INTRODUCTION

Fascism stands for a doctrine. ideology or a set of principles underlying the

movement founded in Italy by Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)and his followers in
1919. For this purpose, he combined his fascie of workers, that is small groups
organized to bring about revolutionary changes in the political structure of Italy.
into the Famine. The word forci. from which the term fascism is derived, denotes
the bundle of rods bound with a red cord round an axe helve which was borne
before the Roman consuls by the Lectors (attendants of magistrates) as the symbol
of public power. The word Fascisd denoted the movement as well as the party
founded to achieve the goals of fascism. In fact. Italian fascism came to have some
well. defined goals, defined and declared by its leaderMussolini himself. It also
evolved or embraced certain principles: a variety of unrelated principles woven
into an incoherent whole. designed to meet political exigencies. That is why
fascism never developed intoa coherent political philosophy. Itonly developed into
a movement which achieved temporary success in Italy. It was partly adopted by
Adolf Hider (1889-1945)and the Nazis in Germany. Franco (1892-1975) and the
Falangists in Spain. and had a marginal following in Britain. France and other
European countries. Some writer, try to find ha paranoia in Asia, particularly in
Japan. and in some Latin American countries, particularly in Argentina. Of the
three mainstreams of political thoughtLiberalism. Marxism and kkalism
fascism is openly opposed to liberalism and Marxism. It is wedded to the idealist
theory. but only to its distorted form. Fascism embraced some theoretical
principles only to win the political support of some groups, especially to mobilize a
large number of frustrated elements in society. Since these heterogeneous groups
had no common interest. no common ideal and no common values, fascism could
never evoke a consistent political theory. It never became a part of the mainstream
of polhical theory. The students of political theory look to fascism not for guidance
in sorting out theoretical issues, but for understanding 'political pathology': that is
to understand how an adventurous leader likeMussolini or a fanatic leader like
Ilida can play upon and exploit the sentimentsofdifferent categories of people
under abnormal circumstances, and mobilize them for achieving certain goals
which they would not approve of under normal mental and social conditions.
Sociologists and social psychologists have found rich material for study in the
abnormal conditions of society which gave rise to the emergence of fascism. In
politics, fascism is identified with a sick mental altitude which sets aside reason as
well as sound moral and social principles for the fulfilment of ambitions of narrow
groups. Fascist tendencies pose a danger to peace and freedom in the world. The
world facist is term of abuse in present day vocabulary.


MEANING AND DEFINITIONS

Fascism like communism is a totalitarian ideology of communism was the girs
major twentieth century totalitarian revolt against the western way of life fascism
was the second. As opposed to communism it was an anti reflationary and winter
revolutionary form of totalitarianism.

The term fascism is derived from the word fescio which means a bundle of rods
symbolizing discipline, unity and strength.during the first world war it meant all
those who bound themselves together to live or die for the good of Italy. Fascism
according to Murio einaudi is used primarily to identify the political system by
which Italy was ruled from 1922 to 1945. In Europe Italy (1922) was the first to go
fasist followed by Germany (1933). In asia japan went fasist in the 1930 and in
South America, Argetina come under the fasist dictatorship of general person
1943.
J. S. Burnes in his book the universal aspects of fascism writes fascism may be
defined primarly as polital and social movement having as its object, the
establishment of a political and social order based upon the main of traditions that
have formed our European civierations, tradtions created by Rome, first by empire
and subsequently by catholoic church conversely fascism may be described as the
reputation of that individual mentality that found expression first in
Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined
in exclusive biological, cultural, and / or historical terms, above all other sources of
loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist hostility to
socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than
nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a
movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and
the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of
a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and
embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism
by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override
conservative interests - family, property, religious, the universities, the civil service
- where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism
also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of
the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the
national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and
women's' interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special
sections of the party and / or within a corporate system. Access to these
organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the
individual's national, political, and / or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist
policy are suffused with ultra nationalism.


GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF FASCISM
The development of Fascism chiefly took place during the period between the two
world wars (1919-39) in Italy and Germany. It also had some parallel in Japan so
that the three countriesGermany. Italy and Japaneventually formed the
'Berlin4lonte-Tokyo Axis' and were the chief enemies of the Allied Powers during
the Second World War (1939-45). In fact, the Second World War was fought to
defeat fascism. Fascism was strongly opposed to democracy (if not to capitalism)
as well as to communism. That is why the capitalists and the communists joined
together to defeat it.
William Ebenstein in his Todayk Isms (1980) observes: Stripped to its essentials,
fascism is the totalitarian organization of government and society by a single-pany
dictatorship, intensely nationalist. racist. militarist, and imperialist. In Europe. Italy
was the first to go fascist in 1922. and Germany followed in 1933. In Asia. Japan
became fascist in the 1930s, gradually evolving totalitarian institutions out of its
own native heritage.
Its chief variantsItalian Fascism and German National Socialism (Nazism)
arose under somewhat different circumstances but they had many parallels in
theory and practice. R.M. Maclver, in his Web olGovernment (1965), significantly
observes:
Both succeeded in enlisting diverse groups and classes to a programme of
expansionist aggression. finding common ground in the respective treatment meted
out to them in the Treaty of Versaillesthough one was chafing in defeat and the
other discontented with the rewards of victory.... In both instances a disoriented
smalMsourgeois group, in a time of social upheaval and economic trouble, found a
leader who was master of the mass appeal. The preceding war had inculcated
habits of blind obedience to the command of the superior but the authority behind
the command had been discredited. Mcn were groping for a new myth of authority.
They were susceptible to the gospel of new demagogues.
It is significant that both Italy and Germany had lagged behind other countries of
Europe. e.g. France and Great Britain. in their way to national unification. Their
geographical position had prevented them from attaining the status of world
powers. Their societies were still in transition: the power was passing from a
reactionary aristocracy to the emerging bourgeoisie (the capitalist class), but a
strong working class was simultaneously rising and raising its claim to power.
Roth countries cherished a deep pride in their past cultural distinctions and felt
bitterness over less great countries rising to the status of world powers. ignoring
their claims. After the First World War(1914I8). many Italians strongly felt that
they had been cheated in the matter of distribution of the spoils of victory while the
Germans were indignant over the back-breaking war reparations imposed on them
by their victors. In short. both Italy and Germany were in the grip of crisis and
abnormal circumstances which were responsible for their similar development. To
know the development process of fascisk in detail, we need to look their historical
background.


THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
the fascist movement began in the critical period following of the first world war
when chaotic conditions created formidable difficulties of any government. The
fasicist ideas are an interral part of the Italian german matrix. Both Italy and
Germany exhibited, in an exaggerated degree the characteristic feature

benito mussolini started his career as a left wing journalist who later formed as a
political agitator


