Eugene Robinson demonstrates why he’s one of my favorite columnists.
Ever since the president settled on “Islamic fascists” as the enemy in his war on terrorism, he has taken every opportunity to evoke the specter of World War II. We are engaged in “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century,” Bush told the Legionnaires. …
… Rumsfeld went furthest of all in claiming that it is, in fact, 1939 — that the jihadist terror movement presents the same kind of threat to the world that Hitler did when he invaded Poland. He set up a straw man, warning that those who do not see the threat as clearly as he does are as blind as those who tried to appease Hitler. But he doesn’t specify who he’s talking about. Who wants to appease terrorists? Is it Democrats? Nervous Republicans who’ve seen the latest polls?
Nobody wants to appease terrorists. But some people have a different idea of how to fight them. The president is right when he says this conflict is unlike other wars, but he seems to miss the essential difference: It has to be fought in a way that doesn’t create two new terrorists for each one who is killed.
That’s not what the president wants to talk about, though. Between now and November, he wants to talk about a war that we can all agree on, even if it has no bearing on the war being fought today. Yes, Mr. President, Hitler was bad. And your point would be?
Here’s a maha rule: Labeling something isn’t the same thing as understanding it.
Some years ago I got into a flame on a U.S. Civil War usenet forum when someone wrote that all you need to know about antebellum slaveowners was that they were fascists. And I wrote back, no, they weren’t. The political and economic philosophies of the old plantation class differed in several significant ways from those of Hitler or Mussolini. Calling the slaveowners “fascists” doesn’t tell you anything about them at all. (Then, of course, I was accused of defending slavery because I said slaveowners weren’t fascists.)
The two of us were using the word fascist for different purposes. I was using it to refer to a particular ideology defined here as “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” Whatever else you want to say about the antebellum slaveowners, they sure as shootin’ didn’t like centralization of authority under a dictator. They were rabid antifederalists and anti-statists, and in many ways they were the forefathers of today’s libertarians.
But the other writer was using fascist as a synonym for demon. I suspect that if I had pressed him to define fascism as a political/economic ideology (I may have; I don’t remember) he couldn’t have done it. Demonization absolved the writer from understanding how and why a particular group of human beings oppressed another group of human beings.
It makes about as much sense to call Islamic jihadists “fascists” as it does to say that all those Mississippi plantation owners were fascists. As Eugene Robinson says,
Perhaps because the term “fascist” doesn’t really describe the transnational jihadist movement, Bush went further with the Legionnaires. He called the jihadists “the successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians” as well. The fact is that the jihadists are pretty much sui generis — they aren’t fascists or Nazis and certainly aren’t communists, but yes, you could make a good argument for “totalitarians.” I guess one out of four isn’t bad.
If you spend much time on Internet forums or blogs at all, sooner or later you’ll run into the “fascism is socialism” theory common among mal-educated righties. The theory works this way: Since fascism is totalitarian, and since socialism is just watered-down communism (according to rightie ideology), and communism is totalitarian, then socialism and fascism are exactly the same thing. And they all belong on the Left, with liberals, which means liberals are totalitarians. And since totalitarianism is on the Left, then the Right stands for freedom and democracy. And, of course, the next step after that is to claim that we must allow the President to break wiretap laws and violate the Fourth Amendment to preserve our freedom.
People who think this way judge action to be good or evil not by what is done, but who does it. What “they” do is evil. What “we” do is good. (Even if it’s the same thing “they” did.)
What Jimmy Carter said about fundamentalists could be true of any group of people. He said:
The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God’s ideas and God’s premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases — as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world — it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can’t bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them — which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don’t believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it’s just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.
Let’s change a few words–
The [nationalists] believe they have a unique relationship with [their nation], and that they and their ideas are [the only legitimate ideas] on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are [correct] anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases — as is the case with some [nationalists] around the world — it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a [nationalist] can’t bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so [nationalist leader], for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them — which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, [nationalists] don’t believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit [atrocities], it’s just impossible for a [nationalist] to admit that a mistake was made.
