Motivations for being a fascist

[AmazonQueen]

Could this not also be said about Xi Jinping? I am not supporting him, but he is not accurately or usefully called a fascist. Surely you need some other features beside authoritarianism?

Which though?
I'm not sure if I would call Xi Jinping a fascist but theres certainly other features of Chinese Communism besides nationalism that could be called fascist.
Toleration of capitalism but subservient to the state.
Nationalism tied to ideas of a superior culture/ethnicity.
Its lacking the celebration of power and conflict as virtuous for their own sake but does it need to be identical to the early 20th century model to be considered fascist?

 

[Samson]

Which though?
I'm not sure if I would call Xi Jinping a fascist but theres certainly other features of Chinese Communism besides nationalism that could be called fascist.
Toleration of capitalism but subservient to the state.
Nationalism tied to ideas of a superior culture/ethnicity.
Its lacking the celebration of power and conflict as virtuous for their own sake but does it need to be identical to the early 20th century model to be considered fascist?

I would agree here. It comes back to what I said about the difference between being a fascist and doing a fascism. The treatment of the Uighurs and Hong Kong is "doing a fascism", but I do not think Xi Jinping is accurately classed as a fascist

 

[Farm Boy]

Authoritarianism, through force, is quite compatible with being an oxymoron?

 

[Moriarte]

Those people don't discriminate between causes for political activism. They simply oppose any and all opposition to established authority. If that's not fascism, then what is?

Fascism roots in economics. Oligarchs and big guns. Nationalism and xenophobia, to protect their capital from foreign competition. Etc. If you don't incorporate economics into your definition you might end up with opposition of opposition or something else funny, but scarcely describing the material process behind the motion.

 

[Gelion]

I think the word forgotten here is "totalitarianism". There's no generally acceptable word to define people who support this system.

 

[aelf]

Other features that are generally associated with fascism that are not really obvious at the top of Chinese politics are machismo, corporatism and anti-intellectualism.

Are you sure?

I would agree here. It comes back to what I said about the difference between being a fascist and doing a fascism. The treatment of the Uighurs and Hong Kong is "doing a fascism", but I do not think Xi Jinping is accurately classed as a fascist

That's rather unproductive splitting of hairs. Except in the small closed circles of internet debates, is that distinction material?

Fascism roots in economics. Oligarchs and big guns. Nationalism and xenophobia, to protect their capital from foreign competition. Etc. If you don't incorporate economics into your definition you might end up with opposition of opposition or something else funny, but scarcely describing the material process behind the motion.

Sure, but the supporters among the people are not motivated to "protect their capital from foreign competition". They don't have such capital to protect. Hell, even the intellectual vanguard and the leaders might not have that as a motivation.

I think the word forgotten here is "totalitarianism". There's no generally acceptable word to define people who support this system.

Totalitarianism is the product, not the ideology itself.

 

[Gelion]

Totalitarianism is the product, not the ideology itself.

Yes it is, but have you considered that it might be(come) an ideology?

 

[Samson]

Are you sure?

No, I am not. But I am sure there have existed terrible authoritarian people who are not fascists. Perhaps I could have used the example of Stalin, Pol Pot or the Tatmadaw.

That's rather unproductive splitting of hairs. Except in the small closed circles of internet debates, is that distinction material?

I guess the question is what are you trying to achieve? If one wants to accurately categorise different political movements so that they can be understood and countered then it helps to understand vast differences between the CCP and the National Policy Institute.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They're there. We've historical examples of them. Timur killed maybe ~20% of the planetary population so he could widow and/or just... take, lets say, ~50 to however many women. He's certainly not alone even if he was particularly flashy.

Then you lack curiosity. This is written in the OP:

Neither of these are consistent with "Then what do you say about people who advocate removing individual liberty regardless of the circumstances or the issue concerned?", which is what I answered.

Timur did not take away his own individual liberties, for example. Nor did he completely ignore which issue/liberty was in question as a matter of general policy. He was a selfish ahole who ranks top 5 among history's mass murderers (all of which are communist or Mongols, heh), but I don't recall anything supporting that there was some special ideology/policy at the level of his empire in general.

Note that Nazi Germany only misses the "top 5 mass murderer" cut because they lost the war and didn't exist very long as a result. I suspect they'd have been even worse than Stalin, if they had somehow prevailed.

Those people don't discriminate between causes for political activism. They simply oppose any and all opposition to established authority. If that's not fascism, then what is?

