The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
3 added 25 characters in body
source | link

But this might be a coincidence, or even the result of bias: the two classical fascisms, those of Italy and Germany, were built upon national resentment in frustrated Great Powers (as was the case with the Japanese right-wing dictatorship of the same period), and so it is natural that they would rely heavily on nationalism and belicism, the latter being inseparable from sexism and violence. In the limit case of Spain, where there was no realistic base for Great Power delusions, most of the belicism - anyway, certainly military expansionism (at least within Europe) - was superfluous, and because this characteristic is lacking, we exclude it from the category of fascism.

But this might be a coincidence, or even the result of bias: the two classical fascisms, those of Italy and Germany, were built upon national resentment in frustrated Great Powers (as was the case with the Japanese right-wing dictatorship of the same period), and so it is natural that they would rely heavily on nationalism and belicism, the latter being inseparable from sexism and violence. In the limit case of Spain, where there was no realistic base for Great Power delusions, most of the belicism - anyway, certainly military expansionism - was superfluous, and because this characteristic is lacking, we exclude it from the category of fascism.

But this might be a coincidence, or even the result of bias: the two classical fascisms, those of Italy and Germany, were built upon national resentment in frustrated Great Powers (as was the case with the Japanese right-wing dictatorship of the same period), and so it is natural that they would rely heavily on nationalism and belicism, the latter being inseparable from sexism and violence. In the limit case of Spain, where there was no realistic base for Great Power delusions, most of the belicism - anyway, certainly military expansionism (at least within Europe) - was superfluous, and because this characteristic is lacking, we exclude it from the category of fascism.

2 added 1 character in body
source | link

So it would be necessary to either narrow down the concept of socialism (so- so that we define that Scandinavian social-democracy is socialism, but Stalinism is not, or conversely - or to find something that somehow unites the Communist Party of China to anarchist communes, and voters of Jeremy Corbin to followers of Amedeo Bordiga.

And I would argue that fascism is not about ideas, and that it is not an ideology, even though some ideas, and some ideological elements, may be of importance to fascists and fascism[1]. I would say that fascism is a practice: more important than what fascists believe, is what they do. And what they do is the following: they seek to restore order through disorder, to enforce law through crime, to restore morality through obscenity. Fascism is always a movement, and a movement to restore something that is deemed lost due to modern ways; but it does seek to restore the past by actively engaging in the practices of the present. Thus they emulate some characteristics of their enemies (Hitler was explicit inon this point: it would be impossible to fight socialism/the left/bolshevism with the old fashioned conservative and reactionary parties of the traditional German Right: to have a chance to succeed, fascism would have to organise in ways similar to those of the Communists and Socialdemocrats).

For these reasons, fascism is always engaged in what is called "politics of ambiguity": they emulate the organisation of the Bolsheviks to better defeat the Bolsheviks; they recruit heavily among the lumpenproletariat - Horst Wessel was a pimp - but claim to represent morality against the decay of costums, and law against crime; they denounce the "plutocracy" but are fine with being financed by plutocrats; and they engage in politics in order to destroy politics. Such elements are absent from most non-fascist political movements, be theythem conservative, liberal, or - and here we can point to your question - socialist. Those either seek to restore old orders or maintain the existing one through instruments compatible with that order, or to destroy the existing order altogether; only fascists seek to restore an older order through - what they call - a revolution.

So it would be necessary to either narrow down the concept of socialism (so that we define that Scandinavian social-democracy is socialism, but Stalinism is not, or conversely - or to find something that somehow unites the Communist Party of China to anarchist communes, and voters of Jeremy Corbin to followers of Amedeo Bordiga.

And I would argue that fascism is not about ideas, and that it is not an ideology, even though some ideas, and some ideological elements, may be of importance to fascists and fascism[1]. I would say that fascism is a practice: more important than what fascists believe, is what they do. And what they do is the following: they seek to restore order through disorder, to enforce law through crime, to restore morality through obscenity. Fascism is always a movement, and a movement to restore something that is deemed lost due to modern ways; but it does seek to restore the past by actively engaging in the practices of the present. Thus they emulate some characteristics of their enemies (Hitler was explicit in this point: it would be impossible to fight socialism/the left/bolshevism with the old fashioned conservative and reactionary parties of the traditional German Right: to have a chance to succeed, fascism would have to organise in ways similar to those of the Communists and Socialdemocrats).

For these reasons, fascism is always engaged in what is called "politics of ambiguity": they emulate the organisation of the Bolsheviks to better defeat the Bolsheviks; they recruit heavily among the lumpenproletariat - Horst Wessel was a pimp - but claim to represent morality against the decay of costums, and law against crime; they denounce the "plutocracy" but are fine with being financed by plutocrats; and they engage in politics in order to destroy politics. Such elements are absent from most non-fascist political movements, be they conservative, liberal, or - and here we can point to your question - socialist. Those either seek to restore old orders or maintain the existing one through instruments compatible with that order, or to destroy the existing order altogether; only fascists seek to restore an older order through - what they call - a revolution.

