Thank you for indulging me in a purely fun philosophical musing on the nature of thought and existence…which, if I am not mistaken, established a consensus that my own existence is defined by ‘being annoying’ rather than by ‘thinking’ … implied feedback loop, and all – and don’t go saying that it’s an infinite loop… :0)
So, please, let me move now to other topics: less abstract, but hopefully no less thought provoking…. I promise to stay as annoying as ever!
Children say the ‘darndest’ things…and ask the toughest questions. Except that I didn’t realize this one would be a ‘tough question’.
After all, ‘everyone’ knows what ‘fascism’ is, right? Jackboots and swastikas and Italian right wing dictators – images of WWII appear before our eyes and we know EXACTLY what ‘fascism’ is. Except…when I got asked this question, I found verbalizing the answer was nowhere as easy as my mental picture made me think it would be.
Italian fascism (under Mussolini) was a ‘right wing’ dictatorship. So were the ‘fascist’ dictatorships that plagued South America. So, many people think that ‘fascism’ is a synonym for a right-wing dictatorship. Except that it isn’t… Yes, we also think of Hitler’s Nazi Germany as being a ‘right wing dictatorship’ – except that … it wasn’t.
Not exactly, anyway. The word ‘Nazism’ is a short form of ‘national socialism’ – and that is decidedly a ‘left wing’ terminology. And even a cursory look at the policies instituted in Nazi Germany will demonstrate that Hitler’s dictatorship was ‘left wing’ in practice, as well as in name. He nationalized many industries, and established more of a ‘nanny state’ than constitute most of today’s western socialist’s wet dreams. He even said his two idols were Lenin and Stalin… So, how could Nacism also be ‘fascist’?
Some reading and thinking shows that the definitions and descriptions vary, based on the time and social climate and political views of the commentator…yet there are always a few features that are common across the definitions/descriptions. Now, here are my own little observations:
1. In its deepest core, fascism is the ‘dictatorship of the majority/privileged minorities’.
It does not matter if the government is left-wing, right-wing, or whatever. It invariably ‘clips the wings’ of its citizens, and makes them feel special for it! How? By either turning ‘wing-clipping’ into a matter of ‘national identity and pride’, and justifying it in the most reasonably-sounding terms, at first… and the ‘moral majority’ is either ‘impassioned’ or ‘guilted’ into supporting them…and tramples down anyone who does not ‘run with the flock’…. After all, if your wings have been clipped, you can either ‘run with the flock’ or ‘be trampled’ – because soaring high in the skies is no longer an option and the very desire for it will be vilified.
As such, fascism elevates the rights of groups over the rights of individuals who make up these groups. This feature is the unmistakable mark of ‘fascism’.
2. Fascism often gains control gradually and insidiously.
Remember, even Hitler was voted into power… So how can fascism gain control ‘gradually and insidiously’? By becoming indispensable to the individual, to force its citizens to ‘go along’ with things… It does this by appealing to a call for unity (be it racial, social, religious or ‘under attack by an outside enemy’) and by forcing the citizens to ‘buy-in’ into government sponsored social programs to such an invasive degree, the citizens will no longer be able to exist independently (either because these services become government monopolies, or because the citizens no longer know HOW to take care of themselves).
Anybody see the ghost of a ‘nanny state’?
These are my ever-humble (or is that ‘never-humble’?) opinions….though this ‘sketch’ seems rather ‘rough’, in need of refinement.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
February 8, 2008 at 15:45
Hola, your old foe from Convinceme.net here. Being a political scientist I find all this very fascinating. I think you missed a few key points as well as misrepresented the nature of Fascism. I am known for being long winded, so I’ll try my best to keep this short.
“The word ‘Nazism’ is a short form of ‘national socialism’ – and that is decidedly a ‘left wing’ terminology.”
