So what's wrong with fascism?

[Borachio]

Just as I was getting interested in the Golden Dawn thread, it closed. Although admittedly it was getting derailed.

So, what exactly is wrong with fascism? I mean, of course, apart from the bad reputation it got during the first half of the 20th century; I know precious little about it.

Is there something intrinsically wrong with the notion? Or is its poor reputation really undeserved?

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

Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences.

The ideological roots of fascism have been traced to the 1880s, and in particular the fin de siècle theme of that time.[63][64] The theme was based on revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society and democracy.[65] The fin-de-siècle generation supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism and vitalism.[66] The fin-de-siècle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.[65] The fin-de-siècle intellectual school considered the individual as only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.[65] They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society.

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

Is fascism necessarily based on a pessimistic/realistic view of human nature? Or liberalism on an optimistic/unrealistic view?

Fascism is commonly regarded as deliberately and entirely non-democratic and anti-democratic.[222][223][224] Scholar on democracy, Anthony Arblaster has recorded fascists' policy claim about the ideology supporting a form of democracy, but Arblaster regards the claim as a deliberate lie and empty rhetoric, claiming that fascism never intended to put such claims of democracy into practice, and thus he categorizes fascism as non-democratic and anti-democratic in practice.[225]

However, some scholars have rebuked this common critical view. Walter Laqueur says that fascists "would not necessarily accept the label of 'anti-democratic'. In fact many of them argued that they were fighting for a purer and more genuine democracy in which the participation of the individual in politics would not be mediated by professional politicians, clerical influences, the availability of the mass media, but through personal, almost full time involvement in a political movement and through identification with the leader who would represent the feelings and sentiments of the whole people."

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that most people (myself included) do not really know the historic definition of "fascism", and use the term is a more loose way so as to signify anything deeply undemocratic. This can cause problems, since effectively the term becomes something connotated uncontrollably, although obviously always negatively. So it seems that to most (apart from the minority of those who actually study such historic political movements) it is in general a synonym to undemocratic ideas, of various degrees.

 

[warpus]

Isn't the broad definition of fascism any extreme right-wing ideology that puts corporate & state interests ahead of those of the citizenry?

If so, the flaws seem obvious!

 

[Dachs]

Isn't the broad definition of fascism any extreme right-wing ideology that puts corporate & state interests ahead of those of the citizenry?

Broad and incorrect.

 

[warpus]

What's a good definition then? The one in the OP seems very wrong to me

 

[Tahuti]

The basic philosophical premise from Fascism is that societies can be likened to organisms AND the meaning of life is derived from this as well, from which follows that societies should be "healthy" (minorities and political opponents are like diseases) and that societies should be able to direct people into following their life's meaning (read: states ought to be powerful and corresponding to ethnic groups).

The philosophical flaws in Fascism basically lies in the assumptions that individuals deviant from society somehow have incomplete lives, are a threat to society and are not self-sufficient. Once you can explain a society as the sum of its individuals - as Karl Popper did - the basic premise of Fascism, and thus it's very viability, is lost. Besides, as with most ideological systems, Fascism makes ethical claims that are presupposed to be true without explaining why, despite Nietzsche and even David Hume already having pointed out that such claims are bollocks well before Fascism even appeared.

 

[classical_hero]

What is right about fascism? I think that is the better question, since it would be far easier to list all the "positive' aspects of it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fascism strives to achieve the absolute supremacy of the state over society. That is bad, thus, fascism is bad.

Once you can explain a society as the sum of its individuals - as Karl Popper did

Popper is not generally regarded as an authority on the study of human society. He was an epistemologist who wrote a few polemics in his spare time.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Definitely the hats, less so the boots.

On a serious note though, it's very silly.

 

[IkM]

What is right about fascism?

^this

 

[EnglishEdward]

Without referencing dictionary sources, this is my understanding:

Fascism was developed by Benito Mussolini being derived from the latin and italian
word "fasces" which represented the "sticks" that ancient roman administrators
used to enforce law and order.

As such it is implicitly authoritarian believing in a strong state to impose discipline.

Theoreticians have argued that fascism was a logical outcome of darwinisn.

In many instances where corporations controlled the state, this meant that fascism
was capitalist and in favour of the wealthy being opposed to unions and non
conformist individuals.

In practice fascism is associated with the mentality that "might" is "right",
which recognises no law other than the gun or the sword.

I.e. fascism worships the strong and despises the weak and it is
therefore ethically flawed. This logic therefore permits invading weaker
countries for no other reason than their weakness.

Its defenders would argue that if its adherents have good moral values, then
fascism is no more than a good framework in which societry can achieve, but this
is a poor defence in that much the same claim could be made of communism.

Nazism was a variant of fascism including particular hatred for minorities.

 

[Kyriakos]

Theoreticians have argued that fascism was a logical outcome of darwinisn.

I still would wish they would not act as apes

 

[Borachio]

What is right about fascism? I think that is the better question, since it would be far easier to list all the "positive' aspects of it.

It kind of reminds me of Christianity. Where people work for the general good under a charismatic leader. As far as I can see, there's nothing particularly democratic about the kingdom of heaven, is there?

Fascism, taking it in its broadest definition, tends to arise under conditions of hardship, with people subsuming their personal interests to the greater "good".

It's also said to be a very efficient form of government since decisions can be taken without any of that unsightly, and time-wasting, consultation with the general populace.

There's also this.

