[Classical] Fascism was interesting for a few reasons, some of them being its relationship to the labour movement:
- ᴉuᴉlossnW was a prominent socialist until their expulsion from the PSI for their nationalist views, and if we take them at their word in their last testament while captured by communists, they considered themself a socialist
- Fascism managed to bring other former Marxist communists into their ranks, notably Nicola Bombacci, a founding member of the Communist Party of Italy in 1921 until their expulsion for fascist views in 1927
- Fascism was economically a class-collaborationist ideology (specifically corporativism, from the Latin corpus, body)
Now, of course, we have the benefit of hindsight and can see what a disaster Italian fascism and its friends were and the name of 'fascism' is forever tainted. But theoretically a modern equivalent could similarly appeal to both nationalists and the socialist-leaning today in a similar way. Fascism doesn't logically imply racism, nor does it necessarily exclude certain types of progressivism: see BUF gaining large support from women by being pro-suffrage, see environmentalism of eco-fascists, and consider some modern neofash parties adopting social democrat policy points.
With all this in mind, what were the early warning signs that Fascism was not going to be pro-worker, despite its rhetoric? How well do you believe socialists will be able to spot them?
That’s a good question! Although the Fascists criticized both socialism and (liberal) capitalism, they did not spend their spare time waylaying capitalists, let alone as often as they harassed and massacred us. In fact, the Fascists received significant funding from various businessmen, who used the Fascists to exterminate around three thousand of us from 1920 to 1922.
Fascist ‘anticapitalism’ might not have been quite as shallow as it first appeared, but in any event it had little in common with our anticapitalism. Quoting Robert Paxton:
While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value [that] they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity.
(Source.)
The petty bourgeoisie was the basis of Fascism, and the petty bourgeoisie was in a struggle against both the haute bourgeoisie and us (often the latter more than the former), hence Fascism’s philosophic incoherency. Since most or all of the petty bourgeoisie dreams of becoming ‘successful’, though, they cannot abolish the haute bourgeoisie, only criticize or possibly moderate it. This is why many ‘anticonsumerists’ recommend buying from small businesses as a supposed alternative to buying from big businesses.
Many Fascists also had a military background, and it was common for Fascists to have both military and petty bourgeois backgrounds together. Take Adolf Schicklgruber, for example. Of course there are also some antifascists who have military backgrounds, but they tend to be very antiwar and unhappy about their military history. Lower‐class socialists are overwhelmingly antiwar. Petty bourgeois ‘anticapitalists’, not so much.
If you find any self‐identified socialist promoting the retention of private property, capital, the law of value, generalized commodity production, wage labour, or businesses as long‐term strategies, you’ll have found a pseudosocialist. We can argue that these phenomena might have to be tolerated in the short‐term, but trying to preserve them for centuries is neither possible nor desirable.
I hope that this helps! Feel free to ask me more.
It definitely helps! This gives a useful overview on the Fascist (incl. Nazi) denouncement of 'bourgeois capitalism' [decadent haute capitalists] and some of the reasons they don't take steps towards actually removing the haute bourgeoise which they continually criticize.
Can you expand on what you mean by pointing out Fascists often had military backgrounds? I'm aware that WWI shaped a lot of Fascist leaders and ideas (e.g. German stab-in-the-back myth, overall militancy and pro-war aspects of Fascism, creating economic crisis) there's definitely a relationship, but as you mentioned, being having a military background isn't enough on its own as there are antiwar antifascists from military families and who served in the military, even high-up former members like Green Beret SSG Evan Brown, and then there are cases like the '43 Group (returning Jewish ex-servicemen from WWII who effectively destroyed the BUF). Is the take-away that we should be cautious of ex-military who remain pro-war?
If they won’t listen to reason, then it is probably for the best to shun or expel self‐identified socialists (e.g. Benito Mussolini) who persistently advocate adding another dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (e.g. the Kingdom of Italy) to a war, or who repeatedly defend (neo)imperialist aggressors such as the NATO or the so‐called ‘State of Israel’.