You could substitute any knee-jerk ideology, Left or Right, for “nationalists.” You could substitute any religion that insists on orthodoxy, which is most of ’em. Unquestioning and fanatical acceptance of just about any belief system will take you to the same place — where “we” are righteous and “they” are demons.
Ironically, that’s the place where “demons” are born. The first step in becoming a perpetrator of oppression and atrocities is to start making judgments about who’s fully human and who isn’t.
Studying the political, historical, cultural, social, and economic factors that foster oppression could help us learn how to prevent oppression, or at least recognize when a society is moving into the danger zone in which systemic oppression can occur. However, such study requires acknowledging that one’s enemies or oppressors are human. The Right fosters a rhetorical culture in which such recognition is a sign of weakness and “appeasement.”
Appease, btw, is another word that has a different meaning to righties than to the rest of us. The dictionary says it means —
1. To bring peace, quiet, or calm to; soothe. 2. To satisfy or relieve: appease one’s thirst. 3. To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle.
For our purposes that third definition is the most operative one. And offhand I can’t think of anyone suggesting that terrorists will leave us alone if we grant them concessions.
But to a rightie, “appease” doesn’t mean making consessions or buying off our enemies. It means being soft. For example — Sean Hannity said,
But in all seriousness, it drives you crazy when we talk about being weak on defense, you’re appeasers, the NSA program you don’t want, the Patriot Act program you don’t want, data mining you don’t want. You want to close Guantánamo Bay. I think that’s weak on the most important issue of our time: our national security. I think the Republicans, if they get that message out, and the president started that today, we will win.
I don’t see how any of that translates into “concessions” to terrorists. And (as Alan Holmes rebutted) I am not aware of anyone who doesn’t think potential terrorists shouldn’t be under surveillance or that that government shouldn’t pursue any possible source of intelligence. We want these things done, but we want it done under the law. Nobody says that apprehended terrorists shouldn’t be locked up, but we need to be careful that the people we are locking up really are dangerous terrorists.
If anything, it’s righties who fit the dictionary definition of “appeasers.” They are appeasing their own worst instincts at the expense of long-established American principles about liberty and justice.
Of course, the real purpose behind demonization — or the fascistization, if you will — of Islamic radicals is to clothe anti-Muslim bigotry as righteousness and claim entitlement to do anything we want to Muslims and Muslim nations in the name of fighting terrorism. It also enables demonizers to deny the reality that “anything we want” might incite once-moderate Muslims into violence against us. Even to consider that our actions might have unfortunate political consequences is tantamount to “appeasement” as righties use the word.
Eugene Robinson:
To those who point out that Iraq wasn’t a nexus of terrorism until we invaded, Cheney responds, “They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway.”
Huh? The terrorists who attacked on Sept. 11 didn’t come from Iraq. Except in Cheney’s mind, I don’t know where the fact that we were attacked by terrorists trained in Afghanistan (and sent by Osama bin Laden, who’s probably now in Pakistan) somehow mitigates the fact that we’ve made Iraq a hotbed of terrorism.
Yet Cheney’s words reflect a common logical fallacy on the Right. Again, this is all about assuming entitlement to do whatever we want in the Middle East; our actions don’t have consequences, after all.
Related stuff to read:
Fareed Zakaria, “The Year of Living Fearfully,” Newsweek
“Will Fear Strike Out?” Buzzflash editorial
Jason Miller, “Inalienable Human Rights are not Privileges,” Thomas Paine’s Corner
Matthew Schofield, “Mideast strife is bad news for peacemakers, good news for extremists,” McClatchy Newspapers
Mark Hosenball, “Iraq: A Sweeping, Secret New Report,” Newsweek
H.D.S. Greenway, “Hypocrisy in sowing democracy,” The Boston Globe
David Rohde, “In Afghanistan, a Symbol for Change, Then Failure,” The New York Times
Wait ’till you digest the President’s speech to the MOAA today.
I believe it to be a primer coat to an attack on Iran,
what’s your take Maha?
what’s your take Maha?
I’ll have to look at it. I was busy writing the post.
There is a piece, called the 14 points of fascism or something like that,,,everyone should be forced to read it.Read any of the 14 points and you will notice that the points define who we (America) have become.They don’t even come close to defining our enemy in the war on terror.
