Wrong use of "Fascism"

[Lone Wolf]

This makes Fascism fundamentally incompatible with Capitalism as well as Socialism

"Capitalism" is a political ideology now? Not to mention that in practice, fascism turned to be quite compatible with capitalism - in fact, stating that fascism is incompatible with capitalism can only conclude that no state, Italy included, was ever fascist.

which is that finance capital makes money hand over fist regardless.

Why such explicit focus on finance capital? Such "selectively anti-capitalist" rhetoric quite easily transforms to the "socialism of the fools".

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@Camikaze: don't get me wrong. I was conceding that point. I am not trying to "define" it FOR anyone else -- but looking at the term from the objective charactistics (as the first opponents of fascism defined it) which I see exist in other and current regimes.

@Lone Wolf: Finance capital is the predominant driving reactionary force. Even the bourgeoisie have divided areas of self-interest. Look at 2008 - 2009. Banks get bailed out for $700 billion without lifting a finger. The auto makers have to jump through hoops and "show a plan" to get a tiny fraction of that.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The industrialists of Nazi Germany definitely found all these war profits nice, though. Not to mention that alliance-with-industrial-capital-vs-financial-one "producerist" ethos had always been advocated by various rightist movements... fascism included.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think attempting to define fascism is really productive at all (nor for that matter, is saying someone else's definition is wrong, unless you're pointing out that an argument relies on an incorrect definition). From what I've read, historians often seem to get caught up on trying to categorise regimes, rather than making any actual point about them. One person will say fascism is "things I disagree with in similar ways", whilst others will define it as "Mussolini or his clones". Quibbling over which is right when it's just a shorthand used for the purpose of making another point strikes me as a little redundant.

Well, that all depends on whether one regards knowledge as innately valuable, doesn't it?

 

[ParkCungHee]

It also seems too be taking a specific side of the debate if you think the definition is "shorthand used to make a point."

 

[Camikaze]

Semantics isn't the same as knowledge. The argument often seems to be over whether X is labelled 'fascism', not over whether both Y and Z are similar to X, and in what ways, whichever word you attach to it. It's a matter of excessive categorisation, missing the point of that process in the first place. So say there's a discussion about whether Nazi Germany (another interesting discussion might be whether there ever was a 'Nazi' Germany, or just a Germany ruled by some Nazis...) counts as fascist. The historian might look at the comparisons with Italy to come to a conclusion. But whether the conclusion is yes or no is besides the point; it's the comparisons themselves which provide insight on the topic. It makes no difference what you actually call them.

Note that I'm not meaning to say that coming up with a remotely useful definition is a bad thing, just that the matter seems to be one which tends to sidetrack actual arguments.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The industrialists of Nazi Germany definitely found all these war profits nice, though. Not to mention that alliance-with-industrial-capital-vs-financial-one "producerist" ethos had always been advocated by various rightist movements... fascism included.

What differentiates fascism from classical capitalism is of course its de-emphasis on class conflict. But this, in my opinion, really only marks a change in the overt propaganda of capitalism. It is capitalism without the velvet gloves. There is no change in behavior with regards to class conflict, but there is a change in mindset and vocabulary. National unity is sought, and ideas are sold as being "for the best for the country" and talk about "setting aside differences to get things done" is made, but what it really means is that the ruling class seeks a rhetorical and "moral" solution to their political obstacles. That is, they appeal to the nationalism of the citizenry to rally behind them and their "best" solution for everyone, which is in reality a solution only for them.

This is in stark contrast to the old style of political capitalism, which was wholly unashamed about its class conflict. The ruling class knew what was best, and deserved everything it had. End of story. They were better than the working class, in the same way that Khan Noonien Singh was better than most people. They sought a worthy adversary, tangling with the working class wasn't worth their time. One can still find traces of this rhetoric in politics today, from the looser-lipped of the oligarchs. But while these people tend to attract the most ire from liberals, I know that they are the more foolish and stupid of the capitalists. The real dangers are people like Bill Gates, who despite robbing half the world blind, is hailed as a saint for his "philanthropic efforts." They give back with one hand what they took with the other, rather like Starbucks and its involuntary donations "every dollar you spend sends a dime to starving children in Guatemala" or some crap like that.

A keen reader will note the similarities in the above with the recent tone of political discourse in American politics.

