Fascism

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Can someone here define what the Leftist definition of Fascism is

[Comrade Jacob]

It could be described as socially far-right, State-capitalism.

[Ocean Seal]

There isn't a working definition for fascism as it was a movement that existed through a small period of history with a peculiar set of beliefs distinct from most capitalist dictatorships. Even the three nations which claimed to be fascist Italy, Germany, and Spain did not have coherent characteristics. What it can be described as certainly is quite vague and perhaps the term should mean right-wing anti-communist dictatorship that arises out of class collaboration to quell the working classes impending rebellion.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

There isn't a working definition for fascism as it was a movement that existed through a small period of history with a peculiar set of beliefs distinct from most capitalist dictatorships. Even the three nations which claimed to be fascist Italy, Germany, and Spain did not have coherent characteristics. What it can be described as certainly is quite vague and perhaps the term should mean right-wing anti-communist dictatorship that arises out of class collaboration to quell the working classes impending rebellion.

So why are democratic parties constantly labelled as fascist by you lot for merely wanting to restrict immigration?

[BIXX]

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.

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

This gives a good guideline, in my opinion.

[BIXX]

So why are democratic parties constantly labelled as fascist by you lot for merely wanting to restrict immigration?

Because hatred of difference (leading to racism) is a part of fascism. Look at my earlier post.

[Ocean Seal]

So why are democratic parties constantly labelled as fascist by you lot for merely wanting to restrict immigration?
Because wanting a "white-democracy" is the equivalent of a dictatorship.

[#FF0000]

So why are democratic parties constantly labelled as fascist by you lot for merely wanting to restrict immigration?

check out that loaded question.

[Rurkel]

So why are democratic parties constantly labelled as fascist by you lot for merely wanting to restrict immigration?
I don't think that an anti-immigration stance is necesssary fascist, so labelling it as such is a hyperbole. However, since quite a lot of "democratic anti-immigrants" turn out to willingly collaborate with neo-nazis or to be neo-nazis in "halfway respectable" clothes themselves, it's not a completely unjustified one.

[Comrade Chernov]

He says "restrict immigration" as if it's something with the weight of a feather. Typical Reactionary ignorance.

[Orcris]

I personally define fascism as any government/party that has all of the following traits:

Anti-democratic: The defining characteristic of fascism is that it rejects democracy and adhers to social darwinist meritocracy instead.
Corporatist: THIS DOES NOT MEAN RULE BY CORPORATIONS!!! I hate when people (both on the left and the right) make that mistake. Corporatism is when each industry is controlled by a government-supported monopoly. This can be a monopoly by a state-owned business, a private corporation, a cooperative, a labor union- as long as each industry is controlled by one, the system is corporatist.
Nationalist: Fascism is, at its core, a reaction against modernism. Fascists want to return their country/nation to being powerful. This is why many high ranking Nazis followed ancient Norse paganism. They wanted to recreate the romanticized Teutonic period, when they believed that Germany was its strongest. Italy wanted to recreate the Roman Empire. A French fascist movement would probably be Bonapartist, since France was the most powerful during the First French Empire.
Single party: All existing fascist states have been single party.
Anticommunist: Due to the fact that fascism is extremely traditionalist, it opposes communism, which seeks to destroy tradition and create a new society
Anti-liberal: Fascists view liberalism as cultural degeneration, and wish to destroy it. The most extreme fascists even want to undo capitalism and go back to feudalism.

These are all of the similarities I can think of that linked all of the recognized fascist states (Italy, Germany, Spain, Metaxis' Greece, Austria under the Fatherland Front, Norway under the Nasjonal Samling, Hungary under the Arrow Cross Party, Croatia under the Ustaša, Romania under the Iron Guard). Based on these criteria, there are a few more modern countries that I'd consider fascist.

Singapore: Singapore is a de facto single party state, because the parliament has been dominated by the People's Action Party for the last 50 years. It currently has 81 out of the 87 seats. Singapore's economy is also based on corporatism, do to the high presence of state capitalist businesses. The PAP is extremely anti-communist. I don't know enough about Singaporean culture to know if the country is extremely nationalist.
China: Since the Deng reforms, China has used corporatism to run its economy. IIRC, state sponsored labor unions are in charge of representing each industry to the government. China is obviously single party and undemocratic. China is extremely nationalist as well. The one criteria that China doesn't have is being anticommunist. Even though the current Chinese government could be considered to be far right, it makes extensive use of far left rhetoric.
Syria: A nationalist, corporatist, single party, anti-liberal, anticommunist, undemocratic state. I don't know enough about Syria's economy to know if it's corporatist.
Iran: Extremely similar to Syria. I'm not positive about it, but I believe that Iran's economy is also corporatist.
Vietnam/Laos: These are similar to China. The economies of each are slightly less privatized, and make more use of state capitalism.

