Just for kicks: Debate Fascism

Levinas wrote an essay around 1933, "Hitlerism", in it he suggests that Marx's transformation of German Idealism was interpreted by these Fascists as the priority of the body over the soul, the priority of race/consanguity in the realization of a Utopian society. Achievement of Utopia required removal of all racial impurity,the Jews and other un-Aryan races.

Umberto Eco in his "Ur-Fascism" *describes growing up in Italy during Mussolini's rise and fall. He suggests that Fascism is kinda of an all-purpose term, you can take out or insert terms, but he does outline typical features:

1) A strict and narrow traditionalism, they are ultra-reactionary right.
2) Anti-modernism. They love armaments, all technological, but they think that the Enlightenment's humanity is the beginning of depravity.
3) Irratiionalism, action for actions sake, since it alone is beautiful. "Goering's alleged statement "When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun"
4) There is no disagreement, that's treason.
5) "Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference." It is by definition racist.
6) Fascism is derived from individual or social frustration.
7) In place of identity, Fascism inserts nationalism, common origin and its nationalism is defined by its enemies. It is all a plot against Fascism and the culprit must also lie within the common society. It's the Jews primarily, since being a Jew means that the person's origin is in some manner beyond all other national origins
8) Its enemies are strong, rich, powerful, and they are humiliated by this, yet by switch of rhetorical focus Fascism believes they will overcome their enemies might. [The short guy complex. (W. Riech)]
9)" For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus
pacifism is trafficking with the enemy"
10) Fascism is ordered hierarchically, in military fashion, with one worthy leader.
11) " everybody is educated to become a hero"
12) "Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist
transfers his will to power to sexual matters"
13) A citizen has no rights, no purpose only a role which is given to them.
14) "Newspeak", what is said is kept simple, no complex ideas are encouraged.

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

It is a short and excellent read. Anyway, I think ISIS falls into several of these categories. Going back to Levinas, ISIS gives priority to the soul over the body, supplanting rationality with myth.

Quoting darthbarracuda

By Fascism, I mean a highly centralized system of government led by a dictator, with extreme nationalism, militarism, patriarchism, and an oppression of all dissent (no freedom of speech).

I think that it's at least possible to have a good nation [i]in itself[/I] (as opposed to as it relates internationally) with all of those things - if the dictator was exceptionally wise and benevolent - [I]except[/I] for the last part about patriarchism and oppression of all dissent (no freedom of speech), because gender equality, freedom from state oppression, and freedom of speech, are fundamental in my book.

If you add conquest and anti-intellectualism to the equation, as you mention later on, it just makes matters worse.

But, in practice, I think that such a set up - even without the parts that I explicitly ruled out or objected to - is more prone to tyranny than alternatives.

Quoting darthbarracuda

Ultimately, I think Fascism can only be understood in the context of when and where it originates. Post-WWI Europe

Keep in mind that it is alive and well (and has always existed in some form) in the Islamic world. Unlike the nationalistic forms of European fascism, the greatest threat to liberty and security today is Islamo-fascism, which could care less about the nation state (except of course the theocratic one it wishes to create). One must therefore add to your definition: extremist interpretations of religion. Even in the case of European fascism, the Catholic Church was in collusion with it, as much as it tries not to admit this now.

Reply to Thorongil Good insight regarding Islamo-Fascism and the theocratic fascist state.

Reply to Sapientia
The values of anti-intellectualism, brutish war mongering and group-mentality of Fascism, although to most of us would seem knee-jerkingly bad, are seen as a good thing by a Fascist. It runs completely contrary to our contemporary values (liberty, equality, freedom, intellectualism, peace, etc), which are seen as bad things to a Fascist. I think that's why I find it such an interesting philosophy: not that I agree with it, but how something so absurd in my worldview could actually garner enough strength to become an international threat.

I find it hard to see how Islam can be aligned in any serious way with Fascism if a fundamental feature of the latter is it's aggressive nationalism and exclusionary ideology. Call it what you want but it has little if anything in common with European Fascism, unless we expand this concept to the point of vacuity.

To my understanding Islam is, in theory at least, universalist in outlook grounded in its claim to transcend the particularities of race or locality or social status. That's not to say that Islam - even in it's 'authentic' form - cannot be aggressive and expansive, but however much we disagree with the aim or theology behind it would seem to be about the most extreme ideological enemy of Fascist governments imaginable, assuming of course that state worship and its corresponding exclusivity are essential features. Now a religion like Islam can obviously be appropriated and manipulated by political powers to be used for nefarious ends, but I'm inclined to think we should view these as cynical perversions rather than genuine expressions.

Anyhow it also seems like a huge challenge to pin down exactly what Fascism entails, not to mention distinguishing between authentic and false interpretations of Islam, so referring to something as Islamo-Fascism does not seem helpful to me at this point for anything other than the negative emotional response it calls forth. But I'm open to a more detailed outlining of the interconnection between Islam and Fascism.

And so as not to derail the topic into Islam bashing, I would argue that the psychological strength of Fascism, if it has any, would lie in its ability to overcome perpetual class conflict and the liberal focus on the narrow self-interest of isolated and oftentimes antagonistic egos for the sake of some collective goal(s). Of course a charismatic leader, much like a good coach or manager (bad analogy perhaps), somehow inspires the individuals who compose the organization to work harmoniously towards clearly defined ends that benefit all, resulting in the alignment of self-interest and group-interest. Alienation is overcome and all are inspired to give their best for the wellbeing of the group in which their identity is grounded.

