Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Once upon a time, a long time ago, I was taught that 'fascism' meant:

1. The government jumped into bed with the big (not small) capitalists
2. Together they hated big time on the unions (See #5 below)
3. To keep the workers happy, the government/capitalists, whaled on the 'other', usually ethnic minorities, but foreigners in general
4. There was a lot of talk about the superiority of 'us', whichever ethnic group was doing the talking
5. There was a lot of talk about natural elites, whether social classes or nations
6. They railed against science in favor of emotionalism
7. Confrontation, whether it be in domestic politics or in foreign affairs, was revered (Constant struggle brings out the best in a 'race')

The term gets thrown around a lot here without anyone stopping to define what they mean by it. I'm curious what people think it means.

PS: I do note again that pre-Jan. 20, '09 anyone using the term was jumped on by one and all for being a dork, a fool, a geek, a douche, a scumbag, an intellectual cheat, etc. Since that date, no one at all cares who says it or in what context. This is a mystery.

[ZIFA]

Interesting. None of your definitions match mine.

I've always thought fascism was rule by an inflexible concept or idea.

One that motivates and grips a nation or government, and bulldozes anyone or anything that stands in its way.

Fortunately, fascism is temporary, as are all human ideas.


I also find it predictable that a westerner from a free and democratic country feels the need to ask the question in the first place.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Actually, they are not 'mine'.

Can I ask how your definition is different from 'divine right'?

[Kuros]

Fascism is more easily defined by its foreign policy than its domestic initiatives. Although commonly it will manifest itself within as corporatism, Hitler did control the means of production and nationalized a lot of industry. But whatever the economic method, the goal is usually the same: expansionism.

Racial supremacy combined with the justification of military conquest sets fascism apart from other expansionist ideologies such as traditional imperialism or international socialism. In a lot of ways, though, fascism is Imperialism 2.0. Although imperialism had overt racial overtones, it was usually moderated by traditional profit motives and realpolitik considerations. Fascism takes imperialism and pursues it for its own sake, as a justification of the regime and racial superiority itself.

1) Fascism will always place the military first.

2) It is expansionist in nature; a fascist society justifies itself on its military conquests and success in the field.

3) Fascism is authoritarian nationalist in economics and domestic policy. It is unlikely to be exclusively right-wing or left-wing, unless historical accident has placed the military of the society on one of those ends of the spectrum. It is more likely to pursue collectivism when it comes to natural resources and capitalism for manufacturing and distribution, with a military presence regulating the entire chain of industry and perhaps even the subsequent flow of commerce itself.

Arguably, the Roman Empire would be the first major fascist state.

If you are looking for an example of an American fascist, look no further.

[visitorq]

^ Kuros' response is quite thorough, not much to argue against there. However, as usual there is a need to differentiate between "Fascism: the historical movement that began in Italy in the 1920's", and fascism as a more general term. In the latter case, it can be taken simply to mean corporatism. It is a matter of historical record that Mussolini himself referred to his movement as "corporatism" before it was referred to as "fascism" (which traces its roots back to ancient Rome and ties into the race mythology of that period).

Corporatism is simply the merger of state and corporate power. Basically not much different from socialism (the most extreme forms of which are nearly identical to European fascism in the 30's). The United States is also quite corporatist (ie. Bush and Obama giving trillions in bailouts to Wall Street). In economics, corporatism/fascism can also be characterized as the antithesis of the free market (and again is virtually interchangeable with socialism).

Historically America was well ahead of the game in the development of corporatism. The earliest example of a corporatist/fascist president was Lincoln. The full on variety came a bit later with Woodrow Wilson (one of the most diabolical presidents in history), during which time the US changed it's policy from isolationism to interventionism (ie. militarism). Eugenics was also big around that time, with forced sterilization being carried out against people deemed by the government to be "feeble minded", decades before Hitler ever came on the scene (yes, you can thank the Progressives for that savory era of our history)... By the time FDR came around we weren't a heck of a lot different from the Soviet Union (which American corporations actually built up during that time, including the well-known Five Year Plan)...

