Did Fascism ever gel into a coherent ideology?
Marx's Kapital was first published in 1867, but it wasn't until 1917, fifty years later, that the first communist state came into existence. This means that Marxist thinkers had fifty years to iron out the details and produce a relatively consistent package of ideas to which most Marxists adhere.
In contrast, the first stirrings of fascist thought showed up during WW1 with thinkers like Gabriele D'Annunzio and Enrico Corradini, while Mussolini's March on Rome took place in 1922. This means that fascism as an ideology had less than ten years to develop from a vague intellectual movement to a coherent, practical political ideology.
Did fascists actually know what they were fighting for, or was it more of an emotional outburst against failure in WW1 and the rise of the left?
Is it really necessary for an ideology to simmer for 50 years before it can become an ideology? I really don't think so. All that's necessary is that a political movement attach itself to it. Socialism was an ideology at least as early as 1848 if we count the Paris Commune as a political movement with an ideology, and while socialism isn't identical to Communism I think you're giving Marx too much credit in the development of an ideology that, as you note, didn't coalesce into a proper state till he was long dead. Fascism has roots in the 19th century and even the 18th century that are as valid in fascist thought as Marx is in Communist thought. Communism just managed to win a few more wars than fascism, the success of one ideology over the other (and remember that liberalism came out on top at the end of the 20th century and ultimately beat out both of these competing modes of production and thought) has more to do with the conditions on the ground in the countries they took root in than in the actual content of the ideologies, IMO.
It never did, even after Mussolini's march, no coherent form of fascism developed, if you look at the fascist parties of Europe
The difference between Hitler and Mussolini's fascism is the obvious comparison, but there are the other parties of Europe who never came to power but were organised and existed too
The British Union of Fascists also from socialist roots like Mussolini advocated a corporatist state, with workers voting based on their professions, electing representatives of that profession to represent them, wanting to create a parliament of experts, believers workers should take 50% ownership of any company over a certain size, and that the major state industries would be placed under government control, whilst socially followed the original Italian racial theories based on culture, while taking a reconciliary approach to religion, supporting neither protestantism of Catholicism
The Resist party in Belgium closely followed Nazi lines in both racial theory and economics, however was strictly royalist and supporting the Union of Walloons and the Flemish, while following a devoutly Catholic progam
Fascism seemed to develop into two ideologies, German and Italian. The Italian branch generally resonated with those who came from the left of politics dissatisfied with the political elite and the old guard of politics, putting the economy national prosperity first. The German model was mostly followed by parties that originated in the right like the NDASP and the Rexists, putting nationalism and racial purity as their priorities
Due to the different developments of the the fascist parties in the only countries where they came to power, it left the ideology permanently split
>>548439
>Is it really necessary for an ideology to simmer for 50 years before it can become an ideology?
>socialism is a system of societal organization in which the means of production are under the control of the workers
95% of socialists would be satisfied with the above basic definition of socialism, as would most of their detractors.
Could fascism be summed up in a similarly pithy short sentence that would satisfy both proponents and detractors?
If not, then I would argue that fascism was not a coherent ideology.
It can be done for socialism:
>>548358
That symbol of fascism I read is an ax, is it a ceremonial ax or something? Why is the handle so thick in comparison to the blade?
>>548506
The axe symbolizes the power and protection of the state, and the faggot of sticks represents the people, the act of their being tied together symbolizes unity and unbreakability.
Do this experiment: take a pencil, and use your hands to snap it in half. Now try to do the same with a bunch of pencils held together in a bundle. You will find it impossible. That is what the fasces represents.
>>548506
>an ax
Not quite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
>>548465
So left wing and right wing fscism developed?
>>548483
You just defined Communism, though. Socialism, according to most people who have read a little bit of Marxist theory, is the mode of production preceding Communism in which the ownership of the means of production is transferred to the workers.
Likewise, with fascism, there is controversy about whether or not Nazi Germany was a fascist state operating under a truly fascist ideology, but this is because people who discuss the meaning of fascism, like people who discuss the meanings of socialism or Communism, disagree about details.
Here are a few basic statements of what fascism can involve. It isn't limited to these cases, but most cases yield examples.
>A strong state, embodied in a powerful military
>Nationalization of industries by an ethnic group identified with the nation
>Emphasis on ethnic purity, racial superiority of the national group, and racial inferiority of other groups (Japanese treatment of Manchuria's population)
>Anti-Semitism (although in most analyses this is overblown)
>A rejection of both liberal and Marxist responses to the problems faced by industrial societies in conjunction with the application of a synthetic or other form of alternative mode of production and ideology
>The direction of emotion and power away from the state and those who constitute it toward other groups
Do you want a literal slogan? Like, is that what you want? How about "Blood and soil?" It's basically that simple.
