'...the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." (The US dictionary definition has gotten somewhat squishier since then, as all the larger dictionary companies have been bought up by multinational corporations.)'www.commondreams.org
It's an over-used word. Anyone care to attempt a modern definition of 'fascism'? Has the meaning evolved since the 1940's? (Do those big, bad corporations fiddle with definitions in dictionaries that they own?)
I believe that use of the word fascist has gotten so muddled that it's difficult to define.
My personal understanding is that fascism is autocratic government promoting nationalistic, racial or religious zeolotry. I believe that it is especially symptomatic of a fascist government to latch on to religious, racial or nationistic pride and fervor as a means to rally support.
I don't know if this is technically correct but it certainly seems to be the usage.
I think some examples that could be debated - Islamic Republic of Iran as facist? Milosevic in Yugoslavia as a facist? Saddam Hussein as a facist? The Taliban as a facist government - doesn't fit with autocracy though.
Obviously Franco, Hitler and Mussolini are the prototypes. What about Castro? Or Noriega?
Is it a term like terrorist that tries to umbrella too many under it?
Personally I think Iran and Korea fit the definition pretty tightly.
Oh and Ataturk was a facist but he managed to have a positive memory in history. It is still illegal to say anything negative about Ataturk in Turkey (at least it was 10 years ago).
Posts: 3039 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
An implication in the article quoted is that the word 'fascism' has, over the years, somehow lost the idea of involving corporate power as part of a dictatorial government.
It's dificult to define the difference between Hitler's fascism and Stalin's communism, but one possibility is that Hitler was much kinder to national and international companies. Some did very well under, and dealing with, the Nazis.
How then, can relatively unindustrialised countries, without powerful corporations, have 'fascist' governments? Wouldn't 'totalitarian' be a better word?
Fascist has long, and understandably, been a term of abuse in the vocabulary of those of the left. It is now a term of abuse used by all sides when they wish to accuse somebody or some organisation of being dictatorial and acting without consulting or considering what the speaker considers to be 'the people' or 'the majority of the people' By extension, the word 'fascism' has gone the same way.
Arguing to have the word (or fascism) applied appropriately and with any regard to history or politics is, sadly, now a lost cause. It's about as much use as arguing that calling a man by the C word is a misdescription on anatomical grounds .
When those of a thinking disposition in Britain hear it they assume that the speaker has lost the argument or has no valid evidence or no argument to start with
That said, I still find some nostalgic appeal in the description 'little Hitler' which old people in Britain still apply to any jobsworth [ jobsworth: a petty official who is a stickler for rules regardless of common sense " because to allow it this time would be more than my job's worth "]
Spoken languages are living entities, and as such they develop, evolve, and change at all levels: phonological, syntactical, lexical. Old English "weird" meant 'fate,' for example. Perhaps these changes are happening faster now, and the original meaning does get blurred or generalized. The way I hear "fascist" used more and more is in reference to any one (or group) which attempts to exert its will on others, particularly through government fiat. I myself have called the fanactics who push smoking bans in private businesses fascists.
Usage of any word can evolve over time. We have way too many expressions that now simply mean "very good", for example, having lost their distinctiveness; brilliant, awesome, wonderful, fantastic, terrific, outstanding, excellent...
Has there ever been a deliberate campaign to force a new usage onto a word?
An attempt to clarify and preserve the original meaning of fascist;
'...I know the president’s new buzzword is “Islamo-fascist.” It focus-groups well in the Bible Belt and Miami. But I’m deeply disappointed you would stoop to such cheap, insulting Dr.-Goebbles-style propaganda.
As an educated man, you know fascism is a phenomenon of Western industrial states in which racists and militarists join hands with conservative parties and the military industrial complex to form the fascist, corporate state.
Fascism is unknown in the Muslim world. Mussolini and Hitler were Christians...'Eric Margolis
English is very democratic. If enough people accept that a word (like 'hopefully' or 'gay' for example) is to be used differently, it happens. But what about when a relatively small group of politicians try to change the meaning of a word? Is it likely to really 'take'?
Come to think of it, although 'gay' seems to have been universally adopted to mean 'homosexual', surely that idea started off as a deliberate (political?) attempt to find a new word without any judgemental baggage. Why did that work? Is it just that 'gay' is easier to say?
'As a historian of Nazi Germany, I have been intrigued by the widespread use of the term "fascist" in public discourse over the last few weeks. Since early August, the Bush Administration has undertaken a coordinated campaign to link "fascism" with political Islam and with Muslim-based opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
President Bush claimed that the arrests of terrorist conspirators in England were "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists," and referred to an "Islamic fascism ... totalitarian in nature" in Lebanon and elsewhere.
This raises the question: exactly what is fascism? What is served by the application of this term to Muslim fundamentalists—does this help clarify history or deepen our understanding of current events, which is the goal of historians like myself?'www.news-press.com
Apparently, the Whitehouse (at least) has dropped the 'fascist' epithet:
'For a while last summer, Bush depicted the war as one against "Islamic fascism," borrowing a phrase from conservative commentators. The strategy backfired, further fanning anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world.
The "fascism" phrase abruptly disappeared from Bush's speeches, reportedly after he was talked out of it by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush confidant now with the State Department.
Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president. But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use `violent extremist,'" she said.'www.commondreams.org
By extension, the word 'fascism' has gone the same way.
.
