Definition of "Fascist"

Factual Questions
21

Oops! What I meant to say was:

Nobody understood fascism better than Dimitrov, here interrogating Herman Goering during the infamous 1933 Reichstag fire trial. The fascists tried to frame him for the crime, but he conducted a brilliant, aggressive defense and was aquitted.

Dimitrov was in Germany during the rise of fascism and was well positioned to understand it’s innner workings, as opposed to it’s public face.
Reporting to the 7th Congress of the Comintern in 1935 Dimitrov defined fascism thus:

“The open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital.”
This boils fascism down to its essentials. You never see this definition outside of Marxist literature. Why? Because it fingers finance capital as *the * primary force behind fascism. Since finance capital runs the system, it has the power to make certain that this fact is not widely disseminated.

When finance capital’s rule is seriously threatened, it abandons democracy and resorts to fascism.

22

I found *The anatomy of fascism* to be a good analysis of the subject.

23

Well, and of course, in Korea, China, and Indochina. Mao, Kim Il Sung, and Ho Chi Minh cut their teeth as resistance fighters against the Japanese first. If they focused less on Communism domestically, it was because Communism was so much less of a threat domestically in Japan that it was in Europe, in large part because the Emperor was so highly regarded, and Comminism is republican. But I don’t think the Japanese millitarists had any better feelings for Communism than the Nazis or the Italian Fascists.

24

Actually, you will never see this definition outside Marxist literature because it requires a Marxist filtered world view to try to wedge fascism into that definition. Finance capital was extremely important in supporting the rise of Mussolini, but Germany’s capitalists had to be “brought on board” after the movement arose among the disaffected lower income elements. In Spain, there were so many warring factions on both sides of the Left/Right split that a claim that “finance” either called for or made possible the fascist victory are seriously overblown. Dimitrov’s definition also ignores the populist nature of the the movement, its use of a linchpin personality to drive it, and its serious appeal to perceived ethnic glory, all hallmarks of fascist movements.
.

I don’t think they had any love for the Communists, either. I just think that “anti-communism” is more of an byproduct of their fascism than a defining characteristic of it. At the time that the Japanese signed the Anti-Comintern pact, they would not actively face Mao (who was still in the South and had already been engaged in civil war for nine years) for another year and had no contact with French Indochina so that Ho Chi Minh was not an actual opponent. Beyond that, the language of the Anti-Comintern Pact was pretty explicitly directed aainst the Soviet Union, although there was lip service to opposing world wide Communism.

We probably are not that far apart. I agree that anti-Communism is pretty much a boilerplate plank in fascist programs; I just don’t see it as a defining aspect of the movement. (Clearly, it was a defining aspect of fascism if we limit it to Italy, Germany,and Spain.)

25

Maybe I am simply showing my ignorance in the political sciences, but how can anti communism be considered a defining aspect of fascism in any of these countries (maybe Spain is the exception)? The problem with saying that Anti Communism is a defining characteristic of fascism is that the fascists didn’t become anti communist until WWII was in full swing. Stalin was very friendly with Germany Italy and Japan for a long time before things got ugly between them. After that they were more anti Russia than specifically anti communist. The rounded up the communists mostly because the communists were trying to overthrow the German and Italian governments, they were political prisoners in the same category ass the anarchists. Ultimately every system of government is anti anything that threatens that system.

One last thing and then I will happily fade back into lurker territory, are we sure that we can really consider Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan as Fascist governments at all? I bring this up only because people are using examples of things done in Germany and Japan to support and refute a definition of Fascism, but I always thought that Nazism was a totally different flavor of dictatorship form Fascism, and that the Japanese were simply an Imperialist monarchy. This would leave only Italy and Spain as true Fascist countries. Maybe I am wrong, but if these 4 governments were in fact different can we use what they did as examples of Fascism at all?

26

Now you go too far the other way.

Mussolini came to power with an explicit campaign against the communist movement in Italy (and his case, actually provided support for Dimitrov’s assertion, since he was able to get a lot of early financing from the monied interests in the country).

An anti-communist campaign was also central to Hitler’s efforts, although it had more to do with a power struggle than an appeal to the hearts and minds of the German people. While Dimitrov was able to avoid conviction, the burning of the Reichstag was still used as an excuse to impose legal restrictions on the Communist party, eventually leading to its banning. This eliminated the party as a threat to the Nazis.