I think people, generally speaking of course, long to be a part of something larger than themselves, and in liberal-democratic-capitalist society this desire is often left unsatisfied, or diverted to more benign expressions like supporting a sports team or political party or church or whatever. The Fascist country would seem to model itself on the family - albeit the enlarged family of the nation - and many people who have children know the pleasure (yes pleasure) and deep sense of satisfaction that results from working long hours and undergoing many hardships and sacrifices for the sake of those you love. To repeat, Fascism would seem to derive whatever advantage it has over liberal democracies from this psychological aspect. Obviously religions and even some political movements (e.g. Communism) attempt to tap into this human longing for transcendence, but Fascism has the added advantage of not extending this transcendence out too far to be unrealistic for all but the most idealist amongst us, but of constraining it within the perhaps more reasonable cultural, historical and linguistic 'family' to which we belong. Is it necessarily racist? Doesn't seem to be. Is it necessarily expansive? Why so? It could just as easily recognize the dignity of your family and your right to decide your collective fate as long as the two interests don't collide (they usually do it seems, but not necessarily so).

This is in no way meant to be an endorsement of Fascism but only an attempt to understand it beyond the usual character flaws to which those who succumbed to it are accused of. I'm just thinking out loud here by the way and, obviously, this is not my area of expertise.

I think both Fascism and Totalitarianism are about control of the state, but Fascism seems to go beyond caring about the state, the state is only a means to a Fascist ideological ends.

Quoting Erik

Call it what you want but it has little if anything in common with European Fascism, unless we expand this concept to the point of vacuity.

Then you ignored what I said about the Catholic Church's involvement with fascism in Europe. Some critics have even gone so far as to call fascism the direct and logical offspring of right wing (ultramontane) Catholic political thought. Religion is inherently tied up with conceptions of fascism, more so I would argue, than nationalism.

While this isn't a debate of fascism in favor or against, I've long appreciated Robert Paxton's take on fascism: http://academico.direito-rio.fgv.br/ccmw/images/0/00/Paxton.pdf

Reply to Thorongil I agree that religion is tied with fascism, though I wouldn't say that fascism is the offspring of right wing Catholic political thought. The partially ghost-written essay The Doctrine of Fascism says as much, from a philosophical perspective.

[quote=The Doctrine of Fascism]
many of the practical expressions of Fascism such as party organization, system of education, and discipline can only be understood when considered in relation to its general attitude toward life. A spiritual attitude (3).[/quote]


But I don't think I could say that religion is more than nationalism. It's more like they lay on an equal plane to one another, in fascist thinking. The state is the religion and the leader is the physical manifestation of the state. Though perhaps there's a difference between the state being the religion and nationalism -- since one must have an identity outside of the state in order to identify as a nationalist, where the committed fascist seems to lose their sense of self in the state.

Reply to Moliere Glad you mentioned Paxton, he brings a good description of what Fascism entails. Fascism is such a reactionary political position, it exalts anti-intellectualism, emotionalism, survival of the fittest, war, tribal mentality, etc and disparages the liberal, modern values such as liberty, equality, justice, peace, and intellectualism. I am interested in understanding why a person would support such values, though.

It's an interesting question, for sure. I don't know. Fascism is fascinating to myself -- it seems to cut across the left/right spectrum. It's scary as hell to see in practice, even when isolated, but I still have this intellectual curiosity about the workings of fascism. @unenlightened recommended a nice book to me some time ago http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf that I would like to read more of -- since you are asking the question, you may find it interesting too.

Deleuze and Guatarri's Anti-Oedipus also explores this question by asking and attempting to answer "How can people desire their own oppression?" -- but that book isn't as straightforward as the Reich book.


I agree with Umberto Eco when he states:

Quoting Cavacava

6) Fascism is derived from individual or social frustration

Frustration, humiliation, defensiveness all given easy answers which are even fun to pursue after you stop thinking of your enemies as humans: violent action that is more than mere violence but is also spiritual. In short: Fascism feels more than good, more than great, it is a realization of the beyond in our lives now. It fulfills both our base desires for violence simultaneously with our higher desires for God -- and makes God real, to boot.

EDIT: I have a bad habit of thinking of something new to say after posting. But one of the themes that emerges from both books I mentioned is that fascism is potentially appealing to all of us -- we all have it in ourselves to succumb to the appeals of fascism. Perhaps why it's scary to see someone expressing fascist politics in real life -- there's a sense in which we fear becoming them. In the U.S. the tea party serves as a good example, I think... though not obsessed with blood as much, they are obsessed with "being American", and there is an attendant mythology with that "being American". With the rise of Trump I think we're seeing them be more than a proto-fascist group, too -- since Trump clearly doesn't appeal to people because of reasoned argument or thought, but through pure emotional appeal to fictions people hold.

Reply to Moliere Yeah, I don't see how a person who isn't discontented with their current situation would be willing to give up their liberties and current values. To endorse views that extreme shows how desperate many people are.

Reply to Moliere The Anatomy of Fascism by Paxton is a full length treatment. The shorter article to which Moliere linked, the 5 stages of Fascism, is good too.

Fascism is, as Paxton notes, a 20th century invention. In his later writings (1890) Marx did not anticipate fascism. Sorel criticized Marx in 1908 that "a revolution accomplished in times of decadence could take a return to the past or even social conservation as its ideal."

