• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who is a real fascist? Why?

I think you would be hard pressed to ever find a pure Fascist leader in the same way it is hard to find any leaders that fit any pure definition.
 
semi or demi fascist then
or leaning towards, or near
call them SOBs

like pure commies there never has been or will be one
if you narrow the def enuf

el ducie hitler franco most of prewar eastern euro and a whole slue of SA leaders and partys
inc the for mentioned Pinocchio
marcos most the 60's viet leaders ect
sure you can find a quote or quibble that they all broke a true fascist rule or all of them
they still all were scum sucking fascists
like porno you know them when you see them
 
lemurien said:
I have noticed that historical facts keep changing as time passes by.
What I learned when I was young is not true any longer.
No matter which subject, whether it is physics, chemistry, biology or history, I am in a constant state of confusion and googling day in day out about things I thought I knew. Of course, it is very rewarding but I do feel quite stupid at times.

Now I just finished reading Isabel Allende's 'Of Love And Shadows' which is a well-written novel from the days of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile. I do remember the coup, as I was in Inti Illimani's concert the day after.
(It was a Chilean group playing traditional and revolutionary music)

Now, after reading the book, I started googling about Chile, the Chigago Boys, the embargo and the economical miracle...also about the desaperecidos, the torture, mass murders and the international organization Condor that the military juntas of the different countries had set up to assassinate their political enemies wherever they might be.

Of the modern leaders, who would you call a fascist and why?

At the time it was clear the General Pinochet was a fascist.
He was very nationalistic, he saw Foreign Enemies everywhere (Cuba did play some games in Chile, true), he reigned with iron hand, jailed, tortured and killed all opposition and more.

He he gave foreign capital free entry and held copper nationalized.
"Fascism is hostile to the concepts of laissez-faire capitalism, free trade, economic individualism, materialism, and hostile to bourgeois culture".
 (wiki)

I would like to know now, why is he not considered a fascist?
Is it only because he had close ties with the US and Nixon did not want to be in collaboration with somebody who is called a fascist?

Of the leaders of today, who would you call a fascist and why?
Click to expand...

I just came across this thread. This is very strange. Why would anyone think that Pinochet was not considered a fascist? Especially based on this bizarre assortment of references?

Even the most basic Google search finds dozens of references that label Pinochet as a fascist. There's even a discussion of this in Wikipedia, and a 1983 article from International Affairs that begins
Today, ten years after the state coup, Pinochet's fascist dictatorship in Chile is encountering tremendous difficulties.
Click to expand...
 
Travis said:
I think you would be hard pressed to ever find a pure Fascist leader in the same way it is hard to find any leaders that fit any pure definition.
Click to expand...

Yep, people are much more realists than their dogma allows for. Not to mention the terms "fascist" and "communist" have become pejoratives, isolated of their meaning.
 
I have the impression that fascism can be construed as an authoritarian version of capitalism where the aristocracy, the business sector, essential runs the government with political figures largely serving as figureheads or an arm of large industrial concerns. An oligarchy as it were.

Any comments as to how close or far this sits from the mark?
 
Only that it agrees with my limited understanding of the term, and, as an outsider, the USA seems to be a long way down the path towards being a fascist state.
 
Gazpacho said:
The idea that fascism is part of the "left" is standard in American right-wing discourse and has been since the early cold war.
Click to expand...

The problem with describing fascism as being either left or right is that we dont really have a firm definition for what left or right are let alone what fascism is.

The left/right thing was coined during the French Revolution and the world has changed since then almost beyond recognition. Now everyone claims they wish for a more egalitarian society but disagree how to do so.

I think a more apt political spectrum would be to have "statist" versus libertarian, and simultaneously have liberal versus authoritarian.

Its particularly important because people these days tend to conflate fascism with simple authoritarian.

The site politicalcompass.org represents a version of this idea, but still hasnt moved on from the nebulous concepts of left and right. Its charts are interesting although I'd question how they rate some parties on their UK 2010 page. For example, I'd rate the BNP as strongly left/authoritarian rather than centre/authoritarian, but then again, what exactly is left and right?

