Fascism redux

[chickenfeet]

In a comment to the earlier post about the BNP oursin asked how one might characterize a modern vs a 1930s fascist movement. It seems to me that that lies at the heart of most of the reservations about the BNP expressed by others so I thought I'd post my answer to her question in the hope of stimulating some discussion:

I've been wondering the same thing.

If I had to come up with a set of "timeless" characteristics it might include:

A charismatic leader
Extreme nationalism (probably underpinned by some quasi-scientific notion of racial superiority but not necessarily race hate)
A tendency to violence
A desire to replace state institutions with party or party controlled ones
A rejection of logic in favour of will

I would expect a modern fascist movement to avoid things that made it seem too obviously like the 1930s version so I'd expect anti-semitism to be toned down and rather less of the uniforms and parades.

Applying those criteria, I have a hard time seeing the BNP as Fascist though Le Pen and his gang in France would be much closer.

Note, I don't think that nationalism and racism define fascism. Both elements have been present (though perhaps declining) in the Conservative Party since the mid 19th century at least. I don't much like that element of the Tory party but I think it would be quite wrong to call someone like Enoch Powell a fascist, whatever else one might want to call him.

Comments

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

A desire to replace state institutions with party or party controlled ones

What's the effective difference between party and state, when the party controls the state and allows no other party to exist?
I would have thought that what would define fascism would be that such a government would leave industry in private hands in name, whilst directing what it should do in the interests of the national will, or whatever. Essentially, a modern fascist state would attempt to nationalise society, and would contract out the means of production.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

hat's the effective difference between party and state, when the party controls the state and allows no other party to exist?

In the end state case very little. It's about how one gets there. Conventional (non revolutionary) politics tries to co-opt or use state organs, A revolutionary movement replaces them. It's quicker and more thorough.

ssentially, a modern fascist state would attempt to nationalise society, and would contract out the means of production.

That's about as good a one line definition of the desired end state as I have seen. Add the issue of "will" vs "logic" and I think I'm right with you. And to go back to the original question about the BNP, I don't recognise them in that statement.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I should probably have added the "institutions of civil society" to "sate organs" as I agree totally that the fascist seeks to "nationalize society" rather than merely "take over the state".

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Ok, thanks. That makes sense.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Thanks. In fact, I think that New Labour looks particularly fascistic under my definition.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I think that New Labour looks particularly fascistic under my definition.

I don't agree. New Labour is firmly set in the mould of a traditional elite manipulating a pseudo democracy. The "mass" element is lacking. New Labour marginalises the party and the unions and (I suspect) has no real concept of civil society at all. Blair et al. actually believe that what goes on at Westminster is what really matters.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

It's not entirely fascistic by the criteria you mention, perhaps, but it is very interested in nationalising society. The state is involved in a great many personal interactions and does attempt to undertake social engineering.
Presumably Dr. Gabb (http://www.seangabb.co.uk) would say that such activities were undertaken by the ruling class, which is not necessarily the Labour party.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

but it is very interested in nationalising society. The state is involved in a great many personal interactions and does attempt to undertake social engineering.

Again I disagree. I think NL, like so many Conservative regimes before it, is interested in disciplining the working class rather than nationalising society. All of its authoritarian measures are aimed at working class dissidence, whether organised or not. The elite keeps its institutions entirely free from state control or social engineering. There has been no attack on the private schools or the private for profit health sector for instance. NL has also left the police and the armed forces severely alone, at least as far as personnel, training and culture goes. A party interested in "nationalising society" would surely start with the institutions that shape the ruling elite and its values.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

A party interested in "nationalising society" would surely start with the institutions that shape the ruling elite and its values.

If Dr. Gabb's right, then it's already got them. I can see parallels between 1984's division into "inner party", "outer party" and "proles", and the control is aimed at the latter two by the first, and arranged somewhat differently in each case.
Still, I don't think NL are actually "fascists" in the proper sense, although I see some fascistic tendencies there. Have you read much of 1920s and 30s fascism in Britain? There seemed to be several different threads (e.g. conservatism, modernism, traditionalism).

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Have you read much of 1920s and 30s fascism in Britain?

Quite a bit. It would be a long and complicated discussion about why it was different from Germany but some of the parallels are clear. Especially the belief by sections of conservative opinion that they could co-opt and channel the fascists.

If Dr. Gabb's right, then it's already got them

But I don't think he is. I can't see Winchester or Balliol as hotbeds of ultra-nationalism for instance. In many ways, if one applies the test that rparvaaz suggested of the primacy of the state vs the individual I would argue that the elite educational institutions have become vastly more individualistic in recent years. The increase in narcissism and decrease in sense of social responsibility among Thatcher's Children is quite startling.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

I am quite swayed by his arguments.
What do you mean by "social responsibility"? I remember reading somewhere that charitable donations went up during the Thatcher years, but I can't find the reference so this can be discounted. If true, it would fit with my preconceptions, anyway.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Well, when I was at Public School in the 1970s there was still an element of noblesse oblige and most British institutions retained a certain amount of paternalism. Under Thatcher and especially after the Big Bang it became much more a culture of take what you can and fuck everybody else. Remember Thatcher's famous comment that "there is no such thing as Society"?

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

I was at public school in the 1980s, and don't recall any "take what you can and fuck the rest" culture. Perhaps I was at the wrong school (or, the right one ;-).
I don't think that Thatcher's comment meant what you think it means.

"[People constantly requesting government intervention] are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

That seems reasonable to me. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) ()

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I'm probably somewhat overstating the change in the 1980s but I certainly don't think that the elite institutions have swung into lockstep around promoting "A New Britain" infused with the glow of Leader Blair's infallible vision and mission. In fact I think the elite institutions by and large continue to produce the personnel to renew a traditional elite with a traditional elite's view of its own role. Lots of Lord Halifaxes but not many Mosleys?

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

I am not sure which of us is right here. I see PC leftist bias and subversion everywhere, particularly in the media or in education, but then my own prejudices probably cause that.
What do you consider to be the "elite institutions" that really do run things?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

The elite educational institutions are still the major public schools and former direct grant grammars plus Oxbridge and a handful of the older research based universities.

They feed the fast track in the Civil Service, ministers' private offices, the graduate recruitment programmes of the major banks and corporations, the bar and the major city law firms, Sandhurst and Dartmouth, the various bodies that function as holding tanks for future "mainstream" MPs.

In time, those institutions produce most of the MPs, ministers, judges, senior armed forces officers, "captains of industry", senior civil servants and the assortment of hangers on that make up their periphery etc.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

I have long thought that one of the defining characterisitics of fascism is the idea that the individual exists for the state rather than the other way around.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Good point!

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

It's also a defining characteristic of communism, surely?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Yes. Both are forms of totalitarianism but rooted in very different moral and intellectual traditions. Communism is in principle (if not in practice) rational and democratic. Fascism is, in principle, anti-democratic and anti-rational.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

A charismatic leader

Good thing Bush is such a dork!

A rejection of logic in favour of will

That one puts a chill up my back, as it is characteristic of the Neocons directing US policy.