[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?

  • comfy@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

    Maybe in theory fascists could create that in-group/out-group distinction without race or ethnicity being the dividing line, but I think that there will always be some kind of bigotry involved.

    I believe that fascists could effectively use state nationalism in place of race and racism. They debatably did in Italy. I say debatably because they flip-flipped a lot – even just skimming the Wikipedia page on Italian fascism and racism will get you stark contradictions like Talks with Mussolini (1932), “Race? It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today” while talking of “our Aryan and Mediterranian race” in speeches ten years before and enacting the Racial Laws in 1938. So I believe it was used as a tool at times, but it wasn’t essential in its rise or necessary at any time. We can look at Amercia, despite its infamous racism, and see the real chavanistic, bigoted power its patriotic unity as the USA has.

    I agree that there will always be some kind of bigotry, I just think racism is convenient but arbitrary, and we should be alert to other forms of bigotry even if racism is absent. As for anti-foreigner bigotry (whether racial or nationality), I suspect that’s intrinsic, it can’t be replaced.

    I’m pretty sure those are just talking points meant to lure in rubes, or are meant to apply only to the in-group when they take power.

    This is entirely possible. Even in hindsight, it can be hard to tell sometimes between what is sincere and what is propaganda.

    re: ecofascism

    Agreed, bad example from me.

    Umberto Eco

    Added to my reading list, thanks :)