For my money, "the left" inherently big state, which IMO places fascism closer to the left than the right.
 
Chucky said:
I have the impression that fascism can be construed as an authoritarian version of capitalism where the aristocracy, the business sector, essential runs the government with political figures largely serving as figureheads or an arm of large industrial concerns. An oligarchy as it were.

Any comments as to how close or far this sits from the mark?
Click to expand...

In a sense thats one of the hallmarks. The problem is fascism has never really been defined as a political movement. Fascism in Italy for example was different to that found in Spain, or what became the National Socialists in Germany.

I think another common factor is extreme nationalism, to the point of desiring war as proof positive of our national cultural superiority
 
Pinochet was not a Fascist as Chile was not a totalitarian state. Most of the traditional institutions of Chilean society such as family and the Church were left alone and maintained a degree of independence and spontaneity. This is especially true of the economy which was not placed under state control as the corporatist economies of Fascist Europe were. Social institutions that maintain independence are an anathema to totalitarian visions of society.

RJ Rummel explains;

The Pinochet regime clearly used coercion and force to purge the country of what it saw as undesirables and to maintain its rule against any possible opposition until it was ready to return democracy to the country. But outside of this, the nation as a whole was a social field, indeed, outside of politics and political expression, it was more spontaneous than it had been under the Allende government, which had nationalized whole industries and expropriated huge tracks of land. The economy was freer, intervention in the affairs of the Catholic church was less, and people could go about their private business. Tradition and custom, bargaining and exchange, prevailed where they were independent of the regime's interests in maintaining its power and protecting the nation against communism, socialism, and radical leftists.

This regime has been especially condemned by the international community for its abysmal human rights record and military rule, and I should be especially clear as to what I mean. None of the allegations of human rights violations, mass murder, and undemocratic rule are being denied. What I am saying is that aside from this there were large regions of Chilean society in which behavior was spontaneous, a social field. I would place Pinochet's regime during this period towards the middle right of the political triangle. Pinochet's rule was absolute but he allowed much exchange and also tradition and custom played a large role in Chilean society, as for example, in the social dominance of the Catholic church.
Click to expand...

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/pk.chap13.htm
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Pinochet was not a Fascist as Chile was not a totalitarian state. Most of the traditional institutions of Chilean society such as family and the Church were left alone and maintained a degree of independence and spontaneity.
Click to expand...

So what? This is also true of Italy in the 1920's and 1930's but it is rather tricky to argue that Italy wasn't Fascist in those days.
 
Chucky said:
I have the impression that fascism can be construed as an authoritarian version of capitalism where the aristocracy, the business sector, essential runs the government with political figures largely serving as figureheads or an arm of large industrial concerns. An oligarchy as it were.

Any comments as to how close or far this sits from the mark?
Click to expand...

At their core, all totalitarian regimes operate in about the same way. The differences are in the rhetoric used to justify the need for a supreme central authority. A fascist regime stresses nationalism and ethnic identity. A communist regime stresses worker solidarity. A theocracy or absolute monarchy stresses tradition and religion.

Business interests may continue to operate under a fascist regime, but they are subservient to the regime.
 
MG1962 said:
I think another common factor is extreme nationalism, to the point of desiring war as proof positive of our national cultural superiority
Click to expand...


I do agree though that a fairly extreme brand of expansionary militarism is a key part of being a fascist. But sometimes a fascist may need wars of conquest simply to cover for disastrous economic mismanagement.

Looking at Hitler, he HAD to invade Czechoslovakia when he did or there was no way he'd be able to continue with his armaments programme. On the other hand, the nazis were very keen on recruiting just about anyone and everyone to fight in the Wermacht and SS.

Strange behaviour for the sword of a regime based on racial unity. Which may just prove that fascists are just plain old crazy.
 
The term fascist is so abused that it has become meaningless. As a result it is probably best to be happy that the least fascist leader died in 1975 and leave it at that.
 
geni said:
The term fascist is so abused that it has become meaningless. As a result it is probably best to be happy that the least fascist leader died in 1975 and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
[My emphasis]

I think it would be a major concern if every leader since then has been more fascist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom