Talk:Fascism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics.svg

This Politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Left-wing Fascism: Absurd and Impossible[edit]

Wow. I love this website, but I am thoroughly disappointed with some of the politics-related articles here. As stated above, the horseshoe theory is bullshit. Left-wing politics are generally concerned with social equality and the creation of an egalitarian society. Leftists reject tradition, hierarchies, and social orders especially where they may result in inequality. Right-wing politics generally seek to justify, uphold, or even further reinforce these things. It seems there is some confusion over tactics and ideology—the Nazi Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union may have both been totalitarian, and used political violence up to and including state terrorism, but their underlying philosophies and ultimate aims were completely different. Fascism's opposition to egalitarianism is one of its defining features.

Here is a particularly foolish statement from the article: "In fact, fascism has always been wrapped up in leftist-sounding language — it's "a workers movement", "a populist struggle for justice", et cetera — while much of radical leftism has always endorsed the methods of fascist regimes, especially by excepting acts of terror from condemnation as long as they're done in the name of radical leftism."

First, "leftist-sounding language" is just that. In practice, fascists are happy to allow elites and capitalists to flourish at the expense of the working class as long as they serve the aims of the fascist state. Second, populism exists on both the left and the right. Third, "much of radical leftism has always endorsed the methods of fascist regimes"—where to begin with this part? Radicalism isn't about violence. It's about transformation. Sometimes, radicals (right, left, whatever) turn to violence to initiate that transformation. Fourth, "the methods of fascist regimes" are really just the methods of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, which are inherently violent no matter the belief system. Again, this is a confusion of tactics vs. ideology. It is worth noting, however, that the exaltation of violence is an inherent feature of fascism. Fascism requires violence, in other words. It isn't merely a means to an end for fascists as it is for violent leftists.

It makes sense to discuss fascism as a snarl word used by both the left and the right, but the attempts to describe actual left-wing fascism should be removed for inaccuracy.

I urge people to view this video, which discusses antifa and fascism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwS_FMZ3nQ

Trau (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

14 points of fascism[edit]

We don't have article? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean, we should. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I want to link to it on FB. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I really like linking to our articles on FB. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
(EC3) As Dr. Britt thought that Pinochet was a "fascist," and that the military had supremacy in all fascist regimes, and that labor unions were the only possible threat to a fascist government, I submit that we do not need one. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Major Edit[edit]

I just drastically rewrote that textwall that began before the table of contents, and transferred a whole bunch of it into two new headlines. I hope my revisions are up to Rationalwiki standards. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Is corporationism to the right of laissez-faire?[edit]

I know the fascists try to present themselves as "above" the left and right, but aren't their form of economics right-wing, just in a different way than laissez-faire is associated with the right? If "right" means an appeal to authority or inequality isn't protecting the elite class and corporations "right-wing", even if it's in a different way than we associate right-wing economics? At least with laissez-faire you could, theoretically speaking, get out of the lower classes, but fascists usually want the classes to basically accept their place in life, unlike the commies who wanted to unite them (though in practice we know it doesn't work that way). I just see this "we're not right or left" Third Positionism as a half-assed attempt to put themselves above the fray, kind of like when The New Black Panther Party says similar things yet lean to the far-left. Fascist "economics" seem quite similar to those utilized by right-wing monarchies for the "good the nation", so what makes the fascists think they're so special? ClothCoat (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There are different forms of Corporatism that get placed (variously) on the left and the right. Left Wing Corporatism exists in modern Germany and is usually referred to as something to the effect of 'Social Capitalism' and is where the government takes a (theoretically) minimal role in the economy while labor unions and management groups negotiate compensation. We normally think of the Left as wanting heavy intervention into the economy, but that isn't really a Left Wing thing, it's simply a means to an end, in this case a means to the end of "more equality and oppertunity among different economic classes". Economies that adopt Left Wing Corporatism want that nice Left Wing goal, but don't want to fuck around in the economy too much. Right Wing Corporatism is what we more commonly associate with Fascism, and is where the government takes a direct role in the economy, forcing groups to work together and towards an ultimate goal of "what is best for the country/the government/the military". In practice this quickly breaks down to the government forcing labor groups to do what the management groups want, because Fascism is really just the mixture of the worst incarnation of capitalism, pseudo-Democracy, and nationalism gone awry.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 15:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
That's very well put. I'm wondering if we should make it more clear in the article that despite not being very pro-capitalist (or not being very good at capitalism) that it's usually a far-right ideology, due to attempts by some to pull a No true Scotsman or shove it to the other side of the spectrum (though obviously most people on the right of the spectrum are not fascists, I hate it when moonbats throw around the word). I see this "Third Positionism" stuff as usually a half-assed attempt for right and left wing extremist groups to try to make themselves out to be "above" the political spectrum, and I think we're giving them too much credit in the article. ClothCoat (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
So perhaps, then, "leftwing" and "rightwing" are not reliable markers of how authoritarian an ideology is. At least, that is the conclusion I make based on my personal definition of left and right. To me, left vs. right is defined as "equality vs hierarchy," with both having the potential to lead to totalitarianism. Then again, a lot of self-proclaimed "libertarians" get around this by defining left vs right as "collectivism vs individualism," so that their token pundit on Fox can call George W. Bush a leftist without irony, as well as pin all acts of government tyranny on leftists (and it helps that their own definition of freedom has never really existed on a national level). Wow, I went on a tangent there, didn't I? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Fascism & the Catholic Church - a parody picture[edit]

When I get the time, I'll make some changes to this new section because it completely misses the very specific Italian context and instead paints a false dilemma of the Catholic Church having to choose between liberalism and communism (as if those were the main strains of politics at the time...). I just thought I might as well announce this up front, though it might not be until Saturday that I have the time to actually edit this stuff. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Fascism and the Political Spectrum[edit]

In my opinion it's irrelevant to ask whether or not Fascism is left-wing or right-wing because, historically speaking, Fascism never had it's own political worldview. What makes it Fascism is what it becomes in practice. In Italy, National Syndicalism was more of a bizarre syncretic doctrine, neither explicitly left or right, before an industrialist backed Mussolini co-opted it, ultimately transforming it into a tool of labour suppression and right-wing terror. The same was true of pre-Hitler National Socialism in Germany, which promoted a weird type of pan-Germanism combined with nationalism, anti-zionism and state-capitalism. Under Hitler's leadership it became backed by big industry and was, again, used as a tool of labour suppression and right-wing terror. So it seems to me that considering whether or not Fascism is left or right is placing too much emphasis on proto-Fascism, as well as what is initially preached, rather than what is practiced.

In practice, Fascism is always the same - and one never has to ask whether Fascism is left or right. One only has to look at who the fascists are shooting and for what reason.