Have all the western countries that have had rising fascist dictatorship movements in the past few years come about through some other unrelated means?
We’re clearly in a trend of rising authoritarianism, but that doesn’t mean it’s inevitable. Such waves have receded in the past and they likely will again.
I just don’t like these inevitability narratives because they deprive people of agency in shaping society. Sure, maybe liberalism has a tendency to creep towards fascism, at least under some conditions. But this happens through the actions of the people that make up those societies and it can be resisted.
I largely agree. Authoritarian systems tend to support one another over the long term, even as they compete in other ways. So capitalism, being a system where economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few can also encourage the establishment of similar state structures. But this is not necessarily fascism. We can see similar trends happening in historically socialist countries today. But fascism is one possible manifestation of this process.
Capitalism has existed for centuries and usually did not end in fascism. There’s no historical support for this claim. It’s simply an invention of authoritarian leftists because it’s useful to convince people they need to choose one brand of authoritarianism or the other.
Fascism at its core is a way for a minority of the population to say, “we deserve wealth and power over everyone else regardless of merit. We’re going to take away rights and opportunity from everyone in order to give ourselves an unfair advantage. We’ll make it so only our group counts a fully legally human, and we’ll dominate society and the economy accordingly.” In this general sense, capitalism for the vast majority of its history has been some flavor of fascist, in the general sense. Obviously as a specific political system, fascism is more particular. But in the general sense of its mechanism, where one group tries to take control by stripping the rights from everyone else? That is the norm in capitalist societies, not the exception.
For the vast, vast majority of capitalism’s history, it’s been built on defining a certain in group who have rights, and an out group who have no rights and can be exploited. Western countries didn’t even give economic freedom to the majority of their population until the last 50 years or so. Women were legal property and couldn’t have bank accounts. They were legally not considered fully human in the same way men were. Men didn’t want to compete with women, so they took away women’s freedom and didn’t allow them to compete in the marketplace. The majority of the population, completely excluded from economic life, in the most capitalist societies on Earth.
Or you could look it from a racial lens. De jure discrimination was written into the law until the 1960s or so. And de facto racial discrimination never went away. You say that capitalism doesn’t usually end in fascism, yet the US kept a substantial portion of its population in a nightmare system of fascist apartheid. White people didn’t want to compete with black people in the market, so they stripped black people of their civil rights.
The key thing to keep in mind about capitalism is that in a true free market, no one earns any profits. If there were no barriers to entry, starting competitors would be easy, and profit margins for all businesses would be razor thin. But that’s not how capitalism works in the real world. There are barriers to entry, and in capitalist countries, owners and those in power do everything they can to give themselves unfair advantages so they don’t have to compete in the market. And one of the easiest ways to make sure your group doesn’t have to compete freely in the market is to simply declare large swaths of the population as not fully human and thus undeserving of economic freedom.
Interesting points but I think you’re conflating fascism with what I would call authoritarianism. If you define fascism as any system where a minority clique takes control of society then you’re going to have to call nations like the USSR or China fascist. Which, while I agree they have similar features, are getting pretty far from the colloquial and academic definitions of fascism.
But you’re absolutely right that no modern society has had universally equal rights. We still have many groups that don’t have much legal protection including felons, children, immigrants, even animals could be viewed through this lens as well. But I don’t think that makes any societies that don’t meet this very high standard fascist.
Absolutely. This is a thought pattern I find very annoying. Just because you’re opposed to capitalism doesn’t make every critique of it correct. Defeating it means understanding and identifying its real features, not some caricature.
The last waves of fascism this advanced in America were in the 1930s. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century outright Nazis were generally associated with skinheads and were almost universally hated by mainstream culture. There are now actual Nazi movements in control of western nations. And even where they aren’t, they are winning over sizable percentages of the population.
This isnt going to pass as easily as you seem to think. Genocide has been live streamed around the world for almost 2 years and resistance to it has been relatively minor in terms of what you would actually expect. White western Christians (men especially) are actually mostly very down with white supremacy and neofascism. It benefits them specifically. And they represent the largest voting block in most western nations.
