Non-racist fascism

[Dr Mindbender]

I've heard this concept being thrown around the board a while now. Would someone mind telling me how fascism can be non-racist and if so possibly provide an example?

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Yeah I've also heard about this concept from YouTube and I fail to see any distinction between racism and fascism. Fascism is simply racism as a political ideology.

The only time I've heard someone declare they are fascist but not racist is when Paolo di Canio did a couple of years back.

[F9]

you can heare it from people who just say i am fascist because they are not leftists but they dont surely be rascists!A true fascist is surely a true rascist and diverse!

Fuserg9:star:

[EwokUtopia]

Fascism is about hypermasculinity and pride in ones own grouping, as well as disdain for all others. Seems like racism is a necessity, right?

Religious Fascism. While not racist per se, you could find the same structure, except instead of putting Aryans on the pedestol, you would find Christians above all others. Instead of racial enemies being demonized, religious ones would. And this does clearly exist. Read the book "American Fascists" by Chris Hedges.

[Dr Mindbender]

the notion was suggested on this thread-
http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamofascism-t70809/index.html

[Death of a Nation]

Not only can you be a fascist without being a racist, you can be a fascist without even holding a definitive political ideology. Think of how much someone would demand that we stay true to a brand or whatever. That's a form of fascism. It is just what EwokUtopia said it was.

[Devrim]

Turkish fascism isn't racist in the traditional way. It is, of course, fanatically anti-Kurdish, but does not discriminate in any way against ethnic Kurds, who do not express that identity.

Devrim

[bcbm]

Would someone mind telling me how fascism can be non-racist and if so possibly provide an example?

Fascism can be non-racist because, as an ideology, its based on nationalism, militarism and specific economic organization, none of which require racism per se. An example would be fascist Italy or Spain. Fascism didn't become associated with overt racism until the Nazis.


you can be a fascist without even holding a definitive political ideology

Perhaps you can call yourself fascist without holding a definitive ideology, but you'd be wrong.


Think of how much someone would demand that we stay true to a brand or whatever. That's a form of fascism.

No it isn't.

[Red October]

I knew a person at my old school who identified as a non-racist fascist and upheld Mussolini, but not Hitler. I think it's theoretically possible, but in practical terms it is very rare.

[INDK]

Fascism is a matter of political ideology, and its goals don't really require racism, but discrimination (especially Sexism, this is rampant in Fascist thought) is bound to come along. This is really because Nationalism and Fascism are absolutely inseperable, and there's strong emphasis on 'national unity' - though we know better, it's an attempt at 'ethnic unity'.

[black magick hustla]

Peronismo, Sinarquismo, and Integrismo weren't racist either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If somebody else mentioned this, then my apologies. Otherwise, what about the original fascists of 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism#Rise_to_power)?

[Devrim]

This is really because Nationalism and Fascism are absolutely inseperable, and there's strong emphasis on 'national unity' - though we know better, it's an attempt at 'ethnic unity'.
I don't agree. In the Turkish case all you have to do to be a Turk is say that you are. Turkish fascism does not play the ethnic card, but the national one.

Devrim

[Death of a Nation]

Back before fascism was considered a unpalatable term and before Nazism entered our lexicon, Marcus Garvey called himself a "racial fascist". This is not to attack Garvey, by the way, because if there was any time Nationalism was warranted it was during his time among Black people. Still, the fact that he had to distinguish his type of fascism this way suggests that fascism indeed does not have to be racially based.

[Lector Malibu]

I have a question. Doesn't Fascism have a great deal to do with economics where as National Socialism is focused on race?

[jaffe]

national socialism is (almost) similar to fascism but with a focus on race.

[palotin]

Fascism necessarily involves extreme nationalism tied to a worship of and attempt to return to some imaginary reconstruction of a past form of the society in question. It follows that fascism must focus on how the contemporary society, seen as decadent and corrupt, is linked to the glorious past in such a way that returning to it is possible. Race is the easiest way of doing that, but it could also be accomplished through a kind of extreme cultural chauvenism that involves rigid lines of division between who is inside the culture and who is outside. In practice I think the difference between the two has been and would be slight. True, at the beginning Italian fascism did not make biological racism one of its central platforms, but increasingly stringent race laws were introduced as time went on. Fascist apologists like to stress the fact that many of these laws were passed under pressure from Germany, but I imagine that many of them would have originated sooner or later had Italy been left to its own devices. Cultural bigotry almost invariably begins to essentialize the differences between members of different cultures, and this occurs at much faster rate and with more tragic consequences when that bigotry is at the core of political life. So while a non-racist fascism might be theoretically possible, in practice identifying one would be an exercise in pedantic hairsplitting.