JAPANESE FASCISM
In 1930 japan was as a first country to be a fascist state. The 1930s were the most
eventful and turbulent decade in Japanese history since the 1860s, Its early years
witnessed the assassination or fatal wounding of two prime ministers, the murder
of two other prominent public figures, the plotting of two abortive military coups,
and the ending of governments headed by party politicians. In foreign policy there
was a decisive rejection of international co-operation as the Japanese army
engineered the seizure of Manchuria and Japan withdrew from the League of
Nations. In 1936 radical discontent among young army officers burst forth
dramatically in the February 26th Incident, an attempted coup in which more
establishment leaders were killed. This marked the peak of violence, but when
Japan stumbled into war with China in 1937, the trend towards totalitarianism
quickened pace. Trade unions were suppressed, with an Industrial Association for
Service to Country taking their place, while in 1940 the political parties were
dissolved to make way for the Imperial Rule Assistance Association. As Japan
entered into alliance with Germany and Italy in 1940 and then slid towards war
with America and Britain, there were, unsurprisingly, no open voices of dissent.
Japanese fascism' is to examine the parallels and differences which existed
between Japan and Italy and Germany. Before doing so, however, the extent of
direct influence or imitation needs to be considered. In 1932 Yoshino Sakuzo, in an
article entitled 'Fascism in Japan', pointed to the 'feeling among the Japanese that if
democracy is not quite good enough for those who invented it, then Japan, who has
always slightly mistrusted it, has no particular reason for keeping it going'.
Although Germany and Italy had little direct influence on Japan, Japan's economic
and social situation in the early 1930s was rather closer to those of Italy and
Germany than was Spain's or Rumania's or Hungary's. Not only had Japanese
industry far surpassed agriculture in value of output, but the post-war decade had
also been a period of dislocation and relative stagnation. Moreover, unemployment
rose to unprecedented heights between 1929 and 1932, and the peasantry were
reduced to desperation as agricultural prices plummeted. But although
dissatisfaction with government policies and political and economic institutions
was rife.
Even more than her economic and social situation, Japan's international position
had much in common with Italy's and Germany's. She too felt aggrieved at her
treatment at the Versailles peace conference (and at the Washington naval
limitation conference of 1921-22) and could consider herself a 'have-not' nation.
Concern about inter- national status led to concern about internal conflict and
division, for one of the lessons of the First World War was the importance of
national solidarity. As early as 1917 Major Koiso Kuniaki produced a report
calling for the preparation, during peacetime, of a war economy, supported by
reform of the organisation of enterprise and finance, harmonisation of labour and
capital, and improvements in educational facilities and social policy. This approach
was shared by other officers and by the more radical civilian nationalists. When, in
the 1930s, Japan's foreign relations deteriorated, hostility towards vested interests
which seemed to impede national strengthening grew more intense and more
widespread. Japan like one turns to ideology, other similarities are immediately
obvious.
Nevertheless, 'military fascism' is a limiting expression which conveys only part of
the character of the 1930s. Though less precise, 'Japanese fascism' may be
preferable in that it draws attention to the similarities of anti-communism, anti-
liberalism, ambivalence towards capitalism, emphasis on national community, and
aggressive and ambitious foreign policy, which Japan shared with Germany and
Italy. It is, as some have argued, true that these attributes are all to be found in the
Japanese nationalism of earlier decades, but they were never so dominant nor
pursued so intensely. Nor were Western ideas and values rejected as they were in
the 1930s.
A case then exists for 'Japanese fascism'. However, as with most labels, there is a
danger of its distorting historians' perspectives. It has, for example, tended to
obscure the fact that, in 1936-37, following Japan's economic recovery, political
parties and the zaibatsu began to reassert themselves against the army and the
bureaucracy, until the outbreak of the China Incident again created a war
atmosphere. Moreover, it also suggests that Japan was more totalitarian than was
actually the case, Who, for instance, would suspect that more candidates stood in
1942, in wartime, than in any of the pre-war elections? Because it is easy to cite
such divergences from the pattern suggested by European fascist experience,
'Japanese fascism' is likely to remain a disputed term.
As Vagts noted in 1937, Japan had the most political army in the world. It was the
army which produced the 1934 pamphlet which began with the Mussolini-style
declaration, 'War is the father of creation and the mother of culture'. From 1910 it
had attempted to spread its ideas among the population, especially in the villages,
through its reservists' and young men's organisations, and in the 1930s this paid
dividends. In so far as the army was the dynamic force which drove Japan towards
its New Order in East Asia, it is easy to understand why some Japanese historians
write of 'gun-fuashizumu' (military fascism).
Another parallel between Japan, Germany and Italy can be found in the discontent
of lower middle-class elements and the frustration and dissatisfaction of the young.
The expansion of the zaibatsu the huge financial/industrial combines had
adversely affected many small enterprises, while in Tokyo the growth of
department stores cut the sales of ordinary retailers by over a third between 1922
and 1932. The resentment and frustration of small businessmen were reflected not
only in the increasing public criticism of zaibatsu, but also in the formation of new
political parties with such names as All-Japan Commerce and Industry Party, or
Association of Friends of Commerce and Industry. It seems likely that such
elements were also an important component of the hundreds of nationalist societies
which sprang up in the 1930s, together with primary school teachers, petty
officials, Buddhist and Shinto priests, and small landowners. The social problem
most commented on by contemporary newspapers, however, was that of the 'interi-
lumpen' (intelligentsia-lumpen-proletariat). The number of university and college
graduates had risen from 9,208 in 1925 to 22,959 in 1929, but their chances of
employment diminished. In 1931some students still turned to the left wing and
other went to right-wing. This is what fascism in Japan.

