What is fascism?

[Zuni]

People who say the combination of corporate interests with government intrests is fascism are wrong. Buisness interests have been promoted by virtually every civilization, and the private sector/public sector partnership is not a definition of fascism.

Fascism is a radical totalitarian mass movement. It is a mass movement, a populist movement. Many of fascism's theories come from socialism but are altered to nationalistic rather than internationalistic tastes.(substitute ethnic, national, religious interests for class interests and you have the essence of fascist movements). Joseph Goebbels, Benito Mussolini and many others were socialists at one time, who found socialism lacking.

Fascism is a ultra nationalist movement, designed to erase class conflict. nation before class, race before class etc. It is neither capitalist nor socialist. It is not capitalist, because the market and the production is dictated by the state. It is not socialist because public ownership of the means of production is not common, nor does the government own all the buisness like in the USSR. Private ownership is tolerated as long as it does not interfere with the state's interests--but often much property and buisness is nationalised.

Fascism nationalizes people--all people are to be servants of the state. Most fascist governments draft people into public service.

It is a totalitarian state. There is a leader who represents the state and is the absolute ruler. There is no freedom of the press, speech and often there is religious restrictions. There are no political parties, no opposition.

The issue of corporatism----Both Hitler and Mussolini used buisness for support. Hitler used buisness as a tactical ploy to gain power. He allowed many tycoons to keep their property as long as the state controlled it.
Mussolini set up a 'corporate council'. This means that different 'corporations', not nessecarily buisnesses--often they were groups that lobbied for labor, peasants, the military, would have a forum to lobby the government. It was an attempt to end class conflict in Italy by cooperation.

[bpilgrim]

1. Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

more...
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

"Many of fascism's theories come from socialism"

essentially the rulling class have always partnered with the wealthy of their day.

remember the 'socialist' were the FIRST to sound the alarm.

to me it is simply unrestrained capitalism that alows a small group/special interest to rule without tolerance for dissent and an agressive militaristic bent and its attendant nationalism/racism.

but please don't accossiate it with us lefties.

peace

[Fight_n_back]

2. Are you willing to admit

that Hitler was anti semitic?

[bpilgrim]

15. of course

can you admit he wasn't a lefty

:hi:

peace

[rudeboy666]

3. To a point

Still, the fact remains that Nazi fascism and Soviet Communism(or Pol Pot e.g.) trample the individual for the interests of the collective.

Collective: race, people, worker, nation, 'socialism', etc......

[izzie]

12. Not sure about that

Seems the people paid for what the rulers wanted. It was not what Carl wrote about at all. Look at native americans for a society that needed all its people to make it work.They were more in tune to what we were trying for than Europe. Even the Mayflower people had to pay back the capital that paid for their trip or try to pay it back. They never did get it paid for.

[bpilgrim]

16. the fact is

hitler was on the far right like most fascist.

peace

[Zuni]

40. Look at a square model of politics

In this you have four sectors---Authoritarian right, authoritarian left and libertarian right and left.
right and left mean economic policies. Authoritarian and libertarian refer to social policies.
Hitler would be an extreme authoritarian, roughly centrist (even center left) on the economic scale.
Lenin and Stalin would be extreme authoritarian, far to the left.
Pinochet would be authoritarian farther to the right.
Bushco would be mildly authoritarian, and to the right of center.

[rudeboy666]

4. True socialism does not advocate

"True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic."

True capitalism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic.

;-)

[bpilgrim]

17. i agree with the former

but disagree with the latter ;->

peace

[Zuni]

41. no---

capitalism, socialism and anything in between are economic, not political, terms.

[Zuni]

42. true capitalism

is not the same as what the nazis were doing.

In capitalism, the economy is divorced from politics--that is hardly the case in nazi germany.

[rudeboy666]

5. Hitler was an idealist

He loved both power and his nation/race.

Anything(any means necessary) to advance the Aryan race was essential.

True, Hitler was no leftist(in the broad sense). But it would be ridiculous to deny the socialistic aspect of his program. Of course, the socialist element only serves the nationalist element which is supreme.

[bpilgrim]

18. just like our far right neo-CONS, sure...

but please, he is NOT on the left.

peace

[kwolf68]

22. Really?

What socialistic aspects did he promote? The original NSDAP party platform had socialistic ideals in it, because within the Nazi party there was a wing (lead by Otto Strasser) who wanted a "workers" revolution.

