america and the problem with defining fascism

Fascism is like pornography in one respect; we (usually) recognize it when see it, but damned if we can actually define it. Reading the entry on fascism at Wikipedia is an exercise in mental contortionism, and the opening sentence that attempts to encapsulate fascism as a “radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology” is hardly descriptive. Part of the problem, of course, is that fascism has taken on many idiosyncratic forms in the various countries that practiced it. Yet it strikes me as an admission of defeat when, despite its variations, an essential core ideological character can’t be identified. For example, consider the website Who Makes the Nazis?, whose efforts are oriented towards identifying fascist elements within “various 'transgressive' (by their own estimation) musical subcultures.” In describing their mission, they write (emphasis in bold is mine):
To demonstrate the fascist nature of the ideas it is necessary to consider many aspects of fascism - it's history, it's different branches, and it's ideology and development, for example. It is necessary to show that there is no 'fascist minimum' (a succinct definition of fascism that would make it easy to define ideologically), and to dispel some key misconceptions about fascism that are used to provide cover ("X cannot be a fascist because they are gay / have a Jewish partner / are not a member of an openly fascist grouping").
That’s a remarkable statement, begging the question as to how you can plausibly identify fascist infiltrations in society, whether in musical subcultures or other social groupings, when you can’t decisively distinguish a fascist ideologue from a non-fascist. This is especially problematic when, as WMTN argues, fascist elements operate cryptically, that is, there is a “deliberate effort on the part of a number of pro-fascist thinkers to work surreptitiously in the area of culture with the aim of 'normalising' some of the cultural, social and aesthetic views of fascism, thus creating a periphery out of which a future fascist political movement might recruit.”

And so, America, and the question as to whether or not the country is sliding into fascism. Sara Robinson, in a piece originally published at CommonDreams.org, offers her belief that yes, America has degraded into fascism. In making her argument, she draws on definitions of fascism offered by historian Robert Paxton:
Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline.
...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Far be it for me to challenge an expert in the field of fascism and history, but nevertheless, I don’t find these wordy, imprecise definitions particularly helpful. More helpful is the definition from the source of fascist ideology: Italy. Drawing from the Wikipedia entry, the original Italian fascism was characterized by the following:

  • A strong, imperial, militaristic nationalism.
  • Belief in political and military violence as necessary towards achieving human progress, social solidarity, and national unity.
  • The division of peoples into superior masters, who deserve to rule, and weak inferiors who deserve to be conquered.
  • Corporatist economics “whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in a corporative associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.”

Using Italian fascism as the foundation for a definition of fascism that is inclusive of its non-Italian forms, it’s possible to achieve a workable definition. Before offering it, however, it’s worth noting what such a definition should accomplish:

  1. Distinguish fascism from other political ideologies.
  2. Distinguish fascism’s method and rationale from other methods and rationales for totalitarian rule, such as communist/socialist and theocratic models. 
  3. Provide criteria that enable us to consistently identify fascism outside of its historical context in Italy, Germany, Spain, and other countries that have, at one time or another, empowered fascist regimes.

To this end, I propose the following definition:

Fascism is a military-capitalist complex whose power is realized in an authoritarian state maintained by conventional methods of political control (e.g. secret police, military-enforced martial law, etc.) as well as social control in the form of transcendental collectivist/corporatist politics of identity in which elite group identification is created and reinforced by the marginalization and oppression of non-elite identities in an atmosphere of politically-correct psychological and physical violence.

From this, we can identity sibling categories:

  • The state immediately preceding a fascist state, a proto-fascist state is one in which individual elements of a fascist state are present, but not coherently joined. An example would be Germany, early in Hitler’s ascension to power.
  • A crypto-fascist state is a fascist state in practice but not in appearance. By implication, the concealment of a state’s fascist characters is intentionally hidden to foster acceptance and legitimacy in an era of international law and human rights.
  • A pseudo-fascist state is a state that is fascist in appearance but not necessarily in practice. This is an admittedly strange and perhaps less-than-useful classification, since surely there must be some substance that gives rise to the appearance of fascism. A possible example might be Western Democracies that deploy the functions of a police state. While the governance might be democratic, law enforcement and national security might align more closely to fascist methods. The conclusion is that a pseudo-fascist state also pose a substantial risk to free societies, although the risk might be harder to identify amidst those social elements that are not fascist. It might be reasonable, then, to view a pseudo-fascist state as an incomplete fascist state.

What are we to make of the United States? Is Sara Robinson correct? Do share your thoughts below. I'll revisit the question at a later time.


filmmakers need your help!

The good folks at SubProd have issued a call for help. Check it out:

We have had to fight, scratch and claw to get this far and are willing to do far worse to get over the finish line. We hope you will join us in our final stand!
If you haven't had a chance to view our teasers yet, they are all online including our Superteaser. To continue in an uncompromised and uncensored fashion we need you now! This is not a drill!
Our scripts are ready to go and guaranteed to make you laugh. Be a part of making entertainment that doesn't suck! Pledge TODAY! And share it with the world tomorrow!
Thank you everybody who has pledged and supported us thus far, and thank you everybody for putting up with our all out blitz over the last month. One work week left, lets make this upcoming weekend a celebratory one!!!

