So what is a fascist anyway?

[Fire]

What is a good definition of fascist. I hear the tea party get called fascists. Seems to make sense I guess, they are pretty repugnant, but what is a good definition. What do they actually believe? What do they have in common?

[Mr. Piccolo]

I think Roger Griffin and Robert Paxton have developed the best definitions of fascism.

According to Griffin:


[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#cite_note-16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Roger_Griffin

According to Paxton fascism is:


A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Robert_Paxton

There are some fascistic aspects of the Tea Party movement, especially their obsession with the feeling that America has become decadent. This is clear when Tea Partiers scream "I want my country back!" It is the feeling that America is being brought down by a nefarious cabal of socialists, ethnic and religious minorities, intellectuals, sexual deviants and others, and that the values that made America great in the past are being destroyed.

Tea Partiers, however, have not been radicalized enough to be true fascists, and I believe that you can argue that they have been co-opted by rich capitalists like the Koch brothers as opposed to being an independent movement allied to traditional elites, as the Italian Fascists and German Nazis were.

[Luís Henrique]

What is a good definition of fascist. I hear the tea party get called fascists. Seems to make sense I guess, they are pretty repugnant, but what is a good definition. What do they actually believe? What do they have in common?

We had an extense discussion of the subject in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascism-america-t189485/index.html?highlight=fascism). I think it is an interesting reading.

Luís Henrique

[motion denied]

[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values.

So was the French Revolution fascist? Was Saint-Just Mussolini avant la lettre?

[G4b3n]

I think Roger Griffin and Robert Paxton have developed the best definitions of fascism.

According to Griffin:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Roger_Griffin

According to Paxton fascism is:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Robert_Paxton

There are some fascistic aspects of the Tea Party movement, especially their obsession with the feeling that America has become decadent. This is clear when Tea Partiers scream "I want my country back!" It is the feeling that America is being brought down by a nefarious cabal of socialists, ethnic and religious minorities, intellectuals, sexual deviants and others, and that the values that made America great in the past are being destroyed.

Tea Partiers, however, have not been radicalized enough to be true fascists, and I believe that you can argue that they have been co-opted by rich capitalists like the Koch brothers as opposed to being an independent movement allied to traditional elites, as the Italian Fascists and German Nazis were.

Not terrible descriptions. Other than describing it as "revolutionary", only a deformed liberal analysis in which the concept of revolution has no actual meaning or historical context could lead one to that conclusion. A revolution is when one social class overthrows another to destroy the existing social order. Fascism is the most reactionary stage bourgeois society can possibly take. It is when elites feel their political supremacy is at risk and they employee fascists to to secure the longevity of the existing social order in its essence, i.e., the existing mode of production, which remains fundamentally bourgeois.

[Asero]

Fascism as an ideological undercurrent is an ultra-nationalist far-right ideology that was borne out of the reaction to the rise of Communism to preserve capitalism and the disillusionment of liberal democracy, primarily among the military, following WWI, and also as the rallying cry of the death of the petty-bourgeoisie. Many nationalists in the military that get disillusioned turn to fascism, and the monolithic fascist Party tends to be organized in a disciplinary military fashion. Though Fascism relies on populism to maintain a popular base, fascists are openly elitist. Fascists love the allure of aristocratic. Fascists desire a totalitarian state where the individual is reduced to nothing more than a member of a collective unity achieved via state propaganda, the dissolving of democratic ties, and state coercion. The inherent class antagonisms of capitalism are, according to fascists, diminished through the use of patriotism (love of service to the state) and class-collaborationism. Fascists prefer to have a state organized in a authoritarian corporatist fashion, where the state organs operate like corporations and existing corporations are granted massive political power. Fascists that because of opposition towards liberalism, communism, and traditional conservatism and because fascism originally took intellectual form by disillusioned socialists, believe that their political position transcends the right-left paradigm, and posit themselves as 'radical centrist' 'third-positionists'. Fascists reject materialism in all of its forms because they see it as morally degenerate. Nazism, the predominant form of fascism, though not necessary for all fascist ideologies believe their race to the superior race above else, and believe in either the extermination or subordination of all other races to their own.

