We're having the Nth iteration of "is it Fasicsm or is it Communism" in the China thread right now.
It's an interesting intellectual exercise to identify the distinghishing characteristics of the different flavours of Fascism and Communism, and even more so to apply those definitions to existing or historical regimes. Those definitions, of course, are also important because the conclusions we draw from them are often used to argue for or against specific policies and parties in our liberal democracies. So the stakes are kind of high.
So here's a thread for that, as well as for the inevitable languish jokes and shitposts.
To get the thread started, here are some of the evergreens:
Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?
If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?
Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?
Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2021, 11:41:05 AM
We're having the Nth iteration of "is it Fasicsm or is it Communism" in the China thread right now.
It's an interesting intellectual exercise to identify the distinghishing characteristics of the different flavours of Fascism and Communism, and even more so to apply those definitions to existing or historical regimes. Those definitions, of course, are also important because the conclusions we draw from them are often used to argue for or against specific policies and parties in our liberal democracies. So the stakes are kind of high.
So here's a thread for that, as well as for the inevitable languish jokes and shitposts.
To get the thread started, here are some of the evergreens:
Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?
If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?
Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?
Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?
1: No not the same thing. Communism is left wing and Fascism right wing
2: Fascism in based on the idea that Hierarchy is natural and desirable and obedience to the state or at least leader is an end to itself. Communism rejects the idea of hierarchy and obedience to the state is a temporary requirement as the end goal in the abolition of the state. Communists believe that the means of production should be in the hands of the people while fascism is... well all over the place in economics
3: The cat doesn't want me to type.
Liberal democracies should think about what they are for, and fight that which opposes those things. They should not get into "no true Scotsman" arguments about different anti-democratic political ideologies.
Well the problem is that fascism has always had a hell of time defining itself and Communism is, as far as I can tell, an impractical impossibility so the states that are supposed to be trying to create it don't seem to be acting in good faith. It is difficult with both the Nazis and other Euro Fascists to not start creating a bunch of nationalistic, mystical mumbo jumbo, race realism, and romantic love of hierarchy being in there someplace to define fascism. However, Communist regimes have not exactly steered clear of many of those things.
Liberal Democracy is based on the primacy of consent and individual rights. Those are such opposite things I am not sure what they have to learn from Fascist or Communistic ideas. Maybe just that you have to acknowledge the need to balance social issues and tribalism with the principles of Liberal Democracy in order to create a functioning state that can withstand those kind of authoritarian challenges.
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2021, 11:41:05 AM
Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?
No. N/A.
QuoteIf Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?
I think there's two useful approaches to fascism - one is sort of ontological: what are the defining features of fascism, but that only takes you so far. The other is based on circumstance: what are the conditions that created/allowed for the creation of fascism (and we tend to focus on the fascism that won - not the various fascist movements that failed). I am sort of the view that fascism is probably a historical phenomenon - like Stalinism - rather than a helpful term or way of understanding politics now.
QuoteIs Xi's China Fascist or Communist?
I think it's communist. But also Xi speaks about Marx and how the CCP are a Marxist party and what that means. It might not match your interpretation of Marxism - it is unlikely to be a theoretically interesting Marxist take, but I think that is relevant. If, say, Joe Biden gave a big speech talking about the importance of, say, Rawls or Hayek - I think that would be taken seriously as an important. But with Marxism - and religion (perhaps anything outside of Western liberalism) - we seem to struggle with the idea that maybe people consider it seriously and mean it.
And, you know, this isn't new. There were Westerners in the 50s who didn't think Mao was communist. They referred to Marx a lot but basically how could a peasant focused revolutionary movement fit within Marxism? How could a fundamentally anti-colonial, countryside based revolutionary movement have anything to do with the industrial proletariat? Later Eastern European writers noted that Chinese Communism was theoretically underpowered and "primitive" even in comparison with a brute like Stalin. I think there was a bit of racism about it - particularly with a (not uncommon) view that Mao was in the tradition of "Oriental despots" not communism. He was a new "red emperor" not a communist. All stuff we can recognise today :lol:
Again I think there's questions of how you approach working out what communism (in power) is, or isn't.
QuoteIs it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?
I'm not sure - that ideological journey was obviously possible and did happen through the interwar period. At a state level, I'm not sure.
QuoteDo the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?
I'm not sure.
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2021, 11:41:05 AM
We're having the Nth iteration of "is it Fasicsm or is it Communism" in the China thread right now.
