Vs. Fascism

As future training for debating and understanding the fascist position, I would like to ask someone with current or past fascist leanings to make a case for fascism so that I can practice debating them. Is there anyone who wishes to do this?

I've considered myself a fascist to heart in the past. You may go ahead and begin the conversing process.

Egalitarian wrote:I've considered myself a fascist to heart in the past. You may go ahead and begin the conversing process.

Why did you consider yourself a fascist? What were the benefits? What was the injustice that you saw?

Red Aegis wrote:Why did you consider yourself a fascist?

I did submit to the fascist doctrinal world-view at the time.

What were the benefits?

A potential better society for everyone. Looking back at WWII, fascism can easily be interpreted as the super ideology of politics.

What was the injustice that you saw?

Immigration, liberals, atheism, socialism, "degens" (to be fixed through the use of eugenics and totalitarianism), anti-Darwinism, general anti-traditional views, etc.

Egalitarian wrote:

Red Aegis wrote:Why did you consider yourself a fascist?

I did submit to the fascist doctrinal world-view at the time.

Red Aegis wrote:What were the benefits?

A potential better society for everyone. Looking back at WWII, fascism can easily be interpreted as the super ideology of politics.

Red Aegis wrote:What was the injustice that you saw?

Immigration, liberals, atheism, socialism, "degens" (to be fixed through the use of eugenics and totalitarianism), anti-Darwinism, general anti-traditional views, etc.

That first one is a non-answer, due to it explaining nothing. Secondly, the term "super ideology" makes no sense to me. Thirdly, what's wrong with evolution for starters?

Red Aegis wrote:As future training for debating and understanding the fascist position, I would like to ask someone with current or past fascist leanings to make a case for fascism so that I can practice debating them. Is there anyone who wishes to do this?

I never considered myself a fascist per se, though I had been a Strasserist for several years—which is quite similar to fascism philosophically. As a result of that affiliation, I had several acquaintances who were fascists. I've also read plenty of fascist literature, so I understand their worldview fairly well. I'd summarize their basic position as follows:

The nation is like a living organism. Every person serves a function without which the entire organism couldn't survive. Liberal democracy is an illusion, but the masses are too incompetent to manage the nation democratically regardless. The nation can only function optimally on the basis of a meritocratic hierarchy. This natural aristocracy will constitute the state, whose task it is to ensure that each social class operates harmoniously and in the national interest. (National idealism is the tool with which the state will ensure that every member of society cooperates with one another.) The "law of nature" also has it that nations are in a perpetual state of competition with each other over resources and living space; only the strongest people will survive in this eternal struggle for existence.

This is basically how the more sophisticated fascists rationalize their advocacy of dictatorship, class collaborationism, militarism, and imperialism. Very few, if any, will attempt to support their views using actual empirical evidence. Instead, they will justify fascism on the basis of it corresponding best with "human nature."

Start by debunking some core tenets of fascism:

-Totalitarianism
-Dictatorship
-Eugenics
-Propaganda
-Roles exclusively for women and men vice versa
-Social Darwinism
-Militarism
-Class collaboration
-Aryanism

Could you define what you mean by eugenics? It has a pretty broad interpretation.

The view that nazis had of eugenics is based upon the belief that one set of genes are "better" than others. Genetics says nothing about what is morally right and wrong. It only deals with what is. Having one gene for sickle-cell anemia may prevent malaria, but that does not change the value of that person's consciousness. Consciousness is what determines worth, not one's genes. Patterns of genes that seem to make an individual in one sense may be a strength in another environment.

To give an example I cite the movie Signs, in which a child's asthma saved him from inhaling poisonous gas. If he would have been "healthy" he would have died on the spot. To put it another way, being "stronger" genetically would have spelled his doom.

Morality only applies to decisions - actions and ideas - not what is. What is is the domain of science, not morality. One may be able to use science to inform their morality, but he or she must recognize when their values and opinions inform their science.

Red Aegis wrote:Could you define what you mean by eugenics? It has a pretty broad interpretation.

Historically, eugenics (i.e., the promotion of human biological enhancement through selective breeding) was a theory supported by virtually every political tendency. Even prominent socialists and communists espoused it—e.g., Margaret Sanger, Eden and Cedar Paul, J. B. S. Haldane, Peter Kropotkin, H. J. Muller, Emma Goldman, Leon Trotsky, etc. There are basically two forms of eugenics, "positive" and "negative"; the former advocates only voluntary forms of eugenic enhancement, while the latter favors state intervention in the form of forced sterilization, restrictive marriage licenses, and even euthanasia. The Nazis, for example, are infamous for having practiced negative eugenics.