In Spain, the Communists were a rather small faction within the broad coalition of socialists and anarcho-syndicalists who supported the Republic against Franco and the military, but Franco held them up as the exemplar of “the enemy” and Stalin’s support for the Republicans ( that was fun to type) cemented the notion in many minds that Franco was actually opposing Communist tyranny instead of trying to overthrow the elected government.

The various non-aggression pacts and “neutral” alliances that the Soviets signed with various fascist states were never true allinaces, but simply measures to stall for time before one side or the other put aside the pretense and launched an attack.

27

Oh, and Stalin was never friendly withthe Japanese. The Soviets and Japanese even fought a proto war (giving Zukhov experience in tank tactics) at Khalkin Gol in 1939. (The Japanese loss caused the “Northern” policy supporters to lose face, leading to the ascendance of the “Southern” policy supporters, leading to the further war with China and the invasions of Southeast Asia and Oceania that led to the “Co-Prosperity Sphere” and eventaul war with the U.S.)

28

So what’s a crypto-fascist?

29

Crypto-fascist is a simple compund word. Usually it is used to mean “hidden fascist,” or one who outwardly shows signs of liberalism, or at least middle-of-the-roadism, but who is deep in their hearts a fascist. Usually directed at Republicans and conservatives in general.

If you have ever encountered the Left when they want points of view they disagree with silenced, then you have encountered true crypto-fascists. :smiley:

(The above is strictly personal opinion, and should not be construed to be an attack on any person associated with this Board.)

30

Point. I do have a tendency to oversimplify things, its something I am working on. Admitting you have a problem, I am told, is the first step to recovery. :smiley: That said, Russia and Japan were allies for a while, if uneasy ones, weren’t they? I know that doesn’t make them friends, but they didn’t HATE each other.

The other thing is that while, yes, I suppose you could say that Germany and Italy were anti Communist earlier in their fascist regime, but it always seemed to me that they were anti communist the way that Republicans are Anti-Democrat (or Democrats are anti Republican), that is to say, they were more interested in discrediting them to help their own party achieve and maintain power rather than actually trying to wipe out anyone who might hold communist beliefs. (that came later). Is this incorrect? I admit that I am not an expert in this area of history so I may be totally misunderstanding what was going on at the time.

The above is all totally nit picky anyway and only tangentially related to the OP, my real question (that is related to the OP) is, can you really consider the Third Reich Fascist, or Imperial Japan for that matter? Again I am not an expert but my Poli Sci professor always told us that Nazis were not in fact Fascists, they were Nazis (National Socialists), and that while Nazism and Fascism are similar they are not actually the same. So if we are using the Third Reich’s behavior to create a definition of Fascism aren’t we doing things backwards? What I mean is, shouldn’t there be an ideal definition existing independently of any particular regime? No country has ever been a pure political entity that I am aware of, so looking at a country or group of countries to create a definition will create many many exceptions. What were Mussolini’s ideals when he was taking over? What were Franco’s? So far the only thing that seems to be necessary for Fascism is authoritarian control under a single dictator, with stringent socioeconomic controls. I am sure there has to be more to it than that but everything else posted seems to be more a byproduct of the above than a founding principle.

Or maybe I don’t know what I am talking about.

31

From 1904 through 1905, a newly modernized Japan waged a war against Russia in a fight over the Russian presence in Manchuria (that Japan felt was its own private hunting preserve). The Japanese humiliated the Russians, winning several land battles and utterly destroying the Russian fleet.

There may have been some uneasy truce during WWI, but by the 1930s, Japan was looking to expand out from its Manchurian holdings into Siberia. I can think of no period in which they could have been remotely considerd “allies.”
(The closest they came to non-aggression was during WWII when neither declared war on the other until August 1945 so that Allied aircrews landing damaged or wind blown aircraft in the Soviet Union were interned as having invaded a “neutral” country. Then, at the request of the U.S., the Soviets declared war on Japan in August, 90 days after the collapse of Germany.)

This would be true if the Republicans organized gangs to go out and beat up anyone identified as a Democrat and then passed laws prohibiting the Democrats from existing as a party and putting Democrat leaders in jail–or assassinating them.

