What is fascism?

[Ken Estes]

Rethuglicans, conservatives, people who don't have high fiber in their diets...your Enemies of the People list appears to be long and diverse.

228321[/snapback]

Well, take it to FFZ if that's your attitude.

[Guest aevans]

Well, take it to FFZ if that's your attitude.

228353[/snapback]

 

You brought the thread here -- I suspect because some of the people on the FFZ who would have even more critical things to say don't frequent this forum very much. Too bad, so sad -- yes, you buy sumting, GI?

[CaptLuke]

"Well yes, and capitalist friendly. But what else?" 

228323[/snapback]

 

Corporate friendly, not capitalist friendly.

 

Fascist economics uses "coordination" and "efficiency" to eliminate the market forces inherent in capitalism. The chosen corporations have monopoly powers and the force of government eliminates competition. This is not capitalism by any stretch of the imagination.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Corporate friendly, not capitalist friendly.

 

Fascist economics uses "coordination" and "efficiency" to eliminate the market forces inherent in capitalism.

228375[/snapback]

Right, although I still don't think the term fascist is productively applied today, that distinction and the failure to recognize it on the left and in the center too is still very much with us. Most US govt policy re: business is steered by liberals, populist center right and business itself in the direction of entrenching existing interests and raising barriers to entry. Like Sarbanes Oxely, big new fixed cost with shoot from hip totally uneconomic cost/benefit ratio; but relatively less drag on big companies, helps keep pesky small competitors small. Takeover limitations that entrench overpaid managers (from back in the 60's that one, disclosure of 5% interest so incompetent managements can head off losing their jobs to surprise bids for control of undervalued, because of bad managements, companies). And on and on. This was even more true of the merchantilist protectionist policies fascists liked (and the modern democratic left and populists like now).

 

It's not anti-capitalist at all for business people to go along with it. If a raised barrier to entry for others (even at cost to you) is a net benefit to your shareholders through reduced competition (though a drag on the total economy) you have a *duty* as a manager to lobby for it. That's very capitalist on a micro scale, just very non-capitalist (non free market) on a macro scale. By same token, the fact that existing industrial titans often liked fascists didn't make fascism "capitalism friendly".

 

Joe

Edited September 28, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Colin Williams]

Rethuglicans, conservatives, people who don't have high fiber in their diets...your Enemies of the People list appears to be long and diverse.

 

And I am offering something -- it's just not a point of view you want to hear. Some people seem to think that if they start a thread, they are its proprietors and have the right and authority to exercise thought control on it. Sorry to disappoint you, boss, but it just ain't so.

228321[/snapback]

 

Tony,

 

Give Ken a break. It isn't as if he is quoting from the writings of Chairman Mao or trying to take the "Red Ken" nickname away from the Mayor of London.

 

People of contrasting political opinions usually see much of the past from different perspectives. We're just fortunate there aren't any Tanknetters who try to rewrite history from the POV of the far left or right.

[Colin Williams]

- China under the current (effectively post-Communist) regime? Don't agree that it is post-Communist, hence a peasant-stemmed version of the USSR which will seek to avoid their mistakes

 

228143[/snapback]

 

Then why do I get such stunned and embarrassed looks from others San Francisco area when I use the term "Red Chinese" in normal conversation??

 

[Kenneth P. Katz]

What this thread has demonstrated to me is that "fascism" is a term on which there is such disagreement on definition and application that the word inhibits rather than facilitates communication.

[Ken Estes]

Then why do I get such stunned and embarrassed looks from others San Francisco area when I use the term "Red Chinese" in normal conversation??

 

228455[/snapback]

Uh, would it be 'factshock' they're having Colin¿?

 

http://www.countryreports.org/country.aspx...untryName=China

 

 

GOVERNMENT TYPE: Communist state

Edited September 29, 2005 by Ken Estes

[Ken Estes]

You brought the thread here -- I suspect because some of the people on the FFZ who would have even more critical things to say don't frequent this forum very much. Too bad, so sad -- yes, you buy sumting, GI?

228359[/snapback]

Not really, I was transparent about why it belonged here, and you confuse me with your FFZ pals if you think I am somehow directing the thread. You on the other hand are merely trolling and attempting to terminate the thread, as you noted at the end of the first post you made. So just go back to FFZ and don't let the door hit you in the ass. I don't doubt that FFZ will be more critical in tone but that likely excludes meaningful contributions, seeing how you struggle to pretend.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Ken Estes

[Ken Estes]

What this thread has demonstrated to me is that "fascism" is a term on which there is such disagreement on definition and application that the word inhibits rather than facilitates communication.