Obviously many of the traits scientists once took for granted as being hereditary have been shown to be either entirely environmentally determined or at least epigenetic in recent decades. Right-wing eugenicists also ignore(d) what I call 'Kropotkin's Proviso,' which basically means that they disregard(ed) the immense effects socioeconomic factors have in influencing behavior and intelligence.

It should be noted in this discussion that not every fascist regime supported eugenics. Initially, Benito Mussolini himself was adamantly opposed to the theory.

Thanks for the information; I haven't heard that before. I still think that I addressed the question though, what do you think?

Red Aegis wrote:Thanks for the information

No problem.

I haven't heard that before.

The history of eugenics is generally unknown by much of the public—let alone the socialist and communist advocacy of it—so it's understandable.

I still think that I addressed the question though, what do you think?

I think you did well critiquing the conceptions of eugenics which focus primarily upon physical enhancements. However, many eugenicists in the past were more concerned with increasing the mean level of intelligence in populations and curtailing negative behaviors (such as theft, rape, murder, and so forth). In the 21st century, genetic engineering and pharmacological treatments will likely be the means by which human enhancement is attained, and I'm personally in favor of it—provided it's voluntary and accessible to the entire nation, as opposed to some plutocratic and/or political elite. Traditional eugenic methods are obsolete.

Egalitarian wrote:Start by debunking some core tenets of fascism:

-Totalitarianism
-Dictatorship
-Eugenics
-Propaganda
-Roles exclusively for women and men vice versa
-Social Darwinism
-Militarism
-Class collaboration
-Aryanism

First, I have to mention that Aryanism isn't necessarily an important part of fascism. It's different from racism. Mussolini only picked up on that racist nonsense to get support from Hitler. Not all fascists believe in reserving particular roles for men or women, either-- they simply expect a certain level of femininity for women and masculinity for men, which is different from ,,Kinder, Kueche, Kirche''.

Second, in debating fascists, while we combat the fascist tenets that are wrong, we also, I think, have to demonstrate how socialism is better than fascism at addressing the valid points they do have about the modern world. For example, we need to demonstrate how syndicalism is superior to corporatism in combating the failures of capitalism that we both acknowledge; we need to show how a lot of what they consider 'decadence' (in some cases rightly, in other cases not so much) is more the result of the capitalist system than liberal ideology (although I think there's room for conservatives in socialism); and we need to explain how socialist internationalism doesn't mean antinationalism.

RedSun wrote:Not all fascists believe in reserving particular roles for men or women, either-- they simply expect a certain level of femininity for women and masculinity for men, which is different from ,,Kinder, Kueche, Kirche''.

The early Italian fascists claimed to support expanding rights for women, including universal suffrage. However, these sort of progressive policy proposals were abandoned upon King Victor Emmanuel III's appointing of Mussolini to Prime Minister. Consequently, it's doubtful fascist leaders were ever sincere about desiring the adoption of such policies; many of them (e.g., suffrage) run contrary to basic fascist philosophy as it is. I would attribute this ostensibly progressive period in fascism to being a mere Machiavellian tactic to secure support from the populace. Regardless, most fascist movements historically, and individual fascists presently, are highly sexist.

Second, in debating fascists, while we combat the fascist tenets that are wrong, we also, I think, have to demonstrate how socialism is better than fascism at addressing the valid points they do have about the modern world.

The only valid criticisms fascists occasionally level against contemporary society are borrowed from the socialist tradition, and they are often egregiously debased.

For example, we need to demonstrate how syndicalism is superior to corporatism in combating the failures of capitalism that we both acknowledge

I agree. Many of us do precisely that in the Reactionaries sub-forum.

although I think there's room for conservatives in socialism

It depends by what is meant by "conservatism." Many of the values considered conservative by certain people (monogamous marriage, respect for national sovereignty, the preservation of culture, etc.), I would contend, transcend the liberal-conservative dichotomy. Moreover, there are several instances in which socialism is fundamentally at odds with conservatism. For example, socialism supports radical democracy, whereas conservatism is fundamentally elitist; socialism requires state secularism, while conservatives frequently demand a state religion; et cetera.

and we need to explain how socialist internationalism doesn't mean antinationalism.

Indeed.

Celtiberian wrote:The early Italian fascists claimed to support expanding rights for women, including universal suffrage. However, these sort of progressive policy proposals were abandoned upon King Victor Emmanuel III's appointing of Mussolini to Prime Minister. Consequently, it's doubtful fascist leaders were ever sincere about desiring the adoption of such policies; many of them (e.g., suffrage) run contrary to basic fascist philosophy as it is. I would attribute this ostensibly progressive period in fascism to being a mere Machiavellian tactic to secure support from the populace. Regardless, most fascist movements historically, and individual fascists presently, are highly sexist.

I should note here that my only reference for the behaviour of modern fascists is what happens on the Iron March forum. Users like Woman in Black show at least the possibility of nonsexist (although still approving of traditional gender roles) fascism.

The only valid criticisms fascists occasionally level against contemporary society are borrowed from the socialist tradition, and they are often egregiously debased.

Exactly! So we shouldn't have much of a problem.

It depends by what is meant by "conservatism." Many of the values considered conservative by certain people (monogamous marriage, respect for national sovereignty, the preservation of culture, etc.), I would contend, transcend the liberal-conservative dichotomy. Moreover, there are several instances in which socialism is fundamentally at odds with conservatism. For example, socialism supports radical democracy, whereas conservatism is fundamentally elitist; socialism requires state secularism, while conservatives frequently demand a state religion; et cetera.

You have a very good point. Essentially what I mean is that a good socialist organisation should have within it people who favour tradition and people who favour progress, in order to strike a balance between the two:
'...we do not cling desperately to the past as to a last board of salvation; yet we do not dash headlong into the seductive mists of the future.'
--Benito Mussolini (who I'm sure meant every word of it )

RedSun wrote:I should note here that my only reference for the behaviour of modern fascists is what happens on the Iron March forum. Users like Woman in Black show at least the possibility of nonsexist (although still approving of traditional gender roles) fascism.

If women want to stick to their traditional gender roles, that's fine, but I don't think the government should try to push women to more traditional roles or to more progressive ones. All it ought to do is give women the opportunity to break away from their traditional roles, or to regain them.

In short, I believe liberty for women is an ideal, and attaining it entails giving women the choice to chose their roles.

To me, gender rolls are created by the society that we live in and tradition is as well. To illustrate my point, the gender roll of the child raiser is one that can be challenged by two gay men raising children. If anyone wishes to press this point, I shall provide sources indicating that those children grow up normally.

I endeavor to treat everyone the same, by gender or ethnicity. What matters is consciousness. That is how I differentiate between persons and things, and that is what determines my application for how I see a person's wishes. I'm not saying that any of you expect to be able to force people into pre-described gender roles, but putting out the social pressure to do so is not so different. Such pressure is a force of coercion which I believe that would be seen as wrong by most here if applied to religion. What makes that subject taboo and gender rolls not?

Could someone tell me what their thoughts are on the subject?

I'd agree with you, though something within me still dislikes it when the bulk of the traditional standard of masculinity gets neglected. Like most of my other moral ideas, though, I think that this aim, if it's to be pursued at all, should be pursued by some group with no connection to the government or ability to legislate personal choices.

I'm not sure this isn't moving outside the discussion on how to debate fascists, though.

Red Aegis wrote:Could someone tell me what their thoughts are on the subject?

I think the evidence is quite clear: there is a significant degree of plasticity in gender roles. I don't believe the state should establish legislation encouraging a certain conception of gender, though equal opportunities for both sexes should obviously always be provided to the citizenry.

RedSun wrote:I should note here that my only reference for the behaviour of modern fascists is what happens on the Iron March forum. Users like Woman in Black show at least the possibility of nonsexist (although still approving of traditional gender roles) fascism.

The Iron March forum isn't an accurate representation of the fascist movement. Their heterodoxy is apparent in their attempt to recast historical figures such as Joseph Stalin as "fascists," among other absurdities. In general, that forum is an eclectic mixture of heterodox and orthodox fascists, National Bolsheviks, monarchists, Strasserists, Hitlerites, generic authoritarians, national capitalists, and other assorted tendencies of the Third Position.

With respect to Mussolini's eventual abandonment of female suffrage, his views on the subject are summarized well in the following passages:

"In its treatment of women, Fascism also underlined its opposition to real democracy. Mussolini had made sympathetic noises about bringing in a female suffrage bill (women did ultimately get the vote after the Second World War), but he reneged on his promise. His cynicism on the issue was then further demonstrated when, at the point where he conceded the vote to women in 1926, local elections were abolished in favor of a system of Fascist patronage. Mussolini encouraged his supporters to believe that women were too irrational and emotional to be brought into the political process."
Neville, Peter. Mussolini, p. 110.

