The elevation of nationalism to the status of religion, with national symbols and rituals regarded as sacred, and criticism of national policy considered anti-nation just as religious dissent is considered heretical or anti-God. Also, the use of emotionally-charged mass public opinion to stifle and intimidate legitimate dissent or free thinking.
The unbridled use of force to accomplish a political goal without regard to the rule of law or principles of fairness.
I think your first definition is weak in that it dosent reflect the crushing of opposition and the promotion of one particular trait which are necessary for any ideal to be labelled “fascist”.
Fascism seems to include a might-makes-right component. Ie, I doubt Hitler would have let a court interfere with his sending someone to a prison camp, even to the extent of establishing guilt.
The Leader gives an order, and it must be obeyed. All kinds of rationalization for this, ie it is a time of war or national danger, but basically no error-checking.
I always thought that facism basically meant a collusion to rule between military leaders and industrial forces. That means that any use of the term “facist” to describe a civilian-led government, even if it is overrun by business concerns, is a little suspect as a usage.
I still have the problem that this reads on any form of absolutist government (including communist). At a minimum, I think you have to work in the concept of right wing as opposed to left wing totalitarianism (though the early fascist philosophies purported to combine elements of both, e.g., national “socialism.”)
I don’t think “fascism” has a really clear-cut definition, other than a historical one. The term refers to a particular time and place, and others may have some resemblance to “fascism” as it was practiced during those years, without actually being “fascist”.
I would call it a subset of totalitarianism (the belief in the individual’s complete subservience to the state, and leadership by an all-powerful dictator or party).
What distinguishes fascism from Soviet-style communism is the economic model practiced (a mixture of state-run and private enterprise), the racial supremacy aspect (although Italian-style fascism seems to have laid much less emphasis on this, other than some rhetoric about a ‘new Roman empire’), and the glorification of military symbols and regalia (though the Soviets did this as well).
Another aspect is a belief in such things as social Darwinism and eugenics - again, more pronounced in the German variety.
Malthus, though fascist regimes hold more often than not racist ideas, this is general seen as seperate from fascism (i.e. it is still possible to be fascist without any of the racist ideology). I think you have to look at it more generally, that is to say facist regimes discriminate against certain groupings within society.
I agree that racism is not essential for fascism - indeed, I don’t think any one feature distinguishes fascism from other forms of totalitarianism or authoritarianism – hence, the difficulty at arriving at an acceptably specific definition, isolated from time and place.
For example, in my post above I mentioned Italian Fascism, which did not have a particularly strong racial ideology, as far as I know.
Indeed, while there are certain obvious similarities between Il Duce and Hitler, there are also some glaring differences - Hitler was obsessed with the Jews, whereas Mussolini was not, for example.
Now Mussolini was no nice guy - he used his thugs to beat and kill political opponents - but neither did he build death camps for the disfavoured.
As I said, it is very, very difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition.
In order to understand that, one has to understand how the name developed.
Mussolini coined the term, based (I believe) on the Latin for a bundle of rods (used by the Romans as symbols of authority).
Mussolini was initially greeted with much approval - his style of modernized authoritarianism was seen by many as a counterbalance to communism and as the “wave of the future”. So fascism, used nowadays as a term of disapproval, was (in the '20s) used as a term of approval by many.
Hitler’s party gladly adopted much of the tactics and appearance of Mussolini’s fascists - and the term itself.
However, Hiltler’s party was in fact very different than Mussolini’s in a number of ways. Yet the term “fascist”, meaning (essentially) right-wing or anticommunist totalitarian, got applied to both.
After the war, “fascism” simply became a term of abuse, directed particularly at any who display (or who is said to display) excessively right-wing views.
Certainly. Soviet-style communism had a lot of fascist-style elements from Stalin’s cult of personality to the goose-stepping in Red Square. Communism empahsizes equality, fascism emphasizes control. The one does not exclude the other.
[/quote]
No. 2 seems to cover pretty much all of man’s inhumanity to man.
[quote]
I said political. This excludes crime for personal gain.
That’s correct, the “fasces”. You can see one in today’s Doonesbury. The symbolic idea is that fragile rods or twigs become strong when many are bundled together. Bundled, mind you; held together in place, and pointed in the direction the ruler decides to point them.
Slightly off centre, but it’s not the only usage of fasces as a symbol - the canton flag for St. Gallen in Switzerland also has a bundle of fasces, as I noticed at a train station a few months ago.
Another element of fascism is the economic element. Fascism is the alliance of the state and corporations. The Nazi state was supported by corporate cartels, Krupp, IG Farben, ITT, Standard Oil, SKF, etc.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.”
–Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy
This view is echoed by Chomsky:
“Personally, I’m in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can’t have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be establishedat every level–there’s little bargaining, a little give and take,but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I’m opposed to political fascism, I’m opposed to economic fascism. I think that until the major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it’s pointless to talk about democracy.”
America is certainly slouching toward fascism, perhaps we have already arrived. Fascism evolves and it seems American fascism is a kinder gentler variety. The American state does not have to execute people who dissent because it knows that the dissent is impotent, and most of the population has already voluntarily submitted to a rigid ideological mind control that would make Goebbels and Stalin green with envy.
Now this is a primo example of the ways in which the definition of “fascism” gets misused to pursue or support a particular agenda.
According to old Chompsky & friends, those who do not subscribe to their particular opinions as to the proper ordering of society are all “fascists”.
Why is that bad? What, after all, is wrong with being a fascist? I think Chompsky is a nut - am I then a “fascist”? If so, how is that bad?
Because of associations. Everyone associates “fascism” with death camps and other horrors. So, despite the fact that the USA does not in fact have death camps or any of the other unplesantries caused by the fascist regimes, if it can somehow be defined as fascist, it can be lumped together with the rest.
How is this sort of smear possible? Because, as I said before, there is no really good definition of what “fascism” actually means. So a person can take a particular aspect of fascism, define it as representative of the type, and apply it to a completely different situation.
The above perfectly illustrates this. Fascist states had corporations. America has corporations. Therefore, America is Fascist. Corporations have a linear power structure. Fascism had a linear power structure. Corporations are fascist …
Of course, the same “logic” can be used to prove any absurdity: Hitler was a vegitarian. My mother-in-law is a vegitarian …
Basically, fascism is a theory stressing an organic, cooperativist society where individual freedoms are subordinated to the will of the state, and which values militarism and imperialsm as national goals.
It rejects both Socialism, which is a materialistic view of society in which individuals have competing economic interests, and Liberalism, which stresses a false equality of mankind and a belief that the will of the majority, merely because it is the majority, should be followed.
Fasces were popular decorative motifs at the end of the 19th early 20th century -
examples can, strangely enough, be found in many railway termini in London particularly Waterloo. The idea of being bound together was a selling point for monolithic organisations like the early railway companies.