Another parallel between Japan, Germany and Italy can be found in the discontent
of lower middle-class elements and the frustration and dissatisfaction of the young.
The expansion of the zaibatsu the huge financial/industrial combines had
adversely affected many small enterprises, while in Tokyo the growth of
department stores cut the sales of ordinary retailers by over a third between 1922
and 1932. The resentment and frustration of small businessmen were reflected not
only in the increasing public criticism of zaibatsu, but also in the formation of new
political parties with such names as All-Japan Commerce and Industry Party, or
Association of Friends of Commerce and Industry. It seems likely that such
elements were also an important component of the hundreds of nationalist societies
which sprang up in the 1930s, together with primary school teachers, petty
officials, Buddhist and Shinto priests, and small landowners. The social problem
most commented on by contemporary newspapers, however, was that of the 'interi-
lumpen' (intelligentsia-lumpen-proletariat). The number of university and college
graduates had risen from 9,208 in 1925 to 22,959 in 1929, but their chances of
employment diminished in the same period from 66.6 per cent to 50.2 per cent,
further slumping to 37 per cent in 1931. Although most radical students still turned
to the left, the number of right-wing


German national socialism
in 1923 hittler was arrested after the unsuccessual beer hall dutsch and he wrote
mein kampf while in prison. after his release he reorganised

FASCISM IN LATIN AMERICA
Recourse to dictatorship was frequent in Latin America, and some regimes
admired fascism and copied some of its features. Yet they never adopted all of
them, and actually resembled the Italian Nationalist Association more than
Mussolini's movement. Fascism rarely flourished in Latin America because levels
of political mobilization in the poor societies of Latin America were very low.
Neither had Latin America experienced anything like the Great War and its
consequent brutalization and militarization of politics. Latin American
governments, moreover, could with army backing easily suppress any kind of
popular opposition, fascist included. In any case, there was no left to speak of. The
very familiarity of dictatorship meant that a potential Mussolini would have
struggled to distinguish himself from the run-of-the-mill macho military ruler and
acquire the aura of a saviour. Brazil was something of an exception. Gendio
Varga's overthrow of the oligarchic 'Old Republic' in 1930 occurred at a time of
crisis caused by the collapse of prices for coffee. Brazil's main source of income
The ensuing economic and social dislocation ushered in a period of polarization
between communists and the fascistic Integralists The latter. with at least 200.000
members. rejected traditional Brazilian liberalism in favour of nationalism.
antisemitism. and anticornmimism. They sought to weld the country's diverse
ohnicities into a Brazilian race defined in historical and cultural terms. They
wanted to replace a system based on patronage with one of loyalty to nation and
regime. They anticipated the dream of the mobilized nation In the usual fascist
rituals, salutes, and shirts (green in this case). I.ike fascists in Romania and
Hungary. the Integralists came into conflict with an increasingly dictatorial regime.
In 1937 Varga established a frankly authoritarian 'New State. in alliance with the
coffee-planter disc and urban middle classes. The Imegralins were dissolved They
had been unable to establish a party broad enough to compete with Varga's
manipulation of patronage Neither were they able to match the Eastern European
fascists' appeal to the rural poor, who remained in thrall to ',hinters. The one Latin
Amnican regime that has sometimes been coons:Rad fascist is the Peron
dictatorship in Argentina. The counuy was more advanced than most Latin
American states, and had a long tradition of radical rightism, which owed
something to the conservative Catholic nationalism of Prance and Spain. Juan
Domingo Pato began as labour minister in the military regime of General Jose
Utibum another of the dictatorships that admired Mussolini and Hideo In 1943,
in a bid to provide the Uribum regime, which didn't have the unanimous support of
the wealthy, with popular support. Peri* turned to the trade unions. He negotiated a
deal, according to which the government implemented trade union demands
concerning welfare and income redistribution, while the unions backed Perdn's bid
foe international pro-eminence This combination of nationalism and socialism,
together with Pekin's admiration for Mussolini. and the attempt to organize a single
party. has led many to view this unusual regime as fascist Yet the fact that Peron
had not come to power at the head ofa mass pasty meant that one finds none of the
attempted undermining of the existing slate structures that was so characteristic of
fascism. The Perdnist regime also left room for opposition it was neither
totalitarian nor fascist.
THEMES OF FASCISM
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the
fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of
citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the
military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this
nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often
bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to
realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the
population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing,
even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was
to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. I dentification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
scapegoating as a means to divert the peoples attention from other problems, to
shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The
methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere usually
effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target
scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial
minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists,
homosexuals, and terrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably
labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial
infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was
seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert
national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the
ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-
dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They
were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually
codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of
the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and
could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised
more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of
licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and
implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible
with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public
unaware of the regimes excesses.
7. Obsession with national security
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling
elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond
any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national
security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even
treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never
proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached
themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray
themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elites
behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept
under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders
of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that
opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability
of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military
production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control.
Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure
a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not
citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the
political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably
crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion
or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a
vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them
were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were
considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were
tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox
ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To
these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no
right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge
prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked
power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged
into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents
of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted
among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to
enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would
receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would
gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a
position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing
national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the
media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood
by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus.
When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted
by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining
control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition
voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a
judiciary beholden to the power elite.