Of course, though all these tenets are what is considered among the 'intellectual' fascists to the basis of ideological basis of fascism, in practice, fascists are incredibly opportunist, letting go of key tenets for the purpose of national pragmatism. Expecting fascists to be ideologically pure would be like expecting Communists to not be sectarian. The Tea Party, though not ideologically fascist in the classical sense, contains within it crypto-fascist undercurrents. Particularly the ultra-nationalism, the corporate backing, and the support from nationalists in the military. The social background between the Tea Party and classical fascism are similar.

Here's an openly fascist group affiliated with the Tea Party:
http://american3rdposition.com/

[Tim Cornelis]

I think this is a good approach:

http://sdonline.org/47/two-ways-of-looking-at-fascism/


The form of fascism is palingenetic ultranationalism; its content is drawn from declasses, socially uprooted elements, historically disproportionally represented by the petty bourgeois. Its opposition to oligarchy is rooted in petty bourgeois reaction.

Palingenetic ultranationalism means that fascism seeks to stage a national rebirth inspired by some Golden Age from the national history, which it seems is always some sort of Empire. Mussolini was inspired by the Roman Empire and of course the Hitler salute was the conventional Roman salute toward magistrates or superiors; Hitler was inspired by the German Reichs therefore styling Nazi-Germany the Third Reich. Turkish fascists are inspired by the Ottoman Empire; Dutch fascists by the Dutch Empire and borrow its symbolism. Scandinavian fascists use Viking symbolism and Mongolian fascists adore Gengish Khan. Russian fascists are inspired by the Russian Empire and so have adopted the Romanov Flag, but, curiously, the Soviet Empire was a Golden Age as well. Under Stalin's leadership Russia was transformed from a relatively backward peasant country to an industrial super power competing for world hegemon. Fascists have for this reason also adopted Soviet symbolism and even a Stalinist form (e.g. National-Bolshevism). Its content, however, is distinctly fascist. Soviet symbolism and Imperial symbolism are used side by side in Novorossiya, whose leadership is dominated by ultra-nationalists and fascists. Don't be duped by this like so many Stalinists and Tankies. Soviet symbolism in this context does not mean sympathies for communism, but a vile reactionary petty bourgeois socialism akin to Strasserism at best, and generic fascism at its worst.


"In different ways, both Hamerquist and Sakai argue that fascism’s radical approach shapes its relationship with capitalism. Of the two writers, Sakai’s position is closer to a Bonapartist model. He describes fascism as “anti-bourgeois but not anti-capitalist.” Under fascist regimes, “capitalism is restabilized but the bourgeoisie pays the price of temporarily no longer ruling the capitalist State.” But for Sakai this conflict is much starker than it is for Bonapartism theorists. Today’s fascism “is opposed to the big imperialist bourgeoisie… to the transnational corporations and banks, and their world-spanning ‘multicultural’ bourgeois culture. Fascism really wants to bring down the World Bank, WTO and NATO, and even America the Superpower. As in destroy.”26"

http://sdonline.org/47/two-ways-of-looking-at-fascism/



"In Sakai’s words, “Fascism is a revolutionary movement of the right against both the bourgeoisie and the left, of middle class and declassed men, that arises in zones of protracted crisis.” It is not revolutionary in the socialist or anarchist sense: “Fascism is revolutionary in a simpler use of the word. It intends to seize State power for itself… in order to violently reorder society in a new class rule.”"

Saying that revolution is when one class overthrows another is a bit of a ... I forgot the word ... Social revolution maybe. But I think it's appropriate to speak of a Tunisian Revolution (2011) for instance.

I also wrote a piece about it, but I forgot to include something about the form and content of fascism. Isn't palingenetic ultranationalism, derived from through methodological empathy a form of "sharing in the illusion"? I say no because the form if pretty much equally important as the content. It is in the ideological forms that struggles are fought out, it is in the ideological forms that people are invoked with a sense of mission and conviction, people are not material automatons acting out history on autopilot sheerly calculating their material self-interest. So it is important to look at the ideological form, which in the case of fascism is palingenetic ultranationalism. The theory of palingenetic ultranationalism is the only theory that can make sense of National Bolshevism, I think that lends it credibility.

It's quite lengthy, for a forum post.



