Fascism reloading?

[Cain]

Article by David Ronfeldt (one of the two guys behind the netwar theory):

http://twotheories.blogspot.com/2008/12/fascism-reloading.html

One deduction from the TIMN framework is that fascism will continue making a comeback as globalization and marketization spread. Fascism may be even more likely if globalization and marketization now shrink back as reactions set in around the world.

People like being liberated from dictatorship, but not necessarily from fascism. What's the difference? Fascism is no mere dictatorship. Yes, it imposes a centralized and organic — if not totalitarian — structure, enforced by a single party, secret police and paramilitary thugs. But that is not what keeps fascism in power and explains its appeal.

Fascism is a total system of existence that willingly engages a broad spectrum, even a majority, of elites and masses. At its core, fascism has a deeply mythic allure; it proposes a quest to overcome dystopian times and achieve a utopian rebirth of a nation's supposed greatness. Thus fascism rules the mind as well as the body — and both mind and body come to idolize it.

In this quest, fascism is fiercely anti-liberal because it values order far more than freedom and brooks no boundaries between public and private, or state and society. Yet fascism is also anti-conservative; it aims to transform the status quo on behalf of all, not preserve it for the sake of a few.

And although fascism is normally secular in its ends and means, it has a messianic quality, for it promises national redemption and progress to break through to an exquisite new millennium. Indeed, fascism vows to create not only a new order but also a new man — one who has a radiant sense of identity and purpose, the better to ensure that the rebirth endures.

All this shines in the iconic fascisms of the mid-20th century: Benito Mussolini's in Italy (the standard for many scholars), Adolf Hitler's in Germany (the racist and totalitarian extreme) and the Falangist movement in Spain (which flowed later into the semi-fascist regime of Francisco Franco). Significant, though eclectic, tendencies also emerged outside Europe, notably in South Africa, Argentina and Japan. (Good sources: Payne, 1995; Paxton, 2004)

Where and why does fascism take hold? It cannot happen anywhere; some tendencies, perhaps, but not fascism as a system. First, it requires a modernizing nation that has a serious state, a significant private business sector and a complex civil society. The ultranationalism so characteristic of fascism resembles an extreme tribalism, but societies that turn fascist are too advanced to be considered tribal. Moreover, though studies of totalitarianism typically view communism and fascism as quite similar, they have a key difference that often gets overlooked: the presence of a private sector and a market system, however weak. Communism must be rid of them, but fascism aims to strengthen them, albeit in a suborned way.

Second, fascism requires that this modernizing society be suffering from deep disturbances and grievances. There should be a widespread sense of disaster, alarm and disarray stemming, say, from a lost war, a severe economic depression, pervasive corruption scandals or humiliating foreign interference. It's a point that applies to the making of terrorists as well as fascists: Whatever the political, economic or social details, people feel that they and their nation are facing an "absolute disaster," not just "relative deprivation" (to adapt a point from Barkun, 1974).

Under these conditions, longing can arise for national rebirth, not to mention a great charismatic leader to show the way. People at large are so fed up, furious, divided and fearful about the condition of their nation that, if fascism's exponents manage to seize office through election or force, it is not that difficult to make people succumb to fascism's promises to reunite them, overcome obstacles, organize a strong system, and purge society of all that is weak, divisive, and anomalous. A leadership cult and grandiose assertions of national solidarity, sovereignty and independence spread fascism's mythic appeal as its media, intelligence and coercive apparatuses expand to ensure compliance.

Why be reminded of these basics? Because Americans are not used to thinking about fascism as a system anymore. And because fascism — unlike communism — is far from dead or obsolete. The spread of the market system, pro-democracy pressures, and other aspects of globalization are having ambivalent effects around the world. There are signs of progress in many societies. But not in all.

Some modernizing nations are having wrenching difficulties adapting to globalization and other pressures to build ever more open, competitive, complex systems. Some also face external and internal threats that can be hyped to arouse ultranationalism and distract citizens from domestic problems. Thus the conditions for fascism, which were centered in Europe many decades ago, are likely to recur in new places, as a natural attraction for societies that get in trouble at a particular stage of social evolution.