THE PROBLEM OF FASCISM
The time1930s, when it was widely assumed that there were only two viable
ideological positions: communism or fascism. Liberalism of the old school was
considered to be a failure, and not even worth considering. In the name of
anticommunism, and lacking a full faith in the workings of freedom, many weak-
willed old liberals turned to fascism as a viable alternative.
This was not a choice outside the mainstream: Professor Mussolinis writings
appeared in scholarly venues in English and were the subject of glowing articles in
the New York Times and other publications. In US politics, many intellectuals and
journalists had already bought into the view that society needed to be planned by a
strong man, and FDR took up the role.
In the early 1930s, it was not obvious to everyone that Hitler was an intolerable
evil rather than a belligerent presence that needed to be restrained and perhaps
even flattered for his interest in national planning. Thus it was John Maynard
Keynes himself who wrote the introduction to the 1935 German edition of his
treatise, and suggested that the total state that the National Socialists were then
building was perfectly suited for the implementation of his investment schemes.
Not all people have the same degree of opportunity cost since all people have
different ideologies and different things to loose (a suicidal person with nothing
has less to loose in a crime than a life loving rich person)
Opportunity cost and benefit are more complex than just a decision on a single
issue. Sometimes, even with that principal guiding one's self, a person doesn't
always make the best decisions. An example would be a lazy person: the lazy
person may see more of a value in being rich than lazy but stays lazy since they
perceive that each action that leads to being rich has a higher cost than each
alternative decision which keeps them lazy. Also they may see it as the chance of
being successful is uncertain same with the benefits but the benefits of being lazy
are seen and knows. The last reason may be that the person knows less about
success and therefore avoids that which they don't understand. Because of such
things as this, fascist see that opportunity cost and benefit, although effective in
low level decisions (sit or get up), can't possibly be the best system for higher up
decisions(be lazy or get rich) because of the more powerful lower level decisions
that have little to do, with regard to objectives, with the higher level decisions.
Not everyone is intelligent enough to see the opportunity cost and benefit of their
actions and/or people may not process the outcomes of actions before doing them.
An example: a person that doesn't understand the need for oxygen may
accidentally kill someone else through suffocation or a person may make a snap
decision which leads to the death of another person since the decision was made
without adequate reasoning.
As regards foreign policy, what began as expedience has turned, over time, into a
full-blown program. Militarism, of course, is an old standby, useful for example
during the Cold War to keep the masses distracted from noticing what was
happening to their liberty. What makes it different today is how it is united to an
overarching ideology, a distinctly right-wing form of central planning, which takes
careful thought to understand.
The ideology of the regime is nationalist and culturally conservative. It is
consistently antileftist in the sense that it rejects egalitarianism, cultural toleration,
free speech, and overt appeals to socialist envy. It is religious and Christian in
rhetoric. It makes an appeal for family, country, patriotism, and traditional
American values. It is ostensibly pro-business. It is anti-intellectual. It backs
middle-class welfare to the hilt.
Behind the rhetoric you find the iron fist of the state, forcing conformism and
regimentation. We have a kind of cult of personality too, in which the public is led
to believe through hints and nudges that the leader has a direct line to God.
The confluence of these ideological factors and their success in appealing to the
middle class can only prompt us to look at history to find its predecessors. Where
do we find central planning, warmongering, and justifications for cracking skulls
on a global scale? The 20th century offers many examples of dictatorial antileft
regimes. It is not a stretch to call these fascist.
Just as socialism is different in every country, so too is fascism. We dont see the
appeal to racial solidarity of the Nazis at work here. The Italian and Spanish cases
of interwar right-wing dictatorship come to mind, but there are differences there
too. In the case of Chile or pre-Castro Cuba, you had business working with
government to monopolize the economy.
So while our case borrows from all of these, it is its own unique variety of fascism:
evangelical Christianity and a global crusade, with anti-leftist but pro-statist
policies that show complete contempt for individual liberty at home and abroad.
How did conservative intellectuals and activists go from hating big government in
the 1990s to loving it and celebrating it today? There is a bad seed in the ideology
of American conservatism that spawns power worship. If you can get a group of
people to sing the murderous Battle Hymn of the Republic in their churches, and to take
a position on foreign affairs that is Mark Twains "War Prayer" come to life, the
rest is just a mop-up operation.
There is no sure blueprint for success other than for libertarians to do what each
individually does best, whether that means teaching students, organizing antiwar or
antitax rallies, writing large books on technical economic topics, or tirelessly
managing a compelling blog. Resistance is not futile but the most constructive and
noble stance of all.


