Anarchism vs Fascism

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete,

I was thinking about some theories and I encountered this interesting dillemma:

What is anarchism?
According to anarchism (often classified at the extremely-left side of the political landscape) the power should be divided between small groups, or better: given back to the small groups to which it once belonged. e.g. before Caesar invaded Gallia every tribe had his own villages, and every village had his own council. There was a kind of self-government, i.e. very small groups of the same 'race' handled their own criminality, made there own laws etc.
Thus, says anarchism, to reach the ideal state of living, the ideal society, we must tear the state apart, and give the functions, powers etc. of the state back to small natural groups. No more artificial boundaries between countries, counties etc, but 'natural' boundaries between villages, small communities and people of the same origine.
Doing this, worldwars and large-scale conflicts would never occur again, and, opposed to capitalism, economy doesn't make the community, no cultural interference from globalised societies, only one cultural inheritence, no representation by elected persons, but immediate handling of problems by small counsils...
Thus the ideal society for anarchists is: small communities of the same etnicity ruled by counsils.

What is fascism?
According to fascism (classified at the extremely-right wing of politics) there must not be cultural interference. People of the same etnicity must live together, ruled by people of that same etnicity. Well, actually, ruled by a strong leader representing that etnicity.
A large state should be abandonded because boundaries are artificial. New boundaries should be made, encircling people of the same 'race'. Large states are impossible because there are no etnicities that are large enough.
There will be security because every person will know what to do in what situation (i.e. the definition of 'culture' according to most sociologists), crime and power will be handled by a central counsil, led by a powerful leader.
Thus the ideal society for fascism is: small groups of the same etnicity ruled by a single leader.


Now read both conclusions again.
Except for the way of governing, they are exactly the same! Blaise Pascal already said it: Les extrèmes se touchent.

Someone to comment on this? Am I wrong?

Valete,


Locatus Barbatus

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve locatte
i think you forgot something in fascism. One of the things that define fascism is that a large state is possible so long as there is one ethnic group that control that country. It is ruled by one individual, a charismatic person. One point that also defines fascism and can be seen as a parallel between fascism and marxism- leninism is that every person must serve the state, the state comes first before all. Fascism has the tendency to go back in the past, to glorify a certain time in their nations history and try to recreate it. Mussolini and hitler did it.
vale
romulus

[Curio Agelastus]

Salve Locate,

There are a few points here. Firstly, the views of anarchists are very disunited, unsurprisingly. Some simply want to bring down the government, but have little idea of what to put in its place. Very different methods are in place, from constitutional methods to populist methods to violent uprisings. Then there are those, like me, who are simply theorists - I am an anarchist in principle, but will not attempt to bring this about, because I know that the whole utopian idea is destroyed by the fact that there are humans living in it.

In addition, your description of fascism is, IMHO, not quite accurate. You say fascists believe that every ethnicity should be ruled by people of their own ethnicity. Actually, they believe that their own ethnicity should be ruled by people of their own ethnicity. Nazi Germany had no qualms about bringing Poles. Norwegians, Danes, Frenchmen, Russians, Lithuanians, etc, under German rule. Equally, Mussolini was eager to bring the Abyssinians (Modern Ethiopians) under his rule. Of course, this is similar to the attitude of the British and French empires after World War I: "Austro-Hungarian Empire must be dismantled, German Empire taken from them, Ottoman Empire dismantled... But we can keep our empires." The ideal of self-determination if a myth, since each state only wants all the other nations to obey self-determination.

The main tenet of fascism is that a single person of small cadre of people run the entire show. Anarchism, on the other hand, cannot be so summed up, since (for instance) I disassociate myself with other anarchists since their beliefs are so different to mine, and that applies to most anarchists.

Hoping this makes sense,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete!

It is indeed true what you both say. You've got a point, but...

There is, and never has been a pure fascist or anarchistic state. It is wrong to take hitler or mussolini as an example, because they got carried away after a while. Das drittes Reich (spare me the german inquisitor here!) wasn't a pure fascist state, like the USSR wasn't a pure communist state. They tried, but failed! I'm talking theoretically, because:

because I know that the whole utopian idea is destroyed by the fact that there are humans living in it

.

Yes, Hitler tried to unify das herrenvolk, but he took poland and france along the way, and there was no fascist reason for that, just the quest for power.

So, am I theoretically right? Please do comment!

[Anonymous]

Anarchism takes various blends, some espouse a form of Anarchism termed Anarcho-Capitalism, basically an individualised and atomised Society where the State is decentralised as much as possible and the economy is run on a Laissez-Faire Capitalist basis, which is termed Anarcho-Capitalist. Anarcho-Capitalist tend to be Libertarians Economically and in Social Relations.