If anyone knows the piece I am speaking of , please link to it…my nutty bird is making computer work very hard today.
justme — maybe you should get the bird its own computer.
Google: gotta love it!
Here are the 14 points of fascism:
http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html
That’s the one I tried to get you a link to last week.
You’ll notice the “Decider” gets all worked up when he talks war, and he doesn’t miss a beat with the wording. Something very eerie, almost evil.
I believe it to be a primer coat to an attack on Iran
erinyes…I got the same feeling. In Bush’s train of logic, all evil leads back to Iran.. Bush’s speech was a replay of rhetoric used for the invasion of Iraq.. It’s the end of the world if we don’t act against Iran.
Bush is either desperate or deranged, possibly both, and in either case he’s hawking fear through deception..bigtime. My only fear is that a lot of ignorant people will suck up that pap without ever knowing how they’re being hoodwinked because they’re too lazy to think for themselves.
8 billion a month.
But the other writer was using fascist as a synonym for demon.
This is the most popular definition and we have to address it to an extent. Past a certain point it becomes pointless to insist that other people use the “correct” definition of the term. The meaning of words has changed, and will continue to change, in this very manner.
The term is going to stick unless there is a better, but still ‘catchy’ & ‘truthy’, alternative
Past a certain point it becomes pointless to insist that other people use the “correct†definition of the term.
Perhaps, but then we need a new word for “fascist.”
It’s one thing to allow a brand name to become generic, like Kleenex and Xerox. Everybody still knows what you mean. But it’s important to remember what fascism is. Allowing “fascism” to become a generic word for “totalitarian” allows people to forget how fascism differs from other forms of totalitarianism, especially in nascent, pre-totalitarian form. And this is important, because we need to be able to recognize it when it comes along.
This is especially important in America, because we’re far more likely to slide into fascism than into communism or other totalitarian systems.
It’s particularly disturbing when our national leaders are evoking fascism — incorrectly — as part of an obvious disinformation campaign. As I wrote earlier, it’s part of an effort to stifle serious debate. And that smacks of, um, totalitarianism.
The term is going to stick unless there is a better, but still ‘catchy’ & ‘truthy’, alternative.
Yeah, totalitarianism is a mouthful. I don’t have any suggestions.
‘Totalitarianism is a mouthful”
Yea, so is eck-a-lectik, he’d better stick to single syllables, but, Hey, HE’S the Decider….
Several people I know well have told me the U.S. had better move against Iran soon.WTF???? I’m gonna order up a bunch of focus factor and give out free samples, Jeesh……..
Thank you Canadian Reader!!! Thats the one!!!
Maha, Sammy already has his own computer(now if he would just stop eating the keys on the keyboard), as a matter of fact sammy just might be the most spoiled parrot on earth.He has a 40 inch tv,dvd,vcr,stereo …we bought an entire house just so he could have his own 400 sq foot room and bathroom(some PEOPLE in NY City don’t get that much room).Last year “the man with the bag” delievered 800.00 worth of loot to little sammy’s chimney….my dang pets have it made I am a well trained human.It is all worthwhile every time sammy blurts out “BUSH SUCKS!!!”Good birdie!Gotta love a smart birdie!To have a parrot smarter than a majority of America(bush voters) is worth every bit of trouble he gives me while I am on the computer.Now if I could only teach him to catch all my typos…..
Erinyes,I am not one bit suprised you are way ahead of me…you are right on target.The funny thing is almost no one on the left called the right out on the point of what fascism means…No matter how stupid or brainwashed the masses are ,reading the 14 points HAS to to bring on a lighbulb moment or at least a “hey this sounds familar” ..No one has even bothered to explain to the public what fascism even is and the public seems to stupid to even know.It is like words have no meaning anymore.We could call the terrorists pudding and no one would bat an eye .Hell we may as well , it applies about as much as the fascist label.
Maha, thanks as always for speaking up.Your so gifted and your readers are all lucky to be able to enjoy the the fruits of your labor..thanks for all everything you do..just wanted you to know it is not taken for granted.
justme, the emotional reward of hearing your very own parrot spout his special line, would be worth all the toys and perks you could heap on him. Now if you could only figure out a way to get him registered to vote…
I pity the fool (Mr. T)
Eugene Robinson doesn’t have a clue but he is good at preaching to the choir, apparently.