While the tendency seems to be somewhat commoner in those with a military background, it is, of course, by no means universal to them, and technically anybody can be prowar. As with a history under abusive parenters, a military background can be a cause for concern but certainly no guarantee that somebody is a potential neofascist.
So basically,
Is the take-away that we should be cautious of ex-military who remain pro-war?
We should be cautious of anybody who remains prowar, yes.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
We would not get classical fascism. It was a response to a threat of revolution by a strong labour movement in well-industrialized society. Now with deindustrialization and weak labour movement we'll get some new horrors within human comprehension.
We won't get classical fascism, but we should be prepared for an echo of that phenomenon; a (for lack of a better word) pseudo-left compromise supported by the bourgeoisie. While slow, the labour movement is growing (even the Palestinian conflict itself is accelerating union activity where I am) and it's possible it will reignite like in major capitalist crises of the past - they're hard to predict but they're inevitable.
America is already fascist for some time now you're going to have to call it double fascism
It's not useful to consider the USA fascist. If fascism is capitalism in decay, neoliberalism is capitalism in stride.
Where fascism tries to put the state above all, neoliberalism has purchased the state. Where fascism demands our class struggle halt, neoliberalism proudly yells 'keep going; we're winning'. Where fascism has silly bullshit idealism about their nation and its spirit, neoliberalism is cold and individualist, and won't even spare the ruling demographics from its greed.
They're both capitalism and they both want us dead. But we must understand the differences if we want to fight them most effectively. Fascism's weaknesses don't always apply to liberalism, and vice versa.
Sorry, let me be more blunt. Will it only be fascism when they lynch white people?
@comfy@lemmy.ml it is not useful to consider the USA a non-fascist country to just to hype yourself about project 2025. read
An obvious answer might be their class collaborationism, and then as a direct extension of that, their opposition to and paramilitary suppression of the labour movement's class struggle. In the case of the Italian Fascists, this was the Blackshirts and squadrismo, and this appears to be mirrored by other fascist movements around the world.
Traditionalism is a well-known key sign of a reactionary, although with that in mind, it's worth acknowledging fascism's selective modernity (e.g. admiration of Ford/Fordism, modern tech, Futurism). But really, I personally doubt we will see much deviation from 'traditional values' in any neo-fascist movement, beyond some selective changes (e.g. I've seen fascists claim they don't care about homosexuality or recreational drugs, which I assume most fascists would call 'liberal-bourgeois removed' or whatever, but ultimately there will still be rhetoric about the preserving traditional family unit).
I'd like to hear Lemmygrad's thoughts on nationalism (and, separately, ultranationalism and irredentism) as a criteria for spotting fascism and other harmful ideologies.
Fascist and fascist adjacent nationalism tends to define the "nation" in a way that excludes and endangers entire demographics who often wield little power to begin with.
I'd argue that nationalism itself isn't inherently bad though. Many anti-colonial movements are nationalist, and AES countries have nationalist traits.
I believe Stalin's "Marxism and the National Question" wrestles with this but I am yet to read it.
and AES countries have nationalist traits
Agreed with the anti-colonial national liberation struggles being reasonable, although I am critical of (for example) present-day Chinese nationalism among civilians (or perhaps more specifically when it becomes national chauvanism, which from what I understand may be unfortunately widespread). While stories I've heard of the Korean War suggest a healthy class consciousness and a certain empathy towards oppressed groups among the US PoWs, a couple of Chinese citizens I've spoken to nowadays report that US racism has crept in among the nationalists (racial stereotyping about wealth and criminality which I'd rather not repeat, and attitudes towards interracial relationships reflecting those differing stereotypes).
This is a bit of a disjointed rant, but my point is that nationalism is a dangerous road, although I haven't studied it enough to know what situation or amount or type is fine (if any), and how to ensure socialism remains relevant in an anti-imperialist nationalist revolution.
