What's the difference between fascism and nationalism?

[Ned]

And, one more thing, fascists glorify war to extend the borders of their nation. They do not glorify war in the abstract.

In this sense, Joan de Arc was a radical fascist.

[Ned]

Ramo, so communism is good and fascism is evil? But, when they amount to the same thing in practice, what does this mean? That fascism is good or that communism is evil?

Regardless, during WWII, Stalin appealed to the patriotism of the Soviet people, not to communism. At that time, he became a fascist.
And there is no denying that Ho Chi Min was a nationalist. Ditto Castro. In a sense, communism is a more extreme form of fascism.

[Az]

No, Ned, they DO glorify war in the abstract, as well.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
In this sense, Joan de Arc was a radical fascist.

Wow, nice Troll, I didn't expect it

Jeanne d'Arc / Joan of Arc can only be related to fascism in the meaning she hated the English invaders. Le Pen's party celebrates Jeanne d'Arc's day every year, as she can be manipulated into being the symbol of our hatred for foreigners.

But Jeanne d'Arc has mostly to do with nationalism. She incarnates the resistance, resolve, and victory of the French nation in face of terrible odds. Well, she personally may have thought nothing of the sort, but such was the message when the 3rd Republic brough her long-forgotten myth back to life.

What is argued is the extent of nationalism she represents: love of the country, or hatred for foreigners?

As for the glorification of war: since the country was at war when she entered the legend, I hardly see how her behaviour glorifies war. It's similar to saying "Eisenhower was a fascist" because he "glorified" war when he led the ally assault .

[Ramo]

Im not sure a facsist regime has to be protectionist by definition.

I would argue that it does. Economic fascism is tied to coroporatism. State and businesses are partners, where costs are socialized.

And whether a protectionist regime is favorable to industrialists or landlords depends on the nations position in trade. Was Nazi Germany protectionist? If it was, that was of no benefit to industrialist vs landlords, since germany imported agricultural products.

Germany was most definitely protectionist with regards to its industries. And while true that Germany wasn't a predominantly agricultural society (which doesn't mean there weren't any big landlords), that's precisely one of the reason why it became fascist. There wasn't a signficant landowning element arguing for the industries to be unprotected. In contrast to Spain at the time.

I would also suggest that there were genuine fascists in Spain, and that they supported Franco, and that they were part of the Franco regime.

There were fascists in Spain (the falangists), but they were co-opted and undermined by Franco. Franco's Nationalist coalition was far more Latin American than German/Italian.

Fasciscm, in contrast, emphasized local traditions and distinctiveness,
...
In Germany and Italy local nationalist traditions were frequently at odds with the church,

But Italy was nonetheless solidly Catholic. Why wasn't Mussolini more pro-church? That was the local tradition and distinctiveness. The local traditions of Italy and Germany were to partition society into hundreds of little states (well, not Italy, but there was a fair amount of states) - kind of opposed to "German" and "Italian" nationalism, eh?

Italian and German fascists were looking forwards to build a new society. Spanish nationalists were looking backwards to times long gone. That's a pretty stark contrast IMO. And I think an important qualifier for fascism.

[Ramo]

Ramo, so communism is good and fascism is evil? But, when they amount to the same thing in practice, what does this mean? That fascism is good or that communism is evil?

Fascism and communism are not the same thing, theoretically or practically. I would elaborate, but I don't particularly feel like banging my head on the wall at the moment.

[Whaleboy]

The idea is that to defend those you love, you need a political structure to defend them. Back when there were no nation states, people fairly routinely saw their loved ones killed by local bandit "knights" etc. You could defend them yourself if you were sufficiently big and strong - if not, you were out of luck. Early nationalism and state support in a country like England was not for the most part mystica BS - it was a very pragmatic reaction against feudal disorder. Now maybe the nation state is obsolete, and the EU, or the UN or whatever is a better assurance of order and safety. But just defending yourself and your loved ones tends not to work, if everyone adopts that view.

The problem there though is that is assuming an attack. If attacked, one has the right to defend oneself, be that an individual or a political entity like a state. However in the latter case, we are dealign with a context of two states, where we assume them both to be a position in their own right. If we examine that concept further and ask oneself, "what is a country", you will find that it is merely a label attached to a few concepts and pieces of paper, perhaps with a fluid cultural basis too, but similar thing applies there. As such, I find a position such as nationalism to be wholly unsatisfactory. The idea of loving ones own country, well, to me is absurd. Now I dont love concepts. I happen to work and create them, being a writer, but I do not love them. I like liberty for example, dont get me wrong, but I would not fight and die for it, for I do not love it. I'm not about to get into a debate about penis size when we should be debating about concepts, and after all, that is all war is... penis envy . I love myself ( ) and my friends and family. I love what I do in the artistic sense. I would die for those four things for I love them. In a manner of speaking, you could call me an individualist in the truest possible sense! As a result, I will refuse to waste my life, fighting and dying for my nation, or falling in love with a fallacy. I confess to looking down on those that do... people that love their country, people that fanatically support a sports team, people who wear other peoples advertising. All different colours on the same spectrum, and I look down on you all with a smug sense of superiority as the branded bus upon which you all travel is headed for a cliff, me standing on the precipice with a pair of binoculars and a porno magazine.

