Fascism

[Machu505]

I've seen this applied to just about everyone under the political spectrum, so what is fascism? Although I understand that there is no clear meaning, what do you see as the general consensus of fascism's meaning? Discuss.

[Praetor]

I'd like to say that it's a society where the state is more important than the individual, but really that's all authoritarianism.

Naomi Wolf outlines ten foundations of fascism in her book The End of America and links them all to the Bush administration. I think she does a pretty good job of defining what makes a fascist a fascist (although I would greatly hesitate to call Bush a fascist, not to mention overall it was a pretty poor book).

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag (a prison system outside the rule of law)
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

I also propose that it's impossible to link fascism to a singular economic ideal, because there's economically liberal fascists like Pot and Stalin, but also economically conservative fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler. So equating fascism to any singular economic position seems rather inaccurate.

[whataclush]

heaven on earth.

[Love As Arson]

Trotsky described it best:

"Everything that should have been eliminated from the national organism in the form of cultural excrement in the course of the normal development of society has now come gushing out from the throat; capitalist society is puking up the undigested barbarism. Such is the physiology of National Socialism."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm
http://www.isreview.org/issues/02/trotsky.shtml

[thespearkid]

Control of information/speech to try and control the populace's mentality.

[Losing Streak]

It's essentially authoritarianism, with a preference for a single privileged class...either the rich and powerful or a "master race".

[saysmydoctor]

A corporatist, totalitarian monster.

[macabre]

It's tough to place fascism in either end of the spectrum because the ideology itself doesn't neatly resemble capitalism or socialism. Some political scientists have referred to fascism as the radicalization of the center and I find the argument pretty compelling. The argument goes as follows: fascism sees democracy as a tug of war between special interests on the left and the right. According to fascism, democracy has stifled the will of the people because special interests on the left and the right have hijacked the system for their own benefit. In order to represent the will of the people, fascism removes the interests of labor and capital from the political system and places them in their own distinct sphere through the economic system of corporatism. Corporatism is an economic system where the collective bargaining process between labor and capital occurs outside of the government and the state merely acts as a mediator enforcing reconciliation. By removing both extremes from influencing government, the state is now able to represent the will of the people without the influence of special interests. Thus, fascism is not extremism of the right or left but extremism of the center.

[GeeBee]

Neville Sinclair was a fascist. He admitted as much, right before he ordered Lothar to subdue Jenny Blake.
Extra points to whoever knows what movie I'm talking about.

[jawstheme]

Neville Sinclair was a fascist. He admitted as much, right before he ordered Lothar to subdue Jenny Blake.
Extra points to whoever knows what movie I'm talking about.

Rocketeer. I asked for a jetpack for Christmas for like 5 years because of that movie.

[GeeBee]

Rocketeer. I asked for a jetpack for Christmas for like 5 years because of that movie.

queue Price is Right music...

Show was awesome. Totally underrated.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

corect me if I am wrong but i thought Facism is a means to reach a certain political end not a straight political ideology/philosophy.

[GeeBee]

corect me if I am wrong but i thought Facism is a means to reach a certain political end not a straight political ideology/philosophy.

Echoed.

[My Broken Fever]

corect me if I am wrong but i thought Facism is a means to reach a certain political end not a straight political ideology/philosophy. But I thought facism had some very clear ideas about how a state should be run. That all states/races are in constant conflict, and that only the strong survive and that a state can only be strong under a one-party government that does not allow any criticism.

Isn't it most important what it opposes to define facism as an ideology? Blaming capitalism for creating the class-system and socialism for exploiting it, against individualism and too much control of the state and so on?

[x togepi x]

fascism is functionally the love of power. most of these definitions are flawed because they're too easily applied to other systems and not our own. you guys are thinking about fascism in the historical sense, which i'd refer to as macrofascism, but you're forgetting about fascism in the personal sense, which has just as many political implications.

[macabre]

fascism is functionally the love of power. most of these definitions are flawed because they're too easily applied to other systems and not our own. you guys are thinking about fascism in the historical sense, which i'd refer to as macrofascism, but you're forgetting about fascism in the personal sense, which has just as many political implications.

