Is Fascism an Ideology

[Flying Pig]

I'm not sure fascism was a non-starter in Britain - at one point, the BUF claimed to have 50,000 members, and a lot of prominent people expressed admiration for Mussolini and (in the early days) Hitler. Were it not for the example of Nazi Germany, and later the war, I think fascism absolutely could have taken off as a major political force in the UK.

 

[Traitorfish]

How many of those fifty thousand were actually fascists, though? Most had been in Loyalist organisations before they joined the BUF, and most joined Loyalist organisations afterwards. "Fascism" was a label they wore for a years, while it was strong in the public imagination, and abandoned when it gained more negative connotations than positive. And, tellingly, the regions of the United Kingdom where the BUF most struggled to gain a foothold were Northern Ireland and Scotland, were traditional Loyalism was an entrenched force and so where the flag of "fascism" wasn't necessary to rally the populist right.

I don't doubt the sincerity of Mosley and the core leadership, but most of what was called "British fascism" was the same old Loyalism in fashionable costume.

 

[Oruc]

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

If people think they can get away with it or justify it they will choose the violent option every time. Those 'protesters' know they have the power right now and they will use it.

 

[Flying Pig]

How many of those fifty thousand were actually fascists, though? Most had been in Loyalist organisations before they joined the BUF, and most joined Loyalist organisations afterwards. "Fascism" was a label they wore for a years, while it was strong in the public imagination, and abandoned when it gained more negative connotations than positive. And, tellingly, the regions of the United Kingdom where the BUF most struggled to gain a foothold were Northern Ireland and Scotland, were traditional Loyalism was an entrenched force and so where the flag of "fascism" wasn't necessary to rally the populist right.

I don't doubt the sincerity of Mosley and the core leadership, but most of what was called "British fascism" was the same old Loyalism in fashionable costume.

One might say the same about Italian or German fascism, though. How many of the Nazi party genuinely believed everything in Mein Kampf (or had read it), and how many joined it as just another version of the many paramilitary groups knocking around in the 1920s? How many Italians saw fascism as a synonym for military patriotism? I don't have answers to those, but we probably shouldn't think of the British fascists as all more-or-less decent people wearing brown shirts, but the German ones as died-in-the-wool Nazis.

 

[aelf]

We don't take the definition of whoever came up with the term "socialism" as the only valid one, and we accept definitions evolve and change over time, depending on usage.

I see this argument being bandied around a lot these days. Seems like mainstream discourse is starting to wise up to the idea. However, when a concept becomes popular, it also tends to be misunderstood or misapplied.

The fact that definitions evolve and change over time doesn't mean it's a free for all when it comes to claiming that a certain term means something. This is the kind of thing where you'll know it when you see it - i.e. the shift in meaning would be concrete and visible. And in this case, it's not at all convincing that the meaning of 'fascism' has shifted in a way that justifies the way you use it, no matter how hard you try. It's probably the case that there is far from any sort of consensus as to what 'fascist' really means today, in which case it's kind of silly to complain that people don't agree with your definition.

 

[luiz]

I see this argument being bandied around a lot these days. Seems like mainstream discourse is starting to wise up to the idea. However, when a concept becomes popular, it also tends to be misunderstood or misapplied.

The fact that definitions evolve and change over time doesn't mean it's a free for all when it comes to claiming that a certain term means something. This is the kind of thing where you'll know it when you see it - i.e. the shift in meaning would be concrete and visible. And in this case, it's not at all convincing that the meaning of 'fascism' has shifted in a way that justifies the way you use it, no matter how hard you try. It's probably the case that there is far from any sort of consensus as to what 'fascist' really means today, in which case it's kind of silly to complain that people don't agree with your definition.

I'm not complaining at all that people don't agree with my definition. If you read my original post on this thread, you'll note that what I wrote is that in my opinion there is no very coherent definition of fascism, and it can mean different things to different people (including people far more educated than anyone in this thread, a fact which can be easily verified). I then proceeded to offer some characteristics that, in my opinion, would render a regime liable to be called "fascist", even if it's by no means a very specific or clear-cut list.

As I also said, I find the definitions of the people who disagreed with me valid and defensible as well. My point was that my definition is also valid and makes sense, since there's nowhere near a consensus on what fascism means, and it's not like respected scholars don't have radically different definitions, some quite close to mine.

So Dachs was mistaken to dismiss my definition as completely wrong, without offering any alternative of his own, all in a rather pretentious schoolboy manner that certainly does not impress me.

 

[Traitorfish]

One might say the same about Italian or German fascism, though. How many of the Nazi party genuinely believed everything in Mein Kampf (or had read it), and how many joined it as just another version of the many paramilitary groups knocking around in the 1920s? How many Italians saw fascism as a synonym for military patriotism? I don't have answers to those, but we probably shouldn't think of the British fascists as all more-or-less decent people wearing brown shirts, but the German ones as died-in-the-wool Nazis.