228488[/snapback]

How did you arrive at that one, Ken? Doesn't the thread show that we have not really thought about it, beyond the simplifications and stereotypes? Comparing notes might allow something more substantive to emerge, nicht wahr?¿ Ken E

[RETAC21]

What this thread has demonstrated to me is that "fascism" is a term on which there is such disagreement on definition and application that the word inhibits rather than facilitates communication.

228488[/snapback]

 

If you think a bit about it, it's just a softer derogatory term than calling someone a Nazi. Fascist conjures images of a militia ridden dictatorship, Nazism of death camps and SS and Communism, for a significant part of the population, is just an alternative way of government, yet, in the light of History, it has been this last one the more lethal of the 3.

[Ken Estes]

If you think a bit about it, it's just a softer derogatory term than calling someone a Nazi. Fascist conjures images of a militia ridden dictatorship, Nazism of death camps and SS and Communism, for a significant part of the population, is just an alternative way of government, yet, in the light of History, it has been this last one the more lethal of the 3.

228534[/snapback]

Well, there you are at last! The idea of a body count for Nazism/Fascism vs. Communism for some reason surfaces often. But, given the time constraints of a 12-year [vs. 1000 year] III Reich and a little bit more for Italy, there are handicaps yet to be applied. For instance, if we credit Generalissimo Franco's regime with killing c.200K in the years immediately following the 1939 victory, I'd wager that is at least equivalent to Stalin's termination of the Kulaks in 1930ff. We will have to find the population figures for the periods, but what do you think? The USSR constitution recognized about 130 nationalities and party loyalty served to admit many of these to fairly high levels [after all, Stalin is a Georgian, not a Great Russian]. Given the nationalist bent of Fascism, not shared with Communism, and the tendency toward racism, emphasizing superiority of certain groups over others within the same frontier, what would have been the potential for a Fascist killing regime in the USSR and China, much larger and diffuse populations to wicker. Would it have exceeded the Commies in the end? Of course, we have the Spanish Civil War death tolls in broad approximations but these were imperfect circumstances for regimes not in control of the entire populations and distracted, to some extent, by war requirements.

[Guest aevans]

Not really, I was transparent about why it belonged here, and you confuse me with your FFZ pals if you think I am somehow directing the thread.

228510[/snapback]

 

I might agree with you on your sobriety point -- though I would point out the tendency of certain persons to accept and post without comment the breathless hyperbole of shoddy historians and arms manufacturers -- but your original assertion that this forum was more appropriate for the discussion of the subject is a bit odd, to say the least. You don't seem to be trying to say that fascism can most appropriately be discussed in the context of war, yet this is a military forum. Also, I believe "fascism" to be a thoroughly and obviously discredited term, except in a very narrow historical context. Anybody trying to rehabilitate it for use in the contemporary context should, IMO, automatically be suspected of an agenda, whether they be Left, Right, or Martian.

 

IOW, nothing personal, Ken.

 

You on the other hand are merely trolling and attempting to terminate the thread, as you noted at the end of the first post you made.

Sorry, Ken, but an opinion you disagree with does not automatically qualify as "trolling". Likewise, I am not trying to terminate the thread. I am using various rhetorical devices, that could be broadly classified as "contemptuous dismissal", to indicate my opinion of people who try to rehabilitate fascism as a term for use in the contemporary context. You don't have to like it, but you don't have to call me a "troll" either.

 

So just go back to FFZ and don't let the door hit you in the ass. I don't doubt that FFZ will be more critical in tone but that likely excludes meaningful contributions, seeing how you struggle to pretend.

 

Once again, just because you disagree with a contribution, that does not render it meaningless. Was my opinion simpler in statement than yours? Yes, but only because it relied on common knowledge that one can safely take judicial notice of -- the term "fascism" is so overused, missused, and discredited through use that any attempt to rehabilitate it for the contemporary context is misguided at best, but most likely malicious in some fashion.

 

In fact, I find it quite intriguing that you would complain of my trying to shut down debate, then turn right around and label my contribution meaningless. You should only talk out of one side of your mouth at a time, Ken, if you wish to be taken seriously.

