Split Thread What authoritarian regimes in history could be described as Fascist?

[sackett]

Encouraging disobedience is a fascist thing, in spite of all their blather about discipline. I think that's because under fascism there is no law.

Split from

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=371245

Bad Ideas in War

Posted By: jimbob

 

[sackett]

It was Hitler's genius plan for making sure nobody would topple him. If everybody below him was fighting everybody else beside and below them he was safe.

There I would differ. I think that lawlessness is inherent to fascism. If Mussolini is always right, and if the fuehrer is the law, then only intimidation backed by force remains.

You could argue that 1930s and 40s Japan was not quite or only sort of fascist,* but the Kwantung Army's crazed insubordination was fascoid enough to go on with. It certainly took intimidating force to bring them -- sullen, resentfull, and still reckless -- into line. Russian force, I mean.

* I was once gigged on an exam for not making a sufficient case for de facto Japanese fascism. But I still think that if it goosesteps, allies itself, invades, kills, destroys, and screeches like fascism, that's close enough for government work.

 

[HansMustermann]

Kind of, yeah. It's clear it was modelled on that kind of governments.

 

[sackett]

Kind of, yeah. It's clear it was modelled on that kind of governments.

The worst of the military faction running wartime Japan certainly admired fascism, and on an ordinary day you wouldn't have been able to see any difference. OTOH, Japanese governments changed in a constitutional manner. (You could argue that Musso finally fell because the little king fired him constitutionally, but then Benny was arrested, in a manner that sure looked like a coup.)

It took a self-administered bullet to bring the Hitler era to a close.

 

[HansMustermann]

The 30's and 40's Japanese culture is worth a whole thread, or possibly tome of its own. Well, Japanese culture in any era, from Heian to present day. (Dunno much before Heian era.) Not entirely the same as in Europe, at the very least. And yes, the whole period, up to the surrender, ties into that peculiar culture. And their constitution was slightly, but significantly, different, as I mentioned before.

So, yes, you are right on all counts. Just... we haven't even started to scratch the surface of that oddity.

 

[Wudang]

I can appreciate that. I did a module on differences in European and Japanese psychology as part of my degree.

 

[Klimax]

I can appreciate that. I did a module on differences in European and Japanese psychology as part of my degree.

Out of curiosity who did you include on Europe side?

 

[Wudang]

Out of curiosity who did you include on Europe side?

It was only about 6-8 lectures in the dim past. It was obviously very high level and as you'd expect in a UK university in the 1980's it assumed the students were the norm. It did cover things like shame/guilt cultures, honne and tatame and such. It was one of the things that got me interested in other cultures.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

There I would differ. I think that lawlessness is inherent to fascism. If Mussolini is always right, and if the fuehrer is the law, then only intimidation backed by force remains.

You could argue that 1930s and 40s Japan was not quite or only sort of fascist,* but the Kwantung Army's crazed insubordination was fascoid enough to go on with. It certainly took intimidating force to bring them -- sullen, resentfull, and still reckless -- into line. Russian force, I mean.

* I was once gigged on an exam for not making a sufficient case for de facto Japanese fascism. But I still think that if it goosesteps, allies itself, invades, kills, destroys, and screeches like fascism, that's close enough for government work.

To be honest all authoritarian governments trend towards a bunch of lawless idiots backstabbing each other for power.

 

[HansMustermann]

Sorta, but some didn't even bother hiding it. As I was saying, for the nazis it was right in their ideology

 

[jimbob]

Sorta, but some didn't even bother hiding it. As I was saying, for the nazis it was right in their ideology

Yup, a feature not a bug

 

[ahhell]

There I would differ. I think that lawlessness is inherent to fascism. If Mussolini is always right, and if the fuehrer is the law, then only intimidation backed by force remains.

You could argue that 1930s and 40s Japan was not quite or only sort of fascist,* but the Kwantung Army's crazed insubordination was fascoid enough to go on with. It certainly took intimidating force to bring them -- sullen, resentfull, and still reckless -- into line. Russian force, I mean.

* I was once gigged on an exam for not making a sufficient case for de facto Japanese fascism. But I still think that if it goosesteps, allies itself, invades, kills, destroys, and screeches like fascism, that's close enough for government work.

