I am very naive about lingo like this. I was watching the commercial for Sum of All Fears and he says, “Some neo fascists got there hands on an A bomb” or something similar.
What is a Neo Fascist and what are thier political vews? Neo mean new I think, but I am unsure exactly what a fascist is.
Fascism was the political ideology established by Mussolini’s totalitarian regime in 1920s Italy. Mussolini served as something of a rolemodel for Adolf Hitler, and in fact fascism is nowadays said to be more or less synonymous with National Socialism (or, vice versa, the Nazis are said to be the German branch of a Europe-wide fascist movement), although fascism originally had no antisemite component.
In summary, fascism denied the concept of individual rights and demanded every citizen to integrate itself entirely into the community subject itself to a leader’s (Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain) authority. Somebody who refuses to do so is branded as an enemy of the people and gets seriously into trouble.
Mussolini’s party called itself the Fascist Party (after hte fasces, the symbol of power in ancient Rome - Mussolini loved alluding to ancient stuff as a means of gettinmg something like legitimacy), but nowadays, nobody would call himself a fascist. A neo-fascist (neo meaning new, as you said) is somebody at the extreme right-wing of the political scenery, often agitating against immigrants and foreigners and not really convinced of democracy.
Thanks for the thorough reply. I thought for sure I would have gotten someone who would have jumped in here and said “look it up on google”.
So what was it about fascism that attracted people to it? And what attracts, even a small % of the population, to the idea? It doesn’t sound like a very good plan.
Is the only way for a fascist government to “become” is for the military to take the country over or something similar, any sort of forceful take over really? I can’t imagine any large group of people agreeing to this idea of thier own free wills.
I am sorry if I sound naive about this subject, but now I am curious about how the heck an entire country could fall trap to something like this.
Fascist parties can have popular appeal as much as any other. They don’t make explicit statements about individual rights, but often emphasise community and the nation-state as a ‘family’ that will protect in return for your loyalty. Often they define an enemy or outsider – e.g. immigrants – for fear-mongering, or hark back to a mythical ‘golden age’ that they will bring back in a time of economic or political insecurity.
So did the Germans just say “Okay, sounds good to us. Lets do it” or was there a military take over? Like I said, I am very un educated about history, engineering is my bag.
Also, the leaders of a fascist nation, once they are in power can they be taken out of power? Or are they like a king? Or more powerful than a king? Who do other countries recognize as the leader?
Very briefly…
Hitler was able to get the support of the people by making generalised, sweeping promises (with few real details) to the masses, and then making specific promises to specific interest groups. Because the generalised “vision” contrasted sharply with the hardship Germans were experiencing, getting the support of the people was not difficult.
For instance, we have the general rhetoric about rebuilding Germany, ending unemployment, etc etc, which helps people identify with the aims of the party, even if they would be hard-pressed to explain just how the party intends to achieve these aims. Then Hitler would explain to soldiers how this can be achieved by flexing Germany’s military might, young people would be promised jobs as a result of re-arming the nation, veterans would be shown how the “unfairness” of Versailles could be overturned, and so on. Once voters see what is “in it for them”, they can then “buy in” to the party vision even if it is a load of waffle.
The use of a “general vision” which is short on details, coupled with specific promises aimed at various groups, is a powerful political weapon - one which Hitler used to win an election. The same tricks are used by modern politicians: British Dopers can look at the 1997 General Election - Labour’s campaign was essentially a “Things Can Only Get Better” theme, with plenty of promises and spin aimed squarely at important groups of voters (middle England, women, Euro-sceptics).
Mussolini came to power in what amounted to a coup d’etat (though not a military take over in the sense of the armed forces seizing control of the government; Mussolini’s paramilitary Fascist organization seized power). This seizure was later ratified by way of rigged elections; however, many Italians genuinely welcomed Mussolini’s rise to power. There is a common saying “Well, at least he made the trains run on time”–not necessarily true, but there is generally a perception about leaders of this type that they “restore order” in the face of political chaos (middle and upper class fear of working class socialist or communist movements) and economic dislocations (the Great Depression). There are frequently nationalistic grievances as well–Italy was on the winning side of World War I, but many Italians felt it hadn’t gotten its just desserts in the way of territorial gains; Germany was on the losing side, and there was much popular German resentment of what were seen as the unduly harsh and punitive terms of the Versailles peace treaty (territorial losses and allegedly crippling reparations payments, plus severe limits on the size and strength of the German military).