[spartan]

One example of non-racist Fascism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Integralism


Founded and led by Plinio Salgado, a literary figure who was relatively famous during the 1922 Modern Art Week, the movement had adopted some characteristics of European mass movements of those times, specifically of the Italian fascism, but differentiating itself from some forms of fascism in that Salgado did not preach racism (they even had as their slogan: "Union of all races and all people").

Also Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy became havens for Jews fleeing persecution from Nazi Germany, and whilst Mussolini later introduced discriminatory laws against Jews, Franco's Spain never had such laws and was very welcoming and tolerant of Jews (As far as i know).

Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists (BUF) also had high ranking Jewish members and various Fascist movements in Europe were funded by Jewish businessmen (Most probably because they were fearful of their property being taken away by the powerful Socialist movements active in many European countries at the time).

[A_Ciarra]

I just posted a thread in the learning section asking other skins to define their use of the word fascism for me. It seems my question was much like Ulster Socialist's, only coming at it from the opposite direction.

I have always used the term the way Benito Mussolini defined the term, which if I am correct had no real racist component to it, but was strictly a economics and political theory term.

I have always used the term to mean corporate control of the military and state (or neo-corporate control as in the US). I honestly don't know much about Mussolini though, not enough to know if he included state sanctioned racism (or otherwise) in his defining of the term. But he is on record as the first person to use the term in any clear cut way (even defining the term).

I feel like a stupid ass right now, but for me using the term fascism to define racism is new! For me it has always signified authoritarianism, or corporate control of the state. I've been rather confused about the way skins use the word, which is what prompted my question in the learning section.

[A_Ciarra]

I will post my own question in a new thread, in this group, were it belongs.
:laugh:

[Pia Fidelis]

As a Structural Syndicalist, I have read many of the original Fascist texts (as Fascism did come from our circles) and can say that Fascism is 100% non-racist. Take the founding fathers of the doctrine (Sergio Panunzio, Ugo Spirito, Alfredo Rocco, Giovanni Gentile et cetera) all of whom spoke out against the racial elements imported from German National Socialism during the 1930's. Mind you, because of ignorance on various fronts, the term fascism has been so bastardised that it really has lost all of it's original meaning. Fascism is really just an authoritarian structured syndicalist state defined as a nation. I am not a Fascist, simply because I do not identify the concepts of nation.

Before the character assault begins, I ask for anyone here to read texts by the aforementioned and understand the (original) doctrine to see where I am coming from.

[Unicorn]

As a Structural Syndicalist, I have read many of the original Fascist texts (as Fascism did come from our circles) and can say that Fascism is 100% non-racist. Take the founding fathers of the doctrine (Sergio Panunzio, Ugo Spirito, Alfredo Rocco, Giovanni Gentile et cetera) all of whom spoke out against the racial elements imported from German National Socialism during the 1930's. Mind you, because of ignorance on various fronts, the term fascism has been so bastardised that it really has lost all of it's original meaning. Fascism is really just an authoritarian structured syndicalist state defined as a nation. I am not a Fascist, simply because I do not identify the concepts of nation.
Mussolini and many other Italian Fascists were not originally anti-Semitic but they were certainly racist against Africans.

[Pia Fidelis]

Mussolini and many other Italian Fascists were not originally anti-Semitic but they were certainly racist against Africans.

This is true. But I would not say that was a definitive factor of Fascism, but more so the zeitgeist of the entire country. Most "democrats" at the time were of similar thought - even some of the Sicilian red brigades opposed African immigration to Italy.

Also, Mussolini was a late-joining player in Fascism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Mussolini and many other Italian Fascists were not originally anti-Semitic but they were certainly racist against Africans.

As were liberals, and even some socialists. When Eugene Debs refused to give speeches to segregated audiences, some southern socialists became infuriated.

Fascism does not necessitate racism, but at the same time it does not reject racial differentiation either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Can someone please re-link to the original proto-fascist documents? From what I've read before, they weren't much different from the bourgeois-democratic demands, save for the corporatist mumbo-jumbo.

