So what's wrong with fascism?

[Winston Hughes]

I think aesthetics and ethics overlap, and perhaps are even identical. Taste in art can largely be defined by morality and vice versa may be just as true.

You can think like that, but it's an example of precisely the kind of value-nullifying, reductionist philosophy that makes fascism so objectionable, and so willing to embrace totalitarian policies.

For the same reasons, I'm quite distrustful of ethical dogma's that I think are rife in Marxism and Libertarianism. Especially Objectivism and Marxism-Leninism tend to turn human beings into unimaginative drones, because of their over reliance on a set of ethics as opposed to life.

Funny, that, because one of my biggest problems with both Marxism and libertarianism is that they do tend to subvert all ethics under what are essentially aesthetic preferences (against privilege and for personal freedom, respectively). What makes them much less terrible than fascism is that the aesthetics in question carry a greater weight of hypocrisy, as they keep up the pretense of being genuinely ethical in nature. The fascist aesthetic, by contrast, moves all too easily into the naked, unashamed embrace of flagrant evil.

 

[Borachio]

Say what? How would the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires disintegrate and the USSR be created without WWI, just to cite the most blatant examples of social change caused by the war. While it may have interrupted some change - in Ireland, mostly - it sped up more.

Yes, I realized it would raise a few eyebrows.

But don't shoot me!

I'm only reporting what I've heard. And only because it struck me as a novel and possibly interesting idea - me not being an historian by any stretch of the imagination.

art-fascist-italy-paintings-florence

The new Europe of fascism was a dead end. It bred heartless mediocrity. Paintings of strident men in front of mighty locomotives and chic women looking icily glamorous do not in the least challenge my assumptions – in fact they seem to be typical of what you might think fascists would hang in their galeries.

http://www.palazzostrozzi.org/SezioneAnni30.jsp?idSezione=1855&idProgetto=2&idLinguaSito=2

Sadly, though those links are interesting, they don't give any really good examples of fascist art, that I can see.

How does fascist art differ from socialist realism?

I'm confused. Is this a Ziegler?

Gah! I can't seem to access any good fascist images at the moment. Perhaps there aren't any.

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

 

[Tahuti]

You can think like that, but it's an example of precisely the kind of value-nullifying, reductionist philosophy that makes fascism so objectionable, and so willing to embrace totalitarian policies.

No. What makes Fascism objectionable is its narrow-mindedness: Like Modern Liberalism, Fascism recognizes that morality cannot possibly be objective, but Fascism hypocritically proceeds to a position in which it asserts its superiority of its own values (assertiveness, national pride) over all others, as if it were an objective fact. This narrow mindedness makes Fascism inevitably authoritarian, which I detest.

Funny, that, because one of my biggest problems with both Marxism and libertarianism is that they do tend to subvert all ethics under what are essentially aesthetic preferences (against privilege and for personal freedom, respectively). What makes them much less terrible than fascism is that the aesthetics in question carry a greater weight of hypocrisy, as they keep up the pretense of being genuinely ethical in nature.

These ideologies still overly rely on reason to create ethics. Which represents both an abuse of rationalism, as it can only deal with matter of fact which morality isn't, and a denial of human desire, which is fundamentally irrational. As you pointed out, it is also very self-defeating, since all ethical conclusions that are rationally made by Libertarianism and Marxism are based on essentially aesthetic ideals.

 

[Winston Hughes]

No. What makes Fascism objectionable is its narrow-mindedness: Like Modern Liberalism, Fascism recognizes that morality cannot possibly be objective, but Fascism hypocritically proceeds to a position in which it asserts its superiority of its own values (assertiveness, national pride) over all others, as if it were an objective fact. This narrow mindedness makes Fascism inevitably authoritarian, which I detest.

I agree with you that narrow-mindedness is central to the evils of fascism, but I disagree that the assertion of superiority was hypocritical. To the contrary, it was meant to be entirely authentic, and, if we take ethics and aesthetics to be identical (and both to be entirely subjective at root), it seems like a fairly reasonable conclusion.

The starting point here is that, if moral judgements have the same, subjective character as aesthetic ones, then there is no arbiter of superiority other than success. How, though, is any notion of value to become successful without people to give it their whole-hearted support? The answer is that the assertion of superiority is itself an act of aesthetic creativity, placing the drive to success at the very heart of the created aesthetic, and justifying its support by the authentic recognition of its own foundation in subjectivity.

[No time to finish this now. Back later.]