To understand fascism as a movement, it seems like you have to look at the common threads between other fascist movements in order to have a working, generalizable definition. What does fascism in the personal sense mean and what other ways are there to define fascism, other than through its history and an examination of what its adherents generally tend to believe? There are way too many vague definitions of fascism out there and I think keeping an eye on the most objective features of the fascist ideology is extremely important.

[Love As Arson]

http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Personality-Studies-Prejudice/dp/0393311120

[macabre]

http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Personality-Studies-Prejudice/dp/0393311120

I understand what a fascist personality may look like but there is no solid scientific evidence that such a personality disorder exists. I searched a few psychology databases for studies on the disorder and it revealed two results, with no subsequent research past the 60s. The inclusion of personality disorders that have been in the DSM manual for years are still being debated and these are disorders with hundreds of studies backing them up. The evidence for the existence of this type of disorder just seems a bit weak.

[Nevuk]

Did anyone actually make it through the corporation? I got bored to tears in the opening sequence and fell asleep.

[paper halo]

Did anyone actually make it through the corporation? I got bored to tears in the opening sequence and fell asleep.

The book?

[Nevuk]

Nah, the documentary that was about corporations having the personality of sociopath.

[paper halo]

Ah, I am thinking of the book that spawned that documentary.

[Love As Arson]

I understand what a fascist personality may look like but there is no solid scientific evidence that such a personality disorder exists. I searched a few psychology databases for studies on the disorder and it revealed two results, with no subsequent research past the 60s. The inclusion of personality disorders that have been in the DSM manual for years are still being debated and these are disorders with hundreds of studies backing them up. The evidence for the existence of this type of disorder just seems a bit weak.
It isn't a disorder, just a type of personality.

[macabre]

It isn't a disorder, just a type of personality.

Still lacks the adequate amount of research for individuals to be classified as such and that's not necessarily a criticism of the theory itself but of most personality psychology research. Most studies in that area of psychology find traits that are commonly associated together and test individuals on those defined measures, seeing if any of the traits are correlated with each other. The traits don't always correlate and it doesn't seem like the studies performed by the authors of that book found anything conclusive. Interesting research but it's important to be skeptical when approaching this area of psychology because it's littered with inconclusive and constantly debated research. I'm sure you can see why, it's tough to pigeonhole individuals into groups on the basis of stable traits because not every person is the same and not all traits are expressed in the same way.

Here's the abstract of the study by the authors of the book you referenced:
Subjects with some religious affiliation are more prejudiced than those without affiliation, but no significant difference between Protestants and Catholics. There is a low but significant negative relation of intelligence and education to ethnocentrism. Interviews threw light on parental relations, childhood, conception of self, and dynamics and organization of personality. Projective techniques are described and results analyzed. 63 interviews are analyzed qualitatively for prejudice, political and economic ideas, religious ideology and syndromes among high and low scorers. The development of two contrasting cases is given. Criminality and antidemocratic trends in prison inmates and a study of clinic patients complete the investigation of the authoritarian personality pattern.

[Love As Arson]

Still lacks the adequate amount of research for individuals to be classified as such and that's not necessarily a criticism of the theory itself but of most personality psychology research. Most studies in that area of psychology find traits that are commonly associated together and test individuals on those defined measures, seeing if any of the traits are correlated with each other. The traits don't always correlate and it doesn't seem like the studies performed by the authors of that book found anything conclusive. Interesting research but it's important to be skeptical when approaching this area of psychology because it's littered with inconclusive and constantly debated research. I'm sure you can see why, it's tough to pigeonhole individuals into groups on the basis of stable traits because not every person is the same and not all traits are expressed in the same way..
Your views are reasonable and I understand the disagreement within the psychological community. I still think it is an important work in defining fascistic characteristics.

[x togepi x]

To understand fascism as a movement, it seems like you have to look at the common threads between other fascist movements in order to have a working, generalizable definition. What does fascism in the personal sense mean and what other ways are there to define fascism, other than through its history and an examination of what its adherents generally tend to believe? There are way too many vague definitions of fascism out there and I think keeping an eye on the most objective features of the fascist ideology is extremely important.