Explain why after Hitler rose to power Socialists -after Communists- were placed into camps?

Hitler had a view of "socialism", but not from the perspective of "class struggle", but one of "race struggle."

Instead of making comments stated matter-of-factly, I'd love to hear how Hitler had "socialistic" tendencies? I am not sure where you learned history, but other than the original program outlined by NSDAP in the late 1920s, Hitler and socialism had nothing to do with each other and in fact were major adversaries.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. The Way It Was Taught To Me

was that socialism was so popular in Europe in the 30's that even reactionary parties appropriated the title, i.e. National Socialists...

[bpilgrim]

26. hitler changed the name for propaganda reasons

In 1919 Anton Drexler, Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart formed the German Worker's Party (GPW) in Munich. The German Army was worried that it was a left-wing revolutionary group and sent Adolf Hitler, one of its education officers, to spy on the organization. Hitler discovered that the party's political ideas were similar to his own. He approved of Drexler's German nationalism and anti-Semitism but was unimpressed with the way the party was organized. Although there as a spy, Hitler could not restrain himself when a member made a point he disagreed with, and he stood up and made a passionate speech on the subject.

...

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

...

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

...

At the end of the march Hitler would make one of his passionate speeches that encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of violence against Jews and his left-wing political opponents.

As this violence was often directed against Socialists and Communists, the local right-wing Bavarian government did not take action against the Nazi Party. However, the national government in Berlin were concerned and passed a "Law for the Protection of the Republic". Hitler's response was to organize a rally attended by 40,000 people. At the meeting Hitler called for the overthrow of the German government and even suggested that its leaders should be executed.

Hitler believed that the Jews were involved with Communists in a joint conspiracy to take over the world. Like Henry Ford, Hitler claimed that 75% of all Communists were Jews. Hitler argued that the combination of Jews and Marxists had already been successful in Russia and now threatened the rest of Europe. He argued that the communist revolution was an act of revenge that attempted to disguise the inferiority of the Jews.

more...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm

fascist represent the far RIGHT not the left and they were in leauge/partnership with corporations.

peace

[Zuni]

39. I disagree

Naziism was not unrestrained capitalism. it was not a free market, nor liberal in economics. It was state controlled everything.
The government had FAR, FAR more control over the economy than any supply sider like george bush would advocate.

[leftyandproud]

6. Fascism vs communism

Communism: government ownership of industry

Fascism: government control of industry

Difference on the economic front is very minor.
Communism tends to promote CLASS as the big divider between people...They want the working class to revolt against the ownership class...and create a workers paradise.

Fascism is about RACE and NATIONALITY...The extrol the race/nation above individuality...They use fear and brute force to terrorize their enemies to fight for a world controlled by a single nation/race...class is much less important.

In the end, they both demand that people surrender their individuality to a collective. It's the PURPOSE of the collective that makes them different. One demands the working class control everything. One demands the master race/nation controls everything. Neither are very appealing.

[CosmicVortex10]

19. Closest definition so far

But I would add
Communism is government ownership of "property"

Fascism is control of citizen's "private property".

They are both "statist" and lie at the same end of the spectrum, but of course I measure using a freedom index.

[Zuni]

38. Excellent post

I agree with your analysis here 100%

[rudeboy666]

7. btw, I'm for Liberal Democracy

Clinton(with fair free markets) plus universal health care is fine by me.(though some would want more social safety nets).

[leftyandproud]

8. silly commie

;)

you know fairness and freedom are incompatible, or so Bush tells us..

[screaming_meme]

9. What is fascism? Look around. You're living in it.

Read this article from 1944 and see how closely it resembles the US today

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082103F.shtml

[reachout]

29. Great piece

Some telling quotes from it:


"A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party."



"If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."


"Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion."


"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. They use isolationism as a slogan to conceal their own selfish imperialism. They cultivate hate and distrust of both Britain and Russia. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."



Simply change the name of a country here or there and substitue "free trade" and "international law" for "isolationism" and you have a really good picture of the Neocon agenda.