[I also want to know if there's any correlation between those demands and the Kronstadt peasants' demands. :D ]

[Awful Reality]

As a Structural Syndicalist, I have read many of the original Fascist texts (as Fascism did come from our circles) and can say that Fascism is 100% non-racist. Take the founding fathers of the doctrine (Sergio Panunzio, Ugo Spirito, Alfredo Rocco, Giovanni Gentile et cetera) all of whom spoke out against the racial elements imported from German National Socialism during the 1930's. Mind you, because of ignorance on various fronts, the term fascism has been so bastardised that it really has lost all of it's original meaning. Fascism is really just an authoritarian structured syndicalist state defined as a nation. I am not a Fascist, simply because I do not identify the concepts of nation.

Before the character assault begins, I ask for anyone here to read texts by the aforementioned and understand the (original) doctrine to see where I am coming from.

Fascism is today generally considered to be the Mussolini strain of Fascism. And as such, it is inherently racist.

[MarxSchmarx]

Fascism is 100% non-racist...Fascism is really just an authoritarian structured syndicalist state defined as a nation.Yeah hum:rolleyes:

Race goes beyond bloodlines. Why are Jews not considered white or American aborigines East Asian, even though by DNA studies they should be tied closely to these groups?

it comes down to culture. The concept of a "nation" and the concept of a "race" both have to do with culture, not bloodlines.

The "racists" (and Fascists) who insist "all whites are the same" didn't do so back in the 1930s. Only because whites attained some level of social cohesion in North America and Western Europe do they make that claim now. According to these delusional fantasies, cultural unity among the Christian Slavs and Germanics, in the globalized context, takes precedence over their divisions. That is why it is acceptable for Germanic racists to embrace Russian nationalism today. But in the 1930s, Slavic culture was as "exotic" to many Italians as was Indonesian culture.

Ditto with "nation". The common "culture" shared by, say, Mexicans, unites them, rather than ethnic affinity with the people of Guatemala or Spain.

Race is no more a social construct than nation. As you note, both are equally reactionary, but to say "race" is not a social construct the way a "nation" is, is to misunderstand the way the concept of race gets thrown around both in general and among right-wingers.

[Dimentio]

I've heard this concept being thrown around the board a while now. Would someone mind telling me how fascism can be non-racist and if so possibly provide an example?

Theoretically, it is possibly with multicultural fascism, centered around an obviously multicultural empire. An empire do not need to see other nations as inferior in order to conquer them.

In fact, non-racist fascism would be quite efficient in unifying heterogenous territories under one central government, but only if it supplement racism/antisemitism with something else, for example religious fundamentalism.

[Sentinel]

This board has a zero tolerance policy towards all kinds of fascism, whether they claim to be non-racist, non-this or non-that. Thus, the most important question at the moment is:
Is there a fascism supporter in this thread?

I would appreciate and respect a straight answer from any such people.

[joe_the_red]

Fascism will always be racist, because what fascism is, is the belief that your culture, nation, or race is superior to all others. As such, it will always be racist. -Joe

[RHIZOMES]

Fascism will always be racist, because what fascism is, is the belief that your culture, nation, or race is superior to all others. As such, it will always be racist. -Joe

Well thinking your culture is superior doesn't neccessarily mean racism. That's more nationalist then anything.

[Zurdito]

Peronismo, Sinarquismo, and Integrismo weren't racist either.

do you honestly think peronism was fascism? I know the US Embassy and Communsit Party declared so in 1945, but, do you actually believe it was?

[joe_the_red]

When one would say "My culture is superior", that has underlying racism in it, whether or not admitted. It is different if one would say "I love my culture" or "I love my country" or "I love my people and my way of life". One can be proud of their heritage without being racist, but thoughts of superiority, thoughts that all other cultures are inferior is most definitely racism in my opinion. I know that there are some who disagree with me, and the technical details of their definitions might show good reasons of their disagreement, but I feel that at the heart of Fascism is undeniable racism. -Joe

[durdenisgod]

to quote the great upton sinclair, "Fascism is capitalism, plus murder."

[joe_the_red]

Your definition is slightly incorrect... capitalists murder just as much or more (if you count all of the indirect murders they create). "Fascism is capitalism in decay." -Vladimir Lenin
---------------------------------------
-Joe

[durdenisgod]

fascism wins if you just count the genocide by the state, but if you count the dictatorships capitalism is responsible for setting up, then yes capitalism wins.

ie nazi germany-ustase croatia.
good example of how imperialism is fascism.

[communard resolution]

In fascism, everything is subordinated to the state. A fascist regime can be racist, but doesn't need to be.