This is a different question than you asked before. However, the people you describe almost always oppose authority when said authority comes for them or people they love directly, or is the "wrong tribe" heading the government.

Pretty much nobody who tows a US party line fits this description, because they're only supportive of government crackdown when it's the party they like in power. Same people who called Trump a dictator now are supportive of government-pushed crackdowns on "misinformation" (regardless of whether something is or to what extent). Before that, Trump slapped on even more corporatist judges than we already had and did more or less nothing to square the imbalance between individual vs corporation in litigation (nor did he touch asset forfeiture, for example). Before that, Bush/Obama similarly trended us towards authoritarianism.

I have no respect for people who somehow think Obama/Biden are authoritarians but not Trump/Bush, or vice versa. But these people don't really fit the billing of "fascist". Only the most fringe on left/right resemble something closer to supporting something similar to historical fascism or communism.

 

[aelf]

No, I am not. But I am sure there have existed terrible authoritarian people who are not fascists. Perhaps I could have used the example of Starlin, Pol Pot or the Tatmadaw.

But you were citing XJP. If the ban on "effeminate men" in popular media and the recent purges of wealthy people who fell out of the Party's favour are any indication, he meets the criteria you listed. So it is easier to find actual examples of fascists than you seem to have assumed.

I guess the question is what are you trying to achieve? If one wants to accurately categorise different political movements so that they can be understood and countered then it helps to understand vast differences between the CCP and the National Policy Institute.

"Accurately categorise different political movements" - interesting. You say that as though that is a viable or meaningful exercise. And it is absolutely a hindrance to countering harmful movements by getting into endless debates about what truly constitutes a certain movement, so that would definitely be counterproductive.

This is a different question than you asked before. However, the people you describe almost always oppose authority when said authority comes for them or people they love directly, or is the "wrong tribe" heading the government.

Pretty much nobody who tows a US party line fits this description, because they're only supportive of government crackdown when it's the party they like in power. Same people who called Trump a dictator now are supportive of government-pushed crackdowns on "misinformation" (regardless of whether something is or to what extent). Before that, Trump slapped on even more corporatist judges than we already had and did more or less nothing to square the imbalance between individual vs corporation in litigation (nor did he touch asset forfeiture, for example). Before that, Bush/Obama similarly trended us towards authoritarianism.

I have no respect for people who somehow thing Obama/Biden are authoritarians but not Trump/Bush, or vice versa. But these people don't really fit the billing of "fascist". Only the most fringe on left/right resemble something closer to supporting something similar to historical fascism or communism.

I think you lost the plot completely. Of course, fascists will not support a government that does not prioritise consolidating its power and crushing dissent for the sake of 'unity' and 'social stability'. That is the thing about fascism.

And your inability to see beyond the circumstances of your domestic politics contributes to your inability to grasp the possibility of fascism.

 

[red_elk]

Timur did not take away his own individual liberties, for example. Nor did he completely ignore which issue/liberty was in question as a matter of general policy. He was a selfish ahole who ranks top 5 among history's mass murderers (all of which are communist or Mongols, heh), but I don't recall anything supporting that there was some special ideology/policy at the level of his empire in general.

There are multiple wildly different versions of the "top 5" list.
For example, first result in my google search lists Chiang Kai-Shek on 3-rd place, Hitler on 4-th and King Leopold on 5-th.
It doesn't mention Timur in top 10 at all.
https://medium.com/lessons-from-his...-mass-murderers-in-human-history-bfd26f471aa3

 

[Samson]

But you were citing XJP. If the ban on "effeminate men" in popular media and the recent purges of wealthy people who fell out of the Party's favour are any indication, he meets the criteria you listed. So it is easier to find actual examples of fascists than you seem to have assumed.

Fair enough, but see below.

"Accurately categorise different political movements" - interesting. You say that as though that is a viable or meaningful exercise. And it is absolutely a hindrance to countering harmful movements by getting into endless debates about what truly constitutes a certain movement, so that would definitely be counterproductive.

My point is that to avoid getting into endless debates about what truly constitutes a certain movement it is easier to classify actions than people.

 

[aelf]

My point is that to avoid getting into endless debates about what truly constitutes a certain movement it is easier to classify actions than people.

I don't see how that is of any particular value. Deniers will always deny, regardless of whether you describe the person or the action as fascist. In fact, I'd still say that it's counterproductive, since it opens up the avenue for arguing that everyone does fascist things sometimes, which can be used to absolve fascists of blame.

