16 July, 2019

Blog

Fascism: Towards An Understanding

By Charles Ponnuthurai Sarvan

Off and on, one now encounters the word “fascism” but those who use the term don’t pause to define or to make clear what they mean by it. Hoping to be of use, I resurrect in what follows parts of something I wrote a while back. An earlier meaning of the word “nice” was “precise”, and so it is we try to make, for example, nice distinctions between ‘democracy’ in form and true democracy, that is, in spirit : the former may prove to be merely majoritarianism. So too, there’s a conflating of “religion” (as actually believed in and expressed in public and private life) and “doctrine” with its adjurations and lofty, noble ideals.

Mussolini

Etymologically, “fascism” is derived from fasces, the bundle of rods with a projecting axe blade carried in ancient Roman times as a symbol of a magistrate’s power. Around the time of World War 11, there were people and parties proud to proclaim they were fascist. Today, largely as a result of the crimes against humanity then perpetrated, the term is pejorative. It has become a Schimpfwort, a term of abuse, used with little understanding, applied loosely to a person or persons thought to be ultra-nationalistic, authoritarian and intolerant: the last an inevitable concomitant of the first three. I endeavour to describe a few of the characteristics of fascism and point to some of the factors which lead to its rise. 

All fascist states are dictatorships, but not all dictatorships are fascist. Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the state above all other loyalties: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State” (Mussolini, 28 October 1925). Fascism, preaching “the cult of the nation, contempt for rationalism and universalism, and hatred for democracy, liberalism and Marxism” constantly maintains an “atmosphere of feverish excitement”: The New York Review of Books, 12 May 2005, page 52. However, where “nation” is concerned fascism, rejecting multi-ethnicity and inclusiveness (attitudes and treatment urged by expatriate Sri Lankans of their new homes and hosts) claims that one group, and only those composing that one group, represent the “true” nation: “racial”, linguistic or religious nationalism. Fascism harbours and propagates notions of group “purity” and exclusiveness. It excludes those outside the privileged group – even though they may have lived in the country for generations. An exclusive and excluding belief in one’s own group leads to notions of superiority: every single member of the group, irrespective of character and conduct in private or public life, irrespective of qualification or contribution, is superior to any and all of the “other”. If this prejudice allows exceptions, it’s on the argument that “exceptions prove the rule”. So all “white” people are better (in intelligence as in morality) than all people of colour; all men are superior to all women; all those belonging to religion X are superior to all those who belong to other religions. Unfortunately, exceptions encountered by the prejudiced, rather than provoking thought or undermining their existing assumptions and prejudices, serve only to confirm to them the general validity of their beliefs. It is not easy to dismantle group-prejudice formed and hardened over the years. Besides, new paths of thought threaten an entire edifice of assumptions whose continued existence depends on its foundations not being scrutinised and tested.

In the service of the state and of the privileged group, fascism celebrates “masculinity”, force, and the regenerative power of violence. Until they come to power, fascist groups rely on “volunteers” to incite the public, and to violently disrupt oppositional meetings. Those of the privileged group who advocate discussion and peaceful means are dismissed as foolish or as weak and timid; those who urge, “Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated,” looked down upon with contempt. Such individuals are seen as aberrations; going further, as traitors who deserve to be intimidated, if not attacked, even eliminated.  

Superficially, fascism is a popular or mass movement, but with its emphasis on the state, with its demand for military discipline and unquestioning obedience, real power rests not with the people but in an individual, a supreme leader, embodying the will of the people and the state, and in the small group that surrounds him. Fascism, generally, has been a masculine movement, and though women of the privileged group were seen as cooperating and helping in the total effort, their role was largely in the domestic sphere, particularly in the bringing up of children who had the “correct” values and attitudes. In that sense, fascism, while claiming to be radical and forward-looking, is also traditional. Indeed, it claims to be inspired by, and to seek the re-establishment of, a past that was great and glorious, wholesome and pure: the ideology is secular and spiritual, martial and romantic, violent and idealistic, revolutionary and conservative. 

History shows that often a corollary of righteousness is cruelty: the ready and unquestioning willingness to be cruel to those who are different or who differ. To hate and to be violent become badges of virtue and patriotism: the greater the hate; the greater the willingness to be intolerant and violent, ipso facto, the greater the patriotism: Descartes’ Cogito. Ergo sum (I think. Therefore, I am) becomes, “I hate. Therefore, I’m patriotic”. “But I hate them more than you. Therefore, I am more patriotic,” and so the competition goes. 

Fascism may mobilise the masses in the struggle for power but is against socialism because the latter sees the “nation” on the basis of the horizontal lines of class, rather than on the vertical lines of “race” or religion. Socialism forms links, makes common cause, with workers from other groups, both within and outside the country. This, in turn, is seen by fascists as leading to, if not divided loyalties and sympathies, then to a dilution of total commitment to the state, its leader and his immediate supporters. Fascist leaders may make use of a religion, its priests or monks, and of its fervent adherents: those who hold other religious beliefs are wrong; and being wrong, they are inferior; being inferior, they are undeserving of equal rights and humane treatment. If fascism is a political religion, this particular (religious) expression of it may be termed spiritual fascism. However, once in power, those who represent religion must either fully join the state or be content with serving and supporting it. An exception is when priests, mullahs or monks come to power and declare themselves to be the representatives of the true state: sometimes, the greed for power masquerades as religion, righteousness, and a religion-based (as opposed to a secular) morality. Fascism may achieve power through legitimate means, but its true and awful nature is revealed only once it’s securely in power – in other words, when it’s too late.