Edited September 29, 2005 by aevans

[Ken Estes]

I might agree with you on your sobriety point -- though I would point out the tendency of certain persons to accept and post without comment the breathless hyperbole of shoddy historians and arms manufacturers -- but your original assertion that this forum was more appropriate for the discussion of the subject is a bit odd, to say the least. You don't seem to be trying to say that fascism can most appropriately be discussed in the context of war, yet this is a military forum. Also, I believe "fascism" to be a thoroughly and obviously discredited term, except in a very narrow historical context. Anybody trying to rehabilitate it for use in the contemporary context should, IMO, automatically be suspected of an agenda, whether they be Left, Right, or Martian.

 

IOW, nothing personal, Ken.

Sorry, Ken, but an opinion you disagree with does not automatically qualify as "trolling". Likewise, I am not trying to terminate the thread. I am using various rhetorical devices, that could be broadly classified as "contemptuous dismissal", to indicate my opinion of people who try to rehabilitate fascism as a term for use in the contemporary context. You don't have to like it, but you don't have to call me a "troll" either.

Once again, just because you disagree with a contribution, that does not render it meaningless. Was my opinion simpler in statement than yours? Yes, but only because it relied on common knowledge that one can safely take judicial notice of -- the term "fascism" is so overused, missused, and discredited through use that any attempt to rehabilitate it for the contemporary context is misguided at best, but most likely malicious in some fashion.

 

In fact, I find it quite intriguing that you would complain of my trying to shut down debate, then turn right around and label my contribution meaningless. You should only talk out of one side of your mouth at a time, Ken, if you wish to be taken seriously.

228631[/snapback]

Well, Tony your points are taken, and well. The point of putting it in GenMilSubj was the relation of Fascism to WWII, which I botched in the title, unredeemable in our software, as you know. I rather prefer diverse opinion, not parroting, not that anybody is inclined to that here. But you seemed dismissive of the thread itself, as you confirm. OK it is just you.

 

But, the statement

Also, I believe "fascism" to be a thoroughly and obviously discredited term, except in a very narrow historical context. Anybody trying to rehabilitate it for use in the contemporary context should, IMO, automatically be suspected of an agenda, whether they be Left, Right, or Martian.

does not have to be honored, at least in the presumption of an agenda; so much for the nothing personal.

 

My problem, by the way, is not the revival of the term for contemporary usage, but rather the mongrelization of it in contemp usage. So, I chose to reassert the historical tenets in the rather optimistic hope that reason will out. There is little evidence that this works, by the way, but in a place like GMS, it just might and I appreciate the indulgence.

 

And sorry, I was taking it for granted that we recognize the term as overused with great inaccuracy, that we had already established in the thread brother RETAC21 did on the FFZ. So I interpreted you on the harsh side of the scale and I accept your correction that I erred.

 

Whether I am taken seriously? Not part of my concern. Cheers, Ken

[CaptLuke]

What this thread has demonstrated to me is that "fascism" is a term on which there is such disagreement on definition and application that the word inhibits rather than facilitates communication.

228488[/snapback]

 

Yes and no.

 

I agree with you that in the average conversation today, there isn't any agreement on what fascism means other than that it is meant as an insult. In that sense it hurts communication.

 

I also think, however, that fascism is a political philosophy with certain key characteristics that can be defined and, in the 30's, were broadly understood in the western world. So the question comes up: why isn't the meaning of the term taught in schools or articulated by the media?

 

IMHO, at least in the US, this is because the economic tenets of Fascism are very similar to what the American left pushes, especially during FDR's new deal period. In WWII you can easily see why there was a huge incentive to stereotype fascism as nothing more than a code word for evil dictatorship and to avoid any comparisons to the new deal like the plague.

 

This has continued to the present day because US Universities are massively liberal: they have no desire to confront the fact that most of their espoused economic ideas are fascist and they have a long history of making excuses for communism, which the demonization of fascism helps by way of contrast and by way of painting "right wing" fascist dictatorships as somehow worse than "left wing" communist ones.

[pi]

Saying the new deal was fascist is about as silly as saying that the Bush administration is fascist.

[CaptLuke]

Saying the new deal was fascist is about as silly as saying that the Bush administration is fascist.

228671[/snapback]

 

Read up on the National Industry Recovery Act of 1933. It was a scheme for the economy to run by industrial cartels regulated by state run agencies.

