[Political Interest]

I do not understand fascism. According to my understanding it is the belief in upholding the nation above all else. Then you must assert yourself and the nation and struggle for its supremacy in a Darwinist manner. It values the strong over the weak. The national interest comes before everything, before class interest, before the individual, before the corporate interests. Is it also true that Franco was not a fascist?

What is the critical element of fascism or the fundamental idea?

[Daktoria]

Ethnonationalism is a conclusion of fascism, not a premise.

The premise is conflict is the height of life. From there, it's realized that natural selection and emotional compatibility are necessary to maximize conflict. Ergo, fascists associate with their own kind, and they expect people to just "feel it out" when it comes to acceptable similarity.

Mussolini's essay is rather explicit about this from beginning to end:

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... solini.htm

[Political Interest]

I see, thank you for explaining.

Would it be fair to say that fascism is a misused term? For example anyone with a right wing tendency is labeled fascist. Franco, Pinochet, Park Chung Hee, Chiang Kai Shek and others have all been called this. But is it possible to be right wing, nationalist, anti-liberal and conservative without being distinctly fascist?

[Far-Right Sage]

I do not understand fascism. According to my understanding it is the belief in upholding the nation above all else. Then you must assert yourself and the nation and struggle for its supremacy in a Darwinist manner. It values the strong over the weak. The national interest comes before everything, before class interest, before the individual, before the corporate interests.

This is all true to an extent, but is a great simplification of Fascism and Fascist theory, which really has its roots in mid to late 19th century thought, and must be understood through understanding the idea of figures such as Georges Sorel, Giovanni Gentile, and the French aristocrat Arthur de Gobineau. As well as understanding palingenesis. Generally Fascism is not heavily associated with French politics, but upon closer inspection, Fascism has deep roots in French soil with many ideas drawing inspiration from figures and movements as diverse as Georges Ernest Boulanger (Boulangisme lends its name to the great man theory of history), Charles Maurras' Action Francaise, and La Cagoule of the French Third Republic.

One of the most important struggles within Fascism was the struggle against reaction and reactionary impulses (to draw a contrast with the ideas of figures such as Maurras and the Prussian Junkers, who agreed on much, but ultimately were not revolutionary) - think of the call to battle against "Red Front and Reaction" of the Horst Wessel Lied.

Fascism is essentially a revolutionary (or "conservative-revolutionary", as Ernst Jünger of "Stahlgewittern") would phrase it ideology advocating the complete rejection of the Christian and Age of Enlightenment values of European history, marking the French Revolution as a significant downturn. In this it seeks a return, the Evolian "primordial rebirth" to a pre-Enlightenment, and in some cases, pre-Judeo-Christian Western society. It stresses identity - local identity, national identity, ethnic, racial, and linguistic identity. Unity - unity of the family and of the community on a local, regional, and national level working in harmonious tandem. It rejects the authoritarian state as ultimately a useful step but the unfinished work of an unskilled butcher. It strives for totalitarian harmony and a strong state to lead the people in their quest for social, economic, and spiritual nourishment. It rejects offhand the materialist creeds of capitalism and Communism/Marxian socialism, proposing instead Corporatism, a system in which the ownership of small businesses, private property, and limited healthy competition is allowed, but is syndicalist and producerist in that every citizen must be afforded health aid, vacation and leisure time, and a certain standard of living provided they are able to work and serve not capital, but the nation. The Corporate state organizes workers through the trade union yet criminalizes striking, and mediates to assure under a syndicalist (or rather, national-syndicalist) framework that both employer and employee's needs are met.

No leech should be able to make millions, promote deregulation, import cheap foreigners, or abuse their workforce while any class of people within the state starve. Fascism rejects the materialist understanding of both the economy and history and recognizes the unique qualities of a properly-organized folk-state to guide the masses through their inexorable climb toward the heavens.

Is it also true that Franco was not a fascist?

Franco was an authoritarian conservative and many would say, a reactionary. Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was martyred by the red republic, but after the fall of Madrid and Franco's victory, not many could argue that he did not have supreme control over events in Spain, and could have empowered the Falange, but instead chose to co-opt this revolutionary movement. Primo de Rivera and the FE de las JONS were Fascist, Franco was not.

What is the critical element of fascism or the fundamental idea?