As for the factors that lead to the rise of fascism, perhaps the most important element is economic: economic distress and desperation; unemployment and inflation, leading to social unrest, sporadic acts of violence and lawlessness. Fascism thrives in an atmosphere of anger and frustration, of confusion and hopelessness, with democracy adrift and failing to deliver. The present sorry state of affairs is contrasted with a constructed past (that is, more imaginary than real) when the nation stood at a height of achievement, prosperity and greatness. The contrast between this past and the present is extreme and, therefore, also extremely mortifying. Into this state of affairs, onto this stage, steps a messiah, a saviour, the leader of a party who promises a simple and quick way to economic and social, cultural and moral, salvation. He offers not only prosperity but piety and purity, a return to the old (noble and heroic) ways of life. The nation is partly reproached: it has forgotten its true or earlier self, the ancestors and the past; it has strayed from the old ways and become decadent. But primarily (when not entirely), the responsibility for the present unhappy state of affairs is placed on the other group or groups. For example, British fascists attribute what they see as the decline of “great” Britain to the coming of people of colour, confusing coincidence with cause. The word “scapegoat” derives from the old Jewish tradition of symbolically placing all the sins of the community onto a goat, then chasing the unfortunate creature out into the wilderness, and so cleansing society: fascism fashions its own scapegoat, and tries to exterminate or to drive it away into the political, economic and social wilderness. At the very least, fascism will attempt to bring that (scapegoat) group under total control, and subordination. 

The above is a generalised comment on fascism. Whether any of it is relevant to Sri Lanka, I leave for readers to decide.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 3
    9

    Velupillai Prabhakaran was a fascist. Hitler who is a fascist wanted to eliminate Jews and massacred them. Prabhakaran who is a descendant of a slave brought to this country by Portuguese or Dutch wanted to eliminate Native Sinhalayo and massacred them.

    • 1
      0

      Who massacred whom ? More Tamils died than Sinhalayos. 1983 was a shameless massacre. The Sinhala Buddhist fascist ideas will keep SL on low key trajectory economically and otherwise. Dont even they agree that we have a bunch of jokers ruling us now wit no prospect of a saviour in the horizon, and thye are the result 70% Sinhala vote.

      • 0
        0

        SheltonW,
        Except Sinhala two legged donkeys of Unpatriotic National Party and Jathika Hela Karumaya, no other Sinhalayo voted to Hansaya. Out of 5.8m voted against Hansaya, 98% were Sinhalyo. Hansaya won because of Demala and Muslim votes.

    • 0
      0

      Eagle!
      Veluppilai Prabaharan did not want to eliminate any body. He only wanted to safeguard the Tamils from the violent Sinhalese like you.

  • 0
    2

    Buddha Dhamma says Violence leads only to violence and there by the destruction of both sides. That had been said over 2500 years ago.
    Do any of those who lived violence are living and are doing well. Hitler committed suicide. Napoleon was hanged in the open. So, do the Pabakaran he was floating in a muddy lagoon and finally his ash was thrown to Mooladuwa Sea.
    It is the all Middle eastern originated religions that feel superior to everybody as they think that the Almighty has the rights to rule every one below him and the Pyramid scheme runs. They think they are superior because of that they are arrogant, aggressive. but, for some time, they were losing. what happened to that superiority in Europe. churches had been sold to Residential buildings and to hotels. Why there are 41000 denominations and where ever EVANGELISM goes it is an Association, I mean churches are independent business enterprises. They sell the almighty and dance, Drink and go for tours to see various pastors with magical powers which make people fall down because of their magical powers.
    True buddhists never kill. But Sinhala buddhists kill because they like to live too when everything is going against them. that is what happened to Tamils.

  • 1
    2

    “Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the state above all other loyalties”

    This is WRONG… As much as socialists and communists would like to associate facisism with right wing politics, it is applicable to both LEFT and right equally. Have you been drinking antifa coolaid?

    Dear writer your alternate facts/fake news is not welcomed.

  • 2
    1

    Fascism alone is bad but Fascism mixed wit Racism like in Sinhala Lanka it is a Lethal Mix which is highly toxic and corrosive. We are reaping the Harvest.

  • 1
    0

    Holden McGroin writes that fascism can be either of the Right or of the Left. I thank him for this comment. (It is refreshing to read a response that is relevant – different from the usual irrelevant, vulgar, abuse: in sporting terms, a playing of the player rather than the ball.)

    Yes, there are elements of fascism in the Left as well. For example, “everything for the state” (which means, in effect, those few who compose the state) applied as well to the horror of Stalin and Mao. But I trust McGroin will admit that there are features of fascism peculiar to the Right – see, for example, the quote below. I should have made this clear. I welcome being “pulled up”. One must be more circumspect when writing – more “nice” as I use the term.

    “fascism, rejecting multi-ethnicity and inclusiveness (attitudes and treatment urged by expatriate Sri Lankans of their new homes and hosts) claims that one group, and only those composing that one group, represent the “true” nation: “racial”, linguistic or religious nationalism. Fascism harbours and propagates notions of group “purity” …

    For the above, see Mussolini and Hitler.

  • 0
    0

    Fascism was fairly precisely defined in its time by many Marxists and Dimitrov’s thesis on it was pretty much comprehensive.
    The global context of capitalism has changed and fascism as a force in former colonies is a new phenomenon. But the essential features of fascism remain intact.
    Its use of populism and whipping up of racist (now religious) sentiments and anti-left thinking are key features.
    Any narrow nationalism has much fascist potential.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.