The nature of fascism [Split from 'Your answers!']

[Ken]

fascism is the most ambigious word in all of politics. high school anarchists call their teachers authoritarians and the cops that give them fines fascists. actually prettymuch anyone who isnt an anarchist or leftist they call fascist.


I don't think you know what fascism is not all fascism are like Hitler but all are anti-democracy ,anti-freedom of speech ,totalitarian and very
religious and authoritarian.And Extreme Nationalism and private ownership.


you see this is what the typical commie or anarchist thinks of fascism. it isnt anything that isnt violent or anti-DEMOCRACY!(because democracy is GOOD, right?) or anti-freedom of speech(i wonder what the 20th century force was that people associate with restriction of freedom of speech?) and totalitarian and religious!(all fascists are religious?) and Xtreme Nationalism(because nationalism is BAD, right? hey stop reading about NATIONALISM, its BAD!)

[mykittyhasaboner]

you see this is what the typical commie or anarchist thinks of fascism. it isnt anything that isnt violent or anti-DEMOCRACY!(because democracy is GOOD, right?)
yes, democracy is good. and you honestly think fascism isnt violent!? :lol:



or anti-freedom of speech(i wonder what the 20th century force was that people associate with restriction of freedom of speech?)
the 20th century force(s) that you must be referring to are Authoritarian Socialism, and Fascism.


and totalitarian and religious!(all fascists are religious?)
most fascists are religious, i can imagine there are some non-religious fash out there. but not very many.


and Xtreme Nationalism(because nationalism is BAD, right? hey stop reading about NATIONALISM, its BAD!)
yes extreme nationalism 'bad' because it separates people based on their ethnicity and/or race.

[#FF0000]

you see this is what the typical commie or anarchist thinks of fascism. it isnt anything that isnt violent or anti-DEMOCRACY!(because democracy is GOOD, right?) or anti-freedom of speech(i wonder what the 20th century force was that people associate with restriction of freedom of speech?) and totalitarian and religious!(all fascists are religious?) and Xtreme Nationalism(because nationalism is BAD, right? hey stop reading about NATIONALISM, its BAD!)

Er, but that's what Fascism is. It IS anti-democracy, and freedom of speech is restricted in fascism. Fascism *is* totalitarian, and is very often related to some religion or another. Italy, for example?

And, yeah, Fascist governments are nationalistic.

What are you on about, now?

[RGacky3]

Apathy maybe, I'm sorry I gotta agree with Ken, theres no point getting so angry over an idiot making a stupid question, its just pointless, he's an idiot, so what, no point getting all worked up and pissed about it.


most fascists are religious, i can imagine there are some non-religious fash out there. but not very many.

Most Fascists are religious the same way American politicians are religious, i.e. its a tool, a political tool.

Fascism is an interesting concept, because technically speaking, The United States and some of europe have been socio-economically speaking fascist for a while, just without the political authoritarian part of it.

Fascism in the classical form, is mostely associated with right wing Corpratist dictatorships, they still hold a little bit in the southern world (Read poor countries), where political unrest is out of control, but thats where fascism does well, in places with scared people, that being said, I'm talking about in Africa, South East Asia, and some of Latin America (not so much anymore though in Latin America), which goes to show, fascism has nothing to do with race.

[spice756]

Most Fascists are religious the same way American politicians are religious, i.e. its a tool, a political tool.

Can you give some explanation on this? I think the reason the US government is obsess on religion and theocracy is not that they are religious they are just using that for votes.


Fascism is an interesting concept, because technically speaking, The United States and some of europe have been socio-economically speaking fascist for a while, just without the political authoritarian part of it.

The US republican party has some fascism elements and paving the way to fascism .But the mass base is not fascism just very ,very, very, very conservative and anti-left.



which goes to show, fascism has nothing to do with race.


Not all fascism is nazie and want a white race ,blue eyes and blond haire.

