The beauty of fascism

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by BeBro:
I don't really get what the "beauty" is. Why is the "primitiveness" aesthetically pleasing? I mean I can understand that some people prefer the "simpleness" of it, most often because they don't have an idea of what's going on, but what exactly makes it aesthetically pleasing to someone who doesn't buy into this, even opposes it? Take "power", this is not something you only find in fascism. Also something like belligerence has never been exclusively fascist.

I find it aesthetically pleasing because the modern nation state of the 20th century is supposed to be so scientific and rational. It's not supposed to be ideological, it's supposed to operate entirely on rationality. When I see remnants of something ancient, primal, primitive, or something so obviously 'cultural' or 'ideological' as opposed to what we would consider as rational, ie liberalism or neo-liberalism (of course these two things are cultural ideologies as well and not simply scientific, but we pretend that they are), it always seems amusing to me on a weird level. An unrelated example would be the fact that there still are monarchies in the Middle East today. I'm very rusting on my history in that region, and maybe they are western-style monarchies that were imposed during the colonial process as opposed to an organic outgrowth of the nations' histories, but the fact that something so old and 'cultural' could still survive on a governmental level in today's age to me is interesting, and aesthetically pleasing.

And of course power isn't unique to fascism. But fascism is such a brute manifestation of masculine warrior culture and the thirst for power, something we, at least subconsciously, associate as "primitive." That it existed in the 20th century, after WWI, blows my mind. It's the exact same way of thinking that Urglok had when he wanted to kill Muglog to become the chief of the tribe and attack that other tribe down the river. Only this time Urglok has a modern day military uniform and has read all the classics. It's the same reason I find neo-conservatism fascinating. That there are actually educated people out there that blatantly say we need to expand the American empire. In the year 2008. It just blows my mind.

originally posted by BeBro
Also, some other points are very debatable. I don't mention all, but take "Anyways, seeing a political system as an organic outgrowth of the given nation's culture to me is just aesthetically beautiful." - There is something very disturbing in the idea that fascism would be the "organic outgrowth" if you mean by that it's something like a logical consequence of any nation's culture at a certain point in time (could be I misunderstand what you want to say here).

Well when I say fascism is an organic outgrowth of the nation's culture, it's a bit of a dumb thing to say for the reason that every government and every value system is an outgrowth of the nation's culture. Even liberalism and capitalism, which we profess as science, are not scientific, they are based on a set of assumptions from philosophy that comes from our culture, particularly individualism and utilitarianism, as well as even the basic idea of progress. But, why I say that fascism is such an organic outgrowth of the nation's culture is because it takes no pretenses of being 'scientific' or 'rational,,' and it champions the nation's tradition culture and tries to fight forces that eat away at this culture. It also champions masculinity and the thirst for power, which to me are things that are very culturally traditional, that supposedly should have vanished in "the modern day and age of the free market."

Why do you say that fascism being the logical consequence of the nation's culture at a point in time is 'disturbing?' How is a government not the logical consequence of a nation's culture at a point in time? And even if you are being an uber-realist, you can't deny the strong cultural connections of fascism. Fascism champions the nation's traditional culture, and for this reason was so popular before WWII. It resonates with people. People love feeling a sense of community, pride in how they are as a people or nation, etc. In Europe, they saw two world wars that killed tens of millions of people, thus we do not see such pride and nationalism as a part of the political platform of major political parties (well, except for Austria, hehe). But the United States never learned this lesson. We never had a war on our soil by a foreign invader (at least since 1814), and we have never been truly punished by nationalism and all of the awful things that come from it. The result is social conservatism is a much more powerful political force here than in Europe, and the Republican party has been so strong. That type of ideology would never exist in western europe post WWII.

originally posted by kidicious:
It's hideous. I guess you could say it's beautiful in that way.

Thank you. That's what I was getting at.

originally posted by Darius871:
Actually they'd cancel each other out; Xanax is an anxiolytic benzodiazepine, not a stimulant. I.e. I was recommending Xanax, not accusing of its use. Every johnmcleod post I've ever seen is a classic case study of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) taken to its absurd extreme.

Remember that thread where he was asking about pharmacological castration because overwhelming guilt over the very thought of sex with girls he knows made him uncontrollably nervous? Things like this would be any psychiatrist's wet dream. It's so perfect that I almost have to think it's a brilliant troll putting Wiglaf to shame.

I don't know what's worse. That I or someone logged in under my user name posted such a thread or that out of all the ridiculous s--t on these forums you still remember a poster who hasn't written anything in years.

originally posted by Barnabas:
Women can be fascists leaders too.

By the way, racism isn't inherent to fascism.

This speech in Spanish, but it is a good example of a woman being a typical fascist leader in front of hundreds of thousands of people.

She rejects the offer to become vice president because she knows she will die of cancer in the near future.She rejects the offer to become vice president because she knows she will die of cancer in the near future.She rejects the offer to become vice president because she knows she will die of cancer in the near future.

Good point. First, we must point out that Nazism was a very strange and unique form of Fascism, and that fascism is not inherently racist. The two go well together because fascism is the strongest manifestation of nationalism. It's the belief in the good of the people as a whole, that the culture is a great culture that must be preserved against the threats of secularism, communism, individualism, and/or capitalism. The good of the nation is placed higher than the individual, and in many cases, such as Italy, military dominance is championed as the nation nation's overwhelming sense of pride leads it to desire to be a great empire. Mussolini wanted Italy to be another Rome. And in the United States, we want our own empire.

Anyways, this belief in the inherent goodness of the nation's people and culture can go well with racism, since it is only a simple logical step until this belief leads to the belief that the other nations/races are inferior. But we mustn't forget that Nazism does not equal Fascism. Nazism was based on racial beliefs involving genetics. Hitler wanted a supreme race. This is entirely different from other brands of fascism. The other thing is that speech from Eva Peron points out the not so bad side of Fascism. Many people consider Peron to have had Fascist tendencies, yet he was a democratic leader and many consider him to have been the best Argentina ever had. Fascism has strong populist tendencies, and populist leaders like Peron sometimes have certain fascist tendencies, even if on a theoretical political level they have none.

originally posted by fed1943:
I bet the poster never lived under a fascist regime.

Best regards,

And I bet you didn't read the post, otherwise you wouldn't actually think I was hailing fascism.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I don't know what's worse. That I or someone logged in under my user name posted such a thread or that out of all the ridiculous s--t on these forums you still remember a poster who hasn't written anything in years.

Sorry, but you just don't forget comedy gold like that. Next you'll be saying it's a bad thing that I know half the script of Caddyshack by heart.

[johncmcleod]

Sorry, but you just don't forget comedy gold like that. Next you'll be saying it's a bad thing that I know half the script of Caddyshack by heart.

[After reading the thread] Fair enough.

[BeBMan]

How is a government not the logical consequence of a nation's culture at a point in time?

Why then do different cultures sometimes have the same form of governemnt, and do even - at least to some extent - share the same values?

I'd say it's more a consequence of a nation's history. There are cultural aspects, but they aren't the only factors. And - depending what you mean by or how you use exactly "culture" or "nation's culture" - your focus on culture could be understood as if certain cultures posses inherent characteristics that make them more "fascist-prone". If you mean that, I don't buy it.

[fed1943]

I did read and understood.
And my reply was about the "beauty"; even under this point of view
is a poor and boring philosophy.
Best regards,

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by BeBro:
Why then do different cultures sometimes have the same form of governemnt, and do even - at least to some extent - share the same values?

Well, first, no culture has the exact same form of government. The closest they could get is if they carbon coped another country's government, but even then there would be minor differences in the personnel and management, but most importantly, the networks. A government does not function like a perfect system of isolated actors and interests working against or with each other to create an end result. Systems of power are also a result of the networks that connect different interests and officials and the ways in which these networks influence the functioning and outcome of existing power structures and processes.