Already in this century we have had to wage two wars against fascistic regimes: Slobodan Milosevic's in Serbia, and Saadam Hussein's in Iraq. We also keep having to tussle with fascism-inspired regimes that have taken hold elsewhere — notably Hugo Chavez's in Venezuela. These instances are more harbingers than holdovers from past trends.

Today, Chavez in particular keeps revealing that the kind of "socialism" he has in mind has a lot more in common with the bygone "national socialism" of Europe (esp. Mussolini) than the communist socialism of the old Soviet system. This makes for something of a contrast to Cuba's Fidel Castro.

In retrospect, Castro never really faced a choice between liberal democracy and communism; his choice was mainly between pursuing fascism or communism. And he preferred the latter partly because, from a TIMN perspective, he knew how to promote a nationalistic tribalism and hierarchical institutions, but not how to promote a reformed market system and private sector. Before long, however, fascism might turn out to be Cuba's next preferred model. This is one reason for U.S. strategists to be wary of speculations that lifting the embargo may lead to a democratic opening in Cuba.

It is easier to sound a warning about a new round of fascism in far-off places than to specify where or in what variety and numbers. But some future possibilities — Russia? a new Islamic caliphate? — would prove much riskier for the West than others.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, surges in tribal partisanship, efforts to strengthen government surveillance and monitoring, and disarrray in relations between state and market actors suggest, from a TIMN perspective, that some fascism tendencies have been mounting within the United States itself for some years now. I think that's partly in reaction to the rise of the information-age network form, and the stresses and strains that is placing on the roles of the tribal, institutional, and market forms in our society — but I'll leave that notion for another day.

[Reginald Ret]

ok very cool, it helped me understand fascism alot.

[Jasper]

Enriching.  It'll take me a while to digest all that.

[Cain]

Anything by Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton and Stanley Payne is highly recommended for understanding fascism.  Failing that, if you can find the exchanges between David Neiwert and Jonah Goldberg over the latter's book, I suggest you read them instead.

The interesting thing is the link between fascism and globalization.  In retrospect, it does seem somewhat obvious.  Globalization, at least in one sense of the word, is about the economic development of the Third World and the marketization of the international system.  This necessarily involves the creation of industrial states and industralization seems to be a major prerequisite of fascism.  Europe in the 1920s-30s seems to confirm this, where Fascism was a potential force not only in Italy and Germany, but in France, the UK, Spain and much of central and Eastern Europe as well.  It may well be that the potential for fascism is inherent in every country above a certain level of production and market involvement.

I'm going to think more on Ronfeld's comments on the US at the end, as well.

[Jenne]

Where's China in all this?  I see no references to China...which is odd.

Great read, however.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

from a TIMN perspective

I had to google that, because I had no idea what it meant.  It stands for Tribes, Institutions, Markets, and Networks.  Here is a link to the document where the term was coined: David Ronfeldt, "In Search of How Societies Work," RAND working paper WR-433-PC, December 2006

[OPTIMUS PINECONE]

     It's great to read some of your own words expounding on a topic, CAIN. I've often said to NIGEL that it would be cool to hear more personal comment from you, you analytical junkie!! Although it may be a bit abstract to apply a term like "globalization" to the late 19th/ early twentieth century, certainly the idea of the "world bank" was at the heart of what sparked fascist movements across Europe. Fascism is anything but a simple equation to relay, but the Fascist reaction, from Belgium through Romania, was clearly anti- Capitalist. I don't think that totalitarianism is necessarily particular to fascism at all. During the early years of the "W" administration, there was a lot of "fascist" reference made in media and blog network, but personally I feel that our current U.S. government is anything but. (just for argument, NO, I don't see any qualitative difference between "W" and Obama) If we gather general concepts of fascism from an individual such as Horia Sima, it's impossible to compare movements like "the Bush Administration" to anti- Bolshevik uprisings derived from grass roots organizations across Europe 100 years ago. I don't think that the world as we know it can actually comprehend the basis of fascism, from the intrinsic, as you say, "organic" means which motivated it. The world now is too far removed from such a conflict. "1984" reality, hell yes. "Fascist" idealism?  But there is a nice hook of that appeal with the blind admiration of Americans for our current "Let's bomb terrorists in Pakistan" President Obama. Could it be that Fascism may evolve? Do we still then, call it Fascism?