In the study of fascism various rival definitions and methods of analysis have been proposed by various scholars and theorists. We will look at two major theories pioneered by bourgeois academics Roger Griffin and Robert Paxton, which stand, more or less, at opposite ends in their respective approaches, as well as Marxist and Marxian theorists of fascism to produce what we regard to be an accurate definition of fascism. In this, we largely follow Matthew Lyon's approach, who takes the theory of Thalheimer and develops this, what he calls, “skeletal analysis of fascism” (2011), and develops it further drawing from the theories of a number of independent Marxists.

IDEOLOGICAL FORMS AND CONTENT (methodological empathy)

Paxton correctly argues that “great difficulties arise as soon as one sets out to define fascism” noting that it may or may not encompass various strongman autocrats with widely diverging backgrounds and ideological positions (1998, p. 1), whom yet may appear bound by a common thread. Even Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had pronounced differences. Yet, as Paxton notes, it's clear that “a real phenomenon exists” (1998, p. 9), one which warrants analysis. The crux of the matter is that fascism developed unique forms of political rule distinct from previous authoritarian styles of governance.

One approach to fascism advanced by Paxton is to view fascism in motion (certainly appealing to adherents of dialectics) by analysing the successive stages it goes through. He argues that analysing fascism as doctrine is an inadequate approach in that fascist movements that have successfully rooted, as he calls it, have abandoned, but more importantly, ignored (as opposed to adapt, annul, and justify change of) their early programs (Paxton, 1998, p. 6). This results from the primacy given to action over intellectualism and doctrine in fascism. Thus, it appears to makes sense to observe fascism's development rather than its doctrine. More or less cynical or opportunistic adaptation, “undermine any effort to portray historical fascism as the consistent expression of one coherent ideology.” (Paxton, 1998, p. 16) Instead, Paxton argues, “it is in their functions that [fascisms] resemble each other.” (1998, p. 5). This apparent opportunistic manoeuvring of fascism may, however, have a slightly different cause as will be revealed by looking at Thalheimer's approach to fascism.

Marxist theorist August Thalheimer emphasised that fascism functionally represented a right-wing Bonapartism. To Marx, Bonapartism is a phenomenon where the capitalist class abdicates its control over the state to ultimately preserve its economic position and social power. This was, he argued, in the words of Paxton, the result of “a deadlock between between two evenly balanced classes”, which gives rise to a strongman able to rule automatised from class interests (2004, p. 265). Observing that the fascist movement in Italy entered power after “an unsuccessful proletarian onslaught”, this being the Biennio Rosso, which “ended with the demoralization of the working class” and therefore the bourgeoisie, being “exhausted, distraught and dispirited, cast around for a saviour to protect its social power” (Thalheimer, 1930). Marxists, among others, had proposed that fascism “came to the aid of capitalism in trouble” (Paxton, 2004, p. 10). The Communist International's Third Period theory of fascism, believing in capitalism's imminent demise at the hands of a new surge of revolutionary consciousness in the proletariat, had posited that fascism was a generic “counterrevolutionary trend within all bourgeois parties” (Lyons, 2011, 'From Bonapartism to Right-Wing Revolution', para. 2). Social-democrats, from this perspective, were “social fascists”. The Comintern altered this position when the Nazis came to power, and articulated the quite well known definition of fascism as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” (cited in Lyons, 2011, 'From Bonapartism to Right-Wing Revolution', para. 2). Empirically, the notion of fascism as Bonapartist, arising, not at the height of class struggle, but out of a period of demoralisation and exhaustion, stands on stronger foundations (Lyons, 2011, 'From Bonapartism to Right-Wing Revolution', para. 2). Sociologist Talcott Parsons similarly argued that fascism “emerged out of uprooting and tensions produced by uneven economic and social development” and that “class tensions were particularly acute” as a result of late industrialisation also leading to compromise being “blocked by surviving pre-industrial elites” (Paxton, 2004, p. 209).