Liberalism could have prevented this by preventing Nazis from ever coming into positions of economic / cultural / political power in the first place. Liberalism is primarily concerned with countering revolutionary politics, moreso even than preventing fascist uprisings. It’s more important to them that pro capitalist values are the dominant ones in politics and culture than whether anti fascist values are. The ruling class almost entirely stands to benefit either way, they’re ambivalent towards fascism.
I didn’t say it would be easy, just that fascism is not inevitable.
Can you elaborate on how liberalism could have prevented this? This seems in contradiction to your overall point that fascism is inevitable under liberal governments.
Support working class politics. Support public ownership. Essentially, become a working class state. Outlaw fascist rhetoric. Redistribute wealth from billionaires to the working class. The main reason that fascist media organizations exist is because billionaires do. They wouldn’t be able to mass indoctrinate if they did not have essentially boundless economic power. Fascists won in Germany and America both because of media dominance and manipulation of the western liberal political system. In very comparable ways honestly.
The German democracy failed to respond in any way to the rise of the fascists. The only political party attempting any actual resistance of the fascists was the communists. The conservative and liberal parties were more interested in combating the communists than they were about combating the fascists. It was more important to them that the institutions of capital remains unaffected than fascism being stopped. They could have never let Hitler step foot out of a jail cell again. They honestly could’ve shot him, and a fair number of his nazi party upper echelon. People were calling for it, literally. Most people believe that Hitler mass indoctrinated all of Germany and won a landslide election and from there dismantled German democracy. That actually isnt true though. The final fair and democratic elections in Weimar Germany resulted in an extremely slim victory for the Nazi party. The communists were very close behind them. And in turn were conservatives and social democrats close behind the communists. On the whole, the majority of the nation voted for other parties. Once a bad actor was chancellor, all he had to do was find an excuse to enact emergency powers. He was handed the best possible opportunity on a silver platter by a young communist who was doing his part to fight back. If only others had followed his example, maybe history wouldve ended differently. As it was, Hitler enacted emergency powers to suspend all civil liberties in Germany. He banned the communists from any political organization and started literally rounding up communists and communist politicians and putting them in concentration camps. This was in 1933. The first camps were for communists. Then when Hindenburg died a short while later there was literally nothing standing between him and pure absolute dictatorship.
He could’ve been stopped at many points if liberal democracy was an ideology that prioritized the rights of the working class. If they had had an aim whatsoever of stopping fascism, it was preventable. Much like the democratic party though, their primary aims were to protect the ruling class of capitalists and the institutions that allow them to steal working class labor.
Support working class politics. Support public ownership. Essentially, become a working class state. Outlaw fascist rhetoric. Redistribute wealth from billionaires to the working class
Literally all of this is in opposition to liberalism, there’s a reason why the trend is the opposite in quite literally all liberal democracies
So how many countries have failed due to authoritarian power control? It’s a consistent through all time and cultures. Power corrupts, and the people in power want more of it.
Fascism is a recent political invention, but authoritarian power that is unstable as soon as the wrong person is in control is a time honored tradition, from Rome to the dynasties of China. Even stable democracies have power grasps, limits of freedoms overtime, and so on.
I completely agree. But to be clear, not all nations go down this path of increasing authoritarianism, and not all of those who do end up at fascism.
It might seem like a small distinction but this idea of the inevitable course of history is such a common thought terminating cliche and it leads to all sorts of wrong ideas and wrong political strategies that I feel a need to call it out. Even though my own position is not completely dissimilar.
It’s just a hilariously apt example of the overly simplistic narratives I’m criticizing. If you’re willing to label all capitalism as fascism then perhaps the narrative becomes true, just as falsely labeling all causes of death in the elderly old age makes your analogy work.
Well, to address the meme in particular then, it’s a fairly common saying that fascism is either capitalism in decline/crisis or is the end-game/final-form of capitalism. The first form is a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin: “Fascism is capitalism in decay.” The latter arises from statements by Mussolini, though it does seem the commonly cited “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism” may be a misquote or misinterpretation of his meaning.