The only significant difference I can see between 1939 and the present is that Hitler didn’t have nukes and we were able to keep him from getting them. Thanks to the lunacy of the American left and a sizeable portion of the population of the rest of the world and the inability of the UN to do anything worthwhile North Korea has and soon Iran will have, nukes.OK maybe the Hitler motif isn’t 100% called for – lets tally the similarities and differences:HITLER – Insane
Ahmadinejad – InsaneKim – InsaneHITLER – Bent on world conquestAhmadinejad – Bent on world conquest, goal to reveal hidden imamKim – Has to attack soon or his own will attack himHITLER – tricked the world into appeasing him until too lateAhmadinejad– Tricking the world into appeasing him until too lateKim – Carter/Clinton deal paid him to make nukes in secret – he’s tricked the world, it’s already to some extent too late.Wait, other than Kim’s motives, it is 100% like 1939!!!The world is jealous of the US and doesn’t want to follow our lead – what else is new? More fallout from the Clinton Klown years – we lost a lot of credibility there and with the American left working overtime to discredit Bush there’s little hope of gaining any of it back.GREG – An idiot; playing the righties’ usual game of oversimplifying in order to find meaningless commonalities. Actually understanding stuff is, like, so leftish.
Although the entire comment is stupid, I want to make two points:
Islamic totalitarianism is not fascism. See, for example, Katha Pollitt and RJ Eskow for why this is true. Labeling something is not the same thing as understanding it.
Kim Jung Il has nukes because George W. Bush is an asshole. For the facts, See “Rolling Blunder” by Fred Kaplan and this blogger’s “Blame Bush for North Korea’s Nukes” archive.
BTW, Greg is banned.
— maha
Sorry, I didn’t finish and hit SUBMIT by mistake…
Abu Graib – just to avoid you changing the subject so we can’t see the truth, I’ll say up front that I agree excesses did occur at Abu Graib and I’m pleased there were investigations and prosecutions aimed at the perps. However, calling it “torture” is a bit of a stretch when you consider what used to happen at that same location under Saddam, plus many of the claims regarding how detainees were treated are questionable – jihadists have shown time and time again that their philosophy allows truth to become the first casualty of the struggle.
[MAHA — Yeah, we’re righteous because Saddam was worse. It’s only torture if we say so. Typical rightie moral values.]
Negotiation – we won’t negotiate with North Korea (alone – we WILL negotiate, just not alone) or Iran because both are trying to use this as a ploy to get things they want while giving nothing up. Both already have had mroe than enough time to negotiate. It’s funny how the left was against us being “unilateral” with regards to Iraq (we were not, but that’s inconsequential), yet insists it’s wrong NOT to enter into unilateral (well, technically BIlateral, but you get my point) negotiations with North Korea.
[If Bush weren’t such an asshole we wouldn’t even be talking about negotiations. See links about North Korea in my last comment, above. — Maha]
Unfortunately the failure of the UN or the world to act decisively is going to force our hand – we are NOT over extended in Iraq and Afghanistan (despite the left’s cries to over extend us – it is the left that continually says we need more troops in Iraq, more troops looking for Osama – when they’re not screaming “bring the boys home”, that is). But it’s true we could use a little common sense and cooperation out of Europe and the rest of the world.
[We are too overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan; it’s not the UN’s fault we screwed up in Iraq and Afghanistan; the rest of the world will cooperate with the U.S. when we’ve elected a president who is not an asshole.–maha]
It’s true that the label FACISM is not a perfect fit for militant islam. On the other hand, the characteristics that define facism are: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
[That’s generic totalitarianism; it could apply to any totalitarian system. Most identifying markers unique to fascism — corporatism, for example — are missing from Islamic theocratic totalitarianism. — maha]
Of these, North Korea has a dictator who wields complete power as he forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism, regiments industry, commerce, etc. and emphasizes aggressive nationalism. I don’t know, don’t many Koreans think they are superior to other nationalities and races – i.e. racism? So I’ve heard anyway, but can’t say for sure.