 

It empowered the government to control industrial output and prices. It was enforced by the National Recovery Administration (the NRA) which conducted a propaganda campaign based on the symbol of a blue eagle, which even pro-FDR historian Kenneth Davis described as "pointed to unwholesome similarities between the blue eagle and the Faces of Mussolini's Italy, the swastika of Hitler's Germany." The NRA both threatened and penalized businesses that would not adhere to its codes and display the blue eagle as proof of loyalty.

 

At one point an immigrant dry cleaner was sentenced to three months in jail for charging 35 cents to press a suit instead of the 40 cents mandated by the NRA.

 

Raymond Moley, one of the framers of the NRA, later wrote: "Planning an economy in normal times is possible only through the discipline of a police state . . Economic planning on a national scale in a politically free society involves contradictions that cannot be resolved in practice. The bones of the blue eagle should be a grim reminder of this reality."

 

The NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935 amid mounting public and political opposition.

 

There's lots of other examples. In terms of economic policy, which is all I was talking about, FDR tried to implement the fascist system.

Edited September 29, 2005 by CaptLuke

[RETAC21]

Well, there you are at last!  The idea of a body count for Nazism/Fascism vs. Communism for some reason surfaces often. But, given the time constraints of a 12-year [vs. 1000 year] III Reich and a little bit more for Italy, there are handicaps yet to be applied. For instance, if we credit Generalissimo Franco's regime with killing c.200K in the years immediately following the 1939 victory, I'd wager that is at least equivalent to Stalin's termination of the Kulaks in 1930ff. We will have to find the population figures for the periods, but what do you think?  The USSR constitution recognized about 130 nationalities and party loyalty served to admit many of these to fairly high levels [after all, Stalin is a Georgian, not a Great Russian]. Given the nationalist bent of Fascism, not shared with Communism, and the tendency toward racism, emphasizing superiority of certain groups over others within the same frontier, what would have been the potential for a Fascist killing regime in the USSR and China, much larger and diffuse populations to wicker. Would it have exceeded the Commies in the end? Of course, we have the Spanish Civil War death tolls in broad approximations but these were imperfect circumstances for regimes not in control of the entire populations and distracted, to some extent, by war requirements.

228588[/snapback]

 

Yes, but in the end the bodies are not really relevant to either the Commies or the Fascists since they are a waypoint to the ultimate objective: the elimination of opposition. In this they are different from Nazism, which expounded not only on the elimination of ideological enemies but of whole ethnic/cultural groups, and that is what makes Nazism so sinister when compares to the other 2 IMO.

[Daniel Papp]

I would love to read the book, but in lieu of that I adhere to a relatively narrow definition based on the circumstances of the 20s and 30s that gave rise not only to the original fascist regimes in Italy, Germany and Spain but also boosted authoritarian regimes in countries like Poland and Hungary and laid the foundation for Petain's regime in Vichy.

 

Specifically, I think we can't overlook the common thread of fascism as a right-wing, nationalist reaction to the threat (perceived or real) of Bolshevism.

228047[/snapback]

 

In the case of Hungary, the so-called "fascist" regime is rather a misconception, it was rather reactionary IMO. It is "fascist" in the sense that it is anti-bolshevist: it overtook the Communist government of Bela Kun when the latter collapsed during the invasion of the "Little Entente", and the Romanian occupation of Budapest. I'd rather classify Hungary as a right-wing parliamentary democracy (though with limited voting rights). There was as a functioning Assembly and the power was in the hands of the Government. It could not become a true military dictatorship, as the armed forces was limited to 100 000 men - though the army had a considerable influence on politics. The Head of State, Governor Vice Admiral Horthy was rather a traditionalist (protestant), who was in favor of maintaining the "establishment" - radical social upheaval was out of the question.

 

If we look at the criteria of fascism listed before, most do not apply to the interwar (1920-39) Hungary, the others only partially.

[RETAC21]

Read up on the National Industry Recovery Act of 1933.  It was a scheme for the economy to run by industrial cartels regulated by state run agencies.

 

It empowered the government to control industrial output and prices.  It was enforced by the National Recovery Administration (the NRA) which conducted a propaganda campaign based on the symbol of a blue eagle, which even pro-FDR historian Kenneth Davis described as "pointed to unwholesome similarities between the blue eagle and the Faces of Mussolini's Italy, the swastika of Hitler's Germany."  The NRA both threatened and penalized businesses that would not adhere to its codes and display the blue eagle as proof of loyalty.