Nationalism, national consciousness, corporatism, totalitarianism, palingenesis, elements of Social Darwinism, anti-capitalism, anti-Communism, anti-liberalism.

[Political Interest]

This is all true to an extent, but is a great simplification of Fascism and Fascist theory, which really has its roots in mid to late 19th century thought, and must be understood through understanding the idea of figures such as Georges Sorel, Giovanni Gentile, and the French aristocrat Arthur de Gobineau. As well as understanding palingenesis. Generally Fascism is not heavily associated with French politics, but upon closer inspection, Fascism has deep roots in French soil with many ideas drawing inspiration from figures and movements as diverse as Georges Ernest Boulanger (Boulangisme lends its name to the great man theory of history), Charles Maurras' Action Francaise, and La Cagoule of the French Third Republic.

Understood. To understand it I will have to read further.

One of the most important struggles within Fascism was the struggle against reaction and reactionary impulses (to draw a contrast with the ideas of figures such as Maurras and the Prussian Junkers, who agreed on much, but ultimately were not revolutionary) - think of the call to battle against "Red Front and Reaction" of the Horst Wessel Lied.

I see. So this distinguishes fascism from simple conservative nationalism? Fascism is revolutionary and against the old order?

Fascism is essentially a revolutionary (or "conservative-revolutionary", as Ernst Jünger of "Stahlgewittern") would phrase it ideology advocating the complete rejection of the Christian and Age of Enlightenment values of European history, marking the French Revolution as a significant downturn. In this it seeks a return, the Evolian "primordial rebirth" to a pre-Enlightenment, and in some cases, pre-Judeo-Christian Western society. It stresses identity - local identity, national identity, ethnic, racial, and linguistic identity. Unity - unity of the family and of the community on a local, regional, and national level working in harmonious tandem. It rejects the authoritarian state as ultimately a useful step but the unfinished work of an unskilled butcher. It strives for totalitarian harmony and a strong state to lead the people in their quest for social, economic, and spiritual nourishment. It rejects offhand the materialist creeds of capitalism and Communism/Marxian socialism, proposing instead Corporatism, a system in which the ownership of small businesses, private property, and limited healthy competition is allowed, but is syndicalist and producerist in that every citizen must be afforded health aid, vacation and leisure time, and a certain standard of living provided they are able to work and serve not capital, but the nation. The Corporate state organizes workers through the trade union yet criminalizes striking, and mediates to assure under a syndicalist (or rather, national-syndicalist) framework that both employer and employee's needs are met.

No leech should be able to make millions, promote deregulation, import cheap foreigners, or abuse their workforce while any class of people within the state starve. Fascism rejects the materialist understanding of both the economy and history and recognizes the unique qualities of a properly-organized folk-state to guide the masses through their inexorable climb toward the heavens.

To me it seems like a very distinct ideology which people wrongfully label others with. Would you say it is possible to be a conservative, nationalist, anti-liberal and traditionalist without being a fascist?

Franco was an authoritarian conservative and many would say, a reactionary. Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was martyred by the red republic, but after the fall of Madrid and Franco's victory, not many could argue that he did not have supreme control over events in Spain, and could have empowered the Falange, but instead chose to co-opt this revolutionary movement. Primo de Rivera and the FE de las JONS were Fascist, Franco was not.

Was Franco not fascist in the sense that he sough to preserve the status quo and was deeply conservative? Can we also say that those such as Engelbert Dolfuss were also not fascists but simply extreme conservatives? Yet he claimed to be a fascist and was recognised by Mussolini as such. Do you think Chiang Kai Shek was a fascist? If the latter two were fascists it makes me wonder why Franco would not be considered one.

Nationalism, national consciousness, corporatism, totalitarianism, palingenesis, elements of Social Darwinism, anti-capitalism, anti-Communism, anti-liberalism.

Thank you for explaining.

[Daktoria]

I see, thank you for explaining.

Would it be fair to say that fascism is a misused term? For example anyone with a right wing tendency is labeled fascist. Franco, Pinochet, Park Chung Hee, Chiang Kai Shek and others have all been called this. But is it possible to be right wing, nationalist, anti-liberal and conservative without being distinctly fascist?

Fascism does not embrace tradition or conservatism. These are merely used to manipulate a national myth before widespread violence begins. Over the long run, I wouldn't even call it nationalist, but primitivist because its obsession with violence will shred social fabric.