Kind of, yeah. It's clear it was modelled on that kind of governments.

I think it could be argued that by maintaining the fiction of the Emperor it was no longer technically fascist, same for Spain. Fascist tending to be fairly revolutionary and mostly antagonistic to the ancient regimes of the societies they came from. On the other hand, pretty much all fascists governments had a lot of differences with nationalism and authoritarianism being about the only things they had in common. So, why not Japan. And of course they made common cause and were clearly fascist curious. I'd imagine if Tojo thought he could off the emperor, he probably would have.

ETA: I thouht Mussolini had abolished the monarchy, I was wrong so if the original fascist kept the monarchy the imitators could too and still be fascists.

 

[HansMustermann]

I think it could be argued that by maintaining the fiction of the Emperor it was no longer technically fascist, same for Spain. Fascist tending to be fairly revolutionary and mostly antagonistic to the ancient regimes of the societies they came from. On the other hand, pretty much all fascists governments had a lot of differences with nationalism and authoritarianism being about the only things they had in common. So, why not Japan. And of course they made common cause and were clearly fascist curious. I'd imagine if Tojo thought he could off the emperor, he probably would have.

ETA: I thouht Mussolini had abolished the monarchy, I was wrong so if the original fascist kept the monarchy the imitators could too and still be fascists.

Well, in a sense, Japan might be the only one that actually fits Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto the best. It really meant little more than extreme statism, where everything is subsumed to the state and everyone has a duty to the state. I mean, it's the whole ideology that gave it its name, from the fasces that are strong together.

Of course, that's a bit too overarching a definition, that would also for example fit the USSR.

So people have kinda been debating ever since what else is needed in a meaningful definition of fascism.

A common one is the presence of revanchism, or at the very least the idea that they had been done dirty by other powers in the past or present.

Well, I guess no point in writing a whole thesis here, I guess.

 

[ahhell]

Well, in a sense, Japan might be the only one that actually fits Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto the best. It really meant little more than extreme statism, where everything is subsumed to the state and everyone has a duty to the state. I mean, it's the whole ideology that gave it its name, from the fasces that are strong together.

Of course, that's a bit too overarching a definition, that would also for example fit the USSR.

So people have kinda been debating ever since what else is needed in a meaningful definition of fascism.

A common one is the presence of revanchism, or at the very least the idea that they had been done dirty by other powers in the past or present.

Well, I guess no point in writing a whole thesis here, I guess.

Why not!

The feature I like most to identify a particular form of authoritarianism as fascism is the cult of the past. Mussolini's and even Hitlers call back to the Roman Empire or the NAZI's love of ancient Germanness. More or less applies to Baathism's pan arab nationalism and WWII Japan's Emperial cult? Its both revolutionary and conservative in a sense.

 

[HansMustermann]

Why not!

The feature I like most to identify a particular form of authoritarianism as fascism is the cult of the past. Mussolini's and even Hitlers call back to the Roman Empire or the NAZI's love of ancient Germanness. More or less applies to Baathism's pan arab nationalism and WWII Japan's Emperial cult? Its both revolutionary and conservative in a sense.

Well, I'm bored enough to derail my own thread, but... SORTA?

Japan had a sort of an imperial cult all along (as in, it goes back to ANCIENT times), and Shinto was intertwined with Buddhism all along. Plus the revival of Shinto was waay back during the Meiji Restoration, not during their fascist phase. They had the same imperial cult front-and-centre, say, during WWI when they were on UK's and France's side, as well as all through their modernization. They didn't just come up with it in the same way that, say, Germany came up with ancient Germanic religion and general obsession, is all I'm saying. (Though you could argue that the seeds were there.)

IMHO in Japan's case it was more like the revival of an idealized version of Bushido (the ancient warrior code), that was never actually descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) at any point in the past. In fact, some parts of it are downright stupidly unrealistic, and in fact physically and biologically impossible, not just stupidly ahistorical.

So, short version, yes, it was a cult of the past, but a cult of idealized past militarism and duty, rather than an imperial cult that made the difference. (Though again, one CAN make a case for why the latter facilitated the rise of the former.)

Which, actually, does put them more on par with other fascist nations like their Axis allies, so, yeah, you got that connection right. If not the exact details.

