Different Forms of Fascism?

[Dóchas]

As you all know there is many variations of communism (marxism,leninism etc) i was just wondering is there as many variations in fascism or is it really just naziism and some other attempts?

i wasnt sure if this should be learning or anti-facism so move it if you have to

[communard resolution]

Even within National Socialism itself, you'll find a lot of variations ranging from 'left-wing' National Bolsheviks through outright right-wing capitalist reactionaries. You've also got classic Italian Fascism of the 20s/30s/40s (some will say only this is the only current to be called 'fascism'), modern Russian National Bolsheviks (there's several different strands within this current too), National Anarchists, Anarcho-Nationalists (don't ask me about the difference to the former), 'National Revolutionaries', 'Social Revolutionaries', and so forth... so yeah, there's probably as many currents as there are on the other side of the fence.

Ultimately, they all want the same: to establish a national or ethnic unity against a perceived or artificially created external threat. This 'threat' is fairly arbitrary and depends on the zeitgeist really: in NS Germany it was the phantom of 'International Jewry', to the NazBols in Russia it's 'The West', elsewhere it's the Muslims, etc.

The classic leftist analysis suggests that what fascism basically aims for is to establish harmony between classes in order to save capitalism in times of crisis. Whether this is the outright goal of all 'fascist' strands is IMO debatable. But historically, it did always turn out to do just that, if only for a limited amount of time (before driving the countries in question into wars and complete devastation).

[rednordman]

mmm..the only other form or subform of nazism i'v ever heard of was something called Strauserism or something like that. It was named after some prominent Nazi party member and was kind of unique in that its emphasis was alot for left-wing (infavour of workers rights etc) notions over actual race theory. Not that it wasnt dreadfull and racist, just that it accepted the importance of workers in society and that they should be respected, unlike being treated like slaves (and this was in reference to only white workers aswell). For a better explaination try the wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism

[Melbourne Lefty]

something called Strauserism or something like that


Fascism has more types than can be listed here.

Its like the revolutionary left. So many names but one overiding concern, class warfare.

For fash/right wing populists its similar, many different names, but the way they all see the world is in terms of TRIBES.

So...

The far left sees the world through the prism of class,

the fash and related groups see it through the prism of tribe,

traditional american conservatives would look at the world through the prism of big vs small government,

neo-cons would see the the world through the prism of free market theory,

everyone has their own prism for seeing the world, orthodox fascism is a mixture of tribe theory and class theory where jews take the part of the capitalists.

Modern day right-populism is more orthodox in its tribal outlook, it harks back to pre-enlightenment philosphers.

This is because they have no need to define themselves in terms of class like the nazis did since they live in a society where class is rarely mentioned.

If anyone disagrees with the above they are wrong...:lol:

[Sasha]

mmm..the only other form or subform of nazism i'v ever heard of was something called Strauserism or something like that. [....] For a better explaination try the wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism

yeah, that is prety popular around here (netherlands/germany) for already quite sometime, some of the leaders (espacely under the so called Autonumus Nazi's and B&H-RVF) are realy in to it and seem to have don some actual research and preach this almost Naz-Bol ideaoligy.
But for most nazi's that claim it its a bit more like Hoxaism is for stalinists, same content less controversial package.

[Honggweilo]

Don't forget the mediteranian/latin-american style cathlolic/patriachial corporatists like the Salazar and Vargas "Estado Novo" fascist regimes, which claim to be "non-racial" but "integralist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Integralism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Novo_(Portugal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

[Melbourne Lefty]

"integralist"

That shites just freaky.

[palotin]

The European New Right of persons like Alain de Benoist is another one. Also I see little reason not to include ultra-nationalist monarchist groups like Action Française.

[gewehr_3]

Italian Fascism was also much less racist than Nazism.. at the beginning anyways. After Italy started to become more "german", more and more seeped through.

[Pogue]

Theres Falangism too. Fascism differentiates between countries.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Italian Fascism was also much less racist than Nazism.. at the beginning anyways. After Italy started to become more "german", more and more seeped through.

Groups like Roberto Fiore's in Italy reject classical Italian fascism because it was not racist enough.

They admire the policies of the nazi puppet state set up late in the war by Mussolini the 'Republic of Salo'.

This entity was much more towards the national bolshevik/strasserite line economically and included official anti-semitism as a fop to the nazis who were supplying the troops to try and defend the place.

Its interesting that most hardline neo-fascists reject mussolinis early efforts as 'capitalist' influenced.

If there are any Italians here who can expand or better explain this I would be glad, it seems facinating [in the same way that bacteria are often facinating:laugh:].

[Patchd]

Ultimately, they all want the same: to establish a national or ethnic unity against a perceived or artificially created external threat. This 'threat' is fairly arbitrary and depends on the zeitgeist really: in NS Germany it was the phantom of 'International Jewry', to the NazBols in Russia it's 'The West', elsewhere it's the Muslims, etc.
I think I'll have to agree with you here, this is a good definition, but then there are usually more factors which usually come synonymously with Fascism, the increased role of the state, or at least the acquisition and utilisation of the state to carry out the goal that you have stated in the above quote.

