Dread thinks I'm a special person
12th October 2003
I understand that Fascism is on the far right of the political spectrum and that economically it is based on a free market system yet it is marked by centralization of authority under a dictator
but my question is..
do Fascist governments have to be racist and nationilistic in order to be labelled as a "Fascist" government?
if so why? I know the German ideologies (1933-1945) where racist under the leadership of the NDSAP, and they where labelled as a "Fascist" regime, but that was just they way the NDSAP where, it does not mean that all Fascist governments have to be run identical to how the Nazis ran their country.
Anyway just curious, thanks
26th July 2004
Im pretty sure they dont have to be racist to be a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist and as far as I know it wasnt that racist (correct me if im wrong).
No you do not. Fascism is a system of strong state control over society, without the trappings of "the people are the government" egalitarianism that communism displays.
Fascism relies on a strong militaristic regimentation of society, and a subversion of economic activity to the needs of the state. So it's not a "free market" system as such, but economic activity such as private ownership of means of production of flows of capital is allowed in whatever form as long as it does not conflict with the state's goals.
I live on Gaming Forums
6th October 2003
Fascism, as a term, was invented by Mussolini and his pals, so I guess you could take his regime as the model. There are a few groups with rather different ideologies that have identified themselves as Fascist, and even more groups that get labeled as Fascist by their opponents (often without much basis), so it is hard to really make definition that really fits everyone.
Some pretty common elements include
- a heavy emphasis on the state as the most important element of society, whose rights greatly outweigh those of individual citizens
- Political authority invested in a supreme leader
- Extreme nationalism
- Economic corporatism, which is hard to explain in a few words, but usually seems to involve a lot of direct management of the economy by the state, but without direct ownership
- Rhetorical emphasis on a sort of right-wing populism
Fascism in Italy was a bit of an improvisation by Mussolini, based partly on weird bits of left and right wing ideologies. This makes it difficult to pin down very clearly.
As far as I know, the Nazis did not exactly define themselves as Fascists, and in the early 30s, Mussolini was very suspicious of Hitler. He eventually promoted racist policies in Italy, probably under pressure from Germany, but the racial laws were a little less harsh than the German versions and seem to have ben less consistantly enforced. Italian military officers in the Balkans (for example), refused on a number of occasions to cooperate with German authorities by arresting Jews in areas under their control.
StrangerThanFictionAs far as I know, the Nazis did not exactly define themselves as Fascists, and in the early 30s,
They didn't at the time, as "fascist" (originating from the Roman "fasces", or bundle of rods tied around an axe, symbolizing judicial power, HAH) was a uniquely Italian phaenomenon in terms of nomenclature.
Hitler was extremely fond of the Italian system, which he saw as a rare example of imposed stability in chaotic times--remember that Mussolini was in power from 1922 onwards, even before the Munich Beer Hall Putsch. Until the late 1930s, however, Mussolini was highly suspicious of Hitler and his aspirations in Europe, going so far as to threaten war with Germany if it did not back off over its threatened Austrian invasion in 1934.
It was only during WWII that the Fascisti, the Nazis, the Romanian Totul Pentru Tara (sp?) party, and other similar totalitarian movements were lumped together under the collective term. Unfortunately, today it's a vastly overused description, frequently applied to any political phaenomenon that's somehow disagreeable, but StF's description is bang-on.
Here is a fasces, at left in the flag of the Swiss canton of St. Gallen, and at right as seen in the tail markings of Italian WWII planes:
As for corporatism, it isn't quite exclusively focused on "corporations" (the word comes from the latin for "collective"), and it finds its origins in anarcho-syndicalism. Basically it means that individuals don't have any say in the government, but rather officially sanctioned and organized groups (trade groups, companies, monolithic parties, etc.) In the economic sense, it means that the government, unions, and corporations all collude together to run the economy in a manner dominated by the government and serving the interests of the state. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition.
Basically, "state" is your operative word--in a fascist system, everything revolves around this. Think George Orwell's 1984 (which you should read anyway.)
