[Rainbow Crow]

I was reading about Brazilian Integralists and elections in WWII era Germany and Italy. Apparently Mussolini was a gray area, while Hitler's dictatorship was something that had to be (theoretically) legislatively renewed every four years while the state of emergency (the war) lasted. Imperial Japan is often considered to have been fascist but they were truthfully an absolute monarchy, not fascist or even socialist.

What this suggests to me is that fascism is not inherently un-democratic. This conflicts with both attitudes in the US and on this forum, though, as the fascists on this forum typically have a disdain for democracy.

I found the Brazilian Integralist ideology quite appealing and would probably have even supported such a thing in theory, if it did not require a rejection of democracy.

[Rei Murasame]

Imperial Japan is often considered to have been fascist but they were truthfully an absolute monarchy, not fascist or even socialist.

You can't possibly believe this statement.

What this suggests to me is that fascism is not inherently un-democratic.

It depends on how you define it. If 'democratic' means representing the will of the entire demos and giving them all a stake in the running of the country by some method (not by just elections, though), then maybe fascism is the most 'democratic' system that has ever existed. And I'm not being sarcastic.

[Rainbow Crow]

Obviously I am talking about elections, which existed in fascist Germany and Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ ... rial_Japan

Imperial Japan was not socialist and it was led by an Emperor who inherited his position. This is not like national socialist Germany at all. So yes, I am serious when I say that Imperial Japan was not truly fascist because fascism is socialistic and came to power through the democratic process without ever completely rejecting it. I am sure this greatly offends your view of history but truly Rei, you are not even a fascist. Fascists are socially conservative, disciplined and often have a deep understanding of philosophy; you are none of those things.

[Rei Murasame]

This is not a serious conversation, then. Anyone who claims that Imperial Japan was not fascist, is clearly trolling and doesn't know the history of Japan.

I recommend the Cambridge History of Japan volume 6.

[Rainbow Crow]

Please excuse me for responding to Rei; I hope that someone else will pick up this thread and comment on it.

[Rei Murasame]

That's what I'm expecting will happen. You're presently having the same hilarious problem in your other thread that you created because of me, where other fascists have pretty much come in and re-iterated what I already had told you that fascists think.

I anticipate that the same thing will happen here, and it will save me the effort of playing history book ping pong with you for 5 pages. History is fun, but I get tired of writing gigantic posts just to have people like you bat it all aside anyway.

[mikema63]

I'm not sure how an election would work in a fascist state, what with the no free speech, disent, or protest.

[Far-Right Sage]

I have not typically been supportive of elections historically, but sometimes this is an effective manner in which to gauge a national consensus and level of support behind rival factions within the state itself, because anyone who understands the nature and function behind elections knows that they are not intended to be a free-for-all invitation for ideological outsiders to come in and muck up the state's processes. This is true in any society. In Japan, rival fascist factions competed. In the modern West, two or three liberal parties run against one another. In Iran, two Islamists run against each other. In modern Germany, parties and political movements have been banned and have had their activities curtailed for promotion of fascism which is an enshrined constitutional offense. In Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khameini picks and chooses which candidates are allowed to stand for an election.

This is not something any ideological grouping has a monopoly on. I consider myself a student of history so correct me if I am wrong, but when exactly has any dominant clique handed over power to an actual rival in an election, barring any society on the verge of collapse and heading for dissolution?

Elections, at most, in any society, are intended to determine the level of popular support for tweaking slightly the methodology of the governing consensus, not overturn the establishment.

[KlassWar]

This is not something any ideological grouping has a monopoly on. I consider myself a student of history so correct me if I am wrong, but when exactly has any dominant clique handed over power to an actual rival in an election, barring any society on the verge of collapse and heading for dissolution?

Electoral systems (political systems as a whole) are designed specifically so that this won't happen. A ruling elite has to be undergoing a thorough crisis of legitimacy in order for that kind of thing to be possible at all: If the ruling elite is strong enough, they'll protect the class basis of their rule through a coup and a dictatorship. If the masses are actually struggling to put the rivals on top, they might face no choice but to comply.