Of course, the Libertarian Green Nazis are an exception, but they're a fucking joke anyway, even within the far right. I can't think of any other way they could achieve their goals without utilising the state anyway, so I would say they contradict themselves.

Nah, not "the muslims", but the "brown people". Fascist parties' scaremongering over Muslims is a mere cover up for an attack on those who have darker skin, I doubt you would see a Nazi beating up a white man in a suit who happened to be a muslim if they had not known them to be one, but attacks on even atheist immigrants would not be unheard of.

[Melbourne Lefty]

the increased role of the state, or at least the acquisition and utilisation of the state to carry out the goal that you have stated in the above quote.



Nearly all fascists plan on growing the state into a totalitarian state.

The exceptions are so small and tiny that they really dont bear mentioning.

The golden rule of whether a group is fascist or just racist/populist is the question of the state, do they want to create a totalitarian state that will implement their goals? If so they are leaning towards fascism.

Even racist libertarians cannot be fascist.

[Holden Caulfield]

Nearly all fascists plan on growing the state into a totalitarian state.

The exceptions are so small and tiny that they really dont bear mentioning.
yes, but the level of totalitarianism of a state varies with many examples of this, Iraq at the moment, America, Russia etc, and doesn't make them 'fascist' other factors matter as well,



Even racist libertarians cannot be fascist.
in theory but how would this ever be anything more than a pipe dream with out a fascist state? Utilitarianist theories such as this enevitabily come to the conculsuion of an opressive state no matter what liberal language is used.

[communard resolution]

'Republic of Salo'.

This entity was much more towards the national bolshevik/strasserite line economically

How so - have you got more info about their economy? How was it different to Hitler's Nazism and Mussolini's Fascism?

[communard resolution]

Wiki says about the republic of Salo,


Mussolini himself knew he was little more than the gauleiter of Lombardy even though he stated in public that he was in full control. The finances of the state were completely dependent on German funding, the state had no constitution and no organized economy

Apparently, Mussolini *promised* nationalisations to the Italians and claimed he would bring about "real", "socialist" fascism if the people gave him a second chance. But this never came to be.

[Melbourne Lefty]

yes, but the level of totalitarianism of a state varies with many examples of this, Iraq at the moment, America, Russia etc, and doesn't make them 'fascist' other factors matter as well,.

Very true.

Totalitarianism can exist without fascism, but fascism cannot exist without totalitarianism, they even invented the word.


in theory but how would this ever be anything more than a pipe dream with out a fascist state? Utilitarianist theories such as this enevitabily come to the conculsuion of an opressive state no matter what liberal language is used

Libertarian racists cannot be fascist.

They cannot be anything much at all, but this has not stopped many absurd ideologies, remember religion has survived a long time despite some of its more blatantly absurd aspects.



How so - have you got more info about their economy? How was it different to Hitler's Nazism and Mussolini's Fascism?


Info but no links sadly.

I had a long talk with an Italian anti-fascist who stayed in my living room for a couple of nights.

Roberto Fiore, the convicted fascist terrorist and now MEP member as well as his merry band of neo-fascist nutters are convinced that Mussolini would have brought true 'Italian' socialism to fruition if only the Republic of Salo had not been invaded by the evil Americans.

In Truth Mussolini had no time to do much at all in his new puppet state. I know he set up the 'black legions' or whatever they called the fascist version of the partisans but aside from that nothing.

[Woland]

Nazi economy is a joke. Its all about quickly fulfilling the basic needs of the masses and use propaganda to make it seem like there is going to be economic development, while actually trying to use and mobilize all available goods for their goals as quickly as possible, such as war, etc.

There are many people who say ''but Nazis brought economic development and there was no unemployment'', when just looking at statistics show what an illusion these changes really were. For example (Im taking all of this out of plain statistics), lets say in 1928 an average worker made 100 mark. In 1930, with the Great Depression, he only made 70 mark. After the Nazis took power, lets say in 1938, there was change...the worker was now making 72 mark! So the earnings really did rise! :laugh: Probably had nothing to do with the Nazis in the first place, but with a quick propaganda campaign they actually created an illusion of economic development, even if just looking at statistics proves different. Now, lets say in 1928 a typical German diet consisted of a certain amount of meat, vegetables, etc. During the economic crisis of 1930, this diet was less, lower amount of meat and goods. Now, in 1938, it was still declining! just that Germans now were eating twice as many potatoes as before. Cheap, plain food which everybody got.

