What is fascism?

[JOE BRENNAN]

None of this resembles the New Deal activities or even the earlier trustbusting progressivism of the elder Roosevelt.

229194[/snapback]

Wrong on the first, correct on the second. Backing away from the exact specifics most US govt interventionism in business does resemble it. The govt does seek to be arbiter between the "capitalists" and the workers for the common good. The implicit return favor to specific capitalists is usually increased barriers to entry for their competitors (because regulatory regimes are hard to cope with, only domestic concerns are eligible for the subsidies, etc). In fact the resemblence in general is implicit, by rhetoric almost everybody is pro "free market" especially now. Whatever anti-free market, often basically syndicalist, policies people propose are usually to achieve a "real" free market (and often "look, these capitalists go along with it, it must be free market!"), in the rhetoric of recent decades especially

 

Anti-trust is simply establishing neutral rules for competition within a free market and had little to do with New Deal and post interventionism or fascist economics. As above anti-trust is frequently thrown in as a red herring: if you're against syndicalist, corporatist, collectivst etc policies in general you must favor absolutely no rules, or going the other way collectivist policies are justified by the need for rules in free competition. But in general they are quite distinct in fact.

 

Joe

Edited September 30, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Redbeard]

The Scandinavian societies actually have some strong corporatist elements, but fascism also needs strong nationalism, authoritanism and a strong state. Actually the Scandinavian countries would score rather high on all counts but usually expressed in ways not connected with fascism.

 

If that defines fascism as the way you say things or have us Scandinavians be closet fascist - I really don't know ; x 0,5

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[CaptLuke]

Corporatism seeks to bridge the differences between eternal enmity between owners and workers by introducing the govt into the process, seemingly as an arbiter.

229194[/snapback]

 

Exactly. FDR pushed the consolidation and regulation of workers just as he pushed the consolidation and regulation of corporations. The NRA forced union consolidation through new collective bargaining regulations and compulsory unionization, pressured unions not to strike, and attempted to set wage levels analgously to the way it controlled industrial output and pricing.

 

The NRA did not, however, seek to be an arbiter between corporations and labor, it sought to control both corporations and labor in the belief that the government knew better than the market. Call it corporatism if you want, but it still comes down to fascist economic policies.

 

Implicit in what I'm saying is that fascist economic policies can be put in place without a police state, never mind a war like or genocidal state. Never the less, they are fascist economic policies.

[Ken Estes]

The Scandinavian societies actually have some strong corporatist elements, but fascism also needs strong nationalism, authoritanism and a strong state. Actually the Scandinavian countries would score rather high on all counts but usually expressed in ways not connected with fascism.

 

If that defines fascism as the way you say things or have us Scandinavians be closet fascist - I really don't know ; x 0,5

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

229278[/snapback]

I think that is sound. Stefan. You can say one country has a fascist military, another a fascist style economic doctrine [corporatism is but one part], yet another fascist music or fascist toothpaste, but it does not really make it fascist or determine that Fascism is resident. These are patterns, not evidence of´'isms'. Ken

[Ken Estes]

Exactly.  FDR pushed the consolidation and regulation of workers just as he pushed the consolidation and regulation of corporations.  The NRA forced union consolidation through new collective bargaining regulations and compulsory unionization, pressured unions not to strike, and attempted to set wage levels analgously to the way it controlled industrial output and pricing.

 

The NRA did not, however, seek to be an arbiter between corporations and labor, it sought to control both corporations and labor in the belief that the government knew better than the market.  Call it corporatism if you want, but it still comes down to fascist economic policies. 

 

Implicit in what I'm saying is that fascist economic policies can be put in place without a police state, never mind a war like or genocidal state.  Never the less, they are fascist economic policies.

229292[/snapback]

No, I would not call it corporatism, nor would I call it Fascist economic policies, which also include autarky and ohter concepts not discussed. Finding similar threads in an evolving US political and economic situation resulting from the 100 Days' of emergency measures aimed at not controlling the society but in reversing the pace of the World Economic Crisis hardly proves that there was a Fascist hand at work.