[By your logic, Victorian Age Britain — featuring the White Man’s Burden — was a fascist state. Nearly all racial/national groups go through a phase of believing they are superior to all the other racial national groups. The moral is that fascists may be racists, but not all racists are fascist. — maha]
Of these, Iran doesn’t have a single leader but yes, they have a leadership group that wields dictator-like complete power, forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism (recent news flash – any dissenting teachers in universities are being sacked), I don’t know if they regiment commerce and industry but I do know they emphasize aggressive nationalism and extreme racism against Jews/Israel to the point of openly advocating genocide – finishing what Hitler and his cronies started.
[“Regimenting” commerce and industry is not exactly fascist, so I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up. Mussolini’s form of fascism was a merger of state and corporate power, not the domination of state power over corporations. In both the Third Reich and fascist Italy the military, the wealthy, and big corporations had considerable political power and influence over government policy. This is a central feature of fascism, which is one of the several ways it differs from Islamic totalitarianism. — maha]
[Update: The fourteen points of fascism are good, too. Some of the points apply to generic totalitarianism, but some are uniquely fascism.]
Now I want a parrot.
We are here – So we leave this 4 All of Us
” TO HELL… WITH WAR ”
Earth Citizens – Play – Earth Ball
Tonight
http://www.EarthBall.org
Since fascism is totalitarian, and since socialism is just watered-down communism (according to rightie ideology), and communism is totalitarian, then socialism and fascism are exactly the same thing. And they all belong on the Left, with liberals, which means liberals are totalitarians. And since totalitarianism is on the Left, then the Right stands for freedom and democracy.
I will grant you that this stupid argument is made by a lot of people, and that, in the Big Picture I would definitely call Fascism a thing of the “right”. However, I think that there exist non-trivial similarities between the Socialism and Fascism.
However, a problem is that socialism is a “big tent” word (much more then “fascism” and certainly “Nazism”) that means a lot of different things to different people. In my experience, to some people it just means simply high taxes and lots of government social services (like Sweden), while to others it can mean nothing less than some perfect ideal where no coercion is required and all of the promised are realised. To some people it means “socialism in fact“, whereas other people mean “A government run by socialists, regardless of how perfect their system is“. So I think its most productive to talk of (singular) Socialism
to refer to a family of multiple socialisms that are united in their general belief in “Collective Control over the Economy” but which differ, to varying degrees, over issues from the final form to the method of getting there.
Another problem that pops up in comparing ideologies,religions,etc. is differentiating between what is in the book (the doctrine) and what is in the peoples minds (the popular conception). You see this all the time in the discussions on “the problem with Islam”. Many Christians seem to judge Islam by the actions of Muslims, but Christianity by the ‘message of Jesus’. On this I take a “hard line” of putting the popular conception above doctrine in importance. More specifically, I think that the most important thing is what is in the mind of the person(s) (as best as we can tell). For instance, I think that the Crusades do count in the tally of Christianity, because even though they did some VERY “unchristian” things, they did them for and Jesus and Christianity.
Finally, I also think that “what the leader actually think” is LESS important than “what moves the masses”. For example, if a cynical man, motivated by money, uses a religious passage/message to incite a mob to torch the store of his main competitor, then it also counts in the tally of the religion because, they acted in the belief it was religiously correct.
Given that, there are definitely overlap between fascism and the more aggressive/militant forms of socialism (which is, to be sure, a minority). Some empirical evidence is the large numbers of early fascists that were former members of aggressive socialist group.
Furthermore, not only did the fascists expropriate much of the message and slogans from socialism, but many who joined WERE influenced by the socialist parts of the message. Also, the Nazis DID reject “individual economic freedom” and engaged in government economic planning. The very act of supporting the Elites in their position as monopolies means supressing those who would try to compete – and there were many socialists-turned-nazis who saw the State Supported Monopoly as a step towards socialism and, eitherway, better than “liberal democracy” with its “excessive” economic freedom.
Obviously this issue is very complex, for reasons I described above, and I’m sure this isn’t going to “convince” anyone, but take it for what you will.
In both the Third Reich and fascist Italy the military, the wealthy, and big corporations had considerable political power and influence over government policy.
