What, exactly, is Fascism?

[SocialismBeta]

I have heard many accounts on what fascism is and how it comes about, and I would like to see what perspectives I can find here. After all, this forum literally has a section dedicated against fascism specifically... so surely people here must have a perspective they feel worth sharing.

I am familiar with Trotskys account, that of fascist movements being largely reactions against threats to the capitalist economy (indeed, in Rense.com's "Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism", heavy labor suppression is a significant feature of fascist governments). If I understood it correctly, a fascist movement relies heavily on "middle class" support as well. Of course I am open to being corrected on this point.

I am looking for theoretical perspectives on why fascist movements come about and why they gain traction in a society, not merely a list of that fascists tend to believe, or do (unless, of course, that is important to understanding them in a historical way).

If the question is unclear, let me know and I can try to re-phrase it.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism", if I have the correct text in mind, is ridiculous.



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, sharing in the illusion? (methodological empathy) << needs to be integrated and addressed

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.

[Hatshepsut]

Alfredo Rocco was the main Italian theorist of fascism. See his 1925 Political Theory of Fascism, which was actually a speech, at

http://fascism-archive.org/books/PoliticalDoctrinesRocco.html

Some interpreters hold that fascism accepted a conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie but, rejecting socialism as an answer to this, proposes a corporative state instead. For this view, see Stephen Chilton of Univ. of Minnesota, at

http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/1610/Readings/1610.B+DReader.Rocco.PoliticalTheoryOfFascism.html

Then there is fascism's view of the state as an organism. Free trade, accumulation of wealth, and "liberty" are entertained, yet these are always to be in the service of the state. Explanatory notes and diagrams at

http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/socphil/socphillectures/K.Rocco&Palmieri.pdf

I haven't read Lawrence Britt and can't say whether his view is recommendable. Fascism isn't really a defense of capitalism, however, even though reactionary, middle and upper class support indeed enters the equation. Fascism seems to be a way of organizing a state for racial or nationalistic warfare under a thesis of encirclement by racial enemies and a Darwinian morality that the superior race or nation should claim the living spaces of other peoples for its own use. The rest of the capitalist world rejected fascism once that became clear. Although they were content with letting the USSR take the brunt of fighting the world's largest anti-fascist war, the Americans and British almost certainly would have pursued Hitler to a conclusion had the Soviets collapsed.

The Axis was simply too dangerous to the world economy and to the world's other capitalists to be permitted unchecked expansion. America also shouldered the task of fighting fascism's Japanese wing in rough coordination with Mao Zedong's coalitions in China. The Japanese brand, the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere," did not seek clearance of living space by extermination as the Nazi plan did. For Japan, utter subjugation and enslavement of peoples who would be permitted to live was sufficient. Hardly better taste, I might say.

In Tim Cornelis's spoiler above, that fascism was historically contingent within a brief window of opportunity appears correct.

[SocialismBeta]

Thanks for the replys.

[SocialismBeta]

OK, I just finished reading the piece you provided Tim. And I have two things I would like to say about it:

First, it seems to me that under this account (and several others) populism plays a central role. I am thinking: given that fascism had a very particular set of historical circumstances set up for it's rise, should socialists be overly concerned about this kind of right-wing populism?
Part of me wants to say no. On the other hand, socialist movements also depend on a populism of its own, and I wonder if it is worth trying to "win over" certain segments of the population (assuming of course, that is possible).

Second (and perhaps this is related to the first), if fascist movements have a populist and revolutionary character as well as socialist ones, is there any risk at all of one kind of movement morphing into another kind? Or are the motivational drivers (say, national rebirth vs. the abolition of wage labor, or, Darwinian struggle vs. class struggle) enough to divide them completely?

I appreciate anymore input from people. Thanks.

[RedMaterialist]

I have heard many accounts on what fascism is and how it comes about, and I would like to see what perspectives I can find here. After all, this forum literally has a section dedicated against fascism specifically... so surely people here must have a perspective they feel worth sharing.

I am familiar with Trotskys account, that of fascist movements being largely reactions against threats to the capitalist economy (indeed, in Rense.com's "Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism", heavy labor suppression is a significant feature of fascist governments). If I understood it correctly, a fascist movement relies heavily on "middle class" support as well. Of course I am open to being corrected on this point.

I am looking for theoretical perspectives on why fascist movements come about and why they gain traction in a society, not merely a list of that fascists tend to believe, or do (unless, of course, that is important to understanding them in a historical way).

If the question is unclear, let me know and I can try to re-phrase it.

Fascists want to destroy both international capitalism and international socialism. This is why it appeals to the middle class, which is being robbed by big capital (crony capitalism, if you will) and threatened by international labor (Bolshevism.) Fascism is an attempt to kill two birds with one stone (Marx, from CM.) The middle class hates the big banks, hates unions, but loves the idea of the small entrepreneur.

