Absolute, disgusting, nervebraking filth

[Molotov]

Hitler was also partially Jew, no? And just because he was truly insecure and afraid of Jews it doesn't mean fascism, from the moment it was born, was against Jews in general, meaning anti-Semitic. If you look it logically, the majority of Israelis are far right conservatives, they get high with constant war and the killings of fellow Palestinians and Arabs and they haven't elected any government that is not solely consisted by the right political assembly.

Far right conservatives DO NOT EQUAL fascists. There is (a lot) more difference between a fascist and a conservative than there is between a fascist and a socialist, philosophically and practically. George, the kind of 'logical conclusion' you're drawing is the kind idiots make on youtube, or 4chan, or wherever retards spend their internet time. I learnt the difference between a fascist (I include, in this description, Nazis, nationalists, racialists and so on - the 'extreme right', as stupid people and the press put it) and a conservative, and the similarity between a fascist and a socialist or a syndicalist, when I was about fourteen.

I think much of the problem arises from America, where they use political terms and descriptions incredibly poorly. For a democracy, they are probably the most politically ignorant people in the world.

[Amazeroth]

Italy did invent the Italian branch of Fascism (and the word for it worldwide), not every other ideology also labeld fascist. Mussolini has influenced Hitler, sure, but he didn't create national-socialism.

Did I say it did? Come on, usually I'd be the first to point out the differences between National Socialism and Fascism.

Sorry, I forgot that you're one of the few who don't call the nazis fascists. But if you don't, then Fascism has been an influence, but not the most controverse ideology in the 20th century. I'd say that was either national socialism, but rather than that, communism.

I doubt that he was admired by most of those you cite

Read more, you'd be surprised. Especially with Churchill, even I was shocked.

True, you may have read more than I did on this matter, so I won't further doubt you.

I know that he hasn't been admired by Dollfuß (who also wasn't a fascist)

Aha, you buy all that sound of music crap do you? The only country to offer military aid to the Austrians was Fascist Italy, and there was more to it than containing Hitler. Dollfuss was a never a declared Fascist, that's true. But if we exclude him then we exclude nearly every "Fascist" leader because none of them (apart from Mosley, who used both Fascist and National Socialist, then dropped both) ever used the word expect to hasilty add "of course we're not Fascists, Fascism is a foreign movement and we care only about our own nation of <X> but all the same Mussolini is a great man and uniforms and right-arm salutes are cool" etc. etc. What is "Fascist" about Dolfusss is Mussolini loved him to pieces, he was a Catholic Corporatist, a nationalist who believed in the mystic virtues of the Austrian peasant "volk" and he was a dictator who used tanks and aeroplanes against his opponents. He also (unsucssfully) tried to create a one-party state under his Vaterländische Front, and exchanged letters with Mussolini in which he compared Hitler to the Soviet Union, a thesis with which Mussolini would definitely had agreed. In fact Mussolini did, when the Austrian National Socialists murdered Dolfuss Mussolini launched into his most violent tirade against national socialism, in which he declared nazism the return of the Germanic barbarism which destroyed Rome (while as always he acknowledged the similarities to Fascism). Hitler's invasion of democratic Austria is a myth.

Now I think you forget that I am Austrian myself, and that the Sound of Music isn't even widely known here (to the extent that once an Austrian president was greeted in Washington not with the actual Austrian anthem, but with Edelweiß from the movie, without really knowing why everyone expected the Austrians to show respect to it). Mussolini may have loved Dollfuß, but that hardly makes him a fascist. Dollfuß was a patriot, but not a nationalist, he never said, and never acted like it, that another people would be less worthy than the Austrians. He used his weapons against the former socialist party, who also used their weapons against him (our glorious 2-day-long civil war). He wasn't a dictator but he tried to remodel the democratic system into a "Ständestaat", which wouldn't have been ruled by his party but by representatives of each "Stand", quite similar to a parliament (though not democratic).

I am not a fan of him though, he did manage to keep the nazis away until they murdered him, but that's it. He did stop the parliament from reassembling after it had dissolved itself, he did ban all other parties and their paramilitarian organisations(though also his own), and he did create the Vaterländische Front, not as a party, but as an organisation above party lines (his attempt to create a one-party state thus was successfull). Exchanging letters with Mussolini, in a time when you need his army to defend you against Germany, doesn't really make him a fascist.