I would actually lean into your rebuke somewhat, fascism is a form of authoritarianism and can make use of capitalism as a tool, but ultimately the totalitarian has as much interest in truly free markets as they do in truly free societies. I would say the inevitability is after allowing the market to centralize through unregulated monopolizing, the fascist would then nationalize the industry or otherwise bring it under their own personal control.
Fascism is fundamentally a cult devoted to power: they’ll ally with whichever power currently holds non-government sway, be that capitalists, feudal lords, or gang leaders. What fascists are deeply against is any form of distributed power: be that a truly free and well-regulated market, a trade union, or anarchism of any stripe.
Historically though, capitalist societies have been built on fascist techniques of stripping broad swaths of the population of their civil rights. The most infamously capitalist society in history - the US - cares so little about actually living up to the ideals of “the free market” that up until the 60s or so, only about a third of the population was actually allowed to participate in the free market. A third of the population was legally allowed to operate independently, start businesses, etc. The rest were denied equal protection under the law, a legal regime intentionally designed to force the majority of the population into precarious wage slavery.
That is in the most capitalist country on Earth. The most capitalist nation on Earth hated free markets so much that they had to exclude the majority of the population from the free market in order to maintain a pool of easily exploitable labor.
I think I have to concede this one. I have found numerous attributions of the quote but no mention of the source. Ultimately, i think it’s probably a misquote or a cross-wiring of Lenin’s essay: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. I think people are just freely substituting “fascism” for “imperialism”. Obviously, leftists would see them as related but shouldn’t conflate the two as being equivalent.
This is some Marxist nonsense my dude. Societies don’t have inevitable endpoints.
Have all the western countries that have had rising fascist dictatorship movements in the past few years come about through some other unrelated means?
We’re clearly in a trend of rising authoritarianism, but that doesn’t mean it’s inevitable. Such waves have receded in the past and they likely will again.
I just don’t like these inevitability narratives because they deprive people of agency in shaping society. Sure, maybe liberalism has a tendency to creep towards fascism, at least under some conditions. But this happens through the actions of the people that make up those societies and it can be resisted.
I agree. But I also think capitalist systems make facism easy. And naturally trend towards it.
I agree “inevitability” is too strong and a little too marxist oversimplification of history for me.
I largely agree. Authoritarian systems tend to support one another over the long term, even as they compete in other ways. So capitalism, being a system where economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few can also encourage the establishment of similar state structures. But this is not necessarily fascism. We can see similar trends happening in historically socialist countries today. But fascism is one possible manifestation of this process.
Capitalism inevitably results in fascism. It’s just the end result. The choice there is people maintaining a system that’s results in fascism.
Capitalism has existed for centuries and usually did not end in fascism. There’s no historical support for this claim. It’s simply an invention of authoritarian leftists because it’s useful to convince people they need to choose one brand of authoritarianism or the other.
Fascism at its core is a way for a minority of the population to say, “we deserve wealth and power over everyone else regardless of merit. We’re going to take away rights and opportunity from everyone in order to give ourselves an unfair advantage. We’ll make it so only our group counts a fully legally human, and we’ll dominate society and the economy accordingly.” In this general sense, capitalism for the vast majority of its history has been some flavor of fascist, in the general sense. Obviously as a specific political system, fascism is more particular. But in the general sense of its mechanism, where one group tries to take control by stripping the rights from everyone else? That is the norm in capitalist societies, not the exception.
For the vast, vast majority of capitalism’s history, it’s been built on defining a certain in group who have rights, and an out group who have no rights and can be exploited. Western countries didn’t even give economic freedom to the majority of their population until the last 50 years or so. Women were legal property and couldn’t have bank accounts. They were legally not considered fully human in the same way men were. Men didn’t want to compete with women, so they took away women’s freedom and didn’t allow them to compete in the marketplace. The majority of the population, completely excluded from economic life, in the most capitalist societies on Earth.
Or you could look it from a racial lens. De jure discrimination was written into the law until the 1960s or so. And de facto racial discrimination never went away. You say that capitalism doesn’t usually end in fascism, yet the US kept a substantial portion of its population in a nightmare system of fascist apartheid. White people didn’t want to compete with black people in the market, so they stripped black people of their civil rights.