Of course, I'm not a professional historian, AND my knowledge of the far east history isn't my forte anyway, so if any Japanese or historian wants to tell me how I'm wrong, please go for it....

 

[HansMustermann]

Why not!

The feature I like most to identify a particular form of authoritarianism as fascism is the cult of the past. Mussolini's and even Hitlers call back to the Roman Empire or the NAZI's love of ancient Germanness. More or less applies to Baathism's pan arab nationalism and WWII Japan's Emperial cult? Its both revolutionary and conservative in a sense.

After some more study, I would say that actually, short version:

1. That was a means to an end, rather than characteristic, and partially therefore, when you understand this point:

2. Japan DIDN'T turn fascist at any point between the world wars.


Long answer:

1. people really should read Mussolini's fascist manifesto, his autobiography, as well as Hitler's Mein Kampf to understand what fascism is and where it comes from. Because they tell you. At great length in Mussolini's case.

In both cases its roots kinda go back to Gustave Le Bon's "Psychology of Crowds". Which basically laid the blueprint for populism. As he notes, politics towards the end of the 19'th century was no longer just something for the elites, but of who can mobilize a bigger crowd by telling them not necessarily the truth, but whatever simplistic emotional myth they want to hear.

Also that when someone starts to identify with a crowd, their thinking actually starts to bend to fit the crowd opinion. Which will come in to be important later. You don't just want to tell those guys those ideas, you have to convince them they're a part of a specific "in" crowd, and not with some "out" crowd(s).

Both Hitler and Mussolini worked hard to figure out how to best pack their ideas for uninformed crowds. Again, they'll tell you that themselves.

But so far we're merely at populism, not yet anywhere near fascism. Other movements used that kind of demagoguery to their own ends, e.g., Marxism. They defined their "in" crowd as the proletariat.

And here we're slowly getting to the difference that defines what fascism IS. (And incidentally why anyone telling you it's a kind of socialism because of the S in NSDAP is not particularly informed.)

Fascism actually rose in opposition to rampaging socialism, and its divisiveness. Also, it was NOT a conservative movement. In fact it was also in opposition of the old aristocratic conservatives, which just divided the country in another way. Or to the old European style of liberalism, which emphasized individualism, so essentially divided the country into a bunch of crowds of 1.

What both Mussolini and Hitler wanted was a myth that united the whole country. Their myth and crowd definition was based around national identity for Mussolini, and around ethnic identity for Hitler. Basically stop defining yourself as proletarian or burgeois, blue blood or pleb, etc, and just think yourself as Italian or respectively German.

Basically they wanted their crowd to be the whole country, or as close as possible or convenient, and the myth they sell to that crowd being the greatness of the nation or respectively ethnic group. It's ultimate populism, really.

The glorifying the past and whatnot was just a means to inflame that nationalistic spirit.


2. Japan DIDN'T turn fascist in the 30's, because basically they had been proto-fascist ever since the Meiji Restoration. It was more like a long slide into the full blown real thing than any particular moment when they switch over

 

[HansMustermann]

Also if any mod wants to split the fascism subthread in its own thread... thanks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Mussolini's Fascism and that of Hitler were different at a basic level though.

in fact, I would go so far as to say National Socialism in Germany wasn't Fascism at all. It was based on the idea of blood ancestry and a hierarchy of purity and breeding.
Fundamentally different to Italian Fascism which didn't have any religious or ancestral bars. For example, Italy only started to make a token effort against Jews on Hitler's insistence after they joined the war and then only in in a half hearted way.

 

[HansMustermann]

Which is why I kept distinguishing between national id and ethnic id for the two. But then we still pretty much end up with both being variants of SOMETHING that comes in reaction to the divisiveness of Marxism (which may not have bothered an everyman on a philosophical level, but they were rioting and causing palpable problems all over the place,) and an "if only we were all united, we'd be so great" panacea, via populism. What you want to call that superclass, is up to you.

 

[HansMustermann]

But, to conclude that long wall of text, here we come to the actual question for most people: how do you know if someone is actually selling his compatriots a fascist ideology?

Turns out it's quite easy, really: when they tell you that everything you should want or do, should be in the interest of achieving the greatness of your nation or ethnic group. Like, don't watch the man behind the curtain, don't mind the elites bending you over a barrel and yanking your pants down, just think you're all in it together to achieve the greatness of the nation or ethnicity.

