Fascism: what features are essential vs. optional? - 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.
#14584992
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?
#14585027
Katie Boundary wrote:What are the defining characteristics of fascism?

Here's a list:

  • 1. Palingenetic ultranationalism
  • 2. Ethno-regionalism (optional)
  • 3. Guild Socialism or some form of Syndicalism as an economic foundation
  • 4. Corporativism or Neo-Corporatism as a framework for social bargaining

To be labelled as 'fascism', or as any of its synonyms, it has to have at least numbers 1, 3, and 4, all in play or under construction.
#14585054
1. A classless society based on ethnocentrism.
2. Organised labour for the purpose of improving the workers' economic status.
3. The abolition of profit-making enterprises such as stock trading and money lending.
4. The complete nationalisation of private corporations by the central government (optional).
5. The colonisation of neighbouring countries to exploit subject peoples (optional).
6. Motivational posters and great slogans to mobilise the masses (optional).

Image
Translation: "All hopes on you, Red Army soldier!"

Adolf lived rather modestly compared to how he might've lived.


Fascism in the 1930s was a working-class movement and it was ideologically not so distant from Communism, which was why Nazi leaders lived modestly in accordance with their working-class roots. The lack of political freedom is another essential feature of fascism and over 200,000 political prisoners were locked up to silence them when Hitler came to power.
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 21 Jul 2015 21:57, edited 3 times in total.
#14585059
ThirdTerm wrote:1. A classless society based on ethnocentrism.
2. Organised labour for the purpose of improving the workers' economic status.
3. The abolition of profit-making enterprises such as stock trading and money lending.
4. The complete nationalisation of private corporations by the central government (optional).
5. The colonisation of neighbouring countries to exploit subject peoples (optional).
6. Motivational posters and great slogans to mobilise the masses (optional).


Huh? Stateless?
#14585114
Supremacy of a single Great Leader, who embodies his party and the State.
Supremacy of the State under the leader and party. The individual becomes secondary to the State or Whole and is expected to work and sacrifice for it. Industry isn't nationalized but heavily supervised by the State which ensures its goals are paramount. The State also controls education and other matters to further its objectives.
Monism, only one party and its ideology are encouraged.
#14585127
All fascist regimes explicitly reject any other legitimacy of rule but brute force and indeed celebrate it and reject the rule of law. This is implemented by the rule of vicious thugs acting without any restraint or rule of law. Of course the thugs enrich themselves, who could possibly stop them?

All of them. It's totally characteristics of fascist rule that is done by brutal , corrupt thugs.
#14585136
pugsville wrote:All fascist regimes explicitly reject any other legitimacy of rule but brute force and indeed celebrate it and reject the rule of law. This is implemented by the rule of vicious thugs acting without any restraint or rule of law.


Fascist or Statist regimes tend to have more order and discipline than ours. Murderers and rapists were regularly shot. Here if you have enough $ like O.J. you can hire a "dream team" and literally get away with murder. For years they knew very well that a mobster, M. Lansky, was guilty; they just couldn't nail him because of some stupid legal technicality.

Of course the thugs enrich themselves, who could possibly stop them?


Adolf lived rather modestly compared to how he might've lived.
#14585291
And now, we turn to the forum's leading expert on fascism:

Rei Murasame wrote:
  • 1. Palingenetic ultranationalism


The hell? Is that even a word?

(runs to wikipedia)

Okay, for anyone who is confused: "palingenesis", like "renaissance", is just a synonym for "rebirth". "Palingenetic ultranationalism" therefore means something like "national rebirth".

Rei Murasame wrote:
  • 3. Guild Socialism or some form of Syndicalism as an economic foundation
  • 4. Corporativism or Neo-Corporatism as a framework for social bargaining


What's the difference between those two?

Rei Murasame wrote:To be labelled as 'fascism', or as any of its synonyms, it has to have at least numbers 1, 3, and 4, all in play or under construction.


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? A nation has to start up and then endure extreme decay or defeat before its government can be considered fascist?