>>548546
>Nationalization of industries by an ethnic group identified with the nation
Nazi Germany did not nationalize any industries.
>Emphasis on ethnic purity, racial superiority of the national group, and racial inferiority of other groups
>Anti-Semitism (although in most analyses this is overblown)
The first was not a major part of Mussolini's thinking, and the second was even less so.
>A rejection of both liberal and Marxist responses to the problems faced by industrial societies in conjunction with the application of a synthetic or other form of alternative mode of production and ideology
Fascist Italy embraced a number of Marxist ideas. Corporatism is essentially a mutated, authoritarian version of Syndicalism.
Don't forget that most of the early fascist thinkers started out as socialists, but after experiencing WW1, rejected internationalism and pacifism in favor of nationalism and militarism.
>>548546
>Here are a few basic statements of what fascism can involve. It isn't limited to these cases, but most cases yield examples.
This is the basic problem with defining a "fascist ideology" - it's basically a grab bag of ideas, not one of which is actually required for fascism.
Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism" is probably the best-known discussion of this.
>Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
>"Blood and soil"
But this isn't a description of the ideology, it's just a slogan. If I didn't know the context I might just as well think it was the rallying cry of agrarian Luddites or something.
>>548576
Again this is why I'd argue two forms of fascism developed in the end
'German' fascism developed by men of the right disillusioned by the war or the aftermath, Adolf Hitler and Leon degrelle, focussing on the nationalistic elements and supporting a form a mutated state capitalism
'Italian' fascism developed by former socialists disillusioned by the war Benito Mussolini, and Oswald Mosley, focussing on the economy or representation of the people, supporting a form of National syndicalism
Fascism was an umbrella term for the reaction to the war and the new poltiics born as a result
Head titles of THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM - BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932):
SPIRITUAL VIEW OF LIFE
THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITION
REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE
FASCIST STATE AS A SPIRITUAL FORCE
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DOCTRINE - EVOLUTION FROM SOCIALISM
REJECTION OF PACIFISM
REJECTION OF MARXISM
REJECTION OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY AS A SHAM AND A FRAUD
REJECTION OF EGALITARIANISM
DEFINITION OF FASCISM AS REAL DEMOCRACY
REJECTION OF ECONOMIC LIBERALISM - ADMIRATION OF BISMARCK
THE FASCIST TOTALITARIAN VISION OF THE FUTURE
THE ABSOLUTE PRIMACY OF THE STATE
>>548576
>Nazi Germany did not nationalize any industries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
I don't think you're correct. Fascism is a multifaceted beast, saying that one fascist state didn't do something doesn't disprove the fact that that something can be grafted onto fascism or has served as an important element of fascist thought in the past.
>The first was not a major part of Mussolini's thinking, and the second was even less so.
It was significant in Germany. it's like you're ignoring every single qualifier I put in my post.
>Fascist Italy embraced a number of Marxist ideas. Corporatism is essentially a mutated, authoritarian version of Syndicalism.
Don't forget that most of the early fascist thinkers started out as socialists, but after experiencing WW1, rejected internationalism and pacifism in favor of nationalism and militarism.
It's like you don't know what
>A rejection of both liberal and Marxist responses to the problems faced by industrial societies in conjunction with the application of a synthetic or other form of alternative mode of production and ideology
means
As >>548597 points out, it's basically a grab bag of ideas, but so are 95% of political movements. We already talked about your assumption that you provided a good definition of socialism. Really, you were just pulling "workers owning the means of production" from the Marxist grab bag. Fascism consciously doesn't go that far.
>>548657
My point is that many of anon's 'basic statements' about Fascism would be disputed by both main strands of fascist thought, and therefore his list cannot be accurate.
>>548358
Except the ideas that went into Fascist thought existed as early as 1900, with the rise of syndicalism and the Italian desire to make their nation "great". While people might cite D'Annunzio, you had intellectuals like Gentile Olivetti, and Panunzio supporting the regime too. Fascism does have a coherent ideology behind it, but people have tended to ignore much of the source material because it's either a. obscure and hard to find and b. in Italian, with translations not readily available.