Maha, that is true, but there is no question that Hitler and the Nazis, once firmly in power, were the completely dominant partner in that relationship. On a theoretical level, Hitler believed in “No Power Except the Party” (with him at the head). He had NO doctrinal attachment to maintaining them or their “class” in a privileged position. On a practical level, I think its safe to say that they had no realistic chance of orgnanizing a coup against Hitler, but he could have had them all rounded up and shot with a word. The support of the elites was definitely needed to secure the chancerlorship, but Hitler quickly became so dominant that he only “needed” the business elites insofar as they helped build and fuel his warmachine. He worked with them for pratical reasons – , but I have seen nothing that indicates he saw the partnership as an essential feature of Nazism or that he wouldn’t have done away with them if he had felt it prudent.
In both the Third Reich and fascist Italy the military, the wealthy, and big corporations had considerable political power and influence over government policy.
I know a lot less about Italy, but the fact that Moussolini got hung from a lamppost would tell me that his power was much more dependent on the support of other factions, and that the business elites probably had much more REAL power in Italy than in Germany.
“Islamic theocratic totalitarianism”? Hmm… this is analytic enough; but still rather broad; for it covers the Taliban and the Wahabbi.
And by the way, its intials are ITT. 🙂
in the Big Picture I would definitely call Fascism a thing of the “rightâ€. However, I think that there exist non-trivial similarities between the Socialism and Fascism.
There exist non-trivial similarities between dogs and raccoons, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same thing. You can find many commonalities among all manner of very different political philosophies. This doesn’t mean all political philosophies are alike. Often the differences are critical.
Righties often argue that both communism and fascism lead to totalitarianism, so they’re just alike. It’s true that one totalitarian state is pretty much like another. When you’re looking at either fascist Germany or the USSR under Stalin, in both cases the underlying political philosophy has been shoved aside in favor of dictatorial power. But that doesn’t mean there’s no point paying attention to the differences between communism or fascism, or socialism and fascism, because in their nascent, pre-totalitarian states fascism and communism (and socialism) are polar opposites. They make entirely different sales points and appeal to entirely different populations.
Fascism — especially its corporatist aspects — holds enormous appeal to people who are afraid of socialism and communism. The wealthy, the corporations, the military move toward fascism as a safeguard against the threat of loss of power and wealth that socialism represents. You saw that in Mussolini’s Italy, and we’re seeing it now in the United States. Close attention needs to be paid.
A bit on the history of fascism from this page:
that means a lot of different things to different people. In my experience, to some people it just means simply high taxes and lots of government social services (like Sweden), while to others it can mean nothing less than some perfect ideal where no coercion is required and all of the promised are realised.
You seem to believe that ignorance should trump knowledge if the majority are ignorant. But ignorance makes people more susceptible to propaganda and demagoguery. For example, a huge majority of righties misuse the word “socialism” and clearly have only a vague idea what it means, only that it’s “bad.” So all a demagogue has to do is yell “socialism” and they all start runnin’.
Yes, “socialism” can take many forms, as can democracy. Is “democracy” anything you want it to be? Isn’t there a basic, generic definition of “democracy” that distinguishes democracy from, say, monarchy or other forms of government?
A large part of my purpose as a blogger is to clarify issues. I hate cognitive mushiness. When I use a word or discuss a concept, I try to be as clear and as specific as I can be. I even provide definitions if I think a word could be misunderstood. I sometimes challenge commenters to be clear and specific, also, if I think they are using words they don’t entirely understand. If that bothers you, find another blog.
Another problem that pops up in comparing ideologies, religions,etc. is differentiating between what is in the book (the doctrine) and what is in the peoples minds (the popular conception).
That’s a good point, and that’s something I’ve discussed here quite a bit, particularly in regard to religion. However, I make a distinction between simple ignorance of a topic (e.g., what the word “socialism” means) and corruption of an institution or philosophy (e.g., “unChristian” practices and beliefs of Christians). Regarding the latter, in the real world you do have to deal with human institutions as they are, and not how they were supposed to be in an idealized state. Regarding the former, however, words have definitions.
