Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fascism: A Quick Note
According to George Orwell, whom I am inclined to regard as close enough:
Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini’s Italy, we know broadly what we mean.
My own working definition of Fascism, based upon reading significant early chapters of Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, is a government which, failing to fall neatly into another category, seeks a relationship with children at the expense of those children’s relationship with their parents. Well, it’s been a decade, so we’ll see. Unimaginable, right?
Rather than being a “form of capitalism” (whatever ‘capitalism’ is), I figure that fascism can only arise in a market economy, but does not exist while a free market still exists. The term “Capitalist” is as justified as the term “Anasazi,” and just as welcome by those so called.
To me, it seems that Communism and Fascism are two heresies of Socialism, complete with big government power over everything it wants, including religion, industry, policy, markets, family, education, and so forth. Communism has no religion or markets, whereas Fascism does; Fascism on the other hand, has no alternative religion — rather it identifies itself with an existing religious force. Whatever, it’s all just so much jockeying for power. So adhering to the view that F and C are malignancies of S, and that all of these are leftist problems (“National Socialist,” after all), I think I may have struck upon the difference between Commie Socialists and Fascist Socialists — sharpness.
Communism is a bulldozer, whereas Fascism is a jackhammer. Communism attempts to sweep all into its maw with wrenching philosophic changes — to each according to his need, from each according to his ability, and so forth. Fascism instead co-opts existing structures (built by others) to exert pressure on particular pain points within the body society.
Fascism is acute Communism. Communism is chronic Fascism.
Published in General
That’s not a proof. It seems to be sophistry, to me.
You can disapprove of government redistribution if you wish. It is not the same thing as government ownership of business enterprises.
I appreciate the effort at a reasonable definition. “Fascism” usually seems to be used to vilify anything that the speaker doesn’t like.
Substantively, as to point 2, I disagree with the claim that force should only be used in defense. So I don’t think that I’m “frustrated” with the idea, I just think that it’s wrong. An international relations example would be the use of force in response to a treaty violation, which seems sensible to me, even if it’s not “defense.”
As to point 1, about executive power, this equates fascism with dictatorship. I do realize that you offer a 3-point definition: (1) dictatorship, (2) using force other than in defense, and (3) rejecting “just war theory” (if this is different than item (2)).
The strange thing about modern American uses of the term fascism, by both the Left and the Right, is that they are not limited to dictators, nor even to the executive branch. Legislators and judges are sometimes called “fascist.”
I’m coming to the conclusion that the accusation that someone is “fascist” should usually be treated like the accusation that someone is a racist or a sexist or a whatever-o-phobe. These seem to be modern equivalents of “witch.”
Though in my case, I do think that witches exist, and they’re a bad influence.
The problem with centralization is, and always has been, someone far removed from the individual dictating what is right and what is wrong.
While theoretically, we could come to the conclusion that if we limit the central force to just a handful of absolutely necessary “self-evident” truths, that never seems to be the way of it. The EU is pushing green energy on its member states contrary to its founding purpose. The US can’t figure out how to reconcile anti-discrimination laws with free association. Whose rights take priority? We fight over whose side is right and trying to control the federal government has introduced Balkanization that will be far more difficult to address peacefully than if it had been confined to the individual states.
A top down system is never the right way to approach morals, values, and culture. And that is exactly what happens with centralized governments, evidenced even in the Hellenistic Empire, famously founded on letting conquered territories control themselves. Hint: it didn’t stay that way.
If the ten people have read Mussolini’s Doctrine (actually probably written by Giovanni Gentile) they should come to something resembling a reasonable consensus. The problem is that precious few people have read the actual text. Pretty much everybody conjures up their definition from the zeitgeist rather than from the original source.
On Amazon, The Doctrine of Fascism currently ranks at #178,471 while The Communist Manifesto ranks at #1,773. It is frequently reported that The Communist Manifesto is the most assigned book in North American universities. The Doctrine of Fascism not so much.
Actual witchcraft witches, or confused people who think they are witches — which sense?
I don’t want to make a big deal over this. I think you both have good points.
But I just want to clarify what I meant by ‘a force of men and women under arms meant for a single purpose’. Even if what I meant is dumb, which it may well be.
I meant that to include examples like
Single primary purpose: enforce the law in a single municipality
on up to
Single primary purpose: defeat Nazi Germany.
Even when two organizations each with its own leader team up temporarily, say a special multi-force police unit to capture the leader of an interstate gang, they usually have a temporary single leader til the unit is disbanded once the single purpose has been achieved or given up.
Hm. That’s very true, and it’s a significant difference between the two.
Some of us believe in the existence of demons, so real witchcraft is a thing.
