I note that several posters seem to be conflating Fascism with Communism. They are not at all the same thing. In fact, the communists and the fascists of 1930’s Europe tended to be bitterly opposed to one another. (Hell, they fought a civil war against one another in Spain.)
While both systems are authoritarian, they start from very different places. Communism starts with the idea that everyone is equal, and enlists the power of the state to make it so. (Government as Robin Hood, if you will. In theory at least.)
Fascism makes no such assumptions. In fact, fascist leaders generally embrace (and are embraced by) the wealthy classes. The power of the state, rather than being enlisted in a Robin Hood role to equalize wealth, is often enlisted to preserve the status of the elite. (As in Franco’s Spain.)
Here is a good site about daily life under Mussolini, the first true modern facist state that lasted the longest after Spain. http://www.dickinson.edu/~history/dictators/mussolini_life.htm
Basically, they replace handshakes with salutes, get new calendars and are big on quotas: increasing # of children per family (which Germany had too), setting wages, trying to increase grain self-sufficiency. They set up alot mandatory youth groups and try mightily to control popular entertainment.
How they tolerate and deal with dissent from any and all of this is their state signature, distinguishes them and is their calling card and has adequately been addressed.
i have trouble understanding what fascism is too. The best info i can find it that Fascism is a political idealogy that is based out of fear of communism, fear of globalism & fear of economic collapse. It is anti-communist, anti-globalist, nationalist and promises jobs. Perhaps fascism is to patriotism what communism is to socialism.
People would be treated as subjects instead of individuals, and the well being of the state and the state’s standards would be paramount.
I would assume the economy would be capitalistic with the state maintaining the right to intervene at any moment it feels necessary.
Day to day life would be a subliminal service to the state (excessive respect given to the state, areas of education that service the state are held in higher regard, ideas that threaten the state are viewed more evilly).
Don’t know if this helps, but here is some Nazi propaganda. I’m sure there is info about the ‘perfect’ fascist world in there.
You might want to read The Nightmare Years by William Shrier. He was an American journalist stationed in Germany and Austria during the 30s, and gives a personal account of how Nazism flourished and the effect it had on the population.
As far as art and culture go, the art would probably be really awful. After the Nazis took off they gathered up all of the degenerate art from the major museums and shoved it all in a small house and opened it as an exhibit of degenrate art thinking that no one would want/bother to come see it. Within two weeks the lines to get in were something like 1/4 of a mile long.
Whoops.
Goebels was not happy.
The movies would probably run along the lines of propaganda ala Triumph Of The Will which while it is a great achievement in filmmaking isn’t the only choice I’d like to have when I went to the cinema.
Of course, the elites in power would have access to the decadent films, paintings etc, because they are the elites.
In Isabel Allende’s novel House of the Spirits she describes a horrific fascist coup based on the real-life coup that overthrew and killed her cousin, President Salvador Allende.
It is seen from the perspective of a rich right-wing senator who initially supports the coup, thinking that militarist fascism will support his political ideals and also be profitable for him.
But the senator is disabused of this fantasy when it’s brought home to him that the coup has nothing to do with his conservative ideals, and it is really all about raw brutality and absolute power. The fascists have no respect for him or anything else. The conservatives were mere dupes used by the fascists to seize power.
In regard specifically to Nazi Germany, see Berlin Diary by William Shirer, which can tell you what it was like to be a foreign journalist there before the war with America started.
What about Apartheid-era South Africa? Not exactly fascist, but certainly oppressive. No free press, no privately controlled broadcast media (SA first got television in 1976!), apartheid … comes close in some ways.
The white middle class in Apartheid-era ZA enjoyed material wealth that blew away what you would find in a typical North American suburb. Take a look online at South African real estate ads … “2200 sq ft, 4 BR, 2 BA, maid’s quarters.” The built environment wasn’t much different than that in North America. The cultural scene was considered bland, pop culture as known in Europe and North America at the time was nonexistent, and the uptight social and religious values of the Afrikaaners influenced government policy.
IMHO. fascist United States would be affluent, orderly, clean … and dull as hell.
What about Apartheid-era South Africa? Not exactly fascist, but certainly oppressive. No free press, no privately controlled broadcast media (SA first got television in 1976!), apartheid … comes close in some ways.
The white middle class in Apartheid-era ZA enjoyed material wealth that blew away what you would find in a typical North American suburb. Take a look online at South African real estate ads … “2200 sq ft, 4 BR, 2 BA, maid’s quarters.” The built environment wasn’t much different than that in North America. The cultural scene was considered bland, pop culture as known in Europe and North America at the time was nonexistent, and the uptight social and religious values of the Afrikaaners influenced government policy.
IMHO. a fascist United States would be affluent, orderly, clean … and dull as hell.
What about Apartheid-era South Africa? Not exactly fascist, but certainly oppressive. No free press, no privately controlled broadcast media (SA first got television in 1976!), apartheid … comes close in some ways.
The white middle class in Apartheid-era ZA enjoyed material wealth that blew away what you would find in a typical North American suburb. Take a look online at South African real estate ads … “2200 sq ft, 4 BR, 2 BA, maid’s quarters.” The built environment wasn’t much different than that in North America. The cultural scene was considered bland, pop culture as known in Europe and North America at the time was nonexistent, and the uptight social and religious values of the Afrikaaners influenced government policy.
IMHO. a fascist United States would be affluent, orderly, clean … and dull as hell.
What about the less-than-middile-class situation under Apartheid? I mean, from what I understand, the slums of South Africa today make Gotham City look like the Emerald City, but how bad were they under Apartheid?
The level of opression is of no matter in determining if a regime is fascist.
Fascism is a form of government where there is only 1 party and a single leader at the top (put plain and simply).
Thus Russia under Stalin was a fascist regime and so are the ‘modern’ Baaht (spelling?) movements of some arab nations, including Iraq.
The apartheid regime could be called an oligarchy, I suppose, but not fascist.
Russia under Stalin was a totalitarian state, and fascist states are totalitarian states, but it does not follow that Russia was a fascist state. (See my last post.) Russia (or the Soviet Union, actually) was a totalitarian, communist state.
Hmm, no.
Where can you find any evidence for communism, except that they called themselves communists. There was no equality, those that belonged to the party held substantially more power than those who did not belong.
Given that they had a one party system and a revered leader, I would say that it was fascist.
Ah, one of those “the Soviet Union wasn’t real communism” types. :rolleyes:
Well, there’s the fact that capitalism and free enterprise were not permitted in Russia. That is not the case in a fascist state. (See Franco’s Spain, Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy.)
Once again your logic is flawed. The Soviet Union indeed had a one-party system, and a revered leader. Fascist states also have a one-party system and a revered leader. It does not follow that the Soviet Union was fascist.
Communism, fascism - both one party kleptocracies with a tin-pot dictator running the show using lots secret police to maintain themselves. The only difference was in the propaganda.