Anti-Imperialist "Fascism" - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14401921
I have noticed on this forum a trend that a lot of fascists like to present this ideology as being anti-imperialist. Often fascism is presented as something which was fighting the Atlantic/American imperialist hegemony. If I am not mistaken the proletarian nation theory might have something to do with this perception.

However it is undeniable that fascism is an inherently imperialist ideology. It is not possible for it to be anti-imperialist. The Drive to the East of National Socialists and Mussolini's expansionism in Africa is a part of this. Furthermore we can see that in fascist Romania (of course it is debatable whether Romania was fascist, but we can agree it was far right) they had irredentist tendencies as well.

Was it not the case that Germany was merely using third world revolutionaries like Subhas Chandra Bose and the Arab nationalists for its own ends? I heard that at the end of the war the Middle East was to be allocated to the Italian zone of influence. I also heard that India was to originally be ruled by Germany after victory but this was changed to give it to Japan.

Why then is there a popular contemporary narrative which presents fascism as something anti-imperialist? Is it because a lot of fascists are people who are looking for a way to be anti-imperialist and socialist while still being nationalist and not leftist?
#14401967
I am also quite curious to this - I guess the question I have is, why is facism always married to cultural superiority?

I mean, in the Japanese case, if you want to sell me Pan-Asianism, I'd expect you to tell me how your country is going to help us and fight off our imperial masters, so we Asian peoples can hold hands and sing Kumbaya. (Hold our own destiny, develop together economically...blah blah blah)

Instead, the Japanese basically tell other Asians that they are superior, we should bow low to their superior race. They will expel our old masters only to become our new ones.

Under Japanese rule, they are only interested in exploiting their subject as meat for the front lines, hard labour, or entertainment for their troops - as an official policy. This is a far cry from the Pan Asianism that a commoner like me would otherwise like to see.

I wanted to buy into Facism. Pan Asianism and Pan-Africanism of Ghaddafi appeals to me. But is the historical version really true facism? A master race that will lord over all minor ones - or in other words, unavoidably imperialistic?
Last edited by benpenguin on 06 May 2014 04:06, edited 1 time in total.
#14401982
Perhaps it is because fascism is not the ruling ideology in any major state today, so it makes sense for fascists to be anti-imperialists as they are underdogs by definition while their (neoliberal) adversaries are dominant.

The record of World War II, however, shows that fascist internationalism may be a hard sell. Again, it has much to do with the power fascist states wield. When the Germans seemed to be impervious and the masters of Europe, they treated their subjects and allies imperiously. However, as the war turned against Germany, the Germans talked more and more about uniting Europe against Bolshevism and capitalism and were more open to an “internationalism” of sorts. There were different camps within Nazi Germany on the issue of nationalities; some favoring a more Germany-centric imperial policy while others wanted to give more weight to the aspirations of other national groups.

The Germans would have been wise to follow the latter strategy, but Hitler was a German imperialist and simply wanted to milk Europe to benefit the Germans (see the example of German food and materials sent to Germany to maintain German patterns of consumption during the early part of the war).
#14401987
I think that there are two things in play which cause anti-imperialist imperialism (be it fascist, embedded liberal, or anything else) to carry latent tendencies toward supremacist narratives:

  • The development difference: The first thing that an anti-imperialist imperialist will encounter is that despite the professed egalitarian relationship that exists at an institutional level, it is eroded almost immediately by the fact that usually there are a lot of poor countries that are being brought into the fold which need developing.

    The rationalisation for how one is having to give so much to develop the others, lends itself to a rationalisation of "we developed first, and have decided to take action, and so we are superior". That superiority narrative then manifests itself in the treaties - even if it is unspoken - and the rival powers may hypocritically use that as an argument against the 'occupying' power even if they were the previous exploiters themselves.

  • The psychology difference: Some population groups just have an aggressive or violent character - it's hard to explain - but it is a sort of "non-caring stride", and if that should happen to lead to them making some significant gains against an enemy or to the culmination of some successful plot in which deference and subjugation is transformed suddenly into freedom, the feeling that "now I can do anything", it means that even when in a subaltern position, these people will see themselves as simultaneously strong and weak.