Sorta kinda, but not necessarily. It’s about supremacy. i.e. Where the buck stops. According to the fascist ethos the legislatures and the courts still have an important job to do: lessening the workload for the executive. But the fascist impulse is to grant the executive power to overrule legislatures and courts when it’s “the right thing to do”. The Roman Empire still had a Senate and a court system, but in theory one could always appeal to Caesar (if one had the means to do so, and one was willing to take the risk).
The fascist impulse doesn’t require that the executive branch make every single decision for the society. It merely demands that the executive branch have the ultimate veto for every decision made in the society, to be exercised only as a last resort of course nudge nudge wink wink.
And if member(s) of the executive, up to and including the chief executive, make too many errors, they can always be replaced. By force if necessary.
(Also, I edited out the bit about “just war theory” precisely because I realized it was redundant.)
This is not necessarily contradictory. If legislators and judges work towards shifting authority to the executive branch, particularly if they do it in a way that contradicts the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution, that could indeed be a fascistic impulse at the very least.
For example, when legislators delegate regulatory powers to government agencies (particularly when those powers should reside with the states or the people as per the 10th amendment), or when a court rules that a government’s action violates citizens’ constitutional rights but is nonetheless legitimate because reasons, or when legislators and judges treat the opinions of unelected government officials as infallible, etc.
Technically, Caesar’s authority was delegated to him by the Senate and upheld by the courts. No dictator was he!
Audience: Philosophers. Others will get nothing out of reading the following.
i.e., Too Long; Don’t Read.
Exactly right.
They should definitely agree on the answer to this question:
Likewise, suppose ten people attend a lecture by an economist, “The Problems with Fascism”.
They should definitely agree on the answer to this question:
And on and on. For each one-many relationship
One careful speaker “A” ==> communicates his definition of “X” to ==> One set of careful listeners “B”
the set “B” should definitely agree on the answer to this question:
Now that we have a clear understanding of what can be accomplished by any careful speaker with an audience of careful listeners, we can address the first practical problem:
How can we turn each new generation of young people, who are all sloppy speakers/writers and sloppy listeners/readers, into educated citizens in a self-governing nation. People who read, think, and write carefully.
(And not write Too Long.)
I think the perfected communism is far more likely to be achieved than socialism or fascism. Socialism and Fascism seem to have ideals contrary to the system they use to enact it, so it eventually devolves into state communism. Probably why they are harder to define than communism.
Communism is far more clear in its goals and has existed, but received pushback from those who still have identities, including national identities. Communism has not reached it’s stateless, international apex, but i don’t think that’s a point in favor of it not having been tried. More that it hasn’t been successful.
It is fundamentally in conflict with human nature and can never succeed.
As E.O Wilson said, “Great idea. Wrong species.”
I hope that is true, but I no longer take that fact for granted. People are far more open to others ruling them and taking responsibility for them than i am comfortable with and that is a part of human nature. It seems to just be a small subset invested in self governance.
It is fundamentally in conflict with the laws of physics and can never succeed.
Insufficiently cynical, but I like it.😎
The thing that destroys communism isn’t just the masses, it’s the leadership who, due to human nature, won’t give up power and privilege. The problem with the masses is that “from each according to his ability, to each according to their need” creates an irresistible incentive to freeload.
In Communist Russia, idea toy with you.
Hey. I’m not becoming commie or socialist. I just want to understand some history better.
Another useful original source that I forgot to mention: Fascism: 100 Questions Asked And Answered by Oswald Mosley.
Available for free here: https://ia801707.us.archive.org/27/items/fascism-100-questions-asked-and-answered-oswald-mosley_202010/Fascism_-_100_Questions_Asked_and_Answered_-_Oswald_Mosley.pdf
I think communism has been tried and failed. With motivated Christians, even they could not work for the common good, but only chose to work when they would starve to death if they didn’t.
Great point. Communism has ALWAYS been tried. It is unstable and decays into better things rapidly.
And this was with “godly and sober men” who fled England for a harsh and foreign land for their consciences’ sakes.
Not really… they are both methods of implementing socialism. Even then there are flavors. Hilter’s version of fascism is different than Mussolini’s version of fascism vs Stalin version of fascism vs Lenin’s version of fascism…..
Another such term is populist. I have come to the conclusion that it has become just a word of invective, such as “damned,” and that people don’t think about what it means. Even people who I have come to respect have come to use “populist” as a synonym for “bad” in respect to things that have no apparent connection with populism.
Indeed. The term “Populism” is used to describe every system of government, so long as the speaker disapproves.
“But what about a cruel tyrannic despotism, huh?” Easy — add propaganda, and now it’s populism.
“What about a pure democracy, huh?” Wouldn’t that be the definition of populism?
I’m offended here by the word “pure”.
As in “pure Hell,” to be sure.