Motivations for being a fascist

[Lexicus]

I don't think it's possible to usefully generalize about individual motivations for affiliation with political movements or ideologies.

 

[aelf]

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.

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.

This wouldn't work on the people I'm thinking about. I mean, would you say that you have confidence in swaying a hardcore Trump supporter through such methods?

I'd say even hardcore Trump supporters aren't as committed to fascist beliefs. They're just going with whatever they think aligns with their leader's wants or views. But once you start talking to people who believe in 'unity' and 'social stability' above all else, you will not be able to get far in trying to get them to acknowledge that their beliefs are bad.

Or is your favoured approach towards, say, Nazis that of appeasement (i.e. compromise)?

 

[EgonSpengler]

This wouldn't work on the people I'm thinking about. I mean, would you say that you have confidence in swaying a hardcore Trump supporter through such methods?

That's not an easy question to answer with certainty, for a few reasons, but the incomplete answer is yes, I think I could.

I'd say even hardcore Trump supporters aren't as committed to fascist beliefs.

I agree. To go back to your opening sentence, American authoritarianism doesn't really have an intellectual vanguard today, it just has a power-base. I think it has people who recognize ways they can benefit or profit personally, and who have figured out how to manipulate both our system and people. That's all Trump represents. I don't think he himself has a single idea in his head, about anything. He'll do whatever he needs to do to get rich and famous and powerful, and remain so. I doubt he even has a favorite sports team; he'll just wear the jersey of whatever group he's trying to get money out of. He was a proud New Yorker who supported Democrats until it didn't suit him anymore/he couldn't get away with it anymore. He only ran as a Republican because they were the ones who would have him. He doesn't give a f about anything but himself. I think some small number of his supporters are using him for their own ends, just like he's using them, and the rest are kidding themselves.

They're just going with whatever they think aligns with their leader's wants or views. But once you start talking to people who believe in 'unity' and 'social stability' above all else, you will not be able to get far in trying to get them to acknowledge that their beliefs are bad.

I'm not convinced. I had a very, very brief conversation with colleague who's a self-described conservative (not a fascist, mind you) a couple of months ago, who was livid about the "caravans" of immigrants from Central America who had been making their way to the United States' southern border. I was able to turn his position a couple of degrees with a few sentences while we were working.

Also, I don't think a belief in unity and social stability is a good working definition of fascists, either in the US today or in Europe in the 1920s-30s. The fascists in Europe between the wars were very much interested in upending the existing order, sowing division and creating instability. I'm mainly thinking of the Germans here; I know only a little about the Italian fascists, and even less about the Spanish fascists.

The American right-wing of today is harder to pin down, because they don't have the 'intellectual vanguard' you mentioned. They don't have a consistent, well thought-out political or social ideology that they can articulate, nevermind defend. That's why the "critical mass [of] people who are motivated to support it for other reasons" are so inconsistent and quick to anger. The people who physically assaulted the Capitol Building on January 6th of this year couldn't keep it together for even a few months. It seems like every time I read something about those guys, they're saying they regret it and can't explain why they did it.

You said it yourself in your opening post, "there's a strong element of brainwashing, where they buy into fascist ideas because they were taught that those are the correct way of doing things."

Or is your favoured approach towards, say, Nazis that of appeasement?

Are you literally talking about the Munich Agreement from 1938? If so, I think it was probably too late, by then. The time to intervene might have been, I dunno, ten years earlier? I'm not sure. I think by the Night of the Long Knives in... uh... *quickly Googles* 1934, the express train to Hell already had a lot of momentum.

As for today, I think anyone in 2021 who claims the label of Nazi for themselves probably just isn't very bright, and probably doesn't even know much about National Socialism. You remember those guys chanting "blood and soil" in Charlottesville, Virginia and carrying tiki torches a few years ago? I doubt even 1-in-20 of those boneheads even knew what they were saying. I bet a lot of them didn't even know what they were emulating. Dylan Roof, who literally shot up a church full of Black people in the hopes of starting a race war, doesn't have two braincells to rub together.

