What is … Fascism?

Fascism is now widely used as a term of abuse to label any political formation regarded with distaste. It’s been promiscuously applied to Trump, to anti-immigrant organisations and more. Some even claim that fascism is making a comeback. Is this really true and do the labels fit? In this fascinating debate filmed at the Battle of Ideas festival, the possibility of even having a ‘definition’ of fascism is called in to question. But, we learn, the idea of man as irrational and a concern to overthrow democracy were central tenets of fascism’s original incarnation. These ideas it seems are certainly back on the cards. The speakers are Professor Jane Caplan, Professor Roger Griffin, Professor Kevin Passmore and journalist Bruno Waterfield the chair is: Jacob Furedi.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/dCue/

[@blackspring3207]

It's really disappointing and frustrating about three-quarters through the video when multiple members of the audience express dissatisfaction and asked the panel to give more succinct or concrete definitions of fascism, and in response the panel continues to carp in the postmodern fashion about definitional issues. I love the work of Roger Griffin and he himself has given in his books one of the most concise and accurate definition of fascism that I have encountered. I don't know why he wouldn't just say it when being prompted to do so. Meanwhile the audience and the panel snicker at a lady bringing up Wikipedia, probably rejecting it out of hand as a symptom of the populism that they fear, but at that moment Wikipedia was giving this lady better results than this panel. Like I said I love the work of some of these people but this is a prime example of out-of-touch academia sending people running for populism and/or the right.

[@DogeickBateman]

Honestly it sucks to see how it played, the postmodernist explanation of fascism is so broad that it could be applied to literal communist countries and monarchies, countries opposite of fascism. Griffin's definition is very concise but unfortunately these days people subscribe to Eco's giant paintbucket of Fascism ("literally anything that's big government=fascism")

[@DogeickBateman]

The last segment where the panelists were asked about the definition and their answers were either wordsalad, "there is no definition" or just ripped straight from Marxists was absolutely disappointing.

[@milascave2]

Let's turn all isms into wasims.

[@drbrainstein1644]

I’m not going to take the postmodern position that there are no definitions or fascism can mean different things to different people based on an individual’s experiences. Fascism and national socialism can be nailed down to a specific definition. The problem is there are elements within many given political philosophies that could lead an intellect to conclude, well if that’s an element of fascism then it must be eliminated. So the intellectuals need to be careful. That’s why they won’t define what fascism is and was. In regards to what fascism was, is and what it has become, I will contradict what I have already stated and simply express fascism as a derogatory term [hate speech] used in politics for the establishment and their cohorts to brand someone who apposes them as absurd, dangerous and perhaps even criminal so their grievances won’t be taken serious in a game of power politics; nothing more than a political tactic. Some day the new majority will rise up an assert itself and on that day you’ll have no choice but to order missile strikes against this monstrosity your policies created. Guys who look like me will be given no quarter; idiots! You had some bright ideas the problem is not everybody thinks like us during hard times. Especially when outnumbered. Now I never been to prison but if anyone of you on the panel want a glimpse of the future, spend some time in prison and see where you rank on the hierarchy. All hail the new majority! Of course cowards like me live by the slogan: “I’ll be dead by then anyways!”

[@DogeickBateman]

The ironic thing of Umberto Eco's post modern definition of fascism is that as a socialist, by his own definition of fascism, many socialist movements or communist states could be labeled immediately as fascist due to fulfilling some of his criteria.

[@classicmail8239]

It's possible to have traits of autism and not be autistic, I know because I was told by my consultant that my diagnosis depended entirely on my history assessment. I'd like to assume, that it's also possible to have traits of fascism and not actually be fascist, and that it also depends entirely on a historical assessment to determine what the true nature of these conditions are.

[@derekruairc334]

It also depends on the guarantee that there is an autistic definition of autism. As far as I can understand the "category" of autism is not a settled matter.

[@rickrickenharp1621]

The audience here is more informed, more intelligent, and more honest than the panel.