PERFORMANCE OF FASCISM

With Darren Aronofsky's Oscar-nominated ballet thriller, "Black Swan," lasering
in on rail-thin physical perfection (as well as molting hangnails, shattering toenails
and lesbian lovemaking), coupled with the firestorm created by New York Times
dance critic Alastair Macaulay's sniping that ballerina Jenifer Ringer looked as if
she'd "eaten one sugar plum too many" in a recent "Nutcracker" performance, the
notion of body fascism placing a value on one's physical appearance is
flaming on today's cultural radar.
With Darren Aronofsky's Oscar-nominated ballet thriller, "Black Swan," lasering
in on rail-thin physical perfection (as well as molting hangnails, shattering toenails
and lesbian lovemaking), coupled with the firestorm created by New York Times
dance critic Alastair Macaulay's sniping that ballerina Jenifer Ringer looked as if
she'd "eaten one sugar plum too many" in a recent "Nutcracker" performance, the
notion of body fascism placing a value on one's physical appearance is
flaming on today's cultural radar.
Times have changed since 1948, when Moira Shearer, in the balletic masterpiece
"The Red Shoes," was tormented by having to choose between her art and her
lover and not obsessed with purging her foie gras to create a sleek line.
Weighing in on the discussion, then, the following questions come to mind: Is it
the critic's job to judge the body or the performance? Are they inextricably
intertwined? When does the aesthetic pronouncement become personal? As the
Guardian's Judith Mackrell recently wrote, "To some extent dance critics are all
body fascists." And Macaulay, sticking to his ink-stained guns in his rebuttal,
posited that ballet is the one art that makes dancers' bodies "subject to the most
intense scrutiny."
Granted, how that body is viewed has decidedly changed over the years, though the
packing on of pounds and other fleshly flaws have played a recurring role for
several centuries. In the 19th century, Marie Taglioni, branded a hunchback by
fellow students, endured dictatorial training by her father, Filippo, to become the
period's quintessential Romantic dancer. In so doing, Marie transcended the
corporeal to embody grace and beauty in "La Sylphide," choreographed expressly
for her by her taskmaster father.
The early 1900s saw the rise of the frail but elegant-looking Anna Pavlova, who
though not a supreme technician was a sublime artist. Thus the reigning classical
ideal took root, culminating in the Balanchine ballerina, a code for the achingly
thin but racehorse-strong dancer populating George Balanchine's New York City
Ballet beginning in the 1950s.
Curiously, City Ballet is also home to Ringer, who earlier had suffered from an
eating disorder and more recently had had a baby, compounding the sting of
Macaulay's words. Appearing on the "Today" show last month to discuss the issue,
Ringer was asked whether her body should be written about. She replied that as a
dancer, her body was part of her art form and was therefore subject to criticism,
adding, "At the same time, I am not overweight, [but] I do have a more womanly
body type than the stereotypical ballerina."
To reject or revere the uber-skinny balletic paradigm remains a personal choice;
Russian troupes, including the Eifman Ballet of St. Petersburg and the Perm Ballet,
with their coteries of "heroin chic" dancers, cause both wagging tongues and
groupie swoonings.
And while body fascism has long ruled modeling French model Isabelle Caro,
who had suffered from anorexia since age 13, died in November at age 28 in a
Paris hospital the opera world has recently jumped on the body bandwagon too.
In 2004, soprano Deborah Voigt was famously fired from a Covent Garden
production of "Ariadne Auf Naxos" because the director claimed she was "too fat
to wear a sleek black cocktail dress," prompting Voigt to undergo gastric bypass
surgery that year.
One wonders whether Isadora Duncan would have reacted similarly. The iconic
grandmother of modern dance had her admirers even when she was in her 40s and
some 25 pounds overweight. In 1921 six years before Duncan died at age 50
a 17-year-old Frederick Ashton was transfixed by a performance she gave
despite what he called her "blowsy" appearance. Years later, it inspired the
choreographer to create "Five Brahms Waltzes in the Manner of Isadora Duncan."
By ushering in the modern dance era and changing the nature of ballet in the
process, Duncan helped revolutionize how the moving body was perceived, even if
she didn't alter the perception of how dancers' bodies should look.
These days, gender also accounts for a certain amount of body fascism, with men
getting off easier and some even making use of their imperfections: The erstwhile
bad boy of dance, a plump Mark Morris, didn't raise eyebrows as a performer
because his world-class moves and choreography trumped his girth; Lawrence
Goldhuber is a 350-pound dancer-choreographer whose size, according to one New
York Times review, is "of almost no account." Then there is Ringer's Cavalier,
Jared Angle. While Macaulay wrote that Angle seemed "to have been sampling
half the Sweet realm," the ensuing chorus of disapprovals was not directed at that
slight.
Because "fat," as Macaulay also wrote as part of his rebuttal, "is not so much a
feminist issue as a sexist one."
Finally, with the mirror and the scale both feeding the inherent narcissism of
dance, appearances are often the reason for landing a gig. Thus the anthemic
lament "Dance: Ten; Looks: Three" from "A Chorus Line."

