Thoughts on the roots of fascism - and the dangers on the Left (as well as the Right)

The following article was deeply thought-provoking, and I think each one of us who is interested in the political status of our nations & the risks not only of authoritarianism on the nationalist side of things, but also the push for a development of Left-tempered supra-nationalism which would seem to be the groundwork of the New World Order. A fascist world by any other name, is still a fascist world. We seem to be sliding headlong into a morass of confusion (thanks, social media...) about what even constitutes 'Right' & 'Left', let alone finding ourselves able to debate the healthy positions one can find on all sides of the quaternary divide (Left/Right, Liberal/Authoritarian).

The lure of fascism; Fascism promised radical national renewal and supreme power to the people. Are we in danger of a fascist revival today?

If the people can't understand how Nazism had its roots on the ground favoured by the Left in general terms, then the risk that another 'lure' into fascism is allowed to develop, might just play out. If that were to be the case, and the perpetrators were called out for what they seemed to be doing, they would likely rest on the argument that "..the Nazis got national socialism wrong, and were barbarians, whereas the modern reflection is deeply humanist£.. for example).

As noted by one writer quoted in the article:

Stefan Zweig, the Austrian author of Jewish descent, saw his books burnt in university towns across Germany in 1933. His memoirs paint a picture in which everything was normal until it wasn’t.

One other noted contributor wrote the following:

"Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good houses, opportunity for leisure and recreation with family and friends."

Who said that? Oswald Mosely, the leader of the British Union of Fascists from 1932 to 1940...

Scary thought, that the fascists wanted essentially what we all want.

So why were they so different from us? Perhaps we Westerners would all more or less consider ourselves to be 'ordinary people in an ordinary democracy'..? For the purpose of this thread I presume we are all generally quite liberal, believers in democracy, with a wide range of left-right positions, respecting each other's positions in general terms. The issue as outlined in the article is the disconnect between national socialism of those who might be labeled as alt-right fascists, and the international socialism of 'the ordinary democratic socialist parties'. So really, with a left-wing slant on the needs of a democratic society, we would all (in terms of Western nations, not the ATS membership) ultimately be likely to wed ourselves to a supranational governing entity which is internationally-administered socialism, which would thus be a de facto New World Order with a one world government, which the membership here have known was coming at some future time for many years, with it being a question of when*, not if..

The opposite type of socialism is thus national socialism, which turns out to be fascism if cultured in an alleged need for racial purity - one of the bits that the Nazis 'got wrong' about fascism, the new supporters of national socialism (pseudo-fascism**, perhaps) might say.

The trouble is, that in essence, it would seem that all the virtues of 'patriotism, good & proper' can be found in the roots of fascism (in a 'decent' form of national socialism) - hence it is damn scary to walk the line between a rejection of the international socialists in the New World Order & the support of an apparently natural 'third way' of national socialism which is available in pseudo-fascist form, vanishingly close to the opposite side of the aisle which is the traditional Conservative (UK) Republican (USA) party arrangement. Are we really at risk of sleepwalking into a world full of national socialists (those nations which oppose a federalised international socialism, or full of international socialists of the New World Order...?) I believe the NWO international socialists would do the most damage to the developed nations, as they try to break them down & redistribute wealth, perhaps shunting large masses of people around to mess with the demographics.

Are we reeeeaaalllyy at risk of finding ourselves ultimately torn between the choice of pseudo-fascism on the one hand & the New World Order on the other? Is this pseudo-fascism a force that might win true power? Should it be given a respectable moniker, as the NWO will demand for themselves despite the horrors they will doubtless unleash? These are some pretty terrifying thoughts, even with those allowances for the 'newness' of pseudo-fascism national socialists, as an opposing force against the NWO international socialists.