It's an interesting intellectual exercise to identify the distinghishing characteristics of the different flavours of Fascism and Communism, and even more so to apply those definitions to existing or historical regimes. Those definitions, of course, are also important because the conclusions we draw from them are often used to argue for or against specific policies and parties in our liberal democracies. So the stakes are kind of high.
So here's a thread for that, as well as for the inevitable languish jokes and shitposts.
To get the thread started, here are some of the evergreens:
Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?
They have similar political systems in that they are both bureaucracy heavy dictatorships; but I don't think they are identical. I don't think left/right works here. Both movements did see themselves as progressive and scientific on the other hand both really loved the military and hierarchy.
QuoteIf Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?
As an economic system, in Communism the government owns the means of production; while Fascism is a partnership (sometimes coerced, of course) of private industry, unions and the government. In their totalitarian forms both required an ever expanding list of internal enemies; but their enemies were different Communism based their enemies on class; Fascism on race or biology. Communism (in theory) sees itself as part of an inevitable international movement, while Fascism is a nationalistic movement.
QuoteIs Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?
Based on what I've written before, I think Xi's China is more akin to Fascism. Private industry is subordinate to the party, but government doesn't own all the means of production. The Enemies of the State aren't based on class (in fact the owners of Huawei and Ali Baba are members of the party); but some are based on ethnicity. China is clearly more nationalist than worldwide revolution.
In the context of the Cold War regimes could easily shift from Communist to Fascist depending on who was offering more money at the time. ;)
QuoteDo the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?
Communism, no, it only ever emerged in mostly agrarian societies. Fascism (or a dictatorship) I think does as it has emerged when the democratic process seems to take too long or government is seen as unable to meet the needs of its people. This, I think, describes the worldview of both progressives and conservatives in the United States at this time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2021, 12:12:04 PM
I think it's communist. But also Xi speaks about Marx and how the CCP are a Marxist party and what that means. It might not match your interpretation of Marxism - it is unlikely to be a theoretically interesting Marxist take, but I think that is relevant. If, say, Joe Biden gave a big speech talking about the importance of, say, Rawls or Hayek - I think that would be taken seriously as an important. But with Marxism - and religion (perhaps anything outside of Western liberalism) - we seem to struggle with the idea that maybe people consider it seriously and mean it.
And, you know, this isn't new. There were Westerners in the 50s who didn't think Mao was communist. They referred to Marx a lot but basically how could a peasant focused revolutionary movement fit within Marxism? How could a fundamentally anti-colonial, countryside based revolutionary movement have anything to do with the industrial proletariat? Later Eastern European writers noted that Chinese Communism was theoretically underpowered and "primitive" even in comparison with a brute like Stalin. I think there was a bit of racism about it - particularly with a (not uncommon) view that Mao was in the tradition of "Oriental despots" not communism. He was a new "red emperor" not a communist. All stuff we can recognise today :lol:
This. We have tendency to view governments and movements through the biographies of the leaders leaders of such governments and movements. As if the horrors of the Soviet Union could be solely laid at the feat of the likes of Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin did the things they did not just because they were bad people but because they were informed by an ideology that promised utopia. A temporary period of injustice could be justified by a world of eternal freedom. I don't doubt that President Xi sees his actions in the same light.
QuoteIs Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?
They are not at all the same thing. They are authoritarian, but only vaguely left or right wing.
QuoteIf Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?
The salient differences between the two are the desired end-states, and the supposed beneficiaries of their success. Communism's end-state is the elimination of the state. Fascism's end-state is the elimination of everything except the state. Communism promotes the welfare of each individual (through collective action for a time, to be sure), whereas fascism seeks to serve the nation/race, with the individuals important only in the degree to which they serve the nation or race. The goal of Communism is social justice; the goal of Fascism is racial or national survival and glory. In Communism the state serves the people; in Fascism the people serve the state.
Communism is based on human nature being cooperative; Fascism is based on human nature being predatory.
Both use authoritarian means (especially the Leninist and Maoist varieties of Communism but all varieties of fascism) to get the society moving towards the desired end-state, but for Communism the authoritarian phase is supposed to be limited in duration. Fascism incorporates authoritarianism and cannot exist without it.
QuoteIs Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?
Xi's China is definitely not Communist (except in that his party name includes the word "Communist" like the name of the PDRK includes the word "Democratic"), but I wouldn't argue that it is fascist. Fascism includes a lot of mythic elements that Xi's politics seem to lack. Trump is more fascist than Xi, and Trump isn't particularly fascist.
Xi's China is authoritarian nationalist, like Putin's Russia or Erdogan's Turkey (and soon Modi's India). There's no higher purpose or utopian end state for Xi and the CCP. There's just the retention of power and the accumulation of goodies.
QuoteDo the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?
Both Communist and fascist regimes depend on people being non-skeptical, and accepting the principals of the party as being true no matter what the experience of the people to the contrary. People trained to ask questions and think for themselves don't fall prey to extremism. The problem is when people have enough education to understand that things are fucked, but not enough to see that simple solutions won't unfuck things. As Albert Einstein once wisely observed "we can't use the same thinking in solving our problems as we did in creating them." Training people to change their thinking as conditions change is hard.
Quote from: The Brain on August 13, 2021, 12:00:44 PM
Liberal democracies should think about what they are for, and fight that which opposes those things. They should not get into "no true Scotsman" arguments about different anti-democratic political ideologies.
Now that is something I can get behind.
But along with it is that they need to stop being so fucking afraid of actually SAYING what they are for, and asserting that it is better then the alternative.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2021, 01:31:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 13, 2021, 12:00:44 PM
Liberal democracies should think about what they are for, and fight that which opposes those things. They should not get into "no true Scotsman" arguments about different anti-democratic political ideologies.
Now that is something I can get behind.
But along with it is that they need to stop being so fucking afraid of actually SAYING what they are for, and asserting that it is better then the alternative.
Definitely.
I think a related question is: what's the difference between garden-variety president-for-life authoritarianism, and an actual fascist government? For example, did Russia transition from a communist country to a fascist one, or did it just transition to a banana republic type of government?
Quote from: Savonarola on August 13, 2021, 01:01:22 PM
Based on what I've written before, I think Xi's China is more akin to Fascism. Private industry is subordinate to the party, but government doesn't own all the means of production. The Enemies of the State aren't based on class (in fact the owners of Huawei and Ali Baba are members of the party); but some are based on ethnicity.
Although the Ant Group's IPO was cancelled by the state at the last minute and Jack Ma "diappeared" from the public eye for three months - it's unclear why - but is in the context of a wider state crackdown on the tech sector. Most interestingly, I think, is the crackdown on the private education industry because of its social impact - including just three days ago forcing private schools to come under state ownership. But private education and tutoring was an industry worth $120 billion in China and involved companies like TAL in the US have seen their stocks plummet by up to 70% (in NY) and financial analysts in the west are saying that this sector is going through the "worst-case scenario" of what they thought could happen.
I think the Economist has speculated that it's basically China's response to the same issues the West has with big tech and China's state/regulatory impact is just bigger - I could be wrong, but I think ideology matters and that's a large driver: re-assertion of party state control, an end to the Deng era of just building out a material base for socialism (China has reached its goal of a "moderately prosperous society"), making sure they are if not owner, then in control, of key sectors and focusing on sectors that have a wider social impact (which is an expanding definition).
QuoteChina is clearly more nationalist than worldwide revolution.
Although at the CCP's 100th birthday party, Xi did note that the highest purpose of Marxism is the achievement of communism and communism is not narrow or regional. It is still socialism with Chinese characteristics - but apparently the strength of that is the strength of the party and the fact that "Marxism works". It is now, in his statement, a "new model for human advancement". My understanding is that previously it's been the approach to emphasise the Chinese characteristics and this not necessarily being an applicable model for other states, I think that may be shifting.
The highlights are all traditional nationalist high-points, but I think what Xi is choosing to say matters.
Marxism worked in USSR as well at the beginning; productivity skyrocketed after introduction of NEP.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2021, 02:01:59 PM
I think a related question is: what's the difference between garden-variety president-for-life authoritarianism, and an actual fascist government? For example, did Russia transition from a communist country to a fascist one, or did it just transition to a banana republic type of government?
No it's something different. I mean there isn't much ideology in fascism - by definition it's about the expression of power and the nation so it will vary in what it looks like. So I think it's more about what are the distinguishing features rather than any "ideology".
I think Valmy's right about anti-communism, but I'd almost put it as fascism is a reaction against an ascendant left - this is linked to the acceptance or collaboration of a ruling class (the capitalist conservatives deciding they'd rather work - and manipulate - the Austrian corporal over the left). I think it's also at it's core anti-democracy or anti-parliamentary democracy (the failed liberal system) - which is quite different from the sort of post-modern authoritarian/managed democracy model where they use and stick with the forms of democracy.