Fascists are quite happy to use the financing of big capital to murder as many Bolsheviks (communists, labor leaders, international socialists, etc.) as they can find. This financing is how Hitler killed as many Bolsheviks as he did. He thought he could destroy the USSR, then destroy international capital in London and New York. Stalin killed him first.

The most extreme fascists, for instance during the Viet Nam war, were proud (and some still are) to tell you that they were "Commie Killers." Probably 30% of the American people believe that Obama is a communist and a tool of the big banks. And they would love to kill him, and Clinton, Sanders, etc.

[ComradeAllende]

First, it seems to me that under this account (and several others) populism plays a central role. I am thinking: given that fascism had a very particular set of historical circumstances set up for it's rise, should socialists be overly concerned about this kind of right-wing populism?

I think socialists need to be concerned with any manifestation of right-populism, not necessarily because right-populism will necessarily lead to fascism (it won't) but because of the detrimental effects right-populism will have on the welfare of oppressed minorities and the working class. After all, right-populism usually involves the curtailing of certain liberties (free speech, independent labor organization, etc) and the retardation of the revolutionary socialist project. As for fascism, the "particular set" of historical circumstances are not as rare as one might think. Fascism developed in the context of revolutionary upheaval, ethno-political strife, and economic depression (i.e. Europe in the 30s). The (various) fascists took the political impetus away from the (former) ruling conservatives (the Victorian aristocracy and inherited estates) and sought to unify the nation-state against perceived "aggressors," both foreign (historic geopolitical and ideological rivals) and domestic (Communists, labor agitators, liberals, social/ethnic "inferiors"). We see that today in various European countries, from the rise of neo-Nazism and far-right nativism in a Western Europe (which is reeling from economic depression and the current migrant crisis) to Ukraine's recruitment of explicitly fascist militias in its war against Russian revanchism. In America, we see a Republican Party (led by Donald Trump of all people) lurching towards the abyss of racial demagoguery and Nixonian law-and-order politics, what with the scaremongering about "Mexican rapists" and the "racism and divisive rhetoric" of the Black Lives Matter movement. We are effectively living in a postmodern version of the 1930s, with dangerous implications for the future.


Part of me wants to say no. On the other hand, socialist movements also depend on a populism of its own, and I wonder if it is worth trying to "win over" certain segments of the population (assuming of course, that is possible).

I think Walter Benjamin said it best when he argued that "behind every rise of fascism is a failed revolution." I would argue that among fascism's most vitriolic supporters are the disaffected elements of the working class, as one can see from the growing support of far-right movements like UKIP and the National Front.

[SocialismBeta]

Fascists want to destroy both international capitalism and international socialism. This is why it appeals to the middle class, which is being robbed by big capital (crony capitalism, if you will) and threatened by international labor (Bolshevism.) Fascism is an attempt to kill two birds with one stone (Marx, from CM.) The middle class hates the big banks, hates unions, but loves the idea of the small entrepreneur.

Fascists are quite happy to use the financing of big capital to murder as many Bolsheviks (communists, labor leaders, international socialists, etc.) as they can find. This financing is how Hitler killed as many Bolsheviks as he did. He thought he could destroy the USSR, then destroy international capital in London and New York. Stalin killed him first.

Question: What is it about capitalism that makes fascists (or fascism generally) want to destroy it? Though I understand what you say about the middle class hating "big banks" and the like, the "small entrepreneur" is not necessarily conter to the core logic of capitalism: competition for greater profits over your competitors.

While a fascist state would certainly not have the same kind of capitalism as a (comparatively) free country, could it not still be capitalism?

Of course, I don't mean to imply that fascism is on the side of capitalism, or vice-versa. I am just trying to understand your point quoted above.

[Hatshepsut]

The most extreme fascists, for instance during the Viet Nam war, were proud...to tell you that they were "Commie Killers."

Sentiment understood, appreciated, and agreed with. :)

However, labeling reactionary, bourgeois imperialists as fascists is incorrect and intellectually sloppy. It’s a line from the hippie antiwar movement of 1968. Thing is, imperialists and fascists have no common interest, their horns locked in combat to the death wherever the twain meet. Conflating them leads to wrong understandings of politics and history. Marx and Lenin may have gotten some of their history wrong, but they did pay great attention to it, realizing this subject area’s importance.


What is it about capitalism that makes fascists...want to destroy it? Though I understand what you say about the middle class hating "big banks" and the like, the "small entrepreneur" is not necessarily counter to the core logic of capitalism: competition for greater profits...

See, the state should have first dibs on the assets of big banks even if private parties hold the stock. And there’s a vision of “folkish” shopkeepers being choked by those big banks, which are of course “owned by Jews.” I think fascist leaders retain industrialists for convenience, to have someone do their dirty economic work for them; they’re also rewarding supporters that way. The small entrepreneur is supposed to serve the state, not the mammon of profit. There’s competition, but genetically between individuals for racial purity, not so much between profit-seekers. Actual practice deviated; the Nazi military aerospace industry had Junkers, Heinkel, and Messerschmitt competing at first; though Göring and Schacht forced them to come to an oligopolistic accommodation as war approached.