I don't know about Korea, but the rest of your leaders seem fascist. They're all manipulators of national mythology.

[Far-Right Sage]

Political Interest, I will respond a bit later in full, but you can promptly ignore Daktoria's nonsense. Manipulating national mythologies? I suppose successive U.S. presidents who have made reference to Manifest Destiny and the westward expansion are also Fascists.

Anyone suggesting Augusto Pinochet was a Fascist hasn't the slightest clue of Chilean economic policy during the Pinochet era and the Chicago boys' liberalization of Allende's system.

[Political Interest]

Fascism does not embrace tradition or conservatism. These are merely used to manipulate a national myth before widespread violence begins. Over the long run, I wouldn't even call it nationalist, but primitivist because its obsession with violence will shred social fabric.

I don't know about Korea, but the rest of your leaders seem fascist. They're all manipulators of national mythology.

That is an interesting point. Fascism is modernist, yet many fascist regimes have been conservative and traditional. Maybe they were not truly fascist as in the case of Franco?

The question is where is the dividing line between conservative nationalism and fascism cross?

Political Interest, I will respond a bit later in full, but you can promptly ignore Daktoria's nonsense. Manipulating national mythologies? I suppose successive U.S. presidents who have made reference to Manifest Destiny and the westward expansion are also Fascists.

Thank you very much. Daktoria is also making good contributions so he should also be thanked as well.

Anyone suggesting Augusto Pinochet was a Fascist hasn't the slightest clue of Chilean economic policy during the Pinochet era and the Chicago boys' liberalization of Allende's system.

There are many who would also suggest Suharto was a fascist.

What I am most wanting to know is by what criteria we can differentiate between fascist and non-fascist right wingers. Also I read an article which claimed fascism and National Socialism were completely different. Fascism compared to NS seems much softer. Also the Middle Eastern Arab movements seemed more influenced by German NS than by the Italian model.

I have acquired some rare PDF documents regarding the ideological foundations of Ba'athism. It would be good to be able to assess to what extent Ba'athism is and was a fascist or possibly even National Socialist movement.

[Daktoria]

That is an interesting point. Fascism is modernist, yet many fascist regimes have been conservative and traditional. Maybe they were not truly fascist as in the case of Franco?

The question is where is the dividing line between conservative nationalism and fascism cross?

Futurism is a good sign of knowing when the line is crossed. It shows when people become obsessed with action rather than purpose.

Franco exploited the conservative and reactionary Spanish right, but that's just because he needed support from anyone he could get. Landowners and religious people are typically elitist, and they can benefit from a fascist regime where might makes right because they're the mightiest.

In Spain, the urban left was relaxed and supported equality before activity, so action orientations found refuge in the country side. This is most notable when you look at a map of the Spanish Civil War and see how the Nationalists were headquartered in the north, swung west, and took Madrid in the very end despite being in the center of the country.

[Far-Right Sage]

I see. So this distinguishes fascism from simple conservative nationalism? Fascism is revolutionary and against the old order?

Conservative nationalism can imply any movement or figure from French Bonapartists to Suharto, who you mention earlier. Fascism is a specific doctrine, and one sure way to distinguish would be that capitalism does not remain in place within a Fascist state; at the very least it is significantly modified in a transitional period. To paraphrase, "Fascism is Corporatism" (Mussolini).

To me it seems like a very distinct ideology which people wrongfully label others with. Would you say it is possible to be a conservative, nationalist, anti-liberal and traditionalist without being a fascist?

Yes, although the traditionalism would likely not veer into the realm of palingenetic thought. A traditionalist conservative will attempt to preserve the status quo, perhaps reaching back forty or fifty years as a frame of reference. Fascist theory takes into account the full history of a people, and while the creation of some idealized time in the past is not the exact goal at all (Fascism does not reject transcendance/evolution, technology, etc.), it certainly will seek to draw upon and incorporate elements of a people's glorious history to give them perspective in moving forward in the future. Ioannis Metaxas did not seek to literally recreate ancient Sparta in the context of mid-20th century Greece, but the 4th of August government considered itself the third palingenetic incarnation of classical Greece (specifically ancient Sparta and Macedonia) and the Byzantine Empire. Likewise, the Third Reich was proposed as such an incanation of both the Holy Roman Empire and Wilhelmine Germany (Otto von Bismarck's German Empire of the Hohenzollern dynasty). Of course everyone knows of Fascist Italy's inspiration in Ancient Rome. There are countless examples. This also reveals itself in the imagery - the fasces (or fascio), the labrys, the swastika, etc. Ancient symbols of a people. Such notions couldn't be further from conservative thought in the 20th century.

