Here's the definition of fascism, very slightly altered, given by Wikipedia. There's no firm consensus about what makes a regime fascist, but this is as good as any:
Fascism is an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
What country in the world does this most remind you of? Why is it never used to describe them?
Israel is gaining ground on that number one position.
Tell us your are an anti-Semite without saying "Kill the Jews".
So opposing Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s actions in Gaza automatically makes one an anti-Semite? I don’t think so.
No. Making ridiculous anti-Semitic claims like that Israel is gaining ground on becoming the most fascist country in the world makes you an anti-Semite.
We may never know whether soup100 is anti-semitic or a moron. These things can be difficult to determine over the internet.
Or both!
Perhaps he has an accurate perception.
+1
Plus one'd by the guy who:
Is bigoted toward LGBT people, spreads false and bigoted racial and other tropes, and thinks living, breathing women should die for fetuses who may never live or breathe.
People like you who falsely claim (i.e. deliberately and intentionally lie) others are anti-Semitic as a hammer to crush them are morally indistinguishable from people who positively cite the protocols of the elders of zion.
I guess you missed or forgot about the Basic Law. Allow me to remind you of a few things:
"This is the law of all laws. It is the most important law in the history of the State of Israel, which says that everyone has human rights, but national rights in Israel belong only to the Jewish people."
"The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. "
"The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation. "
I'd say that fits several parts of that definition. And Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and the like are closing in fast on all of the authoritarian criteria.
Do you REALLY believe that criticism of Israel necessarily implies genocidal feelings toward Jews?
If you claim that Israel is gaining ground on becoming the most fascist country in the world?
Yes.
So you don't understand the difference between Israel's government and Jewish people or you're just dishonest and bigoted?
MF outed themselves as a "conservative" the other day. So the dishonesty and bigotry comes naturally...
I think they are just being lazy.
Dishonest and bigoted.
The Israeli government wants to label all of those who criticize its actions as anti-semites.
Legitimate democracies recognize the separation of religion and state.
Oh, Misfire does indeed understand that. But Misfire is also a troll who doesn't know what to do with its spare time except indulge its natural butt-headed oppositional stupidity.
Sorry, but you are evil,
That's rather not what anti-semitism means.
Israel is probably the most fascistic state of any state that is not immediately thought of as fascist. The interests of "the Jewish People" are exalted above pretty much anything else. I think among Western countries, Israel takes the prize.
I suspect that Hungary or maybe Turkey are more fascistic, and Russia and India make a run for it. But I don't really know much about the internal politics of these countries.
Does Israel pretend to speak for "the Jewish People" or only for Israelis? I am not sure I've heard anything from the Israeli politicians claiming to protect "the Jewish People".
Russia is clearly atop the rankings.
How do you cram "exalting" the "interests of the Jewish People" into Fascism?
I mean, come on. Kevin gave you a working definition in the post. Authoritarian? The country's government is so ineffective they had a rash of 5 elections in 3 years. Centralized leadership? In Bibi's dreams! He's had to flail about, grabbing (and appeasing!) whatever fringe parties he can just to stay afloat.
Ultra-nationalist? By your own claim, they "exalt" Jewish people, not any nation.
Militaristic I'll give you. I'd argue that's been necessary, but I'll cede the point.
Forcibly quelling dissent? Don't be ridiculous. I don't doubt that Ben G'vir would *love* to quell dissent, but he's been remarkably unable to do so.
Natural social hierarchy? Israel is busy tearing itself apart in an argument over who gets which privileges...who gets which place in the social hierarchy. Nope, failed that one too.
Subordination of the individual? In Israel? FFS, have you ever met an Israeli? They are some of the most pushy, individualistic people ever.
None of this is to argue that Israel's actions in Gaza are acceptable. That's completely orthogonal to this discussion.
But bottom line? Words have meanings. "Fascist" has a specific definition. It does not simply mean "Bad" or even "Really Bad."
Do you understand what "nation" means? (Hint: "a people" is basically synonymous with "a nation.")
Also, while typical definitions of "fascism" include that it should have a strongman leader, is it really necessary? I think Apartheid South Africa had a government that was fairly representative of its white population rather than under the control of a strongman; do you think that made a lot of difference to the majority Black population? Do you think the fact that the ruling coalitions of Israel have squabbles about what is best for the Jewish People rather than having a strongman decide all such issues makes a lot of difference to the Palestinians living under their dominance?