"The Fascists' emphasis on the mystique of virility and potency had its counterpart for women; the rhetoric here was traditional with a vengeance, though designed to serve 'revolutionary' aims. Though the 1919 program of the Fasci had called for female suffrage, Mussolini later changed his mind. In 1925 he said that 'the concession of the vote to women is not a question of democracy' and would serve nothing, 'because if the woman loves her husband, she votes for him and his party; if she does not love him, she has already voted against him.' Sidestepping the question about inferiority or superiority, Mussolini admitted in his talks with Ludwig only that women were 'different.' When the page proofs of the book returned, Mussolini edited the sentence 'Women should be passive' to read 'The woman must obey' and continued: She is 'analytic and not synthetic. . . . My view of the role of women in the state is opposed to feminism. Naturally she does not have to be a slave; but if I gave her the right to vote, she would deride me. In our state she simply does not count.'"
Griffin, Roger & Feldman, Matthew (Eds.) Fascism, p. 209.

You have a very good point. Essentially what I mean is that a good socialist organisation should have within it people who favour tradition and people who favour progress, in order to strike a balance between the two

Excluding some mention of an advocacy of left-wing nationalism following the revolution, socialist and communist organizations should avoid cultural issues altogether and focus exclusively on the class struggle.

Celtiberian wrote:The Iron March forum isn't an accurate representation of the fascist movement. Their heterodoxy is apparent in their attempt to recast historical figures such as Joseph Stalin as "fascists," among other absurdities. In general, that forum is an eclectic mixture of heterodox and orthodox fascists, National Bolsheviks, monarchists, Strasserists, Hitlerites, generic authoritarians, national capitalists, and other assorted tendencies of the Third Position.

Amen. Unfortunately, the 'Third Position' has enough commonalities that they can work together. The idea of seeing Stalinism as compatible with the 'Third Position' isn't new, though; it dates back to Rodzaevsky and the Russian Fascist Party. We are discussing fascism specifically, however.

EDIT: Another thing we need is a good definition of what socialism actually is. What it actually means, what its goals are, what parts are nonnegotiable and what parts are a matter of application in certain circumstances. I say this cos I was just reading a fascist/authoritarian socialist's dA page and he described his ideal 'socialist' Mexico as a nation with a national corporatism copied from Mussolini. Corporatism isn't socialism, something a lot of people seem to have a ridiculously hard time grasping. Perhaps, when the ECRSF has released the essay on the National Question, a statement defining socialism and distinguishing it from corporatism (both fascist capitalist-run corporatism and Strasserist coordinator-run corporatism) would be a good idea.

RedSun wrote:Unfortunately, the 'Third Position' has enough commonalities that they can work together.

The Third Position is inclusive to the point of being a meaningless label. The only commonality between those who identify themselves as Third Positionists seems to be reactionary nationalism and some form of elitism.

The idea of seeing Stalinism as compatible with the 'Third Position' isn't new, though; it dates back to Rodzaevsky and the Russian Fascist Party.

Konstantin Rodzaevsky came to view Stalin as a nationalist figure, or at least one who would fulfill the tasks of Russian reactionary nationalism—not unlike Nikolay Ustryalov's "radish" theory. (Also like Ustryalov, he was eventually executed by the Bolsheviks for being a counter-revolutionary despite his apparent admiration of Stalin.) However, the notion that Stalin could be considered a fascist is absolutely ridiculous. None of the tenets from which fascism is based were ever accepted by Stalin.

Another thing we need is a good definition of what socialism actually is. What it actually means, what its goals are, what parts are nonnegotiable and what parts are a matter of application in certain circumstances.

Socialism is a rather heterogeneous term. In its broadest sense, it simply means giving priority to collective interests over individual ones. Once philosophers, radical economists, and proletarian activists began critiquing capital more thoroughly, however, substantive content was added to the ideology and it became a struggle to end the exploitation of man by man. What is not negotiable under any circumstances is the retention of the bourgeoisie. As long as private ownership of the means of production and wage labor exist within a nation, it cannot be regarded as socialist.

I say this cos I was just reading a fascist/authoritarian socialist's dA page and he described his ideal 'socialist' Mexico as a nation with a national corporatism copied from Mussolini.