First, it seems to me that...populism plays a central role....if fascist movements have a populist and revolutionary character as well as socialist ones, is there any risk at all of one kind of movement morphing into another kind?

Populism gives fascists their base of support, but fascism is not populism. Neither is socialism. But one won’t become the other. Both are capable of internal violence, yet on the international stage, fascism always seeks out a racial-nationalist war while socialism seeks peace. True fascist systems are far more volatile than capitalism; when a fascist comes to power war is around the corner. Spain’s Franco and Chile’s Augusto Pinochet are perhaps exceptions to that rule. Once his position was safe, Franco acted more like a dictator or monarch than a real fascist, however. South America seems to work that way as well—a military junta is not genuinely fascistic because it’s concerned only with it’s own survival and political dominance, lacking the racial expansion vision that fascists have.



I think Walter Benjamin said it best when he argued that "behind every rise of fascism is a failed revolution."

Mmm...I would say a failed war. Though Benjamin deserves better-quality attention than he gets. Just look at the crap a Google search dredges up, a consequence of tech’s inflating the blogosphere as source of knowledge:

9656

[RedMaterialist]

Question: What is it about capitalism that makes fascists (or fascism generally) want to destroy it? Though I understand what you say about the middle class hating "big banks" and the like, the "small entrepreneur" is not necessarily conter to the core logic of capitalism: competition for greater profits over your competitors.

While a fascist state would certainly not have the same kind of capitalism as a (comparatively) free country, could it not still be capitalism?

Of course, I don't mean to imply that fascism is on the side of capitalism, or vice-versa. I am just trying to understand your point quoted above.


Marx:


To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.
(CM)


The middle class, petty bourgeois, small business, entrepreneur, etc. feels attacked by both big capital and the proletariat. Fascism, in its extreme form, seeks to take political control of capitalism by setting up the state itself as a corporate body. This is what Hitler and Mussolini did in creating the fascist state. At the same time they used the state to destroy labor unions.

Fascism wants "real", "true" capitalism, meaning small businesses competing in a free market. They see the "crony" capitalists destroying the middle class, i.e., themselves. It's the same phenomenon today in the US with the Tea Party attacking both the "socialist" labor unions and the Republican Party establishment and Wall St. It's a kind of juvenile, undeveloped fascism, but I think it has a lot of the same characteristics of the Nazis, mass deportation of immigrants, police suppression of blacks, etc.

Fascists want to return to the good old days of the independent small business man, therefore their appeal to the middle class. So, yes, fascists want capitalism, they just don't want the inevitable monopoly of international capitalism.

[RedMaterialist]

Sentiment understood, appreciated, and agreed with. :)

However, labeling reactionary, bourgeois imperialists as fascists is incorrect and intellectually sloppy. It’s a line from the hippie antiwar movement of 1968. Thing is, imperialists and fascists have no common interest, their horns locked in combat to the death wherever the twain meet. Conflating them leads to wrong understandings of politics and history.

The imperialists and the fascists have one important common interest: the destruction of international socialism. The US was quite clear that the Viet Nam war was about stopping the "spread" of communism and by that they meant killing anyone in Viet Nam they suspected of being communist.

Fascism is the naked face of capitalist imperialism and hegemony. Marx foreshadowed this when he said:


The glorious robes of liberalism have fallen away and the most repulsive despotism stands revealed for all the world to see.


As long as the capitalist state can keep the fascists interested in racism, socialism, religious bigotry, homophobia, etc. then it can keep the fascists under control. When that control is lost, then you get Hitler and Mussolini.

[Hatshepsut]

Fascism, in its extreme form, seeks to take political control of capitalism by setting up the state itself as a corporate body.

This seems to be the case; fascism mutates from within a bourgeois imperial state, making these two systems more closely related than I implied in my last post. Although neither system will coexist peacefully with communism, I still think the fact that Britain and the USA did not ally with Hitler to finish off the USSR would have to be explained. Both were willing to lay aside enmity toward a socialist state long enough to get rid of Hitler first. Especially attractive if most of the blood would be Russian.

It's tempting to invoke conflict between rival capitalist parties, yet that view, which accounts for 17th to 18th century English-Dutch wars and the 1870 Franco-Prussian war, has serious defects for World War II. I think the answer lies in the different position of the plutocrat in a "democracy" versus in a state where everything is effectively subordinated to one leader and henchmen. Fascism doesn't give plutocrats as much autonomy as democracy does, and its total war policies are ruinous to business in the long run. A place like the USA, where big business is dominant, has a strong interest in preventing dictatorship at home (if they don't mind imposing it on "banana republics"). While less sure about this, I think Hitler's rise had a mixed reception among German industrialists: Some of them, with ties to people in the Nazi hierarchy, supported it, but many others didn't like Hitler.

[Synergy]

Greavyard corrected me in another thread by saying that North Korea isn't fascist. Would totalitarianism be a better description?