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?
#14585325
Rei's post roughly reminds me of something. A communist I know was trying to state that the separatists in East Ukraine were fascist along the criteria she stated, but particularly when it came to 'palingenetic ultranationalism'. It was done mostly to dissuade communists from having sympathies. What do you think of this, Rei?
#14585339
Regardless of Hitler personally lived the Nazi regime was massively corrupt, it was rule by brutal corrupt thugs were the rules of law were very selectively enforced. The regime was fundamentally corrupt root and branch. Hitler allowed it. From Goering to the street level thugs were engaged in massive extraction of wealth.

Fascist states have poor discipline. The Police are so hopeless comprised that their effectiveness is much reduced.
#14585340
starman2003 wrote:Supremacy of a single Great Leader, who embodies his party and the State.
Supremacy of the State under the leader and party. The individual becomes secondary to the State or Whole and is expected to work and sacrifice for it. Industry isn't nationalized but heavily supervised by the State which ensures its goals are paramount. The State also controls education and other matters to further its objectives.
Monism, only one party and its ideology are encouraged.


This is closest to my views. But I think getting a precise definition of something as varied as fascism is a fool's errand.

It's probably better to understand it through its history. It has its roots in nationalism, syndicalism, integralism, and I think, most critically, revolutionary conservatism.
#14585356
Image

Japanese fascism started off with a military coup called the February 26 Incident in 1936. The young military officers formed two fascist factions aimed at liquidating the "privileged classes", which were responsible for widespread poverty in rural areas. These young fascists believed that the coup would enable the Emperor to re-establish his authority by getting rid of his evil advisers. Kita Ikki, their spiritual leader, combined socialism with radical nationalism and his writing was a major influence on the young officer movement at the time. In 1940, the Imperial Japanese Army further engineered the fall of a moderate prime minister to be replaced with Prince Konoe, an aristocrat with ultranationalist connections.
#14585374
Saeko wrote:This is closest to my views. But I think getting a precise definition of something as varied as fascism is a fool's errand.


Right, and I think all past varieties were flawed. Something with much in common will ultimately prevail IMO but it'll be a new system in a new context.

But ultimately the Fascist state relies on violence for it's legitimacy. It's in power because of superior force.


Hitler and Mussolini enjoyed a great deal of popular support. It says much that the nazis were able to stay in power despite two years of defeats whereas just a few months of setbacks doomed the Kaiser.
Basically both regimes and others, were based on ideologies which inspired lots of people.
#14586045
Rei Murasame wrote:
  • 3. Guild Socialism or some form of Syndicalism as an economic foundation
  • 4. Corporativism or Neo-Corporatism as a framework for social bargaining


Katie Boundary wrote:
What's the difference between those two?


The first details the mass organisation of the working class, the second details the relationship of the state to both classes.

Rei Murasame wrote:To be labelled as 'fascism', or as any of its synonyms, it has to have at least numbers 1, 3, and 4, all in play or under construction.


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? A nation has to start up and then endure extreme decay or defeat before its government can be considered fascist?


One thing that must be understood is that fascism is very difficult to define. Generally, it's a case of in for a penny in for a pound; Antonio Salazar, Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet all led what are generally referred to as fascist regimes but for each of them you'll find people ready and waiting, with good arguments, to challenge that assumption.

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?


The man who led such a colony could be referred to as a Peronista. Juan Peron attempted to model his regime on Mussolini, though he leaned a little more to the left. The situation in South America, however, was very different to that in Southern Europe.

Here's a nice quote from a scholar of Italian fascism:

Renzo De Felice wrote:If we are to consider Fascism one of the major historical events of our time, use of the word cannot be extended to countries outside of Europe, nor to any period other than that between the wars. Its roots are typically European; they are inalienably linked to the changes in European society brought about by World War I and to the moral and material crisis occasioned by the conversion to a mass society with new political and social institutions.


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?


This would, to some degree, describe the early stages of Mussolini's premiership. It would also, and more accurately, describe the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Whether you'd want to call him a fascist, and I wouldn't, is up to you.
#14597589
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.
Last edited by DTG on 08 Sep 2015 14:47, edited 2 times in total.
#14597620
Katie Boundary wrote:What are the defining characteristics of fascism? How much can you strip from fascism before it's not fascism anymore?

Your question is very simple and so is the answer. The basic principle of Fascism is unity. In a political sense that means unity is the states primary consideration. Fascism lends itself to nationalism, dictatorship, and organization, but these principles are supplemental not fundamental.

Zam

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

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

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

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