If you don’t understand what something was supposed to be in its idealized state, you won’t recognize the corruption as corruption. It’s important to make these distinctions. I rant about fundamentalists from time to time, but I respect Christianity. (And note that I also make a distinction between fundamentalists and evangelicals.) A lot of righties don’t grasp how that is possible, because they don’t understand the theological, philosophical, and historical foundations of Christianity. To them, “Christianity” is just a tribe they are loyal to, and if you diss any part of the tribe, it’s proof you hate Jesus.
Given that, there are definitely overlap between fascism and the more aggressive/militant forms of socialism (which is, to be sure, a minority).
Aggressive and militant forms of any political ideology look pretty much alike — aggressive and militant.
Regarding the rest of your comment — it is true that some of the early fascists started out as socialists, but they became fascists because they turned against socialism. Mussolini is a good example. He started out as a radical, revolutionary leftie socialist, but decided socialism was wrong. As a proponent of fascism he was very clear that he opposed socialism.
So, it is way ignorant to claim that fascism grew out of socialism, as you seem to be claiming. They might have seemed to overlap because as political organizations they both adopted conventional practices of political organizations of the time, but they were working in opposition to each other.
Regarding Hitler and his departures from pure fascism — see above about dictatorial power.
“Islamic theocratic totalitarianism� Hmm… this is analytic enough; but still rather broad; for it covers the Taliban and the Wahabbi.
Yeah, good ol’ ITT. 🙂 It’s not perfect, but it’s better than calling ’em all “fascists.”
Funny how the folks so interested in building a case to ‘prove’ [by repetition and amped up rhetoric] that the world is full of fascists and demons cannot even look at a simple fact: Bush’s pre-emptive aggression on the country of Iraq was similar to Hitler’s aggression on other countries. Americans who cannot see that truth are appeasers of Bush policy in the same way that Germans were appeasers of Hitler policy…….wearing blinders of national patriotism. Appeasing their own complicit guilt is what so much of this is about.
I asked in 2003….where were the German people when Hitler began to aggress……and where are the American people as Bush begans to aggress? My kindest answer has been that the German citizens then and the American citizens today share the defense mechanism of holding tight to a sense that they are ‘superior’ to those who die at the hands of their country’s aggression.
a must read from Informed Comment, where Juan Cole does a great and succinct response re: Bush’s fear mongering.
http://www.juancole.com/
Fascist Government?
Hmmm- Sounds alot like the Bush Administration to me.
So, it is way ignorant to claim that fascism grew out of socialism, as you seem to be claiming.
Not at all. You almost got my point with
Aggressive and militant forms of any political ideology look pretty much alike — aggressive and militant.
But there is more: All movements that claim to act in the name of something “higher” than the mere “individual” are inevitably twisted into aggressive and militant forms. That includes monotheism, fascism, and socialism as well as others.
And like I said, It does not matter if the people behind it are true believers or cynics – if they move the masses by appealing to the belief in others then it goes on the score card.
It does not matter if the people behind it are true believers or cynics – if they move the masses by appealing to the belief in others then it goes on the score card.
You are talking phylum and I’m talking species. It’s fine to understand phylum, but the discussion is about species. Yes, all vertebrates have spines, but that doesn’t mean there are no important distinctions between a fish and a bear.
All movements that claim to act in the name of something “higher†than the mere “individual†are inevitably twisted into aggressive and militant forms. That includes monotheism, fascism, and socialism as well as others.
Even if true, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we’re discussing. I can understand why you think it does, but I reject your entire train of thought. Even though most philosophies and ideologies can end up looking pretty much alike on the surface, yet there are distinctions, and it is important to remember and understand those distinctions for reasons I explained in my last comment.
And, I repeat, it is way ignorant to claim that fascism grew out of socialism. You could say it began as a backlash to socialism, but not that it is an outgrowth of socialism.
To be clear: I do not believe this is the case either – although I understand that you have probably encountered others making that claim. My point was not to tar Socialism with the Original Sin of “giving birth” to fascism. Fascism has its own roots.
I wouldn’t even say that – Fascism is a backlash to Social Change. Socialism was a particularly visible agent of social change and so it was specifically targeted in the rhetoric of the fascists.