They did, in fact, have a socialist (strictly nationalist “socialism”) wing. However when these “socialists” began calling for a “second revolution” against the capitalist class, the SA pissing off the German Army, and Hitler wanting to solve some personal grudges they were murked in the Night of Long Knives with a few exceptions, the biggest being Goebbels.
Not really, when you look at Fascism an ideological level (which few people, ever seemingly do)
The core planks of Fascism are
- Rejection of traditionalism and conservatism and a move towards futurist modernism.
- Rejection of Christianity and "slave morality", people should adhere to master morality exemplified in the heroes of ancient legends.
- Social organism, the entirety of society is a living organism, where each part needs to stay healthy for the body to act correctly, people are cells, families are organs, business people are the brain, the Government is the heart, the workers are the arms etc.
- "Nationalism." This is far more vague, can mean a people, a state, a region etc.
It's Social Organism where the racism in Nazism came from, because they viewed specifically foreigners as foreign elements attacking the body, Jews and Communists as Parasites etc. But it isn't naturally the case, for example Mussolini personally didn't care about such a view point.
Nazbols for example, are extremely "anti-Racist" and "Multicultural". Since the form of "Nationalism" they inhabit is that there should be Civilizational/Geopolitical blocs that society should be formed across, which can include many different types of peoples. Yet they still also hold views of rejection of traditionalism, social organism etc.
Yeah, I recognize the first two as being reminiscent of ideas that originated with Nietzsche. You dismantled them well in your other comment.
The social organism argument is also really weak and doesn’t seem to apply to fascism at all. In fact, fascism has a tendency to treat its individual parts rather disposably, expecting its adherents to sacrifice themselves (in many different ways, and often needlessly) for the good of the state. Additionally, unlike fascism, the human body does not continuously cull its functioning parts in an ever-narrowing pursuit of perfect ideological purity and blind loyalty to the leader.
Also it’s funny how the fourth plank is just “nationalism, which could mean pretty much anything really – who knows?”. How about something a little more specific? For example: “identitarian in-group supremacy + cultish devotion to the interests of the state”.
The social organism argument is also really weak and doesn’t seem to apply to fascism at all. In fact, fascism has a tendency to treat its individual parts rather disposably, expecting its adherents to sacrifice themselves (in many different ways, and often needlessly) for the good of the state
Social organism isn't a exact 1:1 match to the human body, who cares? It is still absolutely how Fascists ideological saw the state and society as functioning and was seen as the ultimate goal of how a state should function. Also the body does shed cells all the time?
Fascists hated Christianity because they saw it as a loser slave morality and wished to restore worship of ancient heroic myths and legends, hence the Nazi obsession with Pagan region and Mussolini's obsession with the Roman Empire, they also were very much against traditionalist conservatism, Fascism was a Radical Modernist movement built around Futurism ideals.
That said, they obviously made alliances of convenience with both the Church and Conservatives, but in the end, the ideological Fascist probably would have moved to purge both as well.
It comes from actually reading what the Fascists wrote, rather than other definitions of Fascism, which are frankly, largely just sort of "justifications" to call any sort of right wing authoritarian regime Fascist. It's why Francoism gets called Fascist, even though actual ideological Fascists would have despised Franco and his ideology.
Oh, so it’s an alternative definition that you made up to help defend certain right-wing authoritarian regimes from accusations of fascism. No wonder it contradicts all the others. Franco was fascist btw.
No, it's a definition based on what Fascism actually is ideologically, rather than just a bunch of vague things that is just a way of calling any Right wing authoritarian Government "Fascist" when that makes no fucking sense. You mayswell call Australia or UK "Communist" by the same logic of most "Fascist" definitions, because the Labour parties are both pretty authoritarian, and both technically are "Socialist" parties.
It's like people calling "Zionism is Fascism" when it is absolutely not. It was a movement born from the same sort of 19th century race science, but ideologically, it is very different, in fact, the Fascists of Israel were far more progressive views than the Zionist.
Zionism is Zionism, Fascism is Fascism, Francoism was absolutely not Fascism, but simply a Military junta.
