As to a definition of Fascism in general I wouldn't really attempt it based on
the nations who adopted in one form or another the system because each of those
nations had more differences than similarities. I am here considering the
so-called "Big Four" Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan, however I would also
include Salazar's Portugal along with the others. Just to get the discussion
going I can mention a few facts about Fascism in Spain which , as mentioned, I
have first hand experience with. So this may be a bit disjointed. It is, as i
said, not a definition of fascism but rather my direct experiences with the
system as it was under Franco.
Until Franco's death Spain and an interesting form of government in which
ultimate power and final decisions lay with the military government. It was a
two layered government. What I mean, briefly is that, for example , each
province had two distinct governments; a civilian government under the Spanish
Falange that had two houses as do most governments. They could legislate civil
laws but any and all laws could only be effected if the other government, the
military, gave a final OK on any legislation. So in effect the Falange was
relatively powerless with respect to legislation of laws. However most of the
members of parliament were directly tied to corporations so there was no
lobbying necessary.
Franco, the man, and Fascism - It may come as a surprise to many but Franco
never was a Fascist officially. That is he was never a member of the FN or the
Falange, as we know it and neither were any of the military members of his
junta. He was not above punishing Falangists who strayed from the path or were
corrupt. It is said that it was he who ordered the assassination of Jose
Antonio Primo de Rivera, the founder of the Spanish Falange. Franco was IMO not
a Fascist but rather a militarist. The system most like Spain was probably
Japan.
Censorship - was strict and common. Even with simple things like a concert of
Spanish folk music the lyrics, although often ageless, had to pass the censor
for each presentation and the performer had to present these lyrics to the
office of censorship before any and every performance. I still have some pages
with the seal of the office of censorship on them.
In common everyday speech on the street, just the mention of the words
communist, socialist or Republican was enough to "raise eyebrows". The only way
you could use these words in public was to use them in a negative sense or as
an insult. Note: The word or label, Republican under that regime meant exactly
the opposite of what it means in American English
It means a member of the far left government that brought Spain to it's knees
economically in the 1930's. Newspapers and magazines were routinely censored
and that included foreign periodicals. I remember that "Time", "The Herald
Tribune", "The Times" often disappeared from news-stands if they were found to
contain "objectionable" material. Leftest writing were prohibited and such
works as "Das Kapital" or "The Communist Manifesto" could not be found in
bookstores. Bring these volumes into the country was a crime pushable by a
stiff fine or imprisonment or both. It even reach literature and many of
Spain's finest 20th century poets' works were incomplete even if the title was
"The Complete Works of So-and-So".
Socialist elements within Franco's Fascism (militarism if you so prefer). This
is one of those things that makes Fascism so difficult to define. Saying
something and then doing what seems to be the exact opposite. Franco did not
nationalize all heavy industry, only what he thought were issues of national
security:
1.Transportation - The railway, because it was the primary via of transporting
troops, weapons and supplies.
The airline -for obvious reasons. The socialist party (PSOE) on coming to
power in 1980 immediately privatized Iberia Airlines and Spantax. No airline is
government controlled today.
2. The steel industry for the most part to maintain control over an industry
essential to creating a war machine (The Spanish were totally paranoid with
regard to foreign invasion in the late 30's and the 40's. Again this was
logical considering the international community's attitude toward Spain.
3. One the contrary the arms industry remained mostly in private hands. One of
the big things was the design and production of the world famous Spanish
shotgun. This was important to Spain's foreign trade. Better to have
competition and diversity here than control. Most ammunition and all military
grade ammunition was under the government's (read military here) absolute
control. The standard military long arm (the Semi) as well as the standard
side arm were farmed out to the private sector. Those manufactures are still in
business today. Automatic weapons and artillery were under strict government
control.
4. The petroleum industry, CAMPSA, was completely government controlled as so
was the tobacco industry.
5. One of the characteristics of Fascism mentioned by all those who attempt to
define it, is overseas expansion and establishment of direct rule over foreign
countries through, briefly stated, colonialism. Here Franco took the opposite
road to all the rest of the Fascist nations of the time. He completely divested
Spain of all that remained of her overseas territorial holdings granting them
Independence. Some historians point to Portugal as Franco's incentive to get
rid of foreign territories. He could see that the unrest in those Portuguese
colonies were costing the government in Lisbon dearly. He probably, as an
astute general that in no time these conditions would degenerate into armed
insurgencies, something that Spain could ill afford after its costly and bloody
civil war. He called those shots right as Portugal sank under the
responsibility of the yoke of colonialism, Spain rose.
