Social fascism

DadaKopf

No, when you manipulate language to say something that is untrue, it's called lying, or deciving.

Everyone manipulates language. It's a tool of communication. Signs can be infinitely manipulated. I hope you're arguing about the form/content of those signs, and not the signs in themselves, which is bollocks.

So call a spade a spade. Either you're struggling over the word 'fascism' (in which case, Arturo Escobar is right in calling words "strategic sites of struggle"), or you're arguing over the substantive issue of just governance.

Neither are unrelated, but I'm afraid you're arguing the former at the expense of the latter.

Both of you have demonstrated my original point.

You guys remind me of Zappa.

Brad Wesley

Fascism is a confused term all i can say is read noam chomsky or even joseph stiglitz and make up your own mind.

The Corinthian

Brad Wesley wrote: »

Fascism is a confused term all i can say is read noam chomsky or even joseph stiglitz and make up your own mind.

While you're at it you can read Joseph Goebbels or even Joseph McCarthy and make up your mind on Socialism too :rolleyes:

If you want to make up your mind on a subject such as Fascism (or Socialism for that matter) you're better off reading authors who are both pro and against and make up your own mind, rather one side of the argument and have your mind made up for you.

Brad Wesley

Chomsky can be one sided granted but Joseph Stiglitz is very impartial.

DadaKopf

Joseph Stiglitz is very impartial

Hardly!

The Corinthian

Brad Wesley wrote: »

Chomsky can be one sided granted but Joseph Stiglitz is very impartial.

Chomsky is extremely one sided, TBH.

Joseph Stiglitz is certainly more 'impartial', but at the end of the day he would still fall into the 'anti' camp - and so really is not. As I said, if you want to make up your own mind on such things you really are better off reading both proponents and critics.

Of the former you could read historical proponents such as Giovanni Gentile or Carl Schmitt, while more modern (especially economic) viewpoints would come from such as Philippe Schmitter or Gerhard Lehmbruch.

Primo

I see that this thread contains the proposition that Italian fascism was not racist.

This commonly held view is a falsehood, an untruth and a lie.

Well before the introduction of anti-semitic legislation in Italy at Hitler's behest in 1938, the Italian fascist dictatorship had introduced racist policies in its African colonies, such as Eritrea.

Under the pre-fascist regime, Italian colonial rule had been (at least in principle - practice was another matter) paternalistic. After 1932, there was a clear movement towards an ideology of permanent African inferiority, and of the necessity of eternal white dominance in African. Just as in Nazi Germany, this new departure found a spurious, pseudo-scientific justification from academic supporters such as Professor Lidio Cipriani. Tekeste Negash, in his history of Eritrea in these years, notes that new laws against miscegenation, Eritrean-Italian marriage and cohabitation were introduced.

At the bottom end of what is now Liberation Avenue in Asmara, a system of apartheid was introduced, with the area being declared Europeans only, and off limits to Eritreans.

The wider context for all this was, of course, Mussolini's plan for an unprovoked war of imperialist aggression against Eritrea's southern neighbour, Ethiopia.

Those who continue to assert that Italian fascism was not racist are either ignorant, deluded, or deliberately telling lies.

Primo

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Ummm. Is there really a much of a difference? Culture has an inherent element of race and ethnicity and fascism played this up.

What do you mean by this?

The Corinthian

Primo wrote: »

Well before the introduction of anti-semitic legislation in Italy at Hitler's behest in 1938, the Italian fascist dictatorship had introduced racist policies in its African colonies, such as Eritrea.

So what? Racist policies existed even before the Fascist period, as they did i thought colonial Africa. It was only from 1937 as Italian Fascism adopted Germany's racialist approach that it could be differentiated from any other colonial power in Africa.

Indeed up until 1937 Eritrean-Italians were recognized as citizens (as long as the father was Italian) - something unheard of in, say, South Africa - that bastion of Western Liberal democracy. So if Italian Fascism was so fundamentally racist, why did it wait 15 years to introduce such a law?

The core premise of your argument is that Italian Fascism was fundamentally racist given it had introduced racist laws as early as 1932. Oddly, other than the recognition of mixed-race citizens long after this date, you ignore the fact that Italian Fascism had already been in power for 10 years at that stage.

Was it just biding it's time before going racist? :rolleyes:

Those who continue to assert that Italian fascism was not racist are either ignorant, deluded, or deliberately telling lies.

TBH, you have pointed out how Italian Fascism moved towards racist policies in the latter half of it's rule. No one has ever denied this.