For those irked by things like this, the fascist symbol -- a bundle of rods and an axe, is featured on some American coins, like this 1936 dime. The bundle is formalized (all vertical, bound together, and behind the bundle is the axe blade at the top. The fasces go back to Roman Times when they were carried in front of certain official processions. I'm not sure if oak leaves are explicitly a fascist symbol, but a proud German Oak Tree was menaced by Jews in some propaganda images.

I haven't read The Mass Psychology of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich for a long time. Reich had some good insights into political behavior, despite his screwy Orgone Box theory. (The Orgone Box is harmless, as long as one doesn't expect it to cure anything.)

This interview with Alice Miller seems relevant to the psychology of fascism.

The prosecutor said earlier that a body was found so riddled with bullets that made it difficult to identify - which turned out to be Abaaoud.

Telegraph

This is what is known as 'overkill'. Overkill is a disproportionate response that is the standard means of control of the fascist mind-set. It is the essence of terrorism. I hope it will be considered that perhaps fascism is not merely something that one opposes in others, but that it is something one needs to see in oneself.

I think I have said this before and I'm not afraid of saying it again; but, if you leave out the parts about killing all the Jews and invading Poland, what specifically about the Nazi political platform do you disagree with?

Reply to Question An odd question, and something of a reverse "what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Yeah, apart for the forcible seizure of power, the banning of trade unions and their replacement with direct Nazi control of working class life, the burning of books and the prohibition of non-Nazi art, the revision of textbooks to promote Nazi ideology, the banning of all other political parties, the removal of Jews' citizenship status, the dismissal of all Jews from professional employment, the control of leisure ("Strength Through Joy"), the suppression of dissent and the imprisonment of political prisoners in concentration camps, state terrorism by the SS and Gestapo, the direct political supervision of the whole population by installing a dedicated Nazi official in every block of flats or neighbourhood, the setting up of "People's Courts" and the overriding of the constitutional legal framework, the prohibition of jazz music, the persecution of gay people, the militarization of everyday life, the total Nazification of the media, the dismissal of teachers and professors who were not members of the Nazi party, the abolition of all youth organizations and their replacement with the compulsory indoctrination of children in the Hitler Youth, the reckless plunge into a self-destructive war, the myth of the Aryan race, and like you say, systematic genocide and invading Poland--apart from all that, what, exactly, was wrong with the Nazis?

Is that what you're asking? Or are you trying to make a distinction between the Nazis in power and the purer party platform--or more widely, the fascist platform in general--from which they had deviated?

Quoting jamalrob

Is that what you're asking? Or are you trying to make a distinction between the Nazis in power and the purer party platform--or more widely, the fascist platform in general--from which they had deviated?

Yes, the distinction between the Nazis in power and the purer party platform is what I am getting at. There is a reason the party platform appealed to so many people. It was highly progressive and obviously socialist in nature. And, again this is apart from the Nazi ideology of uber and unter mensch as well as the propaganda... A much better take on what I'm saying can be found in the book, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change" by Jonah Goldberg.

I still haven't gotten to reading that book in totality; but, think it's a novel perspective than the usual finger pointing of the Nazi platform being on the far-right, which it was not...

Quoting Question

It was highly progressive and obviously socialist in nature.

Quoting Question

I still haven't gotten to reading that book in totality; but, think it's a novel perspective than the usual finger pointing of the Nazi platform being on the far-right, which it was not.

I think of the original Nazi platform as a kind of radical reactionary corporatism. Defined like that, we can avoid the confusions of Left, Right, socialism, liberalism and conservatism.

But the confusions are interesting. We can agree that the Nazis were not conservatives--and yet they were reactionaries, and they got most of their support from traditional conservatives. We can agree that with their social corporatism they were in some way socialist--and yet they were utterly opposed to the workers' movement, to social democracy and to Marxism. We can agree that some liberals and Leftists flirted with fascist ideas and that fascism was influenced by some Left-wing ideas--and yet most of the Left was engaged in fighting against fascism; in Germany the biggest enemies of the Nazis were the Communists and Social Democrats and their trade unions.

It turns out that one can make a case both that the Nazis were on the Left, and that they were on the Right. But the latter case is truer, I think. They were exuberantly reactionary, making them Rightists by almost any definition. They wanted a return to the days of glory and an end to the political and social innovations of the Enlightenment. Goebbels in 1933 said "the year 1789 is hereby abolished". Democracy, liberty and egalitarianism were to the Nazis part of a spreading disease that culminated in social democracy and Marxism. This had to be stopped, beginning with the nullification of the Weimar Republic and everything it stood for, and its replacement with a confident new spirit of strength, unity and racial purity.

Don't allow American politics to make you forget that the Right is as prone to authoritarianism as the Left.



From what I can tell, Goldberg's book might suffer from viewing the past through the lens of American politics--and I'm guessing he's trying to score points against liberals--but it does look interesting. I often hear people on the Left say that fascism had nothing to do with the Left and that National Socialism had nothing to do with socialism. It's a bit like the claim that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. But the opposite claims are no better: the truth is somewhere in between.

Reply to Question Reply to Question Jonah Goldberg's intent is not academic -- he even says as much in the beginning of the book -- but political. Rather than elucidating fascism he is arguing against a cultural meme that the right of the USA is fascist, and that the liberal left is anti-fascist, by going back into the history of fascism, finding progressive liberals who defended fascism as a good thing, and drawing parallels between the fascist program and progressive liberals today.