[dodger]

He says "restrict immigration" as if it's something with the weight of a feather. Typical Reactionary ignorance.

If that is the case then, Comrade Chernov 85% of British people are afflicted with reactionary ignorance. They are adamantly opposed to mass immigration.. Bigotry? Free movement of labour is one of the cornerstones of the European Union. And it's a dagger aimed at the labour movement's heart. With high unemployment it is hardly a matter of a few feathers fluttering. Mass migration is a worldwide problem--for workers. It is being opposed:
http://migranteinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/stop-LEP-300x225.jpg
Every independent nation has a democratic right to determine what and who crosses its borders in either direction. If we allow capitalists to decide, you can be sure that workers will be the losers both here and in the developing countries.”

In a significant move, the RMT (the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) has opened up discussion with an article in its magazine, RMT News, about how a Resident Labour Market Test could stop what the union calls “social dumping” – bringing in cheap labour from abroad to undercut British pay and conditions. Is social dumping a success? Is it working then? Buy to let rent racketeers would say yes. We know what the employers think and say. Resounding YES. With over 50% black youth unemployed it is hardly fascist or racist to oppose a Pole or Italian walking in and taking jobs. Though evidently some think otherwise....

http://www.workers.org.uk/meetings/movement_ad.jpg

[Comrade Chernov]

You're using Nationalist rhetoric. What's so different about a Pole or an Italian working in the chunk of inhabitable land (conceived by its inhabitants as the United Kingdom) as someone who was born there?

Nothing is different. At all.

Denying someone the right to live, work, and be happy wherever they want, is not a Communist principle, especially since the cornerstone of Communism is that we are all equal.

Now tell me, what's so hard to understand about that? It's counterproductive to the movement of internationalism if we act as if national boundaries matter.

[dodger]

If I may say so , it is you who are rich in rhetorical assertion. A London telephone directory will give a hint...60% of Londoners were not born within our shores. Class an inclusive term after all, would place them as a part of the British Working Class. Who would claim otherwise?




Denying someone the right to live, work, and be happy wherever they want, is not a Communist principle, especially since the cornerstone of Communism is that we are all equal.

Welcome to the global Piranha pool that is the global labour market. I don't see signs of equality. Never were never will be. I do see a crying need to collectively get some ideas together to survive or even prosper. Hardly, simply just a Britsh problem:

http://bulatlat.com/main/2013/03/21/migrants-group-brands-government-as-%E2%80%98biggest-human-trafficker%E2%80%9D/


Now tell me, what's so hard to understand about that? It's counterproductive to the movement of internationalism if we act as if national boundaries matter.

"So perverse is mankind that every nation prefers to be misgoverned by its own people than to be well ruled by another", as General Charles James Napier noted in the 19th century.

Pip Pip !:laugh:

[Remus Bleys]

Who the fuck cares about popular opinion dodger?
If we did, why would we be communists?
Or at least, why would I?

edit: ur-fascism is an idealist analysis of fascism. I much rather analyze actually existing fascism.

[dodger]

fair enough Remus.....yes a fair question. If you were trying to get elected or standing for office , Remus, it would no doubt press down on your mind. Selling baked beans too...

Who the fuck cares about popular opinion dodger?

A populist?


If we did, why would we be communists?
Or at least, why would I?
If you see yourself working in an honest way, not as an expert or guru but as a worker rooted in the class not somehow levitating above it, then you should be a communist. Popular opinion is oft a barometer, a gauge of the level of understanding. At the very least we should be aware, so that all may progress. Whether ideas are to our liking or not we must engage. Not easy to see how that can take place without open debate. The dimwitted, race obsessed and the frankly perverse are only too willing to take on the subject. Attempts to silence has failed miserably, for good reason.The capitalist class loves mass migration. We hate it:

TUAEUC Secretary Doug Nicholls described the EU as a dying beast lashing out in weakness. It represents failed national capitalisms, which huddle together for warmth, but in reality are on a life support machine. He likened the real motor behind the EU, the "Round Table" of industrialists, to pirates robbing the people ever more greedily, but as their treasure chests rise so their ships begin to sink.
http://www.tuaeuc.org/

They love it:

Speaking in Bradford in June 2005, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, said, "Immigration has reduced wage inflation:...If the increased demand for labour generates its own supply in the form of migrant labour then the link between demand and prices is broken...Indeed, in an economy that can call on unlimited supplies of migrant labour, the concept of output gap is meaningless...the inflow of migrant labour, especially in the past year or so from Eastern Europe, has probably led to a diminution of inflationary pressure on the labour market...Without this influx to fill the skill gaps in a tight labour market, it is likely earnings would have risen at a faster rate, putting upward pressure on the costs of employers."