Check out this website for the teasers, and consider pledging to help fund the project! 


lost in china mieville's the city & the city

In The City & The City, author China Miéville asks us for an act of faith; suspend disbelief towards the book’s implausible premise of two cities coexisting in the same topography but separated by the selective perception of its residents. Each city is, for practical purposes, its own domain with distinctive cultures, customs, governmental structures, and so on. To be in one city means to “unsee” the other, a process taught to each city’s residents from birth and strictly enforced by a mysterious authority called Breach that forbids residents of one city to see the other without going through legal channels. As one would expect, there are challenges to this arrangement, particularly when it comes to traffic, to which Miéville responds by positing a sufficiently unconscious form of seeing that lets residents from each city avoid bumping or crashing into each other without actually breaching. This unconscious seeing-but-unseeing even extends, remarkably, to walking over or around people having sex.

As far as concepts go, its malarkey whose potential for clever commentary on the nature of perception is undermined by the sheer inertness of the idea in Miéville’s narrative. Far from being an exploration of how such an arrangement between cities could be possible from a psycho-social standpoint, Miéville allows the concept to settle into the background as a fait accompli whose origination is never explained, whose history is deliberately hidden behind the excuse of insufficient data, and whose emergence from the whirlings of the human mind is left unexamined. While we are given a sense of how the separation between the cities of Beszel and Ul Qoma works in practice through the perspective of protagonist Tyador Borlu, an Inspector in Beszel’s Extreme Crime Squad – crosshatched areas, for example, in which both cities physically overlap and entail a higher risk of breaching, or the irony of being physically close to someone in geographical terms but metaphysically apart in terms of city boundaries – it is never credible, especially given that Miéville situates Beszel and Ul Qoma in our real world. Critics like Abigail Nussbaum see in the novel a deconstructive effort that upends fantasy genre tropes, which is as fair a reading as any, but the deconstruction proves to be rather limp and the upending is strictly derived from reader expectations, not from Miéville’s text.
At one point, a key character succeeds in occupying neither city, putting him out of reach of the police and militia officers pursuing him from each city as well as Breach, who only intervene when the citizens of one city illicity recognize or interact with the other city. Other than a few indications that this feat is accomplished through ambiguous body language similar to the one used by Breach avatars, Miéville never delves into the mechanics of such ambivalence, a study that would be especially valuable given his steadfast restraint from indulging magical or supernatural explanations. So what then is being deconstructed? The dichotomy presented by the two cities is contrived and of a purely psychological nature, but Miéville insists on treating the situation as a kind of mythology stripped of mysticism. His propensity for telling us about the dichotomy through Borlu’s narration rather than demonstrating it to us renders the novel a shallowly cerebral affair, as there’s no challenge in creating a dichotomy, fabricating a phenomena that straddles both poles, and presenting the result as a “deconstruction” of the dichotomy. Considering that deconstruction operates at the stress point of oppositional concepts – life/death, writing/speech, etc. – invoking a loaded word like deconstruction is far too glib for what Miéville accomplishes with his text, namely, mere juxtaposition.

Compounding the problem is Miéville inability, or unwillingness, to offer concrete descriptions. Ms. Nussbaum praises this as an effort to disorient the reader and manipulate impressions of the city through Borlu’s necessarily limited perspective, but to me the impression is of a writer who relies on lazy associations with real-world analogues and ersatz linguistics. Again, we are often told by Borlu that the cities are different, that residents from each dress different, eat differently, and so on, yet Miéville never offers enough description for readers to form a concrete image of each city. If anything, the muddled impression of the cities undermines the premise of citizens who see their own city but not the other, a problem given that the novel’s otherwise real world setting easily allows for outsiders to view the concatenation of the two cities without perceptual filters. Perhaps by denying us that objective perspective Miéville can be said to bring us into the mindset of the cities’ residents, but the lack of descriptive details also means that we can never draw the necessary contrast between the cities that would be necessary in order for us to unsee along with Borlu. That is, Miéville is big on telling but short on showing.

In a sense, we are forced to take on the perspective of outsiders to the city, who even within the book find the whole situation freakishly bizarre, even nonsensical, without any guidance. Why and how the residents would continue to maintain such a system would be the stuff of a fascinating novel. What difference, for instance, would there be in the lives and mindsets of unificationists as opposed to committed segregationists? Alas, Miéville focuses his attention on a murder-mystery that fails to impress even when the narrative brings in the possibility of yet another city, the interstitial power called Orciny, The investigation of an American archaeology student’s murder and its connection to a broader conspiracy is languid and lacking in suspense; no surprise given how the novel has to divide its attention between explaining both the plot of the investigation and the contextual rules in which Borlu carries it out.

As much Miéville is in command of his writing, his execution is ultimately questionable. The characters’ f-bombs are as awkward as the book’s improvised linguistics, and the whole thing is written in a jerky, clipped style that frustrates as often as it appeals. Overly stylized writing masks deficiencies in character development; Borlu, like many of the characters, is rather superficial, useful for the procedure of solving the mystery but otherwise bereft of personality and biography. A murky distinction between characters is a common consequence of Miéville’s writing and a further drain on whatever enthusiasm the book could generate for its unconventional narrative agenda. However, despite all that and especially in spite of book jacket quotes affirming comparisons to Kafka and Orwell – Miéville lacks both Orwell’s polemical directness and Kafka’s existential machinations – The City & The City nevertheless holds the mystique of an ambitious project, however unsuccessful. There’s enough, perhaps, in that mystique for curious readers to justify picking the book up from the library.

For an alternative perspective, you can read the aforementioned Abigail Nussbaum’s review of the book at her blog, Asking the WrongQuestions.

Also, if you like what you read please consider "following" this blog or subscribing for posts via eMail. Comments are also welcome and appreciated! Let's discuss!