I think all of your examples of dissent are within the ruling Jewish population -- do you think Palestinian dissent is not put down? Is there any serious question about whether Jewish citizens should continue to receive privileges over non-Jewish citizens? Do you think the individual rights of Palestinians living under Israeli domination are not subordinated? FFS, have you ever MET a Palestinian living under Israeli domination?
They're having an argument - in which the aithoritarian group keeps winning?
And Israel's behavior in the West Bank?
It's not worth arguing with the Israel haters on this forum, @DaBunny. They hold views that would be dismissed as absurd in normal places and when you disagree, they gang tackle you and act like you are an idiot. And they make personal insults while they are doing it. They seem more interested in owning the normies than actually exchanging views. It's like arguing with MAGAites.
Of course you are correct, Israel is nowhere near Fascism. It is a vigorous Liberal Democracy that does some pretty harsh stuff at times because they have spent their entire national life fighting for their existence and they are a bit traumatized as a result. Nothing more.
I'd bet a lot of money that "tango" is Jewish.
Among Israel's defenders, there are two distinct camps: those who are willing to consider whether the information they are working with is accurate or not; and those who are not willing to make that consideration.
The latter group essentially accepts without question that Israel must be supported, regardless of by what argument that conclusion is reached. One faction of this group is the nutty Christians who think Jerusalem has to be controlled by Jews for one stupid reason or another, and the other faction is Jews who buy into the notion that their People's survival depends upon Israel.
"tango" clearly believes Israel must be supported regardless of anything else, and it's unlikely that a nutty Christian would have found his way to this site.
Hence, "tango" is almost certainly Jewish.
What do I win?
From the Israeli Basic Law ("Basic Laws" in Israel are sort of like their constitution ...) on Israel being the nation-state of the Jewish People:
1. The State of Israel
a) Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people in which the State of Israel was established.
b) The state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, religious, and historic right to self-determination.
c) The fulfillment of the right of national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
There is little need for politicians to state a position that is made clear in their "Basic Laws" or constitution, is there?
Turkey's Kemal Ataturk invented fascism. The present regime's rejection of his ideology of 'Secularism' makes them anti-fascistic. (But not anti-authoritarian.)
That seems a stretch.
Yeah, this seems dubious.
How the country conducts a war is not part of this definition. I am not sure in which way Israel fits this definition. I would say that the US came closer under Bush and Trump.
They exult one racial/ethnic group over another; this is written into their constitution; resistance to this is dealt with in an authoritarian way to the out group; they project themselves into occupied territories for living space; etc.
They check alot of the boxes.
They do have a system of government (democracy) which could turn away from it, but their politics of economics are such that dissidents are motivated to self select out of the country.
There is a long list of contenders but I’d put North Korea first.
NK is far beyond fascism. Fascist states have typically been characterized by the presence of oligarchs and state-favored corporate interests (Krupp, IG Farben, Samsung, Huawei etc). The North Korean state is ethnonationalist hereditary totalitarianism.
Agree. NK is an autocracy and a cult of Kim Jong Un.
This was my first thought too and I don’t know that anybody doesn’t call North Korea fascist.
China. Almost textbook version of fascism.
And to answer the second question: Communism. If China got to exactly where it is now from Chang instead of Mao, people would be calling it fascist all the time.
Taiwan under Chang was definitely fascist.
Yes. It's surprising that this isn't noted more often. It is not really Marxist in any substantial way. And it is Maoist only in its nationalism and authoritarianism.
Russia and North Korea are textbook examples.
Russia and North Korea are textbook examples.
Russia, yes. But not North Korea. Not by a long shot. Fascism isn't just a buzzword used by angry protesters, but an actual defined concept from political science.
Fascist regimes subordinate private, civil institutions to the regime, but they don't destroy said institutions. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, pre-reform Taiwan and South Korea, modern day Russia and China—these are all "textbook" fascist regimes. Private corporations, oligarchs and wealthy dynasties, churches, civic groups, etc all operated—albeit in tightly supervised fashion—in the the former.
Modern day North Korea—just like Stalin's USSR and Mao's China—goes way beyond fascism. It's a weird, utterly totalitarian, hereditary dystopian nightmare regime.
(Modern day China under Xi is admittedly pushing the envelope in a number of areas).
China has more recognition of private property than North Korea does, so it's closer, yeah. But they like to think of themselves as inclusive rather than exclusive (despite appearances) which is a stark difference between their totalitarianism and fascism.
I like this definition a lot better than Wikipedia's. But under either definition, it doesn't seem to me that Israel qualifies as "fascist," due to one very salient fact: Israel runs free and fair elections (or at least as free and fair as the US does...). Can you really have a fascist state that runs as a democracy in terms of free and fair elections?
