What's the difference between fascism and nationalism?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I believe the key feature of fascism, yet not mentioned in this thread, consists in imposing a kind of biological selection upon the society

No, that was a particular feature of only one fascist movement, Nazism.

Nationalism is a feeling or sentiment by a particular set of people who feel have a common bond because of language, history, land, and/or religion. Note that all nationalisms do not share all these in common. For example, Swiss nationalism has three languages. The South Slavs are split into three nations: Croatia, Serbia, and a very new one called Bosnian. The Arab nation has about 19 states.

All nationalisms are invented, since, prior to the 18th Century, most people were very parochial. In order to unify "the nation," many countries began public schoolnig, generally teaching the dialect of the language found in the capital. Traditions were "rediscovered (invented) or taken from one location and generallized across the nation, such as holiday celibrations, and so on. The first people to discuss nationalism in and of itself were Germans (why doesn't that surprise you?): Fichte and Schiller (iirc).

I would highly recommend Gellner and Anderson if you really want to understand nationalism. There is also an economic aspect which I have declined to mention.

Fascism on the other hand is a mass movement. Specifically it is the mass movement of the enraged middle class, declass&eaccute; workers, and the lumpen proletariat at their economic ruination. Generally this movement looks for a scapegoat for their problems: the Jews, the Communists, labor unions, foreigners. It is extremely nationalist in character (which is why Italy was not friendly with Germany at first).

The hyper-nationalism of fascism differs from normal nationalism in that: other nations are inferior to your nation; the individual is nothing without the nation, the nation is everything, you are to the nation as a cell is to the body; the nation is embodied in a single living person (the Leader or Emperor as opposed to Uncle Sam or John Bull); the nation assumes the aspect of a religious devotion.

[Bereta_Eder]

Che for president! Just sent all those wacko neoliberals to Cuba and the US will become a great country!

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The hyper-nationalism of fascism differs from normal nationalism in that: other nations are inferior to your nation; the individual is nothing without the nation, the nation is everything, you are to the nation as a cell is to the body; the nation is embodied in a single living person (the Leader or Emperor as opposed to Uncle Sam or John Bull); the nation assumes the aspect of a religious devotion.

Che, this is certainly how I understood/understand fascism. The reason that Hitler did not like Marxists and Jews was because neither supported the German Nation - one was an interantionalist primarily beholden to the USSR, and the other was not a German by race and moreover was culturally distinct.

In fascism, everything is subbordinate to the nation. Power groups that would thwart the national purpose, like opposition parties or labor unions, were dismissed. True, corporations were not taken over directly by the fascists in Germany and Italy. But they too had to serve the national purpose. They were not independent.

In Japan, major corporations were "nationalized."

Now, a state so organized is perfect for war. In fact, after WWII started, both the US and the UK became fascist to compete. Ditto Stalin's USSR.

Now, some might say that communism is completely different from fascism. Indeed it is, in theory. But, in practice, they are much the same thing although their rhetoric is different. The major apparent difference between communism and fascism as practiced in the USSR and Germany is that communism owns the means of production while German fascism did not.

But, again, in Japan, major industries were nationalized.

So what are the differences?

Now, I am not the first to note the similarities between communism and fascism. One of the oldest books I have dates from before WWII. That book notes the similarities, even though the two groups were at each other's throats. I can even quote you a page or two from the Encylopedia Britannica that says the two systems are nearly the same in practice.

What I would like to see is a discussion of why fascism and communism as actually practiced in Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany were different. And do not give me the argument that all prior examples of communist states were not the "true" communism. The same argument might be made about Hitler's Germany not being the true fascism.

[Spiffor]

Ned:
Both systems (Italian/German fascism vs. Soviet 'communism') were totalitarian, and that's why they were similar in practice. Totalitarianism is what you're saying: every aspect of society is subordinate to the decision of the State.

After the death of Stalin, the USSR has begun to stop being Totalitarian, as more and more elements of the daily life escaped the grasp of the State (there was a long way to go though).

Besides, the State shouldn't be confused with the Nation. The State is nothing more than what is organizing the Nation. Fascists emphasize on the Nation, while communists emphasize on Class. The fact that Stalin used whatever means of propaganda to get support during WW2 (he even used the Orthodox Church!) doesn't make the Russian nation the point of identity in the USSR's ideology.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ned:
Both systems (Italian/German fascism vs. Soviet 'communism') were totalitarian, and that's why they were similar in practice. Totalitarianism is what you're saying: every aspect of society is subordinate to the decision of the State.

After the death of Stalin, the USSR has begun to stop being Totalitarian, as more and more elements of the daily life escaped the grasp of the State (there was a long way to go though).

Besides, the State shouldn't be confused with the Nation. The State is nothing more than what is organizing the Nation. Fascists emphasize on the Nation, while communists emphasize on Class. The fact that Stalin used whatever means of propaganda to get support during WW2 (he even used the Orthodox Church!) doesn't make the Russian nation the point of identity in the USSR's ideology.

Spiffor, both communism in fascism result in single-party authoritarian régimes that soon develop into extreme police states if not totalitarianism. As noted by many here in Apolyton, communism does not work on its own but requires force even if force is not intended. In Fascist régimes, force is glorified as independence is deemed subversive. In the end, both régimes inevitably end up in the same place.

The argument therefore that communism is different from fascism is specious because they both ineluctably result in the unacceptable: police states that deny freedom, justice, happiness or welfare to the people. People live in fear. They have no rights, only privileges given by the party bosses. Such privileges continue so long as submissiveness continues. All: neigbhors, kids, everyone, can be a snitch to report "subversive" behavior. False accusations abound. Life is a nightmare.

