What are the primary characteristics of 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.
#13645468
Communism can be easily summed up with the statement of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and the notion of the abolition of private property - a summary further fleshed out by the ten planks of the manifesto - so with regards to fascism, what are the key characteristics of a fascist state/society and of fascist ideology?
By Preston Cole
#13645486
I recently talked about this on a different forum, and what I said there pretty much applies here as well.

- Palingenetic nationalism (although modernist nationalisms like that of Juche or China aren't excluded)
- Antidemocracy
- Social and economic corporatism
- Emphasis on military organization (militarism)
- Social Darwinism (this took extreme forms under Nazism, but you must accept that, generally, a strong and merit-based elite is the only group of people fit to govern a disciplined society)
- Political intolerance and intolerant mentality (intolerance in the sense that the good of the community should not be sacrificed for the good of the individual)
- Mass regimentation
User avatar
By starman2003
#13646009
I agree with most of that, even if for me, nationalism would be just an interim tool. As for social darwinism, it isn't really consistent with meritocracy because some bright people come from poor backgrounds. I'd prefer a much more proactive social policy, which would involve not only nurturing the best but getting rid of the worst systematically i.e. not waiting for them to screw up and die in their own (it would be more economical that way). ;)
By Preston Cole
#13646117
starman2003 wrote:As for social darwinism, it isn't really consistent with meritocracy because some bright people come from poor backgrounds.

Social Darwinism isn't about wealth; it's about ability. It's quite similar to meritocracy in this respect.

Obviously, the sort of Darwinism that we find in the jungle, or the one espoused by the Nazi Party, wouldn't be applied in a modern fascist state. Human Darwinism should more accurately define the progress of gifted/professional individuals over people that lack them.
User avatar
By starman2003
#13646781
I have doubts about the use of the term darwinism, since in many cases, a bright individual can't succeed solely due to his own abilities but requires help from the state (this in sharp contrast to nature). Without access to higher education for people from all classes, and even help since early childhood, indeed prenatal, the cream (or all of it) can't rise to the top.
By Kman
#13646839
Fascists dont believe in the good effects of Darwinism, they might say they support it but they dont allow any of the mechanisms to exist that punishes the weak and rewards the strong, they dont allow:

Free enterprise (a system that rewards intelligent and efficient producers over stupid producers)

Free speech (a system where ideas compete against each other and the strongest idea wins)

Democratic elections (a system where political parties compete against each other to win elections)

Free trade (a system where companies compete against other companies around the world)

Fascists dont like competition in general and competition is what drives evolution and darwinism, what they believe in is not competition it is control to make sure that their favourite people do well by abusing state power, it is a system that rewards stupidity more than anything else.
By Preston Cole
#13646958
Bullshit.

Your idea of "intelligent people" differs from our idea. Our concept of strength and intelligence involves dedication to the Fatherland, respect for your community, history and culture, whereas your liberal variant of Darwinism forfeits all those things.

Kman wrote:Democratic elections (a system where political parties compete against each other to win elections)

What competition? Democracy is the system wherein the most cunning attempt to fool the people by the means of words and promises, not to mention buy their way into government. This wouldn't be a problem in a nihilistic, valueless society, but in a world where the national interest should prevail above all, democracy is a cancer-like parasite.

Democracy is the cult of words. Fascism is the cult of action. Simple as that.

Kman wrote:Free speech (a system where ideas compete against each other and the strongest idea wins)

You mean free speech for the sake of individual assertion. Fascism believes in useful, not free, speech. The morals of our ideology stress that only useful speech (opinions on how to govern the country according to the national interest, excluding other things such as the welfare of multinational corporations and the free economy) leads to a stable and strong society--which is what ultimately matters for each and every one of our citizens.

starman wrote:I have doubts about the use of the term darwinism, since in many cases, a bright individual can't succeed solely due to his own abilities but requires help from the state (this in sharp contrast to nature). Without access to higher education for people from all classes, and even help since early childhood, indeed prenatal, the cream (or all of it) can't rise to the top.

Indeed. Which is why I'm stressing the difference between traditional jungle Darwinism and our civilized Darwinism. Maybe my (and your) ideas smell more of meritocracy rather than Darwinism per se, but it really doesn't matter what we label these beliefs: the principle lies in the fact that only professional and talented individuals should be involved in state-related and economic activities.
User avatar
By starman2003
#13647413
..in a world where the national interest should prevail above all, democracy is a cancer-like parasite.