    Eg, a thought like, "I am weak compared to the other, but I am latently strong because I don't have inhibitions about becoming strong". And them when they become strong, it is, "Now I can do anything".

    That combined, with the selective process in the political process and the military, means that is self-selecting for leadership who will think that way.

How can it be prevented from spiralling into excessive results? The best way to prevent it from becoming a problem, is to talk about it. People need to be made aware of what the harmful effects can be if they don't watch themselves and check their own actions in accordance with the grand chessboard.

Speaking from a Pan-Asian perspective, I think that an understanding and a belief in anti-humanism would go a long way to prevent excesses. If a person knows the truth of the fact that we are created by society and can be used and destroyed by society, that will shape our actions into pro-social actions and keep us focussed on the end-goal rather than always seeking to be praised. Seeking praise is not bad, but if it starts to cause you to lose sight of the chessboard then it is too much.

TLDR: Feeling proud of yourself is okay. But being condescending to your allies for a purpose other than constructive criticism, is counterproductive, since it will make them stop liking you. Be aware of it, and try to consider the allies' perspective a bit too.
#14401991
In that case, I would say Japan and Germany destroyed the Fascism ideology. In the Asian case, China could have nearly been Fascist and a staunch ally.

Sun Yat Sen is big on Pan Asianism, Cheng was close to Germany for military training and is also secretly fascist - until Japan brought war to China with sheer brutality and arrogance - you guys didn’t even try to talk us into it. China was beaten to a pulp and has no choice but to fight hard, and stand with your enemies.

Isn’t it that old habits die hard? Everytime Japanese armies leave their islands they kill everything indiscriminately. This time around they carried a noble ideology and did the same thing their ancestors did.

How can you blame other Asians for hating Japan, and subsequently, your ideology? You can’t just blame it on hypocritical propaganda of the old masters, because the new ones are just as bad as them, if not worse. It is genuine greviences against genuine abuse.

Perhaps if fascism can be given another go, it will need to be seriously reinvented to prevent these “excesses” - you don’t seem to understand, the original noble Japanese cause, if it ever existed, is sidelined. Imperialism became your overriding theme - no body cares or believes in Pan-Asianism because of the actual actions. No amount of “good intentions” can justify the rampage that was caused.
#14401992
I wasn't talking about Japan, I was just talking about everyone in general. Everyone seems to do the same thing, so it's clearly not a hazard faced by just one ethnic group.

I know you don't believe in the Pan-Asian idea, but I know that you will still serve its ends regardless, because economics ultimately demands that it must happen. We can dump the past off the side of a cliff if you like, and just do it while calling it something else. So long as the outcome works correctly, I really don't care how it is accomplished.

At the moment, China is doing most of the heavy lifting in places that Japan never even reached last time, so you should be happy - I know I am happy about it.
#14401995
Well, I use the Chinese Japanese case because I am familiar with it. I know Germans were pretty similar in that regard.

And so...last time around, Japan's vision of their future is present day China?
#14401998
No, but the scope is correct. Basically China is accomplishing objectives in Central Asia which need to be accomplished. Other Asian countries are also making the correct choices in their areas that they control, and at some stage it will be time to introduce the idea of an East Asian Community. It will be brought in just like the European Union was, but with the accelerated advantage of being 'the second group to implement that model', and so many mistakes can be avoided.

Achieving the scope and dimensions of a 'non-imperial empire in Asia', should be of a higher priority than getting everyone to agree on everything immediately. Harmonisation can happen through various institutions which will gradually accrue more competences as more treaties are signed. At some stage there would be a common monetary unit which all the Asian currencies would be aligned to, and to join that 'CMU', a country would have to demonstrate that it can meet some minimum benchmarks in the way that it handles its budget and in the institutional frameworks for bargaining between capital and labour.

Before you know it, what could not be accomplished by force within Asia, would have been accomplished by consent, and its external actions would be harmonised after its economies are integrated, so that there could be more or less a common security arrangement and a common foreign policy.