It is naïve to believe that such régimes can long exist in an environment that accords its people rights to actually have a say in their government. Once people have these rights, as we have seen in the case of the USSR, the end of the regime is certain.

In my view, it is absurd to say that fascism is bad and that communism is good. Both are extremely evil and must be fought by all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
In fascism, everything is subbordinate to the nation.

Ideologicaly, yes. The reality tuned out to be rather different. The Fascists always knew they weer the hired thugs of the bourgeoisie, despite any talk of crushing the bourgeoisie after getting rid of the commnuists. Large numbers of Nazis, however, took this aspect of fascist ideology seriously, and after the left was crushed ni Germany, began agitating to "complete the revolution."

Now, given that certain sectors of the bourgeoisie were the primary finaincial backers of the movment (especially, heavy industry, big finance, chemicals, armaments, etc), the Nazi leadership wasn't about to bite the hand that fed it. Rather, they crushed, and massive state contracts and subsidies and tariffs were handed to the bourgeoise.

Up until late in the war, leaders of big business had the ear of Hitler. Even American businessmen like Ford and Hearst could call up the German dictator whenever they wanted. Why, because the Nazis new, just as big business had put them in power, big business could toss them out. One call to the generals, and the Nazis would be shot and/or imprisoned.

Power groups that would thwart the national purpose, like opposition parties or labor unions, were dismissed. True, corporations were not taken over directly by the fascists in Germany and Italy. But they too had to serve the national purpose. They were not independent.

Now, a state so organized is perfect for war. In fact, after WWII started, both the US and the UK became fascist to compete. Ditto Stalin's USSR.

The purpose of war in fascism isn't for mere ideological reasons. War, if successful, brings opens new markets for your bourgeoisie, allows you to plunder these new areas, and opens them up for new investment. At the same time, war necessitates war materials, which means guaranteed fat profits for armaments manufacturers and their suppliers (steel, chemicals, coal, etc.). It also helps you to qwell dissent, because right-wing people like you, Ned, call anyone dissenting during wartime traitors. In fact, you'd have made a great storm-trooper.

None of the countries you listed became fascist. In not one of those countries was there a mass movement of ruined middle and working class people. Ans as there was no movement, there was no movement taking power. Father Coughlin and Walter Mosley were jokes in their respective countries. The only time the U.S. came close to a fascist movement was when several financeers approached retired US Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler, about marching on Washington with an army of ex-servicemen, ala Mussolini.

Neither was the Soviet Union fascist. Not only was there no mass movement, but there was no bourgeoisie. Totalitarian, yes, but not fascist. Reactionary, yes, but not fascist. Just cuz a bear and lion are both preditors doesn't make them the same animal.

[Ned]

Che, do you want me to post several chapters from a book published before WWII on this topic. It is a fascinating read.

The major difference between Germany and the USSR in the late 30's was that Germany had not nationalized its industries. Everything else was practically the same. German industries were controlled by the Party. Wages, prices and profits were regulated. I assume your major objection to NAZI Germany was just this, the failure to nationalize business so that the profit would go to the State.

And, Che, the right that I favor opposses fascism just as much as it opposes communism because we believe in individualism and that least government is the best government. To the extent this position is on the right, fascism clearly is on the left as it is almost identical to communism in practice.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, do you want me to post several chapters from a book published before WWII on this topic. It is a fascinating read.

I could do the same, Neddie. And I'll bet my book is far more interesting than yours.

The major difference between Germany and the USSR in the late 30's was that Germany had not nationalized its industries

And didn't crush the working class, and didn't slaughter its Jews and didn't try and invade half the world, and actually improved the living standards of most of the people there.

[Theben]

To the extent this position is on the right, fascism clearly is on the left as it is almost identical to communism in practice.

Fascism is extreme right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it otherwise.

[Tripledoc]

Fascism is when a patriotic nation has become irrelevant in the pathological nationalist circus wherefore the body politic has subsequently decided to commit collective suicide.

"We may go down, but we shall drag the world with us. A world in flames!" Adolf Hitler

[Sandman]

Fascists like patriotism, the family, law and order, and national security. Traditional concerns of the right.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Fascists like patriotism, the family, law and order, and national security. Traditional concerns of the right.

So, that makes all who believe in these things fascists? I could say the same thing about people who advocate union rights, who hate corporations and the rich, who talk class warfare. They are all communsits?

[Ned]

At times we fail to communicate because we define left and right in different terms. In my view, the left/right spectrum depends critically on freedom. In the far right we have libertarians. In the far left we totalitarians. Both Fascists and Communists are totalitarians and are on the far left, given my scale.

Where are the libertarians on yours?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ned
So, that makes all who believe in these things fascists? I could say the same thing about people who advocate union rights, who hate corporations and the rich, who talk class warfare. They are all communsits?

Yet again your poor grasp of logic fails you. It most certainly does not follow from my post that all who believe in traditional right-wing topics are fascists.

If group X believes in agenda Y, it does not follow that those who believe in agenda Y are members of group X.

I am attacking your notion that fascists are left-wing. They are not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


Yet again your poor grasp of logic fails you. It most certainly does not follow from my post that all who believe in traditional right-wing topics are fascists.

If group X believes in agenda Y, it does not follow that those who believe in agenda Y are members of group X.

I am attacking your notion that fascists are left-wing. They are not.

Sandman, what we all can agree on is that nobody likes the Fascists. They are anathema to both the left and right. Since they start from a premise that individual is subordinate to the state, they have nothing in common with the current right-wing represented by individualismist Republicans and freedomist Libertarians.

However, I see much in common with their philosophy in the left that seems to subordinate individual rights for the "greater good" of society. This is equivalent to the fascist formula.