. Nothing necessarily fascist about holidays or yearly events or traditional arts or cultural things. Reactionaries like fascists (sometimes) and radical traditionalists (always) and even run of the mill conservatives, to some extent, fetishize "tradition" and attribute a whole lot of power to them, as if they are anchors that society needs or else is lost.Does this tell us something about fascism at all?

What is the difference between the average conservative and so called radical traditionalists?

[ANTIFA GATE-9]

Simple stuff we do at certain times a year aren't consider much of a tradition. Nearly everyone makes a snowman every year but its because it snows and its a fun thing to do, it doesn't have to do with any religious tradition or something. Also singing happy birthday is more of a celebration rather than a tradition.

[#FF0000]

Does this tell us something about fascism at all?

What is the difference between the average conservative and so called radical traditionalists?

Average conservatives aren't anti-enlightenment.

[Alan OldStudent]

I'm new here, and I enjoy reading through a lot of your posts and threads even though some of the opinions expressed on here may not be agreeable to me. I want to make a longer thread in the near future talking about my experiences with leftism and how it was presented to me and ask you guys about certain aspects of leftism and how it pertains to what I grw up with, but right now i just want to get a quick question off of my chest before I go to bed.

I was lurking a few weeks back and I remember seeing a post that stated that the preservation of any traditions is fascist. And I have to ask myself, is this true? I mean no one replied to his/her post in agreement, but I had a feeling he wasn't the only one who would have agreed with him/her.
So guess my question is; is all keeping of some sort of tradition inherently fascist? Wouldn't that make singing happy birthday every year or cutting cake fascist or building a snowman everytime it snowed? I mean, I understand how some traditions can be perceived as fascist, but c'mon is EVERY tradition fascist?

Hello Marco,

Welcome to the forum. I hope you benefit from your visit here.

No, tradition in and of itself is not "fascist."

Too often, the term "fascist" is used as sort of a way to insult people who see things differently. That's too bad because it trivializes fascism. It can lull us into a false sense of complacency when fascism actually becomes a real possibility. That's why I think it's a mistake for us leftists to use it carelessly, just to answer someone with a conservative or even a liberal point of view. Besides, if we want to explain our ideas to a liberal or a reasonable conservative, we shouldn't be calling them names. We need patience.

Actual fascism tends to be a mass-based phenomenon that is racist and nationalist in nature. Imagine if the Ku Klux Klan had 5 million members under arms in the United States and they attacked anyone to the left of the Tea Party types.

The big financial interests (AKA the capitalist class) of a capitalist society may attempt to use fascism as a last resort when mass anticapitalist sentiment becomes a danger to their ability to govern through capitalist democracy, such as parliament or a congress.

You see, when the general population, especially the wage earners, become anticapitalist enough, they may want to organize mass action to replace capitalism, especially if they become radicalized, develop a socialist or anarchist outlook. At that point, the capitalists may resort to trying to mobilize a counter force, an opposing mass movement to defeat a majority that wants a revolutionary change. That's how Hitler came to power.

To get that to happen, they will appeal to the people's darkest superstitions, nationalism, racism, anti-intellectualism, talk about imaginary dangers. The aim is to mobilize a fascist mob to engage in extralegal violence against all radical and even liberal and moderate groups. That's partly why it is so important for us to oppose bigotry and explain the need for solidarity.

Fascists will preach about vast conspiracies, often anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-union, anti-gay, and so on. They will seek to convince people that their misery results from these dark conspiracies, hoping to motivate gangs of thugs to disrupt their opponents' activities or even kill them. They will often pretend they're pro-worker, say the unions are bad for workers.

Both Hitler and Mussolini relied on these gangs, even after they seized power. They constantly talked about the conspiracy of the bankers-Bolsheviks-Jews to rule the world. Modern fascist-minded groups use parallel rhetoric.

Naturally, fascism will attempt to bend any traditions towards support for their aims. But in and of themselves, in general, religious and cultural traditions have nothing intrinsically fascist about them. Some, like honor killing or discriminating against certain people have a reactionary character, but they become fascist only under specific circumstances, and many such as Ramadan, Christmas celebrations, Guy Fawkes Day, Seder, and so on are rather neutral, in my opinion.

The subject of fascism is really much more involved than this simple explanation. But I believe it will give you a general idea.

This is how I answer questions like yours when speaking to people who are not Marxists or socialists. I hope you were able to follow my terminology and references. If you have any further questions, please post them, and I or one of the other comrades will be happy to explain our points of view.


Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[liberlict]

Xmas is for Nazis. But not Hanukkah ..

[BIXX]

In relation to fascism being racist (which I would argue it is due to the extreme nationalism) I've heard some claim not all fascism is racist, citing Mussolini's fascism. I would like to know if there is any evidence against this claim?

Another problem we seem to be having with fascism (especially if it need not be racist) is this: how the fuck do we actually identify fascism? Or do we rather just go by our gut? I think we do need some guidelines to fascism. Cause we all know when we see them, but no one has been able to tell me why.

Another problem: we tend to label all racists as fascists, which I would think is wrong. If we label them as fascists as well as non-racist authoritarians such as those that supposedly existed under Mussolini's regime, then the words seems to mean anything that is antithetical to communism and isn't capitalism.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Tradition is far to large and vague a blanket term to be generalised as either an untouchable or deplorable entity.

E.g. It was 'tradition' in 15th century England to burn around 1500 people for being witches every month.


Another problem: we tend to label all racists as fascists, which I would think is wrong. If we label them as fascists as well as non-racist authoritarians such as those that supposedly existed under Mussolini's regime, then the words seems to mean anything that is antithetical to communism and isn't capitalism.

