Political Crossfire Forums

[Kumar]

I came across some articles today while studying for exams that interested me. There are those who believe that fascism is unfairly portrayed in today's media as something guaranteed to be associated with racism. Their basic premise was that Mussolini's Italy is a better model than Hitler's monster in Germany, and the level of racism, at least on an institutional level, was not particularly greater than that of a country like France prior to 1939. They maintain that an ideal fascist system, though nationalist, would view all races as equal. Is there some merit to this?

And not only that, but can an ideology that places so much emphasis on the superiority of the nation even withstand the power of xenophobia and racism?

[cap'n queasy]

You would certainly have a bigger pool to recruit from. But I think you definitely have to have some type of enemy to focus on.

[Eebster the Great]

I agree that fascism doesn't require racism, but that doesn't mean that it's a good form of government. While it is true that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, but that doesn't make it the best.

First of all, the dictator will never be benevolent. They say that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and this is true. With unchecked power, there's no telling what could happen, and no way of stopping it when it does. With no separation of powers, one particular entity holds all the power. Can you imagine in America if all of the justices were acting according to a personal legislative agenda? There would be an uproar.

But even if the dictator is benevolent, I think democracy/republic would be a better form of government. Even an emperor attempting to work for the good of his (or her, I suppose) people would likely make mistakes. Not that the people don't make mistakes, but at least they get what they want.

Also, choice tends to make people happy. I know that if I decided to do something and it went wrong, I would be disappointed, but if somebody forced me to do something that went wrong, I would be furious.

Besides, fascism focuses way too strongly on nationalism. Whenever the government almost forces people to think it is the best, there will be consequences besides just imperialism and loss of freedom of the press (as if this weren't bad enough!). There is an inherent ethnocentricity in national supremacist views. This will also likely spark deep racism and other forms of bigotry.

Undoubtedly, any fascist nation will hate communism even more than America does. This is another form of unwanted ethnocentricity that will arise. Democracy won't stop bigotry altogether, in fact it allows it, but at least it doesn't support it.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Undoubtedly, any fascist nation will hate communism even more than America does.

Is that how anyone judges how bad a country is?

[Saracen]

Kumar wrote: I came across some articles today while studying for exams that interested me. There are those who believe that fascism is unfairly portrayed in today's media as something guaranteed to be associated with racism. Their basic premise was that Mussolini's Italy is a better model than Hitler's monster in Germany, and the level of racism, at least on an institutional level, was not particularly greater than that of a country like France prior to 1939. They maintain that an ideal fascist system, though nationalist, would view all races as equal. Is there some merit to this?

And not only that, but can an ideology that places so much emphasis on the superiority of the nation even withstand the power of xenophobia and racism?

Well, it depends. There are many types of racism. One of the most inherent and less recognizable types is ethnocentricism, or obsession with one's race and keeping it in a sole perspective. However, I do not believe that fascism preaches equity. Take a look at history. The Lebanese Maronite Christian Phalangists are fascists in the sense that they believe in extreme nationalism (God, country, family) and that they, the Maronites, should be separated from the rest of the Arabs, as they view themselves as "Phoenicians" and are thus "higher". Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler believed that the Aryan race was superior, and practiced a form of racism towards Jews and blacks. Italy's Mussolini exemplified the courage of the Italians as "Romans", and they too practice institutionalized racism against the Libyan Arabs.

It's just that fascism seems to be increasingly demanding for the superiority of the party that practices it. So, is fascism inherently racist?

From a historical point of view, yes, it seems so.

From an ideological point of view, one has to look directly into the party platform.

[Kumar]

cap'n queasy wrote: You would certainly have a bigger pool to recruit from. But I think you definitely have to have some type of enemy to focus on.
I agree. Fascism needs something or someone to target in order to control the masses effectively.

[Kumar]

Eebster the Great wrote: I agree that fascism doesn't require racism, but that doesn't mean that it's a good form of government. While it is true that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, but that doesn't make it the best.

First of all, the dictator will never be benevolent. They say that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and this is true. With unchecked power, there's no telling what could happen, and no way of stopping it when it does. With no separation of powers, one particular entity holds all the power. Can you imagine in America if all of the justices were acting according to a personal legislative agenda? There would be an uproar.

