What is fascism?

[sunday]

54 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

But these movements rarely achieved power, being kept as useful tools to keep the real fascists quiet. The Arrow Cross and the Quisling movement became useful pets of the real Nazis until they got fed up with them in the second case. The real fascist party in Spain, Falange, became impotent with their amalgamation with the Carlist party (whose ideals were 180º form theirs) and never amounted to much in the Franco regime

Well, there was also the Catalan Fascist party, Estat Català, which merged into ERC, only Spanish Fascist party to have now presence in Parliament, and considered as Leftists.

Wonderful, isn't it?

Edited March 4, 2021 by sunday

[Rick]

13 hours ago, rmgill said:

And Banshee I'm not sure you can be mad I don't understand European Politics. We can't even get a gaggle of Europeans to agree on what Fascism is and is like when they HAD fascism in their countries. Do Europeans understand European Politics in all of the EU member nations? I think not. 
 

Money quote.

[Rick]

19 hours ago, seahawk said:

Any government that is not respecting the bible as the final authority is a failed government, that is what it comes down to. Move away from Jesus and you become the Devil.

Truer words were never spoken. 

[RETAC21]

3 hours ago, Rick said:

Truer words were never spoken. 

I suspect you missed the tone of our local troll... 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

I suspect you missed the tone of our local troll... 

It is not trolling. Most communist or fascists regimes tried to minimize the influence of religion or create some alternatives. Yes, I am aware that Spain was different, but the Franco regime was also born under different circumstances than the Italian or German fascists. It is not as if Christians believes would be an automatic protection for individuals to show no fascists tendencies but a state based on Christian values without ignoring the ideas of the age of Enlightment, usually values individual freedoms so highly, that it can not be fascist. That however does not mean a clerical Christian state could not be fascist. The problem always starts once religious leadership and the government of the country become one.

[R011]

8 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

But these movements rarely achieved power, being kept as useful tools to keep the real fascists quiet. The Arrow Cross and the Quisling movement became useful pets of the real Nazis until they got fed up with them in the second case. The real fascist party in Spain, Falange, became impotent with their amalgamation with the Carlist party (whose ideals were 180º form theirs) and never amounted to much in the Franco regime

Well said. Thanks for expanding on my point.

[RETAC21]

40 minutes ago, seahawk said:

It is not trolling. Most communist or fascists regimes tried to minimize the influence of religion or create some alternatives. Yes, I am aware that Spain was different, but the Franco regime was also born under different circumstances than the Italian or German fascists. It is not as if Christians believes would be an automatic protection for individuals to show no fascists tendencies but a state based on Christian values without ignoring the ideas of the age of Enlightment, usually values individual freedoms so highly, that it can not be fascist. That however does not mean a clerical Christian state could not be fascist. The problem always starts once religious leadership and the government of the country become one.

That is true, but Rick certainly didn't interpret your post like that. Forget Spain, it was never a truly fascist state depite its trappings, but an authoritarian state that adopted the forms of fascism when it was convenient and discarded them when it was not. Like I said, the fascists party was powerless after Franco decided to stop with the bickering in 1938.

But there was a fascist state that had a priest as its head: Slovakia. It's motto "One God, one nation, one organisation" didn't make them any better

So I quite agree with your last.

 

[bojan]

Local asshole was also high on religion being important. Funny tidbit:

Quote

...Ljotić was arrested in the run-up to the latter elections and briefly sent to an insane asylum after the authorities accused him of having a "religious mania"...

In WW2 Croatia Ustase were openly supported by more than one local representatives of the Catholic church.

Edited March 4, 2021 by bojan

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

I suspect you missed the tone of our local troll... 

Do tell, what was my tone? A bit sarcastic and pointed but still aiming for the center of the problem I think?

Perhaps you can demonstrate a quick and ready ability to get the Europeans on this forum to agree on what fascism is without much arguing. Though, given we're on page 8 now and even the Iberians aren't really in agreement let alone with the Germans and British of the forum, I think my point is sufficiently demonstrated. Add in the Yanks and the Canadians...and it's even more contentious. 

Perhaps it would be solved more quickly if we just took the eastern Europeans' views on what fascism is? Or are we going to drop into some no true Scotsman arguments about what is and is not TRUE fascism? 

🙂



 

Edited March 4, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

That is true, but Rick certainly didn't interpret your post like that. Forget Spain, it was never a truly fascist state depite its trappings, but an authoritarian state that adopted the forms of fascism when it was convenient and discarded them when it was not. Like I said, the fascists party was powerless after Franco decided to stop with the bickering in 1938.