To many theorists, Marxists and non-Marxists alike, including mainstream academic Andrew Heywood, fascism was primarily a petty bourgeois phenomenon. Fascist movements drew its membership “drew their membership and support largely from such lower middle class elements” (Heywood, p. 173). Crushed between organised labour and the growing power of concentrated capital or big business the petty bourgeoisie sought a return to previous social stages. Fascism constituted “a revolt of the lower middle classes, a fact that helps to explain the hostility of fascism to both capitalism and communism.” (Heywood, 2012, p. 173). According to Paxton the reason for the over-representation of the petty bourgeoisie in interbellum fascist movements is not “due to some proletarian immunity to appeals of nationalism and ethnic cleansing” (2004, p. 50) but because the working class was “already deeply engaged, from generation to generation, in the rich subculture of socialism, with its clubs, newspapers, unions, and rallies,” they “were simply not available for another loyalty.” (2004, p. 50). Writing on socialism, Heywood argues that “[c]apitalism itself had matured and by the late nineteenth century the urban working class had lost its revolutionary character and been integrated into society” because the working class had “begun to develop a range of institutions – working men's clubs, trade unions, political parties and so on – which both protected their interests and nurtured a sense of security and belonging within industrial society.” (2012, p. 97). Thus, the rooted elements of the working class was far less inclined toward fascism. The socially uprooted elements, in contrast, were attracted to fascism, as Paxton (2004, p. 50) notes: “[w]orkers were more available for fascism if they stood outside the community of socialists” and the “unemployed were more likely to join the communists than the fascists, however, unless they were first-time voters or from the middle class”. Paxton (2004, p. 50) further notes that protestants were more likely to join the Nazis than were Catholics given the latter's numerous institutions that paralleled the socialist's.
It would seem that Thalheimers position of fascism as drawing support from the “socially uprooted elements from every class” including “from the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the urban petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry, the workers” with the petty bourgeoisie being disproportionally more socially uprooted is a more accurate assessment than chalking fascism up to merely being propelled by a petty bourgeois reaction. Griffin (2003) similarly posits that the scholarly consensus is that fascism is “trans-class” paralleling Thalheimer's thesis of fascism as Bonapartist.

To return to the apparent opportunistic manoeuvring of the fascists, Paxton notes that at certain points the fascists maintained anticapitalistic positions (although selectively), lamenting finance capital and big landlords, (2004, p. 10) while once in power the fascist leadership also courted industrialists (2004, p. 104). When fascism exercises power, according to Paxton (1998, p. 18)., it does so through its leader and by balancing between the wants and interests of the various elites and institutions within its borders, such as the industrial, party, military, police, and religious elites. Thalheimer argued instead that this particular manoeuvring that he predicted would be common to all fascisms (as he articulated his theories on fascism before the rise of the Nazis to power) was due to the fascist parties being mass movements of various socially uprooted elements from various social classes and declassed elements forcing conflict “between the social interests of this mass following and the interests of the dominant classes which it has to serve.” (Lyons, 2011, 'From Bonapartism to Right-Wing Revolution', para. 2). From this perspective, fascism is inherently unstable and a fascist regime is being “pulled simultaneously in opposite directions” (Lyons, 2011, 'From Bonapartism to Right-Wing Revolution', para. 2). According to Thalheimer fascism, “like Bonapartism, seeks to be the benefactor of all classes; hence it continually plays one class off against another, and engages in contradictory maneuvers internally.” (cited in Lyons, 2011, 'From Bonapartism to Right-Wing Revolution', para. 2).

Thus, manoeuvring between the particular type of petty bourgeois reaction ('radicalism' in mainstream scholarship), the appeasement and courting of the industrialists, or 'haute bourgeoisie', and in the case of Nazi-Germany specifically, threatening industrialists with nationalisation and economic coercion under certain conditions (Temin, 1990) and the repressing of the 'petty bourgeois socialist'1 worker- and unemployment-based Sturmabteiling (SA) would seem to be explained most appropriately by analysing fascism as right-wing Bonapartist movement.

It is dubious, however, to argue that right-wing Bonapartism represents the essence of fascism because it historically performed this function. Lyons argues that it's therefore more appropriate to define fascism as a type of right-wing revolutionary movement, but “not revolutionary in the socialist or anarchist sense” instead, citing Maoist theorist J. Sakai, “Fascism is revolutionary in a simpler use of the word. It intends to seize State power for itself … in order to violently reorder society in a new class rule” (Lyons, 2011, 'From Bonapartism to Right-Wing Revolution', para. 2). Lyons (2011, 'Combining Two Approaches', para. 4) concludes by proposing a draft definition: “Fascism is a revolutionary form of right-wing populism, inspired by a totalitarian vision of collective rebirth, that challenges capitalist political and cultural power while promoting economic and social hierarchy”.