In fact, there is a quote from a speech that IMHO best encapsulates the core idea of Italian fascism. It's not from WW2. It reads, "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." Yeah, THAT was the essence of everything Mussolini was trying to get across

 

[theprestige]

I would go so far as to say that if it hadn't been for the Hitlerite perversion and all that resulted from it, fascism would be seen in a much more positive light today. Hitler did for fascism what Stalin should have done for communism, but somehow didn't.

Anyway, fascism by any other name... There's a lot of appetite even today for what amounts to statist totalitarianism, across the political spectrum. Complete with the merger of government and industry, thought police, etc. The points of dispute between the totalitarians of the left and of the right is whether politicians or corporations will have the upper hand with industry, and which thoughts will be policed.

 

[HansMustermann]

I would go so far as to say that if it hadn't been for the Hitlerite perversion and all that resulted from it, fascism would be seen in a much more positive light today. Hitler did for fascism what Stalin should have done for communism, but somehow didn't.

That's not even something we have to debate. It's historical FACT. Especially Italian fascism was insanely popular abroad in the '20s and '30s. And remember, Italian fascism had been an ALLY of Britain and France in WW1.

 

[theprestige]

That's not even something we have to debate. It's historical FACT. Especially Italian fascism was insanely popular abroad in the '20s and '30s. And remember, Italian fascism had been an ALLY of Britain and France in WW1.

It's a fact that I think a lot of people overlook, when they condemn "fascism". What they mean is they condemn Hitler's National Socialism, the Holocaust, et al. And I think a lot of the people who condemn "fascism" are actually in favor of statist totalitarianism, but don't realize they have proto-fascist tendencies.

---

Regarding the thread title, I'd say that only industrial and post-industrial regimes are eligible for consideration as "fascist". Both the unification of the state with the means of production, and the manufacturing of a national identity in the modern age of communication, are necessary ingredients.

British Imperialism, while reaching its height in the industrial era, was the apotheosis of a national identity that had evolved more or less organically over centuries. Other forms of late-stage imperialism likewise.

One thing that stops America from being fascist is the resistance of the American population to manufactured national identity. Doesn't stop the two main political parties from trying their damndest to make it work, though.

So I'd describe the Soviet Union as fascist for sure. And I'd describe our current Russian regime as fascist. I might even describe the current Chinese regime as fascist.

 

[HansMustermann]

Kinda... sorta...

It's not that simple. As always when politics are involved.

The USSR was definitely Marxist, not fascist for example, in that it still emphasized its crowd as being the proletariat and peasants, in opposition to the bourgeoisie. And that identity definitely wasn't the national borders of the USSR (see the International Socialist movement.) They explicitly rejected the national or ethnic borders. That's Marxist, not Fascist.

If you want more fascist, in fact even Nazi, as you say, look at the CURRENT Russia and its Russkii Mir (Russian World) concept, trying to define its crowd as the Slav ethnic identity.

 

[ahhell]

But, to conclude that long wall of text, here we come to the actual question for most people: how do you know if someone is actually selling his compatriots a fascist ideology?

Turns out it's quite easy, really: when they tell you that everything you should want or do, should be in the interest of achieving the greatness of your nation or ethnic group. Like, don't watch the man behind the curtain, don't mind the elites bending you over a barrel and yanking your pants down, just think you're all in it together to achieve the greatness of the nation or ethnicity.

In fact, there is a quote from a speech that IMHO best encapsulates the core idea of Italian fascism. It's not from WW2. It reads, "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." Yeah, THAT was the essence of everything Mussolini was trying to get across

I'd argue, along with others, that is why, fascism isn't strictly left or right. Its right in that it is reactionary to socialism and marxism but its left in that it is a kind of socialism, despite folks denying that. It's a very specific and usualyl ethnocentric socialism. Socialism for us but not you. Mussolini more or less created it as a synthesis of Marxism and Nationalism. I'm pretty sure he even used the phrase third way.

Anyrate, I think you could say N. Korea is essentially a fascist state regardelss of what they call themselves, you could call modern China a fascist state, or even the USSR during and after WWII. They are all basically National socialist governments. NAZI Germany had all sorts of sociallisty stuff as long as you were Ayrian enough.

 

[ahhell]

Kinda... sorta...

It's not that simple. As always when politics are involved.

The USSR was definitely Marxist, not fascist for example, in that it still emphasized its crowd as being the proletariat and peasants, in opposition to the bourgeoisie. And that identity definitely wasn't the national borders of the USSR (see the International Socialist movement.) They explicitly rejected the national or ethnic borders. That's Marxist, not Fascist.

If you want more fascist, in fact even Nazi, as you say, look at the CURRENT Russia and its Russkii Mir (Russian World) concept, trying to define its crowd as the Slav ethnic identity.

Sure but they also went full on nationalist and tried very hard to russify everyone under there control. So, not exactly fascism but not exactly marxism as marx would have thought.

ETA, Granted, marx didn't call it marxism, IIRC, he called it scientific socialism which was more solipsism or sophism than scientific.

 

[theprestige]

Kinda... sorta...

It's not that simple. As always when politics are involved.

The USSR was definitely Marxist, not fascist for example, in that it still emphasized its crowd as being the proletariat and peasants, in opposition to the bourgeoisie. And that identity definitely wasn't the national borders of the USSR (see the International Socialist movement.) They explicitly rejected the national or ethnic borders. That's Marxist, not Fascist.

If you want more fascist, in fact even Nazi, as you say, look at the CURRENT Russia and its Russkii Mir (Russian World) concept, trying to define its crowd as the Slav ethnic identity.

The USSR was Marxist-Leninist, which was already a perversion of Marxism. Later it became Stalinist. And always it was fascist in the sense that I mean: Statist totalitarianism.

---

But honestly this aspect of the question doesn't interest me very much - semantic quibbling about whether this or that historical regime was fascist according to each individual's subjective opinion.

What interests me more is how the question can prompt us to think a little more about what we mean by fascism, and what our actual tolerance for (the right kind of) statist totalitarianism might be.

 

[ahhell]

The distinction between Marxism and Fascism is a false dichotomy if you account for marxism in reality. Find a "marxist" state that didn't embrace some form of nationalism over internationalism eventually. Il Duce was right about that at least. workers generally didn't much care about workers elsewhere.

Funny, not many of the lefties in here?

 

[Darat]

I'd argue, along with others, that is why, fascism isn't strictly left or right. Its right in that it is reactionary to socialism and marxism but its left in that it is a kind of socialism, despite folks denying that. It's a very specific and usualyl ethnocentric socialism. Socialism for us but not you. Mussolini more or less created it as a synthesis of Marxism and Nationalism. I'm pretty sure he even used the phrase third way.

Anyrate, I think you could say N. Korea is essentially a fascist state regardelss of what they call themselves, you could call modern China a fascist state, or even the USSR during and after WWII. They are all basically National socialist governments. NAZI Germany had all sorts of sociallisty stuff as long as you were Ayrian enough.

North Korea is a kingdom in the old fashion meaning, it doesn’t have politics. I agree with you that China is a practical example of a fascist state, everything is subsumed to support “the state”,individuals matter little, companies only matter in how they feed the “the state”.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

In history though?
I'd say not many.

Maybe you could make a case for Robespierre France, but that's only the secret police / terror part. The whole controlling all industry just was not possible, nor the total control over the media needed. Fascism is an excess of Nationalism, and that's not actually all that old.

 

[ahhell]

North Korea is a kingdom in the old fashion meaning, it doesn’t have politics. I agree with you that China is a practical example of a fascist state, everything is subsumed to support “the state”,individuals matter little, companies only matter in how they feed the “the state”.

Not wrong, politically, a Monarchy. Economically, weird? As close to fascism or even NAZIism on account of the racism as to communism though.

 

[HansMustermann]

The distinction between Marxism and Fascism is a false dichotomy if you account for marxism in reality. Find a "marxist" state that didn't embrace some form of nationalism over internationalism eventually. Il Duce was right about that at least. workers generally didn't much care about workers elsewhere.

That a "REAL" 100% pure fascist or socialist state ever existed, is irrelevant to what the ideology was. Of course there was no state where 100% of the population believed one ideology. Like, even if I made my ideology be something like "chocolate cakes with whipped cream are tasty", I can assure you I wouldn't get 100% of the population to agree on that, nor get a state actually centred around that any time soon.