Well put. :) To be perfectly honest, any attempt to gain political power must involve a great deal of manipulation and fooling of the masses. :lol: IMO the key difference is that fascist (I'd much prefer a new word) politicians don't want power just for the sake of personal prestige or enrichment. They want power to further some great cause, above anybody's personal interest. In a democracy like ours, politicians have no problem with keeping stupid promises, and not just making them. They don't care if their constituents waste the national wealth on individuals, as long as they retain the wealth and prestige of office. Fascists or wholists may promise exactly the same nonsense but only to get power needed to overturn the rotten system.

a system where ideas compete against each other and the strongest idea wins


You gotta be joking mister. :roll: Under democracy, the ideas that "win" are absolute hogwash. Politicians have to lower themselves to the level of holy joes even screwy creationists, to win votes. The majority of people aren't renowned for gray matter; by empowering them, uncle sam sounds like he deserves a dunce cap.
User avatar
By Iron Fascist
#13651415
Democracy is the cult of words. Fascism is the cult of action. Simple as that.

This sums up my views exactly. Democracy is about lipservice while accomplishing nothing except getting reelected. Fascism is about improving things even if it means making great sacrifices in order to do so.
By Social_Critic
#13651422
I don't want to make those sacrifices you want me to make. I'd rather have free speech and the ability to get somebody else to run things.
User avatar
By starman2003
#13652105
I don't want to make those sacrifices you want me to make.


Oh of course not. Why pay taxes for a better military or space program when I can get to spend more on booze, candy bars and porn? Why emphasize investment when I can run up big debts and live beyond my means? It is precisely because many people have this attitude that democracy is obsolete. Inevitably it'll crack and we'll have a better system if it has to be rammed down their throats.

I'd rather have free speech..


Like "freedom" generally, a dangerous luxury; in a realistic system, only those with a modicum of gray matter and sense of responsibility speak publicly and make decisions.
User avatar
By YourHighness
#13652330
I thought that this was a nice piece - explained well

‎14 POINTS OF FASCISM
http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).
By Amanita
#13652346
The author is obviously attempting to make a point against the US in a very cheesy manner.
By Preston Cole
#13652349
YourHighness wrote:Liberal nonsense.

What was all that crap?

Seriously, if you're not going to talk about fascism from an illiberal point of view, don't bother posting pro-liberal nonsense.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13652385
Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

Pinochet did not run a fascist regime, but an authoritarian neo-liberal one. It is also dubious to claim that Franco was running a fascist regime - the Falangists were politically sidelined at an early stage of the regime's existence.
User avatar
By YourHighness
#13652558
Here's a great quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of the government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."
User avatar
By Section Leader
#13652572
YourHighness wrote:Here's a great quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of the government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."

Propaganda isn't very helpful in defining poltical ideology.
User avatar
By YourHighness
#13652578
I don't blame you for going on the attack when you can't address the points I made that are making you uncomfortable. Don't worry about it. I'm sure you'll convince yourself that your lack of an civil/reasonable response was somehow proper and made you look like an intellectual among your peers. :)
User avatar
By Fasces
#13652691
Your points are illogical, largely because Franklin Roosevelt was the closest to fascism the United States ever got, and who openly admired many aspects of its economic theory, and, along with his advisers, looked to it for inspiration for the New Deal. Your other points are similarly irrelevant, largely because they are limited by looking at the most egregious examples of 'fascism'. You cannot ignore the fascism of Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, or China when attempting to develop a list of characteristics of fascism. Evita Peron, a woman, was democratically elected on a fascistic platform. How does that relate to points five or fourteen? Fascism is explicitly anticlerical in philosophy, and Hitler was openly disdainful of it. How does that relate to point eight? Getulio Vargas is known in Brazil as the Father of the Poor, and Peron is still well-loved in Argentina for his support for labor. Where did point ten go? Never mind the fact that point nine is likely entirely based on a attributed quote and illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of corporatism.

That aside, let's not forget that there is no Dr. Laurence Britt. He is not a real person. Laurence Britt is a former corporate executive, and has one published work, a novel of dystopian fiction. The list was published openly as an editorial and attack on the Bush administration, and does not represent any element of scholarly work by a researcher. It is trash.
User avatar
By starman2003
#13652864
..the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents.


Around the late thirties some holy joe, the pope IIRC, slammed nazism as "the greatest apostacy from jesus christ." Lip service aside, there's no doubt that its program was antithetical to holy bs. Mussolini was an atheist btw.

That’s not what Hitler found in 1939-1945. :) Hi[…]

Weird of you to post this, you always argued that[…]

World War II Day by Day

Not legally dubious at all. I suspect there's a[…]

No, this was definitely not true for the first th[…]