[Remus Bleys]

If you saw yourself as a worker and not as a british nationalist, you would support immigration.

[BIXX]

Ur-fascism is an idealist analysis of fascism. I much rather analyze actually existing fascism.

May I ask why you think this is an idealist analysis? I always considered it a way of identifying fascism ahead of time.

I have a question of my own: why is it so easy to tell if something is fascist, but hard to explain why you know it is? Or maybe I just have that problem.

[d3crypt]

This is a rather good definition http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

[Remus Bleys]

May I ask why you think this is an idealist analysis? I always considered it a way of identifying fascism ahead of time.

I have a question of my own: why is it so easy to tell if something is fascist, but hard to explain why you know it is? Or maybe I just have that problem.

Its idealist because it extropolates (and thus seperates) a coherent set of things from its material conditions.
Also, fascism is a european thing. In america, liberalism formed instead.

[Remus Bleys]

Also, can we not oppose fascism on grounds of it being anti democracy? Fascism is the epitome of bourgeois democracy ffs. Let us criticize it for being anti working class.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Also, can we not oppose fascism on grounds of it being anti democracy? Fascism is the epitome of bourgeois democracy ffs.

I'm sorry, what?

[Remus Bleys]

I'm sorry, what?

If one looks at bourgeois democracy in its first phase was characterized by the violent repression of class enemies, and parliament being dominated by a single specific group that had violently repressed political enemies, all in the name of the mythical "people."
Fascism likewise does not reject the enlightenment at al, it is simply a different form that is manifested. One could look at hobbes for this alone. Fascism, while heavily endorsed and creates huge amount of church support, incorporates a lot of protestant (enlightenment, bourgeois rule) values - a special spiritual relation with god, the soul, the spirit; whilst simultaneously hating all those who practiced religion and spiritualism differently. Fascism has a huge amount of nationalism - and who can deny that the nation state is a bourgeois construct? Fascism, like bourgeois democracy, places emphasis on the social construct, values the politic over the economic, huge military and police, the rule of law, the supremacy of the state as a neutral entity that operates for "the people," and finally, both of them are characterized by bourgeois rule.
Fascism is bourgeois democracy without the mask.

[Tim Cornelis]

If one looks at bourgeois democracy in its first phase was characterized by the violent repression of class enemies, and parliament being dominated by a single specific group that had violently repressed political enemies, all in the name of the mythical "people."
Fascism likewise does not reject the enlightenment at al, it is simply a different form that is manifested. One could look at hobbes for this alone. Fascism, while heavily endorsed and creates huge amount of church support, incorporates a lot of protestant (enlightenment, bourgeois rule) values - a special spiritual relation with god, the soul, the spirit; whilst simultaneously hating all those who practiced religion and spiritualism differently. Fascism has a huge amount of nationalism - and who can deny that the nation state is a bourgeois construct? Fascism, like bourgeois democracy, places emphasis on the social construct, values the politic over the economic, huge military and police, the rule of law, the supremacy of the state as a neutral entity that operates for "the people," and finally, both of them are characterized by bourgeois rule.
Fascism is bourgeois democracy without the mask.

Summary: association fallacy.

[Remus Bleys]

Summary: association fallacy.

Fascism has the same roots as bourgeois democracy.
It has the same role as liberal democracy.
The same class is in charge.
It has largely the same features.

I fail to see my fallacy tim.