The “collective rebirth” aspect of fascism identified by Lyons (2011, 'The Myth of National Rebirth', para. 3) is based on Griffin's theory of palingenetic ultranationalism. To historian and political theorist Roger Griffin (2004) fascism is based on what he calls 'palingenetic ultra-nationalism', defined as the aspiration to stage a national rebirth on the basis of a romanticised golden age period from the national history. Griffin, as opposed to Paxton, proposes to look into the actual beliefs held by fascists to understand the essence of fascism – an approach he calls 'methodological empathy' after George Mosse's concept (Griffin, 2008, p. xiv).

This 'palingenetic ultranationalism' is immediately obvious in the symbolism and rhetoric of fascist movements. Italian Fascism sought to restore the glory and might of the Roman Empire, and the infamous 'Hitler salute' brought back into fashion by Mussolini was of course the customary greeting to Ancient Roman magistrates. Hitler, likewise, spoke a of a Third Reich, in reference to preceding German 'Reichs' (Heywood, 2012, p. 133). The Ku Klux Klan—said to be the first fascist movement in history originating from the 1860s in the former Confederate States by, among others, Paxton (1998, p. 12)—too was preoccupied with national rebirth after suffering the humiliation of defeat in the American Civil War. This is most famously conveyed in the slogan 'The South Shall Rise Again'.

Paxton, like Griffin, identifies fascism with a preoccupation with national decline and humiliation but the specific remedy appears under-emphasised, this remedy being the staging of such a national rebirth, this is summarised by Heywood (2012, p. 181) as “All fascist movements therefore highlight the moral bankruptcy and cultural decadence of modern society, but proclaim the possibility of rejuvenation, offering the image of the nation ‘rising phoenix-like from the ashes’.” Griffin's definition of fascism is very exact, and uses 'para-fascism' to define right-wing corporatist conservative authoritarian regimes. Lyons summarises para-fascism, “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” (2011, 'The Myth of National Rebirth', para. 3). These corporatist conservative authoritarian regimes did not “grew directly out of a seizure of state power by an 'extra-systemic' revolutionary movement”. Instead, “[a]ll of them … came to power as attempts by sections of the ruling elites or their military representatives to restore stability and strong government in a way which did not threaten the basis of the existing class structure or of traditional values”. Fascism, in contrast, restructured, or sought to restructure, political and socio-economic institutions and sought cultural renewal through popular mobilisation (Griffin, 2004, p. 121). Fascism is therefore revolution in the sense that it advocates extreme change in relation to political and socio-economic institutions as well as cultural values, considering the prevailing cultural vales decadent and corrupted by liberalism and socialism (which includes opposition to Enlightenment values), or as Paxton called it advocacy of “radical spiritual-cultural renewal and restored national community” (1998, p. 7).

We propose a definition for this paper similar to the draft definition proposed by Lyons. It differs on some minor details. Lyons' draft definition includes a reference to “collective rebirth” when the emphasis with fascism lies on the national aspect. We define fascism as a revolutionary form of right-wing ultra-nationalist populism seeking to stage a totalitarian national rebirth through a social Darwinian type struggle. From this it follows that it challenges conventional liberal and moderate conservative values because these reject such a power struggle.

The means to staging a totalitarian national rebirth is based on mass action. Fascism gives primacy of action over intellectualism. Action, moreover, in this particular case, stands in relation to struggle, or 'social Darwinian' struggle. Paxton (1998, p. 12) commented on this by saying that fascism considers “the beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle.” And Heywood (2012, p. 177) similarly argued that the principle of struggle, between nations and within nations against treacherous elements, is crucial to fascism:

In the first place, fascists regarded struggle as the natural and inevitable condition of both social and international life. Only competition and conflict guarantee human progress and ensure that the fittest and strongest will prosper … In contrast to traditional humanist or religious values, such caring, sympathy and compassion, fascists respect a very different set of martial values: loyalty, duty, obedience and self-sacrifice.