[RGacky3]

The US republican party has some fascism elements and paving the way to fascism .But the mass base is not fascism just very ,very, very, very conservative and anti-left.


Its not the republicans at all, its the democrats and the republicans, equally. Infact the guy (Eisenhower) who warned about the military-industrial complex (Fascist economic element of the US) that was building and was worried about it was a republican. Conservative douche bag =/= Fascist, what I'm talking about here is government/corporate cooperation and mutual assistance, which is something both democrats and republicans are very much supporting.

[Sprinkles]

Fascism is an interesting concept, because technically speaking, The United States and some of europe have been socio-economically speaking fascist for a while, just without the political authoritarian part of it.


This is technically speaking wrong, especially since "some of europe" is nearly as ambigious as the general use of the term fascism. Neo-liberalism, which is the current dominant ideology of the European Union and by extension Europe, is not the equivalent of historical fascism.



Fascism in the classical form, is mostely associated with right wing Corpratist dictatorships, they still hold a little bit in the southern world (Read poor countries), where political unrest is out of control, but thats where fascism does well, in places with scared people, that being said, I'm talking about in Africa, South East Asia, and some of Latin America (not so much anymore though in Latin America), which goes to show, fascism has nothing to do with race.


Fascism does not have some sort of mass psychosis as it's origin. The historic goal of fascism was the economic and political unification of capital after the revolutionary wave had failed but the state (like the Weimar Republic for example) still remained unable to restore order.



you see this is what the typical commie or anarchist thinks of fascism. it isnt anything that isnt violent or anti-DEMOCRACY!(because democracy is GOOD, right?) or anti-freedom of speech(i wonder what the 20th century force was that people associate with restriction of freedom of speech?) and totalitarian and religious!(all fascists are religious?) and Xtreme Nationalism(because nationalism is BAD, right? hey stop reading about NATIONALISM, its BAD!)


Fascism is the direct result of the failure of bourgeois democracy. In every country that fascism rose to prominence it was ratified by their respective democratic government.

In Italy the March on Rome showed Mussolini as capable of restoring state authority and the political unity of the country. The state could have outlawed the fascist groups and the army could have crushed them, instead the king asked Mussolini to form a new government which even the liberals joined.

In Germany Hitler was seen as a someone who could restore order on the streets and was apointed as chancellor by Hinderburg and given full emergency powers by the Zentrum Catholic party.

In Spain the Popular Front was prepared to negiotiate with the fascist rebels and probably would have given up power like the First Republic did under De Rivera's dictatorship. The people that rose up against the fascist rebellion did not act on behalf of the legal government and only failed when they were forcefully co-opted by the Republican forces.

"Democracy capitulated to dictatorship, or, worse still, greeted dictatorship with open arms"
I'd recommend reading When Insurrections Die by Gilles Dauvé.

[Killfacer]

This is technically speaking wrong, especially since "some of europe" is nearly as ambigious as the general use of the term fascism. Neo-liberalism, which is the current dominant ideology of the European Union and by extension Europe, is not the equivalent of historical fascism.



Fascism does not have some sort of mass psychosis as it's origin. The historic goal of fascism was the economic and political unification of capital after the revolutionary wave had failed but the state (like the Weimar Republic for example) still remained unable to restore order.



Fascism is the direct result of the failure of bourgeois democracy. In every country that fascism rose to prominence it was ratified by their respective democratic government.

In Italy the March on Rome showed Mussolini as capable of restoring state authority and the political unity of the country. The state could have outlawed the fascist groups and the army could have crushed them, instead the king asked Mussolini to form a new government which even the liberals joined.

In Germany Hitler was seen as a someone who could restore order on the streets and was apointed as chancellor by Hinderburg and given full emergency powers by the Zentrum Catholic party.

In Spain the Popular Front was prepared to negiotiate with the fascist rebels and probably would have given up power like the First Republic did under De Rivera's dictatorship. The people that rose up against the fascist rebellion did not act on behalf of the legal government and only failed when they were forcefully co-opted by the Republican forces.