To summarize: He did rule more or less as a dictator by banning all parties, and he even did build internment camps (which I'm surprised you didn't mention) - though they were nothing compared KZs. He wasn't a nationalist, he wasn't a racist, he never sought to enlarge Austrian territory - all he did was to defend it against Hitler the best way he found. If being a dictator is all that it needs to be a fascist, yes, then he was one, but if that's not enough, then he wasn't).

Nobody claimed that Hitler invaded Austria when it was a democracy, but that hardly has anything to do with fascism.

And here is one of Dolfuss' parties (Christlichsoziale Partei, yet to become the Vaterländische Front) posters. Note the Jew (though, before one of you people start another strawman, of course Fascism is not always anti-Semitic)).

Compare this poster to any poster of any other party in that time, and then explain why this specific poster shows that the party behind it is fascist.

The Risorgimento wasn't glorious but pathetic, the only thing the Italians managed there (without French or Prussian help) was to conquer the Vatican

Funny, last time I visited Italy it was a single state with Rome as a capital in which Jews do not live in ghettos as they did before the Risorgimento, and it actually happened to be a modern nation state. But it appears I'm wrong, the only thing the Risorgimento achieved was taking the Vatican.

And Molotov, I've seen Garibaldi's own trousers in Rome!

Because if the Risorgimento hadn't happened, we all know that Italy would still be where it was 100-150 years ago.

Seriously, I was of course exaggerating. I didn't say that taking the Vatican was the only thing Garibaldi achieved, I just said that it was the only thing the Italians achieved without French or Prussian help (which was also exaggerated).
And of course Italian history is very interesting, as is the history of most other countries.

[JuliaAJA]

Hitler was also partially Jew, no? And just because he was truly insecure and afraid of Jews it doesn't mean fascism, from the moment it was born, was against Jews in general, meaning anti-Semitic. If you look it logically, the majority of Israelis are far right conservatives, they get high with constant war and the killings of fellow Palestinians and Arabs and they haven't elected any government that is not solely consisted by the right political assembly.

He was part Jewish and I like to call him Adolf Schickelgruber, a name the allies dropped all over Germany in WWII.

Now I think you forget that I am Austrian myself, and that the Sound of Music isn't even widely known here (to the extent that once an Austrian president was greeted in Washington not with the actual Austrian anthem, but with Edelweiß from the movie, without really knowing why everyone expected the Austrians to show respect to it).

I learned that Austrians don't know the Sound of Music watching the Travel Channel. That's America, we greet Austrians with the Sound of Music and I wouldn't be surprised if we greeted a Russian by calling them comrade. My fellow American's are stupid sometimes.

[Khaler]

Far right conservatives DO NOT EQUAL fascists. There is (a lot) more difference between a fascist and a conservative than there is between a fascist and a socialist, philosophically and practically. George, the kind of 'logical conclusion' you're drawing is the kind idiots make on youtube, or 4chan, or wherever retards spend their internet time. I learnt the difference between a fascist (I include, in this description, Nazis, nationalists, racialists and so on - the 'extreme right', as stupid people and the press put it) and a conservative, and the similarity between a fascist and a socialist or a syndicalist, when I was about fourteen.

Agreed. Conservatism does not include any kind of stance towards racial/ethnic matters. That is why Israel is Fascist, and not just Conservative. But you have to remember, that being conservative does not outrule the possibility of being a fascist also. They are two ideologies that can exist in tandem.

[Molotov]

I would say that they a diametrically opposed. Conservatism is about the maintenance and gradual reform of what is good in society, the recognition that society is organic and that we cannot rationally plan society or impose abstract principles upon it, a respect for experience and tradition (as the representation of the experience of the past), it is about the maintenance of order and stability in order to protect the freedom and well-being of individuals and it is imbued with a healthy cynicism about any ideology, philosophy, group or party which claims that they know better than God how things should be run, who promise that through their ideals/principles and plans they somehow have 'the answer'.

Fascism does just that. Fascism is about the re-structuring of the nation, the economy, and the culture along military lines, it is about throwing out everything that came before in favour of the creation of a nation-state as a single, fighting unit, it subverts Marx's class conflict thesis into one of international, national and/or racial conflict. Conservatism and fascism, properly understood, are practically opposites.

