where does fascism stem for?

Poverty or ignorance or something else?
And
could fascism be compared to fundamentalism?

Do you actually expect an answer to this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlysonofBathe

Do you actually expect an answer to this?

---

LOL
Hi Alyson
Yes I expect some kind of answer/post and if not then it answers itself.:smile5:

Hannah Arendt's seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism is worth checking out if this topic really interests you. Its a hard read, I only made it a quarter of the way through, but her insight is profound.

I think you could safely label ancient Sparta fascist. Why was Sparta fascist? After generations of ceaseless warfare the Spartans conquered the neighbouring Greek people of Messenia. They enslaved them, even though the Messenians greatly outnumbered them. So the Spartans now lived alongside a large slave population and this created as many problems as it provided benefits. They had to be hyper-vigilant in their oppression of the Messenians. They also had a neighbour, Argos, with whom they constantly vied for regional supremacy. To maintain and add to their power as a city-state they needed to radically reconstitute their society along lines of strict discipline and martialism. For the benefit of Sparta the Spartans were stripped of individual and personal freedom. The state swallowed each and all up whole. The state assumed precedence over one's own family and one's own will. In Athens you had a diverse state with component segments devoted to art, pottery, sea-faring, philosophy - a state as most states are today, not a single monolithic entity ala Sparta or the Soviet Union, but one permitting individual freedoms and wherein politics was a gathering together of disparate parts rather than a focusing of one homogenous whole.

I'd say fascism is fundamentally about power. Its an overgrowth of one idea's or class's or single aspect's power. The Spartan state's power grew beyond normal bounds to completely encompass the Messenians and even the individual Spartans themselves. In Germany the Nazi party and its ideology exploded to incinerate political and personal disparatenesses and leave over it all a single mushroom cloud that took the form of a swastika.

Well in reductive, simplistic terms fascism is a far right ideology that emphasizes the subjugation of the individual for the good of the state/ruling class, and usually involves the leadership of a charismatic dictator. This ideology usually manifests itself in ideas of national purity, so they usually undertake measure of marginalizing certain groups (jews/gays/disabled). It tends to be reactionary, and is put forward as a solution to a problem of the state. Thus, we might say an economic depression is part of the problem, because the fascist has to have some issue to point at to justify their argument that some group has to have its rights stripped in order to save or rejuvenate the state.

We might also consider the influence of late 19th century and early 20th century philosophy that reacted against the tenets of Liberalism, and new pseudosciences that allowed greater marginalizing of certain groups.

It's also a common mistake to think that fascism never emerged in the US, Canada or Britain, simply because they were never ruled by fascist parties. However, fascist policies were indeed implemented. Forced sterilization of the handicapped, restrictions on interracial marriage, racial quotas on immigration, and I'm sure others I can't think of, all arise out of a fascist politics that seeks an idealized "pure" state at the expense of individual liberty.

I have trouble distinguishing fascism from totalitarianism. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I have trouble distinguishing fascism from totalitarianism. Anyone care to enlighten me?

---

It has to do with the ideology and the goals of the regime, and there are definite overlaps. You might have a simple tyranny, where a strong individual rules the state for his own good, or the good of his family. Fascism can be totalitarian, but not all totalitarians are fascist.

But in general fascism is characterized by its insistence on a reactionary conservative ideology, often emphasizing close ties to the church (Japan and Spain) or a mythologized ethnic elite (Germany). It is nationalist in character, often with an implicit national chauvinism against other nationalities, or subnationalities deemed inferior.

On the opposite side you have something like a far left totalitarian state like Maoism or Stalanism. They might seem similar to fascist in their disregard for Liberalism, in that they both reject individual rights. However, authoritarian communist regimes explicitly reject the idea of an elite ethnic group or social class. It would not promote something like state-corporatism, which embraces capitalism.

Somewhere inbetween you might have something like a theocracy, which tends towards the right but can often involve socialized services or missions (like in Iran).

What they have in common is that totalitarianism is the antithesis to liberalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

It has to do with the ideology and the goals of the regime, and there are definite overlaps. You might have a simple tyranny, where a strong individual rules the state for his own good, or the good of his family. Fascism can be totalitarian, but not all totalitarians are fascist.

But in general fascism is characterized by its insistence on a reactionary conservative ideology, often emphasizing close ties to the church (Japan and Spain) or a mythologized ethnic elite (Germany). It is nationalist in character, often with an implicit national chauvinism against other nationalities, or subnationalities deemed inferior.

