The paradigms of fascism went in for military uniform rather than suit and tie of course.
I've said before that while Marxism can easily be defined by reference to Karl Marx, fascism doesn't have the same kind of theoretical basis that makes it easily definable. It's a term used more often by outsiders to mean this political group can usefully be likened to Mussolini's political movement.
Yeah, I've had some reflections on that one, because I think there should be objective defining characteristics of fascism so that it doesn't get turned into a dumb pejorative as referenced in Godwin's Law. And I think there are.
Far as military imagery, I recall swords were pretty prominent in monarchic imagery as well. And being able to win wars was pretty important if you wanted to keep your head attached to your body while seated on a throne. Violence is, of course, inherent to The State as an institution, but it isn't always to centralized in one person or faction.
It's also interesting that Mussolini seems like one of the very few people in modern history to say "Yep, I'm a fascist" without shame or embarrassment. Though I'm not sure how true that was before World War II, similar to being associated with the KKK in America. It wasn't always such a cause for shame and embarrassment.
I think that traditional monarchy is also bound by an array of traditions going back often centuries.
Going back to my point above, if by “traditional monarchy” we mean “absolute monarchy,” then no. The “absolute” in “absolute monarchy” means that the monarch isn’t actually bound by anything. Traditions are only “binding” in so far as the monarch chooses to respect and abide by them, but it is entirely within the authority of the monarch to change or disregard them.
I'm always impressed by the durability of the classifications of types of government that were invented by Greek political analysts (a.k.a. "philosophers"). Monarchy and tyranny seem like they're pretty much the same thing (rule by one guy), but the distinction (at least according Aristotle when he classified these categories) is that the monarch is legitimate within whatever constitutional system exists. A monarch's powers may be vast or small, codified or customary, but limits exist. This is not the case with a tyrant, who exists outside the traditional constitutional order and thus has no limits on his power. Tyranny is often accomplished by leaving in place the existing constitutional structures but hollowing them out so that they are all corruptly controlled by the tyrant. So no one actually has the title "tyrannos" and the ekklesia, boule, and magistrates all still exist, they're just all controlled by one individual
I would say that fascism is a sub-set of tyranny, in the Aristotelian sense of the term.
I think that traditional monarchy is also bound by an array of traditions going back often centuries.
Going back to my point above, if by “traditional monarchy” we mean “absolute monarchy,” then no. The “absolute” in “absolute monarchy” means that the monarch isn’t actually bound by anything. Traditions are only “binding” in so far as the monarch chooses to respect and abide by them, but it is entirely within the authority of the monarch to change or disregard them.
I'm always impressed by the durability of the classifications of types of government that were invented by Greek political analysts (a.k.a. "philosophers"). Monarchy and tyranny seem like they're pretty much the same thing (rule by one guy), but the distinction (at least according Aristotle when he classified these categories) is that the monarch is legitimate within whatever constitutional system exists. A monarch's powers may be vast or small, codified or customary, but limits exist. This is not the case with a tyrant, who exists outside the traditional constitutional order and thus has no limits on his power. Tyranny is often accomplished by leaving in place the existing constitutional structures but hollowing them out so that they are all corruptly controlled by the tyrant. So no one actually has the title "tyrannos" and the ekklesia, boule, and magistrates all still exist, they're just all controlled by one individual
I would say that fascism is a sub-set of tyranny, in the Aristotelian sense of the term.
Certainly in Italy, where for the vast majority of his ‘rule’ Mussolini operated below the Italian king (on paper).
Franco had the fiction of essentially empty-chairing the Spanish monarchy while insisting there was one.
Seems to me the biggest difference between a monarchy and a fascist government is the length of time they endure. The monarchies I am aware of have lasted for generations, but I have yet to see a fascist government last more than the lifetime of the leader. North Korea may be close in that it has gone through two generations and a third one is being prepared to take it over--but, then again, it identifies as a communist government. Still, it has marks of a fascist government with its emphasis on racial purity and militarianism.