"Democracy capitulated to dictatorship, or, worse still, greeted dictatorship with open arms"
I'd recommend reading When Insurrections Die by Gilles Dauvé.


You are over simplifying the reasons for Hitler's rise to power. Yes the econominc collapse that led up to it and the failure of the Wiemar democracy both played parts in Hitlers rise to power. But to blaime it entirely on these factors would be wrong.

Firstly, you have to remember that when the Nazi's first came into power, their campaign slogan was not: "As soon as you let us in we are going to become a vile anti semite, fascist dictatorship". By the time Hitler was in power, he was able to twist the ill thought out laws of Wiemar Germany. Such as "article 48" which allowed the suspension of the parliaments rights and the leading party to take "supreme power" for a short period.

If what you are saying is true then surely the economin collapse in the USA during the great depression would have led to a fascist party taking hold. But it didnt. Therefor it must be down to the fascist leaders of the time and the general feeling in central europe at the time. "mass psychosis" maybe not, but you are not far off.

[spice756]

Firstly, you have to remember that when the Nazi's first came into power, their campaign slogan was not: "As soon as you let us in we are going to become a vile anti semite, fascist dictatorship


Yes but fascism requires a mass base.And 5 or 10 people can not make people support fascism .

Most fascism come when capitalismis in criss and people are too hostile to the left.

All fascism do not believe in 60's liberal of thought.They try to make robots out of people.They think having freedom to think or speech divides people.Thay ban books and music that have different thought.They are obsess over unity and look at every thing music, clothing ,group ,lifestyle and thought and believes it divides people.

But all fascism have class ,hierarchy, authority,street cop,school cop,community cop so on.

You are a kid and teacher is anti-fascism you report it and if the kid is anti-fascism the teacher reports it.If some one on the street is anti-fascism you report it.There is alway some one reporting some thing.

Most books will be burn if they are anti-fascism .All fascism have a big army and goal is too keep having a bigger and bigger army.They all have a war like frame of mind and almost at war with everyone or anything.

[RGacky3]

This is technically speaking wrong, especially since "some of europe" is nearly as ambigious as the general use of the term fascism. Neo-liberalism, which is the current dominant ideology of the European Union and by extension Europe, is not the equivalent of historical fascism.

Neo Liberalism has nothing to do with the military industrial complex, Neo-Liberalism is a specific ideology for a specific thing, i.e. opening up of international markets. When I talk about fascism, I'm not talking about the whole pie, I'm talking about the concept that fascsists made of the State and the Corporate elements working together and supporting each other for a national goal. Which is something that the US did after WW2 extensively.

So no its not the same, but the economic aspects of fascism are very prominent in the first world.


Fascism does not have some sort of mass psychosis as it's origin. The historic goal of fascism was the economic and political unification of capital after the revolutionary wave had failed but the state (like the Weimar Republic for example) still remained unable to restore order.

It does'nt have mass psychosis at its origin, but for it to grow in kind of needs a little panic and fear, generally speaking, obviously thats not 100%.

That being said I agree with a lot of what you said, but also whe nyou think of fascism there are different elements, its not all gray storm trooper uniforms.

Also fascism =/= authoritarianism, although it generally comes with it, the defining aspects of fascism is'nt authoritarianism perse.

[spice756]

When I talk about fascism, I'm not talking about the whole pie, I'm talking about the concept that fascsists made of the State and the Corporate elements working together and supporting each other for a national goal. Which is something that the US did after WW2 extensively.

I do not think the state controls businesses or the state and businesses working together but businesses control the state in fascism .But do not quote me on that.

I"m sure others here can clear that up.

In the US now it is businesses control the government.

[danyboy27]

In the US now it is businesses control the government.

well, if its true, then why AIG and LYNCH received larges subsidies from the governement to make them live?