 

[Tahuti]

The starting point here is that, if moral judgements have the same, subjective character as aesthetic ones, then there is no arbiter of superiority other than success.

Moral judgments have no arbiter at all, not even success. Especially not success. After all, we may not even know what success of a particular moral judgment would entail. The only objective thing about moral judgments is that they may emit certain patterns when scanning neuro-images from people who hold such values and that's it.

The flaw of Fascism is that success equals dominance, but by doing so, it chooses an arbiter, where none exists. The social darwinist ethics that are part of Fascism are certainly no less based on circular logic than say utilitarianism or Kantianism.

Societies that cling to certain forms of morality may be more likely to survive, but then again, survival is not a great arbiter either, to say the least.

 

[ParkCungHee]

National syndicalism is close enough to both anarchism and fascism that Mussolini and many anarchists supported it, which is why they followed him. That doesn't make them fascists; it makes them people who believe that the fascists are able to deliver the political system closest to what they want.

But that suggests a tactical ploy on the part of these anarchists that simply wasn't there. Many of them were founding members of the Fascist movement, there before Mussolini. In many cities most of the founding Fascists were anarchists, and were able to fully articulate their vision of society.

Afterwards, Mussolini took Fascism in a direction that was very different from this vision, but that doesn't mean these people weren't authenticate Fascists.

You wouldn't say, for example, that Trotsky wasn't a legitimate Bolshevik because the his beliefs were entirely incompatible with that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (particularly their beliefs vis a vis killing Trotsky).

The key reason however is that Anarcho-Fascism isn't just Fascism with caveats, but a disagreement about how Fascism is to be implemented. The key feature of the Fascist belief is that the general will of the nation is what's important, and the goal of politics is to express this general will directly. Mussolini and his supporters claimed that the most direct way to express this national will was through him as an interpreter or prophet of the General will. Mussolini, as an Italian, only needs to look into his heart to know what Italy needs.

But there were very many Fascists who thought such a person was entirely unnecessary to implement their program, that indeed any government at all could only serve as a distorting lense on the national will. Italians simply needed to be Italians, to subsume themselves into the General Will which would provide direction without any top down leadership. These were not general Anarchists who thought fascism would be tactically preferable to implement syndicates, these were Fascists who thought anarchism would be tactically appropriate to implement Fascism.

 

[Flying Pig]

I would argue that fascism as an ideology depends on Mussolini's idea of the dominant leader, and that the ideas that the 'fascist' movement had before this were more proto-fascist than the ideology itself. I recognise that this does sound a bit like the Nae True Scotsman argument, though. To me, you've set out anarcho-nationalism, which is similar but lacks the dominant leadership essential to fascism.

In the same way, if the entire Labour Party agreed with Thatcher, that would not make Thatcherism a form of socialism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Was this in response to me?

If any change was going to happen to the Hapsburg Empire, it was increased centralisation. The short civil war between Austria and Hungary that was brewing - and likely to come to a head when the ausgleich came up for renewal in 1917 - would see to that. They were also liberalising it. The Ottomans, likewise were looking to centralise their regime's power structure, and they were doing well. The Romanovs, again, were slowly modernising and centralising their empire.

If WWI doesn't break out Britain would be in a civil war before the end of 1914. No questions asked. It would make the Easter Rebellion look like a romantic picnic on the beach. I'm not even going to try to work out the knock-on effects that would have, but I find it difficult to believe that none of the other powers would take advantage of it. Italy especially, with their naval persecution complex. Italian irredentism already existed, but was increased during the war. I'm not even trying to predict the direction the Balkans were going, since that changed on a weekly basis.

Then, of course, there's the growth of political and social movements like socialism, fascism, feminism, communism and Zionism all as a direct result of the war. They may have existed before it, but the war, again, sped them up nicely.

Well, see, the problem I'm having here is the conflation of rapid change with "accelerated" change, which implies that the trends in question were already-existing and merely given a bit of a boost. That's true in some cases, but in others it produced change of a wholly different kind. As you say, the tendency in Austria-Hungary before 1914 was towards centralisation, not nationalism. In other cases, both are true- there was an already-existing towards Irish Home Rule, yes, but it was moderate and constitutional (albeit armed, although that hardly precludes either) before 1914, but radical and extra-constitutional after 1918. Likewise, little in the socialism of 1914 prefigures the soviets of 1917-1919, and we won't find the the militaristic fascism of 1919 wholly contained in the quasi-Jacobin fascism of 1914. These were changes which, even if they didn't result directly from the war, were certainly born of the wartime experience.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Moral judgments have no arbiter at all, not even success. Especially not success. After all, we may not even know what success of a particular moral judgment would entail. The only objective thing about moral judgments is that they may emit certain patterns when scanning neuro-images from people who hold such values and that's it.