[@jasper4365]

i read your comment in the first min, fingered u would be over exaggerating. your not, your polite about it.

[@OlStinky1]

Yea what an embarrassing performance 55:44 pretty much sums it up. Basically "whatever I disagree with is evil and therefore fascism"

[@Matt_D_370z]

Codswallop

[@Matt_D_370z]

"The most influential recent attempt to define fascism comes from Roger Griffin, 'The Nature of Fascism' (London: Routledge, 1994), and 'International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus' (London: Arnold, 1998), though his zeal to reduce fascism to one pithy sentence seems to me more likely to inhibit than to stimulate analysis of how and with whom it worked" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" loc. 4302). "The most widely accepted recent concise definition of fascism as an 'ideal type' is by the British scholar Roger Griffin: 'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism'" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" digital: loc. 415). "The Daily Stormer, whose name deliberately evokes the Nazi anti-Semitic paper Der Stürmer, was formed in 2013 to serve the US neo-fascist alt-right movement which came to media prominence in 2016 for its endorsement of Donald Trump" (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 Ch. 5).

[@Matt_D_370z]

"Short introductions to fascism are legion. Kevin Passmore’s Fascism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) is very brief but lively" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" digital loc. 4,302).

[@newworlddoritos2955]

30:20 ... wait a bit, Hitler had big electoral support before 1933, mainly after the financial crisis, here are the NSDAP party stats: May 1928 - 2.6% (No. 9), *Sep 1930 - 18.3% (No. 2), July 1932 - 37.3% (No. 1), November 1932 - 33.1% (No. 1).* Internal strife in the NSDAP was much more problematic, but it is quite obvious people wanted a man of action, that's why Von Papen negotiated in the first place. Hardly anyone would bother if Hitler's party had only 2.6%. Also don't forget, in Mar 1932 - Hitler got 13.4 mil votes, but Hindenburg won with 19.3 mil. That's anything but waning as you describe it. His popularity increased after people experienced hardships caused by the Great Depression, which in turn was caused by ignorant elites of that day. The same thing can happen anytime, especially with all the arrogance today. 59:28 - there was nothing "wishy washy" about the 2nd speaker, he defined the inner core of fascism quite well, especially the part after 14:45. Wikipedia may not go deep enough, instead it focuses on the economics and such.

[@alexandereschmann]

cool and how much did he got in 1928 before the depression? ... Yeah, right

[@thomasjamison2050]

I disagree. Not having a definition of fascism, whether anyone agrees with it or not, merely sets the discussion adrift on a sea of discombobulation. I submit they can't give a good definition because they don't have one, which is a pity for the sake of the conversation.

[@fastteddyb]

Like right and wrong is something that gets upgraded with time - Right2.0 Wrong3.2

[@jasper4365]

that's not very politically correct comrade.

[@Mark_Dyer1]

Is not 'fascism' a type of BEHAVIOUR, rather than a systematic belief-system? This is, surely, why 'extremists' of the right, or left, eventually meet at the point of violence and aggression. The principal property of fascism would seem to be VIOLENT INTOLERANCE; and there is one pseudo-religion on this planet, today, which (in its purest form: that adhering to its scripture most closely) exemplifies that behaviour. The problem is that those on the 'right' can see the problem. Those on the 'left' cannot, or will not, see it for what it is!

[@Mark_Dyer1]

One of the audience asks why the 'swastika' is recognisable as a symbol of violence, whilst the 'hammer-and-sickle' is not. This is better exemplified by those in the West who refuse to see the Islamic crescent as a symbol of conquest and fascism.

[@Mark_Dyer1]

The panellist in the grey tee-shirt, in his raising of 'mortality', exemplifies, perfectly, why 'anti-fascists', regardless of their appalling behaviour, claim to be occupying the moral high-ground!

