Fascism

dsmythy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl7cv8NBbmY

Brief video I came across on YouTube. An apparent attempt to rehabilitate Fascism. Ruined by the inclusion of Mussolini and Hitler at the end as the "values" put forward though the video certainly don't seem to have been followed by either of them.

Is there any small morsel that can be taken out of Fascism for use in the modern world or is it an idea with no redeemable qualities? Is Corporatism an economic system well past it's sell by date?

Oscardela

dsmythy wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl7cv8NBbmY

Brief video I came across on YouTube. An apparent attempt to rehabilitate Fascism. Ruined by the inclusion of Mussolini and Hitler at the end as the "values" put forward though the video certainly don't seem to have been followed by either of them.

Is there any small morsel that can be taken out of Fascism for use in the modern world or is it an idea with no redeemable qualities? Is Corporatism an economic system well past it's sell by date?

An interesting question is how much more like a faschist state is Ireland in 2010 compated to Ireland of 1930?

Certainly, the powers of a couple of men in Ireland to transfer the largest amount of debt in history from private individuals to everyone in the state, can hapen in 2010. COuld that have happened in 1930 or 1050, without a referendum or a mandate to do it from a general election? (Remember this has happened in 2010 without a mandate) .

Does this mean we are closer not to a fascist state than we were in 1930?

Denerick

Corporatism is an idea that is well and truly at the heart of most modern economies. Be it the social partners in Ireland, the new healthcare bill in America (Forcing citizens to take out insurance, to the benefit of massive healthcare companies) etc. etc. Not that these measures are of themselves bad of course.

Its the cult of the leader stuff, the thousands of dead children, the masses of people lining up behind brutal and egocentric dictators that gets my back up.

killerking

Fascism is probably fun if you always wanted permission to go on a homicidal rampage.
Otherwise it sucks.

Treason

Fascism should be understood as the product of certain historical circumstances. It strikes me as a very temporal and unsustainable system. Economic and social antagonisms would still exist in the 'fixed' system of fascism.

For example having a market economy, as fascism had/would have, necessarily dictates the possible choices any potential leader may have in a given situation or time. Ireland found itself throughout the Celtic Tiger period importing large quantities of labour from Poland due to economic necessity, maintaining 'economic growth' (those on the far right may say that this was "engineered" by Zog, but pffft.). There is no reason why a fascist market system would not enter recessions or times of high economic growth, which may necessitate the import of people from outside. Indeed Hitler created forced labour camps for just such a labour demand. Suppose German fascism was in fact 'humane' - what of the labour required to maintain 'growth'?

Similarly in the United states. While Republicans position themselves as for the "traditional values" of the patriarchal family, it was infact many of their economic policies which created the 'women’s liberation movement' in the first place, where women joined the workforce due to the declining value of real wages, thus destroying traditional values.

Unless the 'leader' is on top of history then the internal processes of the market and economic demands will dictate what sort of society eventually emerges.

Sure, Hitler and Mussolini and Franco may have had "X, Y and Z" values. But what of the next leader? - will that leader have lived in the same economic and social climate as his fore-bearers? - No. His views and values, along with his staff, along with those who make up the state, along with society at large - will have changed.

Sure, the key industries are nationalised. But how long until the next recession where state assets are stripped and sold off to raise state revenue?

Fascism is a fixed system and cannot cope with the dynamic antagonisms of capitalist markets and the economic base which shapes popular values and beliefs.

Fascism should therefore be understood as a historical reaction to certain conditions - economic depression, the rise of totalitarianism/State Communism and challenges to the existing power structures, as in Spain or Chile.

Modern "fascism", as in the role of regimes in protecting existing power structures when challenged (as in Spain, Germany and Italy) - may present itself differently to historical forms of fascism. What that form may be is not understood yet.

Unless fascism proposed the elimination of social antagonisms, then it will revert to whatever existing power and the markets demand of it.

If the far-right really did want to protect their 'race', nation or culture then surely ridding of social antagonisms, markets and capitalism are fundamental.

Treason

dsmythy wrote: »

Is there any small morsel that can be taken out of Fascism for use in the modern world or is it an idea with no redeemable qualities?

I think the preservation, or at least the promotion of culture and 'nations' (that is, not nation states) as being 'redeemable' values and qualities.

The world would be quite a grey place if every town in Europe or the world became "non-places" where everything is the same -music, McDonalds, same fashion, same architecture, same values, same customs etc.