The difference there is, you're talking about movements that acquired their hangers on after they had already established themselves as a major political force. There was still, in at least the Italian case, a powrful and independent fascist subculture at its heart: a movement that made use of but did not dependent on the various stragglers, oppurtunists and hangers on it accumulated. That was never really the case with the BUF- while the leadership may have been sincerely fascist, there was never anything we could identify as a genuine fascist subculture. Rather, the BUF was a particular formation within an existing far-right subculture, the orientation of which was, if anything, fundamentally Loyalist.

If you took away Mussolinis hangers on, you still have tends of thousands of angry, militant veterans all quoting D'Annuzio and punching communists. If you take away the BUF's hangers-on, you're just left with Mosley on a street corner, haranguing passers-by, and that's not a movement.

 

[Kyriakos]

Fascism is an ideology. Already fascist parties are in government in many EU countries
Iirc some years ago there were articles about how Greece, supposedly, was pro-fascist, but alas, no such excellent social critique now that over-racism in half of Europe is beyond just glaring.

 

[plarq]

Fascism is an ideology. Already fascist parties are in government in many EU countries
Iirc some years ago there were articles about how Greece, supposedly, was pro-fascist, but alas, no such excellent social critique now that over-racism in half of Europe is beyond just glaring.

Do the right-wing and left-wing radicals share the same voter base? With Syriza rising in Greece, Golden Dawn also had supports reinforced.

 

[Kyriakos]

If by 'had supports reinforced' you mean that they lost a few 10.000 voters in the last election. They got a 0.2% voting share rise, but that was due to voter turnout being smaller overall.

 

[Wastl]

Fascism is an ideology. Already fascist parties are in government in many EU countries
Iirc some years ago there were articles about how Greece, supposedly, was pro-fascist, but alas, no such excellent social critique now that over-racism in half of Europe is beyond just glaring.

Uh, no, there aren't. There are a selective few right-wing parties that are a bit further to the right than your average conservative party and are part of the government in a tiny number of EU-countries, but even those for the most part aren't fascist in any way.

The closest thing to any far-right party having influence, are the Sweden Democrats, who are still not quite fascists, and Jobbik in Hungary, which is fascist but not part of the government.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Doesn't sound like apologetics for fascism. Far right parties in Hungary, Slovakia, and even Austria (wth is up with former Austria-Hungary? ), the baltics, even east Germany are quite hardcore as they are. While some of those are closer to nazi-type party than others, they all are having common foreigner-hatred traits. Also in Finland and Denmark the parties got decidedly far-right. But i suppose there just is not more interest in commenting, now that it is not some lame blame game and is an open reality of just what virtually all of the 2004-joining countries actually are, namely not at all in tune with what the European Union supposedly was. And it does spread to some older member-states as well.
Might as well remember who insisted on the 2004 massive expansion of the Eu. Was it Germany, by any chance? Good werk.

 

[Wastl]

^Doesn't sound like apologetics for fascism. Far right parties in Hungary, Slovakia, and even Austria (wth is up with former Austria-Hungary? ), the baltics, even east Germany are quite hardcore as they are. While some of those are closer to nazi-type party than others, they all are having common foreigner-hatred traits. Also in Finland and Denmark the parties got decidedly far-right. But i suppose there just is not more interest in commenting, now that it is not some lame blame game and is an open reality of just what virtually all of the 2004-joining countries actually are, namely not at all in tune with what the European Union supposedly was. And it does spread to some older member-states as well.
Might as well remember who insisted on the 2004 massive expansion of the Eu. Was it Germany, by any chance? Good werk.

Is there supposed to be some content in there?

Jobbik is Hungary's third biggest party, and they are fascist. Hungary's government is not. Slovakia doesn't have fascists anywhere near the power, and Austria doesn't even have a fascist party near parliament. They have the FPÖ, which is your standard right-wing (not even far right) party, and sure as hell not fascist or even neo-nazi. There aren't any fascists in the baltic countries either, nor are they of any relevance in eastern Germany. You have the NPD, which barely made it into some of the state-parliaments but is completely irrelevant when it comes to an sort of politics. The AfD had some great successes in the eastern parts, but once again, they are nowhere near being fascists, they aren't even far right, though they do have a few members who are leaning in that direction. The same is true for all the other countries you mention.

Simply put, you throw around terms that you don't know the meaning of. There are no fascist parties as part of the government of any EU-nation, there are one or two parties that are a bit further to the right than your average right-wing conservatives, beyond that you only have parties that have always been around and have nothing to do with the far-right or even fascism, they are simply normal right-wing parties the see a comparable party on the left. Some countries in Europe have rather questionable parties in charge, but that doesn't make them fascist, because to be fascist you actually need to be fascist, which none of them are. None of those parties are in any way new though, they have been around for a whole and in some cases even controlled the government in the past.

Stating that there are "fascist parties in government in many EU countries" is like stating that the EU is about to turn communist because Syriza is in charge in Greece, it's complete and utter bs.