I just told you: the love of power, the need to build everything into totalizing worldviews, the need to demonize all that do not fit within said totality.

Your definition easily falls into the trap of demonizing other systems while ignoring the fascist elements within our own. A historical analysis of fascism is always going to fall short because history cannot really be a way of critiquing the present outside of using history as allegory which is just as open to interpretation as anything else. To truly be "objective" about fascism, we have to be super subjective and deal with our own personal fascist elements within. even the most ardent "anti-fascists" on the left tend to be plagued with these problems.

I would even contend that your obsession with "objective features" of fascism is fascist in itself. it might be "vague", but my belief that we should look at personal fascism is quite useful since it allows us to see the fascism within ourselves so that we do not fall into such a trap.

[splat out path]

It's tough to place fascism in either end of the spectrum because the ideology itself doesn't neatly resemble capitalism or socialism. Some political scientists have referred to fascism as the radicalization of the center and I find the argument pretty compelling. The argument goes as follows: fascism sees democracy as a tug of war between special interests on the left and the right. According to fascism, democracy has stifled the will of the people because special interests on the left and the right have hijacked the system for their own benefit. In order to represent the will of the people, fascism removes the interests of labor and capital from the political system and places them in their own distinct sphere through the economic system of corporatism. Corporatism is an economic system where the collective bargaining process between labor and capital occurs outside of the government and the state merely acts as a mediator enforcing reconciliation. By removing both extremes from influencing government, the state is now able to represent the will of the people without the influence of special interests. Thus, fascism is not extremism of the right or left but extremism of the center.
I can see the appeal of that theory, because it's neat and tidy, but it only really makes sense if you reduce all politics to labor vs. capital. I'm assuming it's a Marxist theory, then? It's unorthodox, but still essentially Marxist, and I don't think it really explains enough.

I mean, there is the corporatist element to fascism, but there is so much more that just can't be explained by economics: the glorification, even fetishising, of war; the pursuit of "glory"; the needless expansionism; not to mention the racial/ethnic elements. So much of what happened in Germany and Italy and other states seems so, for lack of a better word, "improvised" that it really defies explanation.

[macabre]

I can see the appeal of that theory, because it's neat and tidy, but it only really makes sense if you reduce all politics to labor vs. capital. I'm assuming it's a Marxist theory, then? It's unorthodox, but still essentially Marxist, and I don't think it really explains enough.

I mean, there is the corporatist element to fascism, but there is so much more that just can't be explained by economics: the glorification, even fetishising, of war; the pursuit of "glory"; the needless expansionism; not to mention the racial/ethnic elements. So much of what happened in Germany and Italy and other states seems so, for lack of a better word, "improvised" that it really defies explanation.

Nope, it was actually an empirical study conducted by Seymour Lipset. Here's a link to a study describing it if you're interested: http://www.statisticalinnovations.com/articles/LeftCenterRight.pdf

The cleavages of Labor and Capital are two of the most common cleavages in the world, that's not necessarily a Marxist interpretation.

[macabre]

I just told you: the love of power, the need to build everything into totalizing worldviews, the need to demonize all that do not fit within said totality.

Your definition easily falls into the trap of demonizing other systems while ignoring the fascist elements within our own. A historical analysis of fascism is always going to fall short because history cannot really be a way of critiquing the present outside of using history as allegory which is just as open to interpretation as anything else. To truly be "objective" about fascism, we have to be super subjective and deal with our own personal fascist elements within. even the most ardent "anti-fascists" on the left tend to be plagued with these problems.

I would even contend that your obsession with "objective features" of fascism is fascist in itself. it might be "vague", but my belief that we should look at personal fascism is quite useful since it allows us to see the fascism within ourselves so that we do not fall into such a trap.