The key thing to keep in mind about capitalism is that in a true free market, no one earns any profits. If there were no barriers to entry, starting competitors would be easy, and profit margins for all businesses would be razor thin. But that’s not how capitalism works in the real world. There are barriers to entry, and in capitalist countries, owners and those in power do everything they can to give themselves unfair advantages so they don’t have to compete in the market. And one of the easiest ways to make sure your group doesn’t have to compete freely in the market is to simply declare large swaths of the population as not fully human and thus undeserving of economic freedom.
Interesting points but I think you’re conflating fascism with what I would call authoritarianism. If you define fascism as any system where a minority clique takes control of society then you’re going to have to call nations like the USSR or China fascist. Which, while I agree they have similar features, are getting pretty far from the colloquial and academic definitions of fascism.
But you’re absolutely right that no modern society has had universally equal rights. We still have many groups that don’t have much legal protection including felons, children, immigrants, even animals could be viewed through this lens as well. But I don’t think that makes any societies that don’t meet this very high standard fascist.
It’s an easy thought-free assertion which makes all opposition to a system heroic, which means it gets wide traction.
Absolutely. This is a thought pattern I find very annoying. Just because you’re opposed to capitalism doesn’t make every critique of it correct. Defeating it means understanding and identifying its real features, not some caricature.
The last waves of fascism this advanced in America were in the 1930s. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century outright Nazis were generally associated with skinheads and were almost universally hated by mainstream culture. There are now actual Nazi movements in control of western nations. And even where they aren’t, they are winning over sizable percentages of the population.
This isnt going to pass as easily as you seem to think. Genocide has been live streamed around the world for almost 2 years and resistance to it has been relatively minor in terms of what you would actually expect. White western Christians (men especially) are actually mostly very down with white supremacy and neofascism. It benefits them specifically. And they represent the largest voting block in most western nations.
Liberalism could have prevented this by preventing Nazis from ever coming into positions of economic / cultural / political power in the first place. Liberalism is primarily concerned with countering revolutionary politics, moreso even than preventing fascist uprisings. It’s more important to them that pro capitalist values are the dominant ones in politics and culture than whether anti fascist values are. The ruling class almost entirely stands to benefit either way, they’re ambivalent towards fascism.
I didn’t say it would be easy, just that fascism is not inevitable.
Can you elaborate on how liberalism could have prevented this? This seems in contradiction to your overall point that fascism is inevitable under liberal governments.
Support working class politics. Support public ownership. Essentially, become a working class state. Outlaw fascist rhetoric. Redistribute wealth from billionaires to the working class. The main reason that fascist media organizations exist is because billionaires do. They wouldn’t be able to mass indoctrinate if they did not have essentially boundless economic power. Fascists won in Germany and America both because of media dominance and manipulation of the western liberal political system. In very comparable ways honestly.
The German democracy failed to respond in any way to the rise of the fascists. The only political party attempting any actual resistance of the fascists was the communists. The conservative and liberal parties were more interested in combating the communists than they were about combating the fascists. It was more important to them that the institutions of capital remains unaffected than fascism being stopped. They could have never let Hitler step foot out of a jail cell again. They honestly could’ve shot him, and a fair number of his nazi party upper echelon. People were calling for it, literally. Most people believe that Hitler mass indoctrinated all of Germany and won a landslide election and from there dismantled German democracy. That actually isnt true though. The final fair and democratic elections in Weimar Germany resulted in an extremely slim victory for the Nazi party. The communists were very close behind them. And in turn were conservatives and social democrats close behind the communists. On the whole, the majority of the nation voted for other parties. Once a bad actor was chancellor, all he had to do was find an excuse to enact emergency powers. He was handed the best possible opportunity on a silver platter by a young communist who was doing his part to fight back. If only others had followed his example, maybe history wouldve ended differently. As it was, Hitler enacted emergency powers to suspend all civil liberties in Germany. He banned the communists from any political organization and started literally rounding up communists and communist politicians and putting them in concentration camps. This was in 1933. The first camps were for communists. Then when Hindenburg died a short while later there was literally nothing standing between him and pure absolute dictatorship.