Fascists had a coherent idea of what they were fighting for, the Italian ones did at any rate. They were fighting to make Italy a great power, whether that was to be done through diplomacy or force of arms (Mussolini enjoyed absolute universal popularity during the Italo-Abyssianian War). As for the rise of the left, the actual likelihood of some massive Communist takeover in Italy similar to the Russian Revolution was low. Fascism was greatly helped by both Italian nationalist, expansionist feelings, and the failure of their country to get sufficiently compensated for its losses in WW1.
>>548674
I don't even know who I'm responding to
>>548358
Fascism was just a more modernised version of Bonapartism.
>>548506
It's called a Fasces. It's where the word Fasc-ism comes from.
>>548691
neither do I
It always bugs me that Fascism/National Socialism's racial theory is hyped up to discredit their very sound economic policies.
Same with how the elite are afraid of Islamic economics so their media organs hype up Daesh and "Islamic" terrorism.
>>548744
>afraid of Islamic economics
>Implying 7th century goat-counting methods are applicable in modern economies
Fuck off, Ahmed
>>549495
Islamic economics seeks to enforce Islamic regulations not only on personal issues, but to implement broader economic goals and policies of an Islamic society, based on uplifting the deprived masses. It was founded on free and unhindered circulation of wealth so as to handsomely reach even the lowest echelons of society. One distinguishing feature is the tax on wealth (in the form of both Zakat and Jizya), and bans levying taxes on all kinds of trade and transactions (Income/Sales/Excise/Import/Export duties etc.). Another distinguishing feature is prohibition of riba (interest). Its pronouncement on use of paper currency also stands out. Though promissory notes are recognized, they must be fully backed by reserves. Fractional-reserve banking is disallowed as a form of breach of trust.
It saw innovations such as trading companies, big businesses, contracts, bills of exchange, long-distance international trade, the first forms of partnership (mufawada) such as limited partnerships (mudaraba), and the earliest forms of credit, debt, profit, loss, capital (al-mal), capital accumulation (nama al-mal), circulating capital, capital expenditure, revenue, cheques, promissory notes, trusts (see Waqf), startup companies, savings accounts, transactional accounts, pawning, loaning, exchange rates, bankers, money changers, ledgers, deposits, assignments, the double-entry bookkeeping system, lawsuits, and agency institution.
>economic model redistributing the wealth of the rich, planning for the benefit of the peasants and strictly prohibiting usury
>not something that the elite are deathly afraid of
Back to CNN, Bobby.
Fascism is a very much discredited ideology in today's world, and understandably so, an engine of thinking that created so much violence and destruction that 2% of the Planet died in the fight against it.
But fascism was developed in most senses, Mussolini's Italy was in control for over 20 years and had economic policies that favored Corporatism, as well as nationalist policies based of the Irredentist movement. Throughout the 20's and 30's, it was a rather well-run European state, and only started to fall apart when military production was kicked into gear, which made the conquests of Ethiopia and Albania necessary to keep the Italian economy afloat with all the resources being plugged into military armament and violent expansion.
But Fascism's core beliefs, while valid and can work in theory, are simply not applicable in a real world setting. The central belief that the main method to give power to the State is through the violent expansion of territory with an overwhelming show of force to project dominance over neighbors will only generate resistance to the cause. An ideology that thrives off having an enemy to defeat makes it short-lived in itself, by either removing the enemy and therefore removing a method to expand the power of the state, or the enemy defeats you and the ideology dies with it.
>>549576
>an engine of thinking that created so much violence and destruction that 2% of the Planet died in the fight against it.
Arguable; the foundation for WWII was laid at the end of WWI and everyone knew it. Fascism just expedited the process by bringing the German war machine up to snuff extremely rapidly.
>But Fascism's core beliefs, while valid and can work in theory, are simply not applicable in a real world setting. The central belief that the main method to give power to the State is through the violent expansion of territory with an overwhelming show of force to project dominance over neighbors will only generate resistance to the cause.
But this goes back to "what is fascism" again, as many thinkers identified as fascist have much more introspective interpretations than the most familiar ones - and Germany in particular had a long history with that sentiment; German peoples were resettled eastwards as far back as the 15th century and Generalplan Ost was present in all but name as far back as the 1890s.
>manly muscle men everywhere
>manly muscle man leader
>focus on military discipline
>symbol is a bundle of sticks
is it just a coincidence?
Fascism was never really more than a new name for the same kind of us vs them ideas that have existed since there were enough people on earth to form two tribes of cavemen. It essentially is the nation-state version of every time someone has said "Those fuckers over there are all losers compared to us for X reason, let's take their stuff.