Your take on fascism amounts to nothing more than a definition of totalitarianism. Although totalitarianism is definitely an important aspect of fascism, your definition does nothing to explain why fascist states organize their economies in a corporatist fashion nor why fascism itself was such a powerful historical movement. A subjective approach on defining fascism has allowed people on both the right and the left to demonize each other as fascists. Marxists believe fascism arose due to failures within capitalism, Austrian Economists believe fascism is socialism in its purest form. When you resort to classifying fascism on the basis of subjective features, it becomes nothing more than an epithet to hurl at others.

My insistence on defining the objective features of fascism comes from my education in political science and psychology. It's not a fascist obsession, it's a scientific one. There are certain objective features of fascism and they've been explored by countless political scientists since WWII. One example is the corporatist economic system, this is a distinctively fascist development and it helps explain how fascists organize their economies. Others include an insistence on nationalism, a one-party state, and appeals to the Folk in party platforms. Defining fascism objectively, through examining its institutions or platforms, is not an impossible task. I prefer a definition that takes that into account, rather than a definition that means whatever we want it to mean, because it allows us to identify precisely what makes fascism distinctively fascist in hopes that we can prevent it.

[Duexy]

daddy yankee

[x togepi x]

Your take on fascism amounts to nothing more than a definition of totalitarianism.

You misunderstand because totalitarianism necessarily involves a state, where as fascism doesn't.

Although totalitarianism is definitely an important aspect of fascism, your definition does nothing to explain why fascist states organize their economies in a corporatist fashion nor why fascism itself was such a powerful historical movement.

Sure it does. I'm just not willing to spell it all out for you.

A subjective approach on defining fascism has allowed people on both the right and the left to demonize each other as fascists. Marxists believe fascism arose due to failures within capitalism, Austrian Economists believe fascism is socialism in its purest form. When you resort to classifying fascism on the basis of subjective features, it becomes nothing more than an epithet to hurl at others.

first off, i would say there is fascism, in the sense that i'm speaking of, on the left and the right and the center and everywhere else in politics so i don't exactly see why this is a bad thing.

secondly, i don't think the people who you're referring to think of fascism in the same "subjective" sense that i do. I say this because they tend to look at the supposedly objective facets of history to define their enemy as fascist because history as a narrative is open to interpretation. Jonah Goldman, for example, in his book about liberal fascists would tell you that he's looking at objective historical facts just like Naomi Wolfe would in her leftist interpretation of history.

To act as if people don't twist historical facts into their ideology is ridiculous, and is exactly a feature of the form of fascism that i'm referring to.

My insistence on defining the objective features of fascism comes from my education in political science and psychology. It's not a fascist obsession, it's a scientific one. There are certain objective features of fascism and they've been explored by countless political scientists since WWII. One example is the corporatist economic system, this is a distinctively fascist development and it helps explain how fascists organize their economies. Others include an insistence on nationalism, a one-party state, and appeals to the Folk in party platforms.

You completely misunderstood this point to. I wasn't saying you're obsessed with fascism because you're a fascist, i was saying your obsession with having an objective definition that has clear and distinct boundaries that can easily and objectively be applied could be considered fascist, as it gives you an ability to gain power in a rhetorical sense by claiming your adversary/enemy is a fascist, and therefore the worst of the worst. it essentially exists on a rhetorical level to demonize and squash dissent.

While I've never denied that you can define fascism through a lens of history or within political science, I don't think merely defining them in this way tells the whole picture, nor am i willing to give prominence to academic fields like political science because of their own ideological biases.


Defining fascism objectively, through examining its institutions or platforms, is not an impossible task. I prefer a definition that takes that into account, rather than a definition that means whatever we want it to mean, because it allows us to identify precisely what makes fascism distinctively fascist in hopes that we can prevent it.

I've never given a definition that can mean "whatever I want it to mean." I could, were i to spend time formulating it in "clear and distinct language", which would fall into your standard of objectivity, but that kind of defeats my point on a rhetorical level.

More importantly, to truly "prevent it", we have to examine the fascism within, otherwise we'll end up constructing the same sorts of social structures that "the fascists" did.