In National Socialism, everything -even the state- is subordinated to the concept of race.

[Forward Union]

As a Structural Syndicalist, I have read many of the original Fascist texts (as Fascism did come from our circles) and can say that Fascism is 100% non-racist. Take the founding fathers of the doctrine (Sergio Panunzio, Ugo Spirito, Alfredo Rocco, Giovanni Gentile et cetera) all of whom spoke out against the racial elements imported from German National Socialism during the 1930's. Mind you, because of ignorance on various fronts, the term fascism has been so bastardised that it really has lost all of it's original meaning. Fascism is really just an authoritarian structured syndicalist state defined as a nation. I am not a Fascist, simply because I do not identify the concepts of nation.

Before the character assault begins, I ask for anyone here to read texts by the aforementioned and understand the (original) doctrine to see where I am coming from.

Can you please explai nthe difference between structural syndicalism and fascism please?

[Djehuti]

I've heard this concept being thrown around the board a while now. Would someone mind telling me how fascism can be non-racist and if so possibly provide an example?

Italian fascism was not especially (beyond what all colonial powers were) racist or anti-semetic before 1938 (the german influence). There are more examples.

But I'd also say that fascism is an over-used term. I would say that the hungarian Arrow Cross and the rumanian Iron Guard were fascists movements, but not Francos Spain, Pinochets Chile or Salazars Portugal for example.

Fascist movements are popular mass movements, inspired and encouraged from above by a leader. This differences fascism from all those other reactionary, and often racist and anti-semitic right-wing movements that has existed long before fascism.

[jaffe]

When one would say "My culture is superior", that has underlying racism in it, whether or not admitted. It is different if one would say "I love my culture" or "I love my country" or "I love my people and my way of life". One can be proud of their heritage without being racist, but thoughts of superiority, thoughts that all other cultures are inferior is most definitely racism in my opinion. I know that there are some who disagree with me, and the technical details of their definitions might show good reasons of their disagreement, but I feel that at the heart of Fascism is undeniable racism. -Joe

Racism is about race and not about nationality.

[Dimentio]

Where have Pia Fidelis went?

[joe_the_red]

Racism is race and not nationality, but we're talking about Fascism. Fascism is by nature imperialist, and within imperialism is the goal of controlling other nations and peoples, because of a feeling of superiority to those cultures, and as such Fascism will be racist. By definition alone, it does not have to be, but just as capitalism by definition is not necessarily greed orient, in practice it will always become such, because in Fascist Imperialism is the desire to spread the ideology of subordination of personal and individual goals for the need of the state (or ideology, or race) and will therefore become racist, and in Capitalism money becomes the measurement of value for everything, making it the most valuable comodity, therefore success is measured by it, everyone wants it, and will sell out their morals and ethics if the price is right. Any legitimate communist will never sell out their morals or ethics for any amount of money. Fascism is the next step of capitalism. -Joe

[Pia Fidelis]

Can you please explai nthe difference between structural syndicalism and fascism please?

Absolutely. Economically they are somewhat similar - Fascism did find it's beginnings amid our circles. The most important difference, and one that needs to be made clear (so people here do not continue to accuse me of being a Fascist of National Socialist) is the concept of "Nation". For me, a "Nation" is just a set of economic borders where the mobilised, unified (in labour) populus work and live, striving for solidarity and production. In Fascism, just like National Syndicalism before it, identifies a "Nation" on grounds of supra-economic and esoteric ideas that reflects a mobilised, unified people (in terms of spirit and culture) striving for aristocracy and expansion.

It is similar economic (and let it be clear ONLY economic) means to completely different ends.


Where have Pia Fidelis went?

I do not come on here much, as I am busy with work and my family. I try to when I can though.



Race goes beyond bloodlines. Why are Jews not considered white or American aborigines East Asian, even though by DNA studies they should be tied closely to these groups?

it comes down to culture. The concept of a "nation" and the concept of a "race" both have to do with culture, not bloodlines.

The "racists" (and Fascists) who insist "all whites are the same" didn't do so back in the 1930s. Only because whites attained some level of social cohesion in North America and Western Europe do they make that claim now. According to these delusional fantasies, cultural unity among the Christian Slavs and Germanics, in the globalized context, takes precedence over their divisions. That is why it is acceptable for Germanic racists to embrace Russian nationalism today. But in the 1930s, Slavic culture was as "exotic" to many Italians as was Indonesian culture.