[Japher]

Nationalist - radical patriot

Facist - what a nationalist of one state calls a nationalist of another state

[Giancarlo]

An example of a stellar statesman is Francisco Franco...

[Whaleboy]

Fascist: What a liberal would call a nationalist. Not without reason....

[Whaleboy]

An example of a stellar statesman is Francisco Franco...

I hear that Josef Stalin was at the pinnacle of nationalism too...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


I hear that Josef Stalin was at the pinnacle of nationalism too...

Well Franco was not a commie. Franco ensured national security by jailing commies making him a great statesman.

[Whaleboy]

Well Franco was not a commie

Nor was Stalin. Stalin was a totalitarian. Stalinism has many many elements that run completely contrary to communism. Stalin was more of a fascist than anything. As was Franco...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Nor was Stalin. Stalin was a totalitarian. Stalinism has many many elements that run completely contrary to communism. Stalin was more of a fascist than anything. As was Franco...

No, Stalin was commie.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The problem there though is that is assuming an attack. If attacked, one has the right to defend oneself, be that an individual or a political entity like a state. However in the latter case, we are dealign with a context of two states, where we assume them both to be a position in their own right. If we examine that concept further and ask oneself, "what is a country", you will find that it is merely a label attached to a few concepts and pieces of paper, perhaps with a fluid cultural basis too, but similar thing applies there. As such, I find a position such as nationalism to be wholly unsatisfactory. The idea of loving ones own country, well, to me is absurd. Now I dont love concepts. I happen to work and create them, being a writer, but I do not love them. I like liberty for example, dont get me wrong, but I would not fight and die for it, for I do not love it. I'm not about to get into a debate about penis size when we should be debating about concepts, and after all, that is all war is... penis envy . I love myself ( ) and my friends and family. I love what I do in the artistic sense. I would die for those four things for I love them. In a manner of speaking, you could call me an individualist in the truest possible sense! As a result, I will refuse to waste my life, fighting and dying for my nation, or falling in love with a fallacy. I confess to looking down on those that do... people that love their country, people that fanatically support a sports team, people who wear other peoples advertising. All different colours on the same spectrum, and I look down on you all with a smug sense of superiority as the branded bus upon which you all travel is headed for a cliff, me standing on the precipice with a pair of binoculars and a porno magazine.

Huh?

OK, ive got no country. I got a bunch of big guys in steel suits who go around killing and raping and stealing whaever they please. Im small and weak, and dont got a steel suit, so im screwed.

Some guy - lets call him Henry tudor - says hang with me and i'll stop of this sh*t. Ok, Henry, youre the man, im kewl with that.

Ok, no we got a state, but no particular nationalism.

Ok now Henry's son, lets also call him Henry, says, look, i need a divorce, this buggered pope, wont give me one, mind if i start the reformation? well, hey dude, im not all that religious i still get to go church, who cares if the head guy is in rome or canterbury. You and youre dad have stopped the thugs in steel suits, so im kewl.

Now Henry dies, his son eddy dies, and Mary becomes queen. with the support of her Spanish husband, she starts burning militant protestants. "Ok, so im not religious enuff to get burnt, (though i sure hate the smell) but these foreign dudes sure are mean - one day they might go after me. Wish this mary would just go.

Sure enuff, the babe dies. And the next queen is a babe too, lets call her lizzie. She stops the burning, and promises to follow along her dad and grandpa. No nasties in steel suits, no smelly burning, just goodies for everybody. But now them furriners want to toss Lizzie, and go back to burning and sh*t. Even if they lose, we could end up with lots of guys with steel suits again. So lets round good queen liz, and stop the furriners.

Bingo - we've now got a state, and nationalism to boot.


Sounds like what youre talking about isnt nationalism, but nationalist SENTIMENT, flag fetishizing and such.
Thats a matter of personal style, as much as i can see. I like my house, but i dont kiss the title deed. Some folks do, i suppose. Some folks dont want nothing to do with flags. I like flying old glory, but i dont get bent out of shape if some idiot wants to burn it. Some folks do. More how you deal with symbols.