Now to unemployment. Once again, it was a complete illusion; the Nazis basically recruited lots of unemployed for their mega-projects, like the Autobahn, etc. They had a really low wage, but atleast they didnt count as unemployed! The same way they recruited a bunch of people into ''work armies'' which were obligatory for all young people, once again used as a cheap workforce but they didnt count as unemployed. After you finished your work army sentence, you had to join the army, simple as that. Also other things such as making housewife a profession meant that atleast on paper, the Nazis could easily say they achieved 0% unemployment.
To the real economy, as I said in the beginning, it was all about achieving a certain goal as quickly as possible when completely disregarding everything else. If you would look at statistics for Nazi Germany's loans, by 1939 these loans were -massive- and there was no chance to pay them back, but it didnt have to because all it pursued was an all-or-nothing strategy of war and to conquer land and resources from other countries to keep their economy going. Even when the war started, the german army only had about 3 months worth of fuel.

This is for Nazi Germany, but I doubt fascist Italy's economy was any different on the bigger picture- Mobilize everything available to conquer enemy territory and to quel domestic resistance which is bound to arise. Because once again, economy was in no way sustainable or even existant. "third position'' is a nonexistant propaganda joke.

[Dr Mindbender]

As it's a direct question as opposed to actual debate on anti-fascist organisation, I'll move to learning.


Moved.

[ComradeOm]

Nazi economy is a joke. Its all about quickly fulfilling the basic needs of the masses and use propaganda to make it seem like there is going to be economic development, while actually trying to use and mobilize all available goods for their goals as quickly as possible, such as war, etcFulfilling the needs of the masses? Not exactly. The overriding drive for war meant that consumer goods were very far down the Nazi priority list. For domestic consumption at least, the continual weakness of the German balance of payments ensured that production for export continued well into the war years. In addition, starving the domestic market of goods forced ordinary Germans to save their earnings... funds which were then 'given' by the banks to the government


Now to unemployment. Once again, it was a complete illusion; the Nazis basically recruited lots of unemployed for their mega-projects, like the Autobahn, etc. They had a really low wage, but atleast they didnt count as unemployed!Not entirely an illusion. There's nothing wrong with work creation programmes in principle, and certainly German workers in general were paid atrociously low rates, but the much vaunted large scale projects, such as the Autobahns, were effectively ended after 1934 with funds being redirected towards the war effort. And, in fairness, the immense gearing up of the war economy did effectively combat the mass unemployment. Those that the heavy industries (which underwent a boom in during the second half of the 1930s) did not pick up were conscripted by the army

[Woland]

Fulfilling the needs of the masses? Not exactly. The overriding drive for war meant that consumer goods were very far down the Nazi priority list.

Thats absolutely not what I was talking about, but yes. Needs of the masses- controlling unemployment and help after the crisis, mainly for propaganda value.


For domestic consumption at least, the continual weakness of the German balance of payments ensured that production for export continued well into the war years. In addition, starving the domestic market of goods forced ordinary Germans to save their earnings... funds which were then 'given' by the banks to the government

In 1936 Germany undertook a 4-year plan to create an autarky for the war, so there was no production for export. And yes, the Nazis completely robbed their own banks, as I said before.


but the much vaunted large scale projects, such as the Autobahns, were effectively ended after 1934 with funds being redirected towards the war effort.

Maybe the autobahn was finished in 1934, but a lot more projects were planned and undertaken, also for after the war, such as the Volkshalle and reconstructing Berlin. And the war effort and large-scale projects worked hand in hand. One of the reasons for the Autobahn was rapid troop movement.


And, in fairness, the immense gearing up of the war economy did effectively combat the mass unemployment. Those that the heavy industries (which underwent a boom in during the second half of the 1930s) did not pick up were conscripted by the army

Not conscripted by the army- the work army, which was exactly made for large scale industrial projects. The focus on the industry was definitely a cause for the 4-year plan and more use of such labour force and military buildup.

[ComradeOm]

In 1936 Germany undertook a 4-year plan to create an autarky for the war, so there was no production for exportEh... no. The Nazis desired autarky but were never able to achieve it; until the conquest of Europe and much of Russia at least. The extremely weak strength of the German balance of payments account* demanded that exports continue in order to pay for the war effort. Or, more accurately, the imported materials needed to sustain this effort. Indeed as late as the end of 1942 the export sector continued to demand 270,000 tons of precious steel per month. This is over a quarter of that consumed by the Wehrmacht (994,000 per month) at a time of some of the most costly fighting on the Eastern Front [Tooze, Wages of Destruction]

*Which severely interrupted armaments production in both 1937 & 1939


Maybe the autobahn was finished in 1934, but a lot more projects were planned and undertaken, also for after the war, such as the Volkshalle and reconstructing Berlin. And the war effort and large-scale projects worked hand in hand. One of the reasons for the Autobahn was rapid troop movementFollowing a decision taken in Dec 1933 all funding for the "Battle for Work" programmes was frozen. There were one or two exceptions (such as Berlin and Hamburg) but from this point on funds were redirected towards rearmament. Indeed from as early as mid-34 the work creation budget was slashed and the numbers employed by them would shrink to less than 700,000 by 1935 [Tooze]