[Tempest Virago]

Huh, that's fascinating. I guess I didn't really know what fascism is before. The idea that it appeals to the people under its control is not something I'd ever considered before, but it makes sense.

I've always thought that patriotism (which, if I'm understanding correctly and it's entirely possible I'm not, is a fundamental part of fascism) is an extremely dangerous concept, though very enticing for obvious reasons (people wanting something to belong to).

It seems like a sort of ultra-simplified political system. I wonder if that is also part of the appeal, that it's easy to understand. I dunno, though, I may be off base.

[Cain]

Hey Pinecone.  Sorry, I missed you reply earlier, so I'll try and address some points now.

While early Fascism was certainly filled with anti-capitalist elements, I would suggest this only applies to fascist movements when not in power.  Partly to try and show themselves as an alternative to both capitalism and socialism, and partly in hope to split socialist movements, which were of course popular at the time in Europe.  After getting into power, such elements tend to be sidelined or purged, and settlements are made with the economic establishment.  Much in the same vein, most fascist movements will consider conservatives as traitors and scum, but will make tactical political alliances with them (above and beyond any other ideology) when necessary.  Fascism does tend to be somewhat amorphous, and has varying strategies for its different stages of political influence.

I would agree totalitarianism, authoritarianism and fascism are all distinct things.  I tend to find myself ageeing with Hannah Arendt in that both Fascism and Soviet communism were totalitarian, but I would not say that Fascism and Communism are the same, for example.  Equally, there is a huge difference between, say, Frederick I of Prussia and all of the above, despite Frederick being an authoritarian ruler.  Bush, as far as I can see, was not fascist, however there were fascist elements among his supporters most notably Michael Ledeen, a fan of Mussolini, but also from the far-right militia movement and their overcross with the Dominionist Christians, who have a powerful say in local and state Republican affairs.  So, I would argue, some policies undertaken by the Bush administration were either "dual use" (for instance, the unitary executive theory, while authoritarian, also appeals to a fascist need for an all powerful Fuhrer.  The war on terrorism, while arguably legitimate on security grounds, also plays into the fascist "eternal war" mindset and paranoia.  Etc etc).

As for the evolution of fascism.  Of course, it is possible.  I believe it has, in some ways, from my own observation of the BNP, and the American far right.  I think, as you mention, the glorification of violence, the almost messianic insistence on its use, is certainly symptomatic of fascism.  As to how fascism might have evolved specifically to a postmodern environment, I'll have to think on it more.  I do believe it is a latent possibility in all industrial and post industrial socities, due to the social engineering necessary to create such societies leaving "exploits", in the hacking sense, that groups can exploit. 

I in fact have a book on some of the psychological and sociological aspects of fascism that I just downloaded today.  Not Reich, though, but promises to be interesting.  Might be worth seeing what carries over, and the schema for investigation.

[Cain]

Huh, that's fascinating. I guess I didn't really know what fascism is before. The idea that it appeals to the people under its control is not something I'd ever considered before, but it makes sense.

I've always thought that patriotism (which, if I'm understanding correctly and it's entirely possible I'm not, is a fundamental part of fascism) is an extremely dangerous concept, though very enticing for obvious reasons (people wanting something to belong to).

It seems like a sort of ultra-simplified political system. I wonder if that is also part of the appeal, that it's easy to understand. I dunno, though, I may be off base.

I think you're working along the right lines.  There are two general types of patriotism, the first of which is civic (usually respect for the institutions and values the state purports to hold) and the second which is ethno-nationalist (usually in reference to tradition, kin and shared history).  The second can degenerate into more nationalistic sentiment quite easily.

Defining fascism is hard, because it was conceptually incoherent still before the war, and of course after the war few people wanted to admit to being a fascist.  However a few key concepts stand out.  I personally like Roger Griffin's definition:

[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence