What is Fascism, - Part Duh?

Since it is a philosophy, I guess it's worth some effort on this board, but first we'll have to define the term.

1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. http://dictionary.ref...

2. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. http://www.merriam-we...

3. a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race and stands for a centralized autocratic often militaristic government . From the merriam-webster dictionary, 1997.

4. Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of?Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society... Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile - 1932 from http://www.fordham.ed...
and check out http://www.worldfutur...

Now, I'll add to this later and show how similar if not identical the United States government is to this latter definition and to some extent the other three. To get us going on some thoughts, lets look at what transpired after WWII both in our government and in society in general. Think of our military bases, the manufacture of consent, "one nation under god", American Exceptionalism.

To be continued....

Abel

Better add these too, just to be fair.

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government.
2. extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. http://www.askoxford....

Now, I'll add to this later and show how similar if not identical the United States government is to this latter definition and to some extent the other three. To get us going on some thoughts, lets look at what transpired after WWII both in our government and in society in general. Think of our .....

To be continued....

Abel

I can just imagine the incredible revisionism that will ensue from our Abel's mind in this thread...

I applaud your effort here Abel. I have several concerns, however. Here are two (there are more):

1) If you're really after fascism, why do you start after WWII after fascist states were defeated as significant players?

2) Your quoting from Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism is misleadingly selective. For example, he rails against "liberalism" (what we call conservatism today) with the same vehemence he applies to the Marxists. In other words your point number 4, your main point, the one to which you hope to pin the United States, is troubled. You need to shore it up.

.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.
To be continued....

Abel

You certainly cannot characterize Liberal Democratic regimes as glorifying these two qualities to an inordinate degree that you find in true fascist states. Aside from notion of "rights" it usually gets quite irreverent with the unabashed humor and a well developed sense of the ironic. A real fascist regime depends on a religiously somber, highly cultivated degree of heavy "seriousness", which wins out over irony and humor. Hitler and Mussolini could never thrive in countries like the United States and Britain, where the much freer exchange of ideas, experiments and variations being played out in the market place play a huge role in how mentalities are formed. Can you imagine what SNL and Monty Python would do to those guys?

Our "heroes" here are made from circumstances forced upon them like tragedy and war. The way of life here is really more about making rational economic decisions and making money and entertainment, and then enjoying leisure. We're about as far from Sparta and Nazi Berlin as it gets. Our "warriors", aside from the professional Marines, are to be found on "American Gladiators" and reality TV, not in all of our children by virtue of a national emphasis on military virtue instructed heavily in our schools. We want little Johnny to become a business success, artist, athlete, entertainer, scientist, scholar, etc., not an obsessive political party thug or fanatic.

Again, Abel, even entertaining your thesis, I feel your lack of experience living in a real totalitarian state where there is real danger to free thinkers and rampant paranoia from all the intrigue, leaves you groundless and encourages a reckless play with concepts and abstractions fueled by your partisan political commitments.

I can just imagine the incredible revisionism that will ensue from our Abel's mind in this thread...

Are you saying that Merriam-Webster is revisionist? It would seem that Spry's effort (i.e., fascist = liberal) is the more uncommon perspective. I normally associate "liberal" with billions of pot-smoking hippies.

I can just imagine the incredible revisionism that will ensue from our Abel's mind in this thread...

Are you saying that Merriam-Webster is revisionist? It would seem that Spry's effort (i.e., fascist = liberal) is the more uncommon perspective. I normally associate "liberal" with billions of pot-smoking hippies.

I have no issue with the definitions of fascism that Abel has presented. My critique of Abel's post has to do with his application of them in the real world. It's as if he was smoking pot when he posted his thoughts.

I can just imagine the incredible revisionism that will ensue from our Abel's mind in this thread...

Are you saying that Merriam-Webster is revisionist? It would seem that Spry's effort (i.e., fascist = liberal) is the more uncommon perspective. I normally associate "liberal" with billions of pot-smoking hippies.

Dave, I was arguing that fascism was a phenomenon of the left. Fascist = liberal, or the corollary liberal = fascist, was something I was at pains to avoid. My claim is that fascism is one of several competing forms of socialism, all of which are opposed to classical liberalism (which I defend).

I can just imagine the incredible revisionism that will ensue from our Abel's mind in this thread...

Are you saying that Merriam-Webster is revisionist? It would seem that Spry's effort (i.e., fascist = liberal) is the more uncommon perspective. I normally associate "liberal" with billions of pot-smoking hippies.

Dave, I was arguing that fascism was a phenomenon of the left. Fascist = liberal, or the corollary liberal = fascist, was something I was at pains to avoid. My claim is that fascism is one of several competing forms of socialism, all of which are opposed to classical liberalism (which I defend).

I'll sympathize with Spry's attempt to argue that fascism can be a variant of socialism, as fascism attempts to control a lot of activities, expectations, values through broad control of the society. I disagree about the further attempt to pin the origins of fascism on the Left.

As I mentioned before, the Left vs. Right dichotomy rests on how a regime handles the rights issues.... firstly, individual rights, and secondarily, economic rights. The Right sees inequality as natural and good, and in an exaggerated glorification of inequality (i.e., fascism) you see the use of force, tyranny and oppression to further accentuate inequality.

The Left can resemble the Right in the extreme by enforcing equality in a radical way. You saw this terrible "leveling" attempt in Cambodia in the 1970's.

Classical liberalism, (a belief in a minimalist government to best protect individual rights [basic equality] and freedom), in the over all historical sense, is a victory of the rational Left over the old traditional Right (Church/Aristocracy). Yet in American politics, it is seen as the province of the Right.

Hope this brief account clarifies things. Man, these political labels can be so tricky.

Dave, I was arguing that fascism was a phenomenon of the left. Fascist = liberal, or the corollary liberal = fascist, was something I was at pains to avoid. My claim is that fascism is one of several competing forms of socialism, all of which are opposed to classical liberalism (which I defend).

I'll sympathize with Spry's attempt to argue that fascism can be a variant of socialism, as fascism attempts to control a lot of activities, expectations, values through broad control of the society. I disagree about the further attempt to pin the origins of fascism on the Left.

As I mentioned before, the Left vs. Right dichotomy rests on how a regime handles the rights issues.... firstly, individual rights, and secondarily, economic rights. The Right sees inequality as natural and good, and in an exaggerated glorification of inequality (i.e., fascism) you see the use of force, tyranny and oppression to further accentuate inequality.

The Left can resemble the Right in the extreme by enforcing equality in a radical way. You saw this terrible "leveling" attempt in Cambodia in the 1970's.

Classical liberalism, (a belief in a minimalist government to best protect individual rights [basic equality] and freedom), in the over all historical sense, is a victory of the rational Left over the old traditional Right (Church/Aristocracy). Yet in American politics, it is seen as the province of the Right. The Left in American politics is really the New Deal liberalism that began in the 1930's. It's an attempt to improve upon classical liberalism by instituting policies that seek to further augment individual freedom (positive rights) and equality.

Hope this brief account clarifies things. Man, these political labels can be so tricky.