That seems a bit simplistic. Communist revolutions were frequently focused on charismatic leaders such as Mao or Lenin. Secondly, they are always against current public order. That's the whole point of overthrowing the government. I'm not sure what you mean by private entity in this case.
Mao or Lenin would not have phrased it thus, whether they were popular idealists or cynical powermongers themselves. That stands in sharp contrast to Hitler and Mussolini, whose cults of personality were integral to their movements.
It was a general observation. Charisma in a revolutionary leader is a necessity, really. And that second statement highlights the problem of fascism. Which, unlike communism, does not having any concrete doctrines.
I would contend that the charismatic part of fascism is only needed for the revolution, afterward it can transition to a more bureaucratic leadership, as occurred in communist states.
However, upon thinking it over, I can not come up with any examples! So I will concede the point.
Communism envisions a collectively-run government that may cede power to a dictator to promote the revolution; Fascism never pretends to want anything but dictatorship and in fact frames itself as an explicit reaction to the perceived failings of democracy.
The last part is true enough, but frequently that failure was associated with leftist elements participating in the government. The numerous communist and anarchist militias roaming about did not help.
You're also removing the collective aspect from Fascism. It's classical form is a overreaction against communism. Instead of a general lower class uprising it's focused around corporate interests and a terrified populace.
No. Classical Fascism was a reaction to the perceived decadence of Western intellectualism and democracy,* and the abject failure of those concepts to alleviate the suffering of the working classes in the Great Depression was the means by which those movements gained whatever popular support they actually did. And gain lower class support they did, to a point, but ultimately yes, they were able to take power through collusion with old money and the military (again in sharp contrast to Commies).
Again, the failure of the intellectuals would be that they were considered to be communists. The successes of the Russian Revolution emboldened them (the intellectuals) further. This leads us to...
The anti-communist bit was there, sure, but it was exaggerated as a tagline to legitimize themselves to the middle classes, demonize political opponents, and shore up support with the military and commercial interests that used them as thugs. It was pure opportunism, and in fact, the early days of particularly Nazism had a heavy semi-Communist element that coalesced around Georg Strasser and certain portions of the SA, including Rohm.
Hitler frequently decried the Bolsheviks; ranking them up with Jews and Slavs in terms of evilness. The movement had to have
some ideas behind it. It's not like they came together in some cabal bereft of any goals beyond power.
Fascism having socialist roots doesn't contradict this. It just provided a way of gaining the benefits worker's wanted, but without the antireligious, internationalist, and equality rhetoric. Instead it validated their religion, nationalism, and whacky racial theories.
And Rohm was purged for disagreeing the more conservative elements. His ideas on nationalization did not endear him to the upper classes. Nazism's final form would come later, so it doesn't really contradict my point.
Also, there IS a collective aspect to Fascism, but it's not in any way ennobling in the way Communism is supposed to be. It's basically "you are shit and are worthless on your own, but if you unite behind this leader/iconography you can be a part of something great".
I never really got that feeling from fascist propaganda. Well, beyond the standard solidarity posters portraying the individual as weaker compared to the group. Which applies to every war poster
ever.
Pretty much exactly like Project Mayhem. Durden's a Fascist, sorry. :(
Personality cults are not the same as fascism.
Really, it probably be more accurate to characterize them as anarchists. Mass movements and individualism do not go hand-in-hand.
Cult of Personality != Individualism
Must have confused it with one of the posts on the Incredibles! My bad.
Author
Topic: Top 25 Liberal & Conservative Films (Read 7922 times)