Fascism is Misunderstood
written inwritten in 2005
@ |
Anyway, there are some people who are just plain bad, of the type called fascists.
They always think only evil things, such as wars, invasions, oppression of minorities, and the realization of a controlled society. The reason why he thinks such evil plans is, of course, because they are fascists. The reason why they are fascists is, of course, because they think evil plans. Anyway, there are, you know, bad guys, called fascists. iKure Tomofusa "Thus Spoke a Feudalist", 1981j |
Fascism has anyhow a bad reputation. The current position of fascism is, I think, similar to that one. Fascism occupies the same position as Trotskyism in leftist forces prior to the 1956 "Denunciation of Stalin". At the era, it was common practice to accuse those who had different policies of being "Trotskyists," even though almost no one had ever read Trotsky's writings. And those who were called "Trotskyists" desperately tried to explain that they were not "Trotskyists" at all, even though they also had never read Trotsky's writings. The same is true about fascism. In the case of Trotskyism, because of an outbreak of a massive incident called the "Denunciation of Stalin", there have since been trends within the left-wing forces to reevaluate Trotsky, who opposed Stalin to varying degrees, and Trotskyism has been somewhat revived, but fascism is still just plain hated today as Trotskyism was in the past. The public image of fascism would be exactly as Kure Tomofusa describes it in his great book (of course, Kure ridicules such unthinking "understanding"). But you should take it a little more seriously. If fascism is just a simple "bad" idea, then who in the world would be a fascist? Even if there are some rare, extremely evil people, and they become fascists because they are extremely evil, there would be no way to gather such rare, extremely evil people together and form a large organization. Shouldn't fascism be incapable of forming a major political force? However, this is usually explained by saying that fascists deceive the masses, and that Hitler had a "satanic" talent for propaganda. Ridiculous! It is a well-known fact that Heidegger was an ardent member of the Nazi party. Are you saying that even "the greatest philosopher of the 20th century," who was far from "the idiot masses," was also "deceived" by Hitler? The fact that fascism has been labeled as some kind of evil, outrageous idea, as everyone with any intelligence can see, is merely the result of the success of the exhaustive propaganda carried out by both the US and the USSR after World War II. "Revisionism" has flourished in recent years, and I don't mind that at all, but isn't it time to look at fascism with fair eyes, free from the spell of "historical view from the victorious nation's viewpoint"? To be fair, at least, it is hard to believe that Italy and Germany used to be worse societies than the former Soviet Union, the former Eastern Europe, or the current China and North Korea. Of course, there were many problems, but even the American society at that time was quite terrible. Just as the U.S. has since (especially after the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s) transformed itself into a somewhat better society, fascism must be rebuilt in a way that overcomes the mistakes of the past (the biggest of which is, needless to say, Germany's policy toward the Jews). The possibility of fascism has not yet been exhausted. In the first place, the fascist states, unlike the Marxist-Leninist states, did not collapse from within; they were simply (temporarily) forced out of history by losing the war. And, of course, we fascists believe that there is no effective alternative to the onslaught of the new phase of capitalism called "globalism", other than fascism. |