Can you explain fascism? I just don’t understand what it means as a coherent ideology. I read the Wiki article, which was very long winded, but I am no closer to understanding it.
Here are some of my ideas of what I think fascism encompases, although I am quite sure I am missing a lot.
It is controling. I think the government has a high degree of control over everyday life. Things like where a person can travel and what kind of business they open are controled by the government. But isn’t this true of modern N. Korea also, and it isn’t fascist.
It is nationalistic. The superiority of one’s own country over all others in emphasized. But this is generally true of America, and we aren’t fascist (no jokes please)
It is militaristic. Military strength is important and usually participation in the military is required. But this was also true in the Soviet Union, and they were communist, not fascist.
It almost seems like if you go far enough to the right, and far enough to the left, you end up at the same place. Far left communism and far right fascism seem very similar in the end. What is un-fascist about North Korea, for example?
So what am I missing in understand the ideology of fascism?
A fascist state really sort of comes down to nationalism (which is generally coupled with racism). It would be like if everything the government, business, or average person did, he did it for his country. Any foreigners or people of other race in the country will just mess everything up and cause crime. If a business wants to do something that they can convince the government will be good for the people or the country, all legal obstructions will be cleared away for it. On the other hand, if a business does something that makes the country look bad, It Must Stop Now. If the media releases information that makes the country or its people look bad, It Must Stop Now.
Historic fascist states were indeed heavily invested in their military, but personally I’d argue that this probably isn’t necessary. Modern day Japan is, probably, a low-key fascist state minus the interest in military. Unlike communism, fascism is a thing that continue more-or-less successfully for decades. Really all it is, is a sort of down-home approach to governance where everyone agrees that they’re all family and proceed on that footing, whereas in the US, businesses, the government, media, etc. are all combative with one another.
Well, yes, the very far right and very far left have a lot in common. In one way or another, they attract similar personality types.
Fascist ideology was thoroughly discredited after WWII, so the only ones supporting it are nutcases. The big issue is that fascism assumed a supreme leader; the rest of the ideology was pretty much window dressing. It was also anti-communist.
Much of the rest were just functions of a state with a supreme leader: military buildup allows him to look more powerful and feed his ego. Nationalism – with the state equating with the leader – also works in the same way. Control is necessary to prevent the possibility of a coup or revolution.
Fascist philosophy tended to be ad hoc to fit the prejudices of the nation it was in. In Germany, there was a push for the purity of the German race. But in Finland, the fascist movement was proud of the mixed heritages in the country and considered that better than being purely Finnish.
There are plenty of fascist-like states today (e.g., Zimbabwe) where the supreme leader controls everything, but they don’t call themselves such because of the bad examples in WWII.
There will always be questions of definition- do you call the right-wing military juntas of Latin America “fascist” or not? But fwiw, here’s my 2¢:
In the twentieth century, there was widespread political reaction against the Capitalist-Democratic model of society, by various nations and peoples who felt that such a model did not serve their needs. Very broadly, the reaction took two forms:
Those nations that were poorly industrialized and had never had much of a Capitalist-Democratic society at all, especially the colonialized nations of the third world, claimed that the whole thing was a scam designed to enrich the industrial powers at their expense and in reaction adopted various denominations of Marxism.
The second form arose in those nations that were industrialized or at least partly so, and yet had not as a result enjoyed the power and wealth of the “winning” nations; who believed that the Capitalist-Democratic model had let them down. This second class included defeated Germany, perpetually third-rate Italy, and a Japan struggling to reach first-rate power status. These nations adopted systems of political, economic and social views that are broadly lumped together as “fascist”.
The common features of such systems are a rejection of the main features of a Capitalist-Democratic society:
[ul]
[li]the free market is denounced for it’s ability to produce nation-crippling economic downturns, and while not wanting to put all material production under government control, adopts various forms of fiat control over the economy designed to put the economy on a command basis. The model used is broadly similar to the total mobilization used by the European powers during World War One, only maintained indefinitely in peacetime.[/li][li]Political pluralism is seem as merely inviting chaos and gridlock in the face of vital national concerns. The ruling political apparatus above all else needs the authority to carry out the programs it insists are necessary to national survival. Dissent is obstructionism and to be unsentimentally smashed.[/li][li]Both previous features are similar to a war mentality, and so fascist states become militaristic even in peacetime. The model is of society as an army, where top-down control produces action. A Darwinistic view of international relations makes a strong military necessary for the inevitable struggle for resources, living space, and the preeminence necessary to safeguard the nation against all threats.[/li][li]To whatever extent Capitalist-Democratic societies are multiethnic and tolerant, fascism rejects this. Often an irrational, mystic belief in a national or racial “soul” is glorified. This communal “life force” is held to be the enabling power which, if the people and nation remain true to it, will assure their continuation and triumph.[/li][/ul]
fascist is what they call authoritarian non-Communist regimes especially if they have a distinct ideology. E.g. authoritarian non-Communist Franco was called a fascist because initially some of his support came from ideologically driven Falangue movement (subsequently he suppressed them). The two dictators of South Korea or Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore are usually not called fascists except by local leftists who strongly disliked them.
Except, come to think of it, Franco was as peaceful as they get and had no use for big military (who to fight against?). And the South Korean military regimes had no choice but to maintain big military to defend against DPRK.
