The Origin of Fascism

[Julius Gandi]

I know a lot of WWII history but i have never heared the actualy beginning of Fascism. Was it Hitler? Was it someone else like a Karles Marxs of Facism?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Benito Mussolini is largely accredited with starting the 20th century fascist movement.

 

[sabo]

I believe it was Mussolini, then Hitler, then Franco, I understand that Mussolini was Hitlers Idol

 

[Hitro]

Fascism is far less of a clear-cut ideology than Communism, and that alone says alot.

There is no manifesto like Marx' and Engels' in Communisms case, the first bigger movements that were later referred to as Fascist evolved all over (Western) Europe after WW1. While the term was coined in Italy and while Mussolini was the first to establish a Fasicst regime (which is usually referred to as such) the other movements of that sort weren't directly followers of that but developed at the same time. Later on they all borrowed from each other, where applicable.
As Nationalism is a strong aspect in Fascism it is logical that, unlike Socialist ideas, one country's Fascism can't too closely resemble another's. Nobody outside Italy would aim for some romantic recreation of Roman greatness and nobody outside ("Greater") Germany would aim for "Greater Germania", while all Communists everywhere would aim for the "world" revolution.

 

[Xen]

Nobody outside Italy would aim for some romantic recreation of Roman greatness.

your wrong on that account

 

[Hitro]

your wrong on that account

Okay, I should have included something about sanity.

And I thought your thing would be the Byzantine Empire?

And aren't you of Italian descent?

 

[Julius Gandi]

Thanks for the quick answers, I really never was clear about that thanks.

 

[Red Threat]

The fascism is essentially a reaction of the middle class against the socialist expansionism. The countries involved were the closer to USSR. Then, the situation degenerated but... Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were a great Wall of the West against Stalin and revolution.

 

[Edward Yee]

Depends on how you define fascist. Benito Mussolini definitely is the "icon" of fascism, although some would say that it's our current president

But fascism can be a byword for tyranny in general, yes? For example, Syria's Baathist Party could be described as fascist since it lacks the socialist elements now.

 

[EdwardTking]

Fascism is derived from "fasces" which was Roman and is Italian for sticks.

Sticks (for beating crimninals) were the symbol of ancient Roman magistrates,
Mussolini wanted to refound a Roman empire so he used that old symbol.

 

[Provolution]

Fascism actually stem from the legions of ancient Rome, Fasces is latin for the tied grain on an axe, and the very idea epithomizes a control over the production by the military machine, for the military machine to run business, as well as mixing military/court and police decision- The groundwork in fascism is a Mussolini book called "Doctrine of Fascism". It is not a dictatorship per as despotism, as it includes elements of Corporatism.
This is why many multinatinonals are criticized for Paternalism, Authoriarianism and Fascist traits. However, to differentiate between Fascism, Socialism, communism and Liberal Democracy, you only need to pinpoint which civic righta re lost by which group.
Liberal democracy can be as brutal as the others, given certain contexts.
It is very important to size up the lifestyles of each subgroup to understand why some groups back an ideology or not. Socialism won in the cities, where fascsm won on the countryside. Serbia and Bosnia Serbia is an example of Postmodern Fascism, or be it national socialism, Milosevic, now in Hague, evolved gradually from a socialist to a national socialist. Molotov-Ribbentrop was a partnership of socialism and national socialism. Never forget that liberal democracy has TEETH as well, even dark sides, and that Fasicism is the second most evil ideology to Communism.

 

[Red Threat]

Never forget that liberal democracy has TEETH as well, even dark sides, and that Fasicism is the second most evil ideology to Communism.

How can you say that communism is EVIL?!?

USSR has been evil, sure, but you can't say that an ideology whose only aim was making all the peoples of the world free was EVIL. That's absurd. There's a gap between the intents and USSR realizations, it's sure. But you can't delete the original intent.

Instead, fascism's aim was from the beginning, war, imperialism, destruction of democracy and human rights.

US propaganda has really changed history... in people's mind.