You make a good point. Nationalism in socialist projects still deserves scrutiny.
a couple of Chinese citizens I’ve spoken to nowadays report that US racism has crept in among the nationalists (racial stereotyping about wealth and criminality which I’d rather not repeat, and attitudes towards interracial relationships reflecting those differing stereotypes).
Not a Chinese national (ethnic Chinese though, and my family comes from Singapore though I was raised in and live in Canada) but I think I'd chime in on this one- this US racism, or specifically, stereotyping, has spread as an international phenomenon; that is the predictable result of having a global empire whose strongest asset is- honestly, not its military (as massively bloated as it is) but its propaganda. This is not at all a Chinese-specific phenomenon, nor a Chinese-nationalistic phenomenon (as Chinese nationalists have nothing to gain from mentally putting down African-Americans an ocean away), and I'd argue is even wholly unrelated to the phenomenon of nationalism in general.
Black PoWs, in the age of the Korean war, or the Vietnam war, etc... also came along in the backdrop of African-American mainstream culture as it was, and how it was perceived across the world, in that time period; and I don't think it's exaggerating it to say that that, is a completely different story compared to how African-American culture presents itself to the world today, after the civil rights movement has been stripped of its teeth, its leading activists all killed, crack flooded into the streets, a very specific kind of "gangster" culture repugnant to most cultures' senses of propriety and decency is promoted as the face of black America, etc... I'm just calling it as it is- I have respect for someone so long as they're alright, personally- but let's not kid ourselves, there is a whole lot being promoted, by capitalist media, by primarily white-owned labels etc., that is incredibly... unrelatable to anyone who isn't looking to embody the worst aspects of the lumpenproletariat (of which I consider myself a part of), which is remarkably self-destructive, and which can also be considered a sort of pseudo-class traitor (or outright class-traitor) aspirations...
Myself not being black, I have some hesitation in typing this, but you have to understand that I'm not coming from a point of hate here. Hell, I've been homeless (and this culture is a serious issue, that primarily preys upon those disadvantaged, of minority communities, etc). Most people that would even be considered to be living "that life" can recognize there's some seriously unhealthy shit being promoted as the face of black America; and I've befriended them, and it rarely goes well, but even where it does it really is a self-destructive path not conducive to either living in capitalist society (unless you hit it big) nor living as a decent person who treats others with decency in turn, nor being a good comrade (frankly a lot of it is likely designed nowadays to divert people from such a path in the first place). Frankly, the CIA is running victory laps (saw someone say that before; repeating it here) at how they have destroyed the image, esteem, and values (no, I'm not talking "masculine/traditional/etc" values) of the black community.
The image of black America today is very, very different from what it once was, to sum it up. And while the rest of the world generally has sympathy for their plight- this stereotypical image has gone a long way in furthering the cause of division, which is what it was crafted for. Many Asian parents (not just Chinese) might warn their kids off from hanging around a certain crowd as an example, but the same goes for many African (immigrant) parents, as well as many African-American parents who either have "escaped the hood" or who aspire to do so. And that can be extrapolated on a global scale, and not just to parents as well- the truth is, with some people's vibes, sometimes you literally need to watch your stuff, or even outright your back (ie. your safety)- shit has gotten bad. This is undeniable.
And meanwhile, alongside all this, the imperial divide-and-conquer games continue. Back in the 60s and 70s, there would not generally have been a reason to drive Asians against Blacks and vice versa, for instance (save for in certain small regions with large populations of both- so some parts of the Caribbean, and Uganda's Indian population come to mind). Nowadays I think I can safely say that anti-Asian hate has been cultivated in a fair amount of the black diaspora (and vice versa- not black Africans though, they're a entirely different story in my experience) and mutual distrust, even if there is also room for a lot of solidarity and relations (which I've experienced) has festered between both communities. People aren't entirely ignorant, we (both the Asian diaspora, and Asians in Asia) can see these sorts of things and understand in some degree what is going on.
Hopefully that gives more context on the subject of your comment. I'm not justifying it whatsoever; but I'm simply saying that I don't think these stereotypes, in a Asian (and particularly mainland Asian) context, have anything to do with nationalism.