Mussolini waged what amounted to street warfare against the Communists in his effort to come to power in 1921.
The Nazis also employed their brownshirts to tear up Comunist meetings and then used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to actually outlaw the Communist Party.

32

Your prof is using the capital “F” Fascist in the manner that Polycarp noted in the OP, as a particular political party that occurred in Italy.

However, he is being just a bit disingenuous. Lower case “f” fascist has been the word used to describe a particular form of political movement since the 1930s (at least). Note the traits outlined in the first post by Silenus. Quite a few countries established political parties (many of whom siezed power) in Europe* from the 1920s through the 1930s. The label fascist was given to all the parties that matched the traits outlined in that post (subject to some of the qualifying discussion that has occurred in subsequent posts), and the label was given to them at the time they formed. Note the use of the word in this 1938 Colliers Year Book reproduced on Encarta. They clearly identified multiple national movements as fascist, not just that of Italy. You might (go back and) point out to your prof that it is just a bit presumptuous to tell the whole world that they are using a word incorrectly–particularly the people who actually lived through a particular historical period one is studying.
*And in Japan, subject to any further bickering we do.

33

In the broadest sense, of course, I’ve always thought George Orwell summed up the spirit of Fascism perfectly:

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

More interesting than the ties between Fascism and Big Business is Fascism’s self-regard as a bunch of thugs holding down the fort while the gentlemanly monarch is temporarily indisposed. On a self-serving natural order, these thugs saw themselves as above the average fellow by virtue of his greater brute strength.

Remember that Facist Italy was still a monarchy under the same dynasty set up by Garibaldi, and that Franco, “The Sentry who is never relieved,” saw himself as a caretaker until the king of Spain could be returned to the throne.

There was no question of this in Nazi Germany, but then Spainiards and Italians were comfortable with madmen and genetic imbeciles on their thrones, and only aquiesed to having strongmen as middle managers in hopes that they’d bring them up to the levels of the more developed nations. Hitler saw himself as much, much more than a stongman, and had no intention of replacing the old monarchy of Germany or Austria (in fact, he had those same children for whose sake Franz Ferdinand, with his dying words, had pleaded in vain for his wife Sofie to live, kept in a concentration camp).

Hitler had no intention of saving ancient dynasties or of even starting one of his own (fearing that, like the only other Great German with whom he could be compared, Goethe, his offspring would be mentally retarded as well). Here Nazism goes Fascism one better: mankind should be kept in a constant state of vitalizing, cleansing violence, from top to bottom.

Fascists, by contrast, are like the football squad in your high school: they’ve been given the best uniforms and feel welcome to roam the halls and beat down on whomever they please, but in their black heart of hearts, they know they lack the capacity and even the true desire to run the place.

34

See, this is why I love the SDMB, you show up thinking you know something and someone comes along to show you that you don’t know nothing. Good, I stand corrected and am glad to have learned. I still think we are miscommunicating a bit with the whole anti communism angle, but there is a good chance if we probe that one further I will end up really looking like an ass, so return to your regularly schedualed thread. :smiley:

35

NAF1138, If it’s any consolation, I was going to chime in and agree with you (it seemed to me that it just happened that the countries being used as a blueprint for “fascism” all happened to have a large, common enemy, which happened to be Communist) until **Tom **came in flinging facts around.

36

Here are a couple of good reads on the subject:

Umberto Eco’s Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt

David Neiwert’s Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis
This last one is written from an explicitly left-wing perspective, and contemplates the potential for the rise of a true American fascism, so YMMV as to whether or not you agree with his conclusions, but it is a well researched and thoughtful piece.

37

Guess I should point out with regard to the Neiwert piece that the stuff directly dealing with the definition of Fascism starts at part three.

38

In HS, we learned it as “The belief that the government/group/etc is more important than the individuals”

39

What would be the opposite of fascism?

40

This question presupposes some sort of direct measure of politics in which there is always an equal and opposite counterpart to any movement. The reality is much fuzzier. Certainly, a freely elected representative government that did not rely on a charismatic leader, made no appeal to the supremacy of its ethnic constituency, was not driven by an unholy alliance between corporate money and the political leadership, permitted a free press, and avoided military adventurism and faux populist demagoguery would be antithetical to a fascist state. On the other hand, several political models could be said to be the “opposite” of fascism, with various adherents and opponents arguing at length over the validity of the claims.