Author: Michael LaBossiere

 

 

While the term “fascism” has been around since before WWII, its use has surged in recent years and is used across the American political spectrum. Both Bush and Obama were called fascists. Trump’s detractors and supporters regularly use the term on each other. But what is fascism?

One obvious problem, as noted by John Locke, is that “people can apply sounds to what ideas he thinks fit, and change them as they please.” 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.” Those acting in good faith try to agree on the meanings of terms or at least establish the boundaries of the discussion while those acting in bad faith have excellent reasons to shift meanings as needed. As such, those interested in an honest consideration of fascism can disagree but will try to be consistent and clear when using the term.

A stop sign analogy also serves well here. 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 need to agree on what the sign will be, otherwise there will be crashes. The same holds for defining terms. We can define them anyway we wish, but if we are not consistent, then there will be language crashes.

An obvious place to seek the meaning of “fascism” is to look at what paradigm fascists and fascist thinkers say. As such, Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile provide a good starting point since they are the Original Fascists.  One aspect of classic fascism is the rejection of peace. As the classic fascist sees it, perpetual peace is impossible. Even 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 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 by the state. And state ownership of the means of production is a 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 modern fascist is on race rather than economic class.

Fascism also opposes liberal democracy on two grounds. As 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 notion of progress.

One plausible reason for confusing socialism and fascism is that the fascist state is seen as absolute and everything else exists to serve it. 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 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 as 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 a giant pantomime horse or an elaborate dragon dance.

The fascist view of the state also puts them at odds with the Marxist. According to Marxism, 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 used to describe countries that profess a 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 need be justified.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

 

Some claim that “wokeness” (formerly “political correctness) has gone too far so that “you can’t say anything anymore.” As evidence people often offer examples of celebrities who faced some consequences for saying things that seem racist, homophobic or sexist. They also point to trigger warnings, safe spaces and when right wing speakers have been harassed or silenced.

While the moral right of free expression and the legal right of the First Amendment should be protected vigorously, there is the question of whether it is true that one can’t say anything anymore. By this people do not mean that they cannot say what they want; their worry is there could be consequences for what they say.

My view on free expression is unoriginal as it is based on Mill’s principle of harm: a person is free to say what they wish and the only thing that warrants limiting this liberty is to protect others from harm. As I have argued in past essays, merely offensive speech is not harmful in a way that warrants restricting it. But there is a large grey area between expression that should obviously be restricted (such as the infamous yelling of “fire”) and expressions that should not. I am happy to debate about what should be moved one direction or the other, but I adopt a principle of erring on the side of freedom and place the burden of proof on those who would restrict freedom of expression. We should assume that a person has a right to say what they wish unless there is a logically compelling reason why they do not. In fact, I encourage people to express whatever hateful views they might have, that way we know what sort of person they are. That said, I am aware of an obvious problem with my view.

The problem is sorting out whether the harm generated by expression warrants restricting it. As noted above, I hold to a high bar. What is merely offensive, insulting, enraging and so on should not be restricted. My view here is analogous to my view on same sex marriage: some people claim it is deeply offensive to their beliefs but allowing it does them no meaningful harm. It is ironic that the principle I use to defend same sex marriage I also use to defend the expression of people who oppose it on the grounds they find it offensive.

While people should be free to say almost anything, I also agree with another of Mill’s views: he made it clear that while people should be free to do as they wished if they did no harm to others, people should not expect their free expression to be free of all consequences. While racism, sexism, xenophobia and bigotry are popular in the United States, expressing these views can come with a social cost and consequences. People have been fired for such expressions, which is sometimes a disproportionate punishment. The consequences should be proportional to the offense, which is a basic principle of punishment I stole from John Locke.

While it is just and right to be upset in cases in which the punishment exceeds the misdeed, there is far too much hand wringing and complaining that people face any consequences for expressing racist, sexist, xenophobic or other bigoted views. Expression has always come with consequences; the current anger seems to be mostly because members of advantaged groups sometimes pay a price for saying what they previously were able to get away with. I do agree that the consequences should be proportional. For example, someone who made one racist tweet years ago should not be punished today if they have done nothing similar recently. But for someone to be outraged they cannot say racist, sexist, or other bigoted things with no consequences is unreasonable. It is like being angry they “can’t say anything” because they are not free to shout obscenities in school, church or at work without suffering some consequences. So, one is free to say anything, but not free of the possible consequences. Just as it has always been.

My adopted state of Florida, like many other states, is trying to address the problem of school shootings. Since the state legislature is not inclined to address the gun part of shootings, the focus has been on security: armed guards in schools, hardened facilities, cameras, monitoring social media, and software designed to collect and collate data on students. Having recently reread Harry Harrison’s sci-fi novel Deathworld, I was struck by the similarities between the story and Florida’s approach to school shootings. In the novel, a human colony is struggling to survive a world of ever-increasing hostility. The colonists respond to the threat by hardening the colony structures and arming the colonists, even the children.

The main character of the novel is an outsider who can see the situation from a different perspective.  He does not simply accept constant danger as a fact of life, nor does he assume that the only response should be improving the colony’s defenses. Instead, he considers the cause of the violence and asks the critical question: why is the colony under attack? When he asks the question, he is met with incredible hostility and even violence. For the colonists, to consider why it is happening and to consider other options are seen as unthinkable awful.

This is like how Florida and other states are approaching school shootings: the focus is on shoring up the defenses of schools and countering the threat of guns in schools by putting armed guards in schools.

While many Republicans are willing to blame video games, the internet and mental illness for mass shootings, efforts to determine the actual causes are met with denial and hostility. For example, the Dickey amendment has effectively prevented the use of federal funds to research gun violence.

It could be contended that the Republicans are offering explanations, although they have (like the colonists) focused entirely on armed defense. While it is certainly true that they are putting forth explanations, these explanations have no real merit, as has been argued in previous essays.

Democrats tend to focus on guns as a cause, which leads some pro-gun people to chant the mantra that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” On the one hand, this is true: guns are tools that lack moral agency, they do not kill (aside from accidents) unless they are used by a person to kill.  Guns are not like cursed magical swords that can kill on their own or force their wielders to commit murder and most gun owners never engage in gun violence. People can obviously also kill by means other than guns. Knifes, bombs and vehicles are popular tools of murder around the world.

On the other hand, to “say guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and use that to justify doing nothing about guns is like to saying, “drugs don’t get people high, people get people high.” If this logic works for guns, then it would apply to drugs and to anything people can use in a dangerous way, such as poison, radioactive material, and anthrax.  As such if this mantra warrants doing nothing about guns, then it warrants doing nothing about anything people use to harm themselves or others. This approach is an option and some drugs have, in fact, been decriminalized and even legalized, so perhaps the same should apply to guns as well. But this analogy does have value as almost everyone has easy access to drugs, but most people do not use heroin.

While it is true that if there were no drugs, there would be no drug problem there is the obvious fact that there is more to the drug problem than the existence of drugs. As such, simply getting rid of drugs would not solve the problems that lead people to use drugs. In the novel, the hero learns that the planetary life is trying to kill the colonists because the colonists are killers. Ironically, the more they try to solve the problem with guns and security, the worse the problem becomes. So perhaps getting rid of guns would solve the problem of gun violence.

Eliminating all guns would (obviously) eliminate gun violence but would not address why people engage in that violence and people can, as they have done, turn to other means to engage in violence. An obvious reply is that eliminating guns would significantly reduce violence, even if it would obviously not eliminate all of it. This is what happens in the novel. When the colonists change their approach, everything is not perfect, but the colony is much safer.