[CaptLuke]

No, I would not call it corporatism, nor would I call it Fascist economic policies, which also include autarky and ohter concepts not discussed. Finding similar threads in an evolving US political and economic situation resulting from the 100 Days' of emergency measures aimed at not controlling the society but in reversing the pace of the World Economic Crisis hardly proves that there was a Fascist hand at work.

229437[/snapback]

 

I don't mean to say that there was an attempt to put all of the tenets of fascism in place or establish a dictatorship or anything along those lines. My point is that there was an attempt to put many of the economic tenets of fascism in place and that this was done through massive increases in government power and influence and corresponding decreases in individual liberty, just as in the economic sphere of a fascist state.

 

As for autarky, that started under Hoover with Smoot Hawley: "U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932." As with many of the things we are talking about, regardless of the philosophy behind implementing this, the effect is something very similar to economic fascism.

[Ken Estes]

Wrong on the first, correct on the second. Backing away from the exact specifics most US govt interventionism in business does resemble it.

229272[/snapback]

Well, I chose not to back away from the specifics. What is the New Deal equivalent of a given sector syndicate, where a syndicate president presides over reps of govt, industry and labor in permanent session? Do you think that certain trends in ND legislation, at times struck down, are evidence [not resemble] of a fascist economic doctrine at work?

[Guest aevans]

Well, I chose not to back away from the specifics. What is the New Deal equivalent of a given sector syndicate, where a syndicate president presides over reps of govt, industry and labor in permanent session?

229505[/snapback]

 

The PWA, especially in the area of the arts, came pretty close.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Well, I chose not to back away from the specifics. What is the New Deal equivalent of a given sector syndicate, where a syndicate president presides over reps of govt, industry and labor in permanent session? Do you think that certain trends in ND legislation, at times struck down, are evidence [not resemble] of a fascist economic doctrine at work?

229505[/snapback]

Maritime policies, which lasted into the '80's are another. In any case the principle of dealing with the Depression, or other supposed failures of markets are similar, just as you yourself said: inject govt broadly as the arbiter between labor and capital (subsidy, acceptance and encouragement of monopolistic unions*, regional development authorities, etc etc) without much if any move toward actually owning means of production. And separately neutral redristributive taxation and the welfare state, which is more of a socialist adaptation.

 

Again neutral rules for competition (pure food standards, no monopolies, etc) are confused with *essentially* syndicalist polices starting in the '30's (to derive specific pre-ordained economic outcomes). I'm just basically sorting things where they belong in terms of basic concept.

 

*to the point where later Presidents, let alone syndicate managers, were arbitrating strikes in major industries. In a free market concept, collective bargaining would be as illegal as collective price setting by companies. Strikes would be company by company and sort themselves out, as is once again more commonly the case now that the economy has evolved back, to a limited degree, to a free market concept.

 

Joe

Edited October 1, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[CaptLuke]

Well, I chose not to back away from the specifics. What is the New Deal equivalent of a given sector syndicate, where a syndicate president presides over reps of govt, industry and labor in permanent session? Do you think that certain trends in ND legislation, at times struck down, are evidence [not resemble] of a fascist economic doctrine at work?

229505[/snapback]

 

The very first NRA code involved textiles. Unions pushed for government mandated wages. The Cotton Textile Institute represented the companies and agreed in return for the NRA setting price minimums, effectively outlawing price based competition and disregarding US laws against price fixing. The NRA presided over reps of industry and labor.

 

"Codes" of regulations were drawn up by corporate lawyers working for either existing trade organizations or new associations specifically formed to help business owners protect their interests. Proposed codes were judged by an industrial advisory board that had the most influence, by a labor advisory board that had less, and by a consumer advisory board that had no influence at all. Altogther the NRA produced 550 codes, 200 supplementary regulations, and 11,000 adminisitrative orders. FDR gave each of the codes force of law by issuing them as executive orders.

