Tweet
Just written an essay for my Political Theory module (yes, I took a step outside of Economics). Well, the essay is unassessed and I had to hand in assessed one yesterday, so let's just day this was a little down my list of priorities. 
So tell me, just how crap is this essay.. 2 and a half hours work. 
----------
Compare and evaluate fascist and nationalist political thought
In historical context, both fascism and nationalism have taken many different forms. The fascism of Germany’s National Socialist party and that of Mussolini’s Italy share common ground such as intense loyalty to the state and leader, and an anti-Marxist view. Nationalism tends to be one of the core components of fascist thought, devotion to the state expected.
Fascist thinking is relatively modern, yet is linked back to the slogan of the French Revolution (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). Fascism thinking can be seen as the extreme opposite of those three concepts. A reaction to the growing appeal of Marxism from the East, the evolving of fascism in Italy and Germany in the early to mid twentieth century can be seen as reactionary. Policy in fascist states tends to be based on current circumstances, seemingly resting on short-term decisions. A next fundamental element of fascism would be its chauvinism, granting fuller rights to one sector of society than another. Indeed, the sector that is denied rights may be demonised in order to unite the masses. Germany achieved this with its treatment of the Jews, deeming them to be the proponents of a softer, liberalist thought and less worthy than the German people. As such, a form of extreme nationalism is inherent in the German brand of fascism. The German state and German people are bound together, uniting for a common cause and fighting the same enemy. By introducing a fear of the enemy, for example by assuming that the Jews would become oppressors of the Germans if they were given a chance, this bond is made stronger. A scapegoat needs to be found.
Violence and territorial expansion were also fundamental tenets of fascist thought. An obsession with macho dominance and organised violence leads to a stronger segregation of the sexes, with governmental roles predominantly held by males. Territorial expansion through means of war was also a feature in fascism. Spending on the military becomes the nation’s number one priority, both helping to instil a fear in the masses, and at the same time a feeling of protecting from the state. This helps divert attention towards the state and its leaders, with the masses thanking them for providing the national security that they have become convinced is so overwhelmingly necessary. Allied with the glorification of violence is an obsession with crime, however petty, and the associated punishment. Police power is hardly limited, and any apparent abuses of their power are overlooked along with human rights.
The most overwhelming aspect of fascism is the utilisation of a brand of illiberal nationalism. Fascist thought rejects absolutely liberal ideas on the limits of state power. The strength of the nation (or race) tends to be placed above the rights of the individual. A vigorous military program allows for expansion of the nation’s borders, letting the “superior” race have room to live and breed. By taking a form of nationalist thinking within its reach, it can be argued that fascism has put nationalism into a corner, seen by many as a negative tenet of any thinking due to its link with fascism. While at one time calling for national unity for the state and the leader, fascist thought tends also to lead to some divisions between social classes and emerging groups in society. The nationalism played upon is thus one of ethnic superiority of a group in society, and excludes some sectors.
The form of nationalism utilised by fascist thinking could be seen as one of the least benign forms of it. A militant nationalism, based on ethnic or genetic roots, is exclusive based on the political legitimacy of race into which one is born. It rests on the assumption that the identities of different racial and ethnic groupings should be and remain distinct. As such, this seems to be the point at which nationalist thought and fascist thought overlap. Fascism employs a breed of ethnic nationalism that is intended to state one race is superior to all. Usually comprising of the majority of the society, an ethnic grouping can gain power and impose its will on all those in the nation-state, despite the presence of minorities. In fascist thinking, this could involve unequal treatment of the minorities who are not members of the superior or dominant class.
There are branches of nationalist thought which - unlike militant, ethnic nationalism - are benign for a state and its neighbours. In fascist thought, nationalism was a byword for xenophobia and a hatred of people other than themselves. Liberal nationalism could be seen as a will for all nations’ peoples to have their own borders, usually judged by a common history or language. As fascism is an anti-liberal ideology, this form of nationalism is mutually exclusive with fascist thought. Nationalism within a fascist regime would be unlikely to be benign or liberal.
