Is Fascism an Ideology

[Berzerker]

or is it just one of the nastier sides of humanity?

I'm watching coverage of protests in San Jose (The Donald is in town) and the protesters are attacking Trump supporters

Now thats kinda what I've come to expect from right wing Trump supporters inside the building when a protestor disrupts the proceedings

I understand fascism is more than that, so I'm talking about the inclination toward violence I typically associate with fascists. Trump was being hurt by his followers resorting to violence, this cant be good for Hillary

Not that I care about her either, but I fear for us and our planet

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/stephen-hawking-aggression_n_6733584.html

I'm sorry to say this, but we the people suck

 

[Mouthwash]

Fascism, properly defined, does not exist in America outside of white nationalist movements.

If you are only referring to "the inclination toward violence [you] typically associate with fascists," than why pose the question in the title?

 

[Berzerker]

cuz I'm asking if fascism is human nature as opposed to an ideology

 

[Ryika]

I'm watching coverage of protests in San Jose (The Donald is in town) and the protesters are attacking Trump supporters

Now thats kinda what I've come to expect from right wing Trump supporters inside the building when a protestor disrupts the proceedings

Not quite on topic, but still: You haven't been paying attention if that was the first time you've seen Trump Supporters being attacked. There's literally thousands of incidents of that happening caught on video and uploaded to youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Trump+Supporters+being+attacked

Of course we rarely actually see these scenes in the media, for some reason whenever a Trump Supporters pepper-spray a woman (after she hit a guy) that's instantly a big story, when Sanders/Hillary Supporters do something (often worse) the media often stay silent. That one guy who jumped out of the crowd, trying to hit Trump even got interviews on TV where he was practically applauded for his actions.

Truth is: Especially Sanders has some of the most vile and violent people backing him I've ever seen, people who actively go to Trump Rallies to cause trouble. Soft Violence (grouping together and moving into people to push them away for example) is an "everyday" occurrence.

About the actual question... well, it seems to be human nature that we're able to justify violence in our heads if we're convinced we're fighting for a good cause. After all, that sort of behavior occurs at the extreme ends of pretty much any political movement or ideology.

 

[Wastl]

Being violent over political opinions does not equal fascism. This sort of behaviour occurs over the whole political spectrum. As such, the original question is wrong, because none of the things you mention have anything to do with fascism.

If anything, that sort of approach came up in the modern political climate through communists and socialists, which in turn led to a counter-movement from the nationalists and later on fascists, who pretty much perfected the method.

Resorting to violence or trying to bully people into submission doesn't make you a fascist, being a fascist makes you a fascist. So no, fascism is not "human nature", because what you talk about isn't fascism, it's violence being used to support your own political agenda, which is not uncommon among humans of any variety.

In other words, you somehow have added something that doesn't belong there. You could perhaps see a link between human nature and violence, but there simply isn't any reason to push fascism in between the two just because fascism also tends to use this method. The chain would be "human nature can lead to violence over political issues, fascism is one of the examples for that", not "human nature is fascist and fascism is the cause of violence when it comes to political issues".

 

[abradley]

IMO Political violence is as old as humans:

Political Violence in the Republic of Rome: Nothing New under the Sun

Brenda J. Lutz andJames M. Lutz
Version of Record online: 21 SEP 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2006.00201.x

Issue Government and Opposition
Government and Opposition
Volume 41, Issue 4, pages
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2006.00201.x/abstract
Abstract
At various times the Roman Republic faced outbreaks of domestic political violence, including riots and intimidation, assassinations and conspiracies to overthrow the government. Violence was particularly noticeable in the Early Republic and the Late Republic. These activities were quite similar to the terrorism and violence used by mobs and groups during the French Revolution and the tactics of fascists and leftists in Europe in the 1920s or 1930s. More accurately, the actions of mobs and others during the French Revolution and leftists and fascists in Europe were very similar to the techniques used in the Roman political system in the last five centuries BCE.

 

[Hygro]

Support the most peak experience by pyramiding society hard with one lance tip to party on the level of world-history making? Fascism is more of an aesthetic.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, fascism is an ideology.

 

[plarq]

Fascism, properly defined, does not exist in America outside of white nationalist movements.

If you are only referring to "the inclination toward violence [you] typically associate with fascists," than why pose the question in the title?