In any case, the election of an actual ideological opponent is on itself the death knell of that particular democracy: If the old elite wins, they'll install a dictatorship with the hopes of suppressing their political enemies. If the rivals manage to secure power, they'll fundamentally change the regime into their own project.

[mikema63]

I actually think the problem is that nothing short of total collapse will actually shake people out of whatever ideology they are under.

[J Oswald]

Imperial Japan is often considered to have been fascist but they were truthfully an absolute monarchy, not fascist or even socialist.

By no means was Imperial Japan an absolute monarchy. By definition, an absolute monarchy is one in which there is no constitution, whether written or unwritten, that denotes the powers granted to the monarch. Japan had a Constitution during World War II, which dated from 1890. Nor can it be said that the Emperor was acting with absolute power during the War. The Emperor's powers were greatly restrained by the real power in Japan - the military.

If you are basing your argument that Japan was not fascist on the fact that it had a monarch, then let me ask you this - was Fascist Italy a fascist country?

[Rainbow Crow]

You guys are right, Imperial Japan was not an absolute monarchy though I think it would be accurate to call it a monarchy.

Even so, is socialism an integral part of fascism or not? Because I think I was correct to say that Imperial Japan was not socialist. If socialism is not a necessary part of fascism then that would be interesting indeed.

Nazi Germany renewed Hitler's emergency powers act three times during the war. It would have been renewed a fourth time if the war hadn't ended. I have difficulty reconciling this with the common conception that fascism is inherently against holding popular elections for leadership.

[J Oswald]

Even so, is socialism an integral part of fascism or not?

That's one of those questions where the answer depends on which fascist you ask (and what definition of socialism you are using).

Because I think I was correct to say that Imperial Japan was not socialist.

Imperial Japan's economy could be broadly categorized as 'corporatist,' in the fascist sense.

If socialism is not a necessary part of fascism then that would be interesting indeed.

Again, it depends on which fascist you ask.

Nazi Germany renewed Hitler's emergency powers act three times during the war. It would have been renewed a fourth time if the war hadn't ended. I have difficulty reconciling this with the common conception that fascism is inherently against holding popular elections for leadership.

Well, the Enabling Act specified that it had to be renewed by the Reichstag four years after it was initially passed. Of course, the Reichstag was completely composed of NSDAP members by then.

[Rainbow Crow]

I am open to different fascists giving me different answers. I just hope that they are detailed. Corporatism is not really socialism as I understand it since socialism guarantees a social safety net and positive rights whereas corporatism does not guarantee these things. More to the point, I do not believe that Imperial Japan had of ever planned to have a social safety net.

As to the enabling act, they did control the Reichstag, but in many ways that is all the more reason why they could have dispensed with it if they had desired to do so.

[pugsville]

Rei - Fascism comes with the IDea that the Leader (and his small clique) absolutely know what is best and forces of repression to eliminate opposition, the subject of a nations will to the leader's vision, it's inherently undemocratic. You argument ANY system of governance may just happen represent the "will of the people" is spacious at best fascism just be the most democratic system yet, and Monarchs might to your argument can be applied to any system. As a rule no privileged elite n the history of mankind has had much trouble justify that privilege or using to for their own betterment. The more power this elite has generally the more removed from whatever 'the people' want. Fascism is one of the more absolute systems and as such it's designed to totally eliminate independent thought. You might think it trendy and fun to support such on the internet but it's fascism is brutal oppression.

[Rei Murasame]

I support it in real life, and I am very sure that lots of people don't find that fun or trendy. However it seems that you don't understand fascism and are merely parroting the usual nonsense about how the leader somehow forces everyone to obey his every command.

It's pretty absurd, and I would encourage people to actually study fascism rather than just reheating these stale liberal talking-points and pushing them across the table at me.

[Rainbow Crow]

I am studying fascism and yet you won't answer my questions!

[starman2003]

I actually think the problem is that nothing short of total collapse will actually shake people out of whatever ideology they are under.

Certainly a serious failure is required. But not total collapse. That didn't occur prior to Gorby throwing in the towel around 1989.

[mikema63]

I may have been inserting my own conclusions about the US.

[Rainbow Crow]

On a tangential note, apparently Mussolini's Italy wasn't socialist either.

He has lots of interesting quotes, apparently he said "The socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the socialists."