What is Fascism?

[ParkCungHee]

Semantics aside, your overall argument that these aspects of culture exist throughout the Western world seems fairly valid,

Then wouldn't that imply that these are not features of Fascism? I really can't understand this idea people have that Fascism is something mysterious or lurking in our subconciouss. If I drew up a similar list of things to constitute "Marxist-Leninism" or "Classical Liberalism", or "The Welfare State", you would think I was looney.

 

[CartesianFart]

Fascism REALLY IS fascism. Ignore it at your own peril.

There are two sense of Fascism; one, the banner of Mussolini's political party in Italy; second, a word that is to denote a commonality of characteristics of extreme dictatorial government, repression of oppositions, extreme nationalism, and a central control of private property that is applied to anything that is considered like it.

Umm, What? Are you saying that the world always works in fascist ways and the invented idea of facism itself only humbly serves to help us understand this?

I would like to say that I wish to eliminate the second definition that I have raised above but that is not going to happen.

For those of us who believe that fascism actually exists, and would like a clear definition:

1) 1st (and primarily defining) qualification of fascism: totalitarianism.

2) There are basically 2 kinds of totalitarian state:

Communist: the state owns everything and decides what to do with it.
Fascist: private property, but the state decides what to do with it.

3) Because there are "elements of fascism" in other forms of government does not mean that they are "kinda" like facism or that this "is how the world has always worked". Either it is a totalitarian state or not.

I can care less of wikipedia.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I use Fascism to describe a Nationalist and Corporatist government that is as alike to Mussolini's government as possible. The Corporatist part is, IMHO, required for the usage of the word (therefore meaning that the Soviet Union and the German Empire under Hitler's Nazis were not Fascism, because they were too socialist. However, they were all autocratic dictatorships, which should be their "linking word").

 

[CartesianFart]

To this I would only add that the individual and their needs mean nothing; only the needs of the state are important.

I am botherd by this notion because Fascism is not in a sense eliminating the individual but collectifying them into one unity.

 

[Ecofarm]

I am botherd by this notion because Fascism is not in a sense eliminating the individual but collectifying them into one unity.

Circular logic again - stop it, culti.

You cannot collect and represent all of my knowledge and perspective (understanding?). The creation of us diminishes (yet empowers) me. The creation of us may serve to preserve my fundamental beliefs, but it does not preserve my individuality.

 

[CartesianFart]

This is entirely rediculous. Fascism is just as much a political ideology as Socialism and Liberalism, and these attempts at trying to define it as a "faith" without a treatise. Especially considering the number of treatise out there. I suggest picking up Giovani Gentile, Ugo Spirito or Lawrence Dennis. I you want just a scholarly overview of it "Mussolini's Intellectuals" is an excellent overview of the Fascist ideology,from Friedrich List to the Salo Republic.

I totally disagree that Fascism is only a political ideology such as Socialism and Liberalism. It can also be a quality of characteristics in such organizations such as the military, police, and other systems that are in the quasi-sense, Fascistical in nature.

The idea that Fascism is some sort of pathology, and not a system of government is counterfactual and absurd.

You really think that in our times, that the qualities of today's government is somewhat not strikenly similar to Fascist's Italy?That it is something not a manifestation of it but common in all government (whatever elites hold the power in certain amount of years) to consolidate their power?

Oddly enough I was going to start a thread on this today anyway, but here I will define the Fascist ideology.

I have to say that I disagree but sure can say that you did a good job of defining it in what you make sense of it.Which I can say that it is valid in some right.

The only problem is the meaning that is deployed by the very use of it.

Fascism, in the shortest summary is the idea that one should place the Nation above all other things. From this presupposition, the entire doctrine takes shape.

If you give this element of quality (Placing the Nation above all other things) to the meaning of Fascism in full, then you are saying all Nations are really under the banner of Fascism of whatever degree of shape.

Although I'm not sure about your (OP) definition as actually being that of fascism, I understand the point you're trying to make.

Thanks, I guess. Of course I am beginning to doubt my reasoning to limit the definition of Fascism since there is many mass distortion of it since Intellectuals have put it in somewhat enfeebling negative view of it to create a ideology for everyone to examine. I choose to not apply it as something of an existence of an ideological one but merely a characterizational one to denote an attribute quality that many government all holds.

Semantics aside, your overall argument that these aspects of culture exist throughout the Western world seems fairly valid, and the idea that the usage of the term to effectively praise modern society/government as non-"fascist" is an interesting one. I would tend to agree, given that there is no purposeful agent, but instead would blame it more on some psychological complex, the name of which I'm not sure of.

I call it indoctrination and the ability of educators and writers to hold the monopoly of the meaning of it.

