Define Fascism

[Orwellian17]

So I am always one to question.
All sides of an argument.
But one thing is a real thorn in my side right now.
What exactly is the definition of Fascism?
Because whenever I ask anybody, they just explain nationalism and xenophobia.
Which are two beliefs in exisitence already.
So what is Fascism?

[Killfacer]

a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dfascism&usg=AFQjCNF0i5zYYO8TJDfrUXc8dt2FrzWvow)

[danyboy27]

So I am always one to question.
All sides of an argument.
But one thing is a real thorn in my side right now.
What exactly is the definition of Fascism?
Because whenever I ask anybody, they just explain nationalism and xenophobia.
Which are two beliefs in exisitence already.
So what is Fascism?

one empire

[Killfacer]

yeah he does seem like hes gonna start spouting words like NIGGER and JEW SCUM.

[trivas7]

a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dfascism&usg=AFQjCNF0i5zYYO8TJDfrUXc8dt2FrzWvow)
Silly definition, what government isn't authoritarian, hierarchical?

[Orwellian17]

So....totalitarianism?
I'm no racist, nd I don't condone any of these anti-semetic ideaologies, but I just can't seem to find a vivid description of Fascism.
All I've got out of your definition is a totalitarian government.
And the link doesn't work.

[Woland]

An ideology which supports nationalism and empire-building, war, is anti-democracy, anti-liberal and anti-communist, holds people to be completely -not- equal, supports having an all-powerful leader and a hierarchy.

Otherwise, a more scientific explanation would be something like 'an ideology based on class-collaborationism and seeing the world defined through 'tribes''

[Orwellian17]

Wait.
Tribes?
Tribes are small groups of self-sufficient people.
What you are talking about is a huge federally controlled government empire with controlled class structures.
And isn't Nazism Fascism?
Because they had socialist health.
Therefore, they weren't a complete proponent of capitalism.
And Franco was a Fascist, and after his Revolution, he didn't war with any other nations, and he was even neutral during the scond world war, so he wasn't all about war.
The definition has holes.

[Dr Mindbender]

So I am always one to question.
All sides of an argument.
But one thing is a real thorn in my side right now.
What exactly is the definition of Fascism?
Because whenever I ask anybody, they just explain nationalism and xenophobia.
Which are two beliefs in exisitence already.
So what is Fascism?

Rev wiki entry.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=899

[Woland]

Wait.
Tribes?
Tribes are small groups of self-sufficient people.
What you are talking about is a huge federally controlled government empire with controlled class structures.
And isn't Nazism Fascism?
Because they had socialist health.
Therefore, they weren't a complete proponent of capitalism.
And Franco was a Fascist, and after his Revolution, he didn't war with any other nations, and he was even neutral during the scond world war, so he wasn't all about war.
The definition has holes.

'tribes' in this definition are different nations, races, and countries, i.e. they consider themselves, whatever they might be, for example ''white race'' and their enemy ''the jews'' is seeing the world as a collection of 'tribes' of people.

There is no such thing as ''socialist health''; there are different forms of implementing a health program and whatever it might be does not, at all, define capitalism or socialism. Fascist economic theory is something ridiculous called 'third position'; a third way between communism and capitalism, and is of course, completely made for propaganda value, because it 1) doesn't make any sense and 2) its just capitalism with regulations; because Nazist/Fascist 'economic theory' has always been mainly to conquer other lands to get their resources and slave labor--empire building.

Franco, maybe, just wasnt -that- stupid for getting involved in WWII, probably because he knew they were going to lose, and then, he was just interested in ruling his country alone and undisturbed as a dictator. And then, no offense to any Spaniards here that might occur, but who could Spain seriously conquer? Sure they helped Nazi Germany and Italy a little during the war, but then..

Edit: Nazism is fascism, its just also all the things Hitler brought along with it, such as explicit racism/race realism and ethnic cleansing.

[Tower of Bebel]

It is the most extreme form of capitalist reaction in its imperialist stage because of (1) the threatening strength of a militant and well organized working class and (2) the impotence of the bourgeoisie to manage capitalism.

The lack of a well organized, threatening working class compared to Germany (1920's) and Northern Italy (1920's) explains why Russia (1917) experienced a form in between Bonapartism and a police state (Kerensky & Kornilov), and why Spain (1936) and Argentina (1974) experienced a form in between a police state and fascism (Franco & Pinochet).

Crisis can provoke both the impotence of the bourgeoise and a militant behavior coming from the working class. Bonapartism and fascism mostly base themselves on the petty bourgeoisie and lumpens. Authoritarianism is only a product, it is not fascism's defining characteristic because bonapartism, parliamentarism, stalinism, etc. can also be authoritarian. This is the same for totalitarianism.

[Chapter 24]

Fascism is class-collaboration that disregards class conflict (wait, that's pretty redundant). Nonetheless, it is ruled through the interests of the supposed national collective through highly nationalist programs in order to seek unity between all peoples of the nation. Pretty much why fascism leads to racism and xenophobia, not that it is strictly inherent in its doctrine.
As someone once said, "Fascism is social-democracy with a dictatorship."

