Quick observation on fascism
Someone, asked of me of a certain problem: How do you quite so derive fascism from itself? Or the condition surrounding it? In all, of all, which borns out this specific post.
Fascism is more about interim political theory and centrist socialist absolutism. Basically, we say that:
- Fascism arises when a group or certain national entity/civilization, under sufficient social condition and marginalization, pressure and so-all, default to identity alignment and counter-marginalization by converting from either balance or external politics to internal politics, creating a preferable contrast picture of the inside, compare to the ‘outside’.
- This need for the outside-inside categorization means a strict ‘border’, often time to the more extreme of such. In capitalism however, such is often not so much the case as the categorization gives a rich-poor disposition, and such can be interchanged, plus international as default since monetary qualification is not indicated to be a civilization-scale identity. Nationalism, socialism and extreme nationalism to fascism enable the border by non-negotiable anthropological identity, which can be manifested as social class (within a country of origin for socialism, or so on), races (Arian vs all), etc.
- Out of such, a concentration is achieved. Because such a system while still can thrive of operational freedom of expression and market economy, inevitably will crash with the subjective majority concession of which the ideology support as its mainstream, especially within reason, where we can diagnose that situations giving out fascism and the like are often of uncontrollable severe, direct consequence of such factors relative to the human in question of the system. Such gives rise to the tendency to go for centralized control to combat this apparent chaos and uncertainty.
- Because the system under which fascism approach leans on the side of inner line politics, it will gather adverse reaction from other conjunction of the system - namely and mostly the one where either the barriers between such are integrated, grey, inverted and so on. In such case, and by the eternal law of the system as if everything evolutes, including people, capacities, even development and success of the state or civilizational apparatus, the need for specific actor to work against and to be pulled into the action of spiritual and ideological opposition. Because the ideology mostly works on rousting on societal factors and within civilization anthropologically speaking, such is often preferred to be actors and races, groups or countries with direct apparent consequence to the apparatus and its supporters as the interim people. This can be, as for Nazi Germany, from French, British, to Russian, Soviet in general, and Jews.
Doing so requires them to also accept the ergonomic and action cost - you cannot fight against the world alone, based of situation constraints and thereof, even if the rhetoric is that you can fight off the world - which can only be actionalized or operationalized preferably under moderate success, with non-violent Autarky principle, for example.
In consequence by such, a rather relevant result arise - the need for retaliation. When a system consider itself within the internal line politics, under economical, political, sociological, psychological, and intellectual linage speaking, its action are often also internal line policies and resolves, for resolves mean closer to resolution than to arbitrary human resolve. Thus, because of the marginalization and villainization of certain actors or groups, or any given civilization-scale actor where the line of individualism is blurred into a bigger ‘picture of similar scale, as for two societies combating another’, it inevitably as logical to find ways to retaliate with violent measures, as warfare, or outright damage to the central tenet of opposition. This is why such politics often resulted into war and conflicts. One more simple explanation is also that under the ideology and mentality of this system, war itself is a very effective rally point, often seen in history as one of the many way to achieve internal line politics straight from going for existential condition, and so on.
Somewhat as a side tangent, the central and internal-external politics also influences the mindset of warfighting and statecraft itself. For example, often time, a national entity with defined border will serve out violent measure out of its interest for deterrence or any specific measure in which of their own causal interest, for example, global economic interest, cascading risks observed, and so on. In such, their method of warfighting are often external on themselves, unless prompted of either retaliation or pushback from separated entities where their causal chain have not reached yet - for example, between American-British war and the further side Imperial Japan. For internal line politics, however, it is often arisen after a system has experienced the external warfighting itself, nominatively as the direct consequence stated above. This prompted it to also preferably do external justification and semi-external measure, for its first action is to let the enemy, or fabricate of such, reasons and subjective evidences that it is at risk, thus contrasts the picture, and delivery marginalization of the interim, forcing violent external reaction of an already compressed system. This is similar in history, to the utilization of the external line strategy and internal line strategy in strategic analysis, however, this time, its occurrence and preference can be considered a proxy into how the ideology and mindset of an institutional and civilization machine works.
Merely so, if to end the analysis here. It might be capable to realize one core central observation. Everyone wants peace. Even the wicked ‘politicians’ wants peace. But the frustrated mind can only exhaust its fury, then it comes peace. Thus, we can say that everyone sights for the same thing - just that the path can obstruct others, or not.