[@wikkheiser2588]

In order to define fascism, you have to define what makes it unique from other political movements. Simply being violent and intolerant is not enough to make one a fascist, as there are many violent and intolerant movements throughout history with wildly different beliefs. The Catholic inquisition was violent and intolerant, but they were not fascists because both happened to be violent. The Maoists in China were violent and intolerant, but that does not make them Catholic inquisitors. Radical Islamism is violent and intolerant, but that does not make them Maoists. You see the logic here? You're just using "fascism" as a substitute word. But there are real fascists out there, who describe themselves as fascists, and have a distinct worldview. And that worldview is revolutionary ultra-nationalism. That would be hardcore neo-Nazis and such. An example would be a group like the Nordic Resistance Movement. Likewise, what makes radical Islamism unique is that it wants to create an Islamic revolution in order to establish a theocracy. Radical Islamists often want to accomplish their goals with violent means. But that is different from ultra-nationalism. The goals are different, even if they both use violence to achieve their goals. The means are not as important as the ends.

[@danielhanson2417]

Mark Dyer fascism isn't a behavior it's a political ideology the most notable country (in terms of defining fascism) being the kingdom of Italy

[@jackietate4047]

I really enjoyed this video. It is a bit of reassuring to hear experts talk about Fascism in an objective manner. I always encounter anti-fascists who try to assert a definition of Fascism on me that essentially equates to you have to be a real piece of crap to be a Fascist. (You have to be racist, oppressive, and sexist) I don't believe in any of those things. The very concept of race is stupid to me. Gays, immigrants, blacks, or any "other" are fine as far as I am concerned. They should all be treated fairly. But, the other concepts of Fascism I do agree with. The idea of a national rebirth. I very much accept and have written about. The American identity stripped of racial and religious division is an important concept to my view of America and my place in it. Roger Griffin really hit the nail on the head with the concept of palingenetic ultranationalism. A very accurate description of my national rebirth concepts. "America is the Land of the Free." "America is a melting pot of cultures." The rebirth if the "Great American Destiny". These "myths", as Griffin calls them, have been important basis's for my ideals. I think that America IS facing a crisis. One which may very well be existential. And that is the military and economic rise of China. There is also the political crisis of rampant corruption in our government. How do we resolve these crisis's? My Fascist view is that we need to undergo a national rebirth. I think that the Great American Destiny fell short. An America from sea to shinning sea was not enough to secure the American homeland from antagonistic states. America United is the true Great American Destiny. We even have a situation where our refusal to accept that destiny has resulted in an immigration crisis. Americans from all across America are flooding to the "United States of America". But, how can we honestly call this the United States of America when American States and American People are shut out and marginalized. I think that if we fail to realize this irrationality we will ultimately fall from our position of national power and we will have to watch Communist China take our place. I am not sure that I agree that I must renounce the Constitution to be a Fascist, though. Radical revolution of American politics and the American nation? Absolutely! Political parties should be dismissed entirely. They have proven to be divisive to the country. George Washington warned us about them and those warnings have proven true. I don't suggest that those parties be replaced with a National Fascist Party like the Chinese Communist Party. All political parties should be eliminated. The political party system is what needs to be gotten rid of. Not the US Constitution.

[@EugenIustin]

ok fascist

[@DaveWiesner]

Would be nice to have there historian Ishay Landa and Stanford economy prof Robert Leeson in order to conceive a bigger and more complete spectrum of what fascism was and where card-carrying fascists lied, specially considering membership 282632 Vaterländische Front

[@findbridge1790]

the term is meaningless

[@findbridge1790]

thank you chatham house, Wellington house, and yes tavistock, and lets not forget the privy council itself, and the city of London, for this wonderful clown car [and also mi6 of course] LOL "England swings like a pendulum do..." LOL LOL LOL

[@Mark_Dyer1]

And - Teacher from Oxford Brookes - do you think your 'freedom-to-teach' will be the same when Sharia arrives in our Parliament?

[@wikkheiser2588]

I can't speak for him, but I would think not. Why is that relevant? Both fascists and radical Islamists oppose freedom of thought.

[@jasper4365]

fave a guess werkheiser? they a simple guess to antser your own question... these fucking pacifist will be the death of us.

