Skip to comments.What is Fascism?
Posted on 01/30/2003 7:00:27 PM PST by John Lenin
click here to read article
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].
Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.
In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.
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....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....
...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.
You have two cows, you don't know what to do with them since they're not sheep, they wander off and your family starves. You stick your butt in the air, pray to the moongod, and blame the Americans and the Jews. Then you blow yourself up.
It's fair to say that "fascism", historically (true Fascism under Mussolini, as well as Nazism) had some support from "workers". This category doesn't quite apply (or, isn't quite as useful) today, in America, though. Other than retired folks, invalids, trust-fund kids, and perhaps the military (a separate category), just who's not a "worker"?
Again, categorizing human beings by these broad-brush, stereotypical groupings may have made some sense in the stratified societies of 19th century Europe. It just doesn't compute today, however.
Ok. This doesn't answer the issue I raised, which was about the nonsensicality of a statement like " measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution" in a society like ours, where there's no clear delineation between "bourgeoisie" and "proletarian". But I don't disagree with what you say.
Congratulations. So did I. We all did. (For some reason it's deemed quite important to teach all American kids about Marxist terms and assumptions.)
And that's where these terms belong: in history. They have little relevance for our society, today, not much more than does the term "centurion" or "vassal".
Sure, I was taught that "proletarian" meant "working class" while "bourgeois" meant "middle class". I never fully understood this though. The problem is that in America, generally speaking, our "middle class" works, and our working class enjoys a "middle class" lifestyle. So it just doesn't compute. I tried to understand those terms, and I tried to read Marx and all, but something just didn't compute.
But it still goes on: teacher writes "proletarian = working class, bourgeois = middle class" on the chalkboard and 95% of the kids nod their heads so that they seem smart. Lesson learned. Well, what can I say, I wasn't one of them. That's because I actually tried to think about what these definitions meant, and I realized that they were nonsense in our society. Grouping hordes of people into large, vaguely-defined, stereotypical categories so as to perform simplistic analyses on them while ignoring individuals is really more of a 19th century kinda thing anyway. I was never comfortable with the whole exercise myself.
HorseHillary! Fascism is the marriage of communism and capitalism. It is a return to the feudal system,where a monied elite are the only ones truly free and the rest of the population are serfs. Bush-1 called it "The New World Order". Bubba-1 called it "The Third Way". Others refer to it as a "One World Government". What it truly amounts to is "Corporate Communism".
"Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution;"
He is just another commie,who most likely thinks that any system other than Marxism is Fascism.
Duke,what you described is "classical fascism". The modern version we (or our children) will end up suffering under will flip-flop classical fascism. The new fascism will have the corporations at the top,and the politicians will be their employees and PR agents. Look to China for a prime example of how this will work,and look at WHO from the US is in business with the fascists who run China. For instance,remember back in the old days when Wal-Mart advertised "American made"? Notice how it is damn near impossible to find anything for sale at Wal-Mart now that wasn't made in China? Did you know that Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart before her husband was elected president,and she only resigned because she had to when they moved into the White House? Now think back to when the Chinese goods started swamping Wal-Mart and other American stores. Wal-Mart was one of the first to "go Chinese" in a big way,almost like they had a sweetheart deal with the fascists who own all the corporations in China,huh? Also please note that Diane FineSwine's hubby is in business with these same fascists,and is most likely the ones who tipped them off about the BATF raid on their leased warehouses in San Diego that held all the fully-automatic AK-47's they had smuggled into the country.
Also take note that Jorge Ali Bubba Bush has a uncle who lives in China,and is bestest buddies and business partners with these same fascists.
I think it is already safe to say that corporations are already in a position where they dictate government policy,and that it will only get more brazen in the future. Our politicians are no longer bought and sold,they are now minority stockholders.
It is the exact opposite. Only "favored" citizens/employees get the best jobs,go to the best schools,and live in the best neighborhoods. It is a top-down system that rewards lackeys and punishes people who try to be independent.
ROFLMAO! As a member in good standing of one of the elitist ruling families who has a uncle in business with the fascists that own/run China,I kinda doubt he has any interest in trying.
Really? Ever heard of the feudal system?
It's not traditional fascism. The Corporations got tired of being second-rate powers who had to bow to the politicans,so they just bought them out with stock options and employment for their relatives. Fascism has now evolved to where the Corporations are the ones telling the politicans what to do.
Sounds good to me!
I believe that the US is now a quasi-fascist state. The only reason that it survives in the US is that the citizens are armed, and that right is supposedly protected by the Constitution.
As more and more laws regulating and controlling firearms ( and other aspects of our everyday existence) appear, the US will move ever closer to the classical definition of Fascism. At some point, this movement will spill over into open conflict.
Depends on whether you want to put in credence in something so obviously written by some left-wing college professor. Here's your first clue from the text:
The 7 conditions that foster and fuel fascism are:The "intellectuals" will save us from fascism?
- The stripping of rights and wealth...[from] intellectuals...as this [is] the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if given the opportunity.