What this misses is Paxton's insight -- that fascism wins adherents by using the language of the left, that they are motivated by similar ills, but:

[quote=Paxton, p 14 -- 15]... the methods of intellectual history become much less helpful beyond the first stage in the fascist cycle. Every fascist movement that has rooted itself successfully as a major political contender, thereby approaching power, has betrayed its initial antibourgeois and anticapitalist programs. The processes to be examined in later stages include the breakdown of democratic regimes and the success of fascist movements in assembling new, borad catch-all parties that attract a mass following across classes and hence seem attractive allies to conservatives looking for ways to perpetuate their shaken rule. At laster stages, successful fascist parties also position themselves as the most effective barriers, by persuasin or by force, to an advancing Left and prove adept at the formation, maintenence and domination of political coalitions with conservatives. But these political successes come at the cost of the first ideological programs. Demonstrating their contempt for doctrine, successfully rooted fascist parties do not annul or amend their early programs. They simply ignore them, while acting in ways quite contrary to them. The conflicts of doctrine and practice set up by successful fascist movements on the road to power not only alienate many radical fascists of the first hour; they continue to confuse many historians who assume that analysing programs is a sufficient tool for classifying fascisms. The confusion has been compounded by the persistence of many early fascisms that failed to navigate the turn from the first to the second and third stages, and remained pure and radical, though marginal, as "national syndicalisms"
[/quote]


Goldberg's interest is not in understanding fascism. It's in flipping a cultural script within the United States -- one that is partially manufactured, since his characterization of the progressive left is largely based off of memes and cultural feelings -- so that the right is not fascist, but the left's roots are, because fascism seeks to change society.

But the change of progressive politicals, the change of Marxists, the change of the Left differs markedly from the change sought by fascism. In addition, it is impossible to separate out the intellectual notions of fascism from the historical events of fascism. This is where we get to see the real impact of fascism. In particular it is noteworthy that fascists were not coherent. They were populists -- and so they would have to ally themselves with the working class at some point, just as they had to ally themselves with the conservative forces at another point. They wanted to fuse the classes into one structure, the state, and by that method overcome class divisions. This isn't even close to bread-and-butter progressive politics.

((EDIT: It's worth noting that Goldberg is a senior editor for the National Review, -- given this position it makes sense that his aims are more political than academic, so seeking to learn about the nature of fascism from his book is a poor decision. He's talking american politics more than he's talking about fascism in that book))

Quoting Question

I think I have said this before and I'm not afraid of saying it again; but, if you leave out the parts about killing all the Jews and invading Poland, what specifically about the Nazi political platform do you disagree with?

Robert Paxton says that fascism is best described by what it does, rather than what it's program is.

If we leave out killing all the Jews and invading Poland (and everybody else) we are still left with a pretty unpleasant mess.

Central to fascism was the führerprinzip. There was nothing representative or democratic about the Nazis. They used severe social conditions as a lever while they bullied, mauled, beat, imprisoned, and in general coerced gentile Germans into obedience. The German people were the first and continued object of Nazi terror, all the way up to the total collapse and surrender of Germany.

Yes, there were a number of very large concentration camps to which Jews and other undesirables were sent before they were transferred into either work-until-dead camps or gassing operations. There were a lot more concentration camps used to pacify German citizens who were either unreliable from the get go, or who gave evidence of losing their enthusiasm for the Nazi enterprise as time went on.

True enough, the Nazi state performed the usual functions of the state. But that isn't exculpatory. The state was operated in the usual way to facilitate the aims of the party which were, in a word, insane.

I think we need to distinguish more clearly that fascism and nazism are two different ideas and movements. They entered into an alliance, but the prototypical fascism of Mussolini's Italy, and later of Franco's Spain - which survived long after the 2nd world war, Spain was still fascist when I was a young man - is quite a different beast from Nazism. It's fiercely Statist, nationalist, reactionary in that it upholds existing class systems (whereas Nazism for instance was not so clearcut about class, because it thought 'race' was everything), finds strong support in the Catholic Church in Catholic countries.

Reply to mcdoodle Good points. It seems like Paxton was saying that fascism is more about what it does, and less about a specific ideology. So Germany, Spain, and Italy could indeed all be fascist, but be quite different.

On the other hand, nobody has accused the USSR of being fascist (that I know of) but life under Stalin's government wasn't entirely unlike life under Hitler's government Life under Franco and Mussolini may not have been as good as the UK or France, but it wasn't as bad as Hitler's rule.

Here's a quote from the other forum, fresh off the press:

[i]Hi. I'm basically philosophically illerate.
I wanted to know of conservative philosophers. Books and arguments I can look up that defend the following stances:

-Family values
-Honoring traditions
-Respecting and accepting authority at almost all cases
-Patriotism
-Defense of an authoritarian, iron fist state

I was just wondering.[/i]

RESPONSE:

-Family values
-Honoring traditions
-Respecting and accepting authority at almost all cases
-Patriotism
-Defense of an authoritarian, iron fist state

These are not exactly "conservative" values as much as they are characteristic of "fascist" values. Very conservative politicians touch on some of these, like family values, but they generally don't do that much to actually promote families. Ditto for patriotism and traditions.

How so?

Fascism, especially in the defense of an authoritarian iron fisted state and accepting authority automatically, doesn't rely on philosophical support at all. Fascists are generally uninterested in philosophy and intellectualism, and intellectuals generally don't do well under fascist rule. So, what does fascism rely on?