 

[Joij21]

They don't see themselves as fascists, though, and may not even understand the term.

If they don't see themselves as fascist then I doubt they are. Just seems like you may not like their particular political views, however unsavory, and are throwing them all under this blanket term.

A real fascist is someone who states they are fascist and then goes to great lengths defending their ideology and coming up with some kind of Jewish (or other perceived subhuman group) conspiracy to justify it.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not convinced. I had a very, very brief conversation with colleague who's a self-described conservative (not a fascist, mind you) a couple of months ago, who was livid about the "caravans" of immigrants from Central America who had been making their way to the United States' southern border. I was able to turn his position a couple of degrees with a few sentences while we were working.

I've had the most success with conservative coworkers, friends, and what have you by simply asking them "why do you say that?" or "why do you think that?" when they say outrageous nonsense. I actually started a process that led to my right-wing Republican friend becoming a leftist a few years later because, in 2008, he was talking about how John McCain wasn't conservative enough and when I asked him why he was saying that he realized he didn't have an answer.

Are you literally talking about the Munich Agreement from 1938? If so, I think it was probably too late, by then. The time to intervene might have been, I dunno, ten years earlier? I'm not sure. I think by the Night of the Long Knives in... uh... *quickly Googles* 1934, the express train to Hell already had a lot of momentum.

Hell no, if the British and French hadn't capitulated to Hitler at Munich the German Army would have arrested and probably killed him.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I just thought of one potential who could perhaps be on the intellectual vanguard of American fascism. Rich Lowry wrote a book I'm curious to read, "The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free." As I understand it - and I don't know that I do, 'cause I haven't read it - he's drawing a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. But I don't know if he means nationalism in the way a fascist would. I never really thought of Lowry as a fascist, but who knows..?

 

[EgonSpengler]

I've had the most success with conservative coworkers, friends, and what have you by simply asking them "why do you say that?" or "why do you think that?" when they say outrageous nonsense. I actually started a process that led to my right-wing Republican friend becoming a leftist a few years later because, in 2008, he was talking about how John McCain wasn't conservative enough and when I asked him why he was saying that he realized he didn't have an answer.

Right, good example. Part of the process of turning those people around is not pushing them into digging in and making them feel like they have to come up with a defense of their position. A confrontational approach is just ineffective, most of the time.

Hell no, if the British and French hadn't capitulated to Hitler at Munich the German Army would have arrested and probably killed him.

I mean... okay... even if that's true, is a military coup really a good solution? Doesn't that kind of mean the democracy has failed? And what would've happened then? I think half of the despots around the world were leaders of military coups who overthrew the despots before them and promised democratic elections, and here were are 40 years later and the same guy is still President. (Okay, I'm probably exaggerating a little.)

 

[aelf]

I'm not convinced. I had a very, very brief conversation with colleague who's a self-described conservative (not a fascist, mind you) a couple of months ago, who was livid about the "caravans" of immigrants from Central America who had been making their way to the United States' southern border. I was able to turn his position a couple of degrees with a few sentences while we were working.

I think your Eurocentric and specifically American point of view is also blinding you to the fact that not everyone in the world is close enough to you in their worldviews to be convinced by your great liberal ideas.

You should come live here and hear the kinds of things that people say and vote for. Take a gander at the discourse and see liberal activists being vilified and even subject to state sanction, to the applause of the general public. Just try your tack on these people. The white man coming with his superior ideas and discourse will be met with derision. Liberalism is Western corruption - that's what they think.

Or, maybe somewhere a bit more familiar, take a trip to Kabul and try to make the Taliban see the error of their ways in how they treat women. I'd be interested to see if you succeed.

Also, I don't think a belief in unity and social stability is a good working definition of fascists, either in the US today or in Europe in the 1920s-30s. The fascists in Europe between the wars were very much interested in upending the existing order, sowing division and creating instability. I'm mainly thinking of the Germans here; I know only a little about the Italian fascists, and even less about the Spanish fascists.

