While the term “fascism” has been around quite some time, it has enjoyed a resurgence proportional to the attention given to the alt right. Since the term has a strong negative connotation it is used across the American political spectrum in attempts to cast opponents in a negative light. Both Bush and Obama were called fascists. Trump’s detractors and supporters now regularly use the term on each other. But what is fascism?
One obvious philosophical problem, as noted by John Locke, is that “people can apply sounds to what ideas he thinks fit, and change them as they please.” The problem is that this can lead to unintentional confusion and intentional misuses. Locke’s solution was practical: when making inquiries “we must determine what we mean and thus determine when it is and is not the same.” Honest people have excellent reason to agree on the meanings of terms (or at least lay out the boundaries of the discussion), deceivers have excellent reasons to shift meanings as they wish. As such, those interested in an honest consideration of fascism can disagree but will at least endeavor to be consistent and clear in their usage of the term. I can also use a stop sign analogy. While the American stop sign is a red octagon with “stop” in white letters, this could be changed to a purple square with the symbol of a hand in the center. Or an orange circle. Or almost anything. But we did to agree on what the sign will be in order to afford traffic accidents. The same holds for defining terms.
One obvious place to seek the meaning of “fascism” is to look at what paradigm fascists and fascist thinkers assert it to be. As such, Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile provide a good starting point. I am obviously open to good faith disagreement.
One aspect of classic fascism is the rejection of peace. As the classic fascist sees it, perpetual peace is impossible. If it were possible, it would be undesirable. War is seen as good because it energizes the population and provides the opportunity for nobility and heroism.
While some claim that fascism is a leftist ideology and link it to socialism, there are two problems with this view. One is that fascism is a political rather than economic system. For example, while the Nazi state provided German companies with slave labor, these corporations remained owned by individuals like Porsche rather than the state. And state ownership of the means of production is the hallmark of socialism. The second is that the fascist ideology directly opposes the basic tenets of socialism, especially the Marxist variants. In the case of Marxism, fascism explicitly rejects economic determinism. In the case of socialism in general, fascism rejects the notion of class conflict. The focus of the fascist is on race rather than class.
Fascism also opposes liberal democracy on two primary grounds. Since fascism regards the state as supreme, the notion of majority rule by voting is anathema to their ideology. Instead they embrace authoritarianism. Fascism also associates the concept of equality with democracy and rejects equality on two grounds. First, fascism sees inequality as immutable. Second, the fascist sees inequality as good, thus rejecting the idea of progress.
One plausible reason someone can honestly confuse socialism and fascism is that the fascist state is regarded as absolute and everything else exists to serve the state. Under classic socialism, the state owns the means of production. But these are not the same. A fascist state, such as Nazi Germany, can have a capitalist economy that exists to serve the state and this allows for individuals to own companies such as Porsche and profit handsomely under fascism.
A socialist economy could exist in a very free direct democracy in which the state exists to benefit the individual. One could, of course, have a fascist state that also owns all the means of production, but fascism is not socialism.
The fascists also have a negative view of liberty—the state is to decide what freedoms people have, depriving them of what the rulers regard as useless and possibly harmful liberties. Fascists also reify the state, regarding it as having “a will and a personality.” From a rational standpoint, this is nonsense—while Hobbes liked to cast the state as a leviathan composed of the people, the state is just a collection of people with various social constructs forming the costume of the state. To use an analogy, the state is but a giant pantomime horse or an elaborate dragon dance.
The fascist view of the state also puts them at odds with the Marxist—under Marxist theory, the state will no longer exist under communism because it will no longer be needed. As such there can be no communist state in the strict sense, though this term is obviously used to describe countries that profess some form of Marxism that never gets around to getting rid of the state that is run by the ruling class.
Fascism also embraces the idea of empire and imperialism and use this to justify discipline, duty and sacrifice—as well as “the necessarily severe measures that must be taken against those who would oppose” the state. So, these are the basics of fascism, as per Mussolini and Gentile.
As with any complicated and controversial concept, there are many other views of fascism. Some are compatible with the account given above. There are also some fascists that attempt to recast fascism to, ironically, attack those who oppose fascism.
While I do not claim that this account is the definitive account, it does provide some basic and key qualities of fascism and deviations from them should be justified.
The focus of the fascist is on race rather than class.
Is it? This is your only reference to race in the post.
While I’m certainly no expert, I have never believed that race ideology is a necessary tenet of fascism; it just tends to end up that way, just as socialism tends to end in totalitarian dictatorship, even though that was not specified in the initial conditions. Race/ethnic/cultural divisions have also been a major theme of the Soviet and Chinese socialist/communist regimes, even though race has no theoretical part in their construction.