I do not think the state controls businesses or the state and businesses working together but businesses control the state in fascism .But do not quote me on that.

i will quote yoU!
in fascism, there is free market, but the governement still have a powerfull grip on the buisness sector.

wich mean, if they want, a metal factory can do whatever they want but if the governement ask them to build rifle, well they have no choice but to do it so, but they gonna pay them, a lot for that.

[Sprinkles]

You are over simplifying the reasons for Hitler's rise to power. Yes the econominc collapse that led up to it and the failure of the Wiemar democracy both played parts in Hitlers rise to power. But to blaime it entirely on these factors would be wrong.


Name these other factors then.



Firstly, you have to remember that when the Nazi's first came into power, their campaign slogan was not: "As soon as you let us in we are going to become a vile anti semite, fascist dictatorship". By the time Hitler was in power, he was able to twist the ill thought out laws of Wiemar Germany. Such as "article 48" which allowed the suspension of the parliaments rights and the leading party to take "supreme power" for a short period.
Mein Kampf was pretty transparent. I agree that Hindenberg and the German bourgeoisie got more than they had bargained for in the end. But the fact remains that the Weimar Republic sought to use the nazis and the Sturmabteilung in the same way as they had used the Freikorps before them, to crush uprisings like the Bavarian Soviet, break strikes and restore order in the streets. The idea that the initial aims of the Weimar Republic were markedly different from the nazis is simply not true, in order to preserve the German state and for the bourgeoisie to preserve itself, they welcomed the nazis with open arms.



If what you are saying is true then surely the economin collapse in the USA during the great depression would have led to a fascist party taking hold. But it didnt. Therefor it must be down to the fascist leaders of the time and the general feeling in central europe at the time. "mass psychosis" maybe not, but you are not far off.
Great men of history and Hitler's supposed "seduction of the masses" is nonsense. The situation in the U.S. was profoundly different, the level of labour militancy in the U.S. was lower than in Europe and the American bourgeoisie and the nation-state was united so subsequently they had little fear of unrest that they could not quell, see the Bonus March in Washington D.C. for example.

[Sprinkles]

Neo Liberalism has nothing to do with the military industrial complex,


Eisenhower and the military industrial complex have nothing to do with fascism.



Neo-Liberalism is a specific ideology for a specific thing, i.e. opening up of international markets. When I talk about fascism, I'm not talking about the whole pie, I'm talking about the concept that fascsists made of the State and the Corporate elements working together and supporting each other for a national goal. Which is something that the US did after WW2 extensively.
You mentioned "some of Europe, Africa, South East Asia, and some of Latin America" as having fascistic elements. I countered that fascism is a historic movement which had a specific origin and goal and is currently still confined to a certain period of European history. It's not a game of bingo where you tick off some superficial characteristics and bingo! it must be fascism.

Economic aspects do not solely determine whether or not something is fascist. The historic goal of fascism was the economic and political unification of capital after the revolutionary wave had failed but the state still remained unable to restore order. That's the litmus test of whether or not something belongs under the term fascism, characteristics like state worship and corporatism are secondary to this.



So no its not the same, but the economic aspects of fascism are very prominent in the first world.
Again, the main driving force behind ideology in Europe is currently neo-liberalism. There is no longer an explicit "national goal" since the European Union, authoritarian state worship is completely absent and free market ideology is not the same as corporatism.

[spice756]

well, if its true, then why AIG and LYNCH received larges subsidies from the governement to make them live?



All you have to do is look at Bush.He was a rich oil guy and know alot of oil guys.He will do anything to help them.

You cannot be poor and run for government.That just the way the system is now.

[danyboy27]

All you have to do is look at Bush.He was a rich oil guy and know alot of oil guys.He will do anything to help them.

You cannot be poor and run for government.That just the way the system is now.

you dont need to be the president to influence the country, many left wing/right wing movement are making hard pressure on the us governement all day long trough lobbying, and it work.

sure money help to influence the system, but fear and psychological manoeuver have in the past and still guide how certains governement work, sopmetimes only the media is required to make the wind change.