[Tim Cornelis]

Fascism is a political ideology and movement based on and around palingenetic ultranationalism. This means that it is a political movement seeking to stage a national rebirth based on a romanticised golden age period of the nation in question. This is well reflected in various movements. For instance, the Mongolian neo-Nazis uphold the Mongolian Empire of Ghenghis Kahn, the golden age of Mongolia when it was a world power. Many Russian fascists adore Hitler and Stalin simultaneously. In appereance, this would seem a contradiction, but can reconciled by the theory of palingenetic ultranationalism. The Soviet Union under Stalin was a super power, having made immense economic progress at unprecended rate. Though certainly not all Russian fascists uphold Stalin. Those that don’t, unsurprisngly, use the Russian Imperial Flag (White, Golden, Black). We see this pattern of palingenetic ultranationalism repeated all over the world, the Dutch fascists use the Prince vlag of the Dutch empire, the Turkish fascists draw inspiration from the mighty Ottoman Empire, and Persian fascists from the Persian Empire and the Aryan Myth; and even Scandinavian fascists and Vikings. The most famous example of fascism, the Italian Fascism of Mussolini, was likewise inspired by the Roman Empire and the salute now most famously known as the Hitler or Nazi salute, was taken from the Roman salute.
The Italian fascists rose to power in a country torn apart by social struggle in the immediate aftermath of the Red Years when communist revolution seemed inevitable. They aimed at staging a national rebirth through an all powerful state, to restore, at least in part, the former glory of the Roman Empire. With ultranationalism at the core, a powerful nation could not tolerate division and hence class struggle waging socialists were a national enemy. The Red Years provided a legitimising catalyst for fascism, it was the factor that allowed fascism become credible and justified (legitimate) in the eyes of a large section of the population.

Fascism is based on national unity as with unity comes strength necessary for the rebirth of the nation. Hence, the promotion of class collaboration through corporatism, the suppression of dissent, free press, protest, and independent trade unions.

This definition of fascism, by historian Griffin “also excludes most of the dictatorships that have often been labeled fascist. He has suggested the term para-fascist to describe many of these.[46] A para-fascist regime is imposed from above (often by the military) and represents traditional elites trying to preserve the old order, but surrounds its conservative core with fascist trappings. These trappings may include an official state party, paramilitary organizations, a leader cult, mass political ritual, corporatism, and the rhetoric of ultranationalist regeneration. Para-fascist regimes may be just as ruthless as genuine fascist ones in their use of state terrorism. Unlike true fascism, para-fascism does not represent a genuine populist mobilization and does not substantively challenge established institutions. During the 1920s and 1930s, Griffin argues, para-fascist regimes arose in several European countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Romania, and Austria, joined by the Vichy government after France surrendered to Germany in 1940. Para-fascist regimes regarded genuine fascist movements as a threat and used various strategies to contain, coopt, or crush them. In Spain during the Civil War, for example, General Franco "imposed a shot-gun marriage between Falangists and the traditional (that is non-fascist) radical right" as part of his strategy to establish a para-fascist dictatorship.[47]” (source: http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~lyonsm/TwoWays.html

I think this explanation of fascism is fundamentally correct. At least, it confirms to observations me and I think many have made, that fascist countries like Italy were fundamentally different from dictatorships like contemporary Belarus or Iran, and also converging and diverging in relation to right-wing dictatorships like Latin American Junta’s and the Colonel’s regime in Greece.

Then the question is, what makes facism rise to power?

I think a couple of factors contribute to this.

In times of economic crises liberal democracy may seem paralysed and incapable of offering coherent solutions. It may seem as leading to conflict and inefficient decision-making. A dictatorship may increasingly seem like an appealing alternative.

The threat of a leftist takeover can also function as legitimising catalyst for fascism and para-fascism, as for example in Italy, Spain, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil.

The emphasis of regeneration and rebirth may be appealing because the nation can start over, bin the chaos and trash left behind by liberal democracy. An appeal to the former glory days may amplify this.

Fascism is also a movement of the streets – it often attempts to conquer power through the streets. It can act when government appears paralysed. For instance, many Golden Dawn supporters say at least they are doing something to help ordinary people.



Fascism has the same roots as bourgeois democracy.
It has the same role as liberal democracy.
The same class is in charge.
It has largely the same features.

I fail to see my fallacy tim.

Because you make irrelevant parallels seem defining and significant. Yes, they both have the role of preserving bourgeois class role, this just means they are both bourgeois ideologies. The manner by which they enforce bourgeois rule is widely diverging.

It's the same as those claiming Marxism-Leninism and the Democratic Party are in essence the same: both advocate redistribution of wealth, both advocate social welfare, both advocate public parks, etc. While true, they are not defining features of either ideology as well as that they quantitatively diverge in what these factors means.

