The Anatomy of Fascism

[Chris]

Franco's dictatorship was not fascist but have your heard of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera? He was executed by the Republican government in his early 30s but he was the leading personality of Spanish fascism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%...rimo_de_Rivera

I like from his speech: "Goodness and truth are perennial tributaries of reason, and to ascertain whether one is in the right it is not enough to ask the king—whose dictate seemed always just to his supporters—nor enough to canvass the people—whose decision is always right according to the disciples of Rousseau. What must be done rather is to verify whether our actions and our thoughts are in agreement at every step with a permanent aspiration."

[Peter1469]

the OP is rather vague and incoherent as to what exactly the point of this thread is. I'll take it as Paxton's view of fascism.

To set some context, Paxton is a lefty, as we'll see in the following piece he wrote. But we don't want to dismiss him for that, it'd be ad hom. His view of fascism is, I think, fair enough, though I'm no expert. You'll just have to weed out the left attitude to get at the right stuff.


Jan 7, 2016, ROBERT O. PAXTONIs Fascism Back?




In general then, according to Paxton, ignoring his dislikes, neither the Tea Parties nor Trump, what we might call the right in America, are fascist.

Fascism, per Paxton, was national socialism. It was as opposed to Western democracy and capitalism and individualism as the communists were.

He seems to be defining fascism as a reaction to excess individualism and call for subordinating the individual to the whole (of the "us" not "them") in national socialism. The only post WWII movement that this describes is the Pan Arab movement and it never went anywhere practical except as the Bat'th Parties in Iraq and Syria.

Calling it right wing seems to be arbitrary. What makes it right wing? Because it is reactionary? Weak.

The modern battle for the role of government is the degree of control the government is to be given. Under that metric, there is no significant difference between communism (as practiced), socialism, fascism, and even social democracy. They all rely on a strong central state and limit individual freedoms. All the rest such as whether it is revolutionary or reactionary, where the individual submits to the State or whether the collective submits to the State is all fit for academic debate but not useful in the real world.

[jet57]

Bump

[Chris]

He seems to be defining fascism as a reaction to excess individualism and call for subordinating the individual to the whole (of the "us" not "them") in national socialism. The only post WWII movement that this describes is the Pan Arab movement and it never went anywhere practical except as the Bat'th Parties in Iraq and Syria.

Calling it right wing seems to be arbitrary. What makes it right wing? Because it is reactionary? Weak.

The modern battle for the role of government is the degree of control the government is to be given. Under that metric, there is no significant difference between communism (as practiced), socialism, fascism, and even social democracy. They all rely on a strong central state and limit individual freedoms. All the rest such as whether it is revolutionary or reactionary, where the individual submits to the State or whether the collective submits to the State is all fit for academic debate but not useful in the real world.

I'd say socialism/communism, nazism, fascism were all reactions against the excesses of Enlightened individualism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism.

I don't see where Paxton is saying fascism is right-wing. I see him warning against making that association. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, explains fascism as the right-wing of socialism, communism the left-wing (in the same way Manchin is said to be the right-wing of the Democrat Party). Hitler believed socialism was better implemented at the national level as opposed to communist globalism.

[jet57]

@DGUtley @Cletus @Mister D @carolina73 @MMC @The Booman @LWW @hanger4 @Peter1469 @testsubjectalpha

the OP is rather vague and incoherent as to what exactly the point of this thread is. I'll take it as Paxton's view of fascism.

To set some context, Paxton is a lefty, as we'll see in the following piece he wrote. But we don't want to dismiss him for that, it'd be ad hom. His view of fascism is, I think, fair enough, though I'm no expert. You'll just have to weed out the left attitude to get at the right stuff.


Jan 7, 2016, ROBERT O. PAXTONIs Fascism Back?




In general then, according to Paxton, ignoring his dislikes, neither the Tea Parties nor Trump, what we might call the right in America, are fascist.