[splat out path]

Nope, it was actually an empirical study conducted by Seymour Lipset. Here's a link to a study describing it if you're interested: http://www.statisticalinnovations.com/articles/LeftCenterRight.pdf

The cleavages of Labor and Capital are two of the most common cleavages in the world, that's not necessarily a Marxist interpretation.
Well it's a Marxist interpretation when all politics is reduced to capital vs. labour. But I know Lipset enough that he has a more nuanced view. I couldn't glean all that much from your link, though- it quoted a little bit and then went on with its own subject.

I mean, I think there's some strain of truth to the theory (from what I've seen summarised of it) in how fascism managed to appeal to voters, but I don't think it really explains what it was

[macabre]

Well it's a Marxist interpretation when all politics is reduced to capital vs. labour. But I know Lipset enough that he has a more nuanced view. I couldn't glean all that much from your link, though- it quoted a little bit and then went on with its own subject.

I mean, I think there's some strain of truth to the theory (from what I've seen summarised of it) in how fascism managed to appeal to voters, but I don't think it really explains what it was

I'll try to post the full PDF when I get to the library tonight. It's an interesting read.

[macabre]

You misunderstand because totalitarianism necessarily involves a state, where as fascism doesn't.

Provide justification for your claim that fascism doesn't necessarily involve a state. One of the main tenets of fascism is a one-party state so if you have evidence to the contrary, please inform me.

Sure it does. I'm just not willing to spell it all out for you.

Your definition doesn't explain those things I listed but you assure me that it does by withholding how it explains those things, glad we're making progress.


first off, i would say there is fascism, in the sense that i'm speaking of, on the left and the right and the center and everywhere else in politics so i don't exactly see why this is a bad thing.
secondly, i don't think the people who you're referring to think of fascism in the same "subjective" sense that i do. I say this because they tend to look at the supposedly objective facets of history to define their enemy as fascist because history as a narrative is open to interpretation. Jonah Goldman, for example, in his book about liberal fascists would tell you that he's looking at objective historical facts just like Naomi Wolfe would in her leftist interpretation of history.
To act as if people don't twist historical facts into their ideology is ridiculous, and is exactly a feature of the form of fascism that i'm referring to.

When fascism is defined as an ideology that can fall anywhere on the spectrum, it stops being fascism. That's akin to saying there are communists on the left, right, and center. Fascism is an ideology that encompasses economic and political beliefs, you can't divorce these beliefs from fascism.

As for your point about historical facts, I completely agree. However, why can't fascism be defined by its distinctive institutions and main tenets as expressed on party platforms? Most ideologies are defined in this way, why must it be any different for fascism?


You completely misunderstood this point to. I wasn't saying you're obsessed with fascism because you're a fascist, i was saying your obsession with having an objective definition that has clear and distinct boundaries that can easily and objectively be applied could be considered fascist, as it gives you an ability to gain power in a rhetorical sense by claiming your adversary/enemy is a fascist, and therefore the worst of the worst. it essentially exists on a rhetorical level to demonize and squash dissent.

You claimed that seeking an objective definition of fascism may be fascist, in of itself, and I contended that an insistence on an objective definition isn't a fascist approach but a scientific one; no misunderstanding there.


as it gives you an ability to gain power in a rhetorical sense by claiming your adversary/enemy is a fascist, and therefore the worst of the worst. it essentially exists on a rhetorical level to demonize and squash dissent.

"That party wants to create a one-party state with a corporatist economic system, those fascists!" seems a lot less perjorative than "The Democrats are taking away our free market, those fascists!". I'd argue that a more objective definition would actually have less power as an epithet than the current mainstream definition because it's much less ambiguous.


While I've never denied that you can define fascism through a lens of history or within political science, I don't think merely defining them in this way tells the whole picture, nor am i willing to give prominence to academic fields like political science because of their own ideological biases.

What more do you want from the definition? I have never read a study in the political science literature that has included any normative statements on fascism itself. Political scientists have studied how fascist parties have gained prominence in certain countries, what demographics vote or have voted for the fascists, and the institutional qualities of fascism in general. All of this data has added to our body of knowledge and to merely dismiss it because it supposedly has an ideological bias is completely unfounded.