What is generally understood as Anarchism is the Leftist or Socialist form of Anarchism. This in my opinion might hold a contradiction as Socialism and its various forms is a Collectivist Movement while Anarchism if it flows with its nature (in my opinion) is Individualistic, and thus variants of Anarchism on the Left such as Anarcho-Socialism or more appropriately Anarcho-Communism are not Anarchistic as all as Private Property is supposedly abolished limiting the Individual in his possessions.

Anarcho-Capitalism is probably the most coherent form of Anarchism in theory, eventually in practice it would lead to Oligopolies, Cartels, and Monopolies, eventually leading Society into a Plutocracy, that is, rule of the wealthy.

No Society can function within an Anarchist framework, the State must exist because it is a necessity for Order in Social Relations. The ideal would be a Society where the role of the State is limited to the bare minimum but where the State exists nonetheless.

The description of Anarchism in the first post appeals to me I must say as it states that there would small communities based on tribes of similar ethnicity, this is somewhat of a National Anarchism I think, although I don't know how National it exactly is. I had some links to National Anarchist websites, if you interested I'll try and find them again.

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salve!

Interesting view on anarchism.

No Society can function within an Anarchist framework, the State must exist because it is a necessity for Order in Social Relations.

My reaction to this is: what is the state? we had some discussions before on this topic, but why do we need such large states? Or why do we need such smaal states? Isn't a state something artificial, and thus if a stat has to exist, why don't we make the whole world one state?
My point is: why would a small state (e.g. one tribe) be less able to function well than a large state?

It is interesting what you say, my friend! But let me say that I'm not an anarchist but a socialist. I just came across the ressemblance of both theories when thinking about the postmodernism ('the end of the great stories').

Is there then a kind of left fascism too?

Vale,

Locatus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

"Left-wing fascism" would be the way communism was practised in the USSR and other communist countries such as China and North-Korea.

Now, what is a state? That which governs the people living in it. Do we need one? We do. Anarchism would eat itself. How much government do we need and how large or small should it be? That is up for discussion. I believe a decent government has a whole range of responsibilities, primarily defence, legal equality, education and economy. We may very well differ in this regard but that's the very reason we have political parties to cater to our tastes and points of view.

Vale!
Draco

[Curio Agelastus]

Locate, you say that Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy were not "Pure fascist" states. Equally, Stalin's Russia was hardly "Pure Communist". In fact, purity among government is impossible, since each is built on a certain ideology that does not necessarily stretch to all arms of government. For example, your description of a fascist state seemed to have no ambitions, externally, besides uniting all of one people. This is, imho, not quite right, because it is the nature of states to attempt to expand. This is not just the nature of fascist states or dictatorial states, but of all nations. Therefore, after that wonderful digression, my conclusion is that - I disagree with your statements of purity of government. Therefore, no, although one aim of a fascist government is to unite all the peoples of a certain ethnic origin under their banner, it is not restricted to that, nor is that goal restricted only to fascist countries.

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

It is true what you say! There never has been a state that has been 'pure' (i.e. what theory says). That's why I prefer to keep this discussion pure theoretical, and not about a 'state'. I was talking about the two theories, not the mis en pratique.

I can agree with what you say, Draco, about the left-fascist USSR. But, even more surprisingly, some time ago I read about a new movement, the green-right movement. Untill now the environmentalist have been left, but right is coming back. But green-right? What does that mean? 'No black cats in our bushes! Only white allowed!'

[Curio Agelastus]

You agree? Wow, I thought I was very incoherent yesterday.

But if we're discussing only the "pure" state, then what is the "pure" state. It could be argued that the pure communist state is that envisioned by Marx - but where do the ideals for the pure fascist state come from? The pure democracy? Democracy evolved over hundreds of years in Britain, and bore very little relation to ancient Greece - but now many states have some form of democracy or other. What then, is pure democracy? Don't say "Rule by the people" because that needs to be clarified as to how much, and so forth. I'd be interested as to what the "Bible" of pure democracy or pure fascism is, as Marx could be said to be the Bible of pure communism.

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

That's not easy. (even when being coherent ) Marx is regarded upon as the founding father of communism. I would rather say that he is the founding father of marxism, a subtle difference. But indeed it is hard to say who founded democracy or fascism.

Marx came more or less totally out of the bleu with his theories. That's why we have a kind of 'pure' communism, i.e. marxism. But, as you all know, we also have leninism, trotskism, stalinism etc.

Democracy hasn't been founded out of the bleu by the theories of one man/woman. It is an evolved theory, still evolving in different directions (e.g. the 'direct' democracy of switzerland against the 'indirect' democracy of most western countries). So it is hard to say what 'pure' democracy is. I would refer to a system of direct democracy, where everybody votes on every proposal by himself. No deputies, the people decide themselves.

Fascism is hard to trace also. Mainly because some persons have alternated it for their purposes. Hitler and Mussolini e.g., and when saying "fascism" everybody will think at the black-skirts of Italy or the swastikas of das drittes Reich (spare me the german inquisitor!). Don't forget Hitler was referring to his theories as 'national-socialism'. I don't think socialism had much to do with it.