Excellent point.
True, but they keep voting for the government which checks more of these boxes. And the politics of economics and strong ties to other countries means dissidents of the in-group can self-select out of the country.
It's not really a free and fair election if you have a couple million people under your government's control who can't vote.
There are somewhere around 190 countries in the world, most of which we pay little or no attention to. Of the countries we notice, I would say that one of the Islamic theocracies is the most fascist country I know of, but I haven't looked lately at what form of government e.g. the Central African Republic has. It would take A LOT of studying to form an informed opinion on which is the most fascist country on Earth.
The only Islamic theocracy is Iran. The others are monarchies or variously imperfect democracies (ie. Iraq, Turkey).
"Monarchy" and "Islamic theocracy" are not conflicting terms. Saudi Arabi is both. I haven't studied the various smaller Gulf States.
Monarchies ae almost always theocracies as they justify their existence as being god's representative on earth. That's what distinguishes them from classical tyrants and other dictators..
Are these classical thrants who don't take divine right?
The stupidity. It burns.
I would suggest an islamic republic is at it's core, a theocracy. If a constitution expressly puts a religious text/teachings over the will of the people that pretty much defines the government as a theocracy instead of a democracy.
"Of the countries we notice, I would say that one of the Islamic theocracies is the most fascist country" Theocracy's can't be fascistic. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. In particular, fascism is almost always a replacement for a failed theocratic belief system. See Ataturk's invention of fascism and it's original name as Secularism. Or Hitler's National socialism and Mussolini's Fascism, built off the bones of the failed feudalism of europe and the nobilities claim to be god's representatives on earth.
that seems weirdly ahistorical
Theocracies are almost always fascistic, except when they're communist.
You forgot territorial expansion.
And a targeted out group.
If you make territorial expansion part of fascism that excludes China and both Korea's.
China took Tibet and Hong Kong and etc
It all sounds like this country under a second Trump administration.
We're talking about Republicans again aren't we?
an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Yeah, we're talking about Republicans again. =)
Umberto Eco' s definition is better.
https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
This set is good too:
http://webhost.bridgew.edu/jhayesboh/fascist.htm
Number 8 in your list is completely wrong. Religion was simply a potential tool to serve nationalism or if that wasn't possible, religion was to be marginalized.
No, it was a tool, subverted for the state. That doesn't make fascism atheistic.
Excellent list!
When arguing with those idiots who brainlessly repeat the canard about Nazis being socialists (because National Socialism, duh!), Eco's first two points are very helpful. The Nazi movement, as much as anything, was a reaction against and a rejection of the modernity and loosened morals of the Weimar Era, advocating a hyper-nostalgized, "golden" past that was imagined to have reigned before the fall of the monarchy with its traditional roles and mores. No, Nazism was in hardly any sense at all "leftist," but was in its essential core arch-conservative.
"The Nazi movement, as much as anything, was a reaction against and a rejection of the modernity and loosened morals of the Weimar Era, advocating a hyper-nostalgized, "golden" past that was imagined to have reigned before the fall of the monarchy with its traditional roles and mores."
Reading that I keep thinking MAGA, outdoor toilets and horse pooper scoopers.
I think the essential quality of fascism is that it elevates the interests of the nation -- however that is defined -- over the interests of individuals.
Every other quality is mutable.
The classic example is Sparta.
That's an overstatement. JFK once said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" but I don't think he was fascist.
The statement was.
It all depends if we can call countries that describe themselves as Communist as Fascist. Back in the day, they were on opposite ends of the authoritarian spectrum, one Right and One Left.
I think that a missing part of the definition is its explicit rejection of and hostility to Western Liberal Democracy
One thing that is kind of startling to me is how many of Putin's Russia's narratives of how Russia lost and was treated after their "defeat" in the Cold War echo those of the Nazis, except that he doesn't quite blame the Jews. And how they are seeking to "protect" their fellow ethnic Russians in neighboring countries.
Sudetenland.
The authoritarian spectrum is more of a loop.
Tough call. It's either Denmark or New Zealand.
Among the large countries, Russia seems to really fit the bill, with dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, suppression of opposition.
Iran is certainly a dictatorship glued by religion that suppresses the opposition, but it is not built around a unique dictator. Feels awful, but not fascism.
Israel is not a fascist country. It increasingly violates international norms and its action are reprehensible. But it does not suppress opposition, which is pretty strong (but under 50%).
One of Israel's major political parties seems to be fascist curious.