But on a more simple level, I think I'd answer your argument by saying that the similarities probably have to do with the fact that the given two cultures are in contact with one another and share each others' ideas as well as imitate other styles of government. For example, many of the former Spanish colonies, such as Argentina, after independence tried to imitate the US' system of government, which in turn came from European ideas of liberalism developed during the Enlightenment. Of course we create our governments based off of political philosophy, and sometimes we copy the political philosophy of other nations. But even then, we can't treat our political philosophy as being 'universal' or 'scientific,' because it is based on fundamental assumptions that come from our culture. When other nations adopt our political philosophy it is simply an affect of globalization and the fact that the west dominated/still dominates the world, so we see the western concepts of the nation state, capitalism, and liberalism spread to most other countries.

And as for why certain cultures share the same values, well, that also has to do with shared contact. The different cultures under the umbrella of "the West" are obviously going to have lots of similarities since they are all united by having a Christian history. The Church enabled them to all communicate and share ideas in ways they never had before. And by the time the church did start splitting up, the nation state had already arised and people from different cultures within the west were communicating with each other and reading and sharing each others' ideas.

The other thing is that there will always be certain similarities between even two entirely different cultures. For example, almost ever culture could probably be described as patriarchal, especially agrarian socities. This is because the agrarian revolution brought about an economy that made a man's labor vital to survival (only a strong man could work the fields) and enabled women to become more like property. It's accepted that the early agricultural societies were far more patriarchal than the hunter-gatherer societes that came before it, or even the nomadic herding societies. This is an example of economics affecting culture, so obviously similar economic developments will have similar cultural impacts.

In short, of course there will always be 'similarities' or 'differences' in between cultures and governments, as we are all humans. It is impossible to look at two societies and say that they are 100% entirely different with no similarities. We're all human, so all societies are going to have so very basic guidelines in how they operate, thus there will be cultural similarities. At the same time, it is often too easy to compare them and focus on the universal aspects without understanding the important differences, which a lot of scholars do. So I guess what you're asking me is more a fundamental question of anthropology/sociology, and one I don't think anyone can answer fully. But I don't think it changes the argument, and I don¡t think even the most hard core of political scientists or economists would say that a government is not, at the very least, influenced by the culture of the given nation.

originally posted by BeBro:
I'd say it's more a consequence of a nation's history. There are cultural aspects, but they aren't the only factors. And - depending what you mean by or how you use exactly "culture" or "nation's culture" - your focus on culture could be understood as if certain cultures posses inherent characteristics that make them more "fascist-prone". If you mean that, I don't buy it.

I agree 100%. It is a consequence of the nation's history. There are cultural aspects but also political and economic aspects. However, I do think some cultures are more "fascist-prone." I don't think it's a coincidence that both Spain and Italy had their fascist governments, that Spain had a fascist government until 1976. Of course one has to look the historical context, but the ways in which the Catholic Church interacted with the comings of liberalism in the given country could make it greatly prone to fascism. A great example would be France, which witnesses a terrible conflict with the more secular liberals on one side, and the traditional authority and the catholic church on the other. The result was the Catholic Church ended up losing a lot of power in France. Of course this doesn't kill the possibility of authoritarianism, since where there is a strong army there is the great possiblity of a strong dictatorship.

But in the case of Spain and Italy, the church reacted violently against the threats posed by liberalism and secularism, thus I would say the traditional culture of those countries made them more prone to fascism at a given time. It still blows my mind that Spain had a fascist dictatorship until 1976. All of Western Europe and the US had gone through their counter-cultural movements of the 60s and 70s, and there's Spain with a fascist dictator. I guarantee if there was a military coup in another western European country during that time, say England, it wouldn't last due to the utter lack of legitimacy. I think a fascist government can have legitimacy in a place if the culture is more prone to it, such as a very Catholic country where the Catholics view secularism and democracy as something that would erode the traditional culture, a fundamental belief of fascism.