Unfortunately, wherever fascism has arisen, it has generally had the support of certain conservative elements in society. This is because, from the outset, fascism placed itself in opposition to socialism. Communism always seemed like the bigger threat to the proper order than anything else. In Spain, conservatism was generally Catholic in character, and the Church feared for its future under the atheist communists and Franco pledged to support it, receiving its support in return. In Germany, the conservatives were generally the old aristocracy, the officer class, and they saw the Weimar Republic as weak and a betrayal of the nation, the army and the Kaiser. Hindenburg was never a fascist, and had he known its true character I doubt he would ever have supported it, but he was an aristocrat and a monarchist and like many sympathised with the Nazi disdain for the Weimar system. In Italy, the fascists courted the business elites, they crushed communists and supported and were supported by those Prefects who thought this a good thing. Their corporatist system essentially destroyed the Unions and working class representation, I doubt any in the conservative business and liberal political elites cared a whit for fascism as an ideology, and most certainly did not like it later on - the Italians were the quickest to oust their fascists after all. What is important, though, is that at these times fascism was new and little understood, and socialism seemed the greatest threat to the freedom, order and stability of these, and other, nations. Also my understanding of conservatism is generally a British one, and there are different kinds of conservatism even here let alone in Europe and the world, so perhaps in some cases conservatism can work in tandem with fascism - however as general ideologies I think they are very different and incompatible. (Unfortunately it's difficult to be precise when discussing ideologies, because they are such imprecise things.)

[Sam]

The "let's beat up that politician" (or "let's shoot that politician"/"let's throw a bomb at that politician"/"let's put that politician up against a wall") attitude isn't specific to Italian fascism. Whatever the number of politicians killed by the Italians is, they have nothing on Lenin, Hitler, Mao, or any other revolutionary.

[GreekIdiot]

Sorry Molotov, and I know I'm probably wrong, but a conservative in Greece is generally thought to mean a backward mind, someone who, for example, wishes to abolish homosexual liberty, bring into absolute family leadership the man, a person who specifically believes in Religion, Patriotism, Family. And throughout the last century, that kind of conservatism took somewhat a fascist, authoritarian role in our nation, with Papadopoulo's dictatorship in 67'. Sure, he loved his nation very much, but he wished death to the Turks, Greeks crowned as the most powerful race and ouzo replaced for pure water.

I've also been to Israel, as half of my family lives there. Israeli people are fond of conservatism as well and due to the reasons I described above, anyone who is a conservative is an authoritarian prick to my eyes. Maybe it's because I haven't seen leftists in power, perhaps? But anyhow, Israeli is a hardcore conservative society that leans towards authoritarianism but dunno if fascism and authoritarianism are closely linked together and I was wondering if you could elaborate on the connection.

[Captain-Socialist]

Of course, anyone with a brain can see that conservatives today aren't Fascists just as it obvious that the European Socialists Party isn't a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist guerrilla outfit. But the strength and appeal of Fascism isn't at it's height today and neither is that of it's swore enemy, Communism. When we go back to when the left seemed destined to sweep away the effeminate and decadent liberal-democratic societies of the capitalist West, the key appeal of Fascism was that it would revitalise western culture and defeat the tide of bolshevism. It's all very easy to dismiss all forms of extremism in todays stable and free (for now) Europe, but when a Communist revolution is imminent how would todays conservatives react? Democracy is useless, liberals are useless and simple strong-armed militarism is failing. It's clear that the left is mobilising people in ways never imaginable in the old days, and they want to destroy everything you believe in. This is the atmosphere that gives birth to Fascism, it's about fighting on the streets, on the picket lines and on the battlefield against your enemy. Conservatism becomes irrelevant and liberalism impotent, so you have to take sides. It's either one mass-movement or the other, so which do you choose? The one which will preserve private property in return for your political liberty, or the one which will destroy private property in return for your political liberty? The one which twists God or the one which denies God? Internationalist or patriot? In short, when push comes to shove, would you have been a socialist or a fascist in 1920s Italy? The truth of Fascism isn't that it's a left-wing or right-wing movement, it's that it doesn't matter anymore when you have that kind of crisis.

Now I think you forget that I am Austrian myself, and that the Sound of Music isn't even widely known here (to the extent that once an Austrian president was greeted in Washington not with the actual Austrian anthem, but with Edelweiß from the movie, without really knowing why everyone expected the Austrians to show respect to it).

Sorry, it's your American avatar which made me forget.

Mussolini may have loved Dollfuß, but that hardly makes him a fascist.

Well, show me a statement Dollfuss made against Fascism.

Dollfuß was a patriot, but not a nationalist, he never said, and never acted like it, that another people would be less worthy than the Austrians.

Well, he was member of a openly anti-Semitic movement (as you should see in the poster) and did have some fiery nationalistic rhetoric up his shelve.