You can say that about the US.
Already further than "curious" in the US. If Trump wins the elections it will be proper fascism, and that is what the Republican party is trying to achieve now.
Regarding Iran. Isn’t that what happens when the “unique dictator” (Ayatollah Khomeini) dies with no one to replace them?
It suppresses opposition for the out group.
Just not the in group.
But it also is economically designed to encourage dissidents to emigrate.
That definition fits North Korea, and we only refer to white leaders as fascists because we can use whatever definition of fascist we want to when we are determining such things.
Nope. I don't know why so many people try to mix North Korea in this.
North Korea is a straight up old fashioned Monarchy where a king is born into the position, and who once in power has absolute control over every aspect of the nation. Socially, economically, and militarily, the king rules it all and his word is a divine mandate that can't be questioned. Where everything within the kingdom is considered the personal property of the king, including the people, whose only purpose in life is to serve the king as the king sees fit.
People do forget about what an absolute monarch is. We'll think of Dukes and Lords from back in the day, post Magna Carta, and current constitutional monarchies. The whole "I am the state" today seems a bit much, but certainly is the case in North Korea. Of course they'll claim to be communist yet keep the "ordained by God" notion.
You're not actually aware of the meaning of the word monarchy. The kings of rome and the holy roman emperors were both theoretically elected monarchs. And many monarchs never had absolute power.
A liberal democracy is ruled by laws based on the principle of equality. In a democracy, a person recognizes that they are drawing a conclusion based on potentially but not necessarily erroneous assumptions. If my conclusion conflicts with yours, then I'll ask you to challenge my assumptions, and you'll allow me to challenge your assumptions.
In a democracy, progressives and conservatives are open minded and skeptical, progressives challenged the status quo by being more open minded than skeptical, and conservatives protect the status quo by being more skeptical than open minded.
An authoritarian regime is ruled by people who send a message in everything they say and do they they are right, anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, and any further discussion on the topic is forbidden.
Hitler's regime is thought of as fascist because it was formed by conservatives that went too far to the right. Stalinist Russia is thought of as communist because it was formed by progressives that went too far to the left. They both ended up at the authoritarian autocracy position, which is at 6 o'clock.
In other words, democracy is on either side of 12 o'clock and the difference between a fascist regime and a communist dictatorship is the path it took to get to the same destination, which is at 6 o'clock.
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." -Hana Arendt
The correct word is liberal in your description, not progressive. Most of the rest of what you said was crap.
I'm pretty sure that the Bolsheviks thought of themselves as firmly opposed to the Russian liberals of the day, and that "progressive" was not a term that meant anything at that time in that place.
I don't think the terms 'Fascist' or 'Communist' really have any meaning as they have no impact on the lives people live.
My standards:
"Does the rule of law apply equally to all people within a country?".
"Are individuals considered to have rights relative to state powers within that country?"
All countries fall along a continuum in answering these questions.
The problem is that the term fascist works much better as invective than description these days. Talking with historians and political scientists it can be descriptive. In the wild, wooly Internet regions where it comes up, it can be unhelpful. See the remarks about Israel, above for a good example.
It certainly gets people's interest though, so good work, Kevin!
Drum writes this as if the answer should be obvious. That makes me think he mean Russia since I can't think of another country that would strike someone as the obvious choice. It is the ultranationalist part that makes me think that. North Korea rulers seem content to dominate the smaller part of the Korean peninsula rather than any concern about Korea as a nation. By contrast, Putin has been pushing the Ukrainians as lesser Russians line to justify his invasion.
I suppose on those grounds China comes close with its idea that it is entitled to rule Taiwan because they are part of the same nation. But their sense of what makes the rulers in China rulers does not seem to depend on any kind of ultranationalist ideology, not surprising since they still defend themselves in communist terms.
The fact that Drum seems to think the answer should be obvious would seem to rule out any smaller country. The right answer could well be one of the former Soviet states or one of the smaller former communist states or something in Africa. But then it would hardly seem obvious which it was.
Israel could make the list in the sense that it has been much discussed here. But Israel is a country in the leadership regularly changes according to elections. So for all its problems it is not a contender for most fascist state.
I can't believe Israel is even being mentioned in this thread. This is nuts. Israel may have fallen into corruption like many messy parliamentary democracies, but it is most certainly not fascistic.
I believe Kevin was referring to Russia. North Korea fits the definition in some ways, but is more like an absolute monarchy in that the Kim clan is regarding as god-like. Not so with Russia, where few Russians if any regard Putin as part of a semi-divine hereditary regime, but in every other respect it fits Kevin's definitions.