 

[Tahuti]

"Capitalism" is a political ideology now? Not to mention that in practice, fascism turned to be quite compatible with capitalism - in fact, stating that fascism is incompatible with capitalism can only conclude that no state, Italy included, was ever fascist.

Capitalism is an economic system about accumulating more capital. That overlaps but is not the same as free enterprise (allowing for individual to start businesses) or free markets (allowing economic exchanges with little or no inhibitions), which both may also serve in a socialist context (i.e. market socialism). Since Fascism is actually opposed to capital accumulation that doesn't serve the state, its quite anti-capitalistic, even though it supports some degree of free markets and free enterprise, but only insofar that's in the interests of the state.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Nice nod to Slavoj Žižek there, Cheezy!

And yes to the above viz. Fascism.

Edit: and to Star Trek.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Since Fascism is actually opposed to capital accumulation that doesn't serve the state, its quite anti-capitalistic, even though it supports some degree of free markets and free enterprise, but only insofar that's in the interests of the state.

So, any ideology that limits capital accumulation is "anti-capitalist"? That's stretching the definition a bit, since many liberal-democratic politicians would agree that capital accumulation that doesn't serve the people (who express their will in electing democratic institutions) needs to be prohibited. An ideology doesn't need to proclaim the primacy of unlimited capital accumulation above all else to be a capitalist one - if it does, then liberal nationalism is also "anti-capitalist".

A keen reader will note the similarities in the above with the recent tone of political discourse in American politics.

And yet, America is a liberal democracy - perhaps the liberal democracy in the minds of many people around the world...

 

[Tahuti]

So, any ideology that limits capital accumulation is "anti-capitalist"? That's stretching the definition a bit, since many liberal-democratic politicians would agree that capital accumulation that doesn't serve the people (who express their will in electing democratic institutions) needs to be prohibited.

You mean people like Vince Cable, who has proclaimed Capitalism to be wrong? No country in history has ever been truly Capitalistic, just like no country in history has ever been truly Socialist. Also, notice that Western countries only want to ban certain forms of capital accumulation (implying that Western countries think capitalism is usually good), while Fascist countries only want to allow certain forms of capital accumulation (implying that Fascist countries think capitalism is usually bad).

 

[Traitorfish]

Semantics isn't the same as knowledge. The argument often seems to be over whether X is labelled 'fascism', not over whether both Y and Z are similar to X, and in what ways, whichever word you attach to it. It's a matter of excessive categorisation, missing the point of that process in the first place. So say there's a discussion about whether Nazi Germany (another interesting discussion might be whether there ever was a 'Nazi' Germany, or just a Germany ruled by some Nazis...) counts as fascist. The historian might look at the comparisons with Italy to come to a conclusion. But whether the conclusion is yes or no is besides the point; it's the comparisons themselves which provide insight on the topic. It makes no difference what you actually call them.

Note that I'm not meaning to say that coming up with a remotely useful definition is a bad thing, just that the matter seems to be one which tends to sidetrack actual arguments.

Well, first, semantic knowledge is a kind of knowledge rather by definition, and second, definition applies to concepts as much as it does to words, or we'd have no conceptual framework to speak of. So I'm not really sure what your actual objection is?

What differentiates fascism from classical capitalism is of course its de-emphasis on class conflict. But this, in my opinion, really only marks a change in the overt propaganda of capitalism. It is capitalism without the velvet gloves. There is no change in behavior with regards to class conflict, but there is a change in mindset and vocabulary. National unity is sought, and ideas are sold as being "for the best for the country" and talk about "setting aside differences to get things done" is made, but what it really means is that the ruling class seeks a rhetorical and "moral" solution to their political obstacles. That is, they appeal to the nationalism of the citizenry to rally behind them and their "best" solution for everyone, which is in reality a solution only for them.

This is in stark contrast to the old style of political capitalism, which was wholly unashamed about its class conflict. The ruling class knew what was best, and deserved everything it had. End of story. They were better than the working class, in the same way that Khan Noonien Singh was better than most people. They sought a worthy adversary, tangling with the working class wasn't worth their time. One can still find traces of this rhetoric in politics today, from the looser-lipped of the oligarchs. But while these people tend to attract the most ire from liberals, I know that they are the more foolish and stupid of the capitalists. The real dangers are people like Bill Gates, who despite robbing half the world blind, is hailed as a saint for his "philanthropic efforts." They give back with one hand what they took with the other, rather like Starbucks and its involuntary donations "every dollar you spend sends a dime to starving children in Guatemala" or some crap like that.