ACHIEVEMENT OF FASCISM

TO pass an impartial judgment on the results obtained by two years and a half of
Fascist government in Italy is not an easy matter. The difficulties that beset an
Italian in such an effort are quite apparent; but even the foreigner is hardly better
off. Fascism has awakened great interest beyond the confines of Italy, winning
popularity in certain circles, arousing animosity in others. Almost everywhere
various political connotations are attached to the word "Fascism" which provoke
now admiration and now hostility, now emulation and now mistrust, but which
inevitably leave little room for cool appraisal. Perhaps we may best clear the
ground of preconceptions, if we avoid regarding Fascism as a new dispensation, as
the beginning of a new era in our modern civilization (so it is represented by its
best accredited leaders), and take it simply for what it is, as the most recent phase
of the struggle to achieve Italian unity -- as an Italian and not as an universal
movement.

Fascism, as is well known, sprang from a reaction against the threat of Bolshevism,
and from an uprising of national sentiment against the humiliation of prolonged
policies of weakness in domestic as well as in foreign affairs. It was, in its
beginnings, only the impulsive manifestation of a need for strengthening the power
of the state in the face of social and political disintegration. The same need was felt
in other countries after the war, but in Italy much more strongly than elsewhere.
The realization of national unity is a very recent episode in Italian history: it was
scarcely more than half a century ago that the House of Savoy gathered the
dismembered provinces of Italy under one sceptre. Various forces tending toward
disunion still remained strong in the country, all the more since the Italian war,
which was declared without enthusiasm and proved fruitful of sacrifices, left many
Italians with more reason for disappointment and bitterness than for satisfaction.
The demand for "strong" policies, both domestic and foreign, was most articulate
in the higher bourgeoisie (manufacturers, land owners, and civil servants) and
especially among the more conservative portions of the middle classes.

Fascism was born of the union between the conservative elements mentioned
above and these popular revolutionary forces, a partnership to which the former
contributed something more than their financial resources: at the critical moment
of the "March on Rome," they paralyzed any inclinations toward spasmodic
repression that the government may have nourished. It was with the complicity and
in the pay of the conservative bourgeoisie that the Fascists made their conquest of
power at a time when the country at large, weary of communist nagging and eager
for peace and a chance to work, was slowly regaining its balance. The Fascists
bore the brunt of the struggle and naturally intended to pocket the profits. It is just
here that the personality of Mussolini begins to count.

The history of Fascism since the "March on Rome" revolves around the deft
maneuvers of the Fascist chieftain to drive with his one whip the two horses
hitched to his chariot. Mussolini must be credited with one virtue: a sincere intent,
on attaining power, to apply the strength of Fascism to the restablishment of the
principle of order and authority without doing further violence to constitutional
procedure. His policy was to restore the prestige of the state in the name of a party
representing the majority of the country. This moderation gained him for some
time the benevolent neutrality of a portion of public opinion. As late as May, 1923,
the liberal leader, Amendola, declared that he was reserving decision as to Fascism
and was willing to judge the latter by its works.