The flaw of Fascism is that success equals dominance, but by doing so, it chooses an arbiter, where none exists. The social darwinist ethics that are part of Fascism are certainly no less based on circular logic than say utilitarianism or Kantianism.

Societies that cling to certain forms of morality may be more likely to survive, but then again, survival is not a great arbiter either, to say the least.

The essential character of the fascist view of morality conceives it as something that we create as an expression of will. The arbiter of a created morality can - and, from the fascist perspective, must - be success because it is implicit in the creation that that is how it is to be judged. You cannot tell him that his morality has no arbiter because, as far as he is concerned, that arbiter is determined in the act of creation.

You're absolutely right that this is circular logic. But, under its own terms, it's not hypocritical. Indeed, it is conceived in such a way as to circumvent the problem of hypocrisy, allowing its adherents to justify more-or-less anything in its name.

As a practical ideology, fascism represents an attempt to bridge the gap between this profoundly selfish view of morality and the inescapable fact that humans are social creatures. I don't feel I need to elaborate on the inevitability of its failure to do so, except to note that, in its denial of hypocrisy, fascism guarantees that the leaders to whom it grants unlimited power will be sadists, bootlickers, and narcissists.

 

[innonimatu]

But that suggests a tactical ploy on the part of these anarchists that simply wasn't there. Many of them were founding members of the Fascist movement, there before Mussolini. In many cities most of the founding Fascists were anarchists, and were able to fully articulate their vision of society.

I didn't knew there was such a strong link between anarchists and the beginnings of italian fascism. Thanks for the information
Can you you recommend any further reading on the subject?

 

[Lord Baal]

Well, see, the problem I'm having here is the conflation of rapid change with "accelerated" change, which implies that the trends in question were already-existing and merely given a bit of a boost. That's true in some cases, but in others it produced change of a wholly different kind. As you say, the tendency in Austria-Hungary before 1914 was towards centralisation, not nationalism. In other cases, both are true- there was an already-existing towards Irish Home Rule, yes, but it was moderate and constitutional (albeit armed, although that hardly precludes either) before 1914, but radical and extra-constitutional after 1918. Likewise, little in the socialism of 1914 prefigures the soviets of 1917-1919, and we won't find the the militaristic fascism of 1919 wholly contained in the quasi-Jacobin fascism of 1914. These were changes which, even if they didn't result directly from the war, were certainly born of the wartime experience.

I didn't realise I was arguing against this point, which I completely agree with. WWI accelerated some changes, slowed or stopped others, outright created yet others and sent existing upheavals running off in completely new, unexpected directions. No argument here.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why did fascism prove so successful for Germany before their little invasion of Russia? I can name quite few post-WWII countries that have thrived under dictators and quasi-fascist governments. No developed nations, really, but I think that applying that correlation to establish a negative trend towards the economic and social viability of fascism confuses cause and effect.

I, personally, am a total realist. Fascism can be useful for some of the more underdeveloped societies but disastrous for others.

 

[Lord Baal]

Why did fascism prove so successful for Germany before their little invasion of Russia? I can name quite few post-WWII countries that have thrived under dictators and quasi-fascist governments. No developed nations, really, but I think that applying that correlation to establish a negative trend towards the economic and social viability of fascism confuses cause and effect.

I, personally, am a total realist. Fascism can be useful for some of the more underdeveloped societies but disastrous for others.

Germany wasn't really fascist. Nazism is a racialised off-shoot of fascism.

As to your question; "fascism" (we'll use the term, even though it's not technically accurate) was terrible for Germany. The German economy was rotten to the core, and it was the successes of the German military - which managed to maintain a large degree of independence from Nazism, unlike civil authorities - which kept Germany alive for as long as it did. Whenever the German army - or occasionally diplomats, as in Munich - captured a territory for the Reich, the NSDAP immediately stripped it of its wealth and extorted ridiculous loans from occupied territories in order to keep itself afloat. As it was, Germany operated under huge deficits for the entirety of Nazi rule, and was essentially to become an economic satellite of the USSR if it hadn't invaded shortly before it was required to pay for the raw materials Stalin had sold the Nazis since 1939.

