6 ms·

It ticks all the boxes from the Wikipedia definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Authoritarian+, and ultranat

It ticks all the boxes from the Wikipedia definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Authoritarian+, and ultranationalist+, ... dictatorial leader+, centralized autocracy+, militarism+, forcible suppression of opposition+, belief in a natural social hierarchy (+ as far as regime goes), subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation+ or race, and strong regimentation of society+ and the economy+

skissane 2y ago
The same article also says: > Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."[28] Each group described as "fascist" has at least some unique elements, and frequently definitions of "fascism" have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow. According to many scholars, fascists—especially when they're in power—have historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[30] So, rather than purporting to define "fascism", the article acknowledges it has many definitions and it is contested which one is right. Read in the context of the whole section "Definitions", I don't think the opening sentence should be read as a definition, except in a very vague ballpark sense, which isn't meant to be used in decisively answering the question of whether any particular thing is an instance of it. Furthermore, it mentions key elements of historical fascism – anti-communism, anti-conservatism, and anti-liberalism – whose presence in Putin's Russia is debatable. Putin has criticised communism, but he tends to go for nuanced and qualified criticism rather than the demonisation of it which was historically found in Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or Franco's Spain. He isn't anti-conservative either. Nor is he rhetorically opposed to parliamentary liberalism – he is accused of undermining the substance of it, but he pays it lip service, unlike Mussolini and Hitler who demonised it. The first actual definition it gives in the "Definition" section is this: > Historian Stanley G. Payne's definition is frequently cited as standard by notable scholars,[31] such as Roger Griffin,[32] Randall Schweller,[33] Bo Rothstein,[34] Federico Finchelstein,[35] and Stephen D. Shenfield,[36] [37] His definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: And the first of those three concepts is: > "Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism. I say Putin lacks all three – he isn't anti-liberal (you can say he is in a contemporary sense, but not in the historical sense that Mussolini was, which is I believe the sense Payne means), he isn't anti-communist (again, not in the sense Mussolini/etc were), and he isn't anti-conservative.
- freen 2y ago
  You are trying to align a governance type with a political spectrum. It’s a category error. Fascism has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do with whatever is necessary to retain power, given the society fascists intends to rule. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t advocate for mercantilism! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
  - skissane 2y ago
    So, when Ian Kershaw, the esteemed historian of Nazi Germany, said that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall", you are telling me he was wrong? Because you seem to think it is much more of a clearcut question than he does.
    - freen 2y ago
      Yes, Ian Kershaw is precisely right! It is very difficult to define because it is a means by which one, either a person, a party, an ethnicity, whatever, pursues and attempts to preserve power regardless of the will or interests of the people they intend to have power over. The difference here is that anti-fascists have ethical and moral standards, create and support political systems that make it possible for them to loose, celebrate those losses. It’s difficult to define a barbarian, but you definitely know it when they come to your town.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - skissane 2y ago
        No, you are putting forward one particular definition as the "right" one, and arguing all contrary definitions should be ignored, even when proposed by esteemed scholars in relevant fields – which is the complete opposite of Kershaw's point.
        2y ago
int_19h 2y ago
It doesn't tick the most important one, though. Fascism isn't merely conservative totalitarianism; it positions itself as new and revolutionary, the "third way". But Putin's Russia isn't "third way" at all, neither ideologically nor in practice. It's a classic traditional authoritarian conservative dictatorship.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  But revolutionary fascism is but one variant within a broader palette, is it not? If we substitute "The West and its degenerate values" for the usual enemies, then Stanley's definition seems to describe Putin's regime quite succinctly: In his book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018), Jason Stanley defined fascism thusly: [A] cult of the leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists and minorities and immigrants who are supposedly posing a threat to the character and the history of a nation ... The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors. I would agree that Putin is not an archetypal fascist in all categories - but he does seem be on the spectrum.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    This is the point where there's a lot of disagreement. The OG Italian fascism is explicitly revolutionary, as were its contemporary offshoots like NSDAP, Iron Guard, Arrow Cross, Ustashe etc. My personal take is that if you remove this requirement, there's no clear distinction between fascism and other forms of right-wing authoritarianism, with the two getting conflated.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      That's a valid point. We need to better language to describe the new breed of postmodern terror-driven autocrats like Putin, and post-truth / antidemocratic Western leaders like Trump. But at the end of the day, it's academic. The real question is, what to do about them.