He could’ve been stopped at many points if liberal democracy was an ideology that prioritized the rights of the working class. If they had had an aim whatsoever of stopping fascism, it was preventable. Much like the democratic party though, their primary aims were to protect the ruling class of capitalists and the institutions that allow them to steal working class labor.
Literally all of this is in opposition to liberalism, there’s a reason why the trend is the opposite in quite literally all liberal democracies
Yes, i very much agree. Liberalism will never present a legitimate defense against fascism, and will never prioritize working class rights.
So how many countries have failed due to authoritarian power control? It’s a consistent through all time and cultures. Power corrupts, and the people in power want more of it.
Fascism is a recent political invention, but authoritarian power that is unstable as soon as the wrong person is in control is a time honored tradition, from Rome to the dynasties of China. Even stable democracies have power grasps, limits of freedoms overtime, and so on.
History does not repeat but it does rhyme.
I completely agree. But to be clear, not all nations go down this path of increasing authoritarianism, and not all of those who do end up at fascism.
It might seem like a small distinction but this idea of the inevitable course of history is such a common thought terminating cliche and it leads to all sorts of wrong ideas and wrong political strategies that I feel a need to call it out. Even though my own position is not completely dissimilar.
Societies don’t have inevitable endpoints, in the same way that you can’t predict with 100% certainty that an individual will die of old age.
Old age isn’t even a thing you can die from. This analogy fails on multiple fronts.
Pedantry is the last refuge of fools.
It’s just a hilariously apt example of the overly simplistic narratives I’m criticizing. If you’re willing to label all capitalism as fascism then perhaps the narrative becomes true, just as falsely labeling all causes of death in the elderly old age makes your analogy work.
Historically, “conquered by neighbors” or “environmental collapse” are both strong contenders for “where societies inevitably go.”
Well I guess if you have a long enough timeline everything possible becomes inevitable. But I don’t think that’s quite what the meme is saying.
Well, to address the meme in particular then, it’s a fairly common saying that fascism is either capitalism in decline/crisis or is the end-game/final-form of capitalism. The first form is a direct quote from Vladimir Lenin: “Fascism is capitalism in decay.” The latter arises from statements by Mussolini, though it does seem the commonly cited “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism” may be a misquote or misinterpretation of his meaning.
I would actually lean into your rebuke somewhat, fascism is a form of authoritarianism and can make use of capitalism as a tool, but ultimately the totalitarian has as much interest in truly free markets as they do in truly free societies. I would say the inevitability is after allowing the market to centralize through unregulated monopolizing, the fascist would then nationalize the industry or otherwise bring it under their own personal control.
Fascism is fundamentally a cult devoted to power: they’ll ally with whichever power currently holds non-government sway, be that capitalists, feudal lords, or gang leaders. What fascists are deeply against is any form of distributed power: be that a truly free and well-regulated market, a trade union, or anarchism of any stripe.
Historically though, capitalist societies have been built on fascist techniques of stripping broad swaths of the population of their civil rights. The most infamously capitalist society in history - the US - cares so little about actually living up to the ideals of “the free market” that up until the 60s or so, only about a third of the population was actually allowed to participate in the free market. A third of the population was legally allowed to operate independently, start businesses, etc. The rest were denied equal protection under the law, a legal regime intentionally designed to force the majority of the population into precarious wage slavery.
That is in the most capitalist country on Earth. The most capitalist nation on Earth hated free markets so much that they had to exclude the majority of the population from the free market in order to maintain a pool of easily exploitable labor.
When did he say that? Fascism would’ve been very new at the time he died.
I think I have to concede this one. I have found numerous attributions of the quote but no mention of the source. Ultimately, i think it’s probably a misquote or a cross-wiring of Lenin’s essay: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. I think people are just freely substituting “fascism” for “imperialism”. Obviously, leftists would see them as related but shouldn’t conflate the two as being equivalent.
Thank you, this is very well said. Any socio-economic structure that centralizes power in the hands of a few is vulnerable to fascism.
Kinda true. Didnt some liberal democracies also turn (partially) anarchist or socialist?