Just like TMIT, you're confusing the method with the motivation or end goal. They sowed division and instability because they wanted to realise their dream of a united and stable society where all citizens work towards a common purpose and everything else is considered deviant. Once the leaders of the fascists are in power, you can be sure they would no longer seek to create instability.

If they don't see themselves as fascist then I doubt they are. Just seems like you may not like their particular political views, however unsavory, and are throwing them all under this blanket term.

A real fascist is someone who states they are fascist and then goes to great lengths defending their ideology and coming up with some kind of Jewish (or other perceived subhuman group) conspiracy to justify it.

This way of identifying people's beliefs is hilariously bad. So no one is anything unless they specifically call themselves that?

 

[AmazonQueen]

If you look at Germany or Italy or Spain most supporters of fascist governments weren't fascists.
They may have been racist or terrified of communism or wanted to restore their country to "greatness" but very few bought into the whole ideology.

 

[aelf]

If you look at Germany or Italy or Spain most supporters of fascist governments weren't fascists.
They may have been racist or terrified of communism or wanted to restore their country to "greatness" but very few bought into the whole ideology.

In a way, you're right. They were fascist not because they could regurgitate the tenets of the ideology. Fascism isn't even that coherent an ideology. What we typically identify as fascism now is a kind of virulent authoritarianism, which is one thing that historical fascist regimes had in common.

The supporters of fascism are fascist because they support fascism (i.e. fascist government) and maybe because they buy into enough fascist ideas, not because they are necessarily True Believers.

I mean, that's kind of the point of the OP. The question is what drives people to become fascists other than fascist ideology itself (which is too esoteric for most)?

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think your Eurocentric and specifically American point of view is also blinding you to the fact that not everyone in the world is close enough to you in their worldviews to be convinced by your great liberal ideas.

You should come live here and hear the kinds of things that people say and vote for. Take a gander at the discourse and see liberal activists being vilified and even subject to state sanction, to the applause of the general public. Just try your tack on these people. The white man coming with his superior ideas and discourse will be met with derision. Liberalism is Western corruption - that's what they think.

Or, maybe somewhere a bit more familiar, take a trip to Kabul and try to make the Taliban see the error of their ways in how they treat women. I'd be interested to see if you succeed.

Just this morning I heard a radio program - a podcast, actually - about someone who took a survey of Muslim men. This was in Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. The topic was allowing women to work outside the home. When they were asked as a group about whether they would allow their wives or sisters to have their own jobs, they answered no, overwhemingly. However, when they were interviewed individually, and assured of their anonymity, the men overwhelmingly said they wouldn't mind if the women had jobs. The people doing the study then conducted an experiment. They told half of the men that most of the other men agreed with them (the other half were not told anything, as a control group). Some time later, I think it was a year, many of the wives and sisters of the men who'd been told that they weren't weird in thinking that women could work if they wanted to had jobs.

Just like TMIT, you're confusing the method with the motivation or end goal. They sowed division and instability because they wanted to realise their dream of a united and stable society where all citizens work towards a common purpose and everything else is considered deviant. Once the leaders of the fascists are in power, you can be sure they would no longer seek to create instability.

Actually, I thought that was the mistake you were making when you wrote of "their dream of a united and stable society where all citizens work towards a common purpose." Both instability and stability are means to an end. But you're precisely right about how it unfolds: These folks are insurrectionists and revolutionaries until they're the ones who are powerful and wealthy, and then suddenly they're interested in peace and security.

If you look at Germany or Italy or Spain most supporters of fascist governments weren't fascists.
They may have been racist or terrified of communism or wanted to restore their country to "greatness" but very few bought into the whole ideology.

Yes, that's how I see it, too.