At the moment, now, in 2014, the economic integration in Asia is being driven forward primarily by Japan, South Korea, China, and India, and so they just need to keep fostering links between themselves, between themselves and Central Asia, and between themselves and ASEAN, and between ASEAN members and other ASEAN members (it will be done for the pursuance of their own interests, and they will check each other in the obvious ways - eg, China is having a totally free hand in Central Asia, but not so much in other places). The rest comes later.
#14402002
Whats do you think is lacking in the current ASEAN then, except a common currency? Mutual disdain for the Western imperialists? I don't see the creation of this new entity solving the problem.

EU sounds like a similar concept but it didn't seem to have worked so well. If this really is created then we would probably see similar things happen, poor countries become deadweight to China / Japan / Korea / India.
#14402005
The EU seems to be working pretty well to me. The problems that happen within the EU are tolerable - and reformable - compared to a hypothetical situation where there was no EU at all. It is said, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".
#14402074
Political Interest wrote:I have noticed on this forum a trend that a lot of fascists like to present this ideology as being anti-imperialist. Often fascism is presented as something which was fighting the Atlantic/American imperialist hegemony.




However it is undeniable that fascism is an inherently imperialist ideology. It is not possible for it to be anti-imperialist.


Of course. Its main original inspiration was the Roman Empire.


Was it not the case that Germany was merely using third world revolutionaries like Subhas Chandra Bose and the Arab nationalists for its own ends? I heard that at the end of the war the Middle East was to be allocated to the Italian zone of influence. I also heard that India was to originally be ruled by Germany after victory but this was changed to give it to Japan.


Of course the axis nations were would-be hegemons, not interested in independence for others.

Why then is there a popular contemporary narrative which presents fascism as something anti-imperialist? Is it because a lot of fascists are people who are looking for a way to be anti-imperialist and socialist while still being nationalist and not leftist?


I think there are two reasons. A lot of people come from smaller nations which just can't be hegemons. Rather than be the vassal of a bigger regime, or go the risky way of Italy in WWII, which just wasn't strong enough, they may just want to be masters on their own turf. Also, the current international top dog is liberal/democratic. Some people may currently equate imperialism or hegemony with democracy. That's silly though. Present government isn't doing a tenth of what it might. More Americans should be aware of the vast potential of an authoritarian regime. If fascism could propel the reich to mastery over a continent (however briefly) imagine what it could do with American resources. Democracy is obviously failing so more Americans should wake up identify it as the problem, dump it, and really get somewhere.
#14402377
Political Interest wrote:I have noticed on this forum a trend that a lot of fascists like to present this ideology as being anti-imperialist. Often fascism is presented as something which was fighting the Atlantic/American imperialist hegemony. If I am not mistaken the proletarian nation theory might have something to do with this perception.

However it is undeniable that fascism is an inherently imperialist ideology. It is not possible for it to be anti-imperialist. The Drive to the East of National Socialists and Mussolini's expansionism in Africa is a part of this. Furthermore we can see that in fascist Romania (of course it is debatable whether Romania was fascist, but we can agree it was far right) they had irredentist tendencies as well.

Was it not the case that Germany was merely using third world revolutionaries like Subhas Chandra Bose and the Arab nationalists for its own ends? I heard that at the end of the war the Middle East was to be allocated to the Italian zone of influence. I also heard that India was to originally be ruled by Germany after victory but this was changed to give it to Japan.

Why then is there a popular contemporary narrative which presents fascism as something anti-imperialist? Is it because a lot of fascists are people who are looking for a way to be anti-imperialist and socialist while still being nationalist and not leftist?


Anti-Imperialist Fascism is something that i'm trying to ideologically construct in my mind, and I think a good place to start conceptualizing is with the Fascist concept of 'Autarky'.
#14402393
A lot of imperialisms began as critiques of other imperialisms; the intellectual justification of the British Empire was highly built on criticism of the Spanish Empire, for example.
#14402577
I don’t understand why Fascists even bother to call themselves Fascists these days. Given its past record and almost universal disapproval, they would be much better served by keeping most of the same principles of Fascism but under a different name. Similar to the way governments these days deal with unpopular taxes or ideas- they change the name and only slightly change the nature of them, but they are essentially the same thing. I do understand though that the word “Fascism” is a powerful recruiting tool for disgruntled people and also for those that have a keen interest in politics. I can’t deny that I am a bit of a fan of Fascism myself but the people involved in it (at least the ones I’ve seen) would do themselves a favour by dropping the Hitler salutes and black shirts.