[@tavernburner3066]

@Aquila Romana no you can't.

[@derekruairc334]

There is fear expressed of a kind in this sentence which relies on a fear of losing consciousness.

[@blackspring3207]

BUT WHAT ABOUT SHARIA cried the brain dead dweeb from his McMansion

[@honestjohn6418]

I oppose mass immigration and especially mass immigration from Muslim majority countries because I worry about atomization and conflict. I want to protect the diversity we have by consolidating it before we open the gates again. I oppose mass immigration because I want to avoid a fascist future or civil war. Am I a fascist?

[@Thomas...191]

Honestly john you are not. And you know it.. the sociologist Robert putman who also worked in Obama's organisation (a lefty), realized in his studies that unchecked immigration can harm social cohesion.. it's a very down the middle concern

[@honestjohn6418]

Thomas Putt it’s just so standard on the subject of immigration. Ever since World War 2 we’ve been collectively unable to discuss immigration in any way which might have a bias towards the Occident. Whereas we wouldn’t find it irrational or abhorrent if the people of an African, Middle Eastern or Asian nation said that they would like to remain culturally and numerically dominant in their own lands. Not to have a homogeneous ethnostate but at least to remain the undisputed majority who n their land and for new comers to fit in with them instead of the other way around. If the people of Malaysia or Egypt worried about Americanisation or the people of Bali or Thailand complained about a preponderance of boorish drunk Western tourists carousing disrespectfully in their beauty spots and sacred sites, we would all have sympathy. Especially the people on the left. But as soon as a European or white American worries about dramatic cultural changes in their home or has something critical to say about new comers (even when that criticism involves not being too keen on mass murder), the instant knee jerk reaction is to think that person doesn’t like brown people and is probably a Nazi so should be smeared as such and shut down. It’s a pathological reaction we have against anyone who dares question the wisdom of radical diversity for diversity’s sake. And it’s creating a far right reaction. We must let Western people have a say in how their societies change, even if they decide that they want to slow immigration significantly. If we, as a society keep calling anyone who worries about immigration a racist and push those people to the peripheries. Then they will start voting for the parties on the periphery. Currently around 47% of the British electorate and over 50% of electorates in mainland Europe want a complete halt to Muslim immigration. Not a temporary travel ban from certain Muslim countries as Trump has tried to pass. But a total end to Muslim immigration. Which by mainstream standards makes nearly half of the electorate’s of Europe racists and Nazis. Far more extreme than Trump. But they’re not racists and Nazis. They have legitimate concerns even if you disagree with their conclusions. But increasingly it’s only parties of the far right who are willing to address those concerns so they will start winning elections. And when that happens, blaming racism won’t be helpful when it was the marginalization of ordinary people under the guise of anti racism that gave the far right a constituency. If the Tories or Labour were at least willing to have the conversation and concede that it’s not racist not to want London to be majority minority and not to want more potential Islamists entering the country. Then the mainstream could avoid a surge to the right. But they’re incapable of seeing anything but a pro immigration stance as fascism. So we’re probably doomed to a lurch right. If a racist is the worst thing a person can be and opposing immigration makes one a racist. Then congratulations, you’ve just gift wrapped a potential victory for parties far more extreme than Trump.

[@articulatechav2668]

Those concerns alone don't make you, or anyone else who holds them, a fascist.

[@wikkheiser2588]