Ritual, emotion, rhetoric, the iron fist, obedience, violence. Take a look at the Nuremberg Rallies which the Nazi's organized. They featured torch-light parades of troops, music, elaborate ritual, the display of fascist symbols, and so forth. Quite impressive. They weren't all at night, of course. Stirring speeches were given by Adolf Hitler and others. As one philosopher observed, "the preferred aesthetic of the fascist is war." Violence. Mussolini said "I am fascism." In my person I define what it is. In Germany, it was "The Fuhrer can not be wrong." Fascists follow the Maximum Leader. He (it would always be a he) does not need the help of philosophy because HE defines fascism in his person.

Now, authoritarianism isn't automatically anti-philosophy. Stalin was an authoritarian, but he wasn't a fascist. His regime wasn't much nicer than Hitler's (it was a bit better) but Stalin very much was in favor of philosophy. One might not like his philosophy, but he believed in it enough to write a lot of texts trying to square his policies with Marx and Lenin. His rule didn't depend on the success of his philosophizing. Even his friends who liked his philosophical writings could end up getting shot. Stalin was a paranoid personality. The USSR is lucky to have survived him. The Communist Chinese Regime under Mao Zedong was authoritarian too, and pretty violent. They weren't fascist either. Not nice, but not fascist.

There is a discussion at the THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM you might find helpful: thephilosophyforum.com/disc...or-kicks-debate-fascism/p1 .

At the link you'll find quite a bit of good information and some references to books that explain this further. Check it out. And welcome to Philosophy Forum, and you'll be welcome at THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM as well.

Debating fascism these days has a different role as to debate other political ideologies. The reason is that it's simply dead.

There are no actual true proponents of fascism. There are just a ton of accusations of this or that being a fascist or having fascist tendencies. Even the hard core communist you can still find, but not a genuine fascist that would be a credible political actor (The neonazi subculture isn't a serious political movement). Hence the debate about the fascism is so different. An easy topic, an easy term to use to descredit somebody or simply to use as a swearword.

In the 20th Century when still these collective ideologies (that turned so violent and such utter failures) had firm believers in their triumph and genuine support even in the intellectual circles, hence it was a bit different. Then fascism, nazism or communism were seen in a totally different light.

Outstanding examples of fascist governments may be dead, right now, but fascism itself emerged out of nothing much a little before 1920. By 1930 it was in full swing in a number of countries.

Yes, neo-naziism is not a viable political movement at the moment. It strikes me mostly as some sort of weird psycho-sexual costume party.

But... that said, there is always the possibility of it's reappearance, not motivated by the conditions of the early 20th century, and not using quite the same rhetoric. The next fascism will be new fascism and not just reheated left overs.

True enough, "fascist" is an epithet a good share of the time. One should not throw it around loosely, not because somebody will be insulted, but because one should use an epithet like "fascist" with some precision. (Not all epithets need to be used precisely. "Bastards" for instance can have their biological father as father-in-fact. Assholes are not literally anuses.)

Reply to Bitter Crank The dictatorship of North Korea seems to be in line with fascism. By breaking ranks with more "traditional" Marxism, Juche ended up with a personality cult and extreme nationalism...which is suspiciously similar to the fascism of the Europeans during the former half of the twentieth century.

Quoting ssu

The reason is that it's simply dead.

Islamic fascism is alive and well.

I came across this article today: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism

Reply to Moliere Thanks. The article provides a good taxonomy of what is fascist and what is right-wing populist. Trump is the latter and not the former.

We all use terms rather loosely. I don't think that someone who says they don't like Islam is a bigot. People who would prefer to not have 1,000,000 more Moslem immigrants in the coming year are neither necessarily bigots, racists, nor xenophobic. They may well not want 1,000,000 more immigrants of any description. We don't accuse atheists that dislike Christianity, Judaism, or Islam "bigots" or "racists" or xenophobics. Why should Moslems, Jews, or Christians that don't like their associated religionists be automatically called bigots or racists (unless they have exhibited actual bigotry, hatred, or racial discrimination) or xenophobic?

I disapprove of lax control of borders and do not feel 10,000,000 Mexicans and Central Americans have earned a right to be here just because they managed to get here by evading border and passport control. About 1/5 of my block neighbors are Mexican or Central Americans and they make fine neighbors, to the degree that anybody makes (or doesn't make) fine neighbors. But 10,000,000 low to moderately skilled workers who find our low wages still better than their home-countriy's low wages has disrupted the labor market for low and moderately skilled Americans. I just don't see anything right about that. I don't think that makes me xenophobic, racist, bigoted, or right wing.

I don't especially like a lot of things -- I don't think I'm obligated to, for instance, like Bollywood movies, rap music, muzak, highly spiced food, eating insects, fundamentalists--whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Islamic, thugs, fat people in spandex***, people who can't take their eyes off their phones, women who wear intense, (insect-killing) perfume, reckless drivers, dog shit on the sidewalk, and more besides.

I wouldn't vote for Trump just because he promises to ban spandex on fat people***. It's a laudable goal, but not worth a vote. I won't vote for him just because we might agree about illegal immigration, either.

***I am both too fat and too old for spandex. It is justly a fabric for slim youth.

Donald Trump is a right-wing populist surfing on the newest version of the "Red Scare" in the US, which has reached the hysteria phase (that is the fear of Islamist extremism, which basically turns into fear of muslims). What his true impact is that such speech will be acceptable and favoured in American politics in the future.

