Without referring to any currently existing states (i.e., don't define by example), how would you define fascism? What characteristics would you expect to see in a fascist state? No, this isn't some attempt to prove "Amerika|Britain|Korea|Whatever is a Fascist State!" I'm genuinely curious as to what people think since fascism truly seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
Re:Needs of the State Supercede Needs of Individua
rafael on 2007-04-26T15:44:16
That's much too broad for a definition. You need to add some more characteristics :
* the state controls every aspect of the life -- unions, political parties, media, judiciary system. Political opposition is considered unpatriotic and is forbidden.
* economically, fascism is opposed to both liberal capitalism and to communism. The economy is indirectly state-controlled, via regroupments of corporations, which are controlled by private tycoons with sympathies for the state, that helps them maintaining large trusts or monopolies.Re:Needs of the State Supercede Needs of Individua
pudge on 2007-04-26T16:20:24
I would say fascism is any ideology where individual or minority group needs/rights are superceded by the needs/rights of the state.So any government that taxes the rich is fascist?
Re:Needs of the State Supercede Needs of Individua
jdavidb on 2007-04-26T18:16:10
+1, insightful
Actually, that would make any government that taxes at all, fascist.
Re:Needs of the State Supercede Needs of Individua
pudge on 2007-04-26T18:38:51
Actually, that would make any government that taxes at all, fascist.Not necssarily. He talked about individual/minority rights superceding state interests, and you could make the argument that where everyone is taxed equally (or even proportionally) that you are not going after individual/minority rights (although you could also make the opposite case). But there's no such argument to be made for progressive taxation: that is, quite clearly, putting the rights of minorities (in this case, the rich) below the interests of the state.
Anyway, fascism is, as rafael said, marked more by the specifics than generalities. The fact is, there is no one solid definition of fascism, and we don't necessarily "know it when we see it." I prefer to avoid intentionally slanderous labels and focus on specifics about what is right and what is wrong.
For me the only truly meaningful distinctions are between freedom/liberty and socialism/control. I've got a razor-sharp clear-cut distinction in my mind between what is and is not politically right and wrong. Anything that ever violates individual liberty boils down to socialism in one way or another, because it boils down to social control of what should be controlled individually.
To me fascism is just another word for one type of socialism, and it's a word that carries more connotation than denotation. It says more about the person using it to me than it does about the person they are using it against. To me it's idiotic to argue about whether or not George W. Bush is a socialist. The fact is, he has some correct ideas about freedom and some very incorrect ideas. Sadly, I don't get much insight about George W. Bush's problems from the left, because generally speaking they understand freedom less than he does. And the left and the unthinking anti-war crowd are the biggest purveyors of the word "fascist" in discourse today, so usually when I hear it, I know I'm not going to hear much insight that is of interest to me. (To be fair, I get the same thing from a number of anarcho-capitalist writers, and I am an anarcho-capitalist.)
Re:I don't worry about it
schwern on 2007-05-04T04:39:03
That's amazing. I know politicians in debates often like to bend their answer to a question into a self-serving, prepared statement, but to see such a pure example! Two paragraphs manage to slide from answering a question about the definition of fascism to falling upon socialism to beating on a straw man caricature of the "left" and finally complaining about your own critics.Re:I don't worry about it
jdavidb on 2007-05-04T16:53:52
There's nothing self-serving about my desire for freedom for all people.
Re:Fascism=hard to define
jdavidb on 2007-05-01T13:24:32
Furthermore many of the policies of Germany and Italy were actually not that much different from the United States. It was a time of great advance for socialism and progressivism. Germany, Italy, and the U.S. were all having a big admiration party for each other's projects and "achievements" before things turned sour and we started looking at going to war with each other. FDR admired a lot of what Hitler did, and vice versa.
Clearly, minority rights being superceded to a great extent by the interests of the state is a pre-requisite, but it's a pre-requisite for all totalitarianism, not just fascism.
I managed to come up with four features which are common in fascism. They can all appear elsewhere, although in milder forms, but fascist states have historically exhibited all or almost all of them to extremes.
As always in politics, everything is a shade of grey. All states ride rough-shod over the interests of some people. Strong leadership can be found in the most liberal of democracies, and so on.
This weekend I bought almost all of the Uncle Eric Books about economics, politics, and history (I already had two of them). Looks like all of the new books I bought talk about fascism, and somewhere in there, he's going to have some definitions. It looks like he views fascism as something distinct from socialism; but since both amount to social control over resources, I don't think I will ever think that way.