On the opposite side you have something like a far left totalitarian state like Maoism or Stalanism. They might seem similar to fascist in their disregard for Liberalism, in that they both reject individual rights. However, authoritarian communist regimes explicitly reject the idea of an elite ethnic group or social class. It would not promote something like state-corporatism, which embraces capitalism.

Somewhere inbetween you might have something like a theocracy, which tends towards the right but can often involve socialized services or missions (like in Iran).

What they have in common is that totalitarianism is the antithesis to liberalism.

---

Interesting. Thanks Pip. I always wanted to call the Soviet Union fascist but I knew it somehow wasn't. The way things are going in Russia today that nation is at risk for slipping into the abyss of fascism. The governor of St Petersburg is about to pass a draconian anti-homosexual piece of legislation ambiguous enough to potentially ban hand-holding between members of the same sex. No gay pride signs or flags will be allowed. You won't even be able to discuss homosexuality in a positive way on the streets. And there is a lot of racial bigotry in that country as well, as I saw documented on a Russian news service. I don't mean to dump on Russia. All countries have such issues, but there they seem to be being pushed to a frightening extreme.

Ya there's a reactionary conservatism throughout Eastern Europe lately, it's bizarre as we look to China and see increasing personal liberty on these issues. I'm not sure I would go so far to say that Russia is a fascist state, but some of the policies are certainly fascist in character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Ya there's a reactionary conservatism throughout Eastern Europe lately, it's bizarre as we look to China and see increasing personal liberty on these issues. I'm not sure I would go so far to say that Russia is a fascist state, but some of the policies are certainly fascist in character.

---

I don't think they are fascist now, but all signs have them on that trajectory. Putin is practically a dictator, and that piece of anti-gay legislation in St Petersburg, a destination metropolis, bodes ill for the future of freedom in that country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Hannah Arendt's seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism is worth checking out if this topic really interests you. Its a hard read, I only made it a quarter of the way through, but her insight is profound.

I think you could safely label ancient Sparta fascist. Why was Sparta fascist? After generations of ceaseless warfare the Spartans conquered the neighbouring Greek people of Messenia. They enslaved them, even though the Messenians greatly outnumbered them. So the Spartans now lived alongside a large slave population and this created as many problems as it provided benefits. They had to be hyper-vigilant in their oppression of the Messenians. They also had a neighbour, Argos, with whom they constantly vied for regional supremacy. To maintain and add to their power as a city-state they needed to radically reconstitute their society along lines of strict discipline and martialism. For the benefit of Sparta the Spartans were stripped of individual and personal freedom. The state swallowed each and all up whole. The state assumed precedence over one's own family and one's own will. In Athens you had a diverse state with component segments devoted to art, pottery, sea-faring, philosophy - a state as most states are today, not a single monolithic entity ala Sparta or the Soviet Union, but one permitting individual freedoms and wherein politics was a gathering together of disparate parts rather than a focusing of one homogenous whole.

I'd say fascism is fundamentally about power. Its an overgrowth of one idea's or class's or single aspect's power. The Spartan state's power grew beyond normal bounds to completely encompass the Messenians and even the individual Spartans themselves. In Germany the Nazi party and its ideology exploded to incinerate political and personal disparatenesses and leave over it all a single mushroom cloud that took the form of a swastika.

---

Thank you Darcy this is very useful.:thumbs_up
I never knew about the Spartan and the Messinian.
I now wondering what Spartan actually mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Well in reductive, simplistic terms fascism is a far right ideology that emphasizes the subjugation of the individual for the good of the state/ruling class, and usually involves the leadership of a charismatic dictator. This ideology usually manifests itself in ideas of national purity, so they usually undertake measure of marginalizing certain groups (jews/gays/disabled). It tends to be reactionary, and is put forward as a solution to a problem of the state. Thus, we might say an economic depression is part of the problem, because the fascist has to have some issue to point at to justify their argument that some group has to have its rights stripped in order to save or rejuvenate the state.

We might also consider the influence of late 19th century and early 20th century philosophy that reacted against the tenets of Liberalism, and new pseudosciences that allowed greater marginalizing of certain groups.

It's also a common mistake to think that fascism never emerged in the US, Canada or Britain, simply because they were never ruled by fascist parties. However, fascist policies were indeed implemented. Forced sterilization of the handicapped, restrictions on interracial marriage, racial quotas on immigration, and I'm sure others I can't think of, all arise out of a fascist politics that seeks an idealized "pure" state at the expense of individual liberty.

