We do our best to define Fascism.
We all know about the Nazis being the most infamous example of Fascism, second comes the Italians. However there was also Spain, Portugal and Brazil being examples of other nations that experimented with Fascism, and came out much more successful than their communist brothers. Why is it that people are allowed to be Communists and not Fascists even though Fascism has a better track record and has killed less people?
I will try to lay out the "vanilla" criterias for fascism:
>Can be economically left or right wing
>Focus on 'empowering the nation'
I notice when Fascists are success, people refuse to acknowledge them as Fascists and instead as 'Conservative Dictatorships' in the case of Spain and Portugal. Are people that triggered to realize that Fascism can actually work unlike Communism?
Bumping with glorious Salazar, possibly the best Fascist.
Bumping again with Vargas of poverty. Pretty much responsible for the populist politics which plague Brazil today.
Bumping for the last time with Francisco "Franklin" Franco. Stayed in power for quite a while so I guess he could be considered successful.
>Can you list me your examples of Fascists
Mussolini, Hitler, Salazar, Dolfuss, DeGrelle, and Codreanu are the most notable
>Many would consider Franco to be a fascist, so wouldn't that mean that Fascism can have a capitalist swing to it?
A lot of people can be wrong. Fascism can use capitalistic economics. However, it is fundamentally different than capitalism, since its fundamental concern is the nation, rather than the distribution of goods. It can not allow harmful free market policies.
"Capitalism" isn't an ideology.
Mussolini freed the corporations from union control.
Horthy freed the corporations from union control.
Franco freed the corporations from union control.
Salazar freed the corporations from union control.
Hitler freed the syndicates from union control.
Pinochet freed the corporations from union control.
Fascism isn't anti-capitalist in the least.
There is no "vanilla" criteria for fascism. You can read R. O. Paxton's book "Anatomy of Fascism" to see how somebody who studied the damn thing struggle trying to define it. Read J. A. Griger's book "Mussolini's Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Though" to see how the problem is handled by a more contemporary scholar.
The fascist movements we've seen (Jose Antonio's Falange for example) are essentially variations on a theme, with Italian fascism as a guide. All of the fascist movements that have succeeded have welded their uniquely national grievances and ideas to the template of mass-movement politics, radical reform, and anti-communist/liberal thought.
For example: Jose Antonio's Falange was worried about regional autonomy, a Spanish concern that really has no basis in Italy, Britain, or Germany. German National Socialist's racialism really had no basis in Italy (Evola aside, but he's an odd case which I can expand on more). Britain's concerns about her Empire have no equal in Spain, and so on.
You can really only define Fascism on a nation-per-nation basis by looking at how they relate to other fascist groups. This definition has some issues, I admit, but it's more productive than trying to find some mystical "recipe" where if you add the right ingredients, out pops a Mussolini.
>"Capitalism" isn't an ideology.
Capitalism is the ideology that the capitalist economic system is the best economic system.
>Mussolini freed the corporations from union control...
The businesses were then put under the authority of the state.
>Fascism isn't anti-capitalist in the least.
Fascists believe that capitalism is harmful to the nation. That's why they instituted corporatism and economic nationalism in every country in which they took power.
Fascism is not a materialist ideology. It can not be analyzed solely through an economic lens and then placed neatly into "capitalist" or "socialist". This is something extremely hard for materialist capitalists & socialists to understand.
Bingo. Any definition of a fascist party can really only be made in the context of the nation you're studying.
Most studies of Italian Fascism focus on Mussolini which is a logical starting point, but fails to ignore that there was more to the government than just the Duce. Is he important? Absolutely. But he isn't the only figure to look at. As Griger points out, folks like Gentile, Panunzio, and Corradini were influenced by ideas that had been gaining strength in Italy since the 1890's.
The Freikorps and Horthy aren't fascist, anon. Horthy tried his best to keep the Arrow Cross Party (Hungarian fascists) out of the government for as long as possible. It was only in the last few months of Hungary's involvement in WW2 that the ACP was able to get control. The Freikorp weren't fascists either, just angry veterans.
If anything, Horthy provides a good example of what fascism needed to get into power: allying with conservatives. You'll notice with Mussolini that he was never able to fully remove the conservative influence from the government (especially the army). And they were instrumental in helping him get power, even though neither group cared for the other.
>Capitalism is the ideology that the capitalist economic system is the best economic system.
No that'd be the Manchester School, or the Boys from Chicago, or Fordism.
>The businesses were then put under the authority of the state.
ha ha ha, oh man.
Do some economic reading.
>It can not be analyzed solely through an economic lens
Which is weird because the marxists managed to do that successfully.
>The Freikorps and Horthy aren't fascist, anon.
[x] Racial conception of the nation.
[x] Assumption of power outside of traditional politics.
[x] Arose during a political and economic crisis of capital that was irresolvable through traditional politics.
[x] Politics of mass action.
Yeah, of course they're not fascist.
>Horthy tried his best to keep the Arrow Cross Party (Hungarian fascists) out of the government for as long as possible.
You know, it is possible for there to be two fascist parties or cliques in the same country. Horthy's conception of the nation, Magyarism, was a race-as-culture conception as opposed to the Arrow Cross who were race as blood.
>ha ha ha, oh man. Do some economic reading.
I don't mean they were literally controlled by the government. But they were put under the authority of the totalitarian state, meaning the state had total authority regarding business decisions. They weren't given free reign, they still had to adhere to the minimum wage, taxation, tariffs, etc. Some businesses were even nationalized.
>Which is weird because the marxists managed to do that successfully.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA no. Any conclusions on non-materialist ideologies derived from a materialist viewpoint are moot. The idea that the world can be analyzed solely from the economic perspective is inherently faulty.
>All of the fascist movements that have succeeded have welded their uniquely national grievances and ideas to the template of mass-movement politics, radical reform, and anti-communist/liberal thought.
Are these traits shared by conservatism? Maybe not the radical reforms, but the idea that it's based on what each nations view as their struggle is something I imagine they've common with conservatism, or am I wrong?
>They weren't given free reign, they still had to adhere to the minimum wage, taxation, tariffs, etc. Some businesses were even nationalized.
You mean exactly like every other form of capitalism in the period?
>Any conclusions on non-materialist ideologies derived from a materialist viewpoint are moot.
You seem unfamiliar with Marxism.
>The idea that the world can be analyzed solely from the economic perspective is inherently faulty.
You are entirely unfamiliar with Marxism. Try Thompson's Poverty of Theory.
Anon, your third criteria could apply to so many people as to be meaningless. You're also seemingly ignoring the fact that Mussolini and Jose Antonio proposed radical economic measurements (corporatism or national syndicalism in Italy, major land redistribution in Spain), and they did not have a racial conception of the nature.
Horthy and the Freikorps on the other hand, weren't fighting for those things, they were continuing the keep the existing order, or to reestablish it. The Freikorps weren't fighting for a National Socialist Germany, and to keep arguing the Freikorps were fascists is straining the definition. What author has written the Freikorps were fascist? Hell, in this case, we could argue that the Spartacus League or Revolutionary Catalonia have "fascist" overtones since they meet 3/4ths of your criteria (minus the racial conception).
As for Horthy, he was a conservative dictator. If you have a source that argues otherwise, show it.