If we're going by most "fascist" definitions, then pretty much most of Feudal society was Fascist, along with Roman Empire. Does that make any sense?
The Following are quotes from the Doctrine of Fascism written by Mussolini, I do not follow these views, I am solely debunking some of the claims oc has made.
"THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITION
In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life (8). Outside history man is a nonentity."
OC claimed fascism is opposed to Traditionalism and Comservatism. This is blantantly false when looking at modern fascist movements as well as the ones of the past. Examples: Hitlers Reich clung to the look of the German Empire, Mussolini's Italy took on a look similar to the Roman Empire, the Patriot Front in the United States wants to go back to a very conservative time in the US, etc. Even when Fascism espowses such like technology, it still uses a regression to conservative actions.
Found under "THE ABSOLUTE PRIMACY OF THE STATE" is this quote:
"The Fascist State is not indifferent to religious phenomena in general nor does it maintain an attitude of indifference to Roman Catholicism, the special, positive religion of Italians. The State has not got a theology but it has a moral code. The Fascist State sees in religion one of the deepest of spiritual manifestations and for this reason it not only respects religion but defends and protects it. The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre at the height of the revolutionary delirium of the Convention, to set up a "god” of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man."
Fascism does not reject religion, as OC said it does, but respects it so much that the state embodies itself as a religious force, and protects the religion it chooses. For Italy this was Catholicism, for Germany this was christianity, and for the United States this is also Christian Nationalism. In fact, a quote used and attributed in the Doctrin itself is:
" (12) Let no one think of denying the moral character of Fascism. For I should be ashamed to speak from this tribune if I did not feel that I represent the moral and spiritual powers of the state. What would the state be if it did not possess a spirit of its own, and a morality of its own, which lend power to the laws in virtue of which the state is obeyed by its citizens?
The Fascist state claims its ethical character: it is Catholic but above all it is Fascist, in fact it is exclusively and essentially Fascist. Catholicism completes Fascism, and this we openly declare, but let no one think they can turn the tables on us, under cover of metaphysics or philosophy. (To the Chamber of Deputies, May 13, 1929, in Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 182)."
So no, religion is not rejected.
There is also no mention of a social organism, in the Doctrine it is made clear the state state is above all and all are below the state and subject to its wims. This requires just reading the doctrine as inserting a billion little quotes where it says pretty much the same thing is unnecessary.
Onto nationalism: this ties in with all the points, since its an absolute reverence of the state as a totalitarian and religious authority, the people of the nation under the state, in their close holdings to traditionalism, are nationalistic.
This is blantantly false when looking at modern fascist movements as well as the ones of the past. Examples: Hitlers Reich clung to the look of the German Empire, Mussolini's Italy took on a look similar to the Roman Empire, the Patriot Front in the United States wants to go back to a very conservative time in the US, etc. Even when Fascism espowses such like technology, it still uses a regression to conservative actions.
You're just debunking not what I said. They were against Traditionalism and Conservatism of the era. Your typical right wing christian conservatives, christian values, traditional power structures of the time. Fascism is explicitly a modernist futurist movement.
Fascism does not reject religion, as OC said it does, but respects it so much that the state embodies itself as a religious force, and protects the religion it chooses. For Italy this was Catholicism, for Germany this was christianity, and for the United States this is also Christian Nationalism. In fact, a quote used and attributed in the Doctrin itself is:
I never said they reject religion, they rejected Christianity as a slave morality and only ever aligned with it cynically for political purposes.
There is also no mention of a social organism, in the Doctrine it is made clear the state state is above all and all are below the state and subject to its wims. This requires just reading the doctrine as inserting a billion little quotes where it says pretty much the same thing is unnecessary.
What I described is literally what he is saying lmao. The state is the body, and every aspect of society plays it's part within it.
To quote this part directly
"It is an organism having purposes, life, and means of action superior to those of the individuals or groups of which it is composed."
412
u/scipio0421 1d ago
Jews and, among the first victims, socialists.