Far better to conclude whether a person is actually fascist from their beliefs, which can be borne out by their actions.

 

[Samson]

I don't see how that is of any particular value. Deniers will always deny, regardless of whether you describe the person or the action as fascist. In fact, I'd still say that it's counterproductive, since it opens up the avenue for arguing that everyone does fascist things sometimes, which can be used to absolve fascists of blame.

Far better to conclude whether a person is actually fascist from their beliefs, which can be borne out by their actions.

If it works for you, then great. It sounds like you have much more contact with actual fascists in RL than I ever have, so if you say it is better I will defer to you.

 

[EgonSpengler]

My point is that to avoid getting into endless debates about what truly constitutes a certain movement it is easier to classify actions than people.

I don't see how that is of any particular value. Deniers will always deny, regardless of whether you describe the person or the action as fascist. In fact, I'd still say that it's counterproductive, since it opens up the avenue for arguing that everyone does fascist things sometimes, which can be used to absolve fascists of blame.

I think it's kind of the opposite. Cradling criticism in the language of behavior rather than ideology or character may make it easier to encourage some people to stop doing it. I don't have a link handy, but a few months ago I heard about an "authoritarian questionnaire" that tried to gauge the respondent's tendency towards authoritarian beliefs, and the author said that everybody had some, nobody scored zero, including himself.

 

[Lexicus]

Note that Nazi Germany only misses the "top 5 mass murderer" cut because they lost the war and didn't exist very long as a result. I suspect they'd have been even worse than Stalin, if they had somehow prevailed.

They were far worse than Stalin in the actual timeline. The idea that Stalin (or any other Communist, really) was worse than the Nazis is itself a fascist idea.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's what I hear, mostly from you, but that's what I hear.(that's supposed to be amused, not particularly snarky - just to police the tone)

Though in those examples, I find the distinction pretty quasi-religious.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think you lost the plot completely. Of course, fascists will not support a government that does not prioritise consolidating its power and crushing dissent for the sake of 'unity' and 'social stability'. That is the thing about fascism.

They also don't support governments that do those things, however, unless it's their own person at the top.

And your inability to see beyond the circumstances of your domestic politics contributes to your inability to grasp the possibility of fascism.

"Fascist" is a common and much adored term here to throw around as an accusation w/o substance. Overdone to the point where most of its meaning is gone when a typical person uses it today, and my default stance when someone calls another person a "fascist" is that the person name-calling is either lying or has a perspective decoupled from reality.

A lot of China's practices are close though, to be fair. I don't know if I'd call China fascist outright per se', but they've definitely shifted away from communism and towards it.

 

[aelf]

I think it's kind of the opposite. Cradling criticism in the language of behavior rather than ideology or character may make it easier to encourage some people to stop doing it. I don't have a link handy, but a few months ago I heard about an "authoritarian questionnaire" that tried to gauge the respondent's tendency towards authoritarian beliefs, and the author said that everybody had some, nobody scored zero, including himself.

I think you're assuming a liberal audience. There's no way that pointing out that their actions/beliefs are fascist would dissuade those people here. They hold their beliefs as self-evidently correct.

And what you said about the "authoritarian questionnaire" is precisely an easy way out to deny that there are actual fascists.

They also don't support governments that do those things, however, unless it's their own person at the top.

You have no idea what you're talking about. As long a person represents the Party, they don't really care who it is.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think you're assuming a liberal audience. There's no way that pointing out that their actions/beliefs are fascist would dissuade those people here. They hold their beliefs as self-evidently correct.

No, I'm assuming an audience of people who either (a) won't acknowledge expressing things that are part of an identity or ideology that's generally recognized as "bad" or (b) literally don't understand what they're saying or doing.

It's also a tactic, to allow people to distance themselves from ideas and behaviors I'd prefer they didn't have or do. Making their beliefs part of who they are just makes them dig in and defend a position they may not understand very well in the first place.

And what you said about the "authoritarian questionnaire" is precisely an easy way out to deny that there are actual fascists.

Only if you assert that "fascist" or "authoritarian" is a binary state. Such a view would also let people who aren't "100%" authoritarian off the hook for advocating for things that are. The new abortion law and the voting restrictions in Texas would be two examples. Anyone promoting or defending those laws is promoting or defending authoritarianism; they don't have to be arguing for a completely authoritarian state for me to call them out on those grounds. Likewise, they don't have to be beholden to those ideas. They can look at them a little more clearly, change their minds about them, and they don't have to feel like they've lost something.