Hitler came to power by initially democratic means–the Nazis won a plurality, though not a majority, in parliamentary elections; the Nazis (initially in coalition with some other parties) formed a government in accordance with the parliamentary rules, but soon consolidated dictatorial power by measures rammed through the Reichstag (parliament), extralegal means, and popular plebiscites. Like Mussolini, Hitler’s rule was initially generally quite well-received by many Germans.
The leader of a fascist country had essentially unlimited power–exaltation of the single supreme national leader was a hallmark of both Italian Fascism and German Nazism, and generally of other similar regimes in other countries. Fascist states don’t have provisions for impeachment proceedings–about the only way to get rid of a fascist leader is to kill him. Like “absolute monarchs” of the past, in reality fascist leaders did have to take into account the interests of other powerful groups in society, particularly the armed forces, which were generally power bases which predated the rise of fascist leaders, but were usually co-opted into supporting the new regimes. (Military re-armament and foreign conquest and the general glorification of all things military being common policies in fascist states.)
Generally speaking, other countries recognized the fascist leaderships, just as we recognize assorted dictators and unelected governments today. Technically, Mussolini’s Italy was still a monarchy, with the king acting as a powerless figurehead, as in other constitutional monarchies, only for an arbitrary dictatorship rather than a parliamentary democracy. (Semi-fascist Spain under Franco in theory had a somewhat similar set-up.) In Germany, there was initially a parliamentary republic style President (i.e., one without direct power over the day-to-day government of the republic, though more than a typical modern constitutional monarch enjoys); when Hitler was first made Chancellor (prime minister) Paul von Hindenburg, a retired military officer, still held the office of President; however, when Hindenburg died, Hitler consolidated the powers of the Presidency and the Chancellorship into a single office of Fuehrer (Leader) and Reich Chancellor, and thereafter held supreme personal power over the German state.
So does communist=fascist? Is China a Fascist nation? Or just communist? All of the pointers to fascism sound to me to be the same as communism. If they are not the same what is the difference?
Communism doesn’t necessarily have a single exalted Leader (although under a Stalin it may do so). Communism is also in theory internationalist, believing that national attachments will fade away as the workers achieve a new consciousness, in theory transcending national boundaries, based on the establishment of a classless society. Fascism, on the other hand, is generally associated with extreme nationalism (and, in the case of Nazism, with the concept of “racial” purity). (Communism in practice has often been quite nationalistic, of course.) Finally, Communism is based on a certain view of history and society as being fundamentally shaped by the struggle between “classes” which are defined in terms of economic interests; first of the bourgeoisie against feudal aristocrats, leading to the replacement of feudalism by capitalism; then of the proletariat (industrialized workers) against the bourgeoisie, leading (in theory) to the replacement of capitalism with socialism and, ultimately, with the never-realized goal of true communism and a classless and egalitarian society. Fascists, on the other hand, tend to see history and society as being shaped mainly by the clash of nations, with the ideal fascist state uniting all classes within a single nationalist society; Nazism added the idea of pseudo-scientific “races” (“Aryans” and so on) to the idea of the struggle between nations. Fascists are also not even in theory egalitarians; whereas Communists tended to set up highly inegalitarian dictatorships or oligarchies in the service of a theoretical ideal of a perfectly egalitarian society, fascists exalt the “leader principle” (German Fuhrerprinzip), the idea that the nation is somehow organically united under the will of a single strong, decisive leader.
China is still officially Communist. Since the Chinese have largely abandoned any real efforts at building a socialist state (although they still pay lip service to the idea), and instead increasingly have a rather corrupt and state-dominated form of capitalism, plus they’re quite nationalistic–yeah, there are some similarities to fascism there. Post Mao, though, the Cult of the Single Leader seems undeveloped–China these days is rather given to oligarchies of colorless bureaucrats rather than charismatic strongmen, plus they take turns–I think the Chinese bosses even have fixed terms in power before they retire and pass it on to the chosen successor. (That last bit is mainly just my impressions; I am no expert on the current Chinese government by any means.)
MEBuckner:
Your posts deserve a good pat on the back.
::c-of-cyn flattens her hand and lays a hearty slap between MEBuckner’s deltoids::
How does the economy work in a Totalitarian Fascist system? If the government has complete control over everything, that would surely extend to the economy. So are all businesses state-run (like in Communist nations), private-run under severe laws (almost state-run), or mostly ignored except at tax time? Do individuals get to keep profits?
What is important in a totalitarian fascist economy is the ends, and not the means.
A few features:
Autarky/Autarchy (spelling?) – self sufficiency in terms of food and industrial products. Mussolini launched the Battle of Wheat, Hitler glorified German farmers – all these were to reduce reliance on imports for the good of the nation.
Industrial growth - similarly, for the good of the nation, since industrial growth was necessary for powerful nations like what Hitler and Mussolini is looking for.
