Fascism - Adolf?

[elijahcraig]

I was talking to someone lately, he has a degree in Politics and History with a specialization in Fascim. I used Adolf Hitler as an example of a Fascist, and he said "No, Hitler wasn't a fascist, pure and simple." Now, he would not tell me what fascism was. I said "It is having total control?" "No." etc etc etc. He wouldn't tell me. I looked it up in the dictionary and found nothing that would answer this question correctly, just the normal Hitleresque definitions. Does anyone know what fascism is and why Hitler is not considered Hitler?

[elijahcraig]

Here's one answer:, I don't know if it is correct:

What is Fascism?
Some General Ideological Features
by Matthew N. Lyons
I am skeptical of efforts to produce a "definition" of fascism. As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways. To understand what fascism has encompassed as a movement and a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development--as a form of counter-revolutionary politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.

Fascism's approach to politics is both populist--in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies--and elitist--in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.

Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.

Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.

[canikickit]

The definition in the dictionary is correct:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

The principle tenets of fascism are:[list]
nationalism
totalitarianism
economic control
the cult of personality[list]

(Edited by canikickit at 12:13 am on July 8, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

That's what I told the guy with the degree in Fascism, he said "no, I'll send you the book I'm writing on it".

[Sensitive]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 6:15 pm on July 7, 2003
That's what I told the guy with the degree in Fascism, he said "no, I'll send you the book I'm writing on it".Uhm, that makes me think that he is trying to write an apologist argument in defense of fascism.

[canikickit]

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, ho, ho...etc., etc., etc...

He has a degree in fascism? Cool. :cheesy:

Anyway, the guy sounds like an idiot, why wouldn't he just tell you what he believes fascism to be? Tell him that canikickit thinks he's an asshole.

[redstar2000]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 2:55 pm on July 7, 2003
Here's one answer:, I don't know if it is correct:

What is Fascism?
Some General Ideological Features
by Matthew N. Lyons
I am skeptical of efforts to produce a "definition" of fascism. As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways. To understand what fascism has encompassed as a movement and a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development--as a form of counter-revolutionary politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.

Fascism's approach to politics is both populist--in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies--and elitist--in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.

Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.

Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.



I think that's a very good summary, giving a brief insight into some of the complexities involved.

I would add that the "spiritual revival" component of fascist ideology is often (though not always) specifically religious. That was not so much the case in Germany, but clerical participation was important in Italy and crucial to the fascist regimes in Austria, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, and Spain.

It would also be clearer if the point was made that fascism is not something "imposed" on the capitalist ruling class; it is an option that is deliberately chosen by the ruling class as an extreme measure to protect their wealth while (temporarily) giving up their direct political power into "trustworthy" hands.

Fascist movements have something of a bad odor among capitalists now...lost wars of conquest do not inspire confidence. But fascist measures, such as the U.S. "Patriot Act", continue to exercise a strong appeal and we'll probably see more of them as this century continues.

:cool:

[CubanFox]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:46 am on July 8, 2003
I would add that the "spiritual revival" component of fascist ideology is often (though not always) specifically religious. That was not so much the case in Germany, but clerical participation was important in Italy and crucial to the fascist regimes in Austria, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, and Spain.

Mussolini was an atheist but pretended to be Catholic to get his regime rubber stamped by da Pope.

And now, some quotes from the aforementioned dictator, Benito Mussolini:

"War is to man what maternity is to a woman. From a philosophical and doctrinal viewpoint, I do not believe in perpetual peace."

"The truth is that men are tired of liberty."

"The function of a citizen and a soldier are inseparable."

"This is the epitaph I want on my tomb: 'Here lies one of the most intelligent animals who ever appeared on the face of the earth.' "

Notice how all these things are just like many of Dubya's policies...

(Edited by CubanFox at 2:56 am on July 8, 2003)

[Blackberry]

Benito Mussolini himself said that fascism is best described as corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 4:56 am on July 8, 2003
Benito Mussolini himself said that fascism is best described as corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism
as it is a merge of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/quo...5256afe00658b19 (http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/quotes/c7df7e70919c51b885256afe00658b19)

[Sandanista]

Stalin was also a semi fascist

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Stalin, just like Hitler, was an ideology in himself.

Neither were Fascist. You shouldn't look in dictionaries for political definitions, it is very unrebliable. Fascism is a lot more than those dictionary definitions. canikickit's post provides a somewhat decent overview of Fascist type systems, however every definition, as well as many people, always mention race policies. Fascism does not entail racist policies or thinking. That is Nazism. Very different.

It may contain bans on immigration and sending people home or whatever, but this, however much we are told it is, is not racist.

"Rascist; that word is used way too loosely these days, people are forgetting the meaning of it.

[Palmares]

Hitler, loosely was a Fascist, but getting ideologically technical dismisses this. I guess Hitler was semi-fascist, in the autocratic totalitarian sense. This applies to Stalin.