But fascism is not the way to protect or promote it, and values and restrictions should not be imposed on people by states.

Even racially. IMO there is nothing disgusting about seeking to preserve ones 'race' (thiough it is an arbitrary construction), no more so than promoting the culture of Native Americans, or of a particular language.

The thing is that the far-right hold these values as so important that they want to impose it on people through coercive mechanisms - rather than through voluntarily organisation and without predudice or chauvinism.

Wolfe Tone

Is fascism a natural progression from an unstable democratic system?

Treason

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is fascism a natural progression from an unstable democratic system?

Well Spain, Italy, Germany and Chile were all politically unstable before authoritarian fascism. Fascism emerged as a reaction to challenges to existing power.

Totalitarianism/State Communism can be seen to emerge from unstable political systems also. But Marxists (most) and Anarchists believe that rather then there being a 'natural' progression to authoritarianism/totalitarianism, that it may be possible to eliminate the social antagonisms which created the instability in the first place.

I wouldn't call fascism a 'progression'. It's a 'reaction'.

dsmythy

Treason wrote: »

For example having a market economy, as fascism had/would have, necessarily dictates the possible choices any potential leader may have in a given situation or time. Ireland found itself throughout the Celtic Tiger period importing large quantities of labour from Poland due to economic necessity, maintaining 'economic growth' (those on the far right may say that this was "engineered" by Zog, but pffft.). There is no reason why a fascist market system would not enter recessions or times of high economic growth, which may necessitate the import of people from outside. Indeed Hitler created forced labour camps for just such a labour demand. Suppose German fascism was in fact 'humane' - what of the labour required to maintain 'growth'?

Unless the 'leader' is on top of history then the internal processes of the market and economic demands will dictate what sort of society eventually emerges.

If the far-right really did want to protect their 'race', nation or culture then surely ridding of social antagonisms, markets and capitalism are fundamental.

Since modern fascist regimes are at present stuck in people's imaginations we don't really have one to look at and decipher it's internal processes. From glancing around the web those who would be given the title of "far-right" seem to be more and more anti-capitialist, certainly within any sort of free market. The word 'free' and fascism just simply shouldn't be together at any time. The rich are free to do as they please currently. I suspect it would not be in their long term interest to look to a 21st Century fascism to save them from 21st century socialism.

The importation of vast amounts of foreign labour to keep the Celtic bubble ticking over well past it's natural life cycle seems to be a lesson to us. If you run out of workers the economy should slide. It's the maintainance of the rises and falls of the economy that makes it easier or harder to cope with. One way turns to National solidarity to get through the slides, the other looks to class issues. Even now we look to exports as our main short term economic plan and that just returns us back into the hands of the market and international finance. Modern fascist's would try control capitalism within their nation rather than destroy it, and then get a little red-faced at comparisons to China, but perhaps international finance and free markets would get them in the end. Ireland's current complete inability to look after itself because of the nature of the island will probably hold Ireland well away from fascism in whatever form it pops up in this century.

The concept of the unremovable and unquestionable leader goes against them too as they ignore the natural flaws in human beings when it comes to power. An ultra intelligent and good intentioned supreme leader seems like a great idea but you can never underestimate the power of corruption. In a fascist hierarchy when your leader becomes corrupt the whole system falls apart as yes men are brought in underneath him (seems it is always a he) which effectively halts the ability to question within the party. In theory the leader at the top as with all the sub-leaders in the hierarchy beneath him should be accountable and if found to be acting against the nation be removed and dealt with (likely violently too). But as long as humans behave naturally all you end up with is your top three or four levels of power as one unremovable and unaccountable cozy cohorts type regime doomed to fail.

Treason

dsmythy wrote: »

Modern fascist's would try control capitalism within their nation rather than destroy it, and then get a little red-faced at comparisons to China, but perhaps international finance and free markets would get them in the end.

Yes, and this is an important point. But how would they control it?

And how, given such dynamic and changing circumstances, would they remain 'fascist'? - ie. people's views and values tend to be quite temporal, reflecting the economic and social conditions to which they find themselves.

During the Celtic Tiger period, privatisation, 'free(ish) markets' and deregulation were the modus operandi. Now that the whole thing is gone to the ****s people's views (including those in power) have changed. Now spending billions on bank bailouts, IMF loans and increased taxation are all of a sudden acceptable.