Footnotes:

*And with the way the coronavirus has impacted our world recently - with the reserves of crude oil going into negative value today, the suppliers are paying the distributors to take it off their hands - I truly believe they might spring the proposal on us quite soon. Seriously, I do believe that. I don't necessarily think it's going to be a bad thing in the very short-term, but remember "By peace he shall destroy many" - as the situation develops, we all might end up needing to make some pretty hard decisions.

**Pseudo-fascism = Fascism's grandchild, which comes packaged as per the Oswald Mosely quote found above - but without the racial purity issue, or the antisemitism, or the dismissal of certain ethnicities as inferior.. We're all grown-ups who recognise that all men's minds & souls are roughly equal across all race divides, and only our cultural heritage distinguishes us..

"Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good houses, opportunity for leisure and recreation with family and friends."

Do we really have to mould a way around the thorny issues which would be involved in such an unyielding 'Hobson's choice' scenario?

ATS, as ever, your thoughts are most welcome. Tell me I have this all wrong - because if not, society will freak out even more than it already has in the wake of coronavirus. Imagine the unschooled peoples of the world, all dressed up with nowhere to go (except for social media), being told that they can choose the NWO, or go it alone with a bunch of crazy separatist fascists/ crazy separatist communists... What would they choose?


FITO.

That's a tough decision! Although maybe a false dichotomy? 🤔
I'm not politically clever enough (like you) to comment really, but it was a very interesting read and I learnt a couple things.
Never knew I was a Pseudo Facist!
👍🏻

a reply to: FinallyAwake

Never knew I was a Pseudo Facist!

Interesting comment. Are you serious? Maybe you could change your moniker from FinallyAwake to Finally Awakening.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
"Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good houses, opportunity for leisure and recreation with family and friends."

You used the above quote twice in your OP so I will assume this is meaningful to you. Nothing wrong with that. The statement itself is fine and something an American patriot might say. But, when it's said by a fascist, it has a different meaning.

The patriot would say these are the rights of the people and everyone should have an equal opportunity to achieve it through hard work, discipline and dedication. The fascist would say it should be given to everyone for the sake of equality.

The difference is that when everything is given without a challenge, people no longer go beyond the minimum requirement to have it.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: FinallyAwake

Never knew I was a Pseudo Facist!

Interesting comment. Are you serious? Maybe you could change your moniker from FinallyAwake to Finally Awakening.

Yeah I'm probably not, it was this bit I agreed with

but without the racial purity issue, or the antisemitism, or the dismissal of certain ethnicities as inferior.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

a government can help protect these values. they can keep manufacturing in the nation. support the working person by not destroying unions, by helping those in need with health care, and provide a quality public education.

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

a government can help protect these values. they can keep manufacturing in the nation. support the working person by not destroying unions, by helping those in need with health care, and provide a quality public education.

Well, there are arguments to be made that it was the unions that destroyed the auto industry in this country. Unions were created to keep big corporations from from abusing their employees. Unfortunately, some unions become so powerful they abuse the employer. In the end, the free market dictates what happens. Look at Detroit now.

a reply to: FinallyAwake

Yep, I fully agree. I had been thinking that as I began to read to OP and was glad to see it in the OP. I think that that is deffinately a crucial point in whether or not the choice we make is right or wrong. Any decision that includes that exclusive angle over an inclusive point of view stinks.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
"Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good houses, opportunity for leisure and recreation with family and friends."

You used the above quote twice in your OP so I will assume this is meaningful to you. Nothing wrong with that. The statement itself is fine and something an American patriot might say. But, when it's said by a fascist, it has a different meaning.

The patriot would say these are the rights of the people and everyone should have an equal opportunity to achieve it through hard work, discipline and dedication. The fascist would say it should be given to everyone for the sake of equality.

The difference is that when everything is given without a challenge, people no longer go beyond the minimum requirement to have it.

That isn't the definitions of fascism that the Italian Fascist party (for whom Fascism is named) nor the Nazi party that proclaimed political descendency from the Italian Fascist Party's policies and goals.