Besides the fact that Mussolini and Franco's explicit support of imperialism and colonialism made them implement racist political measures whether they acknowledged it or not, to claim that the far-right movements in Italy and Spain were devoid of the racism that the NDSAP centered upon is simply false; there were a great many racial supremacists and anti-semites in power in both countries.

E.g. The 2nd Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s was founded by a Spanish Civil War veteran who fought under Franco.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Another problem we seem to be having with fascism (especially if it need not be racist) is this: how the fuck do we actually identify fascism? Or do we rather just go by our gut? I think we do need some guidelines to fascism. Cause we all know when we see them, but no one has been able to tell me why.

Historically, fascism was the specifically Italian capitalist reaction to the working class' revolt in and around the twenties, but it's turned into an umbrella definition for similar movements and states in the same time period. Today the word is thrown around a lot. I would say that for example the Hungarian National Guard or whatever they call themselves - the militant section of the Jobbik party - is fascist (and thereby the party too, at least great parts of it). They attack, harass and even kill roma people, for example. It has also been used to describe groups such as EDL. This has raised some criticism, and I'm personally not sure whether EDL could be described as fascists. At least their tactics aren't as openly aggressive and violent as the mentioned Hungarian group, although they do uphold bigoted, racist opinions.


Another problem: we tend to label all racists as fascists, which I would think is wrong. If we label them as fascists as well as non-racist authoritarians such as those that supposedly existed under Mussolini's regime, then the words seems to mean anything that is antithetical to communism and isn't capitalism.

You don't have to be a fascist to be a racist - the existing order today is indeed racist, and lots of people support this system of nation-states, arresting and deportation of "illegal" immigrants, state-sanctioned harassment of foreign people etc etc. Now, I'm not too familiar with Italian fascism, but I highly doubt it was "non-racist". I have, however, seen people on the internet arguing some form of "friendly", "non-racist" fascism, which focuses simply on the corporatist system etc. These, however, have no touch with reality and the real historical experience of fascism. Luckily they only exist on the internet.

On that last sentence - fascism is indeed capitalist. As stated above, it's in fact the last resort to save capitalist society and property relations from a worker's revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

Tradition is far to large and vague a blanket term to be generalised as either an untouchable or deplorable entity.

E.g. It was 'tradition' in 15th century England to burn around 1500 people for being witches every month...

Rubbish.

Witches were hanged in England. I can't think of any sources which claim that there were widespread witch-hunts in England in the C15th. In that period the witch-hunts were mostly in France and Germany. Witch-hunting didn't really spread to England until the C16th. And anyway, burning about 1.8 million people in a century would be a pretty noticeable event.



...
Besides the fact that Mussolini and Franco's explicit support of imperialism and colonialism made them implement racist political measures whether they acknowledged it or not, to claim that the far-right movements in Italy and Spain were devoid of the racism that the NDSAP centered upon is simply false; there were a great many racial supremacists and anti-semites in power in both countries...

As there were in non-fascist countries. Therefore, by your simplistic definition (imperialism, colonialism, racial suprematism and anti-semitism = Fascism), bourgeois democracy as practiced in 19th and early 20th century Britain is fascism. This removes fascism from any historical specificity.


...E.g. The 2nd Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s was founded by a Spanish Civil War veteran who fought under Franco.

Clever, for a Civil War veteran of the Francoist forces to refound the KKK ten years before the Civil War.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I've posted this elsewhere, but in my view the best way to identify fascism was laid out by italian academic and author Umberto Eco (who grew up during Mussolini's reign). He lays out 14 characteristics common to fascist and pseudo-fascist movements all over the world, regardless of country.

(Note that he doesn't mention the link between fascism and capital, but in my view he doesn't have to mention it in the context of this).


In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it. * * *
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice;" such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.
* * *
Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

[RedCeltic]

One mistake I have seen many do quite often on the left is to take what has been written by Marxist theorists as gospel. When you read such theories, policy and ideas from long dead leaders and theorists one needs to take into account the world has changed since their day and along with it our understanding of humanity and culture.

One powerful force that shaped the face of Europe and the world of the 19th century was Nationalism. Nationalism preyed on people's adherence to cultural traditions and pride. It is, our cultural practices, stories, and language that give us a cultural identity. The Grimm Brothers stories for example were used by German nationalists to unite the nation, and later by fascists to push forth their ultra nationalistic master race bullshit agenda.

International Marxists have long viewed cultural identity therefore as dangerous and adherence to religious, cultural and traditionalist practices to be dangerous as it will foster nationalism, racism, fascism, and separate the working class preventing them from uniting as a class.

In today's 21st century world however we have come to realize that recognition of one's cultural traditions and background is not always dangerous, nor serve to separate the working class. For example, a common cultural identity in Latin America has served to unite the people on many occasions.

Traditions are very much part of who we are and give us some identity, be them cultural traditions, religious traditions, or even political traditions. The left is not immune to such practice with our songs, our flags, our symbols, or days of observance. Communist, Socialist, and Anarchist alike continue to this day to follow the tradition of observing the first of May as International Worker's Day, a day that originally was set aside to honor the murdered Anarchist leaders of the haymarket riot in Chicago.

[MarcoTheBee]

Wow thanks for all the replies, I appreciate the kindness in the responses that I've gotten.

[ckaihatsu]

The following isn't meant to be a historical 'proof' -- as others have provided -- but rather the illustrations schematically depict the correlation / overlap that empirically exists between the *political* realm (of objective interests), and the social behaviors / characteristics that are *common* to each stripe on the left-right political spectrum.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://s6.postimage.org/zc8b2rb3h/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/)