Private enterprises/coporations – Nazi Germany left its economy to companies like Messserschmit and Volkswagen etc. This was mainly because of Hitler’s election promises, and his anti-communist views would never call for state ownership of these companies.
Barter trade-- IIRC Hitler preferred that imports be paid in terms of local goods - ie if you sold me a sofa I would make you take 30 jars of cookies instead of paying you $500. – or something close to that.
But generally fascist economic theories were at best vague.
Fascist systems, while paying lip service to leftist-sounding ideals (“the National Socialist German Workers Party”, to give the full formal title of the Nazi Party), in practice did not tend to upset the applecarts of pre-existing capitalist enterprises. (Unless they were Jewish-owned business in Nazi Germany.) They invariably crushed independent labor, replacing them with carefully controlled labor movements which didn’t do uppity things like strike for higher wages or better working conditions. They did also seek to control capital as well, on the “corporatist” model, whereby fascist-controlled labor fronts would cooperate with fascist-controlled industrial associations in a spirit of nationalistic community-building, which tended to mean in practice that the employees got the short end of the stick. Fascists as a rule weren’t big on nationalizing industries, and industrialists could still make money. It’s also worth pointing out that fascist movements were invariably fiercely anti-Marxist, and against any form of socialism or communism with Marxist underpinnings. The Axis alliance of World War II got its start with something called the “Anti-Comintern Pact”, explicitly opposed to the Communist International.
** c-of-cyn:** Just so long as there’s not a “Kick Me” sign back there now!
Another interesting point about fascist economics: Most historians agree that Nazi Germany actually did a worse job of mobilizing and coordinating its economy for total war than did the Western Allies (notably the USA under Franklin Roosevelt). In fact, one reason why Germany favored “Blitzkriegs” was that its economy wasn’t really geared-up for any long-term war of attrition, so they had to win quickly.
You do realize that this goes against grade school history classes nationwide, don’t you? Not to mention the History Channel and various other popular history sources.
I think the common media tends to give the Nazis more credit than they deserve as regards both the economy (which is never really described) and the basic military strategy (until it fell apart on both fronts with the Battle of Britain and the Seige of Leningrad). Bulldozing Poland was mainly a matter of getting them with their pants down, and France was perfectly geared up to refight WW I anyway.
But that’s just my opinion.
The Nazis themselves didn’t really know whta ttitude to have economically; in their pre-Machtergreifung (seizure of power) phase, their program included abolition if interests, nationalization of huge real estate properties and trusts and the like, but the industry remained in private property under Hitler. There was, however, a lot of state control over the economy, with state-controlled labor unions and legislation regarding wages. Nonetheless companies remained private, although, during the war, they couldn’t choose what to produce - they were assigned slave workers and production quota by the government and had to fulfil them.
There wer innumerable volumes written about the question how Germany could get under Hitler’s control; among the reasons were a lack of democratic consciousness in the population, disappointment about democratic governments not being able to restore “law and order” and defeat the Great Depression, and the psychologically well-organized fascist propaganda with leaders much more charsimatic than the democrats. Read “The Wave”, or watch the film - it’s an extremely interesting and illuminating work.
Communism and fascism, btw, hated each other’s guts - clear-cut anti-communism was one of the Nazi’s basic issue, and official Soviet propaganda kept on calling enemies of their ideology “fascists” long after WWII.
Actually I’m thinking I saw the point made about the inefficiency of the German economy on a History Channel documentary not too long ago. (Not the first place I’d come across it, though.) So maybe it’s starting to trickle down to the mass popularizers.
Didn’t the inflation rate in Germany drop radically after the Nazis came to power? They had to have done something right with the economy – or at least had to have taken credit for an improvement that may have happened anyway.
I’m glad to see this thread. The term “fascist” tends to be thrown around frequently these days as almost a general-purpose epithet; it seems that few people know what it means or are interested enough to ask. Kudos to Phlip for taking the time & trouble.
RR
the following is all IIRC, so I might be wrong.
When the Nazis took power on January 30, 1933, , Germany was still suffering from the Great Depression which essentially was a deflation. The big german inflation, that resulted in US$1 = 4,2*10[sup]12[/sup] marks, took place in 1923/24 but was effectively fought by a currency reform long before Hitler became the Führer.
We might point out that while the Nazis did win a plurality in parliment, they got a lot of their early support through the intimidation, flat-out beating, and even killing of opposing candidates or outspoken critics. People often felt vaguely or even specifically threatened when thinking of voting for the Communists or other parties with a real shot at giving the Nazis a real run for their money.