The definition you gave was closer to Communism, at the diametric opposite extreme to Fascism.

Perhaps that is because there has been a recent attempt by the American Alt-Right to redefine the word "Fascism", among other words, as their opposite in meaning.

This redefinition of terms uses the same logic as explored in the George Orwell novel "Nineteen Eighty Four". In that book, the "Ministry of Truth" was waging a campaign to render words that could be used by those opposing the autocratic and totalitarian government, as invalid and meaningless. They called it "Newspeak".

A people who cannot communicate their dissatisfaction to the existence of an oppressive regime, cannot organize to oppose it.

Nineteen Eighty-Four
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A similar redefinition of a word is also "patriot" which derives from the Greek "patrios" meaning "of one's father". The word's original meaning carried the idea of being similar to one's family or blood relative. In earlier centuries, it was redefined as one who followed the leadership of their particular Christian denomination, at a time of Catholic/Protestant religious division. Now it is defined in terms of nationalism. Interestingly, many acts prompted by patriotism are deigned to be traitorous with changes in government (eg: Benedict Arnold).

A real lesson on how fascism stats within a well meaning group is to study the Transcendentalist Movement of the early 1800's. People like Emerson and Thoreau had really great ideas, and allowed for free thinking of what it means to be an American. From these discussions and passing of thoughts, people like Amos Alcott started building Utopic experiments like Fruitlands, which in turned bred strict rules of conduct, this twisting of the original theories and ideas warped into the Humanist movement which branched off the Eugenics movement and this trans-humanist movement we see today.

The same twisting of Masonic Lodges, Church Services, and even in todays world of tweeter feeds and facebook followers happens so that any well minded group fosters small groups within them to allow for extremists to gather and separate and form new groups using the older groups as justification for their own existence. Fascism is no different, most people join these group as a way of bettering themselves or for bring personal issues to light, though some people do join these groups to gain a sense of "justice" for things that they see as wrongs. The fascist groups though, are usually started by people that feel disenfranchised by society through either media misrepresentation, or by the persons general location. This feeling of disenfranchisement causes people to group together with others the feel the same as themselves (like like how a tweeter feed or facebook followers) only magnifies the issue rather than solves the issues. Most groups don't have strong enough leadership to evolve cultural understanding, so allowing a group to fold into whatever ideology the more extremist members want is usually what happens.

As I said at the start of this posting, if you really want to see how fascism starts just go research the Transcendentalist Movement to see how any group can go from well meaning to full blown communist agendas. It's weird how in less than a century how warped a group can fall, and it's even stranger how fast a group's message can be buried and lost when it's leadership is weak.

fascism to me means, turning away from a democratically elected government to having an all-powerful leader who can govern by decree (usually with a rubber-stamp legislature)
advantage is bypassing the slow and capricious legislature. (imagine Trump without a Pelosi-led House, or Obama without a McConnell-led Senate)
theoretically a 'good' dictatorship will be more efficient.
in reality they bog down in corruption and feuds. in order to maintain power a strongman will start suppressing opposition (closing newspapers, jailing dissidents).
such governments encourage support by finding a villain on whom to blame problems ('Keep me in power and I'll put those dirty Jews / Gypsies / commies / bankers / rednecks in their place!').

the Greeks had what they called Tyrants, essentially short-term dictators to get the though wars or other periods of crisis. after the crisis was over presumably the tyrant would go back to regular life. obvious temptation for him to want to stay in power.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
"Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good houses, opportunity for leisure and recreation with family and friends."

You used the above quote twice in your OP so I will assume this is meaningful to you. Nothing wrong with that. The statement itself is fine and something an American patriot might say. But, when it's said by a fascist, it has a different meaning.

The patriot would say these are the rights of the people and everyone should have an equal opportunity to achieve it through hard work, discipline and dedication. The fascist would say it should be given to everyone for the sake of equality.

The difference is that when everything is given without a challenge, people no longer go beyond the minimum requirement to have it.