To draw a distinct parallel, look at Falangist thought in Spain, which, although surely not a strict Catholic entity at all, was syncretic (and palingenetic) in thought, emphasizing pride in and inspiration from the original Iberian peoples, the Catholic Monarchs (Ferdinand and Isabella), militaristic and cultural achievements of the Spanish Empire in the Age of Discovery, etc.

What you are referring to (conservative anti-liberal, traditional nationalism, authoritarianism) would be found in figures such as Francisco Franco, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Joseph de Maistre, Otto von Bismarck, Daniel Francois Malan, Chiang Kai-Shek, perhaps even Ion Antonescu.

Was Franco not fascist in the sense that he sough to preserve the status quo and was deeply conservative?

Yes, although it is difficult for theorists and historians to say what exactly Franco believed on every policy issue as he was first and foremost a pragmatist whose views changed over the course of time, possibly for strategic reasons. An example would be the recalling of the Azul Division (Spanish Blue Divsion which fought alongside Axis forces on the Eastern Front). One could say that such instances and the eventual liberalization of the Spanish economy following meetings with officials of the Eisenhower administration long after the war were results of the balance of power tipping toward Allied states, but Franco never had a firm interest in the revolutionary changes - economic, political, social, and spiritual - that Axis forces intended to impose from above on continental Europe and certainly no interest in a military coalition with the Fascist states following the conclusion of the Spanish Civil War. This shows in his making ridiculous demands of Hitler as a precondition for Spanish entry into the war such as excessive shipments of grain and materiale, and all of Vichy-held French North Africa.

Can we also say that those such as Engelbert Dolfuss were also not fascists but simply extreme conservatives? Yet he claimed to be a fascist and was recognised by Mussolini as such.

Engelbert Dollfuß was a Fascist. Austrofascism was a Fascist ideology, seeking the revolutionary change of Austrian society through the creation of workers' guilds (Cooperatives), the transition of the Austrian economy through autarkic policies, the creation of the one-party state as a vanguard to the exclusion of liberals and social democrats, Marxists, etc. In addition, Austrofascism can certainly be labeled palingenetic, because it sought the radical re-establishment of Vienna as a centre of power in Western civilization and a strong stance against ideological incursions from the East (recalling the Siege of Vienna and the Austrian resistance to the Ottoman Empire's advance in Europe in the Baroque period) directed against Bolshevism. The problem is that Austrofascism didn't have long stable conditions to develop and mature due to external factors.
.

[Do you think Chiang Kai Shek was a fascist?

No, Chaing Kai-Shek was an opportunist (cooperating with Mao and Western iiberals throuh the Flying Tigers and other assistance programs designed to bolster his regime) and the mainstream Kuomintang were absolutely not Fascist. For a look at Fascism in republican China, look to the Blue Shirts Society and Wang Jingwei.

This is most notable when you look at a map of the Spanish Civil War and see how the Nationalists were headquartered in the north, swung west, and took Madrid in the very end despite being in the centre of the country.

A frontal attack on Madrid was delayed because of the Italian/Nationalist defeat in '37 at the Battle of Guadalajara, in which Mario Roatta and the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (Italian volunteers in Spain) were routed following the Spanish failure/reluctance to follow through on their preconceived order of battle which involved an offensive toward Alcalà de Henares.

[Political Interest]

Futurism is a good sign of knowing when the line is crossed. It shows when people become obsessed with action rather than purpose.

I see. Fascism seems contradictory to me. Mussolini says that fascism is reaction and that they are conservative revolutionaries yet he is modernist and anti-Christian. Maybe it is to make a new society based on the old ideal? It is quite confusing because many genuine fascist movements were clerical such as Rexism or the Russian fascists under Rodzaevsky.

Franco exploited the conservative and reactionary Spanish right, but that's just because he needed support from anyone he could get. Landowners and religious people are typically elitist, and they can benefit from a fascist regime where might makes right because they're the mightiest.