While there were certainly strains of fascism based on race, there were also others, From Wiki:
“The [1934 Montreux Fascist] conference was not able to bridge the gulf between those participants who proposed achieving national integration by a corporative socio-economic policy and those who favored an appeal to race.” [Cassels, Alan. Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World Routledge, New York]
Well, fascism’s nationalist aspect does, in the near-term traditional sense, align with racism. But if you consider the root of the word fascism, the fascia littorio, the Roman bundle of sticks with an axe, the Romans were arguably not racist. They were rather liberal for their times, so long as you bent a knee to Rome, they were generally ok with you. But of course in an empire as long running and broad as Rome’s, especially in regard to the Republic vs. Emperor periods, well there’s a rabbit hole I don’t want to go down right now. But just a thought whilst I wait on the barber.
Also, no time to verify right now, but I believe Mussolini was more in that Roman tradition. Not that he wasn’t a true modern sense of the word, tyrant.
I am obviously open to good faith disagreement.
I don’t believe this for a second. But if CT, TJ, or DH engage here and you answer all their questions fully and in good faith, in the pursing of truth, no sophistry, clown nose bail outs, or equivocation, I’ll send you $20.
You’ll note that I do not delete comments and the only person I have ever banned from this site was that guy who was advocating rape.
Not following the logic here. Are you saying that just because you don’t delete comments or ban reasonable people, that shows that you’re open to good faith disagreement?…Ah, I get it. So you’re saying you think it’s OK for people who disagree with you to exist or to be sort of in your presence. Is that it? I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to communicate.
Someone help me out here.
In a discussion like this, it is easy to make the error of contrasting a real fascist state with a hypothetical socialist state. The proper comparison is to compare a real fascist state with a contemporary real socialist state, in this case the U.S.S.R. under Stalin.
It is easy to forget that revolutionaries like Lenin were fiercely dedicated to bringing Marx’s ideas to life. It is hard to imagine that future attempts will produce different results.
Why not use Denmark as the example of a socialist state? Why not use China as the example of the communist state?
Because Denmark isn’t socialist? It’s what we nowadays call “social democratic”, which is to say free-market capitalist with a high tax-and-spend. Strong social services, but no government takeovers of private enterprise.
China is not easy to label. From what little I know of the Chinese economy, I’m not sure one could call it entirely Communist anymore.
I would say China is a fascist state. Much more so than communist. It is probably the one nation in the world that best fits the mold. Nearly perfectly. Expansionist as well, just not in as much of an overtly military way.
I would say the nordic countries in general lean socialist, and before they threw their borders open they were more fascist. Though a very soft form of fascism. The kind that sort of works without the expansionist aspect. Have you travelled there?
Meh…Forgot the other quite obvious difference with the nordics and fascism, with or without open borders, they lack the dynamic personality cult style leadership or overtly one-party aspect. Though a country can have ‘competing’ political parties that are effectively indifferent to the will of their constituents. As we have seen in a number of places lately.
No, I never was in Denmark – not that I would be much better informed about their politics and economics from a tourist week in Copenhagen anyhow.
For me, socialism was, is, and always will be the control of industries and utilities by the state, in part or in whole. If that is absent, then there is no socialism. Strong and expensive social policies do not constitute socialism, AFAIACX. I do know that in the US, the term has expanded to mean any possible social service, but I can’t follow you there.
Strong and expensive social policies do not constitute socialism
Agree mostly. So long as those social policies do not encourage long term dependency upon the state. But the money (wealth) for those policies must come from somewhere. The government taking significant resources from the economic producers is a degree of control though, is it not? I understand what you’re saying, and I’m not making the argument that any use of funds by the state for social welfare constitutes socialism, but surely at some point, and we can reasonably disagree about where that point is, the social policies start to consume resources to the degree that they constitute socialism, yes?
You are basing the presence of socialism on the distribution of money. I don’t. I base the presence of socialism on the control of the company.
If the government is making the decisions, we have socialism. If people – owners, shareholders, staff – are making the decisions, we don’t have socialism.
I read a couple of articles recently about PG&E in California, suggesting that the company’s large-scale decisions have largely been dictated by the state, even though the state doesn’t own the company. I don’t know the details, of course, but it sounds like an interesting case where I might suggest that we have the effects of socialism even though the company is apparently operating in a free market.
Well, no my point wasn’t entirely on the distribution of money, it was more to the confiscation of money (resources). In the situation we are addressing, the state, through taxation, is controlling resources that are no longer available for owners of corporations to invest back into those corporations. We’re into semantics here but the gist of my point is that the state IS in fact controlling resources that would otherwise be available to the company to do what the company (actually, the owners of the company) would otherwise do with them. So effectively, instead of having money available to purchase a new widget multiplexor dohickey, the state has determined that that wealth produced by the company is better spent on whatever the government, in its infinite wisdom (/sarc) deems necessary.