 

Journalist Henry Hazlitt, writing about the NRA in 1933, used the lumber industry as an example: "Under the code in this industry an agency is set up known as the lumber code authority to administer the agreement and to undertake the task of controlling production and the task of cost protection." Cost protection, of course, meant fixing minimum prices set above market value.

 

Each code authority is a syndicate: fixing output and prices and influencing, if not controlling, wages.

[Rick]

kick

[Stuart Galbraith]

Why? On a site where Socialism is willfully conflated with Fascism, there is very little point discussing this.

[Rick]

Well, for one I would like the return of Joe Brennan. Just my opinion of course but I consider him up there with Bojan, Ken, and Rich in the quality of their posts. 

[lucklucky]

19 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why? On a site where Socialism is willfully conflated with Fascism, there is very little point discussing this.

Try to contest it...

 

Quote

Corporatism and its syndicates existed in Italy, and until the 1970s in Spain & Portugal.

For example this posted by Ken Estes is incorrect in relation to Portugal. Salazar regime was Conservative dictatorship, not a Fascist dictatorship like the left propaganda pretends. Salazar expelled and made a refugee of Rolão Preto the actual Fascist one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Rolão_Preto

 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by lucklucky

[rmgill]

20 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why? On a site where Socialism is willfully conflated with Fascism, there is very little point discussing this.

Both are collectivist authoritarian modes of government. In one the government lets you keep your stuff so long as you do their direct bidding and stay politically reliable (if you feel you're being treated unfairly they can always renegotiate). In the other they government takes your stuff and gives it to someone they think is more politically reliable by default. 

Ultimately, from the American perspective on rights, both are equally awful. 

[rmgill]

Personally, I think the Palgrave McMillan Dictionary of Political Thought by Roger Scrunton is useful. 

The fact that so much of the western Left is also hostile to the values of the liberal enlightenment makes for an interesting analysis of how they want things to work when it comes to finding which cubby hole current political parties are pushing things. 

fascism

From Latin: fasces, the bundle of rods with a projecting axe-head, carried before the consuls as a sign of the state authority of Rome, and adopted as a symbol of social unity (the bundle) under political leadership (the axe). The name was given by Mussolini to the movement which he led to power in Italy in 1922, but is now used more widely, to include German *Nazism, and Spanish *falangism, on the basis more of a common *ethos than a common *doctrine. Fascism is charac- terized by the following features (not all of which need be present in any of its recognized instances): *corpo- ratism; *nationalism; hostility to *democracy, to *egalitarianism, and to the values of liberal *enlightenment; the cult of the *leader, and admiration for his special qualities; a respect for collective organization, and a love of the symbols associated with it, such as uniforms, parades and army discipline. In Germany the cult of *violence, together with a violent *anti-semitism, were added to these features, with notorious results. The *anti-commu- nist and anti-liberal stance of fascist movements, together with the loath- someness of many actual examples, have made the fight against fascism a rallying point for left and liberal causes, so that the label ‘fascist’ may often be applied very loosely, to denote almost any doctrine that conflicts with left-liberal ideology. In this expletive use the term conveys no very clear idea, a fact which perhaps explains its popularity.

From the intellectual point of view fascism remains an amalgam of disparate conceptions, often ill-under- stood, often bizarre. It is more notable as a political phenomenon on which diverse intellectual influences converge than as a distinct idea; as a political phenomenon, one of its most remarkable features has been the abil- ity to win massive popular support for ideas that are expressly anti-egalitarian (see *Reich). Mussolini’s own ideas were derived from a heady mixture of popular science, *Marx, *Sorel and *Nietzsche. He advocated regeneration through conquest and perpetual strug- gle, and spoke, in speeches seething with sexual imagery, of the need to overcome degeneracy and impotence, to make sacrifices for the nation, and to connect to the great ‘dynamo’ of fascism. Fascists are ‘not republicans, socialists, democrats, conservatives or nationalists. They represent a synthe- sis of all the negations and the affir- mations.’ In other words, the ultimate doctrine contains little that is specific, beyond an appeal to energy and action: it is, one might say, the form of an *ideology, but without specific content (other than can be provided by admiration towards the leader). This perhaps explains some of its appeal; it seemed to make no demand other than those which the individual himself would make had he the energy. It then provided the energy.

