I'm coming to this string very late--I came across a link today from Brad DeLong's blog to John Ganz's blog, to this one, and I've read a few of the items on Neo-Fascism: A Warning (and I've subscribed, so this isn't meant to be a negative comment). When I came to this item I saw the invitation to define "fascism" in the comment section, and I thought I'd follow up on that, with the thought that perhaps AW would be monitoring new comments on old strings.
Before retiring years ago I used to teach a course that covered the rise of fascism in East Asia, most obviously in Japan, and I needed to develop a definition that I could convey to students who were not necessarily educated in political theory. I settled on four major components, which, I think, reflect what fascism was as a self-defining political movement in the 1920s and 1930s, rather than the cultural features that came to define it popularly in the Post-War and later eras. They were, as I recall:
1) Nationalism, particularly in the sense of the ethnic nation-state: an in-group with shared identity (implicitly genetic).
2) Militarism, viewing military power as an essential tool to defend the nation-state and exert its will internationally.
3) Corporatism, in the sense that the fascist society should channel its will through formal organizations that are coordinated by the state, most importantly business and industry consortia, but also including schools, health professions, local social groups, etc.
4) Anti-Communism, which was essential both tactically, in creating a threatening enemy ideology, and intrinsically, because the anti-individualistic core of fascism had to be configured as a negation of the anti-individualistic core of Communism.
Using these criteria allows "fascism" to be applied to the major Axis powers, including Japan (and Spain, about which, however, I know not much), and also to account for why fascism in the two decades after World War I seemed a viable alternative to political groups in places that we don't usually connect with its toxic cultural features (I'm thinking now of Ireland, and the flirtation with fascism of cultural exemplars like W.B. Yeats). If, instead, one focuses on the style of the Mussolini/Hitler dictator, the mass rallies, the terrorism of black- or brownshirts, the genocidal program of the German Nazi Party, etc., you reduce fascism to a confluence of traits that show up in many forms of populist politics (including some that have been based on forms of communist ideology) authoritarian regime, military dictatorship, racketeer government, and so forth.
Because fascism lacked the theoretical coherence of the communist canon, I think there will always be a certain vagueness in identifying it in practice, especially since the pejorative use of the term after World War II prevented governments from identifying as fascist and expanding our understanding of how the basic features can be adapted by design. An example of a Post-War government that I think was a clearly fascist would be Park Chung-Hee's in South Korea. Yet because the ROK was an American ally, we rarely (if ever) discussed it as fascist, although many opposed it as a dictatorship. Park's repressive approach laid great emphasis on the corporatist elements of state organization, and its state-orchestrated leadership of business conglomerates (something adapted from the Japanese model) not only paved the way for the ROK's astonishing economic development, but had enormous influence on other Asian states, including the PRC in the interval between Mao and Xi.
Of course, we now use "fascist" as a general term of opprobium. Since we don't like populist strongmen, we refer to them as fascist--but Mao was a populist strongman. We condemn fascism as a manipulation and deflection of peoples' resentments--but the Dixiecrat New Dealers pursued that, as did a host of Middle Eastern leaders and others. Nationalism alone has been pursued by all sorts of leaders--progressive Woodrow Wilson was a global icon for championing it, modernist Atatürk used it to create and transform Turkey, and Stalin turned Soviet communism from universalist to nationalist in a way that Putin inherited. And (to reveal that I'm cribbing from the "four faces of neo-fascism" post) fascism attacks democratic institutions in much the way that communism does, as well any type of authoritarian regime: Sukarno's, the Shah's, the Taliban, Maduro's, Putin's . . . you name it.
Basically, I think "fascist" has come to denote "Nazi-like," drawing on cultural memory of Hitler, perhaps with Mussolini's swagger added, but we can't say "Nazi," because the denotative essence of that term is now tied up with genocide of a kind that can't be casually invoked to taunt opponents.
If you haven't read them yet, I highly recommend reading "Eichmann in Jerusalem" and "The Reactionary Mind 2nd Edition." The way these two books break down our current political moment is uncanny.
Regarding anonymity one of my goals with my web site is promoting my consulting services. Posting anonymously would hobble that goal. When I read anonymous posts elsewhere I have a difficulty evaluating authenticity of the posting - is it serious or just trolling? There are other factors involved in evaluating authenticity but I always have to wonder about what is motivating the anonymity. It’s like trying to carry on a thoughtful conversation with someone wearing totally opaque sunglasses.
