Comments on: What is ‘Fascism’? http://blog.xanthippas.com/2008/02/06/what-is-fascism/ A place for raw, uncensored ideas to be hurled about, recklessly... Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:19:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: xanthippa http://blog.xanthippas.com/2008/02/06/what-is-fascism/#comment-13 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:04:14 +0000 http://xanthippaschamberpot.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-13 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…)

]]> By: Elros http://blog.xanthippas.com/2008/02/06/what-is-fascism/#comment-12 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:45:30 +0000 http://xanthippaschamberpot.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-12 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.

]]>