Now that might open a door for something that really is equivalent to real fascism later, when some American politician has the brilliant idea that the problems in the country cannot be corrected because of democracy. But that still won't be totally in the traditional mold fascism, simply because nobody is likely to say that they are for fascism. Because it is a swearword.

Yet if some Americans love Trump, then on the other hand some Americans love Bernie Sanders. They aren't opposites, but still.

In the end Trump is a capable rodeo clown (and with a rodeo a clown I mean the American equivalent of a matador), which the American audience loves (those that like rodeo, anyway). In a way he's the republican version of George McGovern in the 1972 elections, now only in the totally opposite camp, but with the likely consequences for the Republican party. Because what is sure that Trump won't stop here with his outrageous remarks.

Btw, people that are responsible of US foreign policy will surely just love if Trump truly would get into office. Because Trump obviously as a former GOP commentator & hang around personality like Sarah Palin cannot think or doesn't care that his populist remarks to US voters could have other effects too. I could not image that even a GOP candidate could get a condemnation of his views from France, the UK (which had a hugely popular petition with over half a million signatures given to the Parliament about banning Trump from UK) and even condemnation from Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel (which Trump felt was inappropriate, but was OK with, and hence Trump decided to dump his visit to Israel). The Israeli Haaretz aptly called "Trump's anti-Muslim outrage makes him (Abu Bakr) al-Baghdadi's useful idiot", which is totally correct.

(Seldom does a Parliament of one country debate a candidate from another country, with the administration giving such remarks like this of a potential future President:)


Great start for the possible next "Leader of the Free World".

Quoting Thorongil

Islamic fascism is alive and well.

Ah, Dubya's term Islamofascism! I would think that Islamism is a bit different.

Reply to ssu Islamism is the term for a purely fascist enterprise, hence they are interchangeable, as I see it. I know nothing about whether Bush coined it. I don't care about him, except insofar as I think he was right on principle regarding Iraq and the dangers of Islamofascism.

Quoting Thorongil

Islamism is the term for a purely fascist enterprise, hence they are interchangeable, as I see it.

The term Islamism dates from the 18th Century. Fascism doesn't.

Islamism, basically the idea that the state should be organized by the principles of Islam, having Sharia law and where the state and religion are same. Basically that is the objective of Islamism is a theocratic state (with both Shias and Sunnis). And those kinds of states have existed before the Iranian Revolution, for example in history as the Ottoman Empire, just to give an example. The Ottoman Empire had a system where the political and religious leader was the Sultan and the state's primary responsibility was "to defend and extend the land of the Muslims and to ensure security and harmony within its borders within the overarching context of orthodox Islamic practice and dynastic sovereignty". The fact that these loonies like the IS want a Caliphate actually has a logic... to that old power that was destroyed by the Mongols. The Iranian theocracy is a bit different, but I would still consider it to be Islamist.

Now you might say that the above is fascist. But fascism is reaction against communism and the problems, real or imagined, in the democratic system of the early 20th Century. A better word would be in my view totalitarian / authoritarian, than fascist.

Reply to Thorongil I'd recommend reading the article I posted a bit ago. I don't think the two are even roughly congruent. They seem to be quite at odds with one another, in fact.

Reply to ssu
The problem with totalitarian/authoritarian, at least as I see it, is that all states are totalitarian/authoritarian. They impose certain values and ways of life upon anyone within a geography. They just have different values.

Quoting ssu

But fascism is reaction against communism and the problems, real or imagined, in the democratic system of the early 20th Century

I already knew the history you described before this quote, while this quote seems to be your definition of fascism. In that case, I would merely point out that Islamism is squarely against both communism and democracy as well, so you've made a distinction without a difference.

Reply to Moliere About Trump? I agree he's not a fascist, technically speaking, though he has made fascist sounding remarks from time to time.

Reply to Thorongil But using said criteria, I don't think you could classify militant Islam in the same category.

Reply to Moliere Okay, let's see, then:

Fascism rejects democracy - So does Islamism.

Fascism emphasizes violence for its own sake - Militant Islamism most certainly does this.

Fascism is anti-individualist - Islamism is anti-individualist too; it wants everyone to belong to a worldwide ummah and to be under Shariah Law.

Fascism doesn't really have much to do with economics - Neither does Islamism; Islamic caliphates of the past simply collected taxes and left maintenance of the economy to local governors; IS today is an "economy" based on theft, much like the Third Reich.

Reply to Thorongil Militant Islam doesn't reject democracy as the problem, though -- Militant Islam as practiced by IS is based in an older world idea which predates the wide acceptance of democracy. Fascism, on the other hand, does.

Militant Islam does not emphasize violence for its own sake. It practices jihad, but that has a purpose greater than the violence itself.

I agree that Militant Islam is anti-individualist. With the latter as well.


Militant Islam is medieval Sunni society attempting to be reborn in the world today. That is a kind of throwback, but not to a mythologized past as much as to a past that had existed prior to centuries of Islamic interpretation and growth (in number, spiritually, and in time). So it is a kind of anachronism, but it's not the same sort of historical myth that Fascism builds.

The biggest difference, I think, are the views on the state. Militant Islam wants to establish a Caliphate, but this is theological significance. The state, or empire, is a tool, rather than "an organic entity" which can and must be purified for its own sake. Fascism establishes the state as its religion, where imperial theologies establish states for the sake of God.

Quoting Moliere

ilitant Islam doesn't reject democracy as the problem, though -- Militant Islam as practiced by IS is based in an older world idea which predates the wide acceptance of democracy. Fascism, on the other hand, does.