However for you to successfully contend that racism was fundamental to Italian Fascism ignores not only the first ten to fifteen years of its time in power and completely ignores colonial racism as was practiced by the European powers in Africa.

Ignoring those two factors may help your case, but they are a manipulation of the facts at the end of the day. The reality is that Italian colonialism was racist - just like everyone else's, and in some cases even less so.

However it did indeed become a full fledged racialist ideology in the late thirties in an attempt to better align with Germany - a move prompted by Italy's international isolation following the Abyssinian war.

I suspect you are simply attempting to push your distortion for your own agenda. Anybody with only two posts under their belt and a user-name that looks suspiciously derived from the first name of an Italian who spent time in the concentration camps, probably has an axe to grind.

Primo

The Corinthian wrote: »

So what? Racist policies existed even before the Fascist period, as they did i thought colonial Africa. It was only from 1937 as Italian Fascism adopted Germany's racialist approach that it could be differentiated from any other colonial power in Africa.

The racism of both Italian and German fascism had clear roots in the European colonial regimes of the 1870-1914 period in Africa. There was direct continuity of personnel between the German colonial genocide of the Hereros in Namibia in the early 1900s and the later Shoah. The racism of the Italian fascist regime had its roots in Italian colonial policy in Libya and Eritrea. Nor were such crimes a monopoly of Italy and Germany; after the uprising of the Shona in what was then Rhodesia, British massared Shona civilians by dynamiting the mouths of the caves where the civilians (women, children and old men) were seeking shelter.

To say that racism existed throughout colonial Africa does not get Italian fascism off the hook in either Africa or Italy itself; it simply highlights the affinities between fascism and mainstream European conservative thought.

Indeed up until 1937 Eritrean-Italians were recognized as citizens (as long as the father was Italian) - something unheard of in, say, South Africa - that bastion of Western Liberal democracy. So if Italian Fascism was so fundamentally racist, why did it wait 15 years to introduce such a law?

The core premise of your argument is that Italian Fascism was fundamentally racist given it had introduced racist laws as early as 1932. Oddly, other than the recognition of mixed-race citizens long after this date, you ignore the fact that Italian Fascism had already been in power for 10 years at that stage.

A propensity for this or that set of policies may be latent in a regime, awaiting the correct circumstances for it awake; latency is not the same as absence.

I would not consider five years to be a long time. Nor is the 'recognition' of mixed-race citizens worth much, given the regimes prior prohibition of miscegenation, cohabitation and marriage between Eritreans and Italians, prohibitions justified on explicitly racist grounds.

TBH, you have pointed out how Italian Fascism moved towards racist policies in the latter half of it's rule. No one has ever denied this.

You are retreating, then, from your initial bald claim that Italian fascism was 'not racist'? You admit then, that it began to exhibit racist tendencies well before Italy was drawn into the German sphere of influence?

As for your distinction between racism and 'fully fledged racialism' - the latter is an outgrowth of the former, and it cannot be blamed on ideas imported under German pressure. Rather, Italian fascist racialism grew out of Italian colonial and fascist racism. To deny this is to sanitise the record of the criminal Mussolini and his criminal regime.

Primo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually Fascism wasn’t racist. You’ll find that National Socialism, and any Fascist ideology that it essentially controlled, was pretty much the only one that was – and very much so. Most Fascist movements saw the nation as a cultural rather than racial concept.

Of course this is not to say that they did not contain elements of racism, but then again you have to look at the period in question. Both France and Britain were happy to impose radical laws in their colonies too at the same time. Not nice, but that’s how the World was back then.

Again there’s an element of the period in question to look at. The inter war years were tumultuous politically in Europe and pretty much every radical movement at the time was belligerent. That’s not to say that it would not have been militaristic regardless, but it was not in all cases, as we saw with Peronism (which people tend to forget was essentially Fascist). So I do think it is a debatable point.

Note that in this post, The Corinthian denies that Italian fascism was racist. Later, he attempts to muddy the water with a vague and undefined distinction between 'racism' and 'racialism', and seeks to sanitise the history of the period by arguing that like Italy in Eritrea, other European colonial regimes were racist: indeed they were, but this does not let Italy off the hook.

The Corinthian

Primo wrote: »

The racism of both Italian and German fascism had clear roots in the European colonial regimes of the 1870-1914 period in Africa. There was direct continuity of personnel between the German colonial genocide of the Hereros in Namibia in the early 1900s and the later Shoah. The racism of the Italian fascist regime had its roots in Italian colonial policy in Libya and Eritrea.