[Sergio Stefanuto]

Fascism is a toxic brew of extreme-nationalist economic policies with very reactionary ideas about race, hierarchy, empire and war. Fascism was quasi-religious in its moral authoritarianism - it knew the Good and the True, and anybody who dissented must be killed.

Fascists weren't straightforwardly opposed to either capitalism or socialism, but certainly deplored egalitarianism; they also deplored the class system of capitalism, but weren't opposed to private property or profit - nor, obviously, were they opposed to hierarchy in general. Fascism is terrified of proletarian revolution, but is not opposed to nationalization. It is, mind you, opposed to profits not earned through "work". Though fascists hated parliamentary democracy with a passion, they did nevertheless derive legitimacy from popular support and, what's more, relied on the active participation of traditional elites - the bourgeoisie, the Church and the nobility. A communist insurrection, in contrast, liquidated traditional elites and began at Year Zero. Fascism began at Year Zero as well, but whereas Soviet and Chinese communism were 100% ideology, fascism worked with whomever in order get the job done - to rid the world of communism and Jews, to enslave Slavs and other inferior races, to win its glorious empire, and ultimately conquer the world.

Fascism, in short, is the polar opposite of classical liberalism, although it was far more vocal in its opposition to Marxism.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Sergio Stefanuto]

[Sergio Stefanuto]

Here's an eco-fascist:

[Pentti Linkola] advocates eugenics, genocide and abortion as possible means to combat overpopulation. He has suggested that big cities should be attacked by "some trans-national body like the UN", with nuclear weapons or with "bacteriological and chemical attacks". Linkola has described humans as a cancer of the earth, and he desires that the human population "be reduced to about ten percent of what it is now."

Linkola believes that Finnish society should ideally be ruled by an environmentally-aware elite. This elite would ban almost all use of motorized vehicles, and transfer populations from bigger cities to the countryside to create an agrarian society. This would eliminate the need for parking lots and construction, and trees would be planted on major roads. Industrialists and technologists would be retrained as agricultural labourers. Procreation would be licensed, with an average of one child born to each woman. Local autarchy would reduce the need for travel, which would be done by foot, paddling, horse or bicycle, instead of by cars, aeroplanes or motorboats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

Just sounds like a typical Guardian-reader to me.

A fascist, in short, is an extremely authoritarian person who espouses radical, reactionary policies in order to bring about some utopian end.

[Konglishman]

I don't know, but it seems to me that it is possible to have an intersection of fascism and communism. I would suggest that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge would be a modern example of fascist communism. Certainly, it is true that were purges in some other communist countries, but Pol Pot took it to such an incredible extreme. Quite possibly, he had anywhere between a third and a fourth of Cambodia's population killed off. Allow me to elaborate.

Pol Pot's goal of turning Cambodia into an almost stone age agrarian society (which was somehow supposed to maximize rice production as an export) was extreme. Literally, the cities were abandoned for nearly 4 years as part of his method of reaching his goal. Further, he wanted unquestioned loyalty from the Cambodian population. Therefore, he gave orders to have anyone killed who was an intellectual (or even just had eye glasses), part of an ethnic minority, a foreigner, or a child of someone else who was killed. In short, while he was a communist, his methods do not seem to differ so much from that of another fascist known to us as Adolf Hitler.

[visitorq]

^ Yes, far from being placed on the 'opposite' sides of the political spectrum (as we were taught in school) fascism and communism are nearly identical (with minor differences, which matter quite little compared to the overall end result of many innocent people being killed, robbed, persecuted, dehumanized, and enslaved). They are on the same side of the spectrum. The opposite of course is libertarianism and free market capitalism.

[The Great Wall of Whiner]

As far as Wikipedia and several dictionaries are concerned, China fits the description to a tee.

[The Great Wall of Whiner]

[visitorq]

[Kuros]