It is thus indeed very hard to define 'pure' fascism. Maybe we should look up the first time the word was mentioned, and what they meant with it.

Valete,

Locatus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete amici,

I'm not aware of a bible of fascism, but fascism can be defined as movements that seek to destroy what we consider to be the fundaments of Western democracies and wish to revert society to a pre-French-revolution state with strong central power, no input of the people and few or no rights for (racial, sexual, social) minorities and women. Many neo-fascist movements inspire themselves on Mein Kampf. It's not the bible of fascism but it comes close.

About environmentalist right-wing movements. Why not? Environmentalism doesn't have much to do with being morally progressive or conservative. It usuall does mean a distrust of economy and big business, but again, this is also not a purely left-wing trait.

Oh, and it's "das dritte Reich" or "drittes Reich" (it depends on whether you use the definite article or not). I did it again .

Valete!
Draco

[Anonymous]

Salvete et Avete amici!

Environmentalism and the Radical-Right? I am of the Radical Right and I support Environmentalist Groups unless they counter the interests of Europe as a whole or my own Nation. Moreover all the people I talk to of the Radical Right all believe in Environmentalism. Environmentalism has been hijacked by Leftists and nothing more, looking at reality it was the "Communist" or Socialist States of Eastern Europe that polluted the Environment most of all in Europe.

Real Radical-Right people nowadays should be Environmentalists, what are the people without the natural environment? Nothing, just people living in a de-humanised fashion in a concrete jungle, which sucks terribly, no Nationalist should want that, in fact I know none that do.

Optime Valete!
Lucius Aurelius Flavus.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

I have been reading this string but avoided commenting since it seems to me to be more concerned with modern European politics. Draco's attempt at defining fascism I think is wrong, it is a reaction to policies some "fascist" movements advocated rather than an explanation of the term. The origin of fascism is to be found in Italian syndicalism. Fascism has to do with the manner in which a society is to be organized. It does not necessarily have to be linked to ethnic or racial theories. Fascism can be democratic. In fact in theory syndicalist organization is internally democratic. What characterizes syndicalism is vertical organization. Labor and management are brought together in one organization according to industry. So all steel workers, factory managers and owners would be placed in one syndicate, seperate from another syndicate for the glass industry. In theory it was to produce a more efficient manner of production. Syndicalism was adopted by leftist anarchists. It has been adopted by rightwing anarchists like Ayn Rand. Mussolini attempted to reorganize the Italian labor movement along syndicalists lines, and the Spanish Republic of the 1930's did likewise. In practice the results can be quite different. With Mussolini control was by the middle class and mercantile classes, with deference paid to the old nobility. With the Spanish Republic syndicalism tended to place control of industry in the hands of the proletariat In a fascist state the government itself becomes one of several syndicates, or with Ayn Rand you have the functions of government being taken over by "private" syndicates. The emphasis placed on the State by National Socialism and Italian Fascism was, I think, a simple outgrowth of a flaw in syndicalist theories.

I have seen what I regard as fascist states in Central and South America. IMHO fascism is not a natural means of organizing a society and therefore it becomes a system that is imposed. Due to this it can become a very oppressive form of government. It takes the values of one particular segment of society, usually the professional middle class, and tries to impose those values along with its organization on a more diverse society. It assumes and creates an internal struggle between classes within a society, attempting to impose conformity. The collective good is over emphasized, and often this really means the good for only one segment of a society. Too often in the past a minority segment of society was selected for repression. With the Nazi's it may have been the Jews were singled out as a way to identify what "good" Nazi's were not. In Latin America it had in the past been the case where native Amerindians were treated as animals, even to the point of having bounties placed on them just as on the hides of any animal. The emphasis fascism places on preserving the State and on its particular form of organized society in practice tends to dehumanize all members of society.

As an artificial system, not one organic to any human society, syndicalism has it merits in special situations or in closed societies. It is a good means for organizing a military force or any emergency effort that requires efficient communication and control through every level of the organization. It is not a good system for adapting to change, for an exchange of ideas between parallel organizations. Perhaps a historical model of a vertically organized society such as fascism envisions would be traditional Confucian China. Fascism is not a system of government that is responsive to social development or change. Its vertical organization tends towards dictatorial rule and oppressive conformity, rather than allow for a free flow of people, ideas, and technologies horizontally through society, so that you end up, as in China, with a quirky form of social development, with some areas advancing and other retreating, creating more inefficiencies and inequalities that fascism was suppose to eradicate.

I have little or no faith in any social system based on models. Not fascism, socialism, or communism, or any economic policy schemes that are based on models. For all that can be said against it, the interchange allowed by a republic between diverse groups and interests seems more organic than any other form of government, even democracy. Mussolini envisioned originally trying to establish a syndicalist republic. That is the origin of fascism, and in its course it proved both its benefits to society and its detriment.

Valete