But even if the dictator is benevolent, I think democracy/republic would be a better form of government. Even an emperor attempting to work for the good of his (or her, I suppose) people would likely make mistakes. Not that the people don't make mistakes, but at least they get what they want.

Also, choice tends to make people happy. I know that if I decided to do something and it went wrong, I would be disappointed, but if somebody forced me to do something that went wrong, I would be furious.

Besides, fascism focuses way too strongly on nationalism. Whenever the government almost forces people to think it is the best, there will be consequences besides just imperialism and loss of freedom of the press (as if this weren't bad enough!). There is an inherent ethnocentricity in national supremacist views. This will also likely spark deep racism and other forms of bigotry.

Undoubtedly, any fascist nation will hate communism even more than America does. This is another form of unwanted ethnocentricity that will arise. Democracy won't stop bigotry altogether, in fact it allows it, but at least it doesn't support it.
Benevolent dictatorships would indeed be great if they could actually remain benevolent. I disagree that a democracy is a better form of government by virtue of the people getting what they want. That's not necessarily a good thing, considering how short-sighted and narrow-minded the collective masses tend to be. I view democracy and republicanism as just another form of authoritarianism, with the difference being that power does not rest with an elite few.

With respect to nationalism leading to racism, I think a case can be made for a more "kind-hearted" nationalism. If you look at a state like Nazi Germany, the population was largely homogenous and race was strongly linked to nationality. With immigration, nations (particularly in the West) are now more multiracial, so there could be more of an emphasis on the nation itself (its ideology, accomplishments, strength, etc.) and less on race. The objective would then be to bring the ideals of the superior nation to those individuals "suffering" under backwards political systems. This is certainly the view of those who envision fascist utopias in the future.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: Benevolent dictatorships

No such thing.

[Kumar]

Saracen wrote:
Well, it depends. There are many types of racism. One of the most inherent and less recognizable types is ethnocentricism, or obsession with one's race and keeping it in a sole perspective. However, I do not believe that fascism preaches equity. Take a look at history. The Lebanese Maronite Christian Phalangists are fascists in the sense that they believe in extreme nationalism (God, country, family) and that they, the Maronites, should be separated from the rest of the Arabs, as they view themselves as "Phoenicians" and are thus "higher". Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler believed that the Aryan race was superior, and practiced a form of racism towards Jews and blacks. Italy's Mussolini exemplified the courage of the Italians as "Romans", and they too practice institutionalized racism against the Libyan Arabs.

It's just that fascism seems to be increasingly demanding for the superiority of the party that practices it. So, is fascism inherently racist?

From a historical point of view, yes, it seems so.

From an ideological point of view, one has to look directly into the party platform.
I agree that fascism does not preach equity. Indeed, a shared belief seems to be that individuals are not equal, and some are born with talents that make them more useful to the state. Whether race has a place in this determination of worth varies, I suppose.

[Saracen]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote: Benevolent dictatorships

No such thing.

Seconded. Remember that thread about Druvianism? I can't believe such people would actually want dictatorships.

Kumar wrote: I agree that fascism does not preach equity. Indeed, a shared belief seems to be that individuals are not equal, and some are born with talents that make them more useful to the state. Whether race has a place in this determination of worth varies, I suppose.

According to many fascists, they believe that race does play a role. Just take a look at how they deal with each other: they give more rights and "rewards" to those who are originally from the said state, and others are only second-class or looked down upon.

[Preechr]

Saracen wrote: Kumar wrote: I agree that fascism does not preach equity. Indeed, a shared belief seems to be that individuals are not equal, and some are born with talents that make them more useful to the state. Whether race has a place in this determination of worth varies, I suppose.

According to many fascists, they believe that race does play a role. Just take a look at how they deal with each other: they give more rights and "rewards" to those who are originally from the said state, and others are only second-class or looked down upon.

Most fascists sign their names with their right hand. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be left handed fascists. It’s the same with racism. Racism is an easy way to generate a xenophobic feeling, but it isn’t the only way. A fascist state could just as easily use religion, or any of a number of other differentiating factors.