I think the United States is a good example of the opposite, a culture that is not prone to fascism (England as well, but I'll use the US since I'm more familiar with US culture). Even though we have a very powerful military, this is no cause for concern of a military coup. We have never had one, something that makes us very unique. I think this is because the US's history, with only one government since we got rid of the Brits, has given us a culture of democracy (how I hate to sound like Sam Huntington). Of course it is a very strange brand of democracy, and I think the differences between it and some European democracies and their values show the cultural differences.

For Americans, our political system is not just a political system. It's something more. When I went to the World Cup in 2006, everyone wore flags that would, gasp, touch the ground. When I show other Americans the pictures they sometimes get furious that I dared let our flag touch the ground. Our founding fathers have almost God-like status in this country. A lot of countries are similar, but I bet the United States worships them more than anywhere in western Europe. Our political system, most importantly, is worshipped almost as a religion. We are taught its workings in the public schools with practically religious undertones. We are taught that it is the best system ever created, bla bla bla, and the Constitution is revered almost as much as the Bible. The thought that maybe we should govern based on something other than what our founding fathers thought over 200 years ago in a completely different time and place is an outrageous idea for many.

The point is that our system has been around for such a long time that it has become very engrained in our culture. For Europeans I think it's different. They way in which they speak and conceptualize their government is quite different from the way Americans do. They seem to see it for what it is, an abstract system of power, and they base it off of ideas of secularism and liberalism. Not in America. For most Americans, the government is supposed to represent "Christian values." This is the exact opposite of the Enlightenment values on which it is theoretically based. Sounds to me like a very organic outgrowth of the culture. Now of course this is bad philosophy, I have to use terms like 'culture' and 'religion' that are completely undefinable, but I'm speaking simply in order to get my point across without having to write 50 pages. Point is a fascist government in the United States would have absolutely no legitimacy, whereas in a place like Spain, where democracy was seen as threatening traditional culture and the Catholic Church, a fascist government could have had legitimacy.

Now let's compare the political cultures of western Europe and the United States. I think some of the aspects of fascism, the masculinity, the nationalism, etc. are inherent to all cultures. The difference is in Europe, they saw a world war that killed tens of millions because of nationalism. Nationalism was effectively stamped out in these areas, and there is a reason social conservatives are almost none existent. If anyone starts getting all nationalistic, they'll get labeled a Nazi. Germany is especially anti-nationalistic, and to me it seems like the people are very wary to show that they are "proud to be German" or whatever. The United States is the exact opposite. Since we never see the horrific effects of nationalism, we don't know it's bad. It hasn't been stamped out of our culture. Thus social conservatism is a hugely powerful force in politics and the political discourse is much more nationalistic than in Europe, and if you're not proud to be an American, you don't belong in this country. Can you image someone saying that if you weren't proud to be French you didn't belong in France? It is for the same reason that Americans spend like crazy on defense. Europeans know the horrors of war better and I think are much more pacificistic.

So whether or not we want to label it history or culture, we're talking about the same thing. For me, the two shape each other, and the history of the United States has given it a culture that is democratic, but compared to Europe, highly militaristic, misogynist, nationalistic, and religious, the latter four tending to go well together in many countries. I would say that religious countries tend to be more fascist prone, but I won't because that's too general of a statement. What I will say is that in many instances, depending on the country's history and the ways in which the Church reacted with the forces of secularism and liberalism, more religious cultures are more fascist prone.

I did read and understood.
And my reply was about the "beauty"; even under this point of view
is a poor and boring philosophy.
Best regards,

Well it's not a philosophy. Commenting on the fact that you find something aesthetically pleasing has nothing to do with your belief system, nor does it form a philosophy. I think we find things aesthetically pleasing for random psychological reasons which we can't understand, but I don't think it has anything to do with philosophy.