Fascism, per Paxton, was national socialism. It was as opposed to Western democracy and capitalism and individualism as the communists were.

The OP is not vague at all and your reading comprehension skills need some work:

This shows us that the very idea that Fascism is some sort of left leaning phenomenon or agenda is just plain ludicrous.

THAT is the thesis of the OP. At no time did I say that Trump or The Tea Party were fascists. What I have clearly shown - yet again - is that your notion that fascism was and is somehow connected to the left is pure BS.

Your disingenuousness is further demonstrated by Paxton's closing line in your source:

There are fringe movements today, such as Aryan Nations in the United States and Golden Dawn in Greece, that draw openly upon Nazi symbolism and employ physical violence. The term “fascist” is better left to them.

That has been my point all along. Moreover, Paxton shows that fascism used conservative principles and money to seat itself in power. Russia did the very same thing when they infiltrated far right groups like the NRA and people connected to them. The far right models it's behavior and messages on Brown Shirt / Black Shirt tactics, rhetoric, racism, anti-leftism and militarism. The chief mechanism of fascism - is nationalism that is employed by the state to intimidate and wash everybody in the same gaslighting consciousness that is present in far right rhetoric and media.

So chris: the OP is very clear, easy to read and comprehend and shows that you and your friends have always been wrong about what fascism is and what side of the political isle if favors and works with and for.

[hanger4]

@DGUtley @Cletus @Mister D @carolina73 @MMC @The Booman @LWW @hanger4 @Peter1469



The OP is not vague at all and your reading comprehension skills need some work:


THAT is the thesis of the OP. At no time did I say that Trump or The Tea Party were fascists. What I have clearly shown - yet again - is that your notion that fascism was and is somehow connected to the left is pure BS.

Your disingenuousness is further demonstrated by Paxton's closing line in your source:
That has been my point all along. Moreover, Paxton shows that fascism used conservative principles and money to seat itself in power. Russia did the very same thing when they infiltrated far right groups like the NRA and people connected to them. The far right models it's behavior and messages on Brown Shirt / Black Shirt tactics, rhetoric, racism, anti-leftism and militarism. The chief mechanism of fascism - is nationalism that is employed by the state to intimidate and wash everybody in the same gaslighting consciousness that is present in far right rhetoric and media.

So chris: the OP is very clear, easy to read and comprehend and shows that you and your friends have always been wrong about what fascism is and what side of the political isle if favors and works with and for.

I'm totally disinterested in your obsession with fascism.

[Mister D]

I like from his speech: "Goodness and truth are perennial tributaries of reason, and to ascertain whether one is in the right it is not enough to ask the king—whose dictate seemed always just to his supporters—nor enough to canvass the people—whose decision is always right according to the disciples of Rousseau. What must be done rather is to verify whether our actions and our thoughts are in agreement at every step with a permanent aspiration."

Yeah, that's steeped in a "Third Way" philosophy and really encapsulates the fascist approach.

[Peter1469]

I'm totally disinterested in your obsession with fascism.

Especially with what his mind turns it into.

[Mister D]

It would be hilarious if we just ignore jet and had our own discussions on this thread.

[Mister D]

He seems to be defining fascism as a reaction to excess individualism and call for subordinating the individual to the whole (of the "us" not "them") in national socialism. The only post WWII movement that this describes is the Pan Arab movement and it never went anywhere practical except as the Bat'th Parties in Iraq and Syria.

Calling it right wing seems to be arbitrary. What makes it right wing? Because it is reactionary? Weak.

The modern battle for the role of government is the degree of control the government is to be given. Under that metric, there is no significant difference between communism (as practiced), socialism, fascism, and even social democracy. They all rely on a strong central state and limit individual freedoms. All the rest such as whether it is revolutionary or reactionary, where the individual submits to the State or whether the collective submits to the State is all fit for academic debate but not useful in the real world.

It's right wing in a specific context. In North America, it really doesn't make much sense.