This is to split hairs, it seems to me. They both reject democracy, ergo they have this in common.

Quoting Moliere

Militant Islam does not emphasize violence for its own sake. It practices jihad, but that has a purpose greater than the violence itself.

Fascism too has a goal beyond merely glorying in violence, but I think the point is that much of the violence is gratuitous; it's often done with genuine pleasure and deliberateness, whether it's necessary to achieve said goal or not.

Quoting Moliere

Militant Islam is medieval Sunni society attempting to be reborn in the world today. That is a kind of throwback, but not to a mythologized past as much as to a past that had existed prior to centuries of Islamic interpretation and growth (in number, spiritually, and in time). So it is a kind of anachronism, but it's not the same sort of historical myth that Fascism builds.

It seems pretty similar to me. The Nazis, for example, were trying to return to a Pagan Germanic world which existed before the advent of Christianity.

Quoting Moliere

The biggest difference, I think, are the views on the state. Militant Islam wants to establish a Caliphate, but this is theological significance. The state, or empire, is a tool, rather than "an organic entity" which can and must be purified for its own sake. Fascism establishes the state as its religion, where imperial theologies establish states for the sake of God.

I see you making my own point for me here. Yes, the state and religion are one in the case of European fascism and Islamofascism. To speak of the state or its religion in fascism is to speak of the same thing, and it is indeed sought for its own sake.

Quoting Thorongil

This is to split hairs, it seems to me. They both reject democracy, ergo they have this in common.

Feudal France also rejected democracy. The parallel is in passing, though -- the reasoning why they reject democracy makes a difference, and is not merely splitting hairs.

Quoting Thorongil

Fascism too has a goal beyond merely glorying in violence, but I think the point is that much of the violence is gratuitous; it's often done with genuine pleasure and deliberateness, whether it's necessary to achieve said goal or not.

I would say that this is just human nature more than ideology. Violence against one's enemies is pleasurable, especially in the context of war. War is genuinely pleasurable in its own way, even for a society that tends to reject war-like values, for the soldiers in the war.

That isn't to say that this is a virtuous aspect of humanity -- I'd say it's the opposite -- but it's also the case. War gives people meaning and pleasure.

Quoting Thorongil

It seems pretty similar to me. The Nazis, for example, were trying to return to a Pagan Germanic world which existed before the advent of Christianity.

Except their version of history has no basis. It was pure mythology. I'd say there's a difference between anachronism and myth.


Quoting Thorongil

I see you making my own point for me here. Yes, the state and religion are one in the case of European fascism and Islamofascism. To speak of the state or its religion in fascism is to speak of the same thing, and it is indeed sought for its own sake.

But this is not the case with militant Islam. The state is a tool. No fascist worth there salt would look at the state as a mere tool to something greater.



I had this cool video pop up in my twitter feed: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10240188/isis-history-background-qaeda a six minute history on ISIS.

Quoting Moliere

Feudal France also rejected democracy. The parallel is in passing, though -- the reasoning why they reject democracy makes a difference, and is not merely splitting hairs.

The parallel I wish to advance on this point about anti-democracy is but one pillar on which to base the claim that Islamism is fascistic in orientation.

Quoting Moliere

I would say that this is just human nature more than ideology.

I would agree with you, but "more than" does not mean it doesn't form a part of said ideology.

Quoting Moliere

Except their version of history has no basis. It was pure mythology. I'd say there's a difference between anachronism and myth.

Ah, but the Islamist's view of history is equally mythological, and especially IS's view of history.

Quoting Moliere

But this is not the case with militant Islam. The state is a tool. No fascist worth there salt would look at the state as a mere tool to something greater.

To this I must say a thousand times no. The state is the summum bonum and indeed the raison d'etre for the Islamist, militant or not. This is what IS and countless other Islamists are toiling to create right now. Not until they have created a state governing the whole world according to Shariah Law will they be satisfied.

Quoting Thorongil

Ah, but the Islamist's view of history is equally mythological, and especially IS's view of history.

Care to explain more? I don't see how this is the case, though I could certainly be wrong.

Quoting Thorongil

To this I must say a thousand times no. The state is the summum bonum and indeed the raison d'etre for the Islamist, militant or not. This is what IS is toiling to create right now. Not until they have created a state governing the whole world according to Shariah Law will Islamists be satisfied.

I'd say here is where we disagree the most, then. Governing the world isn't the goal. The apocalypse is.

I might also simply say that I have no vested interest in establishing with certainty the identity between Islamism and fascism. I merely wish to assert that the term "Islamofascism" is not some flippant, utterly inaccurate conjoining of two ideologies. They have enough similarities, as I see it, that using the term is permissible. The only way to object to its use would be to claim that fascism is an inherently 20th century European phenomenon, which I don't find that it is.

Quoting Moliere

Care to explain more? I don't see how this is the case, though I could certainly be wrong.

The various Islamic caliphates of the past were not anything near the utopias they imagine them to be. Islamists would also be surprised and appalled at certain facts about these regimes. Take Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire, for example. He had Hindu wives and maintained cordial relations with the West.

Quoting Moliere

I'd say here is where we disagree the most, then. Governing the world isn't the goal. The apocalypse is.

The two amount to the same thing, since we can be fairly certain that an apocalypse won't happen as described in Islamic eschatology.

Quoting Thorongil

The various Islamic caliphates of the past were not anything near the utopias they imagine them to be. Islamists would also be surprised and appalled at certain facts about these regimes. Take Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire, for example. He had Hindu wives and maintained cordial relations with the West.