The way Oswald Mosley interpreted it:
>National Socialism and Fascism in my view are the same Movement, finding different expressions different countries in accord with different national and racial characteristics. For seven years in the Labour Party before founding Fascism in Britain, I fought for a National Socialist Policy in contradistinction to the International Socialism of that Party.
>The main difference is that they are Italian or German and that we are British. From this all other differences follow. Fascism in essence is a national creed finding a different national expression and method in each nation. For this reason, Fascist Movements in' each country vary more than Socialist or Communist Movements, which are international
Oswald Mosley, (1936) Fascism - 100 Questions Asked and Answered
>Existentially . . . interventionism had its own autonomously revolutionary significance, and the war was an occasion for the awakening of forces that were intolerant of bourgeois Italy, forces like the veterans’ movement that nourished Fascism. By rejecting a return to “normalcy” in this climate, these forces changed poles ideologically and oriented themselves towards the Right, towards the ideal of the hierarchical state and the “military nation.”
>in terms of “transcendence.” Here the question arises of the “heroic” or military content, of service as honor and loyalty. . . . We are dealing with a certain ideal high tension that brings us not only beyond hedonistic values (those of simple material well-being) but also eudaimonistic ones (including spiritual well-being). It is a question of how to confront a certain impulse of “self-transcendence” that can be repressed and silenced, but never completely eliminated [without] degrading people into a bovine state.
>The early signs of this crisis are already apparent. They consist of all those forms of blind, anarchic and destructive revolts embraced by a youth that, precisely in the most prosperous nations, notices the absurdity and senselessness of an existence that is socialized, rationalized, materialistic, and dominated by the so-called consumer culture.
>>551022
interesting stuff, probably the biggest area where British Fascism differed from the Italian model, with the British union of Fascist opposing military action
>Our motto is "Britons fight for Britons only." Never again shall conscript armies leave these shores in foreign quarrel. We fight only in defence of the British Empire.
>90. Do you approve of disarmament?: Fascism does not approve of Britain being the one unarmed country in an armed world . . . We are willing to disarm if other nations do the same, and our relative security is not impaired.
im fairly sure you are wrong since fascism didnt just pop out of nowhere but i cant prove it because it was a while ago i had to know it
one thing is for sure, in my country ideologies leading to fascism were taken root in 19th century and it blossomed between the world wars
>>549791
Almost all of the leading Nazis were either gay or had gay experiences, including Hitler
>>548483
Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism
t.
Roger Griffin
>>548546
>nationalization
corporatism =/= nationalization, so no
>ethnic purity, racial superiority
no
You're describing national socialism, a subgroup of fascism and somehow managed to make your description solely the points where national socialism diverges from fascism, its particularities.
Good job.
>>549532
Neat.
When was this ideology created and who supported it?
National Socialism sounds like a very good idea if you remove all the racism, with the nation referring to its' inhabitants rather than a specific majority.
Not Nazism though, very different things.
>>551363
A people are a nation; if you wish for harmony, let like go with like.
>>548358
The bolsheviks did certainly not represent a "consistent package of ideas to which most Marxists adhere", not even among orthodox russian marxists from the time.
>>551363
That would defy the definition of a nation though. So it would just be socialism.
>>549532
Why are you spouting bullshit in a history board anon?
>>551347
Muhammed created it and it was expanded upon by Islamic jurists throughout the years.
It's worth noting that the "elite" still find all sorts of loopholes or just outright ignore it. The mandatory charity for example is often used to purely political ends, such as building mosques in foreign countries (almost no mosques in Europe or America are built with local funds), paying tribute to political patrons, or is just outright ignored.
Ultimately, it ends up restricting the people it's trying to help (The poor/middle class) as the wealthy just do whatever the fuck they want, leaving the poor/middle class holding the bag. Banks don't give out nearly as many loans (because why the fuck would they with no interest) to the poor/middle class, but will then turn around and using western banking give loans to the wealthy/"elite" that are, of course, with interest. If you want to buy an item with a loan, the bank will instead buy it for you and you end up renting it for a fixed period ("We can't loan at interest, but you can rent :^)") which does profit the bank.
It's clever, but needlessly clunky.
>>551381
Well, socialism in todays age generally means.. A rather open society. Open borders, diverse, and stuff.
Rather than something like national socialism, except that John Doe could be black and still be equal as long as he acted the part.
>>551413
>Well, socialism in todays age generally means.. A rather open society. Open borders, diverse, and stuff.