Ditto with "nation". The common "culture" shared by, say, Mexicans, unites them, rather than ethnic affinity with the people of Guatemala or Spain.

Race is no more a social construct than nation. As you note, both are equally reactionary, but to say "race" is not a social construct the way a "nation" is, is to misunderstand the way the concept of race gets thrown around both in general and among right-wingers.

I think you are misunderstanding. Fascism (being totally distinct from National Socialism) never employed terms like "whites" or spoke of pan-European unity. I am not sure where you are drawing any of this from...it sounds much more in common with that of the modern NS/WP ideology.

[turquino]

Racism is race and not nationality, but we're talking about Fascism. Fascism is by nature imperialist, and within imperialism is the goal of controlling other nations and peoples, because of a feeling of superiority to those cultures, and as such Fascism will be racist. By definition alone, it does not have to be, but just as capitalism by definition is not necessarily greed orient, in practice it will always become such, because in Fascist Imperialism is the desire to spread the ideology of subordination of personal and individual goals for the need of the state (or ideology, or race) and will therefore become racist, and in Capitalism money becomes the measurement of value for everything, making it the most valuable comodity, therefore success is measured by it, everyone wants it, and will sell out their morals and ethics if the price is right. Any legitimate communist will never sell out their morals or ethics for any amount of money. Fascism is the next step of capitalism. -Joe

No, i don't think agree. Fascist movements can present themselves as both anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist. Many right-wing extremist paleoconservatives in the US say anti-imperialist and anti-zionist things, but they are certainly fascists. Movements in other parts of the world movements like the Taliban or the Khmer Rouge believe themselves to be anti-imperialist, and even anti-capitalist, but they are fascists too, and fit the same authoritarian, reactionary nationalist, and patriarchal criteria of all the old fascist movements.

-turquino

[Zurdito]

Many right-wing extremist paleoconservatives in the US say anti-imperialist and anti-zionist things, but they are certainly fascists.


firstly paleocons are not fascists.

secondly being isolationist is not the same as being anti-imperialist. imperialism is an economic system, which paleoconservatives, as chauvinistic borugeois right-wingers within an imperilaist nation, certainly do not oppose. it's true that more radical right-wing groups, like the BNP in Britain or various WN groups in the US, may sometimes claim to be anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, but the truth is they obviosuly cannot actually mobilise against imperialism, ebcause they represent the borugeosiie of an imeprialist state, and what's more they base themselves on the nationalism of an imeprialsit state. so the idea that fascists in an imperialist state can ever be anti-imperialist just doesn't make sense.

however you are right on one thing, it is true that chauvinistic right-wingers in a semi-colony can run up against imperialism and mobilise popular resistance to certain imperialist measures. but this is a different issue.

[joe_the_red]

Racism is not necessarily oppressive to people of a different race, it is simply a feeling of superiority. The idea that a government is fascist, that it believes the "state's" (aka the elite) goals are more important than the individual's is inherently a belief that your "state" or nation is superior to others. Why else would you ever subject yourself to something like that? If one is a fascist, of the lower class, and they don't believe that their state is superior, they believe it should be, because they are working towards making it better at the cost of their lives. As such, fascism is a belief that your nation or state is superior to all others, and this will most likely create feelings of racism in the majority, if not in the whole. -Joe

[Zurdito]

Racism is not necessarily oppressive to people of a different race, it is simply a feeling of superiority. The idea that a government is fascist, that it believes the "state's" (aka the elite) goals are more important than the individual's is inherently a belief that your "state" or nation is superior to others. Why else would you ever subject yourself to something like that? If one is a fascist, of the lower class, and they don't believe that their state is superior, they believe it should be, because they are working towards making it better at the cost of their lives. As such, fascism is a belief that your nation or state is superior to all others, and this will most likely create feelings of racism in the majority, if not in the whole. -Joe

no, that's not what fascism is! loads of people beleive that who are not fascists! I recommend you read this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

Liberals and even most of those who consider themselves Marxists are guilty of using the world fascist very loosely today. They fling it around as an epithet or political swearword against right-wing figures whom they particularly despise, or against reactionaries in general.
Since WWII, the fascist label has been applied to such figures and movements as Gerald L. K. Smith, Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Eastland, Barry Goldwater, the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Wallace.
Now, were all these fascist, or just some? If only some, then how does one tell which are and which aren't?