Akbar the Great comes much later in the history of Islam, though. ISIL, to my understanding, is referring back to the 600-700's. Hence, an anachronism, but not mythic.

They may have false beliefs and hopes based off of falsity, and they are clearly not historically literate because anyone who takes a historical viewpoint would, well, avoid anachronisms.

But that's still different from the wholesale mythic Fascisms which have no basis in reality. They weren't even false.

Quoting Thorongil

The two amount to the same thing, since we can be fairly certain that an apocalypse won't happen as described in Islamic eschatology.

In terms of effects, perhaps -- well, not even then, because the fascists were better at fighting wars and playing politics -- but as far as ideology goes I would say that the falsity of this belief differs from the point I'm making. Namely, that their beliefs about the state marks the two political movements as significantly different.


It may just be a matter of opinion, as you point out in your previous post that you're justifying the use of the portmanteau as good enough, but I suppose I see the conflation is unhelpful and inaccurate. While neither is a desirable society to live in I don't see the motives behind fascism as the same as the motives behind militant Islam, nor do I see the ideological aspects as the same.

Quoting Moliere

I don't see the motives behind fascism as the same as the motives behind militant Islam, nor do I see the ideological aspects as the same.

Fair enough. I won't belabor the point. But at least you will know some of the reasons why I use the term, if you see me use it in the future.

What do you think are the primary reason why a fascist/totalitarian government is bad?

A dictator has complete control, so if they go off the deep end, everyone else and their mothers are screwed.

Also, a dictator cannot possibly do everything by him/herself, so they need a bureaucracy to help them out. In which case, this mitigates the advantage of having a powerful leader.

Independent thinkers will always be ostracized within fascist communities.

Fascism works in the short term, when people are scared or fed up with something. It thrives on destructive emotions. I believe Mussolini himself said war should be a fundamental part of the fascist state.

But after a while, people are going to get tired. The state will lose its momentum, and then will have to crack down on its citizens using violence and coercion.

Reply to Thorongil Fascism doesn't have a long history (it was hatched in 1919 in Italy) and it is decidedly anti-intellectual. Consequently, there is no development of "fascist theory". Fascism is as fascism does.

Below are some characteristics of fascism, according to Stanley G. Payne. I underlined those that I think apply to Islamist "fascists".

• It is antiliberal, anticommunist, and anticonservative. It will ally with other groups for convenience, and destroy them later.

• mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships
• Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional and mystical aspects
• Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance
• Exaltation of youth above other phases of life
• Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command

• Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture
• Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models
• Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
• Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use violence and war
• The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powersFrom Wikipedia; searched for "minimal definition of facism"

The Islamic State or Boko Haram or Al-Qaeda... are not prototypical fascist movements like those of Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco, but they have some strong semblences of fascism.

Quoting Thorongil

I might also simply say that I have no vested interest in establishing with certainty the identity between Islamism and fascism. I merely wish to assert that the term "Islamofascism" is not some flippant, utterly inaccurate conjoining of two ideologies. They have enough similarities, as I see it, that using the term is permissible. The only way to object to its use would be to claim that fascism is an inherently 20th century European phenomenon, which I don't find that it is.

Here also I have to disagree with you and agree with Moliere.

For Islamists religion come before anything else, for fascists the state came first. The Fascist state is nationalistic, the Islamist state isn't, it doesn't start from a similar view of people and a nation state. For the fascist state religion is just a tool for the state to control alongside others, while for the Islamists the state is just a tool for religion.

Also one has to note that fascism was a Western ideology, and basically Islamism starts from the idea that the Muslim community has gone wrong when it has started to mimick Western ideologies. Note that for example the secular socialism, Ba'athism, was the ideology of the ruling parties both in Syria or Iraq, and hence were the enemy of the Islamists. I would say that the Ba'ath ideology, a blend of Arab nationalism, pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, secularism and anti-imperialism with an objective of an one-party state uniting all Arabs is far more of a fascist enterprise than Islamism. Islamism seeks to unite all Muslims, not just Arabs. And let's remember that the two countries were the Ba'ath party achieved power are marked are perfect examples of dictatorship.

I think it's perhaps very difficult to understand from our secular point of view just what kind of defining role religion and religious objectives have played in history. We tend to think that the reference to religious aspects has just been window dressing for secular political gains. That many times isn't the case, especially when you look at history.

Quoting Thorongil

The various Islamic caliphates of the past were not anything near the utopias they imagine them to be. Islamists would also be surprised and appalled at certain facts about these regimes. Take Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire, for example. He had Hindu wives and maintained cordial relations with the West.

For me though this is an example of how a term like 'islamofascist' is more descriptive of the society generating the term than of the movement it's trying to describe. Akbar introduced a quasi-Persian society into his rule. The Sunnis who form Al-Qaeda and ISIL don't think of someone like Akbar as any kind of hero, and the Shi'ites reciprocate: Iran is as anxious to eliminate ISIL as 'the West' is.

Yet the term islamofascist was widely used in the United States about *Iranians* for a period when Ahmenijad was running things there and occasionally dripping anti-Jewish venom.

There are many sorts of Islam about. For myself, I don't think of any of them as resembling fascism in any meaningful way. People will use the words they feel like using, but 'islamofascist' denotes to me an undifferentiated fear of Islam when that religion is allied with State power, and the word is a poor description of any of the political movements currently holding sway.