AHC: Fascism commonly viewed as leftwing

So the spectrum needs to be defined more in terms of economic issues. Perhaps an averted Cold War would avoid a lot of right-wing authoritarianism. That would allow the right in the US and Britain to be more isolationist and more free-market oriented.

I still don't think that would work - prior to WWII, the right in Britain was still protectionist (as it had always been).
 
They were counter-revolutionary and (in terms of social theory and political organisation at least) deeply regressive - that, more than anything else, is what put them unambiguously on the far right (and that's why, when they formed alliances, it was with conservatives, monarchists, etc).

Don't forget that Mussolini started off as a socialist at first and that significants swathes of the Nazi party were very socialistic and left wing in their orientation.

Italian Fascism did not want Italy to return to say the time of the Roman Empire, the time of the Papal State or the time of the Italian communes. Their outlook was clearly futurist in a lot of ways and don't forget that both fascism and nazism have always been very anti conservative and very anti bourgeois. Alliances between facists/nazis and conservatives were alliances of circumstances and nothing more. To a degree they shared the same political objectives in the sense that they supported nationalism, a stronger nation and so on. But while the conservatives wanted to do this through their respective countries traditions. The nazis and the fasicts wanted a clean break with the past, traditions were an hindrance for them and not something to be respected and cherished (a conservative characteristic). Witness for this the fact that the nazis did not reestablish the German monarchy, while most conservatives where in favour of this.

The nazis and the fascists were whether you like it or not a lot more progressive than conservatives. Witness the Kraft durch Freude organisation for workers, extensive social programs, paid holidays and so on. Nazi/Fascist economics where far from laisser-faire too, they worked with captains of industry because it was a mutually convenient relationship for both and nothing more. The nazis could rearm, the industrialists made money without having to worry about competition and such. Hardly a mark of laisser faire capitalism or rather conservative economics.

Lastly the role of the church was never emphasised in Nazi/Fascist propaganda. Some nazis were very much Pagan and most did not give a shit to Christian morals or principles.

Reactionary regimes like Franco's Spain and such such where reactionary but not fascist. Social welfare programmes were limited or non existent, links with the past where constantly used to bolster the regime and institutions like the church played a key role in the running of the state.
 
Don't forget that Mussolini started off as a socialist at first and that significants swathes of the Nazi party were very socialistic and left wing in their orientation.
The thread wasn't meant to be a debate, and it's getting quite close, so I'm going to stop after this.

Mussolini explicitly repudiated his former socialist views. To characterise fascism as left-wing because of Mussolini's background, is on a par with classing Stalinism as a form of Christian theocracy because Uncle Joe went to a seminary. And there really weren't any swathes of the Nazi party that were socialistic in outlook. Even Strasser, who is cited as being a genuine socialist for wanting the state to take control of land and industry, proposed this a stepping-stone to redistributing those holdings to an elite of good German stock so that feudalism could be restored (selective quoting in certain books leaves that bit out).

Italian Fascism did not want Italy to return to say the time of the Roman Empire, the time of the Papal State or the time of the Italian communes.
You don't think their adoption of the fasces, the symbol of law and order in the Roman Empire (the thing that gives us the word "fascism"), indicates at least some desire to return to that time?

Their outlook was clearly futurist in a lot of ways and don't forget that both fascism and nazism have always been very anti conservative and very anti bourgeois.
Their methods were futurist, but their outlook really wasn't. The Fascists in Italy and Spain, the Nazis, even the BUF, all saw themselves as leading a crusade to return to some quasi-mythic past, to a supposed golden age. I can't really see any part of the left that sees things in those terms (maybe some sections of the Green movement, if you view that as being left-wing).

Alliances between facists/nazis and conservatives were alliances of circumstances and nothing more. To a degree they shared the same political objectives in the sense that they supported nationalism, a stronger nation and so on. But while the conservatives wanted to do this through their respective countries traditions. The nazis and the fasicts wanted a clean break with the past, traditions were an hindrance for them and not something to be respected and cherished (a conservative characteristic).
Surely those shared political objectives (including opposition to democracy and civil liberty) make it clear why fascism is on the far-right of the spectrum. This is the same as socialists and communists sharing the same political objectives (at least in theory) but wanting to accomplish them in wildly different ways - communists through revolution and force, socialists through reform and democracy.

Witness for this the fact that the nazis did not reestablish the German monarchy, while most conservatives where in favour of this.
The nazis and the fascists were whether you like it or not a lot more progressive than conservatives. Witness the Kraft durch Freude organisation for workers, extensive social programs, paid holidays and so on.
Granted Hitler didn't honour his promises to restore the Kaiser. But they did restore a monarchic system of rule. And it's not to do with liking it or not - they simply weren't (politically) progressive, in any way. They weren't conservative either - the best term for them is regressive, well beyond the conservative and in opposition to the progressive. Offering inducements to the masses doesn't qualify as progressive, not least because plenty of conservatives have done it. Unless you want to exclude the likes of Bismarck, D'Israeli and Hoover from the conservative side. Did Margaret Thatcher's expansion of the right-to-buy scheme make her a left-winger?