All your base are belong to FH
27th April 2003
If you need more information the third fascist gobernment of Europe was the Franco nationalcatholic dictatorship and they were:
-ultranationalists, they caused a bloody civil war to end with any chance of autonomy for some spaniard areas, like Cataluña or Vasque Country, amongst other reasons. It was SPAIN: One, Great, Free (sic) powns the world, we were more macho, more catholic and more everything than anybody else, and our soccer team had not the very well deserved success in world championship because our players had troubles to differenciate the (foot)ball and the own big balls (ergo cojones) and because the obvious international referees conspiracies, but doesn't matter, our bullfighters romanced easily Hollywood stars like Ava Gardner because our testosterone is in toxic levels.
-sort of racists intellectualy speaking, but to be fair they never were agressively racists like the nazis neither held organized extermination campaigns against other human communities. It was more a diffuse disregard against jews, freemasons and generally against foreigners, it was spaniards and the rest of the world, and a fun love for crazy surrealistic conspirative theories. But they were very friends of their morocco colonial troops, so it was not the classic standard racism.
-supreme leader, single party, vertical sindicalism, agressive anticommunism, simulacre of parlament, killing of free speech, press freedom (etc, etc, the classic totalitarism), economically a strange melting pot of capitalism, but with state control of strategical industries, they never were very sophisticated (Lobo's translation: clever) to think and do philosophy a lot about these issues, for me they were a mix of capitalists/communists economically speaking but don't dare to say the second part or their successors will flame you to hell.
In general the spaniard fascism was a redneck third division version of fascism, they were just harmful for the own spaniards (but a lot!!!!) and were relatively harmless for other countries and human communities. They were so deeply ultraubernationalists that they simply ignored foreign countries, you didn't deserved our attention. That's good, at least we were not an annoyance for you guys, Franco dictatorship was just a pain in the ass for ourselves, the spaniards.
Night Life Minister
6th May 2003
A little correction about the fasces during roman time: the Preatorians (the guards in charge of protecting the life of the Emperor/King/"Console") had to carry those fasces around. In case the Emperor/... was killed or almoust killed they would have used the rods to punish the killer and then they would have killed him with the axe.
FederikerA little correction about the fasces during roman time: the Preatorians (the guards in charge of protecting the life of the Emperor/King/"Console") had to carry those fasces around. In case the Emperor/... was killed or almoust killed they would have used the rods to punish the killer and then they would have killed him with the axe.
Not correction, addition. :-)
You're talking about the praetorial fasces (double-headed axe.) The fasces lictorae was also carried around by Roman high officials who were tasked with guarding judicial officials, but any number of other individuals carried versions of fasces to symbolize power.
The sticks were symbolic of the state's power to punish, the axe represented its power to execute, and the bundle basically meant "many are stronger than one."
Night Life Minister
6th May 2003
I think we are talking about the same thing used in two different ambits then, I am 120% sure it was used by praetorians and I am also sure it was a single handed axe. I remember making a translation about it from latin and the only word I got right was "Sabre" but then my class mate made me read the correct one... I got a 3 mark while he got 8,5 mark... Bastard.
I live on Gaming Forums
6th October 2003
You and the Long-eared Leporid are talking about the same thing. You are describing what the object "was" (sticks and and sometimes an axe) carried by official guards and Fuzzy is talking about what it represented as a symbol (judicial authority). I think the group that is most closely associated with the Fasces were the lictors, who guarded high level Roman magistrates (AKA civil servants). The basic fasces was just sticks, but under certain conditions (like when they were outside of the legal boundary of Rome, for instance) the lictors added an axe to the bundle of sticks. The Praetorian Guard were privileged elite troops, bodyguards for generals and later for Emperors, but without any special judicial function. As far as I know they would not have bothered with fasces. When they got involved in politics they generally used more practical weapons, without as much ceremonial value, but greater lethality. I guess it's possible they co-opted some lictor functions, at some point, but I was not aware of it.