I think those "patriotic" (as branded by Southern Poverty Center) anti-government organization may also qualify as fascism, in a broader sense.

 

[Phrossack]

Depends--how are we defining fascism?

I'd say it's a combination of strong nationalism, strong militarism, often seeing military struggle as inherently virtuous, frequently a desire to return to "the good old days" when the country was more powerful and had more territory, and having a decidedly un-democratic government that uses violence and repression against political opponents, especially when the leader of the country has a cult of personality.

If so, this specific combination is not really a human condition; you only really see it popping up in the 20th century. But many of its elements are timeless. People very, very often divide humanity between "us" and "them," encourage or demand solidarity within their in-group, and don't value the lives of outsiders they don't know or can't see at all. I'm still horrified when I encounter ordinary people who seem nice enough but who casually dismiss the deaths of foreigners and who are totally fine with using violence against foreigners as long as it benefits them. But I shouldn't be surprised anymore; it's so common and so timeless that I think it's human nature to be downright evil to faceless strangers.

Likewise, we can find the other elements in other settings pretty often. Most governments throughout human history have been violently intolerant of dissent, there have been many leaders throughout history with personality cults, and a lot of societies have historically valued war.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What Wastl said.

I have a little theory what Fascism, in an ahistorical and principle manner, is about. Basically, I think it is the effort to practice a tribal communal relationship in a mass society. Where Nationalism foremost just stands for in general embracing a common identity with your national fellows, fascism seeks to actually live this identity as much as possible. Where Nationalism often settles with defining the relations of different national groups, fascism seeks to also much strongly define the relations within a national group. As such, fascisms may be viewed as the effort to follow through on some of the implications of nationalism.

The crux is: That is a mighty vain effort. A communal tribe is all about personal concrete relationships. A mass society has none of it. Overall, nobody knows anyone and nobody has anything to do with anyone (in tangible directly experienced ways). The typical characteristics of Fascism come then about in an effort to, basically, fake it. To put in place idealistic placeholders where there is no actual substance. Such as:
- The icon of a leader, serving as a fake personal relationship all people can share in place of an impossible personal relationship among themselves.
- Emphasize of militarism and enemies of the group, so that members of the group can actually do something together (serving in the military and fighting the enemy)

In conclusion:
To feel closely connected and part of a social group you depend on, is of course a very primal human instinct. And it is an instinct society at large can not satisfy. Nationalism already tries to remedy this a bit, Fascism goes a step further and tries to make it an actual reality. But because that is such an impossible task, it is left with bringing Nationalistic elements to new heights and extremes and the consequences are not very pretty.

 

[Flying Pig]

I like that, though I'd make it something like 'the fascist's idea of a tribal communal relationship'. After all, the god-like leader with a unique insight into national destiny isn't a fixture of all 'simple' societies by any measure, nor is hatred and exclusion of non-members. In fact, plenty of tribal groups take hospitality and caring for strangers very seriously.

 

[Rashiminos]

I wouldn't yet associate the violence at Trump rallies with an organized authoritarian ideology, but there have been parallels in the academic sectors as of late.

 

[luiz]

I don't think it's much of a coherent ideology, and can mean different things to different people, much like "socialism". I think it's fair game to call "fascist" any regime or movement that is simultaneously nationalistic, authoritarian, militaristic, engages in the cult of a strong leader and blames external enemies (foreign or domestic) for all ills. So Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela is a fascist, as was Hugo Chávez.

As for Trump x Sanders supporters, I've said it more than once, they're more similar than we would suppose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Tribal tendencies/biases are a strong influencing factor in behavior. It's not so easy to break an "us vs them" tendency, and even less when the candidate parties use that tendency deliberately.

I don't think fascism fits as an "ideology", more like a measured state of affairs. It's a means to an end, and not a particularly good means.

 

[Senethro]

Fascism is a many headed monster that is mostly built around the opposition of supposed weakness, degeneracy or a constructed outgroup, and cynically uses any political slogan or ideal in making big energetic displays against its created opponents.

 

[Dachs]

Yes, fascism is an ideology.

Best answer.

I have a little theory what Fascism, in an ahistorical and principle manner, is about. Basically, I think it is the effort to practice a tribal communal relationship in a mass society.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about when you say "ahistorical and principle manner"; do you mean to say that you're discussing the concept of fascism without actually addressing the historical fascist regimes? Because that seems silly.

