[Classical] Fascism was interesting for a few reasons, some of them being its relationship to the labour movement:

  • ᴉuᴉlossnW was a prominent socialist until their expulsion from the PSI for their nationalist views, and if we take them at their word in their last testament while captured by communists, they considered themself a socialist
  • Fascism managed to bring other former Marxist communists into their ranks, notably Nicola Bombacci, a founding member of the Communist Party of Italy in 1921 until their expulsion for fascist views in 1927
  • Fascism was economically a class-collaborationist ideology (specifically corporativism, from the Latin corpus, body)

Now, of course, we have the benefit of hindsight and can see what a disaster Italian fascism and its friends were and the name of ‘fascism’ is forever tainted. But theoretically a modern equivalent could similarly appeal to both nationalists and the socialist-leaning today in a similar way. Fascism doesn’t logically imply racism, nor does it necessarily exclude certain types of progressivism: see BUF gaining large support from women by being pro-suffrage, see environmentalism of eco-fascists, and consider some modern neofash parties adopting social democrat policy points.

With all this in mind, what were the early warning signs that Fascism was not going to be pro-worker, despite its rhetoric? How well do you believe socialists will be able to spot them?

  • Anarcho-BolshevikMEnglish
    22·
    2 months ago

    That’s a good question! Although the Fascists criticized both socialism and (liberal) capitalism, they did not spend their spare time waylaying capitalists, let alone as often as they harassed and massacred us. In fact, the Fascists received significant funding from various businessmen, who used the Fascists to exterminate around three thousand of us from 1920 to 1922.

    Fascist ‘anticapitalism’ might not have been quite as shallow as it first appeared, but in any event it had little in common with our anticapitalism. Quoting Robert Paxton:

    While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value [that] they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity.

    (Source.)

    The petty bourgeoisie was the basis of Fascism, and the petty bourgeoisie was in a struggle against both the haute bourgeoisie and us (often the latter more than the former), hence Fascism’s philosophic incoherency. Since most or all of the petty bourgeoisie dreams of becoming ‘successful’, though, they cannot abolish the haute bourgeoisie, only criticize or possibly moderate it. This is why many ‘anticonsumerists’ recommend buying from small businesses as a supposed alternative to buying from big businesses.

    Many Fascists also had a military background, and it was common for Fascists to have both military and petty bourgeois backgrounds together. Take Adolf Schicklgruber, for example. Of course there are also some antifascists who have military backgrounds, but they tend to be very antiwar and unhappy about their military history. Lower‐class socialists are overwhelmingly antiwar. Petty bourgeois ‘anticapitalists’, not so much.

    If you find any self‐identified socialist promoting the retention of private property, capital, the law of value, generalized commodity production, wage labour, or businesses as long‐term strategies, you’ll have found a pseudosocialist. We can argue that these phenomena might have to be tolerated in the short‐term, but trying to preserve them for centuries is neither possible nor desirable.

    I hope that this helps! Feel free to ask me more.

    • comfy@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      6·
      2 months ago

      It definitely helps! This gives a useful overview on the Fascist (incl. Nazi) denouncement of ‘bourgeois capitalism’ [decadent haute capitalists] and some of the reasons they don’t take steps towards actually removing the haute bourgeoise which they continually criticize.

      Can you expand on what you mean by pointing out Fascists often had military backgrounds? I’m aware that WWI shaped a lot of Fascist leaders and ideas (e.g. German stab-in-the-back myth, overall militancy and pro-war aspects of Fascism, creating economic crisis) there’s definitely a relationship, but as you mentioned, being having a military background isn’t enough on its own as there are antiwar antifascists from military families and who served in the military, even high-up former members like Green Beret SSG Evan Brown, and then there are cases like the '43 Group (returning Jewish ex-servicemen from WWII who effectively destroyed the BUF). Is the take-away that we should be cautious of ex-military who remain pro-war?

      • Anarcho-BolshevikMEnglish
        6·
        2 months ago

        If they won’t listen to reason, then it is probably for the best to shun or expel self‐identified socialists (e.g. Benito Mussolini) who persistently advocate adding another dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (e.g. the Kingdom of Italy) to a war, or who repeatedly defend (neo)imperialist aggressors such as the NATO or the so‐called ‘State of Israel’.

        While the tendency seems to be somewhat commoner in those with a military background, it is, of course, by no means universal to them, and technically anybody can be prowar. As with a history under abusive parenters, a military background can be a cause for concern but certainly no guarantee that somebody is a potential neofascist.

        So basically,

        Is the take-away that we should be cautious of ex-military who remain pro-war?

        We should be cautious of anybody who remains prowar, yes.