What is the definition of fascism?

[littlebabyjesus]

imo
Fascism is an attempt to harness the energy of the mass hatred and direct it towards an imaginary threat. Fascists identify with one another through hatred and fear, as dictated by their leaders

I'm not sure Mussolini's fascism really fits that bill. A fascist might equally say that fascism is about harnessing the energy of national unity. And the 'threat' of socialist revolution in Italy, in fact in lots of places post-1917, was real enough.

I think one of the problems with finding a definition is that fascism was in fact an ideal, a genuine aspiration for a better future, among many post=WW1. It was clear that the established order had made a mess. It looked finished. So the question then became: what should we replace it with?

 

[durruti02]

people are still arguing over what were simply historical specifics .. it is meaningless .. in Italy in 1920 war and futurism made sense as fascist fundamentals .. in england in 2009 they don't .. it is that simple .. there is no need to argue over these .. it is it's function that matters

 

[MikeMcc]

So were the nazis communists Mike. Yes or no please.

(you've erronesoulsy ticked lots of boxes btw)

Both shared elements of each others beliefs. In terms of the historical view of those regimes there is little to differentiate them (if you really want me to say yes then so be it, though that is too constraining!). It is possible to have communist societies that don't involve such overtly authoritarian backgrounds. I'm certainly not saying that there is a general rule that equates communist regimes to fascism.

 

[MikeMcc]

people are still arguing over what were simply historical specifics .. it is meaningless .. in Italy in 1920 war and futurism made sense as fascist fundamentals .. in england in 2009 they don't .. it is that simple .. there is no need to argue over these .. it is it's function that matters

Agreed

 

[butchersapron]

Both shared elements of each others beliefs. In terms of the historical view of those regimes there is little to differentiate them (if you really want me to say yes then so be it, though that is too constraining!). It is possible to have communist societies that don't involve such overtly authoritarian backgrounds. I'm certainly not saying that there is a general rule that equates communist regimes to fascism.

In terms of the historially existing regimes though if the communists were nazis then the nazis must be communists. Doesn't that formulation alone give you pause for thought?

 

[CyberRose]

i don't believe i've ever used the term neocon.

yes, the old state capitalist chestnut

what they mean is that the old communist states were not their sort of communist, or that these states were communist with a big c and they are communists with a small c, in the sense which zizek uses the word.

I'm just giving you examples where people pick and choose definitions at will to portray something either positively or negatively.

Outside of America, communism isn't a particularly dirty word, but fascism is. It carries a lot more weight to call somebody a fascist than it does a communist. Hence people looking at certain states that appear to have a hell of a lot in common with examples of fascist states and ask why they are not also called fascist.

Look over in the Middle East forum (actually don't, it's crap) and see how people argue over what constitutes a terrorist or not. People's definitions are based around who they do or do not want to label with the negative word "terrorist".

Above I gave you an example (which if you haven't used yourself you've certainly seen people here use) where Tony Blair is regularly referred to as a "neocon". Neocon has negative connotations attached to it (just like "terrorism" and "fascism") and people like to alter it's definition to suit their use of the word.

While it is easy to dismiss the accusation of Tony Blair being a neocon (as it's a fairly specific ideology), fairly easy to say what is or is not an act of terrorism, it's a little less easy to state for a fact what is or is not fascist because all the dictionary says is "1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." That could mean anything...

Also, nobody has as of yet posted up an agreed upon definition suggesting there isn't actually one

 

[butchersapron]

You haven't given any examples yet.

 

[Pickman's model]

It carries a lot more weight to call somebody a fascist than it does a communist.

people have been calling those they don't like 'fascist' for a very long time now. it doesn't carry more weight, it is virtually devoid of meaning as its currency has been long devalued by overuse.

 

[MikeMcc]

people have been calling those they don't like 'fascist' for a very long time now. it doesn't carry more weight, it is virtually devoid of meaning as its currency has been long devalued by overuse.

Again, very true.

 

[CyberRose]

They're not.

What's your point?

The point was that Pickman's Model said if anybody describes communist states as being fascist then they're pig ignorant. I was pointing out that most people who define themselves as communists wouldn't claim those two states were communist (presumably because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in any debate over ideology if they claimed they were communist). So even if USSR and China weren't fascist, it was wrong to call people pig headed for suggesting it if they aren't communist either

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Isn't it easier to look at what is needed for a state to be fascist?

You need a strong leader, I would have thought. You need a strong belief in a particular version of national unity, and the extolling of the virtues of the people that encompasses. You need a belief in hierarchy, and some Neitszchean ingredient whereby the strong take their proper place at the top, those who win the struggle are those who deserve the spoils of victory.

 

[CyberRose]

You haven't given any examples yet.

Of what?

 

[CyberRose]

people have been calling those they don't like 'fascist' for a very long time now. it doesn't carry more weight, it is virtually devoid of meaning as its currency has been long devalued by overuse.

I said it carries more (insulting) weight being called a fascist than it does being called a communist, you saying that isn't true?

 

[butchersapron]

Isn't it easier to look at what is needed for a state to be fascist?