So it would be necessary to either narrow down the concept of socialism - so that we define that Scandinavian social-democracy is socialism, but Stalinism is not, or conversely - or to find something that somehow unites the Communist Party of China to anarchist communes, and voters of Jeremy Corbin to followers of Amedeo Bordiga.

And I would argue that fascism is not about ideas, and that it is not an ideology, even though some ideas, and some ideological elements, may be of importance to fascists and fascism[1]. I would say that fascism is a practice: more important than what fascists believe, is what they do. And what they do is the following: they seek to restore order through disorder, to enforce law through crime, to restore morality through obscenity. Fascism is always a movement, and a movement to restore something that is deemed lost due to modern ways; but it does seek to restore the past by actively engaging in the practices of the present. Thus they emulate some characteristics of their enemies (Hitler was explicit on this point: it would be impossible to fight socialism/the left/bolshevism with the old fashioned conservative and reactionary parties of the traditional German Right: to have a chance to succeed, fascism would have to organise in ways similar to those of the Communists and Socialdemocrats).

For these reasons, fascism is always engaged in what is called "politics of ambiguity": they emulate the organisation of the Bolsheviks to better defeat the Bolsheviks; they recruit heavily among the lumpenproletariat - Horst Wessel was a pimp - but claim to represent morality against the decay of costums, and law against crime; they denounce the "plutocracy" but are fine with being financed by plutocrats; and they engage in politics in order to destroy politics. Such elements are absent from most non-fascist political movements, be them conservative, liberal, or - and here we can point to your question - socialist. Those either seek to restore old orders or maintain the existing one through instruments compatible with that order, or to destroy the existing order altogether; only fascists seek to restore an older order through - what they call - a revolution.

1
source | link

I am tempted to say, "socialist is something you call yourself, fascist is something you call others".

But realistically, "socialism" covers very different political and/or social realities and proposals (even, of course, the paradigmatic fascism, which styled itself "national socialism"), which cannot be classified under the same taxon unless we intend a taxonomy that is utterly meaningless.

Scandinavian social democracy styles itself socialism; so did Stalinist Russia or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge; so does Chinese capitalism. Anarchists are socialists, so are Marxists - and all the subdivisions within them, anarcho-primitivists, anarchocommunists, anarcho-syndicalists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Titoists, and go figure out what sub-subdivisions and sub-sub-subdivisions - Morenists, Pabloites, MIMites, et caterva. Which brings to mind a quote by Ariano Suassuna - "the left divides itself around ideas, the right unites around interests".

So it would be necessary to either narrow down the concept of socialism (so that we define that Scandinavian social-democracy is socialism, but Stalinism is not, or conversely - or to find something that somehow unites the Communist Party of China to anarchist communes, and voters of Jeremy Corbin to followers of Amedeo Bordiga.

But anyway, socialism, whether we narrow its meaning down to smaller subsets of people and organisations, or whether we make its meaning shallow enough to accomodate all those sundry groups, is about ideas. It is an ideology, or a set of loosely connected ideologies.

And I would argue that fascism is not about ideas, and that it is not an ideology, even though some ideas, and some ideological elements, may be of importance to fascists and fascism[1]. I would say that fascism is a practice: more important than what fascists believe, is what they do. And what they do is the following: they seek to restore order through disorder, to enforce law through crime, to restore morality through obscenity. Fascism is always a movement, and a movement to restore something that is deemed lost due to modern ways; but it does seek to restore the past by actively engaging in the practices of the present. Thus they emulate some characteristics of their enemies (Hitler was explicit in this point: it would be impossible to fight socialism/the left/bolshevism with the old fashioned conservative and reactionary parties of the traditional German Right: to have a chance to succeed, fascism would have to organise in ways similar to those of the Communists and Socialdemocrats).

For these reasons, fascism is always engaged in what is called "politics of ambiguity": they emulate the organisation of the Bolsheviks to better defeat the Bolsheviks; they recruit heavily among the lumpenproletariat - Horst Wessel was a pimp - but claim to represent morality against the decay of costums, and law against crime; they denounce the "plutocracy" but are fine with being financed by plutocrats; and they engage in politics in order to destroy politics. Such elements are absent from most non-fascist political movements, be they conservative, liberal, or - and here we can point to your question - socialist. Those either seek to restore old orders or maintain the existing one through instruments compatible with that order, or to destroy the existing order altogether; only fascists seek to restore an older order through - what they call - a revolution.

[1] When it comes to ideas and ideology, historically all fascisms have depended heavily on nationalism, sexism, and a cult of abstract violence (violence is good in itself, not as an instrument to attain a given goal, but as mode of life).

But this might be a coincidence, or even the result of bias: the two classical fascisms, those of Italy and Germany, were built upon national resentment in frustrated Great Powers (as was the case with the Japanese right-wing dictatorship of the same period), and so it is natural that they would rely heavily on nationalism and belicism, the latter being inseparable from sexism and violence. In the limit case of Spain, where there was no realistic base for Great Power delusions, most of the belicism - anyway, certainly military expansionism - was superfluous, and because this characteristic is lacking, we exclude it from the category of fascism.