(edit) and this is before getting into the... mess that is the other side of the picture- the promotion of a token image of African-Americans, as the face of empire, to "blackwash" imperial crimes. Nowadays they usually send black delegates to the UN when it's about Palestine for instance, if you've noticed. The first black POTUS declared the "pivot to Asia," destroyed Africa's most prosperous country, and ramped up the atrocities against Muslims. Now there's Kamala Harris, that black (and Asian) slaver (yes, that is what she is), who is Genocide Joe's second-in-command (officially, in practice I imagine she's rather useless). On one hand there's an image of "black gangsterism" (no offense to the countless decent lumpen out there, and at least in some degree you gotta do what you gotta do) being promoted, then on the other hand there's an image of "black propriety" being promoted as well, which is just a black token face for the genocidal, imperialist machine... anyways you get the deal.
Thanks for the detailed reply, it makes more sense to understand this from a global perspective, as an international effect of US mass media, the change in perceptions of African-Americans post-Civil Rights Era, and distinct from mere nationalism. Removing this issue from nationalism also resolves the paradox of why 'White' foreigners were treated so differently from 'Black' foreigners; the issue isn't nation but negative Black stereotypes spread abroad.
I don't have time right now to reply in-depth, but its worth mentioning even African-American media can often be very critical of the 'gangster' cultures too, some popular examples which come to mind are the comic strip The Boondocks (and the cartoon adaptation) and the pop rap song Gangsta's Paradise lamenting the damage it causes. There are real cultural issues which are amplified by mass media, both news and entertainment. Obviously African-Americans aren't the only group with negative cultures associated with them – consider rednecks and Latin gang cultures as other US examples – but unfortunately, as you've pointed out, the harmful and threatening gangsta culture has become the international face.
As a side note, it just surprises me that the horribly-exploitative colonizing nations, which can be understandably stereotyped as 'White', haven't also had a similar racial demonization. I suspect its similar to here, where the rich haute thief with a smile is looked over but the poor petit thief is a brute.
also resolves the paradox of why ‘White’ foreigners were treated so differently from ‘Black’ foreigners;
In this regard, sadly, while it's not nationalism (a sensible nationalist would if anything, dislike white westerners in particular and may even find common cause with other non-whites, particularly those who also aren't western)... black stereotypes play only one small part in that IMO, and if anything probably a considerably lesser part than the obvious- white worship, white beauty standards, etc... the "post-colonial" mentality is all around us, and no part of the world is exactly exempt from that.
"White" foreigners, particularly those from the "wealthy/prestigious" west, have a particular premium- the kind that comes from having roamed about with extraterritoriality in most places, with enforced racial supremacy and with near-undisputed hegemony for centuries (how many centuries differs by region, but China has over a century of trauma for instance in this regard). I hear of the same, or very similar, treatment being given to Asians (east, south, west), to visibly mixed/non-white Latinos, etc... whiteness simply happens to be a currency in its own right, and not just in Asia, as far as I've very credibly heard second-hand, or seen online, the same goes for Africa and Latin America as well (LatAm having its own messed up racial hierarchies very similar in nature tbh).
In that same vein, western-ness has its own prestige as well; I imagine an African-American might, despite all the negative stereotypes, be seen in a much better light in Asia than an African from Africa or the Caribbean (not that people would dislike the African, necessarily/probably?) I certainly (often, not always) experienced better treatment with strangers for my own Canadian accent, despite being fully Asian.
And as this is regarding the treatment of black/white foreigners in Asia- if it helps, I don't think the stereotypes carry over as much to black people (even tourists) in Asia, nor to black people who don't present themselves as part of "gangsta culture." African-Americans in Asia aren't exactly likely to behave in such a manner, after all- so it really is a matter of white prestige (and on some level also colorism, which has a much longer history than colonialism in Asia and I don't really think is tied to nationalism either).