I think Michael Parenti explains fascism well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Bc4KJx2Ao&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x246429&feature=player_embedded

[Orwellian17]

What about other empires with a heirarchal structure?
The goal of most nations is to build an empire.
So it's nationalist imperialist totalitarianism?
Once again, Spain is the exception.
No empire.
And the no people being equal bugs me too.
If they see the world in tribes, then isn't every member of the tribe valuable?
So therefore the people within their tribe are equal?
And in what government structure are people equal?

[Orwellian17]

So they are a capitalist, heirarchal, imperialistic government with a strong single leader, and a strong federal government.
That is the definition?

[Woland]

What about other empires with a heirarchal structure?

As Rakunin pointed out, fascism is some -capitalism- meaning that fascism is not feudalism, meaning that absolutist states of the past cannot be considered fascist by proper definition.


The goal of most nations is to build an empire.

Uh..no it isnt. Maybe it was 100 years ago when imperialism and nationalism flourished, but that went away with the First World War. And once again, the structure at that time was different.


So it's nationalist imperialist totalitarianism?

These are its tendencies


Once again, Spain is the exception.
No empire.

Its a tendency, there are exceptions, also maybe Spain just wasnt that fascist, even if having a fash dictator? Right after the war, who would have let it happen? How could it even hope to happen?


And the no people being equal bugs me too.
If they see the world in tribes, then isn't every member of the tribe valuable?

..Yes, that explains the nationalism.


So therefore the people within their tribe are equal?

I think there is a difference between them thinking of people as equal and treating people as equal, someone correct me here. Anyway, even thought fascism considers the members of their 'tribe' to be equal in their way, i.e. by color or something, they are not treated equally.


And in what government structure are people equal?

Communism :glare:

Edit: Use the more scientific definition, i.e. class-collaborationism, tribes and capitalism, ask around for these, then name the tendencies.

[GPDP]

If they see the world in tribes, then isn't every member of the tribe valuable?
So therefore the people within their tribe are equal?

It helps to refer to Hitler's own thoughts on the matter in this case. He wrote extensively on racial struggle, but he argued that there are two kinds of such struggles: between races, and within races. He saw the Aryan race as the master race, as we all know, but as to the members of the Aryan race, he basically saw a strict hierarchy: the leader, the elite, and the common people.

Of course, it is necessary in his view to appeal to the common people, the bottom rung of the ladder, as being important, at least through propaganda. The "Volk" should be paid lip service to. But of course, in reality, they have their place in the hierarchy, at the bottom. They are not equal to the elite (Hitler's SS), or the Fuhrer himself.

[RGacky3]

Look at the three classical forms of fascism, Franco, Mussulini, hitler.

What did they have in common:

Extreme nationalism (the idea that the State comes befor the individual)
Extremem Corporatism (Capitalist class and the State working hand in hand).

racism is'nt part of it, niether is imperialism (franco was never imperialistic), although the 2 generally tag along.

[Tower of Bebel]

The problems with traits and characteristics as a means to define this phenomenon is the fact that because it is a national form of capitalist reaction is can have many different characteristics depending on (1) the country or region and (2) the state of capitalist development. Of course you can deduct some interesting facts from traits. For example corporatism: it point to the fact that fascism is anti working class and especially anti workers' movement because corporatism tails the workers' movement to the bourgeoisie.

But corporatism is also the ideology of many christian(democratic) or religious organizations and even christian(democratic) trade unions. Eventually it all come down to the search for the social/material kernel, which is (a specific state of) capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Ultimately Fascism has to be what people who call themselves fascists generally advocate, which is generally speaking, corporatism and nationalism, taken the the extremem, whether or not it is a reaction (which I believe it is), is'nt nessesarily part of the definition.

[synthesis]

Fascism, historically, has been the harvesting of revolutionary conditions for reactionary purposes.

In terms of modern day usage, well, a word means whatever the speaker intends it to mean and whatever their audience interprets it to be.

The term "Fascism" is mostly a political pejorative nowadays (like Nazism) so people who actually identify themselves as such do so mostly for shock value.

Those organizations which actually stand a chance at "harvesting revolutionary conditions for reactionary purposes", such as the BNP and their counterparts across the world, will never call themselves Fascists, for obvious reasons (PR).

Another important thing to remember about Fascism is that, historically, it was little more than the Italian manifestation of extreme authoritarian-nationalist tendencies that were spreading across the world at that time - even in Russia and other "communist" states.

[spartan]

Just found these intresting definitions of Fascism, by Roger Griffin and Robert Paxton respectively, on wiki (beware Fascism often contradicts itself):


Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence.


a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

My own take on Fascism is that it is a Third Positionist syncretic ideology trying to bring together the best aspects of socialism and capitalism without the bad (in a Fascist's opinion) aspects of both.

Racism as part of Fascism is common but not an integral part of it (original Fascism wasn't in anyway racist).

Modern day neofascism is far more nativist than original Fascism which was very expansionist.