Maybe you should search some old threads about Hitler's ideology (not National Socialism, Social Nationalism (social) and state capitalism (economic))

[Marxist in Nebraska]

This associate of Comrade elijahcraig certainly makes a rather bold claim (Hitler not a fascist?), but it is not explained at all here. That is unfortunate. It sounds like a very interesting topic potentially.

Several have drawn links between Hitler and Bush, which I believe is justified. I have never heard Bush compared to Mussolini in depth, but it is no surprise that they are also quite similar. Corporatism is a more suitable word for fascism, and this from a man who was certainly an expert in that ideology.

Fascism is certainly a dirty word today, even for the far-right in many instances. It has been suggested that a new form of fascism is on the rise, a version that does need to be enforced by a gang of thugs like Hitler's brownshirts. Bertram Gross has a book called Friendly Fascism that apparently finds this slippery, neo-fascism in advanced development in the US (and he wrote this before Sep. 11). I own a copy of the book, but I have not yet read it. Has anyone here read it?

[sc4r]

The real truth about Facism was given in the first reply. Unlike either Marxism or Capitalism or Liberalism there really is no well accepted ideology to define what Fascism is. Fascism is more of a bucket category into which quite a few disparate ideas with at least some of a few characteristics get put.

If your friend is saying Nazi'ism is not Fascism then I'd say he is just one of those idiot types who like to claim that America is a republic not a democracy despite the fact that almost everyone else defines it as both. They (and your friend) are merely insisting that something which can only be defined by consensus should be defined in some other abitrary way.

A regime will be described as Facist if it posesses at least most of the following characteristics in some way:

Very limited or no democracy.
A leader cult and a clear hierarchy.
Lots of centralised state control over services (Like railways etc.)
A glorification of nationality (often coupled with a denigration of other nationalities).
Often a glorification of some 'racial ' type (nearly always accompanied by repression and ridicule of other racial types)
Usually a pretty expansionist drive with the intention of controlling but not integrating other territories.
A great deal of state intervention in industry.
Usually a glorification of modernism in the sense of technology.
Miltarist tendencies.

The short economic definition of Facism is : a state which controls industry but where the people of the state work for the good of the state not the state for the good of the people.

You can see from the above that Fascism when described purely in terms of its economic relations rather than its attitudes is virtually synonous with socialism but with the roles of the state and the people reversed. In practical terms this means sans democracy.

But really in order to qualify as truly Fascist it also has to exhibit some of the repressive and aggressive qualities listed above.

Nazi Germany qualifies in just about every respect. The only way in which it might seem not to, is that industry profits were largely left in private hands. However this ignores the reality that industrial output was still very much dictated by the state, it just was not made overt.

More than anything else Fascism is now one of those 'bad words' which dont mean anything very specific but which are attached to any regime which a person wants to denigrate amd which can in any way be said to have a clear leader, who is not a monarch, and be accused of repressive policies.

All real systems suffer from this sort of vagueness in practise because no regime is actually a 'perfect' ideology of any sort. This leads people to argue about whether a state is Fascist or Socialist; Liberal or Capitalist; etc. when really it is almost certainly none of those things in an absolute sense, it is what it is. A more intelligent argument than debating which Label to pin on it would be to evaluate how it behaves and whether it is good or bad and for whom.

The labels can be useful to communicate the gist of an argument if both people communicating have a good and similar understanding of what the labels really mean. But in practise they do next to nothing because anyone capable of understanding will already know which label he or she feels is most appropriate and if they are open minded wont assess the nation acording to the label.

Nine times out ten the labels are just a way of expresing disapproval (You hear first world nations described as Fascist or Capitalist or Socialist far more frequently than you hear them described as Liberal, which is what technically nearly all of them are (IMHO :)).

The arguments about Stalin for example are in no way resolved by saying he was a fascist (we will of course usually say that he was since the only other convenient label is socialist which we dont want tainted). The real arguments are :

Was he leading the Soviet unon towards greater prosperity, dignity and control by its people?

Was he uneccessarily brutal in how he exercised his authority.

If you answer No and Yes then its almost academic whether you label him Fascist oir not and the only question of real interest is whether a movement inspired by socialist principles will always tend to throw up someone like him, and if not how do you make sure that it wont.

Ig you answer Yes and No then you are probably going to have a hard time convincing people that this is actually true.

P.S. Degrees in anything, especially the social sciences demonstrate almost nothing. To get a degree in such disciplines you need to demonstrate that you have read the required books and can regurgitate what others have said. The degree indicates almost nothing about how well you have actually understood anything. It probably gives a slight increase in the probability that you have because merely having read a lot on the subject at least gives you some of the basic tools for understanding, but thats about it.

In other words a person with a degree in politics is likely to be better placed to tell you what the conventional wisdom is about topics which they have expressly covered, but is only slightly more likely to have valid novel insights.

A PHD is the first academic level which really involves formulating coherent novel ideas, and even these tend to revolve around a tiny area of study.

(Edited by sc4r at 3:32 am on July 15, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 3:35 am on July 15, 2003)