LOL, do you want me to let you in on one of the dirty little secrets you learn when you've taken too many college courses in psychology? It is the secret of the "F scale" test. This is a test that is designed to measure a person's readiness to adopt fascist ideologies.
And guess who it is that traditionally scores the highest in this test? Is it the "rural lower middle class"? Is it the hard-hat red-necks? Is the "have-nots"? Why no, it is the college educated intellectual. In fact test results for decades have shown a strong correlation between both IQ and educational level to one's degree of willingness to accept fascism (hence its euphemistic name: The "F scale").
The farther you've gone in school, the more likely it is, that you would NOT rebel under a fascist system of government. Think about it. Doesn't your own life experience confirm what this test tells us? Where is it that we see, not just the acceptance of a curtailment of free speech rights, but the whole hearted endorsement of such fascist PC practices. Why, of course, it is on college campuses.
Years ago I had an opportunity to discuss this with a fellow whose job it had been to interrogate Waffen SS officers (Colonel and above) after WW II. He said that his experience showed him exactly the same thing that the F scale tests show. He said that the image of the SS officer as some under-educated, low IQ, brut recruited from the lower classes of society was completely in error. He told me that the worst of the worst, were highly educated and quite intelligent men.
The intellectuals will save us from fascism? Not likely! They will be the ones organizing and building the gas chambers.
They take the 'best' from the worst and roll it up into their 'neutralizing' rhetoric.
Yes, actually I have. Fuedalism is not fascism or communism.
Bingo. Communism is the ultimate form of evil. Sometimes the ends justify the means in the real world.
Flame suit on. (Cringing while typing).
While the things Hitler and Himmler did was inexcusable, I'm not so sure the majority of 19-20 year old kids who fought on the Eastern front to save their country from the communist menace even knew about Auschwitz.(Berlin was infested with communists who worshipped Mark and Engels). Does some gunny sarge in Kabul know what Powell and Rummy talk about and plan -no. Franco and Pinochet were heroes. I know my buddy Sparta and I don't see eye to eye on this and he's going to break my cajones, but I have to call 'em like I see them. If it takes a fascist to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela,Lula in Brazil, or Castro in Cuba-so be it.
While the things Hitler and Himmler did was inexcusable, I'm not so sure the majority of 19-20 year old kids who fought on the Eastern front to save their country from the communist menace even knew about Auschwitz.(Berlin was infested with communists who worshipped Mark and Engels).
No disagreement there.
Franco and Pinochet were heroes.
No disagreement about Pinochet, though I'm reconsidering my stance on Franco. My disagreement with fascism is that it is also a form of collectivism.
If it takes a fascist to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela,Lula in Brazil, or Castro in Cuba-so be it.
Well I wouldn't call a general who supports capitalism and liberty a fascist, but I get your drift. Again, no disagreement.
know my buddy Sparta and I don't see eye to eye on this and he's going to break my cajones
Now why would I do that?:)
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern fascist age
Correct, with the addition that they reserve the power to control the business as well. In most fascist senerios, that is done by regulations. The US is a mixture of things in one degree or another, and fascism is one of them.
I know I am going to come under fire from some for daring to say that Franco was a hero. I just think it's impossible to brand Franco as a bad guy just because he was labeled a fascist. He had no interest in politics and was more than happy to spend his time fighting North Africans. He only took over the resistance when he saw thousands of Stalinists pour into Barcelona and Madrid and realized it was now or never. We can't know what it's like to see nuns raped, priests murdered, churches burned, and having the anarchists and stalinists destroy your country. If it was happening in America right now (which it soon might) wouldn't we fight on Franco's side. Churchill said if he were a Spaniard he would have. One more thing, Ike liked Franco. I'll line up with those two guy's anyday.
I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.
These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.
God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.
452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar
Marxism & Fascism are both extreme forms of Socialism. The NSDAP (NAZI) stood for "NATIONAL Socialist German Workers Party". The chief difference between the Germans, Italians & Spanish on one hand, and the Russians on the other, was that the former encouraged Nationalism while the Soviets (Russians) tried to suppress it.
Bear in mind that many of the top Soviet revolutionaries were non-Russian. Stalin (Georgian) and Dherzhinski (Sp? Polish) viewed socialism as an international enterprise at first. Stalin only appealed to Russian nationalism after Hitler's invasion threatened his very existence.
Franco was the lesser evil by far compared to the communist he was fighting. He also benefited the Allies by being close enough to Hitler that Der Fuhrer was reluctant to attack and seize Gibraltar( which would have cut off Britain from its raw materials lifeline in India and the Middle East and stopped the Russian supplies through Iran) but strong enough not to join in the war with him( he did send a division of volunteers to the Eastern Front). Pinochet was an unblemished hero.
A fascist state and a rigorously socialist one are indistinguishable.
My history teacher was a dyed-in-the-wool communist, he very much respected Russia and especially China. He was always telling us what good they had done for the people.
Back then I was a quiet little 16 yr old and I knew he was bonkers but I never said anything. I think that class is what made me a conservative because I could see how wrong he was.