That Italian finance has been placed on a sound basis cannot be denied, and this
happy outcome has been realized by a most fortunate coperation of the
Nationalists with the Duce. The case of France bears witness to the difficulty
which a parliamentary system, at the mercy of political cliques and political
influences, encounters in balancing a national budget in time of crisis. Mussolini's
Parliament, on the other hand, had a healthy respect and a wholesome fear of him,
and he found the task much easier. He cannot be refused the credit of having
resisted pressure from his lower class partisans who were only too ready to pillage
the state; and he has found means, even against his own troops, to support his
Ministers in their difficult labors which, to judge by official reports, would seem
now to be drawing to a close. In 1925 state income was about 475,000,000 lire
greater than state expenditure. Not only has monetary inflation been reduced by
1,000,000,000 lire, but the fiduciary paper now in circulation -- 20,700,000,000
lire -- does not seem excessive for a country of 42,000,000 people. In these
circumstances, the sum of $850,000,000 that Italy has undertaken to pay toward
the settlement of her war debts Italian experts themselves do not regard as
overburdensome provided the economic situation continues favorable.
To cite only one example, we may suspect that present-day Italian attitudes are not
strengthening the desire for independence in Austria, that, in fact, they are forcing
Austria and Germany closer together.
A war-torn Europe, repentant for past mistakes, is now blindly groping through the
haze of uncertain economic formulas to find a way to unity as the solution of her
material problems. Germany has been giving most tangible demonstrations of good
will. The Franco-German menace has all but vanished. But the imperialistic aims
of Italy, and her adventurous policies in the Near East, make her, whatever her
statesmen may say to the contrary, exactly what Russia is in the Far East: a source
of instability and disquietude.

CONCLUSION

Some liberal writer prompted by their equal fro fascism and communism
have sought to club the two as totalitarian dictatorship. For instance R. M.
Maciver (The web of government 1965) and Alan Ball (modern politics and
government 1988) have adopted this classification. This is not only unfair
but misguiding. Fascism tends to suppress the masses to secure that interest
of a tiny class in all sphere of social, economical and political. On the
contrary communism even when it uses coercion seeds to distribute
benefits to secure the maximum satisfaction of the masses. G. A. Armon and
G. B. Powell in the noted work comparative politics. A development
approach (1966) have aptly made the distinction.

Totalitarian systems suppress demands coming from their societies and are
unresponsive to demands coming from the international environment. At the
same time they regulate and control behaviors in their societies and seek to
draw maximum resources from their populations. Communist totalitarianism
differs from fascist to totalitarianism in having a strong distributive
capability as well.

Fascism besides its retrograde class character symbolizes a seek mental and
political attitude. It fosters anti human and anti progressive forces. It seeks to
curb liberty and equality and to distort justice. In shot it is a philosophy of
the lunatic fringe, champions of terror and violence who advocate
superiority of one race, section, religion, language or culture relegating the
rest of mankind to slavery.
BIBLOIGRAPHY
1. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism. Berkley, CA. University of California Press,
1976.
2. Halperin, Samuel William. Mussolini and Italian Fascism. Princeton, NJ. Van
Norstrad.
3. Reich, Wilhelm. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York, NY. Farrar,
Strauss & Giroux, 1970.
4. Wilkinson, Ellen Cicely. Conze, Edward. Why Fascism. New York, AMS
Press. 1973.
5. Gregor, A. James. Interpretation of Fascism. Morristown, NJ. General
Learning Press, 1974.
6. Eisenberg, Dennis. The Re-emergence of Fascism. South Brunswick NJ,
AS. Barens, 1968, 1967.
7. Cohen, Carl. Communism, Fascism, and Democracy, the Theoretical
Foundations. New York, Random House, 1972.
8. Tanin, O. Ioquan E. Militarism and Fascism in Japan Westport, Conn.
Greenwood Press, 1973.
9. Woolf, S. J. Fascism in Europe. Methuen, London & New York. New York,
NY. 1968.
10. King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism.
Doubleday, New York NY. 1989.