The left and the right have accused each other of being fascists, not just in the current health care discussion, but in the most recent administration as well. Why the reference to fascism? Because fascism is an epithet and is depicted as the worst possible government one could imagine. So demonizing the other side as 'fascist' is intended to paint the other side as dark and evil.
What is fascism anyway? The word is derived from the Italian word 'fascio,' meaning bundle.
What type of government is fascism?
Contrary to popular belief, fascism didn't start in Nazi Germany.
Fascism came into being in Italy. It was the vehicle used by Mussolini to come to power. Fascism was an attempt to navigate between individualistic capitalism and statist communism. In a fascist government, economic control is exerted to force business and corporations operate in accordance with government dictates. Profit is allowed and corporations are permitted to operate as they desire within parameters circumscribed by the government. Companies are privately owned but government officials are assigned to advise or even actually run the companies.
The problem with fascism is that such governments tend to be dictatorial and heavy handed. Hitler adopted fascist philosophy because it served his purposes exactly. It was Nazi Germany that gave fascism its bad reputation. The term 'brown-shirts' comes from National Socialist German Workers' Party, whose henchmen wore brown-shirted uniforms.
Are there still fascists and fascism in the world? Yes. The name has changed, but the system is the same. Look about in various countries and even within our own and you will see fascists (who do not call themselves such). Saddam Hussein was a fascist. The Baath party was modeled after the Nazi party. Syria and many other Middle Eastern countries are very probably fascist states under other names.
So if you see a government advising and subtly or overtly running private companies, you can see a sliver of fascism at work (i.e., bundling government and private businesses together).
5 comments:
Good example...Does the current administration have such leanings? Government has their heavy hand now in banks, Auto makers etc. These are privately held but oversight is by the government now with all these czars. Just a question.
Alan's post interested me immediately and surprised just as quickly. It interested me for two reasons; I have always been interested in political systems and in fascism especially given my birthdate's temporal proximity to WW II. It surprised me because I had not read this particular explanation of this ism. Although it certainly fits WW II Germany and hence appears to be correct, I am very leery of Alan's definition.
I have read aspects of this definition mixed with other definitions, but I have not ever read anything really definitive from a variety of sources. It seems that there is not commonly held belief of what fascism really is. There is one element that surfaces in everything that I have read however, and that is a one party system that is very totalitarian. What surprised me the most in Alan's definition was the claim that individual capitalism and state communism are (or can be) manipulated to equate a form of fascism. To my knowledge, fascists in Italy, Germany, and Spain targeted communism not only as an existing rival movement but as a political philosophy as well.
There is so much to be said in response to Alan's post that I will stop here regarding what fascism is.
However, the last paragraph troubles in spite of the qualifier 'sliver'. It troubles because it subtly implies that our current government (and perhaps that and/or those which preceded it) is engaged either knowingly or un- in some form of the grounding principles of fascism. I can't accept this for any current or recent administration. What fascism really is remains debatable and thus can't be, at least I believe, used in defining governments that allow a plurality of parties and are not totalitarian. It appears that Brian took the bait and asked the question that the last paragraph begged: are we thus not showing some signs of fascism according to the post?
No, I believe not. Fascism is a lot of things to a lot of people and is used almost uniquely as Alan very astutely pointed out for its value as an epithet because of the horrors it is attached to historically. People don't even quite know what they are saying.
I didn't imply or I didn't mean to imply the capitalism and communism are manipulated to produce fascism. Fascism was probably (I'm not an expert) born amidst capitalism, because I believe that is what Italy had before Mussolini. Germany had free enterprise before WWII, but the fascist government began directing and subsuming banking and industry.
Here are short descriptions of various forms of government in terms of the economy.
Eastern European-style Socialism/Communism: The state owns and manages all aspects of the economy. There are no companies. Any economic enterprise is a government bureau, not a company.
Capitalism: Government owns and runs no economic enterprises. (We obviously do not live in a pure capitalist system.)
Fascism: Government directs banking and industry, which are privately owned.
Western European-style Socialism: Private companies exist amidst heavy regulation, some industry is wholly or partially nationalized, banking is heavily regulated.
There are other systems, of course, but the above-listed ones are most relevant.
Therefore, I stand by my last paragraph is this post. Please note that I am not talking about military matters, cultural matters, religious matters, racial matters, or any other aspect of these systems. Just the economic aspect.
Therefore, based on the above brief definitions, which one is most similar to our current situation? And which system has produced the most wealth?
I think we live in a country that has a mix of many of the models and is itself a model for others: capitalism functioning under reasonable regulation with some strong socialist programs. Our industry and banking is privately owned although incursions have been made in the auto industry and banking sector with the expectation of a retreat from those incursions. The incursions were not ideological, but rather necessary, targeted, and temporary in order to save them. The importance of saving them is worthy of debate. (I believe you can let auto makers fail, but not banks.)
A question; what then is the difference between our current regulation and the 'direction' of fascism?
The difference between regulation and fascist direction is that a fascist government not only regulates, but only forces the companies to produce certain products deemed necessary for the goals of the government. Even now the Obama administration is "strongly encouraging" the auto companies to build green cars and is now flexing its newly acquired financial control/influence over the companies to do so. It's getting mighty close to the fascist system. Please note I am not calling the Obama administration fascist.
Post a Comment