Define "Left".

It's like the diagnosis checklists for pyschopathy - one factor doesn't tell it, but when lots of them coincide, it's a fairly good guess you're dealing with a soon-to-be fascist group of people. A party advocating 'hang 'em high' justice for paedophiles, the strengthening of the establishment of the Church of England, and blaming all of our problems on immigration and the political élite would be quite likely a fascistic one!
 
Did you see my Wikipedia link? Academia is confused. It doesn't have a clue.
Wikipedia is halfway decent for many things, such as a general overview of a given topic. You will usually get the correct facts for something like history or political science. You will not be guaranteed an up-to-date literature review - it's a freaking encyclopedia - and you will not be guaranteed good analysis.
 
I never really got the religion + state factor for suppposed Fascists.
It's basically abused as a tool to help gain control over the minds and opinions of the populace but Im sure if it becomes counter to the vision of the great leader it will quickly be manipulated to suit that change. Nothing i've seen requires a theocratic bent to count as a "fascist" regime.
It just suits modern day leftists athiests.
 
It's like the diagnosis checklists for pyschopathy - one factor doesn't tell it, but when lots of them coincide, it's a fairly good guess you're dealing with a soon-to-be fascist group of people. A party advocating 'hang 'em high' justice for paedophiles, the strengthening of the establishment of the Church of England, and blaming all of our problems on immigration and the political élite would be quite likely a fascistic one!
No, if one of those "checklists" were to exist for Fascism, it would have these things on it:
Actually, it can be very accurately described on a political scale - it is authoritarian, anti-individualist, nationalist, and third way - the only place it doesn't fit in is into your frankly idiosyncratic left-right dichotomy that somehow can't accommodate for historical accounts of the rightiness of fascism.
 
I never really got the religion + state factor for suppposed Fascists.
It's basically abused as a tool to help gain control over the minds and opinions of the populace but Im sure if it becomes counter to the vision of the great leader it will quickly be manipulated to suit that change. Nothing i've seen requires a theocratic bent to count as a "fascist" regime.
It just suits modern day leftists athiests.

No, but did you see my post? It's a good warning sign, if seen in conjunction with other good warning signs. None of those say for definite that a regieme is fascist, but many of them in the same place starts to suggest it more strongly. Certainly, our favorite over-used example did try very hard to link religious loyalty with patriotism, although I'd actually say that the best example of that was in Ancient Rome, where few people among the upper classes (and therefore the writing classes) actually believed in the state religion, but went along with it because that was what one did in those days - it became more a political tool than a sincere belief as we would recognise it today.

Actually, it can be very accurately described on a political scale - it is authoritarian, anti-individualist, nationalist, and third way - the only place it doesn't fit in is into your frankly idiosyncratic left-right dichotomy that somehow can't accommodate for historical accounts of the rightiness of fascism.

That's just a better checklist; the original's not bad for symptom-spotting (bear in mind that the outward manifestation of a disease and the actual internal causes of said manifestation are different things)
 
I never really got the religion + state factor for suppposed Fascists.
It's basically abused as a tool to help gain control over the minds and opinions of the populace but Im sure if it becomes counter to the vision of the great leader it will quickly be manipulated to suit that change. Nothing i've seen requires a theocratic bent to count as a "fascist" regime.
It just suits modern day leftists athiests.
I agree, to an extent. Italian Fascists benefited from clerical support and intermittently enacted policies designed to win papist approval, but they also worked to curb the power of the papacy and of parish priests. Despite the similarities of some of their policies, others were fairly radically different. And in Spain, the clerical interests within the Falange basically wiped out the actual Fascists that were there.

Conflating Fascism with some sort of amorphous 'religious interest' is obviously ridiculous. Even the steps that the Italian Fascists took in concert with or in favor of the Catholic Church ought to be contextualized to the specific situation of Italy in the 1920s and 1930s.
Some people do consider the USSR to have been fascist.
And they are wrong.
 
I should make a derail to point out that as a figure soon to be a student that I do not support the labelling of Wikipedia as "academic" and in fact see many problems with it.

Here, here and here can explain better than I can, along with this.
 
That's just a better checklist; the original's not bad for symptom-spotting (bear in mind that the outward manifestation of a disease and the actual internal causes of said manifestation are different things)
It's a "better" checklist because the other checklist ranges from misleading to deliberately wrong.
Why are they wrong?
The whole point of Fascism is anti-individualistic nationalism. Please point out where that was a Thing in Stalin's Soviet Union and get back to me.
 
The whole point of Fascism is anti-individualistic nationalism. Please point out where that was a Thing in Stalin's Soviet Union and get back to me.

The Great Patriotic War?
 
The Great Patriotic War?
No.

The whole point of Fascism was that "you" don't exist. You're just a part of Italy, or wherever. (And since Fascism itself didn't really gain a whole lot of popularity outside of Italy...) The Soviet Union, on the other hand, began at least theoretically with explicitly anti-nationalistic goals and structure and retained that structure for its entire existence before it helped bring the whole country down. The cynical employment of nationalistic propaganda in times of military extremity doesn't really affect that. Kazakhs, for instance, were not urged to consider themselves as part of "Russia". Neither were, say, Azeris.
 