He used his weapons against the former socialist party, who also used their weapons against him (our glorious 2-day-long civil war).

Is there something unfascist about fighting the socialist revolution?

He wasn't a dictator but he tried to remodel the democratic system into a "Ständestaat", which wouldn't have been ruled by his party but by representatives of each "Stand", quite similar to a parliament (though not democratic).

Indeed, this is a concept very similar to the Fascist Corporate state. The replacement of petty party politics with a benevolent council of patriotic "professional" rulers who run the nation according to "organic" principles. Very nice on paper, very nasty in practice.

he did create the Vaterländische Front, not as a party, but as an organisation above party lines (his attempt to create a one-party state thus was successfull).

This is still basically generic Fascism (I'm using very dense jargon here, basically scholars of Fascism refer to all authoritarian nationalist regimes influenced by the original Italian model as "generic fascism" and the original Fascism is called Italian Fascism), the Japanese Imperial Rule Association was also an organisation above party lines but that it was effectively the same living under it's rule than under that of the NSDAP or the PNF is hard to deny.

Exchanging letters with Mussolini, in a time when you need his army to defend you against Germany, doesn't really make him a fascist.

True, but he was still on the same page ideologically without Germany.

Compare this poster to any poster of any other party in that time, and then explain why this specific poster shows that the party behind it is fascist.

Well, many posters didn't include anti-Semitic motifs. The Christlichsoziale Partei was ironically one of Hitler early influences, he admired the parties combination of a mild left-wing agenda with Christianity, anti-Communism and anti-Semitism. While not a pure carbon copy of the PNF or the NSDAP (hardly any Fascist movements are) the so-called Austro-Fascists where certainly fellow travellers.

[Molotov]

Sorry Molotov, and I know I'm probably wrong, but a conservative in Greece is generally thought to mean a backward mind, someone who, for example, wishes to abolish homosexual liberty, bring into absolute family leadership the man, a person who specifically believes in Religion, Patriotism, Family. And throughout the last century, that kind of conservatism took somewhat a fascist, authoritarian role in our nation, with Papadopoulo's dictatorship in 67'. Sure, he loved his nation very much, but he wished death to the Turks, Greeks crowned as the most powerful race and ouzo replaced for pure water.

You're not wrong, but that's called 'reactionary conservatism' (or just, being 'reactionary', although one can be a 'reactionary socialist', so it's better to specify). It is its own ideology, really, although similar in many ways, like syndicalism and socialism, or neo-liberalism and liberalism. It's common on the continent and was born on the continent (a French writer is its father, I can't recall his name I'm afraid), because the continent is backward. British conservatism has elements of the things you described above, of course, but isn't defined by those things. Personally, I dislike 'career' women. This doesn't mean I wish to see every woman in the home, looking after children, but I think it is clear that someone has to do it, and it is also clear that women are better at it than men.

I've also been to Israel, as half of my family lives there. Israeli people are fond of conservatism as well and due to the reasons I described above, anyone who is a conservative is an authoritarian prick to my eyes. Maybe it's because I haven't seen leftists in power, perhaps? But anyhow, Israeli is a hardcore conservative society that leans towards authoritarianism but dunno if fascism and authoritarianism are closely linked together and I was wondering if you could elaborate on the connection.

Conservatism can be authoritarian, but it is generally authoritarian socially and morally. Socialism can also be authoritarian, but is usually authoritarian economically. Authoritarianism is not a core concept of either ideology, but tends to be adopted when necessary. Conservatives would rather ban pornography, socialists would rather ban advertising, that sort of thing. In a proper conservative or socialist society, in theory, there would be no reason for the state to be authoritarian. Fascism, on the other hand, is founded on authoritarianism. It is a central tenet of the ideology. The state knows best, the nation should work like an army, etc.

In short, when push comes to shove, would you have been a socialist or a fascist in 1920s Italy?

I would have been a nationalist. Conservatism didn't really exist as a coherent political philosophy in Italy, I'm not sure if it does now. The Italian nationalists were the closest thing to proper conservatives. More likely I would have been a liberal and a Piedmontese monarchist. That their ideologies were ineffectual does not mean that they did not exist, or have support. Mass movements are generally the movements of the ignorant, the individual manqué, the failed human. I would never have been a socialist or a fascist.

[Amazeroth]

Mussolini may have loved Dollfuß, but that hardly makes him a fascist.

Well, show me a statement Dollfuss made against Fascism.