---

Thank you for this OrphanPip.
I guess fascism is across the globe and goes beyond skin colour.
Quite hefty when one thinks about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I don't think they are fascist now, but all signs have them on that trajectory. Putin is practically a dictator, and that piece of anti-gay legislation in St Petersburg, a destination metropolis, bodes ill for the future of freedom in that country.

---

Agreed. He is a fascist dicator and a bit unstable to.
He is very bad news for the economy and the credibility of country.
To think that the world still gets away with electing dictators to power is quite shocking.

Humility is the quick answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

It's also a common mistake to think that fascism never emerged in the US, Canada or Britain, simply because they were never ruled by fascist parties. However, fascist policies were indeed implemented. Forced sterilization of the handicapped, restrictions on interracial marriage, racial quotas on immigration, and I'm sure others I can't think of, all arise out of a fascist politics that seeks an idealized "pure" state at the expense of individual liberty.

---

Correct. There was widespread growth of these ideas. There was even the scandal of the abdicated ex-King George conniving with Germany to return to the throne at the head of a Fascist puppet state in Britain. They shipped him and Mrs Simpson away to the Carribean after that.

Hitler certainly did a very good job of giving racist/ fascist ideas a bad press.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Correct. There was widespread growth of these ideas. There was even the scandal of the abdicated ex-King George conniving with Germany to return to the throne at the head of a Fascist puppet state in Britain. They shipped him and Mrs Simpson away to the Carribean after that.

---

who is 'they'?

Quote:

---

Hitler certainly did a very good job of giving racist/ fascist ideas a bad press.

---

are you saying racism/fascims is not bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Humility is the quick answer.

---

How do you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

How do you mean?

---

Hitler was the Messiah to the Nazis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

who is 'they'?


are you saying racism/fascims is not bad?

---

No, in the sense that serial killers give serial killing a bad name. It can't be denied that racist/ fascist tendencies were growing in Europe. Far right/ racist/ facist parties have not gained much ground in Europe since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Hitler was the Messiah to the Nazis.

---

:smash: LOL

OK...so nazis are/were fascist worshippers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

No, in the sense that serial killers give serial killing a bad name. It can't be denied that racist/ fascist tendencies were growing in Europe. Far right/ racist/ facist parties have not gained much ground in Europe since.

---

it is interesting you use 'growing' because the way I see is this
fascism was already established it just needed a voice to circulate and as it happens nazis gave fascism a voice via media.
without the media no one woud have heard of nazis outside germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

:smash: LOL

OK...so nazis are/were fascist worshippers?

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Correct.

---

Dreary...to worship a concept says a lot about the human condition.
Some are just not ready.

Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology, while Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingbob

Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology, while Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture.

---

who is 'their'?
and isn't fascism a strict adherence to race?

Agree with Darcy88, that it is the totalitarian ambition. Read Mark Levin's recent "Ameritopia" for a historical, psychological, political, power-based through-line when it comes to fascism. Levin traces it back to a weird, not-sweet, utopianism -- starting with Plato, then he takes up More's Utopia and Hobbes Leviathan. Then, on to the ogre Marx. Always, about power -- the accumulation and practice of power (naturally over others).

Thankfully, Levin gives the antidote and opposite to this thematic patern of thinking via Locke, de Montesquieu and de Tocqueville. And, how the Founding Fathers knew, and set up the country to avoid, the totalitarian tendency by instituting checks on mad ambition. Still, some people are power-hungry, and it only takes a few bad apples. Ayn Rand certainly saw it first hand and fought against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

it is interesting you use 'growing' because the way I see is this
fascism was already established it just needed a voice to circulate and as it happens nazis gave fascism a voice via media.
without the media no one woud have heard of nazis outside germany.

---

You're confusing fascism with Nazism. Mussolini became the fascist leader in Italy. Oswald Moseley led the blackshirt Bitish fascists. Other countries had their own brands.

fascism was already established

From when? It grew through the thirties in Germany, but Hitler never had a majority. He took power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

and isn't fascism a strict adherence to race?

---

No. There's nothing inherent to the precepts of fascism that requires racism. Though the practical application of fascism will usually require a scapegoat, so racism can be very useful.

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
Oscar Wilde

"Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy."
George Bernard Shaw