Please name a single state that has thrived under fascist leadership. Dictatorships are often good for a state, but fascist dictatorships have never been.

 

[Mouthwash]

Germany wasn't really fascist. Nazism is a racialised off-shoot of fascism.

As to your question; "fascism" (we'll use the term, even though it's not technically accurate) was terrible for Germany. The German economy was rotten to the core, and it was the successes of the German military - which managed to maintain a large degree of independence from Nazism, unlike civil authorities - which kept Germany alive for as long as it did. Whenever the German army - or occasionally diplomats, as in Munich - captured a territory for the Reich, the NSDAP immediately stripped it of its wealth and extorted ridiculous loans from occupied territories in order to keep itself afloat. As it was, Germany operated under huge deficits for the entirety of Nazi rule, and was essentially to become an economic satellite of the USSR if it hadn't invaded shortly before it was required to pay for the raw materials Stalin had sold the Nazis since 1939.

Please name a single state that has thrived under fascist leadership. Dictatorships are often good for a state, but fascist dictatorships have never been.

My absence of historical knowledge is, currently, biting me in the ass. How are you defining "fascist?"

 

[sophie]

Say what? How would the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires disintegrate and the USSR be created without WWI, just to cite the most blatant examples of social change caused by the war. While it may have interrupted some change - in Ireland, mostly - it sped up more.

Maybe if this is your favorite sculpture:

 

[Lord Baal]

My absence of historical knowledge is, currently, biting me in the ass. How are you defining "fascist?"

Fascism is an ideology which glorifies the state above individuals, and subsumes individuals to that state. It is by nature authoritarian and far-right, but rejects both capitalism and socialism; the capitalists for placing to much emphasis on the rights of the individual and the socialists for emphasising the equality of individuals.

Fascism has many similarities with the rest of the far-right; it's highly nationalistic, its emphasis on the primacy of the state leads rather naturally to outright jingoism and it is intolerant of dissent. It also tends to be paternalistic. But it is separated from the rest of the far-right by its desire for a revolution to re-make society. Most far-right (or even moderate-right) movements are reactionary; that is, they want to roll back change. Fascism wants to increase it. There is more than a little echo of Nietsche's "overman" in the fascist ideal. Fascism's state-centred policies tend to lead to military adventurism and expansionism, but these aren't necessary processes for fascism to thrive.

Nazism is a racialised off-shoot of fascism. While all the fascist and para-fascist (this means they adopted some fascist policies and ideology, but not all of it) regimes of Europe, except Greece and possibly the Iberian states, adopted racially-based leglisation, this was due to the hegemony of Germany. A true fascist does not care for a person's ethnicity, only the superiority of the state and the subsuming of the individual by it. Nazis replaced the state with an Aryan ideal; their goal, therefore, was not to strengthen the German state, but the German (Aryan or Nordic) people. In practice they tended to mix-and-match both racial and fascist ideologies here and there, but their ideology was essentially "racial fascism," rather than fascism.

Maybe if this is your favorite sculpture:

Wow. That is truly hideous. From my admittedly subjective point of view, of course.

 

[sophie]

Wow. That is truly hideous. From my admittedly subjective point of view, of course.

Man, I was hoping you'd get the reference.

Futurism mang. The ideology's crap but the art is glorious.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Fascism is an ideology which glorifies the state above individuals, and subsumes individuals to that state.

It doesn't glorify the state per se - fascists have little respect for any version of the state that doesn't fit their exacting requirements. Rather, the state is glorified only as it acts as the vehicle for a national will-to-power, which itself is an expression of the personal will-to-power of those who lead the fascist movement.

One might well argue that this is exactly what you find if you peek under the lid of all authoritarian nationalisms, but there is one crucial difference here: fascism distinguishes itself by denying any hypocrisy in all this, treating the drive to dominate and subjugate others as the very essence of morality for both individuals and nations.

 

[Lord Baal]

Man, I was hoping you'd get the reference.

Futurism mang. The ideology's crap but the art is glorious.

I have next-to-zero knowledge of art. If it isn't film, literature or an optical illusion of some sort, then it's not worth knowing. I'll never get any references to art you make, ever, unless it involves Grand Admiral Thrawn.

 

[sophie]

I have next-to-zero knowledge of art. If it isn't film, literature or an optical illusion of some sort, then it's not worth knowing. I'll never get any references to art you make, ever, unless it involves Grand Admiral Thrawn.

You're gonna break my heart