PDA

View Full Version : The American Roots Of Fascism



Rockntractor
10-13-2010, 01:05 AM
The American "Progressives" were the first Fascists of the 20th century


By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

"Hayek's challenge was to argue that German Nazism was not an aberrant "right-wing" perversion growing out of the "contradictions" of capitalism. Instead, the Nazi movement had developed out of the "enlightened" and "progressive" socialist and collectivist ideas of the pre-World War I era, which many intellectuals in England and the United States had praised and propagandized for in their own countries."


This article aims to give a brief review of the ideas that Hayek was referring to in the above quotation. Note also these words: "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal". What Ronald Reagan was referring to in 1976 when he said that will become very clear below.
"Fascism" is a term that was originally coined by the Italian dictator Mussolini to describe his adaptation of Marxism to the conditions of Italy after World War I. Lenin in Russia made somewhat different adaptations of Marxism to the conditions in Russia during the same period and his adaptations came to be called Marxism/Leninism. Mussolini stayed closer to Marx in that he felt that Italy had to go through a capitalist stage before it could reach socialism whereas Lenin attempted to push Russia straight from semi-feudalism into socialism. Mussolini's principal modification of Marxism was his rejection of the notion of class war, something that put him decisively at odds with Lenin's "Reds".

If the term "Fascism" means anything of itself it means "Groupism" -- as the fasci of Italy at the time were simply groups of political activists. The fasces of ancient Roman times were of course the bundles of rods carried by the lictors to symbolize the great strength of the organized Roman people. The idea again was that people were stronger in groups than as individuals.

Mussolini's ideas and system were very influential and he had many imitators -- not the least of which was Adolf Hitler -- and some even survived World War II -- such as Peron and Chiang Kai Shek. I have set out at length elsewhere what Mussolini's Italian Fascism was all about so I will simply summarize here by saying that Fascism was a nationalist form of extreme socialism whereas Trotskyism was/is a internationalist form of extreme socialism -- with Leninism being somewhere in between.

Read the whole thing, it's interesting. http://jonjayray.tripod.com/amerfasc.html

Constitutionally Speaking
10-13-2010, 06:18 AM
Fascism is just another form of Marxism.

I challenge ANYONE to prove otherwise.

Odysseus
10-13-2010, 12:23 PM
Fascism is just another form of Marxism.

I challenge ANYONE to prove otherwise.

I'm sure that Wei and KrushchevShoe will be along any minute to explain why there are no actual communists, since nobody ever got Marxism right, except for Marx, and he died without telling anybody the secret. :D

Arroyo_Doble
10-13-2010, 12:42 PM
Fascism is just another form of Marxism.

I challenge ANYONE to prove otherwise.

Marxism is a class-less society whereas fascism is corporatist requiring class and roles. They are not the same.

Rockntractor
10-13-2010, 12:50 PM
Marxism is a class-less society whereas fascism is corporatist requiring class and roles. They are not the same.

You don't think the leaders of the communist Soviet Union were treated as a different class?:confused:

Rockntractor
10-13-2010, 12:55 PM
Marxism is a class-less society whereas fascism is corporatist requiring class and roles. They are not the same.

A truly classless society is a myth and has never existed under any system. I would say the USA has come closer to this mark than anyone in history.

Arroyo_Doble
10-13-2010, 01:03 PM
A truly classless society is a myth and has never existed under any system. I would say the USA has come closer to this mark than anyone in history.

I disagree with your assessment of the United States with regards to class.

Regardless, I agree with the notion that it has never existed; certainly not in the former Soviet Union.

Rockntractor
10-13-2010, 01:16 PM
I disagree with your assessment of the United States with regards to class.

Regardless, I agree with the notion that it has never existed; certainly not in the former Soviet Union.

What society in your opinion has come the closest?

Arroyo_Doble
10-13-2010, 01:27 PM
What society in your opinion has come the closest?

Probably the Nordic countries. Off the top of my head I would say Sweden or Finland or Norway. I can't think of any historical societies (other than something like early Christian enclaves or the like) that are on that level. Not complex societies, anyway.

hampshirebrit
10-13-2010, 01:27 PM
Marxism is a class-less society whereas fascism is corporatist requiring class and roles. They are not the same.

This is correct, and particularly so of Italian fascism. It bears very little, if any, resemblance to Marxism.

Molon Labe
10-13-2010, 02:08 PM
Marxism is a class-less society whereas fascism is corporatist requiring class and roles. They are not the same.

CS is right. Maybe on paper Marxism is classless. All forms of collectivism have a ruling class.



This is correct, and particularly so of Italian fascism. It bears very little, if any, resemblance to Marxism.

Have you ever heard this theory?
Eric Hoffer and Freidrich Hayek both have written about this.

There is another political continuum that I find more accurately describes the system that says they are just two different forms of Totalitarianism.



in "The True Believer", Hoffer argues that mass movements like fascism, national socialism and communism spread by promises of a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. These groups appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. Mass movements, he argued, also appeal to people who want to escape their flawed selves by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties' fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either.

One of the best marks of them being interchangeable is in the similarities to the types of people drawn to both movements.


Probably the Nordic countries. Off the top of my head I would say Sweden or Finland or Norway. I can't think of any historical societies (other than something like early Christian enclaves or the like) that are on that level. Not complex societies, anyway.


I would say that is key. Simplicity. Probably Native American cultures and many small religious communities have reached this. The Seventh Day adventists in Loma Linda CA come to mind

Odysseus
10-13-2010, 02:48 PM
Marxism is a class-less society whereas fascism is corporatist requiring class and roles. They are not the same.


Probably the Nordic countries. Off the top of my head I would say Sweden or Finland or Norway. I can't think of any historical societies (other than something like early Christian enclaves or the like) that are on that level. Not complex societies, anyway.

I think that the Swedes, Finns or Norwegians would object to their societies being characterized as not complex. Besides, they have classes. All three countries have orders of nobility, including monarchs in the case of Norway and Sweden. Not exactly classless. Perhaps you meant lacking in class as in boorish or crass. In that case, certain parts of New Jersey apply.

Arroyo_Doble
10-13-2010, 03:47 PM
I would say that is key. Simplicity. Probably Native American cultures and many small religious communities have reached this. The Seventh Day adventists in Loma Linda CA come to mind

Which shows the difficulty, and the (lack of) desirability, of the economic philosophy.

Meritocracy would supposedly accomplish a class-less society but I so no indications that it can.

Arroyo_Doble
10-13-2010, 03:47 PM
I think that the Swedes, Finns or Norwegians would object to their societies being characterized as not complex. Besides, they have classes. All three countries have orders of nobility, including monarchs in the case of Norway and Sweden. Not exactly classless. Perhaps you meant lacking in class as in boorish or crass. In that case, certain parts of New Jersey apply.

OK ...

Constitutionally Speaking
10-14-2010, 08:17 PM
Marxism is a class-less society whereas fascism is corporatist requiring class and roles. They are not the same.


That would be Communism - in it's "ideal" final state. Socialism is a step toward communism and the economic difference between socialism and fascism are only slight and a matter of degree.