[Zuni]

45. read between the lines--and understand henry wallace a little

Henry wallace was extrememly pro-Soviet. he was Vice president from 1940-1944.
But still, I do not think what henry Wallace was talking about accurately captures today's political climate.

[reachout]

50. I do

in fact have extensive knowledge of the life of Henry Wallace and have read both his writings and great body of literature written about him. The red-baiting really adds nothing to the discussion.

Let's see we have a climate in which the nation is controlled by those for whom clearly the overarching goal is the acqusition and retention of obscene wealth. They are "super-patriots" when it is convenient but will gladly deal with so-called enemies when it is profitable. They place loyalty to money and power above that to human beings and society as a whole. They do everything in their power to subvert real democracy and to evade or undermine anything that keeps them from monoplistic control. They are systematically rolling back constituitonal guarantees of liberty, freedom and privacy. And, they spread their imperialism under the guise of improving the lives of those whom they subjugate.

Yep, doesn't capture today's climate at all.

[Ignoramus]

10. Corporate government

Maybe I'm missing the point.

I think that privately owned corporations typically hold as an ideal, endless growth and exploitation. That is, ideally the corporation spends as little as possible and profits as much as possible

The business of a government is wielding coercive force over people. A corporate government would have maximizing profit as it's goal. It would have endless growth and exploitation as an ideal, and would have to be totalitarian.

[izzie]

11. One party gov by force and control of business.

The gov is now letting corp control gov so I am not sure what we have. Capital is our form of gov or capital controls. I would like to see gov. regulate it more for the people. That seems to be our real battle.We go back and forth on this. Every time we take 2 steps forward we then take 1 back. We are on the one step back now but just wait.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Your Definition is Spot On...

but where do you put leaders like Marcos, Putin, the Shah of Iran, Franco, Somoza, Batista, Diem in this descritptive scheme?

[Zuni]

47. one by one

Marcos--he was actually elected several times, then declared martial law and never held another election. He was more of a corrupt autocrat than anything.

The Shah of Iran was a middle eastern reactionary, not a right wing revolutionary like a true fascist.

Franco did have some aspects of fascism---more of the religious, clerical fascism than the ultra xenophobic, racist Nazi type.

Somoza---corrupt, reactionary dictator. Never the leader of a mass movement, sold out to foreign interests (something a true fascist would not do--they are ultra nationalists)

Batista--another corrupt autocrat. Strangely, Fidel castro has much more in common with the 1930s and 1940s fascists (not the racism but the populist strongman deal) than Batista.

Diem was a corrupt, utterly incompetent, nepotistic maniac. Some aspects of his rule, especially his crackdown on buddhism are somewhat fascistic. But Diem was never a populist strongman, never had mass support and was more interested in preserving himself than furthering ultra nationalist ideology. A real fascist would never have kowtowed to Americans like he did. His brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, was more of a fascist than Diem. Nhu wanted to build his own 'SA like' organizations. he used his power to attack buddhists. Diem was guilty in much of this, but the fascistic Nhu was more guilty.

In all I would say Franco, is a fascist of the clerical type--religious fascist like Dollfuss in Austria (murdered by nazis in 1934).
Ngo Dinh Diem has some aspects of a fascist--particularly his attacks on buddhists. But his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu was even more fascistic and even tried to become a sort of regime strongman with a private army.

[Postman]

20. Fascist Ideology....

Much of politics is the rational manipulation of irrational symbols. Certainly, this is true of fascist ideology, whose emotive appeals have served class-control function.

First there was the cult of the leader, in Italy: il Duce, in Germany: der Feuhrerprinzip. With leader-worship there came the idolatry of the state. As Mussolini wrote, "The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State." Fascism preaches the authoritarian rule of an all-encompassing state and a supreme leader. It extols the harsher human impulses of conquest and domination, while rejecting egalitarianism, democracy, collectivism, and pacifism as doctrines of weakness and decadence.

Fascist doctrine stresses monistic values: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein
Fuehrer (one people, one rule, one leader). The people are no longer to be concerned with class divisions but see themselves as part of a harmonious whole, rich and poor as one, a view that supports the economic status quo by cloaking the ongoing system of class expoitation. This is in contrast to a left agenda that advocates the articulation of popular demands and a sharpened awareness of social injustice and class struggle.