I've never given a definition that can mean "whatever I want it to mean." I could, were i to spend time formulating it in "clear and distinct language", which would fall into your standard of objectivity, but that kind of defeats my point on a rhetorical level.
More importantly, to truly "prevent it", we have to examine the fascism within, otherwise we'll end up constructing the same sorts of social structures that "the fascists" did.

If you could formulate your definition in clear and precise language, that would be great. Your argument isn't very compelling if you don't spell it out and provide justification for your points. It seems like you're purposefully hiding your definition behind a haze of ambiguity to avoid debate.

[macabre]

Well it's a Marxist interpretation when all politics is reduced to capital vs. labour. But I know Lipset enough that he has a more nuanced view. I couldn't glean all that much from your link, though- it quoted a little bit and then went on with its own subject.

I mean, I think there's some strain of truth to the theory (from what I've seen summarised of it) in how fascism managed to appeal to voters, but I don't think it really explains what it was

Here is the original Lipset paper, if you're interested:
http://www.mediafire.com/?wm5mzy3j1i0

[x togepi x]

Provide justification for your claim that fascism doesn't necessarily involve a state. One of the main tenets of fascism is a one-party state so if you have evidence to the contrary, please inform me.

since i'm talking about fascism in the personal sense, it's pretty much self explanatory since states=/= people.


Your definition doesn't explain those things I listed but you assure me that it does by withholding how it explains those things, glad we're making progress.

care to explain how it doesn't?



When fascism is defined as an ideology that can fall anywhere on the spectrum, it stops being fascism.

Well then it stopped being fascism during the Spanish Civil War when every one was calling everyone fascist. If this is your argument, you're making it decades too late.


That's akin to saying there are communists on the left, right, and center. Fascism is an ideology that encompasses economic and political beliefs, you can't divorce these beliefs from fascism.

In the political sense, sure, but point out where I've decided to talk about fascism in the strict box of political science.

As for your point about historical facts, I completely agree. However, why can't fascism be defined by its distinctive institutions and main tenets as expressed on party platforms? Most ideologies are defined in this way, why must it be any different for fascism?

I'm not saying it has to be different if you want to stick within your particular discipline, but i'm not arguing out of a political science-based one (though it's obviously influenced by those studies to some degree).

You claimed that seeking an objective definition of fascism may be fascist, in of itself, and I contended that an insistence on an objective definition isn't a fascist approach but a scientific one; no misunderstanding there.

there's a huge understanding because your tendency to willingly throw away any definition that doesn't fit within the well defined boundaries of politics is fascist. I would point out that while the scientific approach is great, it's not the only perspective that has value.

"That party wants to create a one-party state with a corporatist economic system, those fascists!" seems a lot less perjorative than "The Democrats are taking away our free market, those fascists!". I'd argue that a more objective definition would actually have less power as an epithet than the current mainstream definition because it's much less ambiguous.

The definition is only objective to those who set the parameters. The right wingers are going to tell you that, by not letting them call democrats fascists, that you're being biased. The problem here is that you think history isn't open to interpretation, when it clearly is.

What more do you want from the definition? I have never read a study in the political science literature that has included any normative statements on fascism itself. Political scientists have studied how fascist parties have gained prominence in certain countries, what demographics vote or have voted for the fascists, and the institutional qualities of fascism in general. All of this data has added to our body of knowledge and to merely dismiss it because it supposedly has an ideological bias is completely unfounded.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying there are alternative ways to approaching the subject, one being beyond the means of political science through postmodern studies. there's obviously a place for the political science definition, but in a thread that merely asks "what is fascism?" it's ridiculous to say THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN LOOK AT THE TOPIC. You're the one doing the dismissing, not me.


If you could formulate your definition in clear and precise language, that would be great. Your argument isn't very compelling if you don't spell it out and provide justification for your points. It seems like you're purposefully hiding your definition behind a haze of ambiguity to avoid debate.

I think it's cute that you accuse me of avoiding debate when you won't even answer the simplest of positions of mine, but i would again point out that it would be contradictory to use "clear and precise language" since i'm leaving things open to interpretation, especially when "clear and precise language" doesn't even exist.