skissane 2y ago

The same article also says: > Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."[28] Each group described as "fascist" has at least some unique elements, and frequently definitions of "fascism" have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow. According to many scholars, fascists—especially when they're in power—have historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[30] So, rather than purporting to define "fascism", the article acknowledges it has many definitions and it is contested which one is right. Read in the context of the whole section "Definitions", I don't think the opening sentence should be read as a definition, except in a very vague ballpark sense, which isn't meant to be used in decisively answering the question of whether any particular thing is an instance of it. Furthermore, it mentions key elements of historical fascism – anti-communism, anti-conservatism, and anti-liberalism – whose presence in Putin's Russia is debatable. Putin has criticised communism, but he tends to go for nuanced and qualified criticism rather than the demonisation of it which was historically found in Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or Franco's Spain. He isn't anti-conservative either. Nor is he rhetorically opposed to parliamentary liberalism – he is accused of undermining the substance of it, but he pays it lip service, unlike Mussolini and Hitler who demonised it. The first actual definition it gives in the "Definition" section is this: > Historian Stanley G. Payne's definition is frequently cited as standard by notable scholars,[31] such as Roger Griffin,[32] Randall Schweller,[33] Bo Rothstein,[34] Federico Finchelstein,[35] and Stephen D. Shenfield,[36] [37] His definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: And the first of those three concepts is: > "Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism. I say Putin lacks all three – he isn't anti-liberal (you can say he is in a contemporary sense, but not in the historical sense that Mussolini was, which is I believe the sense Payne means), he isn't anti-communist (again, not in the sense Mussolini/etc were), and he isn't anti-conservative.

freen 2y ago
You are trying to align a governance type with a political spectrum. It’s a category error. Fascism has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do with whatever is necessary to retain power, given the society fascists intends to rule. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t advocate for mercantilism! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
- skissane 2y ago
  So, when Ian Kershaw, the esteemed historian of Nazi Germany, said that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall", you are telling me he was wrong? Because you seem to think it is much more of a clearcut question than he does.
  - freen 2y ago
    Yes, Ian Kershaw is precisely right! It is very difficult to define because it is a means by which one, either a person, a party, an ethnicity, whatever, pursues and attempts to preserve power regardless of the will or interests of the people they intend to have power over. The difference here is that anti-fascists have ethical and moral standards, create and support political systems that make it possible for them to loose, celebrate those losses. It’s difficult to define a barbarian, but you definitely know it when they come to your town.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - skissane 2y ago
      No, you are putting forward one particular definition as the "right" one, and arguing all contrary definitions should be ignored, even when proposed by esteemed scholars in relevant fields – which is the complete opposite of Kershaw's point.
      - 2y ago

int_19h 2y ago

It doesn't tick the most important one, though. Fascism isn't merely conservative totalitarianism; it positions itself as new and revolutionary, the "third way". But Putin's Russia isn't "third way" at all, neither ideologically nor in practice. It's a classic traditional authoritarian conservative dictatorship.

aguaviva 2y ago
But revolutionary fascism is but one variant within a broader palette, is it not? If we substitute "The West and its degenerate values" for the usual enemies, then Stanley's definition seems to describe Putin's regime quite succinctly: In his book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018), Jason Stanley defined fascism thusly: [A] cult of the leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists and minorities and immigrants who are supposedly posing a threat to the character and the history of a nation ... The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors. I would agree that Putin is not an archetypal fascist in all categories - but he does seem be on the spectrum.
- int_19h 2y ago
  This is the point where there's a lot of disagreement. The OG Italian fascism is explicitly revolutionary, as were its contemporary offshoots like NSDAP, Iron Guard, Arrow Cross, Ustashe etc. My personal take is that if you remove this requirement, there's no clear distinction between fascism and other forms of right-wing authoritarianism, with the two getting conflated.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    That's a valid point. We need to better language to describe the new breed of postmodern terror-driven autocrats like Putin, and post-truth / antidemocratic Western leaders like Trump. But at the end of the day, it's academic. The real question is, what to do about them.