what is fascism?

[mellowtigger]

An urgent and important discussion cannot happen properly on this blog until the word fascism is explicitly defined. A very good history of the term is available at the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and a good explanation of the term is at LiveScience, but here I need a significantly shorter definition.

The ideology has roots going back to the 1800s, spanning from the ultra-progressive Jacobins of the French Revolution to the ultra-conservative anti-rationalists who opposed the Enlightenment. That's quite a range of material to cover. Too much for here, at least. Yet fascism really has only 2 examples known as stereotypical instances: Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany during World War II.

How are these examples characterized? They each grew separately, so there are differences. Italy, for example, initially rejected anti-Semitism while Germany wholly embraced it. But there are some clear similarities.

1. Negation.
It arrives as a strong response/retaliation against something else. It could be anti-liberal, anti-conservative, or anti-communist.

2. Authoritarianism.
It legitimizes national authority over economics or social relationships in order to dominate culture.

3. Populism.
It promotes romantic symbolism, masculinity, youth, charisma, and mass action.

So is fascism essentially a liberal or a conservative phenomenon? From the above definition, it could easily be either. The Nazis themselves introduced one major source of error about the popular interpretation of fascism. Their political party was called, in English, the National-Socialist German Workers' Party. They have Socialism right there in their name, so Nazis must be a liberal group, correct? Wrong. Germans of the time saw that true liberal socialism was growing in popularity, so they decided to wedge themselves into the discussion by appropriating the name. They wanted to be popular, so they took the name of what seemed popular at the time. They called themselves socialists. Their ideology is nothing that any liberal would recognize as benefiting an egalitarian society. Nazis were not simply liberals with too much power, as I sometimes read from Twitter opinions.

A good clarification comes from Madeleine Albright, former Secretary Of State for the USA from 1997 to 2001.

I try to argue that fascism is not an ideology; it’s a process for taking and holding power. A fascist is somebody who identifies with one group — usually an aggrieved majority — in opposition to a smaller group. It’s about majority rule without any minority rights. Which is why fascists tend to single out the smaller group as being responsible for or the cause of their grievances. The important thing is that fascists aren’t actually trying to solve problems; they’re invested in exacerbating problems and deepening the divisions that result from them. They reject the free press and denounce the institutional structures within a society — like Congress or the judiciary. I’d also add that violence is a crucial element of fascism. Whatever else it is, fascism involves the endorsement and use of violence to achieve political goals and stay in power. It’s a bully with an army, really.
- https://www.vox.com/world/2019/2/14/18221913/fascism-warning-madeleine-albright-book-trump

She mentions power and violence, which is good, but so far all of these examples fail to mention money. As a form of power, money is prominent. The use of money was even enshrined as protected activity by the United States Supreme Court in their Citizens United ruling a few years ago, absurdly supposing that every person has equal access to money like they have to an opinion. If ever-growing corporations could influence the decision-makers of legal authority (our politicians), then you'd have a perfect method for wielding fascism. So it seems to me, at least. Mussolini himself said:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
- https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/314092-fascism-should-more-appropriately-be-called-corporatism-because-it-is

Or how about Franklin D. Roosevelt, a former U.S. President who held office during actual global war against fascists:

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
- https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/86216-the-liberty-of-a-democracy-is-not-safe-if-the

If money equals power, then we have to keep a close eye on the accumulation and use of that money, especially in any democracy where the power is supposed to reside in individual persons (and their chosen representatives), not in corporate figureheads. Even author George Orwell, famous for writing that dystopian story, 1984, weighed in:

"By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come. But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."
- http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

How dissatisfying.  If no clear definition is possible, then what are we to make of the word? I propose the following definition of fascism, one which I will use as I continue to discuss fascism in future posts.

Fascism occurs when...

1. power (wealth, authority, or armament)
2. that is concentrated in the authority of a few individuals (via popular nationalism, corporate funnel, cartel, collusion, gerrymander, or religious authority)
3. is used by one group to target a minority group(s) found within their own society
4. in an effort to disenfranchise, exploit, abuse, or outright kill them
5. without objective data supporting that level of comparative threat posed by that minority group
6. and suppressing the study or publication of any such objective data.

I think this more-specific definition still covers Jacobins, anti-rationalists, Mussolini's Italy (maybe only the later version of it), and Nazi Germany.  Do let me know if there's some clear violation here.  I'll need a reliable definition before I explore the next term... anti-fascism.

Comments

[mrdreamjeans]

What a thought-provoking post!

[motherlight]

I just discovered your dw. I also have a restful rescue dog. And I love your idea of calling fascism corporatism.

[bitterlawngnome]

I fear it's a doomed project. People will continue to use the word to smear anyone they disagree with (and thereby tag the surrounding discourse as puerile). I saw a poster yesterday for a "Queer, Trans, 2 Spirit Town Hall ... to discuss combatting TERFS and other fascists". Last time I checked TERFS were themselves an oppressed minority, so the use of "fascists" is just rubbish. But I cannot imagine ppl letting go of it.