I think you can divide authoritarian states into a number of sub categories. You can have monarchal states that are authoritarian. You can have socialist and fascist states that tend to be authoritarian as well. You can even have authoritarian religious states. Imperial Japan wasn't exactly fascist as they still had a Imperial throne as figurehead with all of those previous trappings but were still authoritarian. 

Once you get into a position of authoritarian government, you could in effect swap between types of government systems. Iraq was certainly authoritarian, North Korea is too. North Korea is more effectively a hereditary petty kingdom of the Kims with some sort of Socialist trappings as a veneer. Its not like the Kims were constrained by their socialist party member functionaries from making a hereditary kingdom in all but name. 

I could even see, within the confines of a strong leader with great power flipping back and forth between fascist and socialist trappings as the situation dictated or even as his whims decided. 

Look down the Palgrave McMillan definition. Does 'Fascist' Spain check the boxes? 

[RETAC21]

15 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I think you can divide authoritarian states into a number of sub categories. You can have monarchal states that are authoritarian. You can have socialist and fascist states that tend to be authoritarian as well. You can even have authoritarian religious states. Imperial Japan wasn't exactly fascist as they still had a Imperial throne as figurehead with all of those previous trappings but were still authoritarian. 

Once you get into a position of authoritarian government, you could in effect swap between types of government systems. Iraq was certainly authoritarian, North Korea is too. North Korea is more effectively a hereditary petty kingdom of the Kims with some sort of Socialist trappings as a veneer. Its not like the Kims were constrained by their socialist party member functionaries from making a hereditary kingdom in all but name. 

I could even see, within the confines of a strong leader with great power flipping back and forth between fascist and socialist trappings as the situation dictated or even as his whims decided. 

Look down the Palgrave McMillan definition. Does 'Fascist' Spain check the boxes? 

Surely, you must be joking, the definition you are picking up is: "a very right-wing political system in which the government is very powerful and controls the society and the economy completely, not allowing any opposition."

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fascism

That can include just about any authoritarian regime, or none at all, if the don't controk society or the economy completely, which they didn't anyway.

If this is what you understand for fascism, then I will go with Banshee's recommendation that you need to learn more.

Re Authoritarian regimes, sure NK and Iraq, and Saudi Arabia and Iran (religious dictatorships), Egypt, Mexico under PRI, etc. lots of them, mostly with nothing in common with one another.

[RETAC21]

46 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Do tell, what was my tone? A bit sarcastic and pointed but still aiming for the center of the problem I think?

Perhaps you can demonstrate a quick and ready ability to get the Europeans on this forum to agree on what fascism is without much arguing. Though, given we're on page 8 now and even the Iberians aren't really in agreement let alone with the Germans and British of the forum, I think my point is sufficiently demonstrated. Add in the Yanks and the Canadians...and it's even more contentious. 

Perhaps it would be solved more quickly if we just took the eastern Europeans' views on what fascism is? Or are we going to drop into some no true Scotsman arguments about what is and is not TRUE fascism? 

🙂



 

I will note that I was referring to Seahawk comment about Jesus, but I find it amusing you thought it was aimed at you and you felt the need to answer. Why do you think us Iberians are not in agreement, exactly?

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Local asshole was also high on religion being important. Funny tidbit:

In WW2 Croatia Ustase were openly supported by more than one local representatives of the Catholic church.

Definitely, Slovakia was the first example that came to mind.

[lucklucky]

Mussolini and Fascists could care less for Religion. Giovanni Gentile one of architects of Fascist educational system even wanted to take out the crucifixes from public schools, and  for him the state should be secular. He was advised/nudged to not do that due to the evident religious people culture . Another reason for  it was the Mussolini  interest in strategic agreements with Vatican status to help him secure his power.

Edited March 4, 2021 by lucklucky

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Surely, you must be joking, the definition you are picking up is: "a very right-wing political system in which the government is very powerful and controls the society and the economy completely, not allowing any opposition."

No, I'm referring to the Palgrave McMillan Dictionary of Political Thought by Roger Scrunton. Cited on page 3 of this thread.  The MacMillan Dictionary version you point to is woefully simplistic. 

I'll re-iterate for clarity. 

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.

 

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Re Authoritarian regimes, sure NK and Iraq, and Saudi Arabia and Iran (religious dictatorships), Egypt, Mexico under PRI, etc. lots of them, mostly with nothing in common with one another.