Eh? Mosley was a fascist and based his party Blackshirts on Mussolini and Nazi Brownshirts which is the antithesis to equal opportunities. He hated jews, immigrants, non-whites, anyone remotely left wing and ran a paramilitary force that'd beat up/kill anyone not racially pure or extreme right wing enough for his liking.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

a government can help protect these values. they can keep manufacturing in the nation. support the working person by not destroying unions, by helping those in need with health care, and provide a quality public education.

Well, there are arguments to be made that it was the unions that destroyed the auto industry in this country. Unions were created to keep big corporations from from abusing their employees. Unfortunately, some unions become so powerful they abuse the employer. In the end, the free market dictates what happens. Look at Detroit now.

It wasnt unions that destroyed Detroit but Big Business Lobbyists pushing for trade with Communist China where independent unions are banned.

Pick for me, anytime in the last 100 years of our country where labor is cheaper under capitalism than it is under Communism?

Labor will always be more expensive in countries where Capitalism, rights and freedoms exist.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

We remember Mosley And how Cable Street folk fought him When we see the fash We let the boots do the talking

Nuff said


the US and UK and many other western countries are effecitvely no corporatist states , with the merger of big corporate power with government.

Look at how they circle jerk each other

Tell me right now big corporate powers dont influence government , in the US with their influencing of senate in the UK with their best buds in government being the conservative party etc.

Mussolini would be laughing right now

If by fascism, you are thinking of dictatorial power, which is how most people always throw it around. Then I would like to examine the psychological roots of it arising, in connection with society. And from this examination, my conclusion is you see this when a people are fed up with a couple things; lack of power, lack of meaningful actions (in accordance with their nature) or things not being done as a result of division.

Another way of putting it, is a people get annoyed when everyone is walking over each other's toes. At that point pretty much all groups that are a part of that division, look to consolidate power for the purposes of getting something done. In other words, they say "i'm sick of this stalemate, time to just get it done."

Obviously what that means is they are not going to tolerate "division" any longer, not going to tolerate certain manner of bickering (if the bickering is akin to filibustering), because that is what is preventing stuff from getting done (for good or ill) and will instead just seek decisions to be made quick and uninhibited.

And what will that end up looking like? Well a dictator, for better or worse. But that is how such energy moves, people get annoyed with things not being done, or too many other people "stepping on their toes."

A place for everyone, is a place for no one. And things (because you dont just see this with humans but other animals as well, and even inanimate objects) won't tolerate that forever. There is a reason all things don't exist in the same point of space and time.

Facism a right wing idealogical extreme where as Communism would be the extreme of the left.

Facism would be like an owner or a CEO of a mega corporation being elected(not going there). They would make their nation one giant corporation or machine under one brand, an demolish the free market. It could technically still have social classes based on services for the state or nation.

Communism should or would do the same thing, but one of it main principles would be the removal of any social class or social division for the good the state, while eliminating the free market too...in theory.

Mussolini wanted to bring Italy back to anceint Romes ways.




It like if the owner of McDonalds being president, changing all culture values an brand's with their own Logo being paraded around, and everyone has to put a smile on while being watched an executed by the Clown if they didnt.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

There's some reasonable information/ideas there, but there's a lot of perpetuated myth/deception and convoluted concepts that I'm afraid would take a 6 hour seminar to address properly (with discussion), especially considering politics, history, sociology, term definitions & etymology, etc. However, I'll take a stab at trying to straighten some of it out...

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
The issue as outlined in the article is the disconnect between national socialism of those who might be labeled as alt-right fascists, and the international socialism of 'the ordinary democratic socialist parties'.