I think we agree. To define fascism, you have to narrow it down to the thing that makes it unique. While fascists oppose immigration, they are not the only ones who oppose immigration. Fascists also often support having a large army, but of course, they are not the only people who support having a large army. Supporting a large military has widespread support in the United States among both major (non-fascist) parties, for instance. It does not mean the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. are fascists. So what is fascism? I think Griffin (in the video) has the best available definition, which is that fascism is a *revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism* that seeks to destroy the state and replace it with a new one, an authoritarian or totalitarian state base on national and/or racial purification. It would "purify" the society of "decadence." Fascists define the agents of decadence as not only immigrants but racial minorities in general, Jews (especially), homosexuals, feminists, communists, the disabled, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with them, etc. etc. etc. Fascists are real. They are not just some left-wing boogeymen, although leftists have an unfortunate habit of using the term too loosely. (You'll see this on the right as well.) Because just wanting to restrict immigration does not make one a fascist -- as there are non-fascist forms of politics which also oppose immigration. There are many countries in the world that heavily restrict immigration, although I don't know of any existing fascist countries in the world. Obviously, Nazi Germany is a historical example. Homophobia is usually widespread in fascist movements, but of course, being homophobic does not automatically make one a fascist, however disagreeable I find homophobia, racism and so on to be.

[@Matt_D_370z]

@@honestjohn6418 "The most influential recent attempt to define fascism comes from Roger Griffin, 'The Nature of Fascism' (London: Routledge, 1994), and 'International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus' (London: Arnold, 1998), though his zeal to reduce fascism to one pithy sentence seems to me more likely to inhibit than to stimulate analysis of how and with whom it worked" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" loc. 4302). "The most widely accepted recent concise definition of fascism as an 'ideal type' is by the British scholar Roger Griffin: 'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism'" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" digital: loc. 415). "The Daily Stormer, whose name deliberately evokes the Nazi anti-Semitic paper Der Stürmer, was formed in 2013 to serve the US neo-fascist alt-right movement which came to media prominence in 2016 for its endorsement of Donald Trump" (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 Ch. 5).

[@osiranrebel1591]

Conservative thought process is regressive and incompetent towards humanity. The amygdala region of the brain is the area that processes thoughts of fear and aggression. Fight or flight. Conservatives have more activity in this area. The anterior cingulate cortex region is what separates us from the animals. Conservatives have less activity in this area. Liberals have more activity. So it's no wonder there is such a huge difference between right and left. And there absolutely is a huge difference . Talents and abilities is key. Google. Conservative brain V,S liberal brain.

[@wikkheiser2588]

I don't think you can pathologize political beliefs in this way, since people often change their beliefs. Liberals become conservatives and vice-versa.

[@OlStinky1]

"incompetent towards humanity" doesn't even work as a word pairing.

[@cinnamongirl5410]

yeah... cause we can trust scientific unbiased google LOL

[@18wheeler57]

1:02:00 who let the stuttering cow speak

[@Mark_Dyer1]

Wikkheiser: The Inquisition still exists today, in its new guise as The Holy Office; but Doubt whether it would have much in common with your description, as a source of violence, TODAY. That is the situation 'relativists' seem unable to appreciate when they use their, "Two wrongs make a right", immature arguments. National Socialism, certainly, was 'fascistic' in its treatment of human beings (with violence, and as means to their ends); but 'Socialism' is on the political 'left', whilst 'Fascism' is always regarded as being on the 'right'. Hence my point about violence being the common denominator where 'right' meets 'left'.

[@derekruairc334]

NB. The Othering and then the clearing of the space for the same-minded on different levels (which necessarily includes the repression of the Other) is a working definition of fascistic operations.

[@jameshallman3260]

You are a common sense 'Nationalist'!

[@derekruairc334]

Hmm. You appear to be directing your thoughts to a mirror. Common sense has a fixed meaning, fixed in centuries past otherwise it is what you would like to think it is. A national "Conservatist" might be a possible variant.

[@fastteddyb]

If you get rid of God - you have to then play God - and that's what we see over and over with Mussolini and all the rest with a never ending need for government expansion - simple. If you make God the centre of both government and people - on a personal basis - you can safely make government small and the people will self govern. Its a very simple choice.

[@DDD033]

or you can realize "God" is a constructed fantasy who will only be centralized by a personal interpretation so it's still an individuals responsibility to determine morality and try to find common ground with a larger society. objective morality is a myth.

[@seekerout]

Make god the centre of government? You mean like in Saudi Arabia and Iran? And who is to act as the 'interpreter' of god's will? A modern-day equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition? Seems to me humans have already had lots of opportunity to experiment with your 'simple' solution - and the results have been horrific.