A keen reader will note the similarities in the above with the recent tone of political discourse in American politics.

So, what, Disraeli as a fascist?

No country in history has ever been truly Capitalistic, just like no country in history has ever been truly Socialist.

Eh?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And yet, America is a liberal democracy - perhaps the liberal democracy in the minds of many people around the world...

Like evolution, it is only still a "liberal" "democracy" because present momentum has as yet not allowed it to become anything else. What matters is not so much the forces present in the arena, but the status quo's capacity to last. A democratic republic existed before, and it has managed to survive in some form, because doing away with it outright has not been necessary for the ruling class to survive.

When it does become necessary, then they will attempt to do so.

EDIT:

So, what, Disraeli as a fascist?

I don't know enough about Disraeli or the politics of his time to answer that. But if you are referring to a "rally behind the nation" attitude on his part, then I can only comment that he himself might have been proto-fascist. I certainly think that nationalism dead ends at fascism, if that's the answer you're looking for.

 

[Lone Wolf]

while Fascist countries only want to allow certain forms of capital accumulation (implying that Fascist countries think capitalism is usually bad).

They didn't ban much in practice, whether it comes to Italy or Germany... not even sure how restrictive such mileau is in their propaganda.

No country in history has ever been truly Capitalistic

Way too restrictive definition of "capitalism" that is likely to muddle things, not to enlight them. I like referring to modern states, with their private property, accumulation of capital and all these other nice things as "actually existing capitalism".

Like evolution, it is only still a "liberal" "democracy"

Why "liberal" in quotes? Liberal democraties do all kinds of nasty atrocities - and remain liberal democraties.

What matters is not so much the forces present in the arena, but the status quo's capacity to last.

I view the danger of America becoming fascist in the immediate future to be quite low, honestly.

I certainly think that nationalism dead ends at fascism, if that's the answer you're looking for.

That makes post-WWII Stalin a proto-fascist, much less Disraeli. And no, I don't think that "Tory democracy" and "two nations" rhetorics is particularly proto-fascist. No fascist ever would utter the "two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy" quote - it acknowledges that class-strugglists have a point, being somewhat sympathetic to the lower classes' demands. Yes, it eventually promotes class cooperation and conciliation - but maintaining it is one of the main task of guess what - of liberal democracy.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know enough about Disraeli or the politics of his time to answer that.

Well, Diraeli's "one nation-conservatism" held that national unity took priority above the individualism so lauded by the Manchesterists, with all the attendant guff about class unity, doing what's "right for the nation", etc. that you mentioned. Likewise Bismarck, likewise De Gaulle, likewise even an avowedly left-wing figure like Atlee. It's certainly an ideological position characteristic of fascism, but far from uniquely so.

edit:

But if you are referring to a "rally behind the nation" attitude on his part, then I can only comment that he himself might have been proto-fascist. I certainly think that nationalism dead ends at fascism, if that's the answer you're looking for.

But, then, everyone who isn't an avowed liberal becomes a "proto-fascist". It inverts "fascism is popular nationalism" into "popular nationalism if (proto-)fascism", and before the day is out we find Cromwell, Robespierre, Garibaldi and Sun Yat-sen all standing on the road to Auschwitz, an outcome we would hardly have expected going into this.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Why "liberal" in quotes?

Because I think it is becoming an increasingly conservative "democracy." And I don't mean that merely in the "Nixon was the last liberal" context. The US has stopped being a progressive and dynamic society, it is increasingly about romanticizing the past, and attempting to ossify what presently exists or restore what once existed, instead of looking forward to what we will accomplish in the future, and how we need to change in order to become that.

That makes post-WWII Stalin a proto-fascist, much less Disraeli.

If you're looking for a defense of Soviet "Russian nationalism" you won't get it. I'll be the first person to admit that all necessary actions to rally in defense of the Soviet Bulwark needed to be tapped, but in my opinion if they were doing their jobs as communists then civic nationalism should have been sufficient. But then Soviet society in general had been in conservative retreat since the early 1930s to begin with. It's also been postulated by not-disreputable historians that Stalin was influenced by Strasserite elements in the All-Union Communist Party often referred to as National Bolsheviks, although they were different than the outright neo-Nazis that we refer to by that name today.