Indiscriminate use of the term really reflects vagueness about its meaning. Asked to define fascism, the liberal replies in such terms as dictatorship, mass neurosis, anti-Semitism, the power of unscrupulous propaganda, the hypnotic effect of a mad-genius orator on the masses, etc. Impressionism and confusion on the part of liberals is not surprising.

But Marxism's superiority consists of its ability to analyze and differentiate among social and political phenomena. that so many of those calling themselves marxists cannot define fascism any more adequately than the liberals is not wholly their fault. Whether they are aware of it or not, much of their intellectual heritage comes from the social-democratic (reformist socialist) and Stalinist movements, which dominated the left in the 1930s when fascism was scoring victory after victory. These movements not only permitted Nazism to come to power in Germany without a shot being fired against it, but they failed abysmally in understanding the nature and dynamics of fascism and the way to fight it. After fascism's triumphs, they had much to hide and so refrained from making a Marxist analysis which would, at least, have educated subsequent generations.

But there is a Marxist analysis of fascism. It was made by Leon Trotsky not as a postmortem, but during the rise of fascism. This was one of Trotsky's great contributions to Marxism. He began the task after Mussolini's victory in Italy in 1922 and brought it to a high point in the years preceding Hitler's triumph in Germany in 1933.

[joe_the_red]

As defined by an online dictionary, supported by wikipedia definition:

"Fascism is a government, faction or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterised by a centralised autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organisation of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition. In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity."

Which was what I was trying to say, without going into a lengthy definition. -Joe

[turquino]

firstly paleocons are not fascists.

secondly being isolationist is not the same as being anti-imperialist. imperialism is an economic system, which paleoconservatives, as chauvinistic borugeois right-wingers within an imperilaist nation, certainly do not oppose. it's true that more radical right-wing groups, like the BNP in Britain or various WN groups in the US, may sometimes claim to be anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, but the truth is they obviosuly cannot actually mobilise against imperialism, ebcause they represent the borugeosiie of an imeprialist state, and what's more they base themselves on the nationalism of an imeprialsit state. so the idea that fascists in an imperialist state can ever be anti-imperialist just doesn't make sense.

however you are right on one thing, it is true that chauvinistic right-wingers in a semi-colony can run up against imperialism and mobilise popular resistance to certain imperialist measures. but this is a different issue.
I think paleoconservatism and the phenomenon of the 'angry white man' can be characterized as a fascistic movement. Despite what they see themselves as (one characteristic of fascist movements is their myth-making abilities), the survivalists, libertarians, 9/11 'truthers', and minutemen are quite anti-american. These people don't make up the ruling class (i hate that term) or the proletariat. No, these fascist movements draw their strength from the lower middle class, small capitalists, military, and the declassed. They hate what they call "big government" because they perceive it as an obstacle to realizing the (white) settler privilege they feel is their birthright.

Fascism is a right-wing revolutionary movement, and it doesn't need the help of the big bourgeoisie, nor is it their tool. In fact, in some countries it has become the principal opposition to western capitalism, for example in Serbia and Egypt. This is a frightening reality, and why they need to be resisted even harder.

The Shock of Recognition by J Sakai is a good piece on modern fascism.

-turquino

[Zurdito]

hmmmm well Serbia and Egypt are semi-colonies, they are opressed by imperialism. therefore it's possible for right-wing, nationalsitic movements, to become opponents of the "oligarchy" and the IMF, the USA, the EU, etc., based on a movement for some kind of state led "national capitalism"

But I don't think you can apply the same theory to the US or Britain, because any movement to strengthen those states is a movement to strengthen an imperialist state,a nd therefore surely not anti-imperialist....even if thye sometimes use isolationist rhetoric.

I'll check out the book though...it's an interesting topic, definitely.

[StalinLeninMao]

Greetings Comrades

Well, most Fascists are racists I believe! That is just me speaking from experience. However, you don't have to be a racist to be a fascist! All fascists though do believe in *some* form of supremacy. For an example, that their religion is the best, racism, straight people are better than homosexuals, patriotism, etc.

All these forms of supremacy breed some hate, and divide up humanity. Unity is strength, and division is weakness. If the world is to become a better place, we must unite, and cooperate. Supremacy is a crime against humanity!!! It divides people, thus it keeps them from cooperating, thus it keeps humanity from reaching its almost unlimited potential!!! How do people who commit crimes against humanity get punished? DEATH!!!

Workers of the world, UNITE!!!!