I think the root appeal of fascism is "authoritarianism". When you start to feel that people's political beliefs are dangerous or taking away your personal power, there is an inclination to want to dominate the other people and not let them have a say.

Fascism is just one way to sell authoritarianism. If the current government asks certain people to be too selfless for their tastes, or media can convince a block of the state to be more selfish, fascism is a nice sell.

I don't disagree. But rather than reasons or arguments, I think the appeal is predominatly an aesthetic of extreme tribalism, which speaks not necessarily to our rational faculties, but to instincts we have from living in pre-agrarian societies where the group was literally everything.

Things go bad - as in Germany and Italy before the rise of fascism - and peoples instincts tells them that they need to tighten up the social order so that the group can function more as a unit to increase chances of survival.

So what I think would be the most effective way of combatting the idea, is to make things better.

I think the root appeal of fascism is "authoritarianism". When you start to feel that people's political beliefs are dangerous or taking away your personal power, there is an inclination to want to dominate the other people and not let them have a say. — Philosophim

Actually I think at least in some cases the allure of fascism is not personal domination but just a want for a master, someone to work for and be herded by. Personality responsibility and freedom come hand in hand, and if you don't want to have to deal with that responsibility, you can give up some of your freedom in exchange for a comfortable life of servitude.

I don't think authoritarianism is the root of fascism as much as it is just one of the aspects (symptoms). Nor do I think it makes sense to say one thing and one thing alone is the root of fascism. It's a complicated phenomena that has many different roots.

"the word fascist is intended to mean oppressive, intolerant, chauvinist, genocidal, dictatorial, racist, or aggressive."

I think it was Paxton in Anatomy of Fascism who said that fascism is characterized by a method as much as its content. It has tended to be ruthlessly indifferent to prevailing democratic norms. The National Socialists in Germany (Hitler), for instance, seized power. Rarely, if ever, did the Nazi Party ever do well in elections (except when there was no choice but to vote for them).

Fascist parties have usually had a devoted following -- sometimes composed of odd bedfellows. Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, the various South American fascist-type dictators, etc. Fascist totalitarianism (like Hitler's) didn't leave room for an opposition.

Does the United States have a fascist movement? Some of the white supremacist militia types resemble fascists. But it doesn't matter in the end whether they fit the formal definition or not (whatever one uses). What does matter is that crypto or pre-fascist groups not be allowed to develop into militias, parties, or gangs that have the power to disrupt democratic society. (That's different than preventing them from speaking their opinions.).

Is Trump a fascist? I heartily loathe and despise Trump and his party, but I don't think he is a fascist. His behavior as president isn't even all that original. We've had grotesques serving in the Presidential Office before, and as regrettable as they are, they aren't fascists. They aren't eligible for summary execution. They are just abysmal people who should never have gotten anywhere close to nomination, let alone winning an election. For that you can lay blame the political parties, the media, and the idiots who supported them early on--usually wealthy people, which was the case with Hitler and a few other fascist dictators.

Of course you're right, just because you agree with a fascist about a given policy point doesn't make you a fascist.

Fascism thrives in crisis; strong centralized control is often touted, rightly or wrongly, as the only solution to the present, existential crisis that will wipe us out if we don't act. I'd honestly be sympathetic to the idea that under the right circumstances we're all fascists. How do you think the world would respond if we were faced with an alien invasion? Would we be desperately looking to protect civil liberties and limit the scope of government when faced with the annihilation of our species? I think it's disingenuous to only view fascism as some type of foreign threat that we ourselves are immune to; fascism is within us.

Could not agree more that fascism thrives in crisis and that fascism is usually the only solution to the crisis. If we ponder about it, fascism appears to be the only sensible path of action, especially if the 'we' of a local, nation, country, or the world is under threat.

I loved the alien invasion example, and I loved the fact that you subscribe to the view that fascism is within us. I could not agree more with this statement and the first thing that comes to mind is the show Lost and the philosophical problems it is constantly bringing to the foreground. If you have not seen this show, there is a plane crash on a hidden island in the middle of the pacific ocean with hundreds of survivors. However, even in the first couple of episodes the 'strong' and 'leaders' of these survivors exert power and strip their fellow survivors of the civil liberties we are so used to - like the right to property, right to voluntary action, and involvement, etc. For instance, there are so many instances in these first few episodes where guns are pointed at others for the need of their found belongings for medical purposes. There are also death threats to individuals to help these 'leaders,' etc. So, the idea that fascism is within us I can not agree more. If the people of today were placed on a hidden island in the middle of the largest ocean, I guarantee these fascist tendencies would arise almost instantly for survival and order...