Another set of peaceful “fascists” were the authoritarian government of Austria before the Anschluss. These guys kept the country together via repressive tactics against both Communist and Nazi extremists until the German tanks showed up.
In short, fascism is very much in the eyes of the beholder.
Welcome to the problem I face every year in my AP European History classes. The best I can do is point to the classic examples and say “Those are fascist.” There really is no over-riding dogma. There are indicators, but there are contradictions everywhere.
Fascists openly embrace a Cult of Personality. Their ideology is that there are people who are born to rule. Communists often end up with absolute leaders (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim 1 & 2, Castro, Tito, Ho, etc) but they at least give lip service to the egalitarian principle that the national leader is just “first among equals”.
Communist also tend to be inclusive. Their ideology is that everyone is a potential Communist. Theoretically Communism will result in a single state where all people live together equally.
Fascists, on the other hand, are elitists. Their ideology is that there is some group that is better than all the others. So that group should be ruling everyone else.
OK, from what I’m getting fascism is the ultimate ‘us’ versus ‘them.’ Whatever builds ‘us’ up is good, and individualism can profit the person at the expense of the group, so that’s right out.
So would you consider modern North Korea to be fascist? Group mentality, hatred of the other or foreigner, strong leader, etc.
And what personality type would that be, Chuck? :dubious:
It does fascism a disservice to apply the “I know it when I see it” definition, since as has been pointed out, that allows people to slap the label ‘fascist’ on anything they don’t particularly like. Fascism has very definite social and political roots, and arises under fairly specific circumstances - mainly, at times of economic and political crisis.
Trotsky’s book Fascism, Stalinism, and the United Front has an essay entitled “What is National Socialism?” that IMO provides a good analysis of where fascism comes from. Essentially, it comes from what Marxists often called the ‘petty bourgeoisie’ but what most here might call the ‘lower middle class’ - people with some education and a skilled job, but who are definitely not on the way up and are more likely hanging on by the skin of their teeth in times of crisis. When the shit hits the fan, they resent the representatives of big business and big government that seem to be eroding their way of life, but at the same time they’re dead convinced that the socialists and communists are an even worse threat. They look to a glorified history of their country as an ideal, but only insofar as that country provides a safeguard of personal property (including salaries). Racism is certainly an element in the fascist philosophy, whether it’s glorification of one’s own race or more-or-less organized hatred of the ‘outsider’ who seems to be ruining the country. (In that vein, and this is not meant as a political potshot, I feel the Teabagger movement represents the first faint stirrings of a mainstream fascist organization. They’re not anywhere close to there yet, but it’s a mistake to wave them away as a bunch of annoying loonies. They have the potential to be quite dangerous.)
Fascists draw on this discontent and anger and organize it into movements, and then power bases, from which they can move into leadership positions in society. (Not that this technique is in and of itself a bad thing; organizing people can be used for good and bad ends, much like a knife can be used to either perform a tracheotomy or to slit someone’s throat.) This is one important distinction that separates things like a military dictatorship from genuine fascism. A military dictatorship rests on the strength of the military alone to control and compromise with the different classes of society; its power does not rest on a social base but is rather separate from and above society as a whole. Likewise, authoritarianism is an indispensable element of fascism, but that does not mean that all authoritarian governments are fascist. I wouldn’t consider insanely authoritarian North Korea fascist, insofar as its creation was the result of Cold War horse-trading rather than a genuine takeover of Korea by a party with roots in a disaffected middle class.
I’ve always made the distinction this way. A communist says “Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.” And a fascist says “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Finland fought the USSR during the Winter War and the Continuation War, and so was on the side of Germany, then fought against Germany at the end in the Lapland War, after a separate peace with the Soviets. They retained a democratic government through the war, and Finland was a relatively safe place for Jews - they handed 8 Jewish refugees over to the Nazis.
Finland is an interesting case. Every time I think about Finland in WW2, I wonder what they could have done / should have done differently. Obviously 8 possibilities immediately suggest themselves, but aside from that, what better course could they set?
This has always bugged me, nagging me like a pesky gnat in my ear-in reality, it just don’t add up.[/FoghornLeghorn]
Quick thought experiment: an alien pops into our solar system in mid 1941, observes the Eastern Front bloodbath for awhile, then seeks out a knowledgeable human observer/expert. He asks the expert, “Why are these two so seemingly similar political systems so intent on destroying each other? What exactly, in practice, is the big overriding difference(s) between the fascists and communists which makes them so eager to utterly annihilate each other?” I.e. not the often BS propangandistic theoretics involved, but the actual in-play distinctions? What could you tell the alien that would convince him that, yes, they aren’t alike at all and hence the often-murderous enmity is justified (insofar as genocidal tendencies can be)?
I would regard anything communists say about fascists to be as biased as anything fascists say about communists. Neither side can provide an objective analysis of its sworn enemy.
That was the point I was making. The people I named all promoted systems that placed them on a level above other people. And I certainly include Stalin in that - any adulation he directed towards Lenin was really intended to reflect on to himself. “How smart was Lenin? He was so smart he picked me to replace him.”
It was their simularities not their differences that drove the conflict. They were two systems that both thought they should rule the world and there was only one world to be ruled.
If you had to pick who was worse, you’d go with Hitler because he was more aggressive in trying to take over the world. Stalin was willing to wait for the right opportunity. That’s what made it possible to coexist with the Soviets but not the Nazis.