We'll, they're authoritarian and share a lot of characteristics which is my point. But the devil is in how they differ. An Authoritarian Monarchy has much of the same details but will lack the nationalism, that is subservient to the monarchy. Likewise corporatism will be manifestly more mercantile so long as that portion of the estates of Monarchies are subservient. 

So the things to put on the checklist.

1. corporatism
2. nationalism
3. hostility to democracy
4. hostility to egalitarianism
5. Hostility to the values of liberal enlightenment
6. the cult of the leader, and admiration for his special qualities
7. a respect for collective organization
8. a love of the symbols associated with it, such as uniforms, parades and army discipline

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

I will note that I was referring to Seahawk comment about Jesus, but I find it amusing you thought it was aimed at you and you felt the need to answer.

Hmm. That was unclear. My mistake. 

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

 

Why do you think us Iberians are not in agreement, exactly?

Lets see. 

Hey Iberian folk. Are you in agreement? 

[lucklucky]

I think we are.

Salazar was not a Fascist but a Conservative authoritarian leader. Rolão Preto was the actual Fascist  here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Syndicalists_(Portugal)

Franco was more influenced by the Falange and the help needed from Italy due to SCW, but Falange lost power after WW2 due to war results obviously and the intrinsic instability of Fascist revolutionary beliefs.

A Fascist dictator would not bring the Monarchy back like Franco did. Franco soon realized that whatever he was leading would die with him.

 

 

 

[sunday]

43 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Hey Iberian folk. Are you in agreement? 

Mostly.

[sunday]

15 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

A Fascist dictator would not bring the Monarchy back like Franco did. Franco soon realized that whatever he was leading would die with him.

Franco was a moderate Catholic Conservative. He was also quite smart, not a former corporal in the Kaiser's army, nor a washed-out journo, so one could understand the disaster that was the 2nd. Spanish Republic by the need of using a temporary dictatorship to redress things.

[RETAC21]

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

No, I'm referring to the Palgrave McMillan Dictionary of Political Thought by Roger Scrunton. Cited on page 3 of this thread.  The MacMillan Dictionary version you point to is woefully simplistic. 

I'll re-iterate for clarity. 

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.

 

•  

We'll, they're authoritarian and share a lot of characteristics which is my point. But the devil is in how they differ. An Authoritarian Monarchy has much of the same details but will lack the nationalism, that is subservient to the monarchy. Likewise corporatism will be manifestly more mercantile so long as that portion of the estates of Monarchies are subservient. 

So the things to put on the checklist.

1. corporatism
2. nationalism
3. hostility to democracy
4. hostility to egalitarianism
5. Hostility to the values of liberal enlightenment
6. the cult of the leader, and admiration for his special qualities
7. a respect for collective organization
8. a love of the symbols associated with it, such as uniforms, parades and army discipline

It's still a too simplistic approach that broadbrushes many of the specific characteristics of Fascism, and misses one of the obvious one: all 1930s fascists movements derived from the Italian one, adding local flavor based on their leader's likes and dislikes, so Nazism was anti-semitic but Falange wasn't (although some of its leaders were). Again, a re-reading of the first pages of this thread put things into much better context and clarify the differences between an authoritarian regime and a fascist one.

re. your checklist, point 4 is incorrect, fascism wanted egalitarianism within the national body, and point 8 is anything but exclusive of fascism

[WRW]

On 3/4/2021 at 3:01 PM, Rick said:

Truer words were never spoken. 

Not wishing to stir things but put koran in place of bible and you have ISIS

[sunday]

26 minutes ago, WRW said:

Not wishing to stir things but put koran in place of bible and you have ISIS

Well, duh, do not use Koran as a basis of a political system then.

Yes, I do not think all religions are equally good or bad.

[WRW]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

Well, duh, do not use Koran as a basis of a political system then.

Yes, I do not think all religions are equally good or bad.

I agree with you but a couple of hundred millions do not agree with you and a couple of million of them will kill you and me for that.

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, WRW said:

I agree with you but a couple of hundred millions do not agree with you and a couple of million of them will kill you and me for that.

Yes, just what I wrote!

[seahawk]

3 hours ago, WRW said:

Not wishing to stir things but put koran in place of bible and you have ISIS

As the bible, the koran can be interpreted in many different ways but in the end the Koran and the sharia are much more structured to be used as legislative system for a state, than the bible.