I'm coming to this string very late--I came across a link today from Brad DeLong's blog to John Ganz's blog, to this one, and I've read a few of the items on Neo-Fascism: A Warning (and I've subscribed, so this isn't meant to be a negative comment). When I came to this item I saw the invitation to define "fascism" in the comment section, and I thought I'd follow up on that, with the thought that perhaps AW would be monitoring new comments on old strings.
Before retiring years ago I used to teach a course that covered the rise of fascism in East Asia, most obviously in Japan, and I needed to develop a definition that I could convey to students who were not necessarily educated in political theory. I settled on four major components, which, I think, reflect what fascism was as a self-defining political movement in the 1920s and 1930s, rather than the cultural features that came to define it popularly in the Post-War and later eras. They were, as I recall:
1) Nationalism, particularly in the sense of the ethnic nation-state: an in-group with shared identity (implicitly genetic).
2) Militarism, viewing military power as an essential tool to defend the nation-state and exert its will internationally.
3) Corporatism, in the sense that the fascist society should channel its will through formal organizations that are coordinated by the state, most importantly business and industry consortia, but also including schools, health professions, local social groups, etc.
4) Anti-Communism, which was essential both tactically, in creating a threatening enemy ideology, and intrinsically, because the anti-individualistic core of fascism had to be configured as a negation of the anti-individualistic core of Communism.
Using these criteria allows "fascism" to be applied to the major Axis powers, including Japan (and Spain, about which, however, I know not much), and also to account for why fascism in the two decades after World War I seemed a viable alternative to political groups in places that we don't usually connect with its toxic cultural features (I'm thinking now of Ireland, and the flirtation with fascism of cultural exemplars like W.B. Yeats). If, instead, one focuses on the style of the Mussolini/Hitler dictator, the mass rallies, the terrorism of black- or brownshirts, the genocidal program of the German Nazi Party, etc., you reduce fascism to a confluence of traits that show up in many forms of populist politics (including some that have been based on forms of communist ideology) authoritarian regime, military dictatorship, racketeer government, and so forth.
Because fascism lacked the theoretical coherence of the communist canon, I think there will always be a certain vagueness in identifying it in practice, especially since the pejorative use of the term after World War II prevented governments from identifying as fascist and expanding our understanding of how the basic features can be adapted by design. An example of a Post-War government that I think was a clearly fascist would be Park Chung-Hee's in South Korea. Yet because the ROK was an American ally, we rarely (if ever) discussed it as fascist, although many opposed it as a dictatorship. Park's repressive approach laid great emphasis on the corporatist elements of state organization, and its state-orchestrated leadership of business conglomerates (something adapted from the Japanese model) not only paved the way for the ROK's astonishing economic development, but had enormous influence on other Asian states, including the PRC in the interval between Mao and Xi.
Of course, we now use "fascist" as a general term of opprobium. Since we don't like populist strongmen, we refer to them as fascist--but Mao was a populist strongman. We condemn fascism as a manipulation and deflection of peoples' resentments--but the Dixiecrat New Dealers pursued that, as did a host of Middle Eastern leaders and others. Nationalism alone has been pursued by all sorts of leaders--progressive Woodrow Wilson was a global icon for championing it, modernist Atatürk used it to create and transform Turkey, and Stalin turned Soviet communism from universalist to nationalist in a way that Putin inherited. And (to reveal that I'm cribbing from the "four faces of neo-fascism" post) fascism attacks democratic institutions in much the way that communism does, as well any type of authoritarian regime: Sukarno's, the Shah's, the Taliban, Maduro's, Putin's . . . you name it.
Basically, I think "fascist" has come to denote "Nazi-like," drawing on cultural memory of Hitler, perhaps with Mussolini's swagger added, but we can't say "Nazi," because the denotative essence of that term is now tied up with genocide of a kind that can't be casually invoked to taunt opponents.
Anyway, thanks for the invitation to spout off!
If you haven't read them yet, I highly recommend reading "Eichmann in Jerusalem" and "The Reactionary Mind 2nd Edition." The way these two books break down our current political moment is uncanny.
Regarding anonymity one of my goals with my web site is promoting my consulting services. Posting anonymously would hobble that goal. When I read anonymous posts elsewhere I have a difficulty evaluating authenticity of the posting - is it serious or just trolling? There are other factors involved in evaluating authenticity but I always have to wonder about what is motivating the anonymity. It’s like trying to carry on a thoughtful conversation with someone wearing totally opaque sunglasses.
Hi I am honestly curious why you post anonymously.