Katie Boundary wrote:What are the defining characteristics of fascism? How much can you strip from fascism before it's not fascism anymore? If one accepts that the state has the authority to meticulously meddle in people's economic and personal affairs, does this obligate one to believe that the state should do so?
The reduction of Fascism to a mere collection of external characteristics or a synthesis of
'isms' without regard to the underlying theoretical premise that informs its varied concrete manifestations is an overall flawed approach to understanding Fascism as a political phenomena, IMO. While I understand the appeal of utilizing a minimalist model to determine which historical and current regimes can be accurately included or excluded from classification as "Fascist," this trend tends to result in flagrant abuse by biased scholars and amatuer political scientists to demonize regimes which they perceive as representing ideals antithetical to their own or the contemporary value system of Western societies and academia. Lawrence Britt's pitiful
14 Characteristics of Fascism is a good example of how these models are often misapplied.
However, I will concede that Rei Murasame's definition is a good starting place for the type of model you are evidently seeking to build.
Katie Boundary wrote:So... fascism doesn't necessarily require a one-party state, state control of the media-academia complex, or at least some degree of glorification of the military? And it's not something that a new nation can implement immediately?
"The forms in which States express themselves change, but the necessity for the State remains. It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, makes them conscious of their mission, and welds them into unity," - Benito Mussolini
The single party, the secret police, the public displays of Caesarism, even the presence of a Führer are not necessarily attributes of fascism, let alone the reactionary thrust of political alliances […] The famous fascist methods are constantly revised and will continue to be revised. More important than the mechanism is the idea which fascism has created for itself of man and freedom. - Maurice Bardeche
Though I would argue that external characteristics of a regime are of secondary importance to the underlying psychological motivations of its rulers, I will agree that consolidation of State, media, and academic institutions by a single ruling political party are the primary methods by which totalitarian regimes have expressed and disseminated their worldview to the masses historically and that future regimes of this type will most likely assume the same characteristics.
Katie Boundary wrote:A nation has to start up and then endure extreme decay or defeat before its government can be considered fascist?
Though this point has probably been overemphasized in its relation to Fascism, the governing mechanisms of an incumbent civilization must be thoroughly de-legitimized before the populace can willingly embrace the foundational premise of a new one. This means a process of death and rebirth. One political and social epoch must be on its death throes before a new one can be born. I believe this applies to most instances of mass revolution. There are exceptions, but I am not convinced that this is by any means unique or exclusive to Fascism.
Although, different levels of degradation may induce different types of revolutionary movements.
If I misunderstood you then let me know.
Katie Boundary wrote:What do you call a government that exhibits ultranationalism, a one-party state, glorification of the military, state control of the media-academia complex, and syndicalism/corporatism, but which makes no pretense of national rebirth? Like, if someone were to start a colony on Mars and immediately implement a government that was a carbon-copy of Mussolini's, but couldn't call it a "rebirth" because it was a fresh new nation-state, what would you call that?
Similarly, what do you call a government that exhibits a one-party state, glorification of the military, state control of the media-academia complex, and palingenetic ultranationalism, but which adopts a mostly free-market economic policy?
I suppose I would consider both to be anomolies. Most ideologies are formulated on the basis of existing (known) conditions of human social organization. I don't know of any precedent for the first, but I would not necessarily deny it classification as Fascist in its basic organization. Seasoned scholars like Griffin would probably form their conclusion on the basis of whether or not its implementation was the result of an extra-systemic, bottom-up mass movement or of a systemic, top-down imitation. The former qualifying its as "Fascist" and the latter as "Parafascist."
As for your second example, unless there was some trasitionary phase from free-market capitalism to economic corporativism in progress, I would be inclined to classify it as a capitalist dictatorship which traditionally comes in one of two forms: dictatorship by either military junta or a civilian technocrat. In both cases, anti-Marxism is the ideological primary and conservative nationalism the ancillary. There is no genuinely revolutionary party in power, although the latter may form a dominant political party (or absorb existing ones) to merely echo to the beliefs of the ruling autocrat, which tend to be pragmatic and restorationist in nature, without any real participation in formulating state policy. There is also rarely any genuine attempt to mobilize the masses or socially and economically integrate them into the State.
Even after the seizure of state power, these types of regimes may be more susceptible to internal challenge by more revolutionary-extremist elements from within their own political base to varying degrees of severity (Preto in Portugal, Jose Antonio's surviving Falangists in Spain, Seigo/Ikki in Japan for example).
The only scenario in which I could see all of the conditions within the second example co-existing is if the 'true believers' of the revolutionary vanguard either died off or were phased out and succeeded by a non-idealistic class of bureaucratic elites who then proceeded to dismantle the previous economic infrastructure to implement a free-market economy.
I would also add that "glorification of the military," along with the institutionalization of paramilitary organizations by the State, is simply a means of instilling martial values and discipline into the nation (State and civilian population) as Fascism perceives physical struggle (combat) in service of a transcendent ideal (moral law) as an intrinsic biological function of man. The ideological and physical training through their mobilization is the principal task of its revolutionary initiatives, while said "glorification" of the national army may just be one manifestation of its strive toward a broader end goal. For instance, democratic societies can also glorify their own militaries, but for very different reasons and with far less ambitious goals in mind. This "glorification of the military" bit may warrant revision into something more specific.