I think it is totalitarian while I think Erdogan, Putin etc basically limit the areas in which politics interacts with an individual's life - if you don't cross them, you're generally okay. Linked to that I think, is that fascism is about mobilisation behind the state/leader - again I think Russia or Turkey are looking to de-mobilise people to almost nullify them and the risk of people - I think fascism relies on social ties that maybe just don't exist any more: a joining society (the opposite of Bowling Alone).
I think there's something to the argument that fascism is basicaly a youth movement and relies on youth in a lot of its presentation and self-image. Related to that is the squadristi or brownshirts and street violence. Again I don't think that applies. I think imperialism and geopolitical revisionism that cannot be resolved in the current international system are also important. And I think it probably only makes sense/arises in the context of an economic crisis (this may be linked to the youth movement - lots of young men with time on their hands).
Some current government might meet some of those criteria, but I don't think there's really a fascist regime out there. But that's partly why I think it is probably best understood as a historical phenomenon - I don't know that those factors and features have coincided in the world outside of interwar Europe or if they will again (I hope not - geopolitical grievance, economic crisis etc is not great).
I agree with grumbler, Brain, and Berkut.
Thank you.
The salient characteristics of China's political system under XI are: hierarchical dictatorship under a leader for life controlling a one-party apparatus (consistent with both systems), corporatist economic model with state-capitalist cooperation and where big business is favored provided it accepts its subordination to the state (consistent with fascism but not communism), and hyper-nationalist rhetoric focused on territorial expansionary goals that are rhetorically packaged as "recovery" of lost national territory (more consistent with fascism than communism). Given a choice between those two options, Xi's China is closer to the fascist side. Although obviously there are differences with the historic fascist regimes.
I'd agree that China is definitely moving toward being a very classical fascist state. With a modern cyberpunk dystopia twist.
Quote from: Jacob on August 13, 2021, 11:41:05 AM
Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?
They are both authoritarian regimes, but they are not mutually exclusive. Stalinism is communism with strong element of fascism. Saddam's Iraq has been described as a fascist regime. But there isn't much difference between communist North Korea and that regime.
Fascim implies a strong personality cult, usually, not just reverence the State. Staline had that. NK has that. China also has that. Italy and Germany had also that.
Communism implies a strong centrally planned economy. There is no such thing as creating a product because consumer wants it, you create it because you are ordered to do so. Nazi Germany during WWII was like that. USSR was like that from the beginning, with some softening here&there for small time farmers.
Quote
If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?
Is there such a thing as 'true' communism outside of text books? It's a level of utopia that can not be reached, just like libertarianism. People are unable to govern themselves as a whole and always act in the best interest of everyone. The pandemic should have taught us that.
Quote
Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?
Xi seems to be waging war on private corporations, bringing them back under the State's fold. I'd say he's leaning toward stalinism, with his personality as strong as China. It has strong element of fascism, but it's still a communist country at heart, with moderate private property. Much more private property than there were in any communist regime, much less insistance on expanding the revolution to other countries (save for Taiwan and Tibet), but it's still a communist regime at heart.
Quote
Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?
Yes. Good intentions alone aren't enough.
Two important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority and the desire for conquest.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck.
Its certainly interesting to think about theories that they're communists all along and they're merely trying to follow Marx's "plan" in going through the capitalist stage of development...but I've not seen too much evidence of this. And regardless of any overarching background plan where they've landed at the moment is very definitely heavily in the fascist direction.
The militant nationalist propaganda that is seeping into the population empathizing reclaiming a glorious golden age unfairly stolen from the mighty Chinese people....
If not anything else the terms fascism and communism are philisophical rather than scientific ones. They're both very fluffy and open to change and interpretation.
What can be seen for sure is that Xi's China is very different to Mao's. Quite the opposite in many respects. This does make calling it communist, as if its rolled back the past 40 years, a bit weird. Fascism stands as a clear alternate label to distinguish it as well as describe it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2021, 02:16:55 AM
Two important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority and the desire for conquest.
Its fascism with Chinese characteristics :p
China has never really got into the whole 'race' thing. But the superiority of Chinese (Han) culture is very much a thing in modern China, dredged up from the old Imperial Chinese world view.
The desire for conquest is definitely there. Remember with Italy and the Nazis it wasn't seen as unjust conquest but rather claiming lands that were naturally theirs. The same as the way China is/has framed its conquests.
There's also a big factor in China at the moment I'm seeing of making sure the conquests stick this time. Even if the current government of China should fall never again will the furthest reaches of the empire break free. Expanding the Chinese heartland internally is top of their agenda.
Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2021, 04:33:28 AM
The desire for conquest is definitely there. Remember with Italy and the Nazis it wasn't seen as unjust conquest but rather claiming lands that were naturally theirs. The same as the way China is/has framed its conquests.
There's also a big factor in China at the moment I'm seeing of making sure the conquests stick this time. Even if the current government of China should fall never again will the furthest reaches of the empire break free. Expanding the Chinese heartland internally is top of their agenda.
I don't remember this because it's not true. Everything that was gobbled up after the Sudetenland was "new" conquest, not righting of historical wrongs. And Italy had no claim whatsover on Ethiopia, Somaliland, Libya, and Albania.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2021, 02:16:55 AM
Two important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority and the desire for conquest.
And the concept of the complete subordination of the interests of the individual to the interests of the state.
So, the THREE important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority, the desire for conquest, and the concept of the complete subordination of the interests of the individual to the interests of the state.
And the creation of the mythos of the suppression of the master race.
So, the FOUR... wait. I'll come in again.
Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2021, 04:33:28 AM
Its certainly interesting to think about theories that they're communists all along and they're merely trying to follow Marx's "plan" in going through the capitalist stage of development...but I've not seen too much evidence of this. And regardless of any overarching background plan where they've landed at the moment is very definitely heavily in the fascist direction.
I don't think it matters if that's what they are doing or not - my point is that's how the leadership describe it. And I think that's probably accurate in terms of their perception of the party, state and process they are overseeing (but it may be a massive con). What people think they're doing is really, because that shapes their decisions and actions.
Again I would point out that there's nothing in the history of communist states that is inherently pacific about their borders (there's nothing in the history of the PRC alone that indicates that) or somehow tolerant of minorities. And I think relevant to this is that the current leadership were sort of coming of age and taking up their first leadership roles as the USSR collapsed. I think that probably had a profound effect on their attitudes.
It may well be that they behind the walls of the leadership compound they acknowledge that it's all for show and they're actually setting up a hyper-capitalist nationalist big Singapore - but I don't think that's what's going. I don't think that's what's shaping their decision-making or thinking, I think it's what they say is shaping their decision-making and thinking.
QuoteIf not anything else the terms fascism and communism are philisophical rather than scientific ones. They're both very fluffy and open to change and interpretation.
What can be seen for sure is that Xi's China is very different to Mao's. Quite the opposite in many respects. This does make calling it communist, as if its rolled back the past 40 years, a bit weird. Fascism stands as a clear alternate label to distinguish it as well as describe it.
But I think this is a really important difference between fascism and communism. There is a philosophy (in their view a scientific one :P) of communism. There is a manifesto. There is theory of what communism looks like - and as I say I wouldn't go to Beijing for interesting theory or Marxist perspectives, because they are in the deadening tradition of Marxist-Leninism and the theory of what these communist states are doing and looking like. I think core parts of that philosophy in practice are still in place (a vanguard party, mass mobilisation to meet pre-defined aims/plans, the concept of a transitional dictatorship and the importance of ideology to their vanguard). I don't think there's an unbroken leap from Mao to Xi, but that the West has misinterpreted the bit in between and Deng, especially - ironically by taking a sort of Marxist approach that market structures and material reality were what would shape the CCP.
But I think they are engaged in that tradition of Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Deng. As mentioned I think as a political structure - it is communist. A 1960s Kremlinologist would recognise the role of the party, they'd recognise Xi's current drive for disciplining cadres, they'd recognise setting goals/campaigns and then using the party to drive capital and labour to deliver them - and they'd recognise the permanently "tranistional" dictatorship phase.
I think fascism is different. There is no philosophy, there is no manifesto, there's no intellectual or theoretical framework. And that might actually be impossible because fascism is nationalist and defined by the unique features of each nation and, to my mind, to the extent there's a theory it is a philosophy of action and vigour which will look different in different locations. I think that's why you kind of have to sort of make a taxonomy of fascist characteristics to try and understand it. It's also why I think it is - hopefully - probably a historical event rather than a really living ideology.
I think we have other words for authoritarian, nationalist governments and I don't think we necessarily need to keep using fascist.
Quote from: grumbler on August 14, 2021, 08:12:06 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2021, 02:16:55 AM
Two important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority and the desire for conquest.
