- 11 Dec 2012 10:05
#14126983
Well I would not wish for you to be hasty, Fasces. Rei, Figlio, and myself are reasonably read on the subject, as are you, but none among us is the supreme authority on fascism.
In reference to fascist movements that moved in a different direction, many factors have to be considered. First of all, which movements are you considering fascist? The 20th century incarnation of the ideology was short lived in the span of history since the Enlightenment (really when populistic and mass-action politics gained ground in the West after the events in France) and had to contend once in power with extremely destructive forces the world over seeking to extinguish the revolution. When that situation arises, long-term goals are often put on the back burner in favor of expedient arrangement, as was the case in the NSDAP's uneasy toleration of vocal opponents amongst both leading German Protestant personalities and the Catholic priesthood, such as Clemens August Graf von Galen - a man Hitler vowed to have shot immediately after the war. War neccessitates compromise to soothe internal strife and the changes we are discussing would be met in many corners of the world, even in the West, with fanatical opposition now. The 40's was a very different world, both in Europe and in this country.
The other factor is that not every one who supports a specific ideology is on board with the end-goal many fleshed-out ideologies have which I was alluding to in the other discussion. Some support it for their own reasons and understand little else. Some in the German government, for example, were reportedly very uninterested in Himmler and Herman Wirth's Ahnenerbe and had little knowledge of the intention behind Axis expeditions to Tibet and the Andes - even what they were searching for or trying to achieve in occupied Poland.
To answer your original question I believe many support fascism because, yes, they support nationalism - perhaps even some form of palingenetic nationalism - as well as a mixed economy from which they find comfort in corporatism. They also tend to support the maintenance of the linguistic and cultural influence of the dominant ethnic bloc within their country, and perhaps a radically reorganized foreign policy which supports others around the world attempting to achieve the same things in their respective native lands, and is in no way isolationist yet is decidedly opposed to internationalism.
Many others supported our revolution for specific historical reasons too numerous to list or speculate on.
Indeed there are many Marxists who support the disestablishment of religion in the form of state atheism, support the eradication of borders, and support the dominance of the proletariat with a worker's government watching over it all, as in a more idealized vision of Lenin's Russia perhaps, but they do not support the radical obliteration of all group identities and unchecked internationalist egalitarianism. When many clamor for and profess communism, particularly former Soviet and Eastern bloc denizens, they are clamoring for the old Soviet system which stalled in its evolution long before achieving anything close to what a pure Marxism is, and many Reds who sympathize with Stalin's "socialism in one country"/Ceausescu's "National Communism" probably wouldn't support the total mass actualization of their ideology in a literal sense.
I bring this up because it can probably be applied to many fascists.
In reference to fascist movements that moved in a different direction, many factors have to be considered. First of all, which movements are you considering fascist? The 20th century incarnation of the ideology was short lived in the span of history since the Enlightenment (really when populistic and mass-action politics gained ground in the West after the events in France) and had to contend once in power with extremely destructive forces the world over seeking to extinguish the revolution. When that situation arises, long-term goals are often put on the back burner in favor of expedient arrangement, as was the case in the NSDAP's uneasy toleration of vocal opponents amongst both leading German Protestant personalities and the Catholic priesthood, such as Clemens August Graf von Galen - a man Hitler vowed to have shot immediately after the war. War neccessitates compromise to soothe internal strife and the changes we are discussing would be met in many corners of the world, even in the West, with fanatical opposition now. The 40's was a very different world, both in Europe and in this country.
The other factor is that not every one who supports a specific ideology is on board with the end-goal many fleshed-out ideologies have which I was alluding to in the other discussion. Some support it for their own reasons and understand little else. Some in the German government, for example, were reportedly very uninterested in Himmler and Herman Wirth's Ahnenerbe and had little knowledge of the intention behind Axis expeditions to Tibet and the Andes - even what they were searching for or trying to achieve in occupied Poland.
To answer your original question I believe many support fascism because, yes, they support nationalism - perhaps even some form of palingenetic nationalism - as well as a mixed economy from which they find comfort in corporatism. They also tend to support the maintenance of the linguistic and cultural influence of the dominant ethnic bloc within their country, and perhaps a radically reorganized foreign policy which supports others around the world attempting to achieve the same things in their respective native lands, and is in no way isolationist yet is decidedly opposed to internationalism.
Many others supported our revolution for specific historical reasons too numerous to list or speculate on.
Indeed there are many Marxists who support the disestablishment of religion in the form of state atheism, support the eradication of borders, and support the dominance of the proletariat with a worker's government watching over it all, as in a more idealized vision of Lenin's Russia perhaps, but they do not support the radical obliteration of all group identities and unchecked internationalist egalitarianism. When many clamor for and profess communism, particularly former Soviet and Eastern bloc denizens, they are clamoring for the old Soviet system which stalled in its evolution long before achieving anything close to what a pure Marxism is, and many Reds who sympathize with Stalin's "socialism in one country"/Ceausescu's "National Communism" probably wouldn't support the total mass actualization of their ideology in a literal sense.
I bring this up because it can probably be applied to many fascists.
"I am never guided by a possible assessment of my work" - President Vladimir Putin
"Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Muammar Qaddafi
"Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Muammar Qaddafi