You need a strong leader, I would have thought. You need a strong belief in a particular version of national unity, and the extolling of the virtues of the people that encompasses. You need a belief in hierarchy, and some Neitszchean ingredient whereby the strong take their proper place at the top, those who win the struggle are those who deserve the spoils of victory.

It's easier, but it's not more useful because that removes it form the context and more importantly removes it from the fascist movement.

 

[MikeMcc]

You haven't given any examples yet.

That appears to be a poor move, as I am discovering

 

[butchersapron]

Of what?

Of your prize example, of people calling tony blair a neo-con. You've said that you've given examples, you haven't.

 

[Pickman's model]

I said it carries more (insulting) weight being called a fascist than it does being called a communist, you saying that isn't true?

it's like being called a fucking bastard instead of being called a fucking twat.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's easier, but it's not more useful because that removes it form the context and more importantly removes it from the fascist movement.

In that case, it is a fundamentally different beast from, say, communism or capitalism, which can be defined quite precisely out of context.

Essentially, you are saying that fascism is as fascism does. So, while it is possible to say that the Soviet Union was not communist, it would be impossible to say that Mussolini's Italy was not fascist as Mussolini's Italy defined what fascism was.

 

[butchersapron]

In that case, it is a fundamentally different beast from, say, communism or capitalism, which can be defined quite precisely out of context.

I don't think either of them can be to be honest either -they're both entirely defined by context (i.e the move from private to planned capitalism).

 

[butchersapron]

Essentially, you are saying that fascism is as fascism does.

No, i'm saying that your above definition of fascism recues it to leaders and their intentions and moves it out of the field of social movements.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think either of them can be to be honest either .

I don't agree. I can provide definitions of both capitalism and communism without reference to any extant regime.

 

[Pickman's model]

The point was that Pickman's Model said if anybody describes communist states as being fascist then they're pig ignorant. I was pointing out that most people who define themselves as communists wouldn't claim those two states were communist (presumably because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in any debate over ideology if they claimed they were communist). So even if USSR and China weren't fascist, it was wrong to call people pig headed for suggesting it if they aren't communist either

yes. but you're assuming a single sort of communist. as i've pointed out there are a great number of fascisms. there are/were also an equivalent number of communisms, as all the former communist states of eastern europe had different practices and indeed different ideas. although those states in the soviet orbit had a more constrained range of options in terms of policy, they did have options: communism in practice in romania was different from east germany, which in turn differed from yugoslavia or albania. the practice outside europe was again different, in ethiopia, cuba, north korea, japan, south yemen etc etc. the bitter disputes between some of these states is mirrored by the difference of opinion among self-styled communists about whether some or all of these states were communist.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, i'm saying that your above definition of fascism recues it to leaders and their intentions and moves it out of the field of social movements.

What were the social movements, though? Were they not defined by the 'visions' of their respective leaders in a way that a communist movement might not be?

I can imagine a communist movement without a leader or with more than one leader, and a capitalist one, but not a fascist one. To me fascism necessitates a degree of subjugation to a leader.

 

[butchersapron]

What were the social movements, though? Were they not defined by the 'visions' of their respective leaders in a way that a communist movement might not be?

No they weren't, you have it the wrong way round. They defined the visions,the limits and the possibilities. It wasn't something that just happened to them.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't agree. I can provide definitions of both capitalism and communism without reference to any extant regime.

good for you

 

[butchersapron]

I don't agree. I can provide definitions of both capitalism and communism without reference to any extant regime.

Not one that all people will agree with you can't. Many people can provide a definition of fascsism without reference to any historically existing regime.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

good for you

I wasn't being facetious. I'm genuinely trying to get to the bottom of something.

 

[MikeMcc]

In terms of the historially existing regimes though if the communists were nazis then the nazis must be communists. Doesn't that formulation alone give you pause for thought?

Looking at the 25-point Natioanist Socialist Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program) i noticed the following;

Before Austria became a republic, the Austrian DNSAP (Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei, German National Socialist Worker's Party), proclaimed a similar program in May 1918. Here are a few excerpts:
...the German National Socialist Workers' Party is not a party exclusively for labourers; it stands for the interests of every decent and honest enterprise. It is a liberal (freiheitlich) and strictly folkic (volkisch) party fighting against all reactionary efforts, clerical, feudal and capitalistic privileges; but before all against the increasing influence of the Jewish commercial mentality which encroaches on public life.... ...it demands the amalgamation of all European regions inhabited by Germans into a democratic and socialized Germany... ...it demands the introduction of plebiscites (referendums; democratic decision-making) for all important laws in the country... ...it demands the elimination of the rule of Jewish banks over our economic life and the establishment of People's Banks under democratic control...[3]

This suggests that that is quite possible!

 

[butchersapron]

Looking at the 25-point Natioanist Socialist Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program) i noticed the following;

This suggests that that is quite possible!

Is that a yes then?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not one that all people will agree with you can't.

Ok a bare bones communism, perhaps:

The means of production are held collectively.

The proletariat takes power, and society works towards a demolition of class distinctions in which only a proletariat is left.

Bare bones capitalism:

The right to private property is enshrined in law.

Wherever possible, the flow of capital is unimpeded by government.