 

[Provolution]

Well, so had the fifth columnists in the West, undermining Western liberal ideals.
Mention one communist state you would not consider to have an evil regime.

 

[Red Threat]

Mention one communist state you would not consider to have an evil regime.

I prefer mentioning some past radical socialist/communist democratic governments:

Hungary and Chzechoslovachia (I hope it is the correct spelling) in 1956 and 1968 before the soviet invasions, Republican Spain in the 30s, Chile 1970-73... whenever the socialism successfully estabilished itself in a democratic way, fascism, U.S. or USSR destroyed them using violence. Evidently they all fear democratic socialism...

But the point is that you SURELY don't know there's not been only the BOLSCEVIAN (Lenin, Stalin, evil) communism. There have been different kinds of communism, for example the Asian or the South American "ways for socialism". And how forget the Western European DEMOCRATIC communism?

The Italian, Spanish, French, Scandinavian tradition? These have many things in common with the actual European social democracies. You Americans really come from another planet.

 

[Provolution]

I prefer mentioning some past radical socialist/communist democratic governments:

Hungary and Chzechoslovachia (I hope it is the correct spelling) in 1956 and 1968 before the soviet invasions, Republican Spain in the 30s, Chile 1970-73... whenever the socialism successfully estabilished itself in a democratic way, fascism, U.S. or USSR destroyed them using violence. Evidently they all fear democratic socialism...

But the point is that you SURELY don't know there's not been only the BOLSCEVIAN (Lenin, Stalin, evil) communism. There have been different kinds of communism, for example the Asian or the South American "ways for socialism". And how forget the Western European DEMOCRATIC communism?

The Italian, Spanish, French, Scandinavian tradition? These have many things in common with the actual European social democracies. You Americans really come from another planet.

Red Threat, how appropriate

When you read the history of the following premier examples, I will easily discount Republican Spain and Chile as your dream cases, and regarding the communist states in Asia and Africa, all of them have failed. Most of these socialist leaders were third world rebels with backgrounds in LSE, in Paris and in Moscow, mentally programmed to become dictators.

I am not a supporter of US right wing jingoism, supporting people like Stroessner, Somoza and Trujillo, as well as Ferdinand Marcos to mention only a few of the twenty or so scumbag leaders US governments have supported.
However, there has also been examples, like the ones of Taiwan, South Korea, Chile, South Africa and other right wing paternalistic dictatorships, that thanks to building up the economy, had the surplus to reform to a democratic system. A socialist state has socialist ideals so strongly embedded
into the educational system, that it resembles that of extreme Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam in its ideological purity and in pursuit of those following other ideologies or thought patterns. Socialism is extreme dangerous in the sense that it constricts the individual freedoms, innovation and so on.
Political power is based on comraderie, conspiracies, political correctness and numerous other non-democratic mechanisms even in democratic socialist regimes. Whenever one of your favorite systems has attracted military intervention, that people are willing to kill and die to stop that socialist project, may well be a result of "evil" lack of empathy and in general self righteousness. However, the very fact that these systems has attracted this attention, where systems such as Japan, South Korea, Western Europe and North America has flourished, is thanks to the unique blend of a pluralist blend of multinationals, trade unions, free press and a dedication to creating wealth, wealth that can be divided. Socialists think in zero-sum game analogies, where more pragmatic types want to expand the pie instead.

Like Chinas Deng Xiaoping said: "It does not matter if the cat is white, black or red, as long as it catches mice...."

 

[carniflex]

Mention one communist state you would not consider to have an evil regime.

A "communist state" ?
I would suggest you to read what Marx & Engels said about state and communism:

"The next revolution shall not transfer the bureaucratic and militarist machinery to other hands, as it did down to our time. It shall break it (zerbrechen). It is the main requirement of any mass uprising in Europe. It is what our heroic comrades from Paris attempted." (letter from Marx to Kugelmann, 12/04/1871)

"The [communist] society, that shall reorganize the production as a free and egalitarian association of workers, shall consign the state machinery to its right place: an old curiosity shop." (Engels)

Indeed, a bureaucratic and militarist machinery is "evil". However, communism is the anihilation of this machinery.