Other than that- I'm aware of the Boondocks, while I've not watched it (eventually) I've really enjoyed a lot of the show's clips, tbh. Their take on BET seems absolutely spot-on... IMO a very similar phenomenon is very visible (and widely complained about in the Asian diasporic community) against Asians in western media as well- though in its case it has none of the glamor or "self-made" culture or associated pride attached to it (fetishization of Asian women, emasculation of Asian men, and a serious otherization and blatant disdain for both) so it just pisses people off, those who don't go all self-hating due to it, anyways. The (generally seen as, in practice 50/50 and still harmful) stereotypes and glamor/"self-made"/pride narrative comes in with the "model minority" myth instead.
As a side note, it just surprises me that the horribly-exploitative colonizing nations, which can be understandably stereotyped as ‘White’, haven’t also had a similar racial demonization. I suspect its similar to here, where the rich haute thief with a smile is looked over but the poor petit thief is a brute.
That's how it is all over the world and for most of history, I think... only education can solve it. And even those who have sympathy for those in poverty, and who are in the same lot, will naturally at least dislike, if not hate, those who do act like brutes (the haute thieves hire their own brutes- not all petite thieves are brutes on the other hand, hell I'd say many are more than justified in doing what they do if it's the right targets). And brutes are always the most visible and immediately threatening lot, when they're around...
Lumpen can be great people, and have great revolutionary, positive, community-building potential. Some of the greatest comrades, like Stalin, were first lumpen. But those who take from their community (their actual community- fellow proles, those who are struggling just the same) are at least scum on some level at the time of the act. Honest truth is I've done it before (if not much, and not in a long time), while I'd not say I had sticky fingers (kid me, maybe somewhat) there's still a very strong self-taught impulse, or debatably, survival mechanism, that tells me not to let an opportunity slip by, that I have to "claw my way up" and "take what I want" etc.. I've always had a strong sense of decency/morals/pride to go with it at least, but it is what it is.
Umberto Eco's criteria are a good guide to spotting early fascist movements: https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists
Fascism doesn't logically imply racism
I disagree. All the fascist movements I'm aware of used nationalism to trick the working class into collaborating with the bourgeoisie, and bigotry towards minorities and foreigners to stoke anger and resentment. Maybe in theory fascists could create that in-group/out-group distinction without race or ethnicity being the dividing line, but I think that there will always be some kind of bigotry involved.
see environmentalism of eco-fascists
I don't think that counts as progressivism when their plan to reduce environmental impact involves killing "undesirables" to reduce the population.
some modern neofash parties adopting social democrat policy points
I'm pretty sure those are just talking points meant to lure in rubes, or are meant to apply only to the in-group when they take power.
Maybe it's possible for fascism to exist without explicit bigotry, but at that point I think it would just be regular authoritarian liberal capitalism.
Maybe in theory fascists could create that in-group/out-group distinction without race or ethnicity being the dividing line, but I think that there will always be some kind of bigotry involved.
I believe that fascists could effectively use state nationalism in place of race and racism. They debatably did in Italy. I say debatably because they flip-flipped a lot – even just skimming the Wikipedia page on Italian fascism and racism will get you stark contradictions like Talks with Mussolini (1932), "Race? It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today" while talking of "our Aryan and Mediterranian race" in speeches ten years before and enacting the Racial Laws in 1938. So I believe it was used as a tool at times, but it wasn't essential in its rise or necessary at any time. We can look at Amercia, despite its infamous racism, and see the real chavanistic, bigoted power its patriotic unity as the USA has.
I agree that there will always be some kind of bigotry, I just think racism is convenient but arbitrary, and we should be alert to other forms of bigotry even if racism is absent. As for anti-foreigner bigotry (whether racial or nationality), I suspect that's intrinsic, it can't be replaced.
I’m pretty sure those are just talking points meant to lure in rubes, or are meant to apply only to the in-group when they take power.
This is entirely possible. Even in hindsight, it can be hard to tell sometimes between what is sincere and what is propaganda.
re: ecofascism
Agreed, bad example from me.
Umberto Eco
Added to my reading list, thanks :)