Nationalist thought, due to its extensive use with fascism, is frequently confused and associated with imperialism, racism or National Socialism. However, there exists the possibility of a state utilising nationalism without necessarily resorting to behaviour involving its negative connotations. The existence of a benign nationalism is disputed in the current world set-up, especially in the liberal West due to memories of what it can achieve. Yet where nationalism is an intention is concerning with regaining a voice or reclaiming land lost to war for a group of people or culture, then it can be claimed to be lacking benignity by those who feel the land claimed was rightfully theirs to begin with. Other forms of nationalism that could be claimed to be benign include the regaining of independence by colonies from a previously ruling empire. Where a country at the head of the empire agrees with a country’s right to self-sufficiency and -determination, then this brand of nationalism can be seen as hurting very few, if anyone.
Nationalism can also be opposed to fascist thought if it is merely celebratory. For example, voluntary flag waving on celebrations involving a head of state neither exclude nor discriminate. Celebratory nationalism can be described as a token, possessing no real intent or motive. For example, the sense of triumph that follows a major sporting win has nationalistic undertones.
Fundamentally, nationalism provides the group with a sense of identity and belonging. It can be seen that political legitimacy derives from the consent of a region’s majority. Civil nationalism is thus formed. Active participation in the political process is required, in order that the state gains knowledge of the general will of the people.
While so far different branches of nationalist thought have been compared, some political theorists have argued that nationalist thought is critically all of the same variety. Nationalist thinking in its entirety serves, regardless of distinction between forms, to unite with a common bond and divide the united group from the rest of society. It seems that the stronger a bond required within a group, the more outsiders should be excluded. Some forms of nationalism are thus exclusive from birth (ethnic nationalism); some forms are open to all (civic nationalism); while some lie some place in between (religious nationalism, linguistic nationalism). Bonds between people who know they share the same racial heritage tend to be stronger and lead to more active and virulent nationalism than bonds based in civic nationalist thinking.
Nationalism, to be effective, therefore requires a high degree of exclusivity. The determining criteria for membership of a group need to be difficult to attain. Nationalism thus feeds into fascism in excluding groups seen as unworthy of equal treatment. Through scapegoat-ing of a group outside the nation’s common identity, the bonds that unite a people in fascism can be made stronger.
So tell me, just how crap is this essay.. 2 and a half hours work. ----------
Compare and evaluate fascist and nationalist political thought
In historical context, both fascism and nationalism have taken many different forms. The fascism of Germany’s National Socialist party and that of Mussolini’s Italy share common ground such as intense loyalty to the state and leader, and an anti-Marxist view. Nationalism tends to be one of the core components of fascist thought, devotion to the state expected.
Fascist thinking is relatively modern, yet is linked back to the slogan of the French Revolution (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). Fascism thinking can be seen as the extreme opposite of those three concepts. A reaction to the growing appeal of Marxism from the East, the evolving of fascism in Italy and Germany in the early to mid twentieth century can be seen as reactionary. Policy in fascist states tends to be based on current circumstances, seemingly resting on short-term decisions. A next fundamental element of fascism would be its chauvinism, granting fuller rights to one sector of society than another. Indeed, the sector that is denied rights may be demonised in order to unite the masses. Germany achieved this with its treatment of the Jews, deeming them to be the proponents of a softer, liberalist thought and less worthy than the German people. As such, a form of extreme nationalism is inherent in the German brand of fascism. The German state and German people are bound together, uniting for a common cause and fighting the same enemy. By introducing a fear of the enemy, for example by assuming that the Jews would become oppressors of the Germans if they were given a chance, this bond is made stronger. A scapegoat needs to be found.
Violence and territorial expansion were also fundamental tenets of fascist thought. An obsession with macho dominance and organised violence leads to a stronger segregation of the sexes, with governmental roles predominantly held by males. Territorial expansion through means of war was also a feature in fascism. Spending on the military becomes the nation’s number one priority, both helping to instil a fear in the masses, and at the same time a feeling of protecting from the state. This helps divert attention towards the state and its leaders, with the masses thanking them for providing the national security that they have become convinced is so overwhelmingly necessary. Allied with the glorification of violence is an obsession with crime, however petty, and the associated punishment. Police power is hardly limited, and any apparent abuses of their power are overlooked along with human rights.