Fascism's national chauvinism, racism, sexism, and patriarchal values also served a conservative class interest. Fascist doctrine makes an explicit commitment to racial supremacy. Along with race and class inequality, fascism supports homophobia and sexual inequality.

What distinguishes fascism from ordinary right-wing patriarchal autocracies is the way it attempts to cultivate a revolutionary aura. Fascism offers a beguiling mix of revolutionary-sounding mass appeals and reactionary class politics. The Nazi party's full name was the National Socialist German Workers Party, a left-sounding name.

Both the Italian fascists and the Nazis made a conscience effort to steal the lefts thunder. There were mass mobilizations, youth organizations, work brigades, rallies, parades, banners, symbols, and slogans. For this reason, mainstream writers feel free to treat fascism and communism as totalitarian twins. It is a case of reducing essence to form. The similarity in form is taken as reason enough to blur the vast difference in actual class content.

Western political leaders and others who are supposedly on the democratic left, regularly lump fascism with communism. In Italy and Germany of that day, most workers and peasants made a firm distinction between fascism and communism, as did industrialists and bankers who supported fascism out of fear and hatred of communism, a judgement based largely on class realities.

Fascism succeeded in solving the irrational contradictions of capitalism - but only for the capitalists, not for the populace. Fascism never intended to offer a social solution that would serve the general populace, only a reactionary one, forcing all the burdens and losses onto the working public. Divested of its ideological and organizational paraphernalia, fascism is nothing more than a final solution to the class struggle, the totalistic submergence and exploitation of democratic forces for the benefit and profit of higher financial circles.

Fascism is a false revolution. It cultivates the appearance of popular politics and a revolutionary aura without offering a genuine revolutionary class content. It propogates a "New Order" while serving the same old moneyed interests. Its leaders are not guilty of confusion but of deception. That they work hard to mislead the public does not mean they themselves are misled.(1)

...........sound familiar, look around.


(1) Blackshirts & Reds, Michael Parenti

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. As a liberal democrat

I oppose all movements that elevate the rights of the collective over the rights of the individual regardless of the justification....

[Postman]

23. I think I understand that you're not a fascist, however.....

do you support labor unions? That is a form of a "collective" is it not?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Of course.....

It's voluntary.....

Almost voluntary......


And compelling someone to join a union to get a certain job is a reasonable restraint on freedom to contract imho....

It's not like taking away his farm and making him give his produce to the state....

In some ways I'm a Rousseauist..... Private property is ok as long as everybody has some and no man should be so rich he can buy another man and no man should be so poor he has to sell himself....

[Postman]

34. As in ....almost pregnant?

In a perfect world, objecting to compulsary union membership displays a lack of knowledge about class struggle. Or you understand class struggle but reject the ideals of shared wealth and side with the owning class.

By entering into a labor union you are acknowledging that there is indeed a class struggle underway and you side with the working class against the owning class.

It all stems from an understanding that class conflict exists.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Believe That Different Classes Have Different Interests

but I don't know if I would elevate these different interests to struggles in the Marxist sense....

[AP]

44. The interests of capital are so elevated to begin with,

that I don't see how trying to balance them with an organization of your own could be described as elevating them out of proportion with what's necessary just to APPROACH a level playing field.

[izzie]

25. Collective must save the rights of the odd man out

Collective can not rule fairly with out that protection of that person.I do not know what to call it but if you take his freedom you cut your own.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Exactly

Once you elevate the right of the group over the right of the individual you have given the group the right to do whatever it wants with the individual in the name of the group....

The perfect society provides the maximum amount of freedom and social equity consistent with order....

[Postman]

33. Well, aren't the economic elites....

in this country a "group" who dictate over the rest of us individuals?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Please elaborate

We are far from autonomous individuals... Some folks are more powerful than others, intellectually, physically, economically, politically, et cetera....

It's such an amorphous topic I don't know how to address it other than to make sure there is a minimum and even platform from which we all start...

[Postman]

36. Would anyone in power allow a true socialist revolt?

If, as you say, you are a Rousseauist, who in power would object to that? Would the Bush's, Rockefeller's, DuPont's etc., etc.

I think those types of economic elites are against an egalitarian society because it takes power away from them and gives it to the people.

Where in the Constitution does it say we must have a capitalist economy?