That may well be the case, although you simply telling us this does not demonstrate it.

To say that racism existed throughout colonial Africa does not get Italian fascism off the hook in either Africa or Italy itself; it simply highlights the affinities between fascism and mainstream European conservative thought.

I don't think it gets Italy off the hook at all, but where I can't see your logic is were you jump from this to assigning it specifically to Italian Fascism as opposed to to anyone with a colonial possession during that period.

A propensity for this or that set of policies may be latent in a regime, awaiting the correct circumstances for it awake; latency is not the same as absence.

Then you'd have to prove how it was a case of latency and not absence, which you've not done.

I would not consider five years to be a long time. Nor is the 'recognition' of mixed-race citizens worth much, given the regimes prior prohibition of miscegenation, cohabitation and marriage between Eritreans and Italians, prohibitions justified on explicitly racist grounds.

Considering that mixed-race citizens were not recognised in many of the other 'liberal' European colonial possessions, would that not indicate that the liberal democracies had a greater propensity towards racism?

You are retreating, then, from your initial bald claim that Italian fascism was 'not racist'? You admit then, that it began to exhibit racist tendencies well before Italy was drawn into the German sphere of influence?

In the context of the 21st century World, yes. In the context of when it was in existence no. It is no doubt very easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to consider people from that era to all be racist bigots, but the reality is that was the norm - and in the context of that period Italy was no more racist, and often much less, than that norm.

As for your distinction between racism and 'fully fledged racialism' - the latter is an outgrowth of the former, and it cannot be blamed on ideas imported under German pressure. Rather, Italian fascist racialism grew out of Italian colonial and fascist racism.

You've repeatedly failed to actually prove this point. As often as you want to repeat that one grew out of the other, you've yet to supply any evidence of this other than repeating yourself in the hope that we'll believe you.

Note that in this post, The Corinthian denies that Italian fascism was racist. Later, he attempts to muddy the water with a vague and undefined distinction between 'racism' and 'racialism', and seeks to sanitise the history of the period by arguing that like Italy in Eritrea, other European colonial regimes were racist: indeed they were, but this does not let Italy off the hook.

Let me spell it out for you. Italy, like any other Western nation, was racist. However the wholesale adoption by the Italian state of 'racialism' - racial ideology - as opposed to commonly held racial prejudice was something that occurred only in the latter half of the thirties, fifteen years into Italian Fascism's twenty years in power - and this occurred as a direct result of Italy's move towards Germany.

There's no obfuscation there - certainly in comparison to your repetition of your opinion in the hope that people may eventually stop asking how you arrived at it and accept it at face value as fact.

I also note that you neglected to respond to the last paragraph in my previous post. Care to comment or can I take it that I was correct in my assessment of your motivations?

Primo

Some racist and racialist quotes from the Fascist criminal Benito Mussolini:

Fascism must concern itself with the racial problem...
Fascist Congress in Rome 1921

Fascism must concern itself with the racial problem...

Ascension Day speech 1927

We need to be seriously vigilant in regard to the destiny of the race, we need to take care of the race.

Preface to Richard Korherr's 'Regresso Delle Nascite: Morte Dei Popoli' 1928

Because of the low birth rates in urban areas the city dies and the nation,without the vital lymph fluid of the young of new generations, no longer can resist, composed now of vile old people. A younger people will press against the abandonded frontiers. That will happen and not only among cities and nations but on an order of magnitude infinitely greater: the entire white race, the western race, can become submersed by other races of color that multiply with a rhythm unknown to ours.
Blacks and yellows are at the door?
Yes they are at the door,and not only because of their fecundity but also because of their race consciousness and their future in the world.

Racial Theories in Fascist Italy, Aaron Gillette, p40.

The singular enormous problem is the destiny of the white race. Europe is truly at the end of its destiny as the leader of civilization.

And here's another one:

Giorgio Pini, Filo diretto con Palazzo Venezia (Bologna Cappelli 1950, p90)

Benito Mussolini wrote:

"I am a racist.."

He was discussing Giulio Cogni's racial theories here.

DadaKopf

Best thread in ages... keep it up, lads...

The Corinthian

Primo wrote: »

Some racist and racialist quotes from the Fascist criminal Benito Mussolini

"Fascist criminal"? I assume from this you are indeed a run of the mill anti-Fascist activist then...

How about you respond to the points I previously made rather than squirming out of them? Block quoting half of Gillette's book does not mean that you bothered addressing them, after all.