And this:

[Fascism is] a mass movement with multiclass membership in which prevail, among the leaders and the militants, the middle sectors, in large part new to political activity, organized as a party militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy or class origin but on a sense of comradeship, believes itself invested with a mission of national regeneration,...

an 'anti-ideological' and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself antimaterialist, anti-individualist, antiliberal, antidemocratic, anti-Marxist, is populist and anticapitalist in tendency...

a civil ethic founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility, comradeship, and the warrior spirit;....

But it is rather a "mixed-bag".

 

[onedreamer]

What is wrong with Fascism is that not only it led to nothing good, it led to something VERY wrong, one of the worst periods in Human history and hardly I can imagine it leading to positive consequences even if we try to put it in a different historical sociopolitical scenario.

Fascism strives to achieve the absolute supremacy of the state over society. That is bad, thus, fascism is bad.

Can you explain how do you separate state from society to the point you place them at the extreme opposites?

Without referencing dictionary sources, this is my understanding:

Fascism was developed by Benito Mussolini being derived from the latin and italian
word "fasces" which represented the "sticks" that ancient roman administrators
used to enforce law and order.

The ideology predates Mussolini, but he modeled it to his use. However, the international political economical situation was fundamental for the success of his operation, which probably would have failed under different conditions.

In many instances where corporations controlled the state, this meant that fascism
was capitalist and in favour of the wealthy being opposed to unions and non
conformist individuals.

AFAIK Fascism was state capitalist. The state controlled corporations, not the other way around.

In practice fascism is associated with the mentality that "might" is "right",
which recognises no law other than the gun or the sword.

The mentality is that of order and discipline, which is nothing original and is the exact opposite of the law of the jungle you just described.

fascism worships the strong and despises the weak and it is
therefore ethically flawed. This logic therefore permits invading weaker
countries for no other reason than their weakness.

examples to back your theory?

Nazism was a variant of fascism including particular hatred for minorities.

Not at all, Fascism already included that despicable "bit" on its own.

 

[EnglishEdward]

AFAIK Fascism was state capitalist. The state controlled corporations, not the other way around.

There is the theory and there is the reality.

The mentality is that of order and discipline, which is nothing original

Which applies to select group/faction or nation only.

and is the exact opposite of the law of the jungle you just described.

Which applies between groups, factions and nations respectively.

examples to back your theory?.

Italian invasion of Libya and Ethiopia.

German invasion of Poland, Russia etc.

 

[onedreamer]

There is the theory and there is the reality.

can you provide us with the reality please?

Which applies to select group/faction or nation only.
Which applies between groups, factions and nations respectively.

even if (and it's still your theory), what then? It would not change the fact that Fascism doesn't promote the "law of the jungle" more than any other human manufacture.

Italian invasion of Libya and Ethiopia.

What? That's called Colonialism/Imperialism. Any European country and beyond has done it in that period. Even Genghis Khan, Attila and Julius Caesar have done it. Precursors of Fascism?

German invasion of Poland, Russia etc.

You had made a difference between Nazim and Fascism, are they the same now? Anyways Poland was in the allies and considering Russia a weak country is a big joke, given that Germany lost WW2 in Russia.

 

[EnglishEdward]

can you provide us with the reality please?

In the wider sense:

(1) East India Company (a corporate not government) invasive wars to conquer India.
(2) Trading companies selling opium to Chinese having Britain go to war with China.

Both instances of corporates dictating to government.


Where is your definition of fascism?

Fascism doesn't promote the "law of the jungle" more than any other human manufacture.

Fascism promotes law of jungle more than other concepts such as Diplomacy, Human Rights, Sovereignty, Democracy, Pacifism, International Law, and Trade.

What? That's called Colonialism/Imperialism. Any European country and beyond has done it in that period.

No, other countries tended to do it in the previous century.
Although the USA restarted the practice after 9/11.

After the movement to universal suffage, the First World War and the League of Nations, it was no longer respectable to invade other countries for no good cause.

Even Genghis Khan, Attila and Julius Caesar have done it. Precursors of Fascism?

If you like. All believed in the law of the strong.

You had made a difference between Nazim and Fascism, are they the same now?

As stated Nazism was a variant of Fascism.

Anyways Poland was in the allies

Poland was not invaded by Germany because it had allies.

and considering Russia a weak country is a big joke, given that Germany lost WW2 in Russia.

So what, Hitler underestimated Russia and thought they were much weaker.

 

[Traitorfish]

Can you explain how do you separate state from society to the point you place them at the extreme opposites?

Nope.

 

[Borachio]

Is it true that liberalism is just a luxury people feel they can afford when the living is easy - but when the going gets tough, do the tough turn to fascism?

To what extent was Britain living under the fascist rule of Churchill during WW2?

 

[Cutlass]

Is it true that liberalism is just a luxury people feel they can afford when the living is easy - but when the going gets tough, do the tough turn to fascism?

To what extent was Britain living under the fascist rule of Churchill during WW2?

The Great Depression brought on half a century of liberal dominance in the US. Prosperity caused by liberal dominance brought on a resurgence of conservatism over the past 30 years. Conservatism is a luxury good.

As to fascism, hard time bring out extremists. And they bring people to a willingness to try extreme ideas. It also brings about a blaming of others for your problems. These things open a door that extremist leaders will try to exploit, whether they be fascists or communists or something else. But it does not imply that these extremists will win and come to power. Communist and fascist movements in the US in the 1930s fizzled out on the simple belief that FDR was trying to do something to help the people. Even though in the end FDR really didn't do all that much. Just the perception was sufficient to rob the extremists movements of converts.