This is probably due to large-scale immigration of foreigners to white majority European nations and the widespread tension and resentment this is causing amongst the natives (which the Fascist is naturally quick to exploit).

[synthesis]

Well, the turn away from "expansionism" is far more likely to reflect a lack of political firepower on the part of said wannabe Fascists than any sort of authentic humility on the part of the Fascists.

Once they get some real power, that's when you'll start hearing all about "Greater Romania" or "Eretz Yisrael" or whatever, wherever the manifestations occur.

But you're right in other ways. I've remarked elsewhere about the potential for a crypto-fascist movement to unite domestic minorities with the national majority against an immigrant population. We'll see what they come up with, I guess.

[trivas7]

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism -- not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own the land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether or not they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper..."

-- Adolf Hitler to Hermann Rauschning

[GPDP]

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism -- not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own the land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether or not they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper..."

-- Adolf Hitler to Hermann Rauschning

i c wut u did thar

[Robespierre2.0]

Fascism is a bourgeois caricature of socialism in which a concept of 'nation' or 'race' is substituted for the 'working class'. I say it's a 'caricature of socialism' because it adopts many progressive stances on issues- the Nazis were ardent environmentalists, and had many rallies to create that euphoric feeling of collective will among their people, yet they still can't be socialist, because their ideology is based on the success of their race at the expense of other ones, rather than the success of one class at the expense of another.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Fascism: The most overused term on the Left.

[spartan]

Fascism: The most overused term on the Left.

Very true and George Orwell agrees with you:



The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. – George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.

[RGacky3]

Fascism, historically, has been the harvesting of revolutionary conditions for reactionary purposes.

Thats true, but thats not a definition.

The term fascism is used for the most part for an emotional reaction, and as far as I'm conserned thats dishonest discorse.

[danyboy27]

Fascism: The most overused term on the Left.

bourgeois is the second most used term

[Bright Banana Beard]

bourgeois is the second most used term
communism isnt? Oh my.

[IcarusAngel]

And the crazy lunatics on the libertarian right don't over use the term fascism and "socialism"? To them, everything that isn't their version of capitalism is socialism, even other versions of capitalism (such as modern America or Minarchist versions of capitalism that call for some equality, such as Smith).

I think though that these Libertarian kooks don't use the term "capitalism" enough. They should call themselves "capitalists" and not "libertarian capitalists," "democratic-capitalists," or even "anarchists" and other oxymoronic comparisons.

[Brother No. 1]

I define Facism is a lying goverment that should not be used or ever heard of in the rest of human history.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Very true and George Orwell agrees with you:

Hey thanks, that's a good quote.


I define Facism is a lying goverment that should not be used or ever heard of in the rest of human history.

Then every govt which has ever existed has been Fascist.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Now to discuss what I believe Fascism really is.

Fascism is not the far right, and such a definition is misleading. The Nazis didn't get elected by touting right-wing values like Free Markets, no govt regulation, and low govt spending. On the contrary, they were Keynsians, at first promising food and work. Hitler and Mussolini had much more in common with FDR then they do with Reagan or Thatcher. Infrastructure projects such as the autobahn and other things would never have happened under a far-right govt. Like this, projects like the TVA or CCC in the US similarly focused on the govt creating jobs. Fascism is not of the far-right, it is the 'hard center.'

What seperates them from the Left, of course, is that it subscribes to a conflict based on national or ethnic lines, as opposed to the one between the classes (though it certainly wasn't authoritarianism).

What is important to remember is that National Socialism came to power in a time of great unemployment and poverty. I don't buy the notion that Germans simply gave them power because they were scared of the Reds but because the Nazi's had a much more attractive option, and unlike the Reds, one which the average person could truly believe in.

Reminds me of how most poor people here, despite getting fucked over by atrocious economic policies, supported W in 2004. Kerry appeared weak, unpatriotic, and elitist, none of which the working man wants to associate himself with. But W certainly wasn't fascist, he's right-wing neocon.

This is only dealing with economic matters, as reactionary social views cuts across all ideologies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ If you are indeed right about the "hard center" statement (BTW, I have read similar arguments before on the Political Compass website ;) ), then there's more credibility with modern attempts to revive (albeit for oppositional purposes against Blairites, Eustonites, etc.) a theory of "social fascism" than I thought.


though it certainly wasn't authoritarianism

Care to elaborate? [The crushing of trade unions, heavy surveillance, etc. - unless you're distinguishing between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian"] :confused:

[Tower of Bebel]

Care to elaborate? [The crushing of trade unions, heavy surveillance, etc. - unless you're distinguishing between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian"] :confused:
I think he meant that authoritarianism doesn't separate fascism from the left because of (f.e.) stalinism and maoism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Thank you Rakunin, that is what I meant. I should have phrased it better, like all fascist states are authoritarian by nature, but not every authoritarian state is fascist.

I haven't read their arguments, but I agree with their placement of Hitler completely. The term hard center was coined by Sir Oswald Mosley, and though he was scum I like the phrase.