Besides, his question is why no one (meaning the media) uses "fascist" to describe Russia. That seems more pertinent here, especially since Putin routinely uses "fascist" to describe Ukraine. It seems to be a holdover from the long decades during which Russia was labeled "communist," followed by the long lazy habit of media firms to stick with old labels until hell freezes over.
Kevin, am I reading your comment right?
It's not fascistic in which way? From umberto eco's list:
They call back to when Israel was held by Jews pre-Christianty.
They're run by a conservative party.
They choose to shoot rather than restrict action of their soldiers.
Disagreement is anti-semitism.
They have an out group (arabs) who have limited rights.
They appeal to the social frustration that they'd be overwhelmed by the birth rate of their out group.
They have an obsession with a plot that they're going to be genocided, to the point of undermining their neighbors' governments to discourage those who don't also share it.
Their enemies are said to be both capable of destroying them and completely ineffective against their technology.
Pacifism is the enemy, except if you're conservative and pure.
Pacifists are seen as collaborators with terrorists in their media.
Everyone is required to serve in the military.
Arming the populace - at least the conservative parts - is encouraged.
Machismo, even though women serve, their leaders are men who specifically ignored women who observed the Hamas build up.
The two I don't know enough about are their populism (the current leader is considered a populist) and language. They do police the language, but I don't think they limit it.
Was it only 20 years ago that some US conservatives were insisting that Mussolini wasn't a fascist? His policies were too attractive for such a nasty label. Mussolini was a Fascist-TM.
Fortune had a good article on Italy in the 1930s. One of the big differences between the Communists and Fascists was that the former subsumed all commercial activity while the latter had a regulated business oligarchy. Communists ran all the businesses while Fascists merely set terms and prices which is why the business community is more comfortable with Fascists than Communists.
Fascism was more friendly to religion but neither ideology had much room for traditional religious authority. They wanted that authority for themselves. Conservatives wanted the power of organized religion to enforce lifestyles without the messy stuff like belief and religious doctrine. Again, an obvious attraction to business interests. By the early 19th century, just about every political ideology was appropriating traditional religious motifs.
"why the business community is more comfortable with Fascists than Communists." This takes understatement to the extreme. The business communities weren't just comfortable with fascism and Nazism, they wee often the foremost proponents of it.
See also, Ford, of automotive fame.
If your defininition of Fascism doesn't include the merging of state and corporate power then it's not a good definition of Fascism.
Yeah, umberto eco's definition weirdly ignores the economics and use of an out group.
Identifying which nations are the most fascist overlooks the potential of totalitarian rule. Fascism is a political strategy to ensure social democracy cannot regulate and mitigate the power of capital to dictate any policies. Technology has developed and been deployed to ensure the authority of capital cannot be challenged because of the all encompassing subjectivity it produces. All stimulus can and will be crafted to produce the desired response from each individual. The few who are resistant or recognize the manipulation will be marginalized or become victims of the security state. A security state able to monitor and calculate every moment of everyone's lives without fear of any democratic or mass movements to overthrow it.
It's obviously Russia, and I think they often are described that way, unless people think that it's not fascism unless the leader stands on a balcony or has a moustache.
Second place is most likely China.
The answer is Russia and it's used to describe them a LOT.
I assume you want us to say Israel, but IMHO the definition misses an essential point.
Fascism is most usefully understood (IMHO) as WEAPONIZED DISGUST, in the same way the Communism (and its new mutants like Woke) are WEAPONIZED ENVY.
The disgust (and what follows) are the essence of the most important part of fascism, details like who gets to run the railways just do not matter in the grand scheme of things. You can predict how things will evolve based on these two understandings, in a way that is not useful if you obsess over the PoliSci definition.
And (as an outsider, so maybe I'm wrong) I don't see Israel as very far down that path of weaponized disgust, OR for that matter most of the other elements of the definition.
Russia fits the definition, but I don't think they're much interested in weaponized disgust. (Maybe some sort of generic disgust at the decadence of modernity, but nothing more than that.)
China is not a good fit to either element. They're governed in a way that's unusual by modern Western standards, but is more or less easily understood in terms of a governing aristocratic class (which is given substantial freedom to criticize and discuss issues, just as long as they are not fscking idiots – cf eg incidents like Perkin Warbeck or Elizabeth Barton).
The one space where, as far as I can tell, weaponized disgust IS a deliberate element of government is some (not all) of the Arab Countries.
North Korea came immediately to mind.