[RichTO90]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Personally, I think the Palgrave McMillan Dictionary of Political Thought by Roger Scrunton is useful. 

The fact that so much of the western Left is also hostile to the values of the liberal enlightenment makes for an interesting analysis of how they want things to work when it comes to finding which cubby hole current political parties are pushing things.

I agree, and his entry on socialism is also useful. especially the remark that what Marx defined socialism as is fantasy and bears little relationship to actual socialism in the modern world. Those in the western (and northern, and southern and eastern) Left are as hostile to the values of the liberal enlightenment as are those in the (similar directions) Right...that is, if capitalizing Left and Right is to denote the extremes of those philosophies. Extremism of either ilk is the antithesis of the liberal enlightenment...Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, et al, believed in government by all, not in government by a politically correct left or right. The only thing as cringe-worthy to me as right wing politicos pushing their carefully cubby-holed agenda is left wing politicos pushing their carefully cubby-holed agenda. 😁

It also tells you something that both extremes will tell you to your face they are only legislating your private life to protect you from the other extreme trying to legislate your private life. 🙄

[Rick]

2 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

I agree, and his entry on socialism is also useful. especially the remark that what Marx defined socialism as is fantasy and bears little relationship to actual socialism in the modern world. Those in the western (and northern, and southern and eastern) Left are as hostile to the values of the liberal enlightenment as are those in the (similar directions) Right...that is, if capitalizing Left and Right is to denote the extremes of those philosophies. Extremism of either ilk is the antithesis of the liberal enlightenment...Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, et al, believed in government by all, not in government by a politically correct left or right. The only thing as cringe-worthy to me as right wing politicos pushing their carefully cubby-holed agenda is left wing politicos pushing their carefully cubby-holed agenda. 😁

It also tells you something that both extremes will tell you to your face they are only legislating your private life to protect you from the other extreme trying to legislate your private life. 🙄

Not trying to be argumentative, but can you show an example of right wing extremism and how if differs from left wing extremism. I have this gut -- which may be wrong -- feeling European "extreme right" may differ from U.S. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

Both are collectivist authoritarian modes of government. In one the government lets you keep your stuff so long as you do their direct bidding and stay politically reliable (if you feel you're being treated unfairly they can always renegotiate). In the other they government takes your stuff and gives it to someone they think is more politically reliable by default. 

Ultimately, from the American perspective on rights, both are equally awful. 

Alright lets be specific, that allegation made was Nazism was Socialism. Which I would agree so far as Nazism used Socialist revolutionary iconography, but it was skin deep and no deeper. It couldnt be any deeper, because Hitler, which was the central core of Nazism, was not in any form a socialist. Or his support of Franco and his war against the USSR makes absolutely no sense on any level at all. Thats fairly clear I think.

Yes, any form of politics taken to an extreme is fairly identical to another, because it inevitably degenerates to violence. Hence why the storming of the Capitol building has such thematic similarity to Eisensteins depiction of the storming of the winter palace. But I still have difficulty conflating Aneurin Bevin with Heinrich Himmler, a comparison I believe Churchill actually made,  and at that point any direct comparisons fall to bits.

But if one must compare Communism to Nazism, lets look at it like this. If you owned a company in Russia, you either fled or you got a short trip out to a forest and a bullet in the back of the neck. If you owned a company under Nazism, particularly an arms company, you got feted by the regime. Witness the difference between the proprieters of say, Carl Faberge, and the proprieter of Alfred Krupps and you may see my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Carl_Fabergé

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp

 

Other than that clear difference, I dont see much difference between the Gulag Archipeligo and violence perpectuated by the Nazis in the Concentration camps, other than the Soviets were a lot slower at it and did it for a lot longer. As for socialism, its probably far better compared to Teapartyism or McCarthyism than Nazism. Though it wont so people vainly trying im sure.