The defining features of liberal democracy is parliamentary representation based on frequent, recurring, free and fair elections in accordance with the limits imposed by a constitution guaranteeing a degree of civil liberties (freedom of the press, etc.). These civil liberties may not always be enforced sufficiently, but this is qualitatively different from the suppression of freedom of press under fascism. Liberal democracy rises in an effort to guarantee social peace for the ruling class by allowing different factions of the ruling class to compete fairly and freely for power.

The defining features of fascism are palingenetic ultranationalism, staging a rebirth of a nation through the state safeguarding national unity. It often rises there where liberal democracy has proven incapable of guaranteeing the social peace freely and fairly, so the whip is whipped instead — which shows that they do not have the same roots.

Liberal democracy and fascism are two completely different bourgeois political frameworks, just because they are both bourgeois does not mean you can just equate them — which is an association fallacy.


Its idealist because it extropolates (and thus seperates) a coherent set of things from its material conditions.

You merely juxtapose idealism and materialism not why what was said is idealist and not materialist.

[Remus Bleys]

The most famous example of fascism, the Italian Fascism of Mussolini, was likewise inspired by the Roman Empire and the salute now most famously known as the Hitler or Nazi salute, was taken from the Roman salute. Which is why I said it is largely a European thing. Fascism is a different manifestation of bourgeois rule, just like democracy is, and thus, using the term "epitome" was wrong, however, it is in the same family as liberal democracy.
Of course liberal democracy and fascism are different - bourgeois democracy, in my mind - is simply the ruling class claiming to run in the interests of the people, which is why i said "bourgeois democracy" and not "liberal democracy"


With ultranationalism at the core, a powerful nation could not tolerate division and hence class struggle waging socialists were a national enemy. The Red Years provided a legitimising catalyst for fascism, it was the factor that allowed fascism become credible and justified (legitimate) in the eyes of a large section of the population. Fascism is based on national unity as with unity comes strength necessary for the rebirth of the nation. Hence, the promotion of class collaboration through corporatism, the suppression of dissent, free press, protest, and independent trade unions. This is simply a manifestation of class collaboration, inherent in all bourgeois democracies - liberal democracy takes a mix of both individualism and nationalism, fascism takes ultranationalism.


Finally, liberal democracies have also done methods similar to fascists, yet are still classified as "liberal democracy"



Because you make irrelevant parallels seem defining and significant. Yes, they both have the role of preserving bourgeois class role, this just means they are both bourgeois ideologies. The manner by which they enforce bourgeois rule is widely diverging.Okay:

Anti-liberal: Fascists view liberalism as cultural degeneration, and wish to destroy it. The most extreme fascists even want to undo capitalism and go back to feudalism.

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.
That explanation was to all those who were going on about how fascism is "anti-Enlightenment" when in fact, that isn't true.


It's the same as those claiming Marxism-Leninism and the Democratic Party are in essence the same: both advocate redistribution of wealth, both advocate social welfare, both advocate public parks, etc. While true, they are not defining features of either ideology as well as that they quantitatively diverge in what these factors means.Perhaps saying epitome was wrong. I should have said "just as bad" or said they were both bourgeois rule, so those going "omg anti-democracy" wouldn't speak. However, fascism still has a lot of, at the very least, similarities to liberal democracy.

The defining features of liberal democracy is parliamentary representation based on frequent, recurring, free and fair elections Then there is no such thing as a liberal democracy. There is no such thing as "free and fair elections." I understand what you are saying here, but elections are just as "free and fair" in liberal democracy as they are in fascism.

in accordance with the limits imposed by a constitution guaranteeing a degree of civil liberties (freedom of the press, etc.). These civil liberties may not always be enforced sufficiently, but this is qualitatively different from the suppression of freedom of press under fascism. Liberal democracy rises in an effort to guarantee social peace for the ruling class by allowing different factions of the ruling class to compete fairly and freely for power.Notice how liberal democracy overturns these measures in times of crises - yet they are still classified as being "liberal democracy."

The defining features of fascism are palingenetic ultranationalism, staging a rebirth of a nation through the state safeguarding national unity. Again, this is simply a unique manifestation of nationalism.

It often rises there where liberal democracy has proven incapable of guaranteeing the social peace freely and fairly, so the whip is whipped instead — which shows that they do not have the same roots.
And when fascism is not achieved, "liberal democracies" act in a roughly similar manner. The roots of both liberal democracy and fascism is the class struggle that exists in the capitalist mode of production.