A lot of the problem we're having is the idea that fascism represents some sort of terminal point of rightness, as if moving further to the right was identical to moving closer to fascism. That's really not true, and there are a good number of historical examples of people and groups who were both extremely right-wing and actively hostile to fascism. A good provincial example is Protestant Action, a far-right Loyalist party in inter-war Scotland (and I don't just mean didn't-much-care-for-Catholics Loyalist, I mean actively-campaigned-to-deport-all-Catholics Loyalist), who were vehemently and at times violently anti-fascist, because they viewed fascism as a Popish conspiracy to undermine Protestant liberties.
 
It's a "better" checklist because the other checklist ranges from misleading to deliberately wrong.

I think the other one is a checklist for totalitarianism rather than fascism per se, which does account for some of its problems. However, you won't find a country with more than half of those that isn't damn close to fascist, even if it differs on minor technical points.
 
I never really got the religion + state factor for suppposed Fascists.
It's basically abused as a tool to help gain control over the minds and opinions of the populace but Im sure if it becomes counter to the vision of the great leader it will quickly be manipulated to suit that change. Nothing i've seen requires a theocratic bent to count as a "fascist" regime.
It just suits modern day leftists athiests.
I can't speak for Britain, but the two seem to be inexorably intertwined in this country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christofascism

Christofascism (the name being a portmanteau of Christianity and Fascism) is a concept in Christian theology first mentioned by Dorothee Sölle, a Christian theologian and writer, in her book Beyond Mere Obedience: Reflections on a Christian Ethic for the Future in 1970.[1][2][3] To Sölle, Christofascism was caused by the embracing of authoritarian theology by the Christian church. According to Sölle, it is an arrogant, totalitarian, imperialistic attitude, characteristic of the church in Germany under Nazism, that she believed to be alive and well in the theological scene of the late 20th and turn of the 21st century.[4][5] Usage of the term became much more prominent in 2006–8,[6] as a backlash against increasing usage of the word "Islamofascism" by conservatives in the USA such as David Horowitz.[7]

American historians and political commentators have also used the term to refer to politico-religious tendencies in American society.

Chris Hedges and David Neiwert observe the beginnings of American Christofascism during the Great Depression, when Americans espoused forms of fascism that were "explicitly 'Christian' in nature."[15]:88 Hedges writes that "fundamentalist preachers such as Gerald B. Winrod and Gerald L.K. Smith fused national and Christian symbols to advocate the country's first crude form of Christo-fascism."[16]:140 Smith's Christian Nationalist Crusade said that "Christian character is the basis of all real Americanism."[16]:140 Another prominent advocate of Christofascism was William Dudley Pelley.[15]:88

By the late 1950s, followers of these philosophies became the John Birch Society, whose policy positions and rhetoric have greatly impacted modern dominionists.[16]:140 Likewise, the Posse Comitatus movement began with former associates of Pelley and Smith.[15]:90 The 1980s saw the Council for National Policy[16]:140 and the Moral Majority[17][18] carry on the tradition, while the patriot movement and militia movement represented efforts to mainstream the philosophy in the 1990s.[15]:90

The term is also used to describe modern tendencies. Episcopal priest Carter Heyward, professor of theology at Episcopal Divinity School, uses the term to describe political and social policies that exclude nontraditional families in the name of Christianity, a practice she described as "arrogant and blasphemous."[19] Jonathan Turley referred to conservatives who wished to make Representative Keith Ellison, a Muslim, swear in on a Bible as "Judeo-Christofascists," in response to the use of "Islamofascists."[20] Incidents of anti-abortion violence, including the bombings committed by Eric Robert Rudolph and the murder of George Tiller, have also been called Christofascism.[15]:90-91[21] The term caused controversy in 2007, when Melissa McEwan, a campaign blogger for then-presidential candidate John Edwards, referred to religious conservatives as "Christofascists" on her personal blog.[22][23]

But I would tend to agree with "abused as a tool to help gain control over the minds and opinions of the populace" part. There isn't anything inherently religious about fascism. It is more a matter of it being used as a tool to recruit and help promote the movement, much as Muslim "terrorists" do.
 
So China is fascist?

It's totalitarian - which I think is what the checklist is trying to say - and not far off fascist, when compared with most other countries. Dachs' checklist will give you the answer more accurately, but depends on knowing more about a government's ideology rather than just observing what the place looks like from the outside.

I can't speak for Britain, but the two seem to be inexorably intertwined in this country:

The British do not discuss religion in politics, unless they want their careers to be short.
 
I can't speak for Britain, but the two seem to be inexorably intertwined in this country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christofascism
"Christofascism" isn't a real thing. It's just a provocative way of saying "Christians being dicks", which pre-dates fascism by approximately nineteen centuries.

It's totalitarian - which I think is what the checklist is trying to say - and not far off fascist, when compared with most other countries.
Then it's just a list of authoritarian policies that a country might conceivably have, and offers no suggestion as to what a country having one, several or all of these policies tells you about it. Which is really not very helpful.
 
If you take away "corporate power is projected" and "religion and government are interwined" - you end up with the pertinent features of the Soviet Union in many decades of its existence. Not very helpful IMO.

Which is why I used to be curious what a communist country might look like if it did not have a fascist government. We haven't seen that yet.....
 
Back
Top Bottom