[Saracen]

Preechr wrote: Saracen wrote: Kumar wrote: I agree that fascism does not preach equity. Indeed, a shared belief seems to be that individuals are not equal, and some are born with talents that make them more useful to the state. Whether race has a place in this determination of worth varies, I suppose.

According to many fascists, they believe that race does play a role. Just take a look at how they deal with each other: they give more rights and "rewards" to those who are originally from the said state, and others are only second-class or looked down upon.

Most fascists sign their names with their right hand. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be left handed fascists. It’s the same with racism. Racism is an easy way to generate a xenophobic feeling, but it isn’t the only way. A fascist state could just as easily use religion, or any of a number of other differentiating factors.

Well, I really don't think that they would be using religion. Fascism is inherently secular. Religion is another matter altogether.

[De0xide]

Very true. This proves true in Hitler's sense. Religion was his problem, but a fascist leader got him the power to do what he wants.

[Saracen]

De0xide wrote: Very true. This proves true in Hitler's sense. Religion was his problem, but a fascist leader got him the power to do what he wants.

Correctamundo. Fascism is authoritarian. Religion seeks for one to submit or to become one with an authority (God or some other being).

That's how I see it.

[De0xide]

Yes, fascism is authoritarian. He got total power (hence the totalitarian dictatorship).

[Preechr]

Saracen wrote: De0xide wrote: Very true. This proves true in Hitler's sense. Religion was his problem, but a fascist leader got him the power to do what he wants.

Correctamundo. Fascism is authoritarian. Religion seeks for one to submit or to become one with an authority (God or some other being).

That's how I see it. I’m still not ready to give this one up. There is nothing to say that Religion can not be authoritarian. In fact some believe that the Caliph under Shariah law is authoritarian. A Caliph ruling over a quasi-syndicalist economy could very easily fall into the category of fascism. Fascism without racism.

[Kumar]

Preechr wrote: Saracen wrote: Kumar wrote: I agree that fascism does not preach equity. Indeed, a shared belief seems to be that individuals are not equal, and some are born with talents that make them more useful to the state. Whether race has a place in this determination of worth varies, I suppose.

According to many fascists, they believe that race does play a role. Just take a look at how they deal with each other: they give more rights and "rewards" to those who are originally from the said state, and others are only second-class or looked down upon.

Most fascists sign their names with their right hand. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be left handed fascists. It’s the same with racism. Racism is an easy way to generate a xenophobic feeling, but it isn’t the only way. A fascist state could just as easily use religion, or any of a number of other differentiating factors.
Agreed. Most utopianist viewpoints that I have seen tend to take this stance, avoiding the issue of race.

[Kumar]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote: Benevolent dictatorships

No such thing.
Frederick the Great, Lee Kuan Yew, Julius Caesar, etc. Subjective, of course, but not all dictators sacrifice the good of the nation or its people for personal gain or the gain of an elite few.

[Saracen]

Preechr wrote: Saracen wrote: De0xide wrote: Very true. This proves true in Hitler's sense. Religion was his problem, but a fascist leader got him the power to do what he wants.

Correctamundo. Fascism is authoritarian. Religion seeks for one to submit or to become one with an authority (God or some other being).

That's how I see it. I’m still not ready to give this one up. There is nothing to say that Religion can not be authoritarian. In fact some believe that the Caliph under Shariah law is authoritarian. A Caliph ruling over a quasi-syndicalist economy could very easily fall into the category of fascism. Fascism without racism.

Well, believe it or not, Sharia Law is not at best 100% authoritarian. Same can be said for Halakha (Jewish) and Canon (Christian) Law.

[Preechr]

Saracen wrote: Preechr wrote: I’m still not ready to give this one up. There is nothing to say that Religion can not be authoritarian. In fact some believe that the Caliph under Shariah law is authoritarian. A Caliph ruling over a quasi-syndicalist economy could very easily fall into the category of fascism. Fascism without racism.

Well, believe it or not, Sharia Law is not at best 100% authoritarian. Same can be said for Halakha (Jewish) and Canon (Christian) Law. With Iran’s Guardian Council shutting down dissenting newspapers because they are against the will of Allah, or the Taliban enforcing some of the crazy stuff they did because it was the will of Allah, I have a hard time buying into a Caliph not being able to be completely authoritarian if he so chose.