Oh, you edited your post with some more content. I can respond to this, that has way more stuff.
Yet, somehow, that is "Just totalitarianism", and not Fascism.
Really, the ONLY difference is the nature of what constitutes the nature of "Traditions". Or, what constitutes the nature of "slaughtered." (Since I guess being forcibly changed into something you are not, and do not desire to become, is somehow not a death of personhood.)
Yes, indeed, there is a difference between garden variety totalitarianism and Fascist totalitarianism. The ultranationalist aspects explicitly play into every aspect of Fascism: the expansionism, the racial orientation, and even aspects of the totalitarianism
all play back into this element, hence there is certainly something separating it from other forms of totalitarianism. Whilst complete disregard for human autonomy is an aspect of Fascism, it comes to Fascism in the form of its of greater totalitarianism, from which Fascism distinguishes its self within with its social darwinism and extreme expansionism. Whilst these two elements are not inherent aspects of totalitarianism, they absolutely
are of Fascism and are repeatedly stated in Fascist ideological documents, propaganda, and seen in Fascist states.
Let's take for example the Fascist view on race and economics. As a result of Fascist philosophy, Nazi Germany viewed many, many races as being inherently, genetically inferior parasites leeching off of the German nation. The Ustache, Iron Guard, and MANY other Fascist groups took the same approach, and these views are seen all over their societies. Even leaders who took a more cosmopolitan approach (Mussolini's "there is no such thing as a biologically pure race in the 20th century") continued, due to ultranationalism, to claim that their people were inherently ethnically or racially superior whereas others were inferior. This ultranationalist view is precisely one of many features which set Fascism apart from simple totalitarianism. Likewise, the Fascist view on economics lead to mass privatization, a
stark contrast with the left wing totalitarians.
Now let's look at other, non-Fascist totalitarian states. Let us go with Enver Hoxha's Albania, Stalin's USSR and Mao's China. Whilst all extremely authoritarian states which put little worth to human life, the racial and ultranational propaganda is completely absent, but they continue to perform mass repressions for completely other reasons. Likewise, they all have a completely different economic systems and completely different views on society, particularly in lacking social darwinism. Ergo, whilst Fascism is totalitarian, not all totalitarianism is Fascist, and the features shared are as a result of
totalitarianism and not Fascism.
The example you have cited, does not follow the pattern defined, despite claiming to.
The pattern, again, is:
We can return to X (A fantastical, fictitious ideal that never existed to begin with), IF ONLY---
Yes, ideological myths, and the idea of a return to a great mythical past are indeed a large part of Fascism. However, to put Fascism simply down as that concept is ridiculous, when it is an aspect of hundreds of ideologies, authoritarian and otherwise, which are entirely separate from Fascism. Take, as an example of a totalitarian state, Albania again. They had a myth of being a great strong Illyrian people who would surely return to power if they could just destroy foreign influence and the 'imperialists'. Despite this, Albania continued to not run on, but rather
contradict Fascism. Instead of invasions being a great extension of manhood and a natural thing to be approved of, everything remotely within the realm of expansionism was imperialism that had to be resisted. Instead of social darwinism, an inherent part of Fascist society, there were no euthanasia programs, no concentration camps for the homeless, and no view of other nations as inherently weak and worthy only of slavery. Instead of the protection of traditional national economics and culture, everything that could conceivably be part of the old society was annihilated. As it runs completely counter to Fascism, contradicting the very basis of its philosophy and actions, it cannot be considered it. However, it continues to be a
totalitarian state. And these concepts that it runs counter to are not merely things I have pulled out of my arse, they are features visible in
the core writings of Fascist philosophy, the quotes of Fascist dictators and Fascist society. If these aspects do not make up Fascist society, why is it solely the power of myth that does?
Likewise, as far as I am aware, an aspect of the French Revolution was the stated return of the "natural rights of man", ergo, "We can return to the fantastical utopia of natural rights if only we behead the nobility." Yet I do not believe any man arguing in good faith would call the French Republic a Fascist state, owing to the fact that it shares little to no ideological ground and came hundreds of years prior. Though that has not stopped some... strange people.
Really, the crux of your argument is "But it does not fit the same stated goals of the fascist nations, therefor not fascist!"
Perhaps if you have ignored everything I have said, sure. The point is more "It does not have anything to do with the core tenants Fascist philosophy, it has a fundamentally different outlook than the Fascist states, but it continues to be in line with totalitarianism". Your argument is fallacious in that it assumes that anything which shares myth and authoritarianism is automatically Fascist, even if it may contradict aspects of or espouse nothing of Fascist philosophy.
When the counter argument is "There is something that all of the fascist nations had in common, and that is the pattern of achieving and maintaining power:"
The bolded aspect is the very argument I have been making to you. That the extreme philosophy and economics and such of the Fascist states is their defining, shared feature, and that what you have brought up has been used by countless non-Fascist and even non-totalitarian states, whereas the key aspects of Fascist philosophy outlined are consistently found among every Fascist state, with the exact combination scarcely seen outside of them. Ergo, the "pattern of achieving and maintaining power" cannot be considered myth + violence, simple economics (privatization continues to be a phenomena not unique to Fascism) or totalitarianism, and one must look of every major aspect of Fascist society and how they have been used.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4241702 times)