Right, and I'm not sure that's solely limited to "fascism"; the "tribalistic" nature is definitely a part of who were are.

Whether it's "fascism" or anything else, I believe it's possible for people (particularly ones who feel alienated or lonely, maybe even in part due to some modern "social ills") to be drawn into "fascism" or "tribalistc" behaviors or ideologies, due to them providing the illusion of being 'part of a tribe' or part of something "greater than yourself".

Perhaps the more accurate question ought to be about the allure of totalitarianism, be it fascist or communist? In my opinion, both are equally objectionable forms of government because both place the rights of the state above the rights of the individual. Both subscribe to the basic principle: Everything within the state, nothing outside the state. Both forms of totalitarian government promise (propagandize about) utopia and various forms of security if only you relinquish your individual freedoms and abide by what the state demands of you. The totalitarian state, not you, defines who you are. Each form of totalitarianism appeals to the weaker individual who values the comfort of personal security over the hardships of personal freedom and individual initiative; and the state refers to such weaklings as the superior, heroic Fascist or Communist Person. Both forms of Totalitarianism have killed millions of persons because, for one arbitrary reason or another, they did not fit the state sanctioned Fascist or Communist ideal.

I believe our form of Representative Democratic Republic, even with all its imperfections, when it functions properly as per our Constitutional principles, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers is a marvelous, realistic remedy against the double scourge of fascist and communist totalitarianism.

Fascism - to a decent approximation paligenetic ultranationalism, an ideology of restoration/rebirth (palingenetic) of a superior mythologised nation/culture to which an adherent belongs (ultranationalism). Four commonly cited contributory causes:

(1) Natural tendencies (eg. "tribalism", "group size limitations on empathy"), the same across all societies and all times - therefore predictively, descriptively and explanatorily useless. Discount them.

(2) Personality profiling (eg. "authoritarian personality"), at best tells you demographic traits that predispose people to holding fascist beliefs. That political belief is contextualised in socio-economic conditions renders personality alone a poor explanation for holding these beliefs, like a building being flammable does not explain why it has been firebombed. At best, may inform in this sense:

“But are there not many fascists in your country?"
"There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find it out when the time comes.”

Profiling those who "will find out when the time comes" - that still requires analysis of...

(3) Social+historical effects (eg. systemic racism): the ordering of demographic categories in culturally relevant power hierarchies (systemic discrimination and its history) and their prejudicial supporting ideologies (eg. white supremacy, anti-semitism) tends to mirror the ordering of demographic categories in fascist beliefs held in those circumstances.

"Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves!" + "the colonised are inferior" + "we civilised them" =>
"We want Britain to go back to the glory days of Empire" + "let's get all the (racial slurs) out of here".

These effects are good at explaining the content of facist belief but not why any individual or group believes them, acts upon them. Cannot answer "Why now?".

(4) Crisis effects (eg. crises of political legitimacy, economic crises) - deterioration of the existing social order creates seizable power vacuums for opportunists, a combination of populist rhetoric (restore things to pre-crisis (mythologised) stability, "swift and decisive action") and "cutting out the rot" that lead to the crisis. This is an answer to "Why now?".

For neutral observers, it justifiably seems like it will never come - until it's already there.

A fifth aspect is required to explain why individual fascist actors (far right terrorists) do what they do and why they do it; processes of isolation and radicalisation. But they are a minority of people. (Edit: in this context, I should've mentioned that overwhelmingly such actors are men from somewhat troubled social conditions).

Some of the white supremacist militia types resemble fascists. But it doesn't matter in the end whether they fit the formal definition or not (whatever one uses). What does matter is that crypto or pre-fascist groups not be allowed to develop into militias, parties, or gangs that have the power to disrupt democratic society. — Bitter Crank

Such as a President who unifies and validates them?

In the interests of fairness, I also think that: "What does matter (equally) is that crypto or pre-Communist groups, like ANTIFA and BLM, as well as pre-Fascist groups not be allowed to develop into militias, parties, or street gangs that have the power to disrupt democratic society." In the interests of fairness, there are extreme left wing politicians in the Democratic party whose actions and omissions also unify and validate the crypto or pre-Communist groups.

Certainly, insurgencies can arise from the left as well as the right. At least in the United States at this time (last 20 to 30 years) it has been the white supremacist / anti-government right that has been the source--such as the individuals conspiring to kidnap the governor of Michigan. In the 1960s and 70s groups like the Bader Meinhof gang were leftist, and exceptionally violent. The Chicago Democratic Convention riot in 1968 was leftish.

