Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
The basic principles of classical fascism, communism (Leninist / Maoist Communism) and religious dictatorship are basically the same. These are not entirely fear / Terror based forms of government. First they prey on the weak minded / poor and less educated layers of society. Fascism fools them though false ideas of patriotism and nationalism. Communism fools them through a certain sense of class-struggle, by demonizing upper layers of society and some foreign nations who are designated as the source of all evil, and religious dictatorship appeals also to very basic human instincts that may be entrenched in the traditions of a culture like “the honor of women” or “the gift of piousness” etc. None of these arguments are logical arguments. They are designed to resonate with the lizard-brain survival instincts of the lowest layers of society. This is stage one. Stage two is to use this “majority” and to say “All the İtalians want…”, “The united peoples of the Soviet Union believes in…”, “The Pious people of Turkey will never submit to…”. The rhetoric’s and the mechanisms are almost always the same. Everything is founded on the denial of reason, common sense, the international order and the basic principles like the supremacy of law or human rights for instance. For this very reason they have no chance of succeeding and what is sadder, they themselves know that they have no chance of succeeding. So stage three is to attempt to stay in power. For this they need an enemy. If they don’t have it they will create it. This helps to rally their hungered people and to show them a target without which the people would turn against the regime itself. Than there is usually a collapse of the regime. After which nations who have suffered the brutality of such regimes will usually not be willing to ever return to such regimes and will usually be very vigilant regarding such movements (as it is the case in Greece or in Germany for instance). Yet nations who haven’t experienced the horrors of such regimes firsthand will always have a tendency to think for instance that “economical issues are more important that democracy and human rights”.
(October 10, 2022 at 2:56 pm)Leonardo17 Wrote: Here is my theory:
The basic principles of classical fascism, communism (Leninist / Maoist Communism) and religious dictatorship are basically the same. These are not entirely fear / Terror based forms of government. First they prey on the weak minded / poor and less educated layers of society. Fascism fools them though false ideas of patriotism and nationalism. Communism fools them through a certain sense of class-struggle, by demonizing upper layers of society and some foreign nations who are designated as the source of all evil, and religious dictatorship appeals also to very basic human instincts that may be entrenched in the traditions of a culture like “the honor of women” or “the gift of piousness” etc. None of these arguments are logical arguments. They are designed to resonate with the lizard-brain survival instincts of the lowest layers of society. This is stage one. Stage two is to use this “majority” and to say “All the İtalians want…”, “The united peoples of the Soviet Union believes in…”, “The Pious people of Turkey will never submit to…”. The rhetoric’s and the mechanisms are almost always the same. Everything is founded on the denial of reason, common sense, the international order and the basic principles like the supremacy of law or human rights for instance. For this very reason they have no chance of succeeding and what is sadder, they themselves know that they have no chance of succeeding. So stage three is to attempt to stay in power. For this they need an enemy. If they don’t have it they will create it. This helps to rally their hungered people and to show them a target without which the people would turn against the regime itself. Than there is usually a collapse of the regime. After which nations who have suffered the brutality of such regimes will usually not be willing to ever return to such regimes and will usually be very vigilant regarding such movements (as it is the case in Greece or in Germany for instance). Yet nations who haven’t experienced the horrors of such regimes firsthand will always have a tendency to think for instance that “economical issues are more important that democracy and human rights”.
Have you heard Umberto Eco's list of fascist characteristics? I have found this one useful.
In his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[23] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows:
"The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
"The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
"The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
"Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's "fear" of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
"Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
"Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
"Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
"Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
"Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".
"Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
October 11, 2022 at 3:41 pm (This post was last modified: October 11, 2022 at 3:42 pm by HappySkeptic.)
(October 10, 2022 at 2:56 pm)Leonardo17 Wrote: Here is my theory:
[snip]
Than there is usually a collapse of the regime. After which nations who have suffered the brutality of such regimes will usually not be willing to ever return to such regimes and will usually be very vigilant regarding such movements (as it is the case in Greece or in Germany for instance). Yet nations who haven’t experienced the horrors of such regimes firsthand will always have a tendency to think for instance that “economical issues are more important that democracy and human rights”.
One thought - it is easier to read paragraphs if there is a space between them.
I disagree that nations who have suffered brutality never return to authoritarian rule. Why did Russia return to dictatorship?
Freedom requires vigilance. It requires guardrails throughout the institutions. It requires a free and fair court system. It requires a constitution and founding myth whereby people are willing to fight to keep freedom. It requires citizens to take to the streets to demand their rights.
In countries where this has never existed, they can easily fall back into old ways.
I agree with you on these issues. But as I said, the loss of liberties happens in stages and some nations seem to know and recognize these stages better than others. In fact, no one can take away your freedom if you are not yourself willing to give it up in the first place. There has to be a fraction of your population who are already willing to trade this in return for a promise of a better economy etc. The Russians did not have an experience in any of this. They knew only communism since 1919. That’s three generations. The Ukrainians on the other hand have the memory of both Nazi and Soviet invasion. They know what it is like to not be free. And they have an experience of fighting for freedom.
Gorbatchev gave freedom to the Russian people. They didn’t earn it themselves. They didn’t have to fight for it. So they were less vigilant. And now they lost it.
I think that these things have a lower chance of success when they come from top to bottom. Like the American or the French Revolutions for instance. See, in Turkey almost all the guardrails were there. We had a free and fair court system, we a constitution, a secular education system, even the army was given the role of “preserving and maintaining the Turkish Democracy until it is able to walk on its own two feet”. Yet, since the very beginning I would say, there is this mass of people who are simply resisting democracy because democracy challenges their millennia-old habits of monarchic / feudal rule and society.
So I think it’s the same in Russia. They were used to a different system. They don’t understand the new system. So they hate it and they are looking for a savior. If they had fought to end communism (which they didn’t really do) I think there wouldn’t be any Putin.