I don't think it's much of a coherent ideology, and can mean different things to different people, much like "socialism". I think it's fair game to call "fascist" any regime or movement that is simultaneously nationalistic, authoritarian, militaristic, engages in the cult of a strong leader and blames external enemies (foreign or domestic) for all ills. So Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela is a fascist, as was Hugo Chávez.

When the term "fascist" is badly misused it can mean a lot of different things to different people, yes. However, your description does not actually describe arguably the most important fascist regime, Fascist Italy, which I feel is sort of a prerequisite for any good definition. I think that referring to the Venezuelan regimes as fascist is simply a category error.

 

[Lexicus]

I think it would be accurate to say that fascism is an ideology which reflects tendencies that are rooted in human nature to some degree. Tribalism, violence, surrendering the self to something larger all seem to be universal aspects of the human condition.
But fascism is not the, or even an, inevitable consequence of these things.

I think it's more accurate to say the possibility for fascism is inherent in industrial-capitalist societies, rather than in human nature itself. It's - to use some Marxist terminology for a moment - the contradictions of modern life which give rise to the needs that fascism can fulfill. Of course, fascism in that sense is like a drug - it doesn't resolve the contradictions and in some ways only makes them gape even wider - but that doesn't stop people from getting addicted to it.

I think Orwell captured the essence of fascism better than anyone else:

Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic
attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the
last war, certainly all “progressive” thought, has assumed
tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond
ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of
life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and
the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children
playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is
never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers;
tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his
own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength,
knows that human beings don’t only want comfort,
safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control
and, in general, common sense; they also, at least
intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to
mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However
they may be as economic theories, Fascism and
Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any
hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably
true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All
three of the great dictators have enhanced their power
by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples.
Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more
grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good
time,’’ Hitler has said to them “I offer you struggle,
danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation
flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get
sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the
last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation
“Greatest happiness of the greatest number” is a good
slogan, but at this moment “Better an end with horror
than a horror without end” is a winner. Now that we
are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought
not to underrate its emotional appeal.

 

[luiz]

When the term "fascist" is badly misused it can mean a lot of different things to different people, yes. However, your description does not actually describe arguably the most important fascist regime, Fascist Italy, which I feel is sort of a prerequisite for any good definition. I think that referring to the Venezuelan regimes as fascist is simply a category error.

Unfortunately for people obsessed with "right definitions" and the purity of terminologies, there's no International Academy of Fascist Studies that can say with authority what fascism is or isn't.

I think my description describes Fascist Italy imperfectly but reasonably well, and also Nazi Germany, and Chavista Venezuela or Franco's Spain. It's sufficiently vague for that. And of course all those regimes were radically different in many ways, but most people would agree that they were fascist (I mean Germany, Italy and Spain).

But as I said, there's no right definition. For a long time a fascist was simply someone the communists didn't like, as they used and abused this term more than anyone.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I like that,

thanks

though I'd make it something like 'the fascist's idea of a tribal communal relationship'. After all, the god-like leader with a unique insight into national destiny isn't a fixture of all 'simple' societies by any measure, nor is hatred and exclusion of non-members. In fact, plenty of tribal groups take hospitality and caring for strangers very seriously.

Yes well the whole idea of my argument was that there simply can not be a communal tribe on the scale of a mass society and that fascism is what you get if you try anyway. Thus, fascism does naturally not mirror actual communal tribes.
However, there may also be alternative efforts and it is fair to stress that the Fascist way is also, well, fascist, and not just the seeking of the comforts of tribal community in a mass society.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about when you say "ahistorical and principle manner"; do you mean to say that you're discussing the concept of fascism without actually addressing the historical fascist regimes? Because that seems silly.

The full sentence of the quote you used said: "I have a little theory what Fascism, in an ahistorical and principle manner, is about." In this sentence, I did not mean for "manner" to refer to how to discuss fascism, but rather to what end. The end being an ahistorical and principle understanding of fascism.
And as you may note, I in deed did make claims about actual historic fascism witiin my argument, albeit not terribly precise ones. In any case, it should go without saying that also an ahistoric understanding of fascism has to be fed by historical fascism and as a consequence can be discussed in terms of historical fascism. Otherwise - what is one even talking about?