To be continued
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
--- On Sat, 1/15/11, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [RC] [ RC ] When is a "Socialist" actually a Socialist ?
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, January 15, 2011, 1:03 PM
Maybe Thomas will provide a definition of Fascism for us. He knows it first hand
and his insights would be invaluable. As a one-time member of YPSL maybe
my definition of "Socialism" would have special relevance. True, I was a member
in the early 60s, not the early 20th century, but I think I can answer well
enough.
Socialism. n. political movement with various sub-categories derived from
several sources which, by the first years of the 20th century, has coalesced
into a loose alliance increasingly influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx.
This entry concerns Socialism in the United States only.
However, like Christianity, and many early followers thought of themselves
as Socialists because it was, for them, a necessary Christian expression of
politics,
Socialism never was a really unified phenomenon. Moreover, the word was used in
very different ways, just as the word Christian can mean many different things,
by a variety of groups.
The main "sects" of Socialism in America in the years ca. 1890 until ca.1930
were these :
Socialist Party
Wisconsin wing under Victor Berger , mayor of Milwaukee part of that time
aka "streets and sewers socialism" centered on public works, citizen activism
on behalf of trade unionists , on behalf of better public schools, anti child
labor, etc
and pro-small business while often highly critical of big business. A "wing
within the wing"
of the Wisconsin school consisted of Christians who interpreted most politics
according
to a principle captured in the modern slogan, What Would Jesus Do ?
New York wing under Morris Hillquit, community activist. This wing was most
Marxist
and most labor union centered. It also was most radical generally and as many as
a third, even more in NY proper, eventually defected to the Communists after
the Bolshevik Revolution.
Western wing which tended to be local , that is, centered on mining in Montana,
centered on civil rights in the state of Washington, centered on social change
in
California, and so forth. Not as radical as the NY wing, but some groups
also defected to the Communists.
Social Gospel, not Socialist per se, but very similar in its strong emphasis on
caring for the poor, justice for working people, civic responsibility, etc,
all of this
in the context of Christian faith of a character we would mostly call
"fundamentalist"
today, with emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount.
Utopian Socialism , divided up into many community centered groups scattered
all over the map. For the most past this form of Socialism took the form of
experimental settlements --"communes" in contemporary terminology--
some centered on agriculture, some on crafts industries, some on publishing,
some on social experiments ( including sexual experiments, but all heterosexual
),
some on education, and the like
Socialism of the Chair, or Academic Socialism, based on discussion,
education, intellectual engagement, and so forth. This kind of Socialism never
had a
mass following but influenced all the other forms. It was this kind of Socialism
that kept alive Saint-Simonian traditions which most influenced myself.
Trade Union or Labor Socialism. Could be general as a tendency in the SP
but also had a "classic" political party , the Socialist Labor Party, which had
roots dating back to before 1890. Non-Marxist, but sometimes arrived
at similar views derived from common sources.
Populism, or Home Grown American Socialism, particularly the Midwestern
version best known from the Peoples Party of the last decade of the 19th
century.
Just about totally oblivious to Marx, the Populists derived their politics
entirely
from grievances related to agriculture, mining, corruption in politics, the
role
of corporations in monopolizing wealth, the need for better race relations,
the need for greater democratization of the American political system, etc,
hence from them we get primary elections, referenda and recall, popular
election
of senators, etc. By 1900 the Populist movement was in serious decline but
many
of its ideas morphed into the kind of Progressivism epitomized by Teddy
Roosevelt.
This pretty much covers the waterfront.
Billy
======================================================
message dated 1/15/2011 10:09:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Wow, nice discussion.
Could one or the other of you define what Socialism and Fascism actually meant
to people in the early 20th century? Nowadays I mostly see them as curse
words....
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 15, 2011, at 5:36, Tomas de Utrera <[email protected]> wrote:
> I lived under Francisco Franco's regime for its last seven years and so
> experienced Spanish Fascism directly. The term itself is difficult to define
> because the "big four" regimes we classify as Fascist, while having some
> things in common were all quite different. One point they all shared in
> common was some form or another of corporatism. In none of the four was
> private industry discouraged. The founder of Fascism, Benito Mussolini,
> several times rued the fact that he had called his system Fascism and
> complained that he should have called it what it really was; corporatism. He
> was seen by big business all over the world in a very positive light until he
> joined Hitler's Germany in a failed alliance
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
