Appropriated it and perverted it. The ideal form of socialism intends to convey its benefits to all members of society. The twisted fascist version limits it to racially/ethnically/nationally “pure” members of society and almost immediately starts reconstructing inequality by giving party members and cronies special privileges.
Sadly, we’ve seen this process return even in Germany, where today you see many nationalists bragging about their progressive social safety nets (and the lack of same in the benighted U.S.) but also supporting the exclusion of immigrants and others who aren’t sufficiently German from those benefits.
Admittedly, it’s a very simplified definition (like he said in the video). I still think we need a multi-pronged, 3 dimensional chart where we can place different political ideologies: collectivist/individualist, socially liberal/socially conservative, secular/religious, authoritarian/democratic. There’s just too many different points that you can “grade” a society and its government on.
Because, he’s right. As a pure definition, fascism is an aspect of a society. If we make a very rigid definition, one which is based on Nazi Germany, or one which is based on Mussolini’s Italy, you’re never going to find an equally perfect fit. After all, the three axis allies were more or less fascist, but they all have slightly different approaches to them. So, looking at a modern context, I don’t see how we can possibly use templates from seventy years ago to define the modern phenomenon of fascism.
But, I also think that using historical examples for modern definitions is a good way to illustrate parts of the definition and inform our current ones. It’s like the word liberal (which has changed drastically even over the last century).
The thing is, that people have taken the historical examples and compared them to the lived historical examples, and have made more accurate definitions that fit with both the theories and the reality. People have done this scholarship in both the political science field and in history. These are not undefined nebulous terms.
I’d argue that fascism as a theory fits more line with the historical reality. It’s a failed, violent political structure that we do not want to repeat. In all cases, it was hostile to human freedom, and to human life of some people.
So much energy being devoted to this one word. As if its vitally important to be able to use this one word to describe Trump’s America, since no other word(s) seem to evoke that same power.
I kinda wish the consensus minority could spiral out from the german and italian examples, to ask if Imperial Rome was really fascist? Does Fascism have an opposite? (Would an opposite be anarchism?)
After seeing Bohemian Rhapsody Ive gotten on a Queen kick, and rediscovered the song One Vision. It strikes me as the perfect anthem for fascism, even though I still kinda like it.
As someone who is pretty much always being ‘voted down’ in some way, Im pretty sensitive to when people essentially say, “When I do it, Im populist, when you do it you’re fascist”.
I believe everything that reasonable people despise about Brexit and Trump and Putin and Temer and (…) could be accurately described without resorting to the F word. But yeah, go ahead. “I dont know if its fascist, but I know what I hate, and I hate it.”
It’s wild to see folks keep trying to ascribe fascism to the left/right spectrum since to be honest such a spectrum is fairly inaccurate when incorporating such reactionary movements. At least as I see it fascism is a reaction to leftist movements or trends which is why it’s nominally allied to conservative factions as the totalizing aspects of social conservatism benefit it greatly and all liberal to left social norms tend to break down such regimentation (both liberalism and leftist ideologies are nominally anti-militarist). So, in this view it’s a wild card ideology that is slippery as they come. It’ll take some kinds of socialistic trends but exclude other groups from enjoying its benefits. Or even just take the appearance of socialist sentiments but at the same time give up much control of business to corporations or even abolish said corporations if they don’t comply. It’s not something one can pin down to just well established programs beyond hatred for anything that’s more open, more left, and less exclusionary of social interests.
Edit:
Also, this is why you can’t even call Stalinism fascism even though it has a nationalist (a necessary trait but not enough to put it in the fascist category) bent to it. Along with other totalitarian ideologies like Maoism and the like these are better placed in their own category of “totalism” rather than trying to merge then with fascism as they have their own unique traits in my opinion (some which might be considered historical or material in nature).
I should’ve mentioned this but now that it’s on my mind, Ur-Fascism gives us a rough analytical framework to consider how states fall on a scale- “x” state exhibits 7 traits, “y” state 4, etc.
Also, I think the thing here is we’re not really using this as a way to claim a certain state is a certain quantity of fascism (in particular historical states,) but to identify whether current states are at risk of fascist takeover.
It’s almost a shame that it was written in the 90’s, when consensus opinion was roughly “fascism is history.” Eco was issuing a warning that few people took seriously. 25 years later we have fascist or fascist leaning heads of state governing well over a billion people, with many of those states exhibiting economic indicators which correlate to the conditions that bred the first wave of fascism.
Being afraid of people you don’t know MIGHT be, being afraid of people because of a specific characteristic (such as skin color, ethnicity, religion, style of clothing, etc) is most certainly a LEARNED trait. Xenophobia is related to the rise of the nation state and is specifically aimed at outsiders as defined by the national body, itself almost always in a state of redefintion based on whatever is a convenient scapegoat. It’s assuredly a social construct that pulls on what are assumed to be inherent characteristics of humanity.
I’ve just finished watching Mr Beats video on Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism Compared, and now I don’t think I can trust him to be accurate.
No, Marx and Engels did not invent socialism. The word in it’s current meaning was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, who died before Marx hit puberty, and the concept goes back millennia. It’s the kind of thing that you might want to get right if your argument relies on it.
in my earlier post I indicated that this is fascism because of the willingness to execute the above plan by any means necessary. The dream itself is merely the goal of our particular fascism, and I’d argue there is no such thing as a universal goal among fascists.
Reactionary system that uses political maneuvering, debate, democracy, codification of laws, and a slow evolution backward (de-evoluation) would not necessarily be fascist even if it had the same end goals.
Tear gassing children and calling it a job well done is probably fascism. Teaches them a lesson right, and gets the Dream done quicker. Where every Christian white man has a high paying job, and maximum freedom, and low taxes, and a high standard of living.
And although I didn’t reply to you directly (it was to a reply to your post), I previously indicated that I do not agree with that definition. It is vague to the point of uselessness.
I mean sure, it would be awesome to be able to define it so exactly, my problem is that the only reason there seems to be confusion is because regular people point out fascist actions/behavior and the fascists nerd snipe them into debating what fascism is or isn’t.
I mean, this has been a great discussion with great points from many people. Disagreement, civil. But our rough understanding of what fascism is is already good enough to call it out, it’s just that the fascists won’t care what you call them as long as they can keep doing what they’re doing.
I realize now that this comment is not directed entirely at you, I’ll step off my soapbox now.
No, you’re absolutely right. This entire BBS is a great place, mainly because we can have more or less civil discussions in the comment sections about this exact kind of thing. I’d much rather read everyone here debate the minutiae of the exact definitions of the system, and learn all the counterarguments so I can just shut the shit down when I see it.
But, yes, you’e right. Its definitely enough of a definition to “know it when you see it.”
Uh, obviously yes. Marxist revolutionaries can be fascist, and often are when formed as one party systems where the rights of an individual take a back seat to the needs of the state.
That Che Guevara was managing firing squads after the revolution rather than dismantling them should be a hint. While the U.S. has handled Cuban poorly this entire time, doesn’t mean that Castro was right in his methods.
We live in a world where usually everyone is wrong, unless it’s that rare person who mobilizes people under a banner of nonviolent resistance.
Good luck finding an agreeable definition of fascism, scholars have tried for years. I attempted to boil it down to its core for the sake of discussion and comparison, I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.
And no, Che was not a fascist. He was many things, murderer included, but more pertinent to your claim is that he was a steadfast internationalist, which is not in anyone’s definition of fascism.