Anyway, Fascism by nature sounds as though it would inevitably lead to imperialism as several people have pointed out. It’s Darwinist in its outlook in that the lower members of society (and therefore presumably the world) are there to serve the higher ones. There’s obvious parallels with that in a capitalist society. And as Starman said that its inspiration was the Roman Empire (I didn’t know this myself), they often look back towards more glorious times as a motivation for their actions.

Something I have to say though is that Fascists (and this is what I like about Fascism) are all about decisive action, submission to the ideology and a total aversion to multiculturalism. And these characteristics would entail that once the purpose has been achieved in your country, other countries ought to follow. To conclude though, Fascism really does look imperialistic from what I can see, and those who deny that it is are probably doing it because they want to avoid looking even more unappealing to the mainstream than they already do. Like I was saying earlier, they could do with dropping the salutes, the uniforms and the name “Fascism” if their intention is to gain a broader appeal.
#14402758
This thread is an endeavor of making mountains out of molehills. Fascism isn't really an ideology, although it takes a peculiar national form whenever it crops up, but is a mechanism for the maintenance of the rule of Private Property. This essential factor means fascism cannot be truly anti-imperialist but rather against imperialism in certain situations.

Also maybe the Italians were talking about the Romans when they spoke of fascism but the Germans didn't and neither did the Spanish (and certainly not the Finns).
#14402966
Movement wrote:I don’t understand why Fascists even bother to call themselves Fascists these days. Given its past record and almost universal disapproval, they would be much better served by keeping most of the same principles of Fascism but under a different name.


Exactly what I've been trying to tell people here and elsewhere for many years.

I do understand though that the word “Fascism” is a powerful recruiting tool for disgruntled people and also for those that have a keen interest in politics. I can’t deny that I am a bit of a fan of Fascism myself but the people involved in it (at least the ones I’ve seen) would do themselves a favour by dropping the Hitler salutes and black shirts.


I guess for the time being it can help form the core of a movement, initially, while the outer facade can be something with broader appeal.

Anyway, Fascism by nature sounds as though it would inevitably lead to imperialism as several people have pointed out. It’s Darwinist in its outlook in that the lower members of society (and therefore presumably the world) are there to serve the higher ones. There’s obvious parallels with that in a capitalist society.


The difference being that the State not the fatcats are in control.

And as Starman said that its inspiration was the Roman Empire (I didn’t know this myself)


I thought it was common knowledge.

Something I have to say though is that Fascists (and this is what I like about Fascism) are all about decisive action, submission to the ideology and a total aversion to multiculturalism. And these characteristics would entail that once the purpose has been achieved in your country, other countries ought to follow.


Sure anyone who believes his system is the best wants it to prevail universally.

To conclude though, Fascism really does look imperialistic from what I can see, and those who deny that it is are probably doing it because they want to avoid looking even more unappealing to the mainstream than they already do.


I get the impression certain nonAmericans oppose imperialism or hegemonization simply because fate has placed them in a rather modest sphere, so they can't aspire to such things.

Like I was saying earlier, they could do with dropping the salutes, the uniforms and the name “Fascism” if their intention is to gain a broader appeal.


I do predict that democracy will ultimately crack, for various reasons, and when it does, alternative movements will gain support to an unprecedented degree. But even then, they should be prudent. Unlike Caesar, and like Augustus, don't go too far too fast.

Also maybe the Italians were talking about the Romans when they spoke of fascism but the Germans didn't...


In fact the Roman Empire greatly influenced the nazis; heil Hitler (with outstretched arms) harked back to Hail Caesar. So did the idea of a Great Man establishing a great empire; it was Spengler, a German, that coined the term Caesarism.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]