In the emotional political battles of the present age, it is easy to
get confused between the individuals one is disagreeing with and
misleading labels. Some of the most abused labels are "right and
left", "Commie" and "Fascist." Yet there are definite echoes of both
in the modern discourse, mixed and confused in often jarring ways.
Once one knows the history of fascism and what it was actually about,
one can see it's heritage in the modern discourse. A lot of people
who don't think of themselves as fascists or communists believe
strongly in ideas that are a direct heritage from those movements.
One does not have to look to the Islamicist fundamentalist movements
or South America to see those influences. Just as there was a
commonality between the ideas of Communism and those of liberal
democracy, so there is a commonality between the ideas of Fascism
and "neo-conservativism" not to mention the KKK or John Birch
Society. Yet if one points out those similarities one will draw howls
of protests. Since many people are ignorant of what Fascism was and
how it evolved, this is partly a factor of ignorance. But not
entirely.
(footnotes will be added later)
A Radical Ideological Movement.
Fascism was a "radical ideological movement." Radical because it
sought to cut out and remove what it saw as infected or corrupt
roots. Ideological because it was based on Ideals that were defined
in broad abstract terms and often applied in a simplistic manner.
Fascism has it's genesis in the social and political disruption
brought about by unequal and massive change. It is characterized by
ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, the systematic use of mass
media, systematic propaganda, group psychology and "party
discipline." The followers of fascist movements "believed" in them in
as a kind of social religion.
The author of the definitive book "Mediterranean Fascism 1919-1945",
Charles F. Delzell writes "The label `Fascism' ought not to be
confused with old-style royalist or authoritarian military regimes of
the right. The latter were usually meant to be fairly temporary in
nature, whereas Fascist dictatorships sought to be permanent;
moreover they didn't have their roots in the problems of a `mass'
society the way that Fascism did."
Most of these regimes failed to create the permanent social systems
they sought. Why they failed – and where they for a time succeeded –
is important if we are to understand the legacy they left behind.
The Ideology of Communism as an extension of Liberalism.
Fascism originally began as a distinct response to a perceived threat
of violence coming from another radical ideological movement;
Communism. But it also reflected the beginnings of a revolt against
the underlying movement of which Communism was but the most radical
expression. Under the influence of scientific and materialist
thinking, traditional beliefs were everywhere being challenged and
broken. Not just silly things, like whether or not the world was
round, but fundamental values like the sanctity of human life or the
existence of an all powerful God, were rejected by "enlightened"
people as superstitious or "archaic."
Liberal society was feared by those who didn't quite share in it's
benefits or share it's premises. For all that Communism also opposed
liberal society, it shared many of these underlying core beliefs.
Communism would eventually become a code for other beliefs that the
new movement, fascism, would be struggling against.
Communism was the logical extension of various secular "liberal"
premises. It's motto was the famous phrase of Marx; "From each
according to his abilities to each according to their needs" which
also was a underlying tenet of liberalism. Communism claimed to be
the champion of enlightenment and democracy. It attracted leading
intellectuals and working people who felt that they were being
unfairly treated by the "system."
Communism also claimed to be based on scientific theories, and reason
and observation. It observed the "bourgeois" and capitalist
societies of it's day and drawing on the "labor theory of value"
claimed that social inequality and nationalistic conflict were the
consequence of capital "alienating" or to use more modern
lingo "dehumanizing" people in the service of the political economy.
This results in "class warfare" as the commodified and dehumanized
masses were reduced to only being valuable to the system for the
value of their work. According to Marxian analysis the "capitalist"
class had developed and suborned or taken power from the class of
nobles before them, and now was oppressing the working class -- and
would one day be overthrown by that class. They dreamed that this
would result in a classless and peaceful society, a "workers
paradise."
This ideology rapidly involved into an ideological movement in which
the adherents "believed" that social justice and equality could be
achieved resulting in a post-Capitalist workers paradise. This
secular religion was popular among Intellectuals and some working
class people who had the dream of one day benefitting from this
revolution. According to Marxian analysis Capitalists would gobble
each other's businesses, "enslave more and more people to `capital'
and develop such efficiency in the production of weapons of warfare
that they would eventually bring about mutual destruction of each
other in world wars over those markets.
The Breakdown of Liberal Society.
Indeed the capitalists had gone to war over markets and at the
expense of the common people. Liberal Society was breaking down. The
people of Europe experienced hard economic times, confused and effete
governments, and democratic methods and governments didn't seem up to
the task of governing society rationally, effectively or fairly. The
world seemed ripe for change. There was a longing for order and
discipline among ordinary people.
The Reasons why Communism didn't appeal.
But this longing wasn't to be inherited by the Communist movement.
Their emphasis on Capital and the evil of property blinded them to
the dangers of taking property away from the common people. Those
with any money or property naturally feared confiscation of their
money or property. And the vast majority of the people had some
property or dreamed of owning something. Most people didn't see
anything wrong with wealth, and indeed most of them dreamed of having
wealth and property themselves, not giving it up to some amorphous
state. Indeed they rightly distrusted the creation of such a state.
Land, money, possessions represent a kind of power that even poor
people are loathe to part with. If they parted with it, as Orwell
would years later point out in his book "animal farm" – what was
there to keep the "pigs" from moving into the Farmers house. Once
power or property is given up, it almost never is returned to those
who did so.
Marx's formulation "religion is the Opiate of the people" offended
many common folks, who wanted to turn to religion for succor. To them
religion was the only stable thing they could turn to in times of
trouble, or turn to for guidance with the exigencies of life. If it
was an addiction it was an addiction that would not be broken without
a violent struggle.
Finally, Marxism claimed to be transnational and even international
in nature. For the Marxist, the workers paradise would also erase
country borders, and unit all the peoples of the world. Most people
valued their cultural distinctiveness and traditional values. They
were often ignorant of and/or feared the distinctiveness of their
neighbors. For them the erasure of boundaries would be a nightmare.
Many people were proud of their own distinctiveness and heritage and
ignorant of or fearful of the distinctive traits of their neighbors.
They were prejudiced against and afraid of the aliens living among
them, much less letting new ones into their boundaries. For most
people Marxism was alienated from reality and alienated from the
people it claimed to want to save. And it was a source of fear for
them not a source of any kind of potential salvation. For the usual
mix of good reasons and awful ones.
A Violent Fanatical Ideology.
Worse, in the hands of the more radical factions, Communism was an
active militant violent and deceptive movement. It claimed to be a
champion of liberal democracy and yet it – in fact – sought to
subvert and destroy liberal democracy. It claimed moral authority and
yet it's intellectuals, despised middle class people with their petty
property and `unscientific beliefs.' It claimed to champion the
working man. And yet it's organizers and propagandists were only too
willing to foment destructive violence aimed not at getting better
conditions for working people, but at causing conflict and disarray.
The methods of communism, propaganda, violence, subversion,
indoctrination, loyalty to the party, all seemed justified to it's
army of devotees. But threatened the traditional beliefs of every
society where they were tried.
Thus it would not be Communism that would prevail. Other ideologies
and movements also took up the mantle of "saving" people from the
suffering they were enduring and "restoring" their pride and feelings
of national `manhood" (national pride). These groups would be based
on hyper-nationalism, xenophobia, hierarchy, in short Fascism.
Continued...
Posted by cholte at November 2, 2004 06:12 AM