[SFPOM] Principles of Fascism and The People's Response II
Max Tse Tung
MUSIC
Today we will be discussing the characteristics of post-war fascism or what is commonly regarded as the phenomena of Neo-Fascism. This article should be a little bit denser than the last one and will include lots of different links so bear with me.
Neo-Fascism is an ultranationalist authoritarian populist set of movements that use xenophobia, nativism, and anti-immigrant ideas to gain power. They can usually be distinguished by their sympathy for their ideological roots, which come from Fascism.
It was distinguished from Fascism in 1942 after the Nazi invasion of the USSR according to Jean-Yves Camus (Political Scientist) and Nicolas Lebourg. (Historian and Far-Right Political Expert) What defined the change was the ideological shift to Euro-Nationalism and the abandonment of the theory of the racial-impurity of the “white race”. Euro-Nationalism was the idea that Europe should unify into a single nation and it was first popularized by Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists, in his ‘Europe a Nation’ Policy.
Neo-Fascist and Post-Fascist Parties have existed across Europe since the 1940s. This is in part due to the fears of Communism and the Third World and their effects on the west. These days, Neo-Fascist groups are driven by a belief that the west needs to be protected from Islam and refugees. Neo-Fascists believe that they are defending western civilization and European heritage and culture.
Another characteristic of Neo-Fascism is its public and political rebranding of many of the ideas associated with Fascism and its retreat into a meta-political framework. Neo-Fascists are generally concerned with influencing how we interact with politics and our normative thoughts towards it. For example, they have abandoned the idea of recreating previous regimes and will use the popular culture and attitudes of their time to advance the Neo-Fascist movement. They also are more willing to work with democratic governments and institutions, unlike their political ancestors who were usually more revolutionary-minded. This is because they see the political value of support from other parties to save face and to gain power.
In the 80s and 90s Europe experienced multiple economic crises this combined with high unemployment rates, a resurfacing of nationalism, and an increase in ethnic conflict has lead, numerous political scientists and historians to compare the period to pre-World War II Europe. They believe that the resurgence of Neo-Fascist movements is in part due to these conditions. The groups from this period were not exclusively pan-European, they were country-specific but shared many common characteristics with other Neo-Fascist groups.
There is a dispute over distinguishing the more recent Neo-Fascist movements from that of the ones created just after the second world war. The dispute is centered on the idea that recent Neo-Fascist movements operate democratically as opposed to their political-ancestor movements. Some scholars contend that this distinction is relatively meaningless and cite the various ways in which past movements co-opted and used the democratic system.
I want to hear from my readers on this, what aspects of Fascism do you think should be covered in this series? Let me know!
Comments
[SFPOM] Principles of Fascism and The People's Response II
V+C+S+S
https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-sfpom-principles-of-fascism-and-the-people-s-response-ii-2713127
I think an article on corporatism as being a vital component of modern Fascism would be beneficial.
Great series. Thank you for both of these recent articles.
Great idea!
Excellent article, voted.
Another good one
Nice work max!
o7
Neo-Fascism and democracy is an odd combination but indeed something of these times. Neo-Fascism is on the rise when the (capitalist) system cannot provide the needs for large groups that were inside the system.
Keep this going! o7
it takes an effort from those who are not in the extreme corners of the ring to make those who are speak with each other instead of fight with each other. when those neutrals start polarizing, shit is about to hit the fan
I'd probably include perpetuation of racist-nationalist-"nativist" culture and politics into the modern era as an adjunct to this analysis. In other words, there are "neo-fascist" elements of some things, in the USA, in Brazil, in Bolivia, and elsewhere that are clearly neo-fascist by any reasonable evaluation, but don't have direct formal roots in the fascist and nazi movements in Europe. What I'm thinking about includes the kinds of anti-indigenous "christian" colonialism that exists throughout the Americas, and similar more specifically white-supremacist "traditions" like the KKK.
Interestingly, it was work by Franz Boas (a German who moved to the USA, and incidentally, originally a physicist), which pre-dated the development of fascism (and formal neo-fascism) by quite some time, that was instrumental in breaking down and counter-acting racist ideology, and he was a prominent critic of Nazi ideas once they did emerge.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas
True story: my great-aunt studied under Dr. Boas at Columbia. She was a pioneering anthropological musicologist, collecting folk tales of the Coast Salish people. Her volume of contributions to the Journal of American Folklore was one of my favorite books when I was a tadpole.
Yes I was focusing this article on the Neo Fascism in Europe for the most part, I’ll be speaking about the corporate influences in fascism in my next article and will be examining north and South American Neo Fascism there.
Victory Hail!
https://youtu.be/gU7003Juh7c
from an economic perspective i dont think certain policies need to be driven by ideology for them to be implemented. simple economics if you dont protect your internal industry they might not be able to compete with foreign competitors leading to them going bankrupt. then again in socialism this sometimes happen. lets implement this ideology for example free healthcare. then next we will just pay the private doctors for it. next day this is getting expensive lets just establish our own state run doctors offices and provide free services to the people in competition with the private business.
socialism is mostly economic disaster and im speaking from a country with the government in charge having 3 legs of power communism, labour and then the normal party. where socialist agendas regularly put certain industries under the gun.
in fact come and try and make a living in a country where most of the people gets a kind of dole and pays for nothing except food and electricity(they dont pay for water).
ideologies are nice but one cant eat and life on a ideology.
and its easy to sit in your comfortable chair in the usa and preach this crap. as face it your socialist policies will never make it into law.
This article isn’t about socialism. Thoughts on the actual content of the article?