I don't think BLM and ANTIFA are synonymous; their tactics seem to differ significantly. For one thing, BLM is able to marshal much larger and more diverse numbers in most parts of the country and they do not ordinarily spar with their opponents or police in the manner of ANTIFA--at least like in Portland, OR. BLM can mount very large, and pretty much peaceful demonstrations. Large demonstrations--left, right, or center--tend to be inconvenient for those not involved.

The riots we saw in late May and June were not as much partisan as opportunistic. Incidents which serve as provocations and then receive social media distribution, coupled with inflammatory rhetoric, can quickly wind up into riots. There was a small number of specifically ideologically left and right people present in the Minneapolis riots. Most of the people there (black, white, hispanic, asian) would have been hard put to present any sort of cohesive ideological point of view.

Of course the riot in Minneapolis spiraled out of control because there were no controls. Nobody was in charge of the riot.

I believe Alicia Garza was quoted as saying she and her fellow organizers of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, were "trained Marxists." If this is true, then they certainly would not have been "hard put to present any sort of cohesive ideological point of view," even if their followers were not aware of it.

Well, I've never met the founders of BLM, or even local coordinators. Alicia Garza said (in a quote Google found) "“We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk”. And that is a significant achievement.

I don't know what "a trained Marxist" would look like. There are people who read and discuss Marx and Engels; there are a few people who teach Marxism, and there are a few people who belong to very minor political parties that are "Marxist" or Marxish.

"We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories." I too am super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. Maybe you are also, sort of.

The people I referenced--who wouldn't have been able to present a cohesive ideological point of view--were not leaders; they were neighborhood people milling around watching the fires burn. Which is what I was doing, too.

I am both a soft-core Marxist and a soft-core Christian. My doubly soft-core social conscience compels me to at least try to understand the causes of the major injustices to which people are subjected. There are a couple of books which I think do a very good job of explaining why so many black people live in abject poverty:

#1 would be A Peculiar Indifference: The Neglected Toll of Violence on Black America by Elliott Currie. Currie isn't focused on police violence; he's more interested in the extremely high levels of violence within the black community--black on black. Why some groups, and some parts of the country have much higher levels of violence than others can be analyzed and understood. This issue (regional disparate levels of violence) was first given serious attention in about 1880. Some of what was found in 1880 is still true. But highly uneven access to opportunity and deep poverty are leading causes. That plus a plentiful supply of guns.

#2 would be the The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein. Rothstein shows how US Government policy, particularly through the Federal Housing Administration, systematically favored two generations of white families with plentiful assistance in obtaining new suburban housing, while forcing black people to accept inner city housing (which usually meant living in a slum). The upshot of FHA policy is that by the time it was ended, discriminatory policy had greatly enriched white families while greatly impoverishing black families. Having been carried out coast to coast, the bad consequences of FHA policy would be extraordinarily difficult to undo or redress.

BLM tends to be way too focused on police violence. It is entirely understandable that minorities should be concerned about police violence: It's official violence performed by some level of the state. The state is supposed to protect citizens, not selectively oppress them. However, internecine violence claims many times the number of black people than those killed by the police.

Fascism means a totalitarian socialist state which validates violence and war as reasonable diplomatic measures both to their own people and to other countries. I think a good example of a fascist state today is China, which has nothing communist about them whatsoever. Ultranationalism and fascism are not interchangeable terms, nor is it even necessary to be racist, also merely silencing critics doesn't make a state fascist. I don't think fascism is very popular in the West, though socialism is becoming more popular. I think rather than fascism becoming a popular idea, it's become a popular slur, where are people claiming it is gaining popularity?

Assuming total agreement with what you've said, how then does BLM think the "internecine" violence of black on black can be ended?

By the way, Fascism came about as a more radical form of Communism. As I understand it, Fascists were frustrated with the lack of progress made by the Communists and they claimed that Communists were not radical enough because the latter were willing to operate within the existing democratic political framework of European nations at that time (the 1920s and 1930s) to obtain power. If one eliminates the aberration of Hitler's racism, I think, in many fundamental ways, Fascists and Communists are really kindred spirits, despite protestations to the contrary. As I said, both are equally utopian, both are equally dogmatic, both are equally totalitarian, both are equally socialist, and both, when all else fails, consider violence to be a viable means to realize their ideological goals. One significant difference appears to be the magnitude of the political domain within which to operate, as indicated precisely by the contrast between the terms NATIONAL Socialism and INTERNATIONAL Socialism.