Liberal democracy and fascism are two completely different bourgeois political frameworks, just because they are both bourgeois does not mean you can just equate them — which is an association fallacy.that doesn't mean they are "oh so different from one another." Cmon Tim, don't you know that it is not the form of Bourgeois rule that matters, just the essence? A "liberal democracy" will act just like "fascism" in extreme times of conflict - there will just be a different bureaucracy, a different face.


You merely juxtapose idealism and materialism not why what was said is idealist and not materialist.The name alone - ur-fascism, eternal fascism, is idealist because fascism has specific roots and cannot be "eternal"

[emilianozapata]

it's a far-right ideology which advocates totalitarianism and ultra-nationalist sentiments which border on racism.

[#FF0000]

This is a rather good definition http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

It's a pretty poor definition imo because that list can be used to describe any government. also rense.com is not a good source never use it.

[dodger]

Oswald Mosley--man of destiny. Though not destined to be hung by his heels.


One of his favourite “conversations” was his design from the 1960s of a new European socialism. His 1962 “Declaration of Venice”, signed with a number of far-right Italian, Belgian and German politicians, proposed a common government for Europe elected by a free vote and covering foreign and fiscal policy. This noble ambition had a unique extension to the African continent. Sub- Saharan Africa would be divided in a true “apartheid”, two-thirds black and one-third white. The black nations would provide raw materials to Europe and serve as a market for European manufactured goods. This system of autarky (a favourite fascist concept) would allow Europe to pull out of world markets and be self-sufficient.

Autarky? A cavalier approach to borders and plunder soon shows itself. His son had his measure. 'Making grandiose gesture with his right hand whilst letting the rats out the sewer with his left'

http://www.oswaldmosley.net/

[Lokomotive293]

Quite easy, fascism in power is "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital".



THE CLASS CHARACTER OF FASCISM

Comrades, fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.
[...]
Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.
[...]
The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie -- bourgeois democracy -- by another form -- open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance, for the establishment of fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic countries -- measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement.
[...]
What is the source of the influence of fascism over the masses? Fascism is able to attract the masses because it demagogically appeals to their most urgent needs and demands. [...] Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses but it approaches them with the most artful anti-capitalist demagogy, taking advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering bourgeoisie, the banks, trusts and financial magnates, and advancing those slogans which at the given moment are most alluring to the politically immature masses. In Germany -- "The general welfare is higher than the welfare of the individual," in Italy -- "Our state is not a capitalist, but a corporate state," in Japan -- "For Japan without exploitation," in the United States -- "Share the wealth," and so forth.
[...]
It is in the interests of the most reactionary circles of the bourgeoisie that fascism intercepts the disappointed masses who desert the old bourgeois parties. But it impresses these masses by the vehemence of its attacks on the bourgeois governments and its irreconcilable attitude to the old bourgeois parties.
[...]
Fascism comes to power as a party of attack on the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, on the mass of the people who are in a state of unrest; yet it stages its accession to power as a "revolutionary" movement against the bourgeoisie on behalf of "the whole nation" and for the "salvation" of the nation. One recalls Mussolini's "march" on Rome, Pilsudski's "march" on Warsaw, Hitler's National-Socialist "revolution" in Germany, and so forth.

But whatever the masks that fascism adopts, whatever the forms in which it presents itself, whatever the ways by which it comes to power

Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of the working people;
Fascism is unbridled chauvinism and predatory war;
Fascism is rabid reaction and counter-revolution;
Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all working people.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm

[MidnightRain]

[deleted for double post]

[MidnightRain]

You people are really exaggerating things. Not a communist here, and I'll probably be heavily criticized for this, but:


Because hatred of difference (leading to racism) is a part of fascism. Look at my earlier post.

Restricted immigration isn't a hatred of difference. I mean, some kinds of people are just detrimental to first-world society. There's nothing wrong with being selective when it comes to immigration policy. Also, while racism is PART of fascism, it doesn't mean racism automatically equals fascism, so even if anti-immigration is racist, it doesn't necessarily make it fascist. Democratic societies can be anti-immigration too, especially if it's already dense in population.

[#FF0000]

I mean, some kinds of people are just detrimental to first-world society

Oh what kinds of people are those? :)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Oh what kinds of people are those? :)

Obviously them dayum heespanucks and blaycks that're leechin awf arr hard-errned protestant white folk muhney! How dayur they rewwin arr camyewnitees with their drugs and craym! Did'jya see that there reesint kidnapping of that thayr girl? The person hew kidnapped 'er wuz a HEESPANUCK!

I reckon that most White American people are pretty high on the 'detrimental to first-world society' list.

w03AdUBO_uc