We can argue that different groups have fascism as a goal -- but they're not there right now.
I guess this is true but then it makes it hard to call any out-of-power movement fascist. Whereas I have no trouble saying Golden Dawn is.
Saudi being actually ruled by its royalty makes it a bit more like several-centuries-ago conservatism- it's when old-style conservatisim fails, as with the fall of the Kaiser after WWI, the abdication of Alfonso XII, etc, that fascism shows up to shake up the old-fashioned and failing right. There's a reason they always emphasize youth and consider themselves revolutionary.
Patriarchal religious establishment isn't really a necessity imo, it's just something that tends to be convenient when you pose as the defender of the (historic, pure) nation against the godless leftists and Jews and foreigners, especially in a country that mostly follows a single religion. But Hitler, for example, did without it- he did set up and favor a group of churches that agreed with him, but it wasn't a big part of his ideology. It was probably easier to do without because German Christians were split between Protestants and Catholics anyway.
Whereas Mussolini's rule shows the element of convenience- he was an atheist who grew up in a country with separation of church and state ("prisoner of the Vatican," etc), but wound up being the one to make peace with the church via the Lateran Compacts.
So, it is basically impossible to have fascism without really snappy military and police uniforms. Having your military and paramilitary dress impressively is not in itself a sign of fascism, but if your uniforms are more informal, or nonexistent, you're not going to have fascism.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-18 07:24 pm (UTC)I guess this is true but then it makes it hard to call any out-of-power movement fascist. Whereas I have no trouble saying Golden Dawn is.
Saudi being actually ruled by its royalty makes it a bit more like several-centuries-ago conservatism- it's when old-style conservatisim fails, as with the fall of the Kaiser after WWI, the abdication of Alfonso XII, etc, that fascism shows up to shake up the old-fashioned and failing right. There's a reason they always emphasize youth and consider themselves revolutionary.
Patriarchal religious establishment isn't really a necessity imo, it's just something that tends to be convenient when you pose as the defender of the (historic, pure) nation against the godless leftists and Jews and foreigners, especially in a country that mostly follows a single religion. But Hitler, for example, did without it- he did set up and favor a group of churches that agreed with him, but it wasn't a big part of his ideology. It was probably easier to do without because German Christians were split between Protestants and Catholics anyway.
Whereas Mussolini's rule shows the element of convenience- he was an atheist who grew up in a country with separation of church and state ("prisoner of the Vatican," etc), but wound up being the one to make peace with the church via the Lateran Compacts.
So, it is basically impossible to have fascism without really snappy military and police uniforms. Having your military and paramilitary dress impressively is not in itself a sign of fascism, but if your uniforms are more informal, or nonexistent, you're not going to have fascism.
Good point.