[@wikkheiser2588]

My feeling is: Modernity wrecked the traditional, sacred "canopy" over people's lives that gave them a sense of meaning and higher purpose. People once lived to serve God, which made them feel secure on an existential and spiritual level. But with modernity beginning in the 20th century and the "death of God," the confusion and chaos that resulted spawned new forms of radicalized politics (such as fascism) that attempted to create a new "canopy" of meaning: Instead of serving God, you live to serve the Fuhrer. However, radical movements like fascism demonized people and were extremely destructive to human life. So do we go back to the 19th century and older traditional ways? Is that even possible? I don't believe it is possible. I think that ship has sailed. So the challenge is creating new forms of meaning and higher purpose that refuses to demonize anyone.

[@sallybaddeley6060]

First dentistry was painless. Then bicycles were chainless, Carriages were horseless, And many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, Telegraphy was wireless, Cigars were nicotineless, And coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, The putting green was weedless, The college boy was hatless, The proper diet fatless. New motor roads are dustless, The latest steel is rustless, Our tennis courts are sodless, Our new religion - godless. by Arthur Guiterman (1871-1943)

[@Matt_D_370z]

"Perhaps the best definition [of fascism] comes from Robert Paxton professor emeritus at Columbia University and holder of the Legion d’Honneur, despite all the books he has written on wartime France’s pro-Nazi Vichy regime. Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism analyzes the stages by which 20th century fascisms rose and fell. It should be essential reading for any student of fascist movements, and especially for anyone thinking of founding one. Fascism, Paxton says, is a dynamic process, rather than a fixed ideology like socialism or communism. There are five steps on Paxton’s road to hell, and not all fascist parties made it past the second step" (Dominic Green "The Elusive Definition of 'Fascist'" ‘The Atlantic’ 2016 web). "Robert Paxton, an outstanding expert on the Vichy regime" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 14). "Once again, Robert Paxton has done pioneering work. His book on the Vichy regime, very controversial in France at first, is now a classic on both sides of the Atlantic. The first to document the extent of Vichy's collaboration with the Nazis, he is now the first -- despite formidable difficulties in finding adequate sources -- to produce a book-length study of a militant anti-republican, authoritarian, and corporatist peasant movement that made a great deal of trouble for the weak cabinets of the Third Republic between 1929 and 1939. Its leader, Henri Dorgeres, was a journalist for a farmers' newspaper in Brittany. His 'greenshirts' were especially abundant and vocal in northern and western France, where French peasants were more conservative than in the south. Their desire to rehabilitate, and to restore the preeminence of, the French peasantry was kindled by the steep agricultural recession in the 1930s and their dislike of the paralyzed parliamentary republic as well as of the established peasants' organizations that were run by notables close to the politicians. As Paxton points out, Dorgeres' methods were borrowed from the fascists abroad, but his program, which was anything but statist, was closer to the authoritarian conceptions of a Salazar or Franco" (Stanley Hoffmann "French Peasant Fascism: Henry Dorgeres's Greenshirts and the Crises of French Agriculture, 1929-1939" Book Review 'Foreign Affairs' 1998). "Robert Paxton and Stanley Payne are less parsimonious yet they both, in different ways, delineate the essential features of fascist ideology and fascist movements in their excellent introductions. Paxton takes a developmental perspective and analyzes the stages of fascist movements in various countries -- from their creation and seizure of power to their radicalization -- before finally offering his own definition of fascism at the very end. ...As Mann, Paxton, and Payne all make clear, fascism was a pan-European phenomenon. Yet the question of how German democracy collapsed and Hitler came to power overshadows nearly all the others in the field, and each of these three books provides a partial answer to it" (David Art "What to Read on Fascism" 'Foreign Affairs' 2010). (Robert Paxton "Is Fascism Back?" 'Project Syndicate' 2016). www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/is-fascism-back-by-robert-o--paxton-2016-01?barrier=accesspaylog