Nazi/Fascist economics where far from laisser-faire too, they worked with captains of industry because it was a mutually convenient relationship for both and nothing more. The nazis could rearm, the industrialists made money without having to worry about competition and such. Hardly a mark of laisser faire capitalism or rather conservative economics.
Laissez-faire was liberal economics, and (European) conservatives at that point still advocated protectionism (some were even still advocating mercantilism, perfectly in-keeping with Nazi economic programmes).

Lastly the role of the church was never emphasised in Nazi/Fascist propaganda. Some nazis were very much Pagan and most did not give a shit to Christian morals or principles. Reactionary regimes like Franco's Spain and such such where reactionary but not fascist. Social welfare programmes were limited or non existent, links with the past where constantly used to bolster the regime and institutions like the church played a key role in the running of the state.
The role of the Church may not have been emphasised (though I think sometimes it was by every fascist strain except Nazism, and the Nazis were presiding over a country with two significant denominations), but the Nazis and Fascists frequently claimed there was a need to defend Christianity from Bolshevism, Liberalism and Modernism (and that only they could do this) - and this was one of the main planks put forward by their apologists in the West. The Falange was very much a fascist organisation. It had unique qualities, but political movements manifest themselves very differently in different nations (compare the Conservatives in Britain with the Republicans in America). Where it differed most from other fascist movements, was not in its relationship with the Church but in its partial adoption of syndicalism from the idiosyncratic Spanish left. And of course, Franco didn't restore the monarchy until much later.
 
To help this process along since there seems to be a bit of confusion on the topic I highly recommend everyone at least skim through Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism. Paxton is the authority on Fascism due to his earlier work, Vichy France, Old Guard and New Order, 1940-1944, which is widely considered ground-breaking when it comes to Vichy France, and made Paxton important enough to be called to testify at the trial of Maurice Papon (who was convicted for crimes against humanity in 1998).

I respect his authority on the matter, and accept his definition but would ask how fascism then differs (if at all) from other forms of totalitarianism.
 
I respect his authority on the matter, and accept his definition but would ask how fascism then differs (if at all) from other forms of totalitarianism.

I hesitate to put words in Paxton's mouth; however I will say that I, personally, focus on the 'mobilizing passions' when examining policies and social movements for 'fascist' tendencies. Particularly important, again IMHO, are;

  • dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;
  • the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;

The first differentiates fascism from 'normal' totalitarianism ideologically by its opposition to both liberal and socialist methods. Basically fascism is an ultra-regressive/reactionary mode of thought that says any social progress made from the French Revolution forward should be rolled back - at least to an extent. Anything that furthers the goals/power of the fascist movement is generally 'grandfathered in' as being 'socially acceptable.' However class conflict and liberal individualism are always off the table.

The second point separates fascism from totalitarianism in its aesthetics. Fascist movements will almost always glory in violence for the sake of violence alone; glory in the power of Will (of the glorious leader; no individualism here) for the sheer sake of willpower itself, etc - however this also comes with a qualifier, in that these virtues are only upheld when they are seen to further the goals/power of the fascist movement. This isn't to say that fascists would turn against violence or any pacifist if, logically, should an about-face would better serve their goals; only that violence and Will are upheld as intrinsic and natural forms of human nature by the movement when they serve the movement's ends.

Again, this is my take on Paxton's work after reading through it several times over the years, my own personal experience, my amateur study of fascism and fascist movements, etc. In other words, YMMV.
 
Basically, make Grandi to stay in charge and push really for a coporativism reform of the state instead of having Mussolini him deposed to please the capital owner.
With Italy as a precedent in the '30, fascism would be perceived as something like stalinism: an amalgama of obedience-to-the-chief and the-state-cares-for-you-from-the-cradle-to-the-grave.
 
I hesitate to put words in Paxton's mouth; however I will say that I, personally, focus on the 'mobilizing passions' when examining policies and social movements for 'fascist' tendencies. Particularly important, again IMHO, are;

One of the quick rules of thumb I use to distinguish if a government is authoritarian/totalitarian or fascist is if the government is more interested in passive, submitting citizens (authoritarian/totalitarian) or passive, submitting citizens who can be whipped up to act as the government wants them to act (fascist).
 
They were counter-revolutionary and (in terms of social theory and political organisation at least) deeply regressive - that, more than anything else, is what put them unambiguously on the far right (and that's why, when they formed alliances, it was with conservatives, monarchists, etc).

This is not true; despite a great deal of their ideology demanding the creation of a form of absolute monarchy that the tsars or kings of France would have dreamed of, the fascist movements of Italy and other European countries were still mass movements that were committed to the destruction an established order that they believed would lead to a utopia (based on different principles to the communists though)
 
One of the quick rules of thumb I use to distinguish if a government is authoritarian/totalitarian or fascist is if the government is more interested in passive, submitting citizens (authoritarian/totalitarian) or passive, submitting citizens who can be whipped up to act as the government wants them to act (fascist).

Where would you place Stalin's USSR then?
 
Where would you place Stalin's USSR then?

Authoritarian/totalitarian. The USSR always seemed more worried about people being loyal to the party and what they did all the time rather than trying to constantly keep the people inflamed and active in government/party clubs/groups/etc like the Nazis did.
 
Top