And the concept of the complete subordination of the interests of the individual to the interests of the state.
So, the THREE important aspects of Fascism missing from China are a concept of racial superiority, the desire for conquest, and the concept of the complete subordination of the interests of the individual to the interests of the state.
And the creation of the mythos of the suppression of the master race.
So, the FOUR... wait. I'll come in again.
:D
I didn't expect that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2021, 08:53:46 AM
There is no philosophy, there is no manifesto, there's no intellectual or theoretical framework.
Mussolini wrote an essay called "the doctrine of fascism".
There is a thin theoretical and philosophical underpinning to fascism, I believe, though Fascism is mostly an appeal to emotions rather than to the intellect. Those underpinnings, though, rely on discredited ideas like social Darwinism and national rejuvenation through strife, and so probably aren't worth even repeating.
I think fascism is "might is right" in both theory and practice. So are communist regimes when it comes to the practical, but as grumbler explained they weave loftier excuses and justifications around their autocracy and the forceful disenfranchising of vast swathes of society.
Quote from: chipwich on August 14, 2021, 10:08:34 AM
Mussolini wrote an essay called "the doctrine of fascism".
Yeah - but that's not what shaped the Nazi movement or the Falange or the Iron Guard etc. But you're right I should have qualified with "universal" or "universally accepted" philosophy or manifesto. By the time that was written there were already lots of other fascist movements in Europe who couldn't have been inspired by or following that essay, but were instead inspired by Mussolini's movement and state.
It doesn't have the same role for fascism as the Communist Manifesto (plus the rest) has for communism. That's why I think you need to look at the characteristics, style, features etc of fascist movements - and the conditions for their success - to work out what it is.
QuoteThere is a thin theoretical and philosophical underpinning to fascism, I believe, though Fascism is mostly an appeal to emotions rather than to the intellect. Those underpinnings, though, rely on discredited ideas like social Darwinism and national rejuvenation through strife, and so probably aren't worth even repeating.
Yeah this is another reason I think it might be historically tied/unique to that period is as you say there's the social darwinism but also the emergence of germ theory which I think has an impact on shaping fascism. You remove the context of those ideas being new and innovative and I don't know if there's much left.
Similarly I think fascism needs mass media - and possibly the first generation consumption of mass media. There might be a parallel there with social media (I think especially with Trump - I don't know enough about Xi to comment) where there is this new media environment, but we aren't yet sophisticated consumers who've always lived in that environment.
QuoteI think fascism is "might is right" in both theory and practice. So are communist regimes when it comes to the practical, but as grumbler explained they weave loftier excuses and justifications around their autocracy and the forceful disenfranchising of vast swathes of society.
Yeah I agree. I think if you boil it down I think the core "ideology" is basically a mix of will to power and the cult of action. Because of that it's difficult to frame ideologically because it is just the exercise of power and the vigorous active leader/party/state.
In most of the rest of politics ideology shapes the way you act and the purposes you use power - which could be liberal, socialist, conservative whatever - I think for fascism it is the power and the action itself that matters so that can go in any kind of direction.
Quote from: chipwich on August 14, 2021, 10:08:34 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2021, 08:53:46 AM
There is no philosophy, there is no manifesto, there's no intellectual or theoretical framework.
Mussolini wrote an essay called "the doctrine of fascism".
Yes, and his (well, Gentile's) writings showed the intellectual bankruptcy of fascism. Indeed, all of Gentile's writings essentially just made claim to being intellectual with no evidence of intellectualism present. He is 100% arguing by assertion.
Quote from: Tamas on August 14, 2021, 10:26:14 AM
I think fascism is "might is right" in both theory and practice. So are communist regimes when it comes to the practical, but as grumbler explained they weave loftier excuses and justifications around their autocracy and the forceful disenfranchising of vast swathes of society.
Yes, fascism is based on "might is right" but also "right is might." The way a people (nation, race, however you define it) are able to exert power is through the rightness of their actions. Fascists argued that action itself was good; change was itself good; that conflict was itself good. There was no end-state to Fascism because Fascism was a process, not a product.
In theory, I suppose the Nazis proposed an end-state in which the world was empty of everyone except the master race, and that master race would then evolve into the next stage of human evolution (immortal, disease-free, clear-thinking, etc) but i don't know that the rank-and-file were aware of Hitler's more grandiose ideas.
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/604d459007e4fcb17f70f21d7141893e/tumblr_pxbp8wzFP71qeiiixo1_500.jpg)