Fascist economics would operate based upon capitalist markets. There might be more regulation and oversight, but when 'less' oversight seems to be producing good economic results then there is a natural tendency to reduce regulation - as with what occurred in ireland (bank regulator existed but did not act). All views and decisions in capitalism are based upon relativly short-term market trends - fascism would be the same. The same economic antagonisms would exist.

So it is in this way that I see fascism as a very temporal system, similarly, neo-liberalism is temporal. For fascists to claim that their system will protect nationhood, traditional values, culture or 'race' is a complete bluff, or a delusion on their behalf.

Capitalism is so dynamic, changeable and inherently antagonistic that 'how to tinker' with and manage the economic knobs to maintain growth and stability are continuously changing. Fascism is not a long term solution to anything. It is a continuation of the market system.

The concept of the unremovable and unquestionable leader goes against them too as they ignore the natural flaws in human beings when it comes to power. An ultra intelligent and good intentioned supreme leader seems like a great idea but you can never underestimate the power of corruption. In a fascist hierarchy when your leader becomes corrupt the whole system falls apart as yes men are brought in underneath him (seems it is always a he) which effectively halts the ability to question within the party. In theory the leader at the top as with all the sub-leaders in the hierarchy beneath him should be accountable and if found to be acting against the nation be removed and dealt with (likely violently too). But as long as humans behave naturally all you end up with is your top three or four levels of power as one unremovable and unaccountable cozy cohorts type regime doomed to fail.

The 'unquestionable' leader thing is a definite fail. But I dont think it is necessary in order to maintain some type of corporitist fascistic economic and social system. For example there is not particular reason why a Commuist or Fascist State could not incorporate elements of representative democratic control, despite the historical precedent.

But to ponder such questions I think is to remove any type of historical analysis of fascism which brings up questions like 'why did such a political formation become necessary in the first place?' or 'what conditions created it?' etc

Fascism should not be seen as a possible 'alternative', but rather a product of certain historical conditions which made it possible.

dsmythy

Treason wrote: »

The 'unquestionable' leader thing is a definite fail. But I dont think it is necessary in order to maintain some type of corporitist fascistic economic and social system. For example there is not particular reason why a Commuist or Fascist State could not incorporate elements of representative democratic control, despite the historical precedent.

But to ponder such questions I think is to remove any type of historical analysis of fascism which brings up questions like 'why did such a political formation become necessary in the first place?' or 'what conditions created it?' etc

Fascism should not be seen as a possible 'alternative', but rather a product of certain historical conditions which made it possible.

Indeed one could argue that conditions are somewhat ripe for it to occur right now. Economic difficulties combined with a complete loss of faith in politicians in general. You can see that in Ireland in that the governing party is deeply unpopular yet there seems to be a lack of faith in any alternative, including the mainstream opposition and the smaller groupings from the left. Even just by reading the Politics and After Hours forums I can detect ever increasing noise coming those questioning democracy and the politicians it creates and advocating the idea of a leader who is unshackled and allowed to just "get things done". I think fascism with it's focus on masculinity is always one step ahead of it's fellow authoritarian rivals.

Treason

dsmythy wrote: »

Indeed one could argue that conditions are somewhat ripe for it to occur right now. Economic difficulties combined with a complete loss of faith in politicians in general. You can see that in Ireland in that the governing party is deeply unpopular yet there seems to be a lack of faith in any alternative, including the mainstream opposition and the smaller groupings from the left. Even just by reading the Politics and After Hours forums I can detect ever increasing noise coming those questioning democracy and the politicians it creates and advocating the idea of a leader who is unshackled and allowed to just "get things done". I think fascism with it's focus on masculinity is always one step ahead of it's fellow authoritarian rivals.

I think you have a point there. But depending on ones historical analysis of fascism it could be concluded that fascism emerges to protect existing power. If this is the case, and some type of fascist political structure emerges to protect existing interests in modern times, then it should not be expected that it will take historical forms.

Modern fascism (or whatever emerges) may use new 'narratives' to base and justify itself on. Historical narratives were based upon 'jews', 'aryan white superiority', 'free masons', christianity and a quasi-religious national destiny.


Modern fascism may use, for example, Islamophobia - or indeed some new narrative which creeps in unwittingly to serve existing power - like 'global terrorism'. The narrative does not really matter as it is usually baseless. What matters is identifying the historical 'function' of those narratives before they become 'common sense' and are used to justify oppressive systems.