 

At one point an immigrant dry cleaner was sentenced to three months in jail for charging 35 cents to press a suit instead of the 40 cents mandated by the NRA.

 

Raymond Moley, one of the framers of the NRA, later wrote: "Planning an economy in normal times is possible only through the discipline of a police state . . Economic planning on a national scale in a politically free society involves contradictions that cannot be resolved in practice.  The bones of the blue eagle should be a grim reminder of this reality."

 

The NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935 amid mounting public and political opposition.

 

There's lots of other examples.  In terms of economic policy, which is all I was talking about, FDR tried to implement the fascist system.

228715[/snapback]

 

But then the Police state was absent in the US, so this is merely economic interventionism.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Saying the new deal was fascist is about as silly as saying that the Bush administration is fascist.

228671[/snapback]

Which goes back around in the circle where comparing an aspect of fascism means "saying is/was fascist" and that's an insult.

 

Anyway he's basically right about *that aspect*, even now. Almost nobody at any point on the spectrum advocates nationalizing means of production anywmore. But lots of more left people, and even some considered not so, want major elements of the economy yoked to the political process much more than they are, though much increased regulation (to the point of maximum wages etc), "govt private partnership", protectionism or removing more things from the money economy altogether (you're not allowed to spend your own money for better health care than the national program).

 

That is more similar to fascist economics than really (Marxist) socialist ones. Let's quickly cover two dodges pre-emptively:

 

-as already mentioned, the fact that specific capitalists in a position to benefit go along with (or lobby for, or convert ostensibly free market legislators to support) syndicalist policies doesn't make the policies free market.

 

-not confuse syndicalism with neutral rules (regulations) for competition, v the law of the jungle, so that people who oppose syndicalism must want laissez faire law of the jungle. Constructing rules for competition favoring no particular competitor (existing, new, foreign, domestic, etc) is a judgement within the realm of free market. Much economic policy even of the center, but more of the left has all kinds of other agenda's presupposing a national interest that freely overrides private property rights as a matter of routine, quite different.

 

The sort of policy's starting with the New Deal practically didn't exist before a dire need was seen for co-opting the appeal of socialism. Fascism has the same roots. So there is an indisputable connection, whether a comparison or a contrast.

 

Joe

Edited September 29, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[larrikin]

But then the Police state was absent in the US, so this is merely economic interventionism.

228727[/snapback]

 

When was the FBI created?

[Michael Eastes]

When was the FBI created?

228735[/snapback]

 

1924

[CaptLuke]

. Almost nobody at any point on the spectrum advocates nationalizing means of production anywmore. But lots of more left people, and even some considered not so, want major elements of the economy yoked to the political process much more than they are,

228732[/snapback]

 

Good point and, in case it sounds like I'm just going after FDR / Democrats, the ideas behind the NIRA/NRA style were enthusiastically supported by the influential CEO of General Electric (Gerard Swope) and the US Chamber of Commerce. Hoover referred to their ideas as "sheer fascism."

 

This goes to Joe's point that the corporations that are chosen to run things under a fascist economic system tend to like the idea since they are protected from market forces and competition.

 

You can see how large corporations and established industrialists in the 30's would be attracted to economic fascism as a counterweight to communism, which would have screwed them, especially since fascism at the time was more associated with economic recovery in Italy / Germany than it was with war and genocide.

[Ken Estes]

There is no arguing the notion that FDR was called Fascist or Communist at one time of another, but he was clearly of the progressive [if aggressive] left. Corporatism as fascist economic doctrine does not mean letting the corporations run things, except after a fashion, in practice, once doctrine is ignored. Corporatism seeks to bridge the differences between eternal enmity between owners and workers by introducing the govt into the process, seemingly as an arbiter. The focus of corporatism falls into govt syndicates, organized by economic activity [i.e. heavy industry, automotive, mining, produce, etc] where each of the three entities argues its case within that sector, but agreeing to a common policy best for the nation and the common good, etc. The reality is that govt too often sides with business and coopts the workers for patriotic or other reasons. Corporatism and its syndicates existed in Italy, and until the 1970s in Spain & Portugal. None of this resembles the New Deal activities or even the earlier trustbusting progressivism of the elder Roosevelt.