The most overwhelming aspect of fascism is the utilisation of a brand of illiberal nationalism. Fascist thought rejects absolutely liberal ideas on the limits of state power. The strength of the nation (or race) tends to be placed above the rights of the individual. A vigorous military program allows for expansion of the nation’s borders, letting the “superior” race have room to live and breed. By taking a form of nationalist thinking within its reach, it can be argued that fascism has put nationalism into a corner, seen by many as a negative tenet of any thinking due to its link with fascism. While at one time calling for national unity for the state and the leader, fascist thought tends also to lead to some divisions between social classes and emerging groups in society. The nationalism played upon is thus one of ethnic superiority of a group in society, and excludes some sectors.
The form of nationalism utilised by fascist thinking could be seen as one of the least benign forms of it. A militant nationalism, based on ethnic or genetic roots, is exclusive based on the political legitimacy of race into which one is born. It rests on the assumption that the identities of different racial and ethnic groupings should be and remain distinct. As such, this seems to be the point at which nationalist thought and fascist thought overlap. Fascism employs a breed of ethnic nationalism that is intended to state one race is superior to all. Usually comprising of the majority of the society, an ethnic grouping can gain power and impose its will on all those in the nation-state, despite the presence of minorities. In fascist thinking, this could involve unequal treatment of the minorities who are not members of the superior or dominant class.
There are branches of nationalist thought which - unlike militant, ethnic nationalism - are benign for a state and its neighbours. In fascist thought, nationalism was a byword for xenophobia and a hatred of people other than themselves. Liberal nationalism could be seen as a will for all nations’ peoples to have their own borders, usually judged by a common history or language. As fascism is an anti-liberal ideology, this form of nationalism is mutually exclusive with fascist thought. Nationalism within a fascist regime would be unlikely to be benign or liberal.
Nationalist thought, due to its extensive use with fascism, is frequently confused and associated with imperialism, racism or National Socialism. However, there exists the possibility of a state utilising nationalism without necessarily resorting to behaviour involving its negative connotations. The existence of a benign nationalism is disputed in the current world set-up, especially in the liberal West due to memories of what it can achieve. Yet where nationalism is an intention is concerning with regaining a voice or reclaiming land lost to war for a group of people or culture, then it can be claimed to be lacking benignity by those who feel the land claimed was rightfully theirs to begin with. Other forms of nationalism that could be claimed to be benign include the regaining of independence by colonies from a previously ruling empire. Where a country at the head of the empire agrees with a country’s right to self-sufficiency and -determination, then this brand of nationalism can be seen as hurting very few, if anyone.
Nationalism can also be opposed to fascist thought if it is merely celebratory. For example, voluntary flag waving on celebrations involving a head of state neither exclude nor discriminate. Celebratory nationalism can be described as a token, possessing no real intent or motive. For example, the sense of triumph that follows a major sporting win has nationalistic undertones.
Fundamentally, nationalism provides the group with a sense of identity and belonging. It can be seen that political legitimacy derives from the consent of a region’s majority. Civil nationalism is thus formed. Active participation in the political process is required, in order that the state gains knowledge of the general will of the people.
While so far different branches of nationalist thought have been compared, some political theorists have argued that nationalist thought is critically all of the same variety. Nationalist thinking in its entirety serves, regardless of distinction between forms, to unite with a common bond and divide the united group from the rest of society. It seems that the stronger a bond required within a group, the more outsiders should be excluded. Some forms of nationalism are thus exclusive from birth (ethnic nationalism); some forms are open to all (civic nationalism); while some lie some place in between (religious nationalism, linguistic nationalism). Bonds between people who know they share the same racial heritage tend to be stronger and lead to more active and virulent nationalism than bonds based in civic nationalist thinking.
Nationalism, to be effective, therefore requires a high degree of exclusivity. The determining criteria for membership of a group need to be difficult to attain. Nationalism thus feeds into fascism in excluding groups seen as unworthy of equal treatment. Through scapegoat-ing of a group outside the nation’s common identity, the bonds that unite a people in fascism can be made stronger.
Comment