Understood. So Franco had no desire to make a new society but rather simply wanted to preserve the status quo?

Conservative nationalism can imply any movement or figure from French Bonapartists to Suharto, who you mention earlier. Fascism is a specific doctrine, and one sure way to distinguish would be that capitalism does not remain in place within a Fascist state; at the very least it is significantly modified in a transitional period. To paraphrase, "Fascism is Corporatism" (Mussolini).

Understood. Would you agree that the line between fascism and other forms of conservative nationalism has been blurred? Everyone fascist is far right but not everyone far right is fascist is perhaps a good way to view it? We can draw an analogy to anarchism and Marxism. Both are far left but still distinct.

Yes, although the traditionalism would likely not veer into the realm of palingenetic thought. A traditionalist conservative will attempt to preserve the status quo, perhaps reaching back forty or fifty years as a frame of reference. Fascist theory takes into account the full history of a people, and while the creation of some idealized time in the past is not the exact goal at all (Fascism does not reject transcendance/evolution, technology, etc.), it certainly will seek to draw upon and incorporate elements of a people's glorious history to give them perspective in moving forward in the future. Ioannis Metaxas did not seek to literally recreate ancient Sparta in the context of mid-20th century Greece, but the 4th of August government considered itself the third palingenetic incarnation of classical Greece (specifically ancient Sparta and Macedonia) and the Byzantine Empire. Likewise, the Third Reich was proposed as such an incanation of both the Holy Roman Empire and Wilhelmine Germany (Otto von Bismarck's German Empire of the Hohenzollern dynasty). Of course everyone knows of Fascist Italy's inspiration in Ancient Rome. There are countless examples. This also reveals itself in the imagery - the fasces (or fascio), the labrys, the swastika, etc. Ancient symbols of a people. Such notions couldn't be further from conservative thought in the 20th century.

So the fascist inspiration from the past emerges not of the desire to recreate it as it was but instead revive it for the future glory? Fascism seeks a revolutionary return not to the recent past but a romantic image of a nation's classic era?

What you are referring to (conservative anti-liberal, traditional nationalism, authoritarianism) would be found in figures such as Francisco Franco, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Joseph de Maistre, Otto von Bismarck, Daniel Francois Malan, Chiang Kai-Shek, perhaps even Ion Antonescu.

I see. Maybe even figures such as Khomeini, Julius Evola or Sayyid Qutb.

Engelbert Dollfuß was a Fascist. Austrofascism was a Fascist ideology, seeking the revolutionary change of Austrian society through the creation of workers' guilds (Cooperatives), the transition of the Austrian economy through autarkic policies, the creation of the one-party state as a vanguard to the exclusion of liberals and social democrats, Marxists, etc. In addition, Austrofascism can certainly be labeled palingenetic, because it sought the radical re-establishment of Vienna as a centre of power in Western civilization and a strong stance against ideological incursions from the East (recalling the Siege of Vienna and the Austrian resistance to the Ottoman Empire's advance in Europe in the Baroque period) directed against Bolshevism. The problem is that Austrofascism didn't have long stable conditions to develop and mature due to external factors.

Did the clericalism not contradict with fascism?

No, Chaing Kai-Shek was an opportunist (cooperating with Mao and Western iiberals throuh the Flying Tigers and other assistance programs designed to bolster his regime) and the mainstream Kuomintang were absolutely not Fascist. For a look at Fascism in republican China, look to the Blue Shirts Society and Wang Jingwei.

But surely you will not deny that Chiang had fascist tendencies or was he not revolutionary enough? Also he cooperated with Germany in the 1930s before it chose to abandon him for friendship with Japan.

Do you think WWII Japan can be called fascist?

[Daktoria]

Understood. So Franco had no desire to make a new society but rather simply wanted to preserve the status quo?

The status quo was liberal republican socialism, but Spain was struggling after the Great Depression, and the countryside and military were getting fed up with it. The left tried to institute too many reforms too fast such as secularization and decent farming conditions, but the right wouldn't have anything to do with it.

I think the straw which broke the camel's back was the disenfranchisement of the Catholic church. Historically, the Catholic church was the catalyst of international human rights starting in the 16th century in response to Spain's abusive colonization of the Americas. By secularizing, the right took the excuse to be abusive and ignore the left's dignity, especially after the resignation of the king who commanded respect.