Yes, there’s a slippery slope here as the very nature of these sort of discussions becomes quite nebulous (will try to address this better later). But again, at some point, and again we can reasonably disagree about where that point is, the social policies start to consume resources to the degree that they constitute socialism.
It often seems that only failed countries are labeled as “socialist” and when a country is successful, but has significant social(ist) elements, it is not socialism.
What seems to muddy things in the US is that the right labels as “socialist” things about which other folks say “that ain’t socialism.” The right seems to call “socialist” anything they dislike that involves public spending or taxes, while some on the left use that label for whatever they like.
I think for comparisons to be most valid, it is best to compare contemporaneous examples. Thus Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany are best compared to Stalin’s USSR.
Do you really think comparing Italy in the 1930s with Denmark in the 2010s would be enlightening?
China might be worth considering. However, the world was a much different place post WWII than in the 1930s.
You can argue that time is a factor, but you would need to show how it helps make or break the analogy. To illustrate, are there key temporal differences between 1930s socialism and fascism and those of today that relate to the ideology itself? If the differences are too great, then we should probably time or version index our ideologies, the way we do so for software or other products (like Painter 2019 or Pagemaker 6.5).
In some cases, comparisons across time can be quite useful. For example, comparisons between empires across time are a reasonable way to consider how a modern empire might fall.
One essential feature of socialism that Mike never mentions is the abolition of private property.
Well tbc, under fascism you do, to some degree, have private property. It’s just that you are not allowed to use it in any way that the state takes a dim view of. Hence the ‘capitalism’ under fascism and other forms of economically light socialism. Corporations are highly regulated, often under the auspices of ‘the general good’, sometimes even initially earnestly so, but eventually the corruption gets to the regulators. Thus the state must weigh in with greater and greater force and intimidation.
That depends on which version of socialism you are talking about. Some socialists are fine with private ownership of the sort of property most of us own: clothes, toothbrush, car, house and so on while only advocating that the state own the means of production.
Many socialists also argue that getting rid of property is a plus, of course.
Most states get rid of many forms of private property and restrict it to the state; for example we can’t own our own nukes or modern war vehicles–that property is abolished and owned only by the state.
Mike, can you define “means of production?” What, for example, are your “means of production?”
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
You do raise an interesting point. The usual view seems to be that the means are things like factories and mines; but one could push the concept to include the individual. So, as you seem to imply, my PC and my writing business could be a means of production, since I create books to sell. One could also say that any productive means would fall under this, such as your blender or stove.
But, socialists can determine the extent to which they think the state should own such means. So, one socialist might allow for private ownership of small businesses and another might demand 100% socialism. One could always insist that socialism must be 100% or it is not socialism, but then we would need terms for all the versions in which the state owns X% of means, where X <100.
TJ, do you feel that in the context of your comments to this topic, Mike answered all of your questions fully and in good faith, in the pursing of truth, no sophistry, clown nose bail outs, or equivocation?
Asking for a friend.
Sure, it is pretty clear that the definition of the “means of production” is: “whatever the hell the socialist in power says it is.”
Which is pretty much says everything you need to know about socialism.
How did I miss this?
First, fascism sees inequality as immutable. Second, the fascist sees inequality as good, thus rejecting the idea of progress.
So much wrong in so few words.
Is “immutable” really what you meant? “Inevitable” seems to make more sense. At least soime inequalities are fungible, but the fact of inequality is inevitable, to anyone who believes biology, genetics, physics, medicine, or the evidence of their own eyes. This is not exclusive to fascism.
See Harrison Bergeron: http://tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
Inequality (which inequality?) is good in at least this: that without it we would all starve within months, and that would be the end of humanity. Of course, if you think humanity is a plague upon the earth, you might well consider that desirable. The best degree and distribution of inequality is, however, an open question.
I hit post too soon, sorry.
thus rejecting the idea of progress.
This is to say that there is no progress other than movement to equality. To give just one counter-example, new discoveries and understandings that make life better are progress, whether they enhance or inhibit equality. I consider antiseptics, antibiotics, anaesthetics examples of progress. This statement implies you don’t.
Mike, are you going to address CT’s question/concern here?
Per my comment above (will try to address this better later)
Well, it’s later, there’s a new post, and waiting for DH to show up to properly fisk this is getting me antsy…so let me state what I was kinda thinking I could tease out of someone…
Why no one (I think DH might have started here) chose to go to the proper source to START this discussion is beyond me. Let me quote Mr. Webster, with my italics and bolds added.
For me, Fascism and Socialism emerge from opposing aspects of most life, on the one hand you have the competitive impulse, benefiting “society” by pruning the weak in a Darwinian mode, on the other hand you have the ant/bee communal impulse, benefiting all through co-operation, the sum of the parts being greater. Rarely do you see both philosophies working in harmony, perhaps this is the challenge of our age.