While yes, the terminology is “left wing” the policies of the Nazi Party were not. It is believed that industry was nationalized, but really it was the opposite, the industrial owners became entrenched in the state. That is, profits never went to the state but instead went to the share holders, who were serving state interest. This is a key part of Fascism, control of government assets becomes privately owned. That line between private and public becomes blurred. The freedoms afforded to the large industries were incredible. This “laze fair” economic model is largely a “right wing” ideology. IN addition, the Nazi’s violent opposition to Unionization also clearly puts it on the right of the political spectrum. Some good books on the subject are
Christopher Kobrak and Per H. Hansen, editors, European Business, Dictatorship, and Political Risk, 1920-1945. New York: Berghahn Books, 2004. xiv + 261 pp. $60 (hardback), ISBN: 1-57181-629-1
and
Francis R. Nicosia and Jonathan Huener, editors, Business and Industry in Nazi Germany. New York: Berghahn Books, 2004. viii + 211 pp. $25 (paperback), ISBN: 1-57181-654-2
“1. In its deepest core, fascism is the ‘dictatorship of the majority/privileged minorities’. “
Well, technically yes. What you describe here is more accurately Nationalist Authoritarianism. While that is a key PART of fascism, there is a lot more needed to make a political regime “fascist”. This is similar to saying “I have four wheels, it must be a car”, well you also need a motor, a wind shield, steering wheel, and other things. Stanley G. Payne writes some good articles about the Spanish fascist state.
2. Fascism often gains control gradually and insidiously.
Again, technically yes. But really my issue is the way you frame this. You tell us that it gains control in part by “forcing the citizens to ‘buy-in’ into government sponsored social programs to such an invasive degree, the citizens will no longer be able to exist independently”. This is a fairly broad generalization which doesn’t uniformly represent fascism. Nazi control had far less to do with social programs than it did with nationalist identity. There is a certain level of “dependence” upon the state, but these are less “social programs” in the leftist tradition than they are authoritarian practices (without a real left-right distinction).
I said I’d try not to be long winded… but I kind of failed. Sorry.
In short, I’m not sure the Nazi regime could be classified as “leftist”. Economically it was far to the right and socially it was right leaning with a few exceptions which fall, if anything, in the centrist range.
February 8, 2008 at 17:04
Thank you!
Your comments do help me – a lot. I have bee trying to find some ‘patterns’, but know I have serious gaps here – especially the ‘official’ definitions. That is why I asked the question.
My 2 points were not exhaustive descriptions of fascism – they were what I observed to be only 2 aspects, ones I thought to be key.
The reason I brought up Nacism is because I have always been taught it was ‘extreme right wing’ – yet people who have actually lived under it have told me the state was more left-wing, at least in their day-to-day experience. It was their comments, as well as an innocent question asked of me, that started me thinking that there is a real difference between what most of us – non-poly-sci people – THINK fascism is and what it REALLY is.
Fascism – in general – is more definded by what it opposes, rather than what it supports. Among the key things opposed by ‘classical fascism’ is INTERNATIONAL socialism (that would be the trade unions, as you pointed out), but it also is defined by opposing ‘capitalism’ and ‘free trade based economies’, ‘individual’ freedoms and rights are subjugated to ‘group’ rights, plus plus plus…
I suppose what I was trying to capture in my little ‘snapshot’ is that Hitler and Mussolini are only two of the faces of fascism…..and that other forms look quite different. AND I think that fascism has evolved from its ‘classical’ form, as seen in mid-20th century….and acquired new aspects. Of course, these may not be new at all – I might just have not known about them. :0)
But still…
The pattern I have observed (an on which I do hope to expand in future posts) is HOW some forms of fascism use burecrautization of the society to gain greater and greater control over the populace. The justification of this burecrautization is accepted through appeals to national identity….
You are obviously way better grounded in this field than I, so I would appreciate your comments and thoughts (not just textbook ‘stuff’) on this – I really do want to get this right!
Thanks again!
(….and you worry that YOU are long winded…)