No it doesn't. It never meant that.
Open borders in a Socialist state can't work.
>>551420
>Open borders in a Socialist state can't work.
It doesn't work, that's right.
>>551319
So faggots literally do have mental illness :^)
>>551395
Were these issues obvious in Muhammed's time? Is a debate about this ideology economical or religious in nature among followers?
>>551319
>Almost all of the leading Nazis were either gay or had gay experiences, including Hitler
proofs?
>>548358
Fascism is just a variety of capitalism at best, fuedalism ar worst.
>>551420
>Open borders in a Socialist state can't work.
Why is this?
>>554552
Probably the same reason that open borders never work - if you remove all of the doors from your house, are you going to be surprised when every junkie/roody-poo/etc. in your neighborhood takes advantage of your trust and leaves you in a bombed-out shack full of garbage, feces and graffiti?
Communism always fails spectacularly but fascism has worked a couple times, I'm sure all the cucks on this board will try to explain why their personal version of socialism is perfect but they would also be the first faggots in the Gulags.
>>548682
>Except the ideas that went into Fascist thought existed as early as 1900, with the rise of syndicalism and the Italian desire to make their nation "great".
>MAKE ITALY GREAT AGAIN
>>551334
So by that logic, Donald Trump is a fascist?
>>551334
>t.
>Roger Griffin
What does t mean?
>>555167
it's mongolian for "regards"
https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ideologies/docs/the-palingenetic-core-of-generic-fascist-ideology/index.html
>>554760
>but fascism has worked a couple times
>fascist governments are gone now.
>Every fascist government has launched a war that it couldnt win
>"They worked"
>>555179
>every fascist country has fought against an alliance of the entire more massive liberal and socialist world and lost
Not much been proven senpai
>>555140
yeah, but I'm not sure if you could call Trump ultranationalist. Also, Griffin's definition, while popular for a while, isn't accepted by as many scholars today. The charm of his definition was that he attempted to sum up fascism in a short statement because scholars had trouble doing so until the 1980s
>>555198
>every fascist country has fought against an alliance of the entire more massive liberal and socialist world and lost
>by its own doing, will, and volition.
>Said military conflict and militarism is often central to fascist thinking.
It doesnt work.
>>555291
>often
>once
>>555179
>what is Spain
>>548546
>Anti-Semitism (although in most analyses this is overblown)
Anti-Semitism is not inherent to Fascism, that was just an aspect of German style fascism.
Fascism is a social construct
>the first stirrings of fascist thought showed up during WW1 with thinkers like Gabriele D'Annunzio and Enrico Corradini
But this is wrong.
Fascism originated in the early 1900s in France with people like Maurras and Sorel, and can be traced back even farther to various late 19th century thinkers.
>>548483
Robert Paxton defines it as: Fascism may be defined as a form of political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass- based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elite groups, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Seems about right.
>>557909
A country were a conservative general that was never fascist to begin with (philo-fascist at best), and was just using a not so big fascist party to counter his enemies ideology and give some cohesion to his diverse anti-red coalition. The same general who, once in power, had to progressively abandon fascism and autarky to allow his country to benefit from the international economic growth and start a post-war recuperation that didn't begin to materialize until 20 years had passed since the war (compare to the relatively fast recovery of non-communist Europe after WW2).
>>557942
>Anti-Semitism is not inherent to Fascism
The idea of some "other" that corrupted the nation and has to be purged to achieve national rejuvenation is.
>>558706
Like the bourgeoisie?
>>558709
In some strands of fascism, yes.
>>558706
> The idea of some "other" that corrupted the nation and has to be purged to achieve national rejuvenation is.
Those other are always within the confines of the country itself though, so it'd be those people who work against the interests of the nation. Jews are a simple and easy target with their zionist ideologies, but it could be anyone with foreign interests that becomes the scapegoat. Foreign investors, exporters, bankers all were targeted by fascists.
>>559109
>Muh poor exploited scape goated international bankers and plunderers!
>>559109
>all Jews hold Zionist ideologies
Lol. Look up the Jewish workers bundist league in poland.
>>555179
Yea except they were all pretty much allied with each other and got into a war with democracies/constitutional monarchies and communists because they threatened their interests
>>554388
Fascist are normally very anti capitalist, and very unitary.
I don't know why others think otherwise.
>>558706
Then tell me what this was in Italy.
Also, the fact that Fascists are always against something is not a fallacy.
>>560409
Bolsheviks mainly.
