To me Fascism comes from Fasces which were the bundle of sticks that Roman Consuls (and I think Praetors too) carried (well their lictors/magistrates did anyway) in the Roman (republic) Senate (there were lictors in the Roman Kingdom too). This is the very basic definition.
Essentially it seeks to investigate and always debate the sources and results of power...seeking to define and consolidate it (in full view of those under it, for society's net benefit). The opposite in practice would be Anarchists who seek to spread it and eradicate all power structures (but recognise the same overall issue openly - thus I can have a genuine debate with them). The biggest issue I have are the people that deflect and hide the conversation/debate of the formation, hierarchies and role of power (esp in a given status quo)...mostly because they themselves have vested interest in this activity....while they claim to be in favour of such words as "democracy" and "republic". Such people have gone and continue to go by many names and labels which I will not go into here (given they undermine even those theories).
I consider myself more a Mosley kind of theoretician, the application in Italy and Germany pre-WW2 is a long debate in itself and definitely had many faults. It is interesting to note that Fascism is given only one chance to prove itself in the current (post WW2) Overton window, but we are led to believe continuously that more "politically correct" socialism/communism/marxism etc etc should be given as many chances as needed no matter how much they fail so openly again and again (and at significantly higher and protracted human cost). To me this naturally suggests which theories are more preferred by the elitists for the conservation of their elitism.
@Desert Fox @Psychic
True, the name Fascist/Fascism comes from the fasces, a bundle of sticks tied together with the axe representing the authority of the state, having their origin in the Roman tradition, some sources say even older.
Now what is historically judged as Fascism (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, etc.) should be better understood within the context of that era, the problems faced by those societies in particular where Fascist movements arose, and the circumstances that contributed to them.
Most people look at that particular part of history and rush to judgement on these Fascist states or movements, but these same people will justify FDR's or Churchill's actions during that era (large government spending, intervention during the great depression, pushing for and initiating an unnecessary war that could have been avoided, etc.). Eventhough the actions of the former two undermined their own people's long term interests for the sake of economic and personal vested interests, whereas Fascism neither served Hitler's nor Mussolini's personal interests nor the interests of any particular vested economic group but rather the interests of the German and Italian nation against the problems faced by those societies.
Also, Fascism is pragmatic and realistic in its worldview. Fascism does not attach itself to any specific economic system (like Liberalism & Communism) or to any limited abstraction, and that which does characterize it (if we look beyond the propaganda to defame it) is in fact nothing peculiar to it, but rather can be found in all classical civilizations, like organic hierarchy, a high regard for a warrior tradition, understanding life as more than just limited to the interest of any individual or class.
Now of course this doesn't mean that Fascism as it manifested in Germany, Italy and other countries was without flaws. Of course not because humans are not flawless and certainly there is always room for improvement, and this understanding too is a part of the Fascist worldview, in fact it is the main philosophic basis for Fascism; that life is in continuous fluctuation and the struggle for improvement continues and that at no point will there ever be a utopian paradise.
The only valid critique of Italian Fascism and German Nazism, that I'm aware of, is by Julius Evola not only because he lived under the Fascist regime and was acquainted with many of its higher-ups, but also because Evola is a genuine Right winger, a traditionalist who opposes Modernity in all its forms and not even Nazism nor Fascism as they manifested in the mid 20th century escaped his scrutiny, and this is fine because Fascism appreciates scrutiny because there will never be perfection and one method will never always work for all time and there is always room for improvement. Circumstances change, sometimes a little more liberty and freedom are necessary, other times they become toxic, but the central point remains that man's purpose is a transcendant and metaphysical one and not a worldly one and this should remain the goal, and society should be organized in a hierarchical order. This is unlike Liberalism and Communism, both are rigid theories, the first one attaches itself to the individual and claims that to be the
be all-end all of everything. The latter claims historical materialism to be the explanation for the human condition and world history, both ideologies consider the relationship of individual(s) and material to be the final goal. But then what? Most developed countries have surpassed the basic material needs of the individuals in their societies. Why then do they fair lower on the happiness index compared to some developing countries? Why is the suicide rate so high in these countries? Why is their population on the decline, marriage institution destroyed and thus so is the institution of family without which no society or civilization can exist and will not survive in the long run? Why is mental sickness on the rise and more and more people visit counciling and therapy? Why are more and more people taking antidepressants?
There are three books on Evola's view and critique of Fascism:
Fascism Viewed from the Right,
Notes on the Third Reich and
A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism. All three are published and sold by Arktos publishing.
Evola's critique is the only valid one because it is devoid of the cliche rhetoric of "Fascism ebil because muh democrazy, individualism, jooz and faggots" that one finds in mainstream books on Fascism. Because according to this narrative, democracy, jooz, faggots and individualism is what defines that era, and that is all we need to know, anymore inquiries and you're a "evil Nazi and Fascist who wants to gas people" and turn them into cleaning products.
To give one example of Evola's critique of Nazism; Hitler was the center of the Third Reich, and that should he have been assassinated or even died of natural causes there would not be another man of his caliber to take his place because objectively speaking, and this is an accepted fact, Hitler was a unique individual the likes of which are born very rarely in human history in terms of his charisma, will-power and his leadership skills, and thus for this reason this was a major weakness in the National Socialist system and when Hitler committed suicide and Germany was defeated, the Third Reich died with him and unlike after WWI Germany could not recover after WWII.
Now of course there were other factors involved as well for Germany's inability to rise again like being physically divided up and occupied by her conquerors, its entire generations being indoctrinated into self hatred, the promotion of nihilism, etc... all of which Evola acknowledges. But in place of this weakness a warrior aristocracy was necessary so as to reinforce the hierarchical order which Germany already had in the form of the Prussian aristocracy and its military tradition.
For this reason Evola considers Italian Fascism to be superior to Nazism in the sense that it was less demagogic (though Hitler wasn't a demagogue, he did take extremely unpopular stances like on the issue of South Tyrol, and he made a valid argument for his position), although he has criticism for that particular system as well.
"Fascism appears to us as a reconstructive revolution, in that it affirms an aristocratic and spiritual concept of the nation, as against both socialist and internationalist collectivism, and the democratic and demagogic notion of the nation. In addition, its scorn for the economic myth and its elevation of the nation in practice to the degree of 'warrior nation', marks positively the first degree of this reconstruction, which is to re-subordinate the values of the ancient castes of the 'merchants' and 'slaves' to the values of the immediately higher caste. The next step would be the spiritualization of the warrior principle itself" - Evola, Forms of Warlike Heroism, Metaphysics of War
@Psychic @LeGenD @Metanoia @Sher Shah Awan @vostok