Nevertheless, deconstructing which was their crowd and the idea they tried to sell that crowd, there are significant differences.

Funny, not many of the lefties in here?

I'm one. Well, European Social-Democrat, whatever that translates to in US vernacular. Doesn't matter though. Either you make a valid counter-point or not. What I am, whether it's left, right, up, down, backwards or 4'th dimension, doesn't matter.

 

[HansMustermann]

Not wrong, politically, a Monarchy. Economically, weird? As close to fascism or even NAZIism on account of the racism as to communism though.

That's literally as silly as if I said there's no difference between Himmler and Billie Elish, because they're both well dressed

Try to focus on the actual ideology, rather than on spurious associations, really

 

[HansMustermann]

But honestly this aspect of the question doesn't interest me very much - semantic quibbling about whether this or that historical regime was fascist according to each individual's subjective opinion.

What interests me more is how the question can prompt us to think a little more about what we mean by fascism, and what our actual tolerance for (the right kind of) statist totalitarianism might be.

Well, the funny part about people proclaiming themeselves above and against "semantics squabbling" is that "semantics" is all about MEANING. As in, what meaning they CONVEY, which is the only point in having any exchange in the first place. I.e., you're just telling me you're gonna use some words and not care about what they actually MEAN.

I mean I can see a point in railing about, say, lexical/dictionary complaints. Like, if you mis-typed "fascist" as, dunno, say, "facsist" and someone made a fuss about that, I'd give you a pass. Obviously a typo doesn't invalidate what you meant to say. Or if you wrote a sentence Yoda style, that would be a syntax violation, and I'd even give a pass to that, if one can do a best effort to decode the actual message you meant. But railing against semantics is just railing against what words actually mean.

Quoth Shania Twain, "That Don't Impress Me Much"

Come back when you can actually convey a coherent message via those words. NOT when you just want to say those words, 'cause they're cool or make you align with the cool kids.

 

[ahhell]

Then, there has only ever been one fascist state, Italy under Mussolini, everything else was not quite fascism.

 

[Wudang]

Isn't an aspect of Fascism the cult of the leader? Hitler, Mussolini. By that measure would Franco's Spain count? By that metric Putin's Russia would count and maybe Stalin's USSR, I believe on his deathbed Lenin turned against Stalin and worried he'd go for a personality cult.

 

[HansMustermann]

Then, there has only ever been one fascist state, Italy under Mussolini, everything else was not quite fascism.

There is actually a good point to be made about that.

 

[HansMustermann]

Isn't an aspect of Fascism the cult of the leader? Hitler, Mussolini. By that measure would Franco's Spain count? By that metric Putin's Russia would count and maybe Stalin's USSR, I believe on his deathbed Lenin turned against Stalin and worried he'd go for a personality cult.

Kinda, sorta, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not just totalitarianism, it's not just cult of personality, it's a specific flavour where all your interests and actions and whatnot should all be under the category of "what can I do for the glory of STATE?" Not because of stuff like "we're the proletariat". not because anything else, but just because we're all ethnicity or country X.

Stalin's USSR? No, not really, even he never defined his crowd that way.

Putin's "Russkiy mir" ideas... yeah, I could be persuaded that that's Nazism.

 

[ahhell]

There is actually a good point to be made about that.

I agree.

 

[ahhell]

Kinda, sorta, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not just totalitarianism, it's not just cult of personality, it's a specific flavour where all your interests and actions and whatnot should all be under the category of "what can I do for the glory of STATE?" Not because of stuff like "we're the proletariat". not because anything else, but just because we're all ethnicity or country X.

Stalin's USSR? No, not really, even he never defined his crowd that way.

Putin's "Russkiy mir" ideas... yeah, I could be persuaded that that's Nazism.

Don't buy it. What's the State in a communist country? What's the State in the USSR, China, or N. Korea? If you swap "the people" for "the State" is there functionally a difference. I get that you are more interested in the theory of what makes fascism but I don't think that matters as much as the functional reality of various statist systems. Its what makes it so hard to decide what counts as fascism. If its all about theory, then it is only Italy in 1940.