Well, Diraeli's "one nation-conservatism" held that national unity took priority above the individualism so lauded by the Manchesterists, with all the attendant guff about class unity, doing what's "right for the nation", etc. that you mentioned. Likewise Bismarck, likewise De Gaulle, likewise even an avowedly left-wing figure like Atlee. It's certainly an ideological position characteristic of fascism, but far from uniquely so.

edit:

But, then, everyone who isn't an avowed liberal becomes a "proto-fascist". It inverts "fascism is popular nationalism" into "popular nationalism if (proto-)fascism", and before the day is out we find Cromwell, Robespierre, Garibaldi and Sun Yat-sen all standing on the road to Auschwitz, an outcome we would hardly have expected going into this.

I admit that it is a generalization. I don't want to give the impression that I'm one of those "all non-communists are fascists!" type of people, and I'm well aware that there are gradients of nationalism and capitalist defense within peoples' personalities, such that people can believe in them and not be bad people for it. Not every nationalist is a potential Hitler, and not every capitalist proponent is a potential Oligarch. But ideologies do transcend the individuals who believe in them, and nationalism will create Fascism, when people stop being so hindered in its advocacy and application by other factors. Using Disraeli and Robespierre as examples to counter it is really saying the same thing as the Enlightened Monarch argument. Wouldn't it be great if all were so tempered in the exercise of such power? I know that you are not saying that, but other people who make the argument might mean that by repeating it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Because I think it is becoming an increasingly conservative "democracy."

I understand what you're saying, substitute "bourgeois democracy" for "liberal".

Using Disraeli and Robespierre as examples to counter it is really saying the same thing as the Enlightened Monarch argument.

I don't think so, there're too many Disraelis and Robespierres and Garibaldis in history to insist that they're some kind of exception. A more interesting question is the efficiency of modern non-nazi nationalists in fighting neo-nazis and their ability to reach national unity though class compromise in times of financial crisis.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I understand what you're saying, substitute "bourgeois democracy" for "liberal".

That would not adequately describe the trend I want to, without assuming that the reader already understands that this is what bourgeois democracies must do. If I said that, and they already knew that, then why am I saying it?

I don't think so, there're too many Disraelis and Robespierres and Garibaldis in history to insist that they're some kind of exception.

No, but their existence is also not sufficient proof against the allegation that nationalism can and does lead inevitably to fascism, even if not within specific individuals. Your argument becomes thus: nationalism doesn't lead to fascism, because look at these nationalists who exhibited even mildly fascistic traits and yet somehow resisted becoming fascists in the end. That's really only a normative statement (or really, an argument against my -admittedly- poorly-worded previous statement, which I have now clarified), and not really proof that it won't lead to that. As I said, I'm speaking of it as an ideology that moves societies, not as something that individuals might believe in. Yes, there are individuals who are nationalists and not fascists. A great deal of them who are not. But that is not proof of anything other than that such things exist[ed].

Aaand my mind is literally running in circles now because I'm so tired. Jet lag FTL. Going to bed after this post, I'll probably amend a lot of it in the morning.

A more interesting question is the efficiency of modern non-nazi nationalists in fighting neo-nazis and their ability to reach class reconciliation in times of financial crisis.

I don't think that's a more interesting question, but it is an interesting one nonetheless.

 

[Lone Wolf]

As I said, I'm speaking of it as an ideology that moves societies, not as something that individuals might believe in.

Well, talking about societies, Britain as a society didn't become fascist, neither did America even at the height of the Red Scare. Nationalism, evidently, becomes fascist - or, to speak about people, nationalists start en masse turning to fascism - under certain conditions, that Britain and the USA have so far escaped. And no, I don't know for sure what these conditions are and why some proto-fascist movements fizzle out, while others triumph. General level of desperation/crisis in a society, political culture, subjective factors - all these probably play a part.

 

[Dachs]

From what I've read, historians often seem to get caught up on trying to categorise regimes, rather than making any actual point about them. One person will say fascism is "things I disagree with in similar ways", whilst others will define it as "Mussolini or his clones".

Which historians might these be?