Seems to me the biggest difference between a monarchy and a fascist government is the length of time they endure. The monarchies I am aware of have lasted for generations, but I have yet to see a fascist government last more than the lifetime of the leader. North Korea may be close in that it has gone through two generations and a third one is being prepared to take it over--but, then again, it identifies as a communist government. Still, it has marks of a fascist government with its emphasis on racial purity and militarianism.
This was true of ancient tyrannies as well. Tyrannical regimes (in the classical sense of the term) tended to last one to three generations, whereas monarchies (again, as classically defined) tended to endure for one or two dozen generations.
Seems to me the biggest difference between a monarchy and a fascist government is the length of time they endure. The monarchies I am aware of have lasted for generations, but I have yet to see a fascist government last more than the lifetime of the leader. North Korea may be close in that it has gone through two generations and a third one is being prepared to take it over--but, then again, it identifies as a communist government. Still, it has marks of a fascist government with its emphasis on racial purity and militarianism.
Like I said, I think fascism is just the nascent form of monarchy. If the fascists succeed, you call the leader a monarch.
And since fascism itself is less than 100 years old as a concept, I'm not sure we can say much about the longevity of fascist regimes without back-mapping the word onto earlier regimes. That's kind of what I'm saying, if you look back in history, you can find a lot of marks of "fascism" in other governments that'd be called by other names, including "monarchy."
[And now I'm thinking that the conversion from fascism to monarchy might be akin to a mafioso finally going into legitimate business without being held accountable for their illegal enterprises.]
Comments
Yeah, I've had some reflections on that one, because I think there should be objective defining characteristics of fascism so that it doesn't get turned into a dumb pejorative as referenced in Godwin's Law. And I think there are.
Far as military imagery, I recall swords were pretty prominent in monarchic imagery as well. And being able to win wars was pretty important if you wanted to keep your head attached to your body while seated on a throne. Violence is, of course, inherent to The State as an institution, but it isn't always to centralized in one person or faction.
It's also interesting that Mussolini seems like one of the very few people in modern history to say "Yep, I'm a fascist" without shame or embarrassment. Though I'm not sure how true that was before World War II, similar to being associated with the KKK in America. It wasn't always such a cause for shame and embarrassment.
I'm always impressed by the durability of the classifications of types of government that were invented by Greek political analysts (a.k.a. "philosophers"). Monarchy and tyranny seem like they're pretty much the same thing (rule by one guy), but the distinction (at least according Aristotle when he classified these categories) is that the monarch is legitimate within whatever constitutional system exists. A monarch's powers may be vast or small, codified or customary, but limits exist. This is not the case with a tyrant, who exists outside the traditional constitutional order and thus has no limits on his power. Tyranny is often accomplished by leaving in place the existing constitutional structures but hollowing them out so that they are all corruptly controlled by the tyrant. So no one actually has the title "tyrannos" and the ekklesia, boule, and magistrates all still exist, they're just all controlled by one individual
I would say that fascism is a sub-set of tyranny, in the Aristotelian sense of the term.
Certainly in Italy, where for the vast majority of his ‘rule’ Mussolini operated below the Italian king (on paper).
Franco had the fiction of essentially empty-chairing the Spanish monarchy while insisting there was one.
This was true of ancient tyrannies as well. Tyrannical regimes (in the classical sense of the term) tended to last one to three generations, whereas monarchies (again, as classically defined) tended to endure for one or two dozen generations.
Like I said, I think fascism is just the nascent form of monarchy. If the fascists succeed, you call the leader a monarch.
And since fascism itself is less than 100 years old as a concept, I'm not sure we can say much about the longevity of fascist regimes without back-mapping the word onto earlier regimes. That's kind of what I'm saying, if you look back in history, you can find a lot of marks of "fascism" in other governments that'd be called by other names, including "monarchy."
[And now I'm thinking that the conversion from fascism to monarchy might be akin to a mafioso finally going into legitimate business without being held accountable for their illegal enterprises.]