This is perhaps the greatest contributor to a convoluted mess. The primary error is attempting to place use of force on the same scale with individualism-collectiveism. It is erroneous and a frequent tactic used (whether out of deception or ignorance) to paint National Socialists (aka Nazis) as "right-wing."



ref: Collectivism, Individualism, and Left–Right Politics: A False Choice

By placing collectivism on the left and individualism on the right, we now have a far more rational political spectrum that isn’t merely a variation of totalitarianism. It’s easy to see why there’s a vested interest in creating a false choice between two wings of the same totalitarian bird.

Frédéric Bastiat, a 19th-century French classical liberal philosopher, dealt with this same problem in his own time. In his most famous work called “The Law” (first published in 1850), he stated that “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to something being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”

The error in attempting to differentiate National Socialism (Nazis - "National Socialist German Workers' Party") from Soviet Socialism (Bolsheviks - "Russian Social Democratic Party") is that the only difference (despite their mutual disdain for one another) is in approach to implementation. While the the Bolshevik method pitted the Proletariat (working-class) against the Bourgeoisie ('middle-class' [and above]) to promote class-war, the Nazi method turned it on its side, into a type of "race-war" which they, not necessarily inaccurately, identified as "nationalism".

• A "nation" is a people
  
• A "country" is a territory
  
• A "state" is an independent/sovereign government
  

Keep in mind here that Russia is a huge country, composed of a heterogeneous blend of many differing peoples/cultures (Eastern European/Slavic, Arab/Turkic, Indigenous, Asian, etc.), whereas Germany is tiny in comparison and, particularly of that time period, was a much more homogeneous culture of people with predominantly Teutonic heritage. So being 'Russian' (unless someone is actually of 'Rus', or some other "indigenous-nation" heritage) is ethnically as insignificant as being 'American'.

The only discernible difference between the 'Democratic Socialist' of the U.S. and the 'Social Democrat' of Russia is the aroma of the entree and the dishes it is being served on. Even the rest of the meal's accompaniment and resultant indigestion are pretty much the same. It is part of the 'progressive' process.

originally posted by: Specimen88
Facism a right wing idealogical extreme where as Communism would be the extreme of the left.

Here again, attempting to label "Fascism" as "right wing" is another ideological fallacy that can be addressed with the same article used in my last post

ref: Collectivism, Individualism, and Left–Right Politics

It’s inaccurate to treat fascists and communists as opposites because they’re both totalitarian. It’s therefore irrational to consider them antithetical when they each believe that “might makes right.” Historically, while both were also forms of socialism, many will quibble about the semantic differences between the two.

Aside from the totalitarian nature of communism and fascism (alongside their socialist origins), they share another similarity—collectivism.

Realistically, by the actual etymology of the word, "fascism" [little 'f' -- not historical, Mussolini Fascism] could be used by left or right, and could be either voluntary or imposed; but ultimately anyone opposing fascists is likely to receive a beat-down... because that's what power mobs do.

What makes a Fascist a fascist is not what ideals he believes in. What makes a Fascist a fascist is that he believes so strongly that his ideals are correct that he feels duty bound to impose those ideals on to others for their sake as well as his own by any means necessary.

The ideals themselves are irrelevant; gun control, gun proliferation, theism, atheism, socialism, communism, capitalism, nationalisum, social distancing, freedom to assemble, progressive, conservative, ect, all irrelevant when describing "what makes a Fascist". When a person believes so strongly in any one of these things that they are compelled to impose it on others that's where fascism starts.

And I would have to say I think we in the US are closer to a fascist society than we ever were ... I'm just not sure what set of ideals the new reich will have.

a reply to: DanDanDat

I'd tend to agree, with one caveat, fascism tends to imply a group.

Look at a fasces, from which the word originates. The bound rods/sticks are stronger than the individual components. Even the idea of "united we stand, divided we fall" is, in concept, what became identified as fascism.

Many court houses and legislatures have images of fasces. It is not always negative, per se, but it can be dangerous, and tends to ideation of superiority as it courts the ideals of pure/direct "democracy" (majority rule).

edit: FWIW, even the original use of the word "faggot" has its origins in fasces.