Lastly, the ability of success of fascism in the past was dependent on historical contingencies, a short window of opportunity, that allowed it to manifest itself as Bonapartist, drawing from socially uprooted elements from every class, manoeuvring between the interests of different class elements and elites, in a period of protracted crisis, manoeuvring into political power and its subsequent exercising thereof. This crisis including a crisis of liberal democracy allowing for fascists to exploit (in the neutral sense: use to the fullest benefit) this. Moreover, the liberal democracy in question must, according to Griffin, be “mature enough institutionally to preclude the threat of a direct military or monarchical coup,” as “Latin America, Africa, and the Far East provide abundant examples of fragile democracies being snuffed out by military dictatorships” , yet is must be “too immature to be able to rely on a substantial consensus in the general population that liberal political procedures … are the sole valid basis for a healthy society” (Griffin, 2014, p. 211).

Fascism is right-wing in that it promotes social inequality and social hierarchy; revolutionary in that it seeks to seize political power to violently restructure class rule; totalitarian in that it invites controlled mass participation (of conformity to fascist power) in order to stage a national rebirth, and the national rebirth is pivotal because the ultimate aim of violently restructuring class rule is revitalisation and the rebirth of the nation, which it seeks to achieve through a social Darwinian type struggle.

[mushroompizza]

Let me give you the pointers of a Fascist government, or you could just google it :grin:

-Nationalism: a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation.

-Totalitarianism: a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.

-A single-party state: is a type of state in which a single political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution.

-Personality Cult: when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and at times, worshipful image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.

-Dictatorship: a form of government where political authority is monopolized by a single person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity's power remains strong.

-Militarism: the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

-Direct action: when a group takes an action which is intended to reveal an existing problem, highlight an alternative, or demonstrate a possible solution to a social issue.

-Mixed economy: economic system that is variously defined as containing a mixture of markets and economic planning, in which both the private sector and state direct the economy; or as a mixture of public ownership and private ownership; or as a mixture of free markets with economic interventionism.

-Class collaboration: principle of social organization based upon the belief that the division of society into a hierarchy of social classes is a positive and essential aspect of civilization.

-The Third Position: ultranationalist political position that emphasizes its opposition to Marxism and capitalism.

-New Man: utopian concept that involves the creation of a new ideal human being or citizen replacing un-ideal human beings or citizens.

-Imperialism: policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.

[RedMaterialist]

Fascists are people who believe they have a moral obligation to murder as many communists as they can. They also claim that they are opposed to big capitalism, but they take their financing from those capitalists.

Hitler was the perfect example. Marx also predicted this type in the Communist Manifesto, True or German Socialism.

Fascism, therefore, is the political philosophy of the petit-bourgeois, they want to destroy both big capital and the working class, they think they can kill two birds with one stone (Marx, CM.)

The Tea Party in the US also has these characteristics. It wants to destroy "Crony Capitalism" and workers (by attacking unions, labor regulations, minimum wage, etc.)

[Fire]

Let me give you the pointers of a Fascist government, or you could just google it :grin:

-Nationalism: a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation.

-Totalitarianism: a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.

-A single-party state: is a type of state in which a single political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution.

-Personality Cult: when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and at times, worshipful image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.

-Dictatorship: a form of government where political authority is monopolized by a single person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity's power remains strong.

-Militarism: the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

-Direct action: when a group takes an action which is intended to reveal an existing problem, highlight an alternative, or demonstrate a possible solution to a social issue.

-Mixed economy: economic system that is variously defined as containing a mixture of markets and economic planning, in which both the private sector and state direct the economy; or as a mixture of public ownership and private ownership; or as a mixture of free markets with economic interventionism.

-Class collaboration: principle of social organization based upon the belief that the division of society into a hierarchy of social classes is a positive and essential aspect of civilization.

-The Third Position: ultranationalist political position that emphasizes its opposition to Marxism and capitalism.

-New Man: utopian concept that involves the creation of a new ideal human being or citizen replacing un-ideal human beings or citizens.

-Imperialism: policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.

Well I didn't want to google it because I have a hard time telling when people are lying and I live in a country where a significant number of people with platforms that suggest credibility (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBYmeLBWjeI) don't know the difference between socialism and nazis (since they called themselves national socialists.)

[#FF0000]

Let me give you the pointers of a Fascist government

The problem with this is that you could point to virtually any government on the planet and define them as "Fascist" by this metric. That isn't accurate, because Fascism doesn't just mean a strong state w/ few political or civil liberties. By this logic, the old autocratic regimes of 19th century Europe were all Fascist, which just isn't true.