Show me a statement Dollfuß made in favour of Fascism, then you'll have a case. Otherways you're point would be that anybody who did not make a statement against Fascism has to be a fascist himself, which is hardly a sound argument.

Dollfuß was a patriot, but not a nationalist, he never said, and never acted like it, that another people would be less worthy than the Austrians.

Well, he was member of a openly anti-Semitic movement (as you should see in the poster) and did have some fiery nationalistic rhetoric up his shelve.

The Christlichsoziale Partei was not officially anti-Semitic. Their officials sometimes were, and sometimes weren't, but not more than the other parties' officials (the socialists had very similar posters and slogans, and were exactly as anti-semitic). Dollfuß himself wasn't an anti-semit, and neither was the Vaterländische Front he founded. On the contrary, most Jewish newspapers in Austria in this time (and most of them weren't exactly conservative) especially praised the constitution of his Ständestaat because it guaranteed them equality. And please show me nationalistic rhetoric of Dollfuß. Here's a quote for you: „Gerade das jahrhundertelange Zusammenleben mit anderen Nationen hat den Österreicher weicher, duldsamer, verständnisvoller für fremde Kulturen gemacht, so sehr er auch auf die Erhaltung der Reinheit seiner eigenen Kultur und Art bedacht war.“ - "Especially the century-long living together with different nations made the Austrians more flexible, tolerant, understanding about different cultures, even if they thought about the purity of their own culture and disposition." - which was part of a speech against national-socialism and its focus on the supremacy of the German people. He always stated that it was Austria's way to work with its neighbors, and he never talked about other nations being less worthy.

He used his weapons against the former socialist party, who also used their weapons against him (our glorious 2-day-long civil war).

Is there something unfascist about fighting the socialist revolution?

So in order of not being fascist, he should have done nothing?

He wasn't a dictator but he tried to remodel the democratic system into a "Ständestaat", which wouldn't have been ruled by his party but by representatives of each "Stand", quite similar to a parliament (though not democratic).

Indeed, this is a concept very similar to the Fascist Corporate state. The replacement of petty party politics with a benevolent council of patriotic "professional" rulers who run the nation according to "organic" principles. Very nice on paper, very nasty in practice.

Yes, but this is about the only thing in favour of your case. If this is enough to make you a fascist, then he was one.

he did create the Vaterländische Front, not as a party, but as an organisation above party lines (his attempt to create a one-party state thus was successfull).

This is still basically generic Fascism (I'm using very dense jargon here, basically scholars of Fascism refer to all authoritarian nationalist regimes influenced by the original Italian model as "generic fascism" and the original Fascism is called Italian Fascism), the Japanese Imperial Rule Association was also an organisation above party lines but that it was effectively the same living under it's rule than under that of the NSDAP or the PNF is hard to deny.

If really all authoritarian regimes are fascist, then this would apply also to earlier monarchies or realkommunismus.

Exchanging letters with Mussolini, in a time when you need his army to defend you against Germany, doesn't really make him a fascist.

True, but he was still on the same page ideologically without Germany.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

Compare this poster to any poster of any other party in that time, and then explain why this specific poster shows that the party behind it is fascist.

Well, many posters didn't include anti-Semitic motifs. The Christlichsoziale Partei was ironically one of Hitler early influences, he admired the parties combination of a mild left-wing agenda with Christianity, anti-Communism and anti-Semitism. While not a pure carbon copy of the PNF or the NSDAP (hardly any Fascist movements are) the so-called Austro-Fascists where certainly fellow travellers.

[/quote]

Well, most parties had posters that included anti-Semitic motifs. The socialists were no different in this case from the christlichsozialen, the only real exception were the Jewish parties - which wouldn't be much of a surprise.

I think Hitler's admiration of the Christlichsoziale Partei didn't last very long - but it is true that he was influenced by some of them when he was still in Austria. When he tried to take Austria, they were definitely no longer subject to his admiration - after all he had their former leader killed, and most of their officials thrown in prison the moment the Anschluss was made. They didn't like him either, most of their energy (apart from fighting with the socialists) was directed towards keeping Austria out of his reach, and fighting the Austrian nazis.

To conclude: There are similarities between Dollfuß' Ständestaat and fascist regimes, but they are very basic. If you really insist on counting the Austria of this times as a fascist state, then "fascist" is not really a clear definition of any kind of government anymore - that is why most historians aren't really comfortable with the term "austro-faschismus" (apart from those changing parts of history freely to have more ammunition for their ideologies).