For my money, the major flaw of BLM is that they have not articulated any plan that would have any effect on black-on-black violence. And they should, because black lives matter as much as anyone's, and the death rate from violence is extraordinarily high in poor black communities, and it isn't police that are doing the lion's share of the killing.

The people who would become Nazis did not have a party at all at the very beginning. They took over a very little workers party in the early 20s and that became the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler thought that communism was a Jewish creation, along with capitalism, and despised everything that he thought the Jews were responsible for. In both Italy (Mussolini) and Germany, communists and fascists were bitter enemies.

Kindred spirits? I don't think so--despite the fact that the Communists, German Nazis, Italian Fascists, et al produced brutal regimes. Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini were all three very bad hombres, especially the first two. However, their founding documents and their intentions were far different. The history of the Soviet Union is quite different than Germany's, and history of course has something to do with the way things turned out.

Utopian? Jesus! If you think the nazis were building a utopia, I hate to think what you would call a dystopia. Dogmatic? Yes. Totalitarian? Similar, certainly. Equally socialist? Hitler's Germany never approached liquidating the private ownership of the means of production. Most of German Industry under the Nazis was privately owned.

As for the scope of the Nazis and Communists -- both of them were intent on world domination. Hitler had big plans for the rest of the world; the communists did too.

Hey, Charles: I'm not an expert on history; just giving it my best effort based on limited knowledge.

I completely agree with your comments about BLM.

I never said I liked the Nazi, or the Fascist, or the Communist idea of utopia. In my opinion they are all dystopian. But, whether we like it or not, the fact remains that there was a well-defined ideological Nazi utopia which appealed to the Nazis, a well-defined ideological Fascist utopia which appealed to the Fascists, and a well-defined ideological Communist utopia which appealed to the Communists.

The Italian Fascist Party and its ideology was founded by Mussolini, who was formerly an ardent Socialist. He and the party were not inherently anti-Semitic until circa 1938 when he sought to ingratiate himself with Hitler and solidify their alliance. In fact, several of the high-ranking founding members of the Italian Fascist party were Italian Jews, and many Italian Jews were fully integrated into Italian society. So, for a time, a significant number of Italian Jews bought into the Fascist utopia.

There was a faction within the Nazi Party, e.g., like Ernst Rohm, leader of the Brown Shirts, who felt that Hitler had to continue the National Socialist movement to the point of transforming Germany into a genuine Socialist State. Hitler had him and his faction killed.

Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were limited Socialist states and limited Capitalist states -- synthetic hybrids, whereas, Communist Russia was completely Communist.

Everything you said in your post pretty much matches my understanding. And you are right about the utopias appealing to their authors.

Two interesting asides:

"Fascism" had a specific invention: "According to Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini's own account, the Fasces of Revolutionary Action were founded in Italy in 1915. In 1919, Mussolini founded the Italian Fasces of Combat in Milan, which became the National Fascist Party two years later."

Mussolini's urban rebuilding policy in Rome was apparently quite successful (I've never been there). And the architecture he liked was in general pretty decent (much better than Hitler's or Stalin's taste). Italian fascist-period design was a forerunner of the again-very-popular mid-century modern style. (There's no political connection between fascism and the mid-century style.

Here are two examples:

Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were limited Socialist states and limited Capitalist states -- synthetic hybrids, whereas, Communist Russia was completely Communist — charles ferraro

In terms of economic reality, Nazi Germany differed very little from any other capitalist state. It was actually rather more internally competitive and less centrally planned than the allies. Apart from a view bells and whistles, the "socialist" part of the program was quickly dropped.

But then the value of the Nazi regime in particular for comparisons is somewhat limited, because it was so much dominated (in the later stages, anyways) by Hitlers peculiar ideology.

Thanks so much for your comments and especially the photos. I've been to Italy and never saw these structures, mainly because the focus for tourists is Greek, Roman, and Renaissance architecture.

*Fascism might appeal to popular sentiments, by focusing on perceived social ills such as crass or vapid "consumerism/materialism". — IvoryBlackBishop

The masses have always been ruled by Fascists of some kind : Kings, Emperors, Lords, Dictators, WarLords, etc. But in order to placate the sheep, the shepherd always has to appeal to popular sentiments, even as he panders to their real needs (bread & circuses). Messy Democracy and confusing Pluralism don't seem to appeal to the "little" people they propose to serve. :smile:

The Machiavellian Leader : The Machiavellian is exploitative, competitive, and selfish.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230281226_6
Note -- sound like anyone you know?

Fascism : a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism
Again -- sound familiar? MAGA : Make American (Plutocracy) Great Again

Pluralism vs Totalitarianism : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page6.html