[JayBro47]

Tea Party isn't really fascist. I mean maybe the "bottom" is but they are establishment aka Neo-Con/Neo-Liberal/Oligarchic controlled at the top.

With regards to the "Military-Backing," we have the Neo-Con elements versus the Paleo-Con elements. The Paleocons after the COLD WAR ended, wanted to bring America Home basically. But the Neo-Cons didn't. You have Palecons who are not antisemitic, but are not really pro-Jewish Heritage either like Pat Buchanan. And then you have the David Dukes and StormFronts and elements of Ron Paul, open isolationists (not just non-interventionists, non-imperialists or moderates on foreign policy) who are antisemitic in terms of Fascism. They believe in a Z.O.G. which is an extreme version of the Neo-Cons. They see the Military as used for Israeli Hegemony. They are jingoists and ultra-nationalists, but they see the Military as not being used for "American-Chauvinism" but rather for Jewish-Neoconservative Machinations for the Right-Wing of the Israelis. So there we see antisemitism, a big part of Nazism. They are a-okay with historical American-Colonialism and some elements of Aggression (they might see historically World War II as "Jewish-Controlled.")

I saw some pretty despicable quote of some Aussie Fascist from 2002. They're a Racist Australian Party (Occupied Australia for Anglo-Settlers Only!) showing a typical "Anti-Neocon" perspective and they referred to Israel as "Zionist Entity."

What has to be is there is no other "Jewish-State" except for that entity called Israel while Australia is simply a colony of GREAT-BRITAIN so Australia as an Anglo-Land is in that way no less a "Colonial-Entity!" The worst part is they could have referred to it as "Israel" but chose to be hypocritical in their typically Nazi-Malicious Way. They don't want there to be a Jewish Presence either way.:glare:

[RedMaterialist]

The problem with this is that you could point to virtually any government on the planet and define them as "Fascist" by this metric. That isn't accurate, because Fascism doesn't just mean a strong state w/ few political or civil liberties. By this logic, the old autocratic regimes of 19th century Europe were all Fascist, which just isn't true.

That's correct. What distinguishes those regimes from fascism is that fascism began in the early 20th century as a reaction against socialism and, particularly, Soviet Communism. There are thousands of Tea Partiers who are still proud of being "commie killers" in Vietnam.

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

If "reaction against socialism and Soviet Communism" is what makes a fascist movement than I guess all capitalist countries have been fascist for a while now.

[#FF0000]

That's correct. What distinguishes those regimes from fascism is that fascism began in the early 20th century as a reaction against socialism and, particularly, Soviet Communism. There are thousands of Tea Partiers who are still proud of being "commie killers" in Vietnam.

Except that the monarchies in 19th century Europe were actively repressing early socialist and communist movements as well. Fascists are not unique in their anti-communism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Analysing the stated ideology of fascist movements is pointless, first of all because the fascists couldn't reach any kind of agreement among themselves, and second because you could "prove" that not just the Tea Party but every liberal and social-democratic party in Europe and America is fascist using arguments from stated ideology.

Fascism is the mass political movement of the ruined petite bourgeoisie, used as a terrorist weapon against the socialist movement by the bourgeoisie. And it hasn't been relevant for decades. Everything that fascism did for the bourgeoisie, democracy does better. So it's a moribund movement restricted to a few boneheads.

[cyu]

Seems when hippie-types throw around the word, it's in reference to any authoritarian system, be it the police, school, work, or even admins of a forum.

If you happen to see the world primarily through the lens of race relations or the struggles of the Jewish people, then fascism must be primarily concerned with racial and ethnic oppression, or else it's not really fascism (perhaps "merely" authoritarianism). Depending on the person, calling the government of Israel fascist would be a contradiction in terms.

If you happen to see fascism merely as a tool used by the ruling class to fight the growth of communism, then it doesn't necessarily have to have a racial or ethnic component - merely a class based one.

It's a lot of semantics though. Seems the only way to settle a semantic battle is through authoritarian means ("fascists wrote the dictionary!" says Mr. Hippy) - personally I'd say if you're against racism, fight racism. If you're against capitalism, fight capitalism. If you're against authoritarianism, fight authoritarianism. Some of those battles are intertwined though.

[mushroompizza]

The Tea Party is not fascist but has similarities. They're a third position, nationalist, imperialist, promotes a personality cult of the founding fathers, want a mixed economy, and support american militarism.