Although I wouldn't call the US fascist, I understand that in relation to a more idealized country/world it is, well, what you stated; and in focusing people on what the US/West is not in negative terms and glorifying it as not such, it ignore what it is in negative terms and allowing progress to therefore be made (the first step is accepting you have a problem, no?).

It must be treated as a disease but the problem is that the Fascist elements in advance democratic society such as United States is something that will not go away because of the continual allowance of class conflict of whatever creed, race, ethnicities, religions, political parties and etc..

Tis late, though, maybe I misunderstood?

We all mistunderstood. We are not talking about tables and chairs but only talking about -ism, which is not in a sense real.

 

[Ecofarm]

I totally disagree that Fascism is only a political ideology such as Socialism and Liberalism. It can also be a quality of characteristics in such organizations such as the military, police, and other systems that are in the quasi-sense, Fascistical in nature.

You really think that in our times, that the qualities of today's government is somewhat not strikenly similar to Fascist's Italy?That it is something not a manifestation of it but common in all government (whatever elites hold the power in certain amount of years) to consolidate their power?

I have to say that I disagree but sure can say that you did a good job of defining it in what you make sense of it.Which I can say that it is valid in some right.

The only problem is the meaning that is deployed by the very use of it.

That's the only problem with fascism?? That people cannot use the term loosely?

If you give this element of quality (Placing the Nation above all other things) to the meaning of Fascism in full, then you are saying all Nations are really under the banner of Fascism of whatever degree of shape.

Thanks, I guess. Of course I am beginning to doubt my reasoning to limit the definition of Fascism since there is many mass distortion of it since Intellectuals have put it in somewhat enfeebling negative view of it to create a ideology for everyone to examine. I choose to not apply it as something of an existence of an ideological one but merely a characterizational one to denote an attribute quality that many government all holds.

I call it indoctrination and the ability of educators and writers to hold the monopoly of the meaning of it.

It must be treated as a disease but the problem is that the Fascist elements in advance democratic society such as United States is something that will not go away because of the continual allowance of class conflict of whatever creed, race, ethnicities, religions, political parties and etc..

We all mistunderstood. We are not talking about tables and chairs but only talking about -ism, which is not in a sense real.

So basically you created a thread that SHOULD be entitled:

Does anyone object if I use the term 'fascism' VERY loosely in order to prove that you are, in fact, lynching negroes?

ps. please excuse the wiki reference, as I am aware that authority by popular opinion pains thee.

 

[CartesianFart]

Circular logic again - stop it, culti.

Do you mean circulus in probando?

You cannot collect and represent all of my knowledge and perspective (understanding?).

In a society that find your knowledge as false and perspectives being subversive, I have to say yes.

The creation of us diminishes (yet empowers) me

It diminish the behavior of your personality but not your mind which can be kept secret from others.

The creation of us may serve to preserve my fundamental beliefs, but it does not preserve my individuality.

Good, I was kinda getting tired of your so-called "individuality."

 

[CartesianFart]

That's the only problem with fascism?? That people cannot use the term loosely?

I guess so. Of course I have no power to do or influence anyone to tight-lipp themselves of applying it to my way.

So basically you created a thread that SHOULD be entitled:

"Does anyone object if I use the term 'fascism' VERY loosely in order to prove that you are, in fact, lynching negroes".

You are silly and I don't know how to response to this but say .....

Tell me, am I being sincere?

 

[Ecofarm]

This is ground control to Major Tom...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I am botherd by this notion because Fascism is not in a sense eliminating the individual but collectifying them into one unity.

As far as a Fascist government is concerned, there is only the greater good; doing something that's for the good of the individual person is simply unheard of.

 

[nihilistic]

Corporativist government structure/ideology primarily modeled on the Catholic Papacy.

 

[sausnebb]

Wikipedia has an excellent definition:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism

The definition of fascism varies a lot and has varied a lot since WW2. Now the term is more used as an insult to your opponent's politics, rather than a generic representation of a political doctrine.

The Wikipedia definition is very precise but it only explains one of the many definitions (how to make a objective evaluation whether a country is or was fascist). The French Wikipedia, however, gives these definitions of fascism:

-Fascism is, in the most strict sense, the Italian movement and regime from 1922 to 1945.
-Fascism can in a more large sense mean the regimes exported by the Italian one, making it a more generic term which is recognized by certain traits (like the ones in the Wikipedia definition)
-Fascism is most commonly used, however, as an insult of the doctrine of one's opponents, undoubtedly to appear distant to the opponents' ideas to the others

 

[CartesianFart]

As far as a Fascist government is concerned, there is only the greater good; doing something that's for the good of the individual person is simply unheard of.