What we call "communist states" - i know what you mean - are "communist" in our mind, and in both "soviet" procommunist propaganda AND occidental anticommunist propaganda. However, most of the "communist states" were/are as communist as our "occidental democracies" are democratic, id est not so much, unfortunately...

"Democracy seems to be a very good sytem, maybe you should try it in Europe", Gandhi, answering a European back.

 

[Red Threat]

Provolution, I agree with you, but I try to repeat...

The regimes you are speking about are NOT Socialist in the WESTERN meaning of the word. They are THIRD WORLD DICTATORSHIPS with some socialist trait... just like Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had some socialist trait in their economy. And the evil traits of these regimes are the same of the fascist regimes (comraderie, conspiracies), and

However, there has also been examples, like the ones of Taiwan, South Korea, Chile, South Africa and other right wing paternalistic dictatorships, that thanks to building up the economy, had the surplus to reform to a democratic system.

the same has happened in USSR, Eastern Europe and is happening (I hope) in China and Vietnam.

But maybe, you and me are misunderstanding each other because we have different meaning of the word "Socialist" (and I think the reason be the U.S. propaganda during the Cold War):

AMERICAN MEANING OF SOCIALISM: Political-economic totalitarian system where only one party is allowed to EXIST and rule and the State (read: bureoucracy) controls and plans the Economy. The wages are circa equal for all and no more wealth is created.* The system is not efficient and the people is unhappy. Evil.

What for you is socialism for us is "Soviet planned economy".

EUROPEAN MEANING OF SOCIALISM (OR SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY): POLITICAL (not scientifically-ideologically economic) DEMOCRATIC LEFT WING MOVEMENT, whose first aim is to win the elections and reform the system in order to:
- Create more wealth and divide it in a more-democratic and more-equal way;
- Give more rights to the workers, the weaks, the unemployed people;
- Accelerate the civil-scientifical-intellectual-democratic development of the world/country;
The means are essentially the State control on a free market economy, a more equal taxation system (more taxes to rich people, less taxes to poors), the development of the educational and welfare system and state incentives of the little private enterprise. **

IT SEEMS TO ME A VERY GREAT DIFFERENCE. Don't forget that in the European parliament the ESP (Socialist party) with the more leftist parties has more than 2/5 of the parlamentarians, the whole left wing with the European democrats has the half of the parlamentarians. Social democracy is actually the system of most of the Western European countries.

* This also wrong because this system DOES create wealth.
** One of the worst capitalist traits is that the "great" corporations tend to "eat" the littler ones. In this case, social democracy helps the market to create more wealth.



But now, let me return to the original problem: what is WORST, fascism or communism? We both agree that:
- These are both bad systems (I'd not say "evil" system, it seems REALLY an ideological-religious way of interpretate politics);
- In some cases, they both can develop theirselves into a democratic way;
- They both are unefficient (remember that the corruption rate in nazi Germany and fascist Italy were so high as some historicians renamed their economies as "neo-feudal", although this is not represented in CivIII).

In my opinion, the difference is in the orginal intents of the two systems.
- Fascism: society and economy are mobilized in order to EXTEND the country and create an empire. The aim is war, the economy produces weapons. There's another kind of fascism (maybe, even worst). The anti-popular fascism: like the first, original italian mussolinian fascism, it is estabilished by the middle class in order to stop and prevent the rise of people, the rise of social democracy. the aim is people's oppression.
- Communism: freedom for the working class, direct democracy, a "new men" not exploited worker, able to develop himself in intellectual and artistic way, peace and brotherhood between the nations... (Marx never spoke about "equality", equal wages, State planning... he called these things "primitivist communism" or "little middle class communism" and he thought they were reactionary ideals... evidently Lenin and Stalin were reactionary!)

How can't you see the difference?