 

[aelf]

Just this morning I heard a radio program - a podcast, actually - about someone who took a survey of Muslim men. This was in Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. The topic was allowing women to work outside the home. When they were asked as a group about whether they would allow their wives or sisters to have their own jobs, they answered no, overwhemingly. However, when they were interviewed individually, and assured of their anonymity, the men overwhelmingly said they wouldn't mind if the women had jobs. The people doing the study then conducted an experiment. They told half of the men that most of the other men agreed with them (the other half were not told anything, as a control group). Some time later, I think it was a year, many of the wives and sisters of the men who'd been told that they weren't weird in thinking that women could work if they wanted to had jobs.

Cool anecdote. I still want to see whether you'd actually succeed.

Maybe that's what we need over here. A saviour from the West to come and make people see the error of their ways. Succeed where many yellow/brown people have tried and failed.

Actually, I thought that was the mistake you were making when you wrote of "their dream of a united and stable society where all citizens work towards a common purpose." Both instability and stability are means to an end. But you're precisely right about how it unfolds: These folks are insurrectionists and revolutionaries until they're the ones who are powerful and wealthy, and then suddenly they're interested in peace and security.

I had no idea fascist supporters all became powerful and wealthy under fascist governments, hence their loyalty and fervent support. That explains everything.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Cool anecdote. I still want to see whether you'd actually succeed.

Maybe that's what we need over here. A saviour from the West to come and make people see the error of their ways. Succeed where many yellow/brown people have tried and failed.



I had no idea fascist supporters all became powerful and wealthy under fascist governments, hence their loyalty and fervent support. That explains everything.

Alright, I'm tired of your sarcastic antagonism and animosity now. You're no more interested in a discussion than the 'blood and soil' goobers with the tiki torches. See ya.

 

[AmazonQueen]

In a way, you're right. They were fascist not because they could regurgitate the tenets of the ideology. Fascism isn't even that coherent an ideology. What we typically identify as fascism now is a kind of virulent authoritarianism, which is one thing that historical fascist regimes had in common.

The supporters of fascism are fascist because they support fascism (i.e. fascist government) and maybe because they buy into enough fascist ideas, not because they are necessarily True Believers.

I mean, that's kind of the point of the OP. The question is what drives people to become fascists other than fascist ideology itself (which is too esoteric for most)?

I think they support people who offer simple solutions to complex problems, abdicate responsibility to the strong leader, the authoritarian voice.
Most people just want to get on with their lives, not worry about politics. When "normal" politics seem to be failing is when fascism gets its chance.
Thats a very Western democracy perspective. I have no experience of living under an authoritarian regime.

 

[EnglishEdward]

If you look at Germany or Italy or Spain most supporters of fascist governments weren't fascists.

That may be what they they claimed in Germany and Italy after the fascists lost WW2, but that does not mean that it is at all true.

 

[Gelion]

If they don't see themselves as fascist then I doubt they are. Just seems like you may not like their particular political views, however unsavory, and are throwing them all under this blanket term.

A real fascist is someone who states they are fascist and then goes to great lengths defending their ideology and coming up with some kind of Jewish (or other perceived subhuman group) conspiracy to justify it.

Being a fascist is a conspiracy now. Well, as long as you believe it

 

[TheMeInTeam]

These folks are insurrectionists and revolutionaries until they're the ones who are powerful and wealthy, and then suddenly they're interested in peace and security.

This also applies to a much broader group of political doctrines than only "fascist".

 

[Joij21]

Being a fascist is a conspiracy now. Well, as long as you believe it

They exist, but they make up only a fraction of a percent of the population.

 

[Gelion]

They exist, but they make up only a fraction of a percent of the population.

Who, fascists or conspiracy theorists? Are they the same thing? Do you have to be a conspiracy theorist to be a fascist?

 

[Joij21]

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

The main reason I'm not concerned of a fascist resurgence is because at some point they have to go public as to their actual opinions when it comes to how they view Jews. Once this happens, too many people are already educated in grade school of what the Nazis did to the Jews and the propaganda that they used to dehumanize them, therefore they would be outright rejected.