Except for the individual who is the Head of State.

Corporativist government structure/ideology primarily modeled on the Catholic Papacy.

Nice definition. All compressed in a short sentence.

The definition of fascism varies a lot and has varied a lot since WW2. Now the term is more used as an insult to your opponent's politics, rather than a generic representation of a political doctrine.

For some apparent reason it is usually employed by people who have extreme leftist views who are somewhat suspicious of some elements that have some similiar quality of Fascism. I find some of those arguments valid sometimes.

The Wikipedia definition is very precise but it only explains one of the many definitions (how to make a objective evaluation whether a country is or was fascist). The French Wikipedia, however, gives these definitions of fascism:

-Fascism is, in the most strict sense, the Italian movement and regime from 1922 to 1945.
-Fascism can in a more large sense mean the regimes exported by the Italian one, making it a more generic term which is recognized by certain traits (like the ones in the Wikipedia definition)
-Fascism is most commonly used, however, as an insult of the doctrine of one's opponents, undoubtedly to appear distant to the opponents' ideas to the others

I find the last definition as being unfair because it allows people who are subject of the scorn of being called "fascist" or having "certain elements of Fascism" deny some of their opponents' supposed beliefs being akin to fascism in certain quality; hence, the perception of the person who uses it as being irrational or indifferent to it can be right in certain cases as long as the elements that the person calling fascist to the other can be synomous to the opponents' ideas that is strikenly similar in some cases.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

CF: What you're doing is taking a bunch of traits that were exhibited by some fascist governments in the past, and defining them as fascism. This would be like saying "Many socialists have long hair, therefore socialism means having long hair, and because people in country x often have long hair, country x contains aspects of socialism".

Your definition would fit very poorly with, say, the fascist regime that existed in Austria during the 1930's, or with the Horthy regime in Hungary, which is sometimes considered fascist.

 

[GoodGame]

I think you're mostly right on the Hero argument. The hero in fascism idolized, whether it is the warrior defending the state, or the dictator entrusted to benefit the state, unopposed internally. Both of those fuel the militant aspect of Fascism.

I disagree with you though, Fascism is something, and that thing is a fascination with militancy of the state. It's not necessarily a 100% secular in focus, but it's more secular than theocratic, IMHO.

Fascism doesn't need other ideologies or anti-ideologies, other than a nationalist/corporatist ideology. E.g. ancient Rome being the center of the world that all other peoples could serve or be smite by.

Ideas of polarized ethics (good vs. evil) would be the strongest supporting ideology for a fascist state, but I imagine in some situations, even these might not be necessary to have a fascist state.

Ideas of superiority are pretty secondary, unless based off the polarized ethics above. These would pretty much only be used to justify militant action against other nations, but would be inherent in the the idea of heroic militancy. The hero can fight on, regardless of whether or not he/she is superior, or even good.

Ideas of destiny are good for morale, but not strictly necessary.


The corollary of your etymology of Fascism is that Fascism is the forced absence of debate. That is 'might is right' used to preempt debate (not to be confused with a debate being ended, and a decision reached by rule of law).

So I'd sum it up as:
Fascism is a militant, authoritarian state, acting on the direction of a autocratic hierarchy without public debate, and fueled by populist aggression.
A pretty complex thing.
The distinction from a democracy with it's war powers in high gear would hopefully be that democracies are such happy, rights and laws abiding things, that populist aggression doesn't exist.

EDIT: And the communists are more interested in spreading their economic social structures than obliterating all others, though conquest might be the utilitarian means for doing so.

The main elements of Fascism: And my comments on them.

 

[scy12]

....................

 

[scy12]

Democracy's never had a problem of selling a War , or actually acting as superiors ,aggressors against other nations. The point of democracy is that we are not a totalitarian state based on the interests of few , regarding our people, population. To ensure interest of the state ,democratic governments are practically as boundless as Fascist ,totalitarian regimes. Only their is better control regarding bad Leaders , as usually all leaders follow a similar path. Due to the circumstances of democracy. So not only Democratic governments are able to better protect the rights of their population or are good IMO for the economy , but are able to act more ruthlessly and efficient also in foreign policy. If Fascism is : totalitarian state , it is bad because it is inefficient. If Fascism is superiority racism ,propaganda used by a Power so that it can act inhumanly,immorally by using it's power to gain what is it's interest in a region. Then all/most democracies with some power fall under the fascist regime , label.

The military does fall under the totalitarian regime label. I would say most military organizations are fascist organization due to their methods.



In conclusion totalitarian states are inefficient compared to democratic ones. On All levels.

 

[CCA]

Facism is whatever the party wants it to be.

 

[Perfection]

Having to do homework.