Why do you ignore racism within all western countries and colonial possessions during that period which in many cases was more pronounced than in Italy or her colonies? Why do you insist (upon ignoring the above) that there is a direct link between the two? Why do you ignore the political and social aftermath of the Abyssinian war which ultimately let to Italy aligning itself to Germany?

AngryHippie

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Fascism, in my view, has the folowing characteristics:
Economic: Dirigiste, corporatist, economic central planning with private enterprise "co-operating" with government decree, effectively becoming an arm of government. [Opposed to laissez-faire economics]. Trade unions suppressed or incorporated into state machinery. Prediliction for grandiose public works - "fascist architecture"
Civil Society: Authoritarian/Totalitarian. Concept of rights replaced by idealistic state paternalism.
Ideological: Strongly nationalist. Statist. Supremecy of state over people. Extreme concept of patriotism. Cult of personality based on leader. Zenophobic. Racist.
Political: Single party government - opposition suppressed. Anti-communist.
Cultural: Government control of newspapers, media. Artists encouraged (often generously) to spout the party line. Firm control of education.
Gender Politics: Mysogynist, Anti-gay, espouses so-called "family values" Population growth often encouraged.
Military: Highly militaristic culture. Aggressive towards foreign states and particularly towards internal minorities that are not identified with the state.

I'm after wading through the 3 pages of posts so far, Does Gobansaor describe our accepted version of Fascism correctly in his post, as little about it was refuted ???

If so, then does the US have more fascist traits than it does democratic ?


1 In that statement I am assuming that the choice between Republican/Democratic candidate is an illusive choice as both candidates are highly lobbied by corporate America.

2 I am also assuming (correctly or not) that it has elements of central economic planning (Federal reserve controls , domestic and foreign).

3 My final assumption is that The opposition to Laissez Faire economics could be subdued in cases where the Govt. involvement in economic matters could be manipulated by lobby groups and vested interests inside of government.

Reasons why assumptions may be justified in case of USA:

1 Campaign money, president turns around and bases decisions on advice from more experienced unelected advisors anyway, instead of popular demand.

2 Private ownership of Federal Reserve Bank, Collusion and conflicting interests becoming unavoidable.

3 It has become clear since the events of 11th of November that many of the US advisors were not subject to the normal scrutiny involved with government officials, and stood to gain fortunes from the actions of their nation in the wake of those events. Cheney Rumsfeld and many of the Neo-Con advisors and policy-makers brought in during the period of confusion that seemed to shroud the constitution after that date.

DadaKopf

Fashion + Racist = Fascism?

The Corinthian

AngryHippie wrote: »

1 In that statement I am assuming that the choice between Republican/Democratic candidate is an illusive choice as both candidates are highly lobbied by corporate America.

It depends; the choice between Republican/Democratic candidate is an illusive only if you require or expect a radical one. There are definate differences between the two and even between the policies of the two, but that does not (and in a stable democracy should not) imply that those differences should be revolutionary.

2 I am also assuming (correctly or not) that it has elements of central economic planning (Federal reserve controls , domestic and foreign).

It does, but so does every economy to one degree or other. Traditionally the US actually has less than many other economies.

3 My final assumption is that The opposition to Laissez Faire economics could be subdued in cases where the Govt. involvement in economic matters could be manipulated by lobby groups and vested interests inside of government.

Again lobby groups exist in all political systems, be they 'think tanks' or courtiers.

1 Campaign money, president turns around and bases decisions on advice from more experienced unelected advisors anyway, instead of popular demand.

No different to pretty much any system that has ever existed, with the possible exception that in undemocratic regimes the campaign money tends to go direct to the principles in government rather than their campaigns.

2 Private ownership of Federal Reserve Bank, Collusion and conflicting interests becoming unavoidable.

The concept of a central bank that is not owned by the State would be unacceptable in Fascism, so this is a point against.

3 It has become clear since the events of 11th of November that many of the US advisors were not subject to the normal scrutiny involved with government officials, and stood to gain fortunes from the actions of their nation in the wake of those events. Cheney Rumsfeld and many of the Neo-Con advisors and policy-makers brought in during the period of confusion that seemed to shroud the constitution after that date.

Again oligarchy and corruption is not unusual in any system of government.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Fashion + Racist = Fascism?

That does appear to be the simplistic conclusion being reached.

AngryHippie

The Corinthian wrote: »

The concept of a central bank that is not owned by the State would be unacceptable in Fascism, so this is a point against.

If the central bank of the country was controlled by a cartel closely allied with those in power, then essentially it would be in state control, or the state in its control, which arguably could describe the situation in the US...... Aside from the fact that there are ,many common interests between those in power, and those who direct the policies of the Federal Reserve, The collusion evident between the two points towards those at the top using public funds as a private piggybank for their own ends. In this statement I am referring to allocation of traditionally public sector services (FEMA using Halliburton and Blackwater after Katriona, The US Military using same for occupation of Iraq) to private companies without any public referendum or tendering process for competing companies.
Aside from the epic levels of corruption shown in the current US administration I suppose it is less nationalist than the accepted fascist model, and more corporatist. We'll see if a democratic candidate gains power, They may push the social agenda in the way the OP discussed.....

The Corinthian

AngryHippie wrote: »

If the central bank of the country was controlled by a cartel closely allied with those in power, then essentially it would be in state control, or the state in its control, which arguably could describe the situation in the US......

To begin with Fascism would certainly not accept official ownership of such an asset to be held in private hands - "Everything for the State; nothing outside the State" after all. Of course, you could have a situation whereby a state body was de facto under private control or even ownership, but this would be a corruption of the principle of state control in Fascism, Communism or even basic Keynesian economics.

Aside from the fact that there are ,many common interests between those in power, and those who direct the policies of the Federal Reserve, The collusion evident between the two points towards those at the top using public funds as a private piggybank for their own ends.

So what? Private interests have courted those in power in every system of government from the year dot. This is certainly not unique to Fascism, Liberal democracy or even (in the shape of socio-political elites) to Communist states.

Aside from the epic levels of corruption shown in the current US administration I suppose it is less nationalist than the accepted fascist model, and more corporatist.

US politics is only corporatist in that it has a better established system of lobbying from corporate and non-corporate interest groups than most other Western states, but lobbying is not the same as being part of the official mechanism of the state and so qualifies as corporatist only on a very limited level.

paulizei

The Corinthian wrote: »

"Fascist criminal"? I assume from this you are indeed a run of the mill anti-Fascist activist then...

Mussolini was not a criminal in your view? Hmm. Anyway, whether Primo is an antifascist activist or a Jew or the ghost of Primo Levi himself is irrelevant and does not invalidate his argument or the evidence of Mussolini's racism he has been courteous enough to provide. By the same token, if you are a fascist, that alone would not invalidate your argument.

How about you respond to the points I previously made rather than squirming out of them? Block quoting half of Gillette's book does not mean that you bothered addressing them, after all.

Personally I believe the onus is on you to provide some evidence to back up your bizarre claim that fascist movements were not racist. For example, Romanian (Iron Guard) and Croatian (Ustase) fascists did not need any encouragement from the nazis to murder countless Gypsies, Jews and Serbs you know, their position on such people was established years before Hitler took power.

As things stand, it just looks very much like you are posting truly loopy revisionist rubbish that is offensive in its ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in a hamfisted attempt to sanitise a vague, irrational, contradictory, and above all, violent ideology.

The Corinthian

paulizei wrote: »

Mussolini was not a criminal in your view? Hmm.

Oh, sorry - I forgot he has to be demonized whenever mentioned...

Anyway, whether Primo is an antifascist activist or a Jew or the ghost of Primo Levi himself is irrelevant and does not invalidate his argument or the evidence of Mussolini's racism he has been courteous enough to provide.

There was nothing courteous in what he posted. From the onset his argument was based upon dismissal of any counter arguments as dishonest or ill educated - he then went on to simply post slabs of quotations while ignoring any argument made against his.

On the point of what he quoted, I'd be interested in seeing the original Italian - after all 'razza' does not actually always mean 'race'.

Personally I believe the onus is on you to provide some evidence to back up your bizarre claim that fascist movements were not racist. For example, Romanian (Iron Guard) and Croatian (Ustase) fascists did not need any encouragement from the nazis to murder countless Gypsies, Jews and Serbs you know, their position on such people was established years before Hitler took power.

Certainly certain Fascist ideologies were very racist - typically those derived from - or set up by - German National Socialism. But then you would also have to consider those Fascist states that were not racist (relative to non-Fascist ones of the same period) such as in Spain (Franco), Argentina (Peron) and - as discussed - Italy prior to the late thirties.

Unless you want to dispute any of those historical facts or those I raised earlier, you or Primo might want to address them.

As things stand, it just looks very much like you are posting truly loopy revisionist rubbish that is offensive in its ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in a hamfisted attempt to sanitise a vague, irrational, contradictory, and above all, violent ideology.

Thanks for the diatribe. Is it a case of if you say it enough others might believe you?