 

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

 

It also tells you something that both extremes will tell you to your face they are only legislating your private life to protect you from the other extreme trying to legislate your private life. 🙄

Functionally speaking, the left seems to spend a lot more effect in legislating private lives over the past 20 or so years. 

[rmgill]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Alright lets be specific, that allegation made was Nazism was Socialism. Which I would agree so far as Nazism used Socialist revolutionary iconography, but it was skin deep and no deeper.

You've drawn very bungie cord like parallels between socialism and anything that seems to effect any sort of policy parallel with it. 

National Socialism is collectivist. It's just not internationalist, it's nationalist with social welfare programs and the like, but for the anointed class that is determined by race or ethnicity, rather than class. Note the current intersectional push is by race and gender orientation, not by class. 

Quote

Yes, any form of politics taken to an extreme is fairly identical to another, because it inevitably degenerates to violence.

It's not that it degenerates to violence. The American Revolution degenerated to violence. It was entirely anti-authoritarian against the crown. That didn't make it extreme. 

Quote

But if one must compare Communism to Nazism, lets look at it like this. If you owned a company in Russia, you either fled or you got a short trip out to a forest and a bullet in the back of the neck. If you owned a company under Nazism, particularly an arms company, you got feted by the regime.

Only as long as you went along with things as the regime wanted. If you resisted, you got the bullet too, or a camp, and you didn't keep your company. Witness how Fokker was stripped. 

Quote

 

As for socialism, its probably far better compared to Teapartyism or McCarthyism than Nazism. Though it wont so people vainly trying im sure.

You're going to have to explain this. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by rmgill

[lucklucky]

7 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Extremism of either ilk is the antithesis of the liberal enlightenment...Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, et al, believed in government by all

Government by all can be extremist. What differentiates extremist power from not extremism is Limits to the Power, either from the dictator or the majority. 

And we want to be precise someone can be extremist and not be a danger: Amish for example, they don't force their believes in others.

 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As for socialism, its probably far better compared to Teapartyism

It would be good if you replace your usual sources!  Tea Party is(was?) an heavy Libertarian bent Conservatism.

Edited February 28, 2021 by lucklucky

[RichTO90]

6 hours ago, Rick said:

Not trying to be argumentative, but can you show an example of right wing extremism and how if differs from left wing extremism. I have this gut -- which may be wrong -- feeling European "extreme right" may differ from U.S. 

I'm not trying to be argumentative either, but I don't think I need to give an example of something I never said? Left and right wing extremism are opposite sides of the same coin. They are more similar in fact, although the rhetoric they espouse sounds opposite. Both are intensely exclusionary...the extreme left demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the right and everyone else who questions the ideals of collectivist kumbaya , while the extreme right demonizes and wants to disenfranchise the left and everyone else who questions the ideals of rugged individualism through the muzzle of a gun. Neither thinks the "other" should be in governance and both treat the middle of the road as "sheeple" to be led "for their own good". Neither has a firm grasp on reality and both treat people as ideal abstracts to be manipulated, rather than as real - and often intensely flawed - persons.

The "difference" if it is one, is the extreme right directs its appeal to nationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view of the "way things were and should be again if we could only get rid of those lefties", while the extreme left directs its appeal to internationalism keying on a rose-colored-glasses view the "way things should be and would be if we could only get rid of those righties". Neither are all that firmly grounded in reality, but instead live in a fantasy world of the way things work.

Nor do I see how European, North American, South American, African, or Asian extreme right or left differ from that reality.

[BansheeOne]

Sometimes you really wish there was a "like" button here. 😃👍

[FALightFighter]

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

Heinlein

 

sorry for the formatting- I don't know how to make the quote a lighter text so it is visible.