[#FF0000]

The Tea Party is not fascist but has similarities. They're a third position

[citation needed]

[Comrade Jacob]

Capitalism in decay. When capitalism is collapsing the capitalists use the right-wing popularism to hold on to power. They use the workers to support reactionary politics in order to keep themselves enslaved.
It's all about keeping the workers down under a right wing popularist government.

[The_Southern_Leftist]

Fascism is, in the strictest definition, the doctrine of the PNF that ruled Italy and the Salo Republic. The doctrine is categorized by right wing populism, "class collaboration", and caesarism. There have been marxist analysis' done by figures such as Leon Trotsky who asserted that fascism was capitalism in decay. Many apply the label of fascist to National-Socialism. However, there are some forms of National-Socialism that could not be considered capitalism in decay. For example, strasserism, while remaining a racialist and populist ideology, is charecterized by a rejection of the capitalist overtones that Nazi germany developed. Strasserism argues for worker councils to lead and believed a second revolution necessary in order to distribute the means of production to the working class. This does not make strasserism good. Nor does it make any form of fascism desirable. I just find it redundant and not accurate to label fascism broadly as capitalism in decay because the various theories in fascist thought such as strasserism or National-Syndicalism do have non capitalist economic bases. However, if one was to apply fascism as capitalism in decay to Italy and the PNF then that would be wholly true. Italian or Classical Fascism is a form of sexed up capitalism made appealing to the masses through militarism, strong-man leaders, and populism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fascism is, in the strictest definition, the doctrine of the PNF that ruled Italy and the Salo Republic. The doctrine is categorized by right wing populism, "class collaboration", and caesarism. There have been marxist analysis' done by figures such as Leon Trotsky who asserted that fascism was capitalism in decay. Many apply the label of fascist to National-Socialism. However, there are some forms of National-Socialism that could not be considered capitalism in decay. For example, strasserism, while remaining a racialist and populist ideology, is charecterized by a rejection of the capitalist overtones that Nazi germany developed. Strasserism argues for worker councils to lead and believed a second revolution necessary in order to distribute the means of production to the working class. This does not make strasserism good. Nor does it make any form of fascism desirable. I just find it redundant and not accurate to label fascism broadly as capitalism in decay because the various theories in fascist thought such as strasserism or National-Syndicalism do have non capitalist economic bases. However, if one was to apply fascism as capitalism in decay to Italy and the PNF then that would be wholly true. Italian or Classical Fascism is a form of sexed up capitalism made appealing to the masses through militarism, strong-man leaders, and populism.

First of all, Trotsky saw fascism as more than simply fascism in decay. He saw it as a mass terrorist movement of the ruined petite bourgeoisie. As for various "third position" ideas like "national syndicalism", "national socialism", "Strasserism", "synarquism", whatever, all of them are capitalist because they mean the preservation of private ownership, commodity production and wage labour. Simply proclaiming oneself to be anti-capitalist does not make you so.

As for workers' councils, there are reactionary workers' councils. Councils of "Aryan" workers set to exterminate Jews would be reactionary councils, for example.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Fascism, at least the old-school Post-WWI Fascism, does seem to be a rather cobbled together ideology. I sometimes wonder if, on top of a reaction to socialism, Fascism was also something of a psychological reaction to the traumas of the Great War. Parts of the conservative establishment trying to make sense of a horrific conflict that had managed to wipe out many of the last vestiges of empires and feudalism, and suddenly were found in a brave new world that they found hard to comprehend.

Fascism often seems to have this desire of returning to a mythic 'Golden Age' of the past. But when the traditional system fails, to the mind of the deprived petite-bourgeois and the conservative establishment you had to sweep away the decadent things of the present to return to the more 'pure' past.

[cyu]

Racism is just a fad - like many religions and other ideologies are fads - it will eventually wither and fade away, since we've already seen the result of attempted full-on race war in the 1940s - those that engage in it just ultimately destroy themselves and it is a fairly inefficient way to run a society.

Is authoritarianism merely a fad as well? I would say yes. While it is true that governments throughout history have had authoritarian structures, I would say the more authoritarian they are, the more they stifle themselves. The more any society worships one person, the more they doom themselves to failure - and it is the anti-authoritarian parts of those societies that drag them forward, despite their appeals to authority.