Let’s say an ideology, organization, or other self aware entity decides to engage in activity which resembles key defined aspects of fascism, meaning palingenetic instrumentality, using means to justify ends, violence, and other forms of force without adopting overt explicit structures in previous fascist regimes such as racism, ie, instead of killing a specific race explicitly it justifies it as a means to other goals some which are ostensibly artifascist.
If these actions occur can fascism be discerned, or does fascism resemble a conventional state.
Fascism is well defined. Since you use the term “palingenetic instrumentality” I’ll assume you’ve done your basic reading and skimmed the Doctrine of Fascism? Redefining it into something totally different is just lazy semantics. I reject your definition, because it’s too broad and inaccurate. The instant your definition equates soviet style communism and Nazi style fascism, which are diametric opposites except for being totalitarian & authoritarian, it makes any and all honest intellectual discussion impossible.
Fascism relies on the merger of the state and corporate power (also the state becomes the religion aka sole arbiter of morality). Communism relies on the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. You can’t remove those elements from the definition of either and retain even a grain of intellectual honesty.
Fascism is not a means, it is an end - just as Communism is not a means. Marxist revolution is the means, Communism is the desired end.
So, you can’t reduce Fascism to nationalism+might makes right. Doing so just makes the term meaningless and contributes to the present difficulty in having nuanced political discussion.
Unfortunately, that makes interpreting your initial question difficult. Those things don’t in and of themselves make something fascist. Your question also provides a false dichotomy and suppresses the definition of a “conventional state.” Was Mussolini’s Italy a conventional state? It had recognized national borders, a well defined government and monopoly over the use of force… so sure, I suppose with or without your redefinition of Fascism it would “resemble” a “conventional state.”
Isnt it possible for fascism to also nationalize companies, ie, isnt communism or any anticommunist welfare state ideology therefore a particular sub category or partial form
For instance there were poles, Ukrainians and others that killed jews. Soviets never prosecuted their own side. Thry prosecuted germans. They never prosecuted the vast majority of people who killed jews because this majority was their own citizens or allies. So isnt allowing that to happen the same as supporting it.
Other groups can use “fascist methods.” An employer could demand loyalty oaths, search people’s lockers, fire people of color, even have bodyguards that beat people up if they object. “Robber Baron” era factory owners behaved in a “fascist manner” but weren’t, properly speaking, fascists.
I don’t think it is a welfare state but at it is related to corporatism in which interest groups have a more formalized role in government. Even though that is usually or always window dressing for a dictatorship.
As just noted, that isn’t the definition of the word.
Fascism tends to be militaristic, a one-party system, ruled by force, where a small minority has total power, and, worse, makes use of it in an oppressive fashion.
(Not all one-party systems are fascist. The Vatican is a “one party system” but far from fascist.)
Fascism is the opposite of the welfare state because nazis and Mussolini nationalzied the economy, which is the complete opposite of the neoliberal social welfare state.
Dictatorship is almost an incidental part. The nazis were a governing coalition that outlawed revolutionary parties. Most of what the nazis did was a more extreme form of Japanese internment or whatever. Nazis were mostly following democratic principles it’s just their support was overwhelming and there were no peaceful opposition parties.
Italy was never a democracy. Spain had local elections. Most of the other fascisms occurred in states that were already non democratic.
Fascism is the welfare state, nobody wants its baggage, that’s why everyone correctly calls everyone else a fascist while incorrectly excluding themselves. Essentially all governments after the war have been completely fascist, meaning a merger of state and corporate (today called interest group) power. The reason fascism is the opposite of the welfare state is that it accelerates the contradictions of the welfare state to the extreme and has state owned firms and state unions as direct components of government. Whereas, a welfare state attempts to stave off this kind of Communist revolution.
Communism is basically imperialism, it has only ever occurred in the third world and has involved control by western capitalists, in the case of russia, or Japan, in the case of maoism. Whereas fascism usually doenst trade or doesnr care much, communism is an older and less liberal form of neoliberal imperialism that exports grain and gold using slave labor to benefit western capitalists.
Pure communism is also called Trottery. This is something that mostly exists as a theoretical perception and is more common in western countries where communism never happens.
So basically fascism is a set of negative instrumental things that apply to all ideologies and has no actual goal. It’s the part of people’s own ideologies they chose to not associate with.
I was under the impression that some far right movements cropping up support the welfare state and expanding it, they just want it to only apply to ‘deserving’ people (the right race, immigration status, belief system, geography, etc).
Is that necessarily at odds with fascism? I know fascism has a survival of the fittest mentality to it, but social welfare seems like something supporters of far right politics are ok with just so long as the programs don’t benefit ‘undeserving’ people.
You can’t really make that argument. Fascism is a far right movement obsessed with strength, purity, social hierarchies and militarization. All fascist nations are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian nations are fascist. Venezuela is authoritarian but not fascist. Saudi Arabia is authoritarian but not fascist. Poland is rapidly becoming both fascist and authoritarian though.
The end goal of fascism seems to be strength and purity. A strong military, strong police and strong intelligence agencies to deal with what they see as threats and impurities, both foreign and domestic.
By comparison the monarchy in Saudi Arabia probably doesn’t care that much about purity (although they use it to keep their citizens distracted and at war with others enough to prevent an uprising), they’re likely more concerned with obtaining money and power for their ruling class.
I have no idea where you got that grotesque misconception.
Come back when you’re willing to address what I actually said, and not some absurd distortion. If you can only argue be re-phrasing what someone else said, then you are unable to argue.
In Germany no, because all the surviving parties already were nazi. I suppose you could start your own party- the nazis never outlawed party creation- and go from there. The Nazis actually planned elections on Januaty 30, 1947.
Look. There is only one codification of Fascism. It’s not a long or difficult read. It’s very clear. Read it now - it’s free. A few bloody paragraphs written by Mussolini himself.
The descriptions being banded about here are so insanely wrong that you might as well be saying that Cleopatra was Queen of Poland in 1604.
We. Have. The. Man’s. Exact. Words.
This isn’t some ancient word that has fifteen different possible etymologies and definitions. Mussolini invented the word to describe his beliefs and philosophy. It means exactly what he says it means. And that is not anything resembling a Welfare State or Socialism (he flat out attacks socialism, calling it a “dead corpse” a “lie” and “reducing men to vegetation” for Christ’s sake!), it is not simply nationalism+might makes right, it has everything to do with moralism+elitism+hierarchy and most importantly the supremacy of the state.
I mean… how can you read this:
And conclude fascism doesn’t support hierarchy or promotes equality???
Fascism is not a general principle that applies widely, it is a very well defined, very specific form of governmental organization combined with detailed economic and philosophical principles.