Some people are even foolish enough to believe that the contemporary Scandinavian welfare states are "socialist." Attempting to educate every individual on the proper definition of socialism is an impossible task, though I agree that it's important for organizations to provide a coherent and concise definition of the term.

Perhaps, when the ECRSF has released the essay on the National Question, a statement defining socialism and distinguishing it from corporatism (both fascist capitalist-run corporatism and Strasserist coordinator-run corporatism) would be a good idea.

We'll be sure to do that, comrade.

I know some here are libertarian but I am 100% totalitarian. I am a National Socialist and that is a form of Fascism. I really like Mussolini and many others amongst the Italian Fascists. Hitler, the Strasser brothers and the like improved the Italians ideas. Yes, Hitler compromised for some of the bourgeois but I feel this was justified. What happened with the Strasser brothers and the Night of the Long Knives was a tragedy. I like the USSR. Hitler and Stalin are sometimes called "Totalitarian Twins". I am a (national) communist sympathizer. I am not an Arab but Baathism and Arab socialism have a big influence on me. Not only for their anti-Zionism but for some of their other ideas. I recommend all Nationalistic Socialists check out Gaddafi's "Little Green Book". In my opinion the Arab people have a bigger role to play in the revolution then Northern European countries and the USA do. I can't see dictatorships being established in such nations. Southern and Eastern Europeans have the biggest part to play. I believe their will be a world revolution because internationalist capitalist bankers and their collaborates are behind most of the worlds problems. In order to have this revolution Socialistic, Nationalist and anti-Zionist dictatorships should be established. Syria and Iran are good of a proud nations stand against the globalist New World Order. Iran is not Socialist or a dictatorship but Ahmadineyad is apposed to capitalism. If anyone wants to feel free to debate me.

You assert that there is a NWO attempting to take power. Would you prove it?

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Hitler, the Strasser brothers and the like improved the Italians ideas.

There were virtually no discernible differences between the Third Reich and Fascist Italy, aside from the fact Germany was far more industrialized than was Italy upon Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler to Chancellor. As for Gregor and Otto Strasser, the latter viewed fascism and Hitlerism with contempt—though I would argue that Strasser's "German Socialism" hardly represented a superior model.

Yes, Hitler compromised for some of the bourgeois but I feel this was justified.

How so? The Communist Party of Germany was gaining traction among the electorate. Had the NSDAP not been reactionary, they could have allied with the KPD and that union would have likely brought socialism to Germany. If the Bavarian Soviet Republic hadn't been suppressed, that too could have led to the ascent of socialism in Germany.

The fact of the matter is Adolf Hitler had no interest in socializing the means of production. He disliked joint-stock companies and laissez-faire markets, that was the extent of his "socialism."

I like the USSR. Hitler and Stalin are sometimes called "Totalitarian Twins".

They both exercised authoritarian control over the governing institutions of their respective nations, but that is merely an indictment against them as far as I'm concerned.

I am not an Arab but Baathism and Arab socialism have a big influence on me. Not only for their anti-Zionism but for some of their other ideas.

What specific aspects of Arab socialism do you find agreeable, aside from its advocacy of authoritarianism?

I recommend all Nationalistic Socialists check out Gaddafi's "Little Green Book".

I have. To the extent that it's coherent (which most of the book is not), Gaddafi doesn't offer insights of any value, in my opinion. He stressed the importance of incorporating nationalism within socialism, but I wouldn't regard his "socialism" as being representative of the revolutionary variety. Considering his promotion of direct democracy in the book, I'm surprised you liked it.

In my opinion the Arab people have a bigger role to play in the revolution then Northern European countries and the USA do. I can't see dictatorships being established in such nations.

Socialism doesn't require the establishment of dictatorships in order to be constructed. The nomenklatura were responsible for the demise of socialism in Europe, and yet you think that bestowing power onto another class of unaccountable bureaucrats is a sensible course of action?

I believe their will be a world revolution because internationalist capitalist bankers and their collaborates are behind most of the worlds problems.

Capitalism itself is behind most of the world's problems. Financiers just facilitate the process of capital accumulation.

Syria and Iran are good of a proud nations stand against the globalist New World Order.

There is no "New World Order"—which suggests there's some sort of secret cabal advancing a sinister agenda. What we're experiencing is nothing more than the natural consequences of capitalism's laws of motion.

Iran is not Socialist or a dictatorship but Ahmadineyad is apposed to capitalism.

In what sense is Ahmadinejad anti-capitalist?