[AP]

46. just focus on economic and political power.

...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. They Are Such Amorphous Concepts

they are hard to tackle......


It's easier for me to envision a society where peoples basic needs are met than what I'm going to do about the Wal-Marts, the Microsofts, the General Electrics of the world....



I don't even know where to begin on political power....

Political philosophers have been debating what constitutes the "good life" even before the birth of Christ....

[kwolf68]

24. Nice work Postman

Even on this board with what I consider very intelligent people, I find the understanding of Nazism, Fascism and Socialism and the interpretations quite scattered.

Whenever you have the time, I'd like to hear your interpretation of "WHY" Germany fell under the spell of Nazism.

There are-as you may well know-two schools of thought: 1) The German people knew what they were getting and voted for it willingly, 2) They were duped by a pyschopathic hate-monger and a mass propaganda campaign.

I would argue that the truth lies somewhere in between the two spheres.

WTBS-Much of what we see today from the right is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY fascist, the history will prove this.

[Postman]

32. From what I understand ...

It starts with the baseline understanding that people with property and money want to hold onto those things. Knowledge of the history of class struggle is a requirement in order to understand history itself.

You have to remember that a revolution had just taken place in Russia that threw out the authoritarian rule of the Tsar in favor of a "worker's state"....the worst nightmare of wealthy, propertied owning class elites had come to fruition and was knocking on western Europe's door.

Post World War I Germany was a mess economically. A vacuum was created. A battle for the economic life of the country between socialists, communists and capitalist was underway. What do people in such dire straits want at that point?.. Jobs, civil order, security, and someone to blame.

American capitalists viewed post-war Germany as fertile ground for economic investment and so they did so. Rockefeller, Ford, DuPont just to name a few of the captains of industry allied themselves with Hitler and fascism in order to fight the threat to capitalism. American capitalists already knew how the battle lines were drawn. The socialist and communist threat in Germany was to be defeated at all costs.

A good book to read about the rise of fascism in Germany would be "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"....

It's my understanding that fascism will not arrive overnight. That it's like flicking a switch and...poof...we have fascism. It;s more like a slow bleed, chipping away here, chipping away there at the freedoms we supposedly hold dear. Then one day we wake up and we find ourselves inside a fascist state.

Sort of like....if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, he's going to jump out of it right away. If you put him water and slowly turn up the heat, he doesn't realize he's cooked until it's too late.

[AP]

43. Right on.

Good summary.

[CWebster]

27. It is never exactly the same- it always morphs

so that it is unrecognizable at the onset and only in retrospect can the unthinkable be acknowledged.

The Patriot Act....Homeland security...If you brush up against it, it is truly terrifying. Seems I am always pulled out of line at airports for that special extended search. The last time, some official barked at me to get in the line of suspects--just a little old lady and me. They take you behind a plexiglass screen--in full view of the entire plane and go through their gestapo tactics---and treat you like a criminal. I complained about the threatening attitude and they called security and threatened to keep me off the plane.

I am a law abiding citizen of this country, I resent being singled out and treated with suspicion as if I was a threat.

[bpilgrim]

28. that sounds so creepy...

getting on airplanes nowadays, that is. i can imagine red lights flashing and alarms going off if i would try to fly.

peace

[kodi]

48. proceed to dave neiwert's Orcinus site for a fine 40,000 word expose'

he ties american style fascism with white supremicists, christian identity movements, propaganda, moneied interests and the media.

it really is an outstanding piece of work.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

[Selwynn]

51. You're making a mistake in your apology for fascism -

Mussolini did not define fascism as a "partnership" between private/public sector. He described it as a MERGING of corporate and state power. That's exactly what we have today.

Buisness interests have been promoted by virtually every civilization, and the private sector/public sector partnership is not a definition of fascism.

What we have in this country is not a partnership but a mergance. The only difference is that rather than that govenment controlling corporations, corporations controll the government. John Dewys said "Goverment is the shadow cast by business on society"

You're multi-paragraph apology of american fascism is moot. Instead, we should simply replace it with the dictionary definition of fascism:

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

No apology, no qualification, no excuse making. That is the definition of fascism - you decide if you think it fits modern America. But I think if you confess that even some of these traits apply to the US if not all, that is still a frightening warning bell for the future.