RXML parse error: No current scope.
| <if variable="rxml is 1">
| <if variable="rxml is 1">
| <trimlines>
| <insert file="../include">
RXML parse error: No current scope.
| <if variable="rxml is 1">
| <if variable="rxml is 1">
| <if variable="rxml is 1">
| <trimlines>
| <insert file="../include">
Fascism in Scandinavia of the 1930's<insert name=__subtitle>Fascism in Scandinavia of the 1930's (the s.c.nordic FAQ)Fascism in Scandinavia of the 1930'sAbout : culture,
history, places of interest and other things. This page is a part of
the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) file for the newsgroup
soc.culture.nordic. Its purpose is to provide some general information
about the Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and
Iceland), to cover some of the topics frequently discussed in the
group and to introduce new readers to the group.111111 >
>
>
Subject: Scandinavia in the 30's & Fascism
From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley)
Date: 1996 22 Apr
Message-Id: <4lh1lh$sdh@shellx.best.com>
Doug Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Someone commented on the radio this am how unusual Britain was in
: not succumbing in any way to Fascism in the 30s -- Italy, Spain,
: Germany, were mentioned -- as were the Scandinavian countries.
: How did they succumb to Fascism in the 30s?
: thanks
The way you put it, it sounds as if the Scandinavian countries were
thought to be exceptional in the same way Britain was, that is, by not
going Fascist. At the time the Japanese government was considered
Fascist, along with the three you mention. Of course, the final triumph
in Spain did not occur until 1939, and Fascism overwhelmed Poland, Denmark,
Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium and France by military means in 1939-40.
Fascism was a strong minority sentiment throughout the Western World
in the 1930's. Whether Huey Long, Father Coughlin and the America
Firsters can be properly considered Fascist or not is a question, but
anti-Communism was widely influenced by Fascist ideas and
associations. So were many people drawn to Communism and Communist
fronts by Anti-Fascism. Both right and left were so tempted by the
power of dictatorship that the political spectrum wrapped into a
cylinder, so that Communist sympathizers fell easily into Fascism. I
don't recall so much movement the other way. There were fairly strong
Fascist groups in every European country, including Britain, where the
Mosleyites were not exactly trivial in their influence. The ideas
behind it survive to this day, in the skinheads, survivalists and so
on. We just don't call them Fascists any more.
As far as I recall, Fascists were not a part of any Scandinavian
government prior to the Nazi military invasions of WWII.
Gerry
Subject: Scandinavia in the 30's & Fascism
From: kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu (Robert Kunkle)
Date: 25 Apr 1996
Message-Id: <4lp27q$4t1@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
In article <4lh1lh$sdh@shellx.best.com>,
Gerard Foley wrote:
>
> Fascism was a strong minority sentiment throughout the Western World
> in the 1930's. Whether Huey Long, Father Coughlin and the America
> Firsters can be properly considered Fascist or not is a question, but
> anti-Communism was widely influenced by Fascist ideas and associations.
> So were many people drawn to Communism and Communist fronts by Anti-
> Fascism. Both right and left were so tempted by the power of dictator-
> ship that the political spectrum wrapped into a cylinder, so that
> Communist sympathizers fell easily into Fascism. I don't recall
> so much movement the other way. There were fairly strong Fascist
> groups in every European country, including Britain, where the
> Mosleyites were not exactly trivial in their influence. The
> ideas behind it survive to this day, in the skinheads, survivalists
> and so on. We just don't call them Fascists any more.
>
> As far as I recall, Fascists were not a part of any Scandinavian
> government prior to the Nazi military invasions of WWII.
I am very confused; my working knowlege of the terms capitalism,
socialism, and fascism relates to the ownership of property.
Perhaps vastly over-simplified:
capitalism = private ownership and control of property
socialism = state ownership and control of property
fascism = private ownership, state control of property
Here property is in the sense of means of production or capital
investment. As I understand it, the terms do not imply a form of
government such as dictator or oligarchy. In light of these
definitions, perhaps many popular political movements other than
"skinheads" could be referred to as fascist.
Jim
Subject: Scandinavia in the 30's & Fascism
From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley)
Date: 26 Apr 1996
Message-Id: <gfoley-2604961025000001@stemmons66.onramp.net>
Robert Kunkle (kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu) wrote:
: I am very confused; my working knowlege of the terms capitalism,
: socialism, and fascism relates to the ownership of property.
: Perhaps vastly over-simplified--
: capitalism=private ownership and control of property
: socialism=state ownership and control of property
: fascism=private ownership, state control of property
: Here property is in the sense of means of production or capital
: investment. As I understand it, the terms do not imply a form of
: government such as dictator or oligarchy. In light of these
: definitions, perhaps many popular political movements other than
: "skinheads" could be referred to as fascist.
Most people would have a hard time distinguishing ownership from control.
The term Fascism was certainly loosely used, but I think most people
considered Fascism as characterised by
dictatorship
nationalism
militarism
governmental suppression of political activity
retention of private ownership of property.
Items (2) and (5) distinguished it from Communism, which pretended
to internationalism. It was also in Europe the expression of a private
militarized political party. The latter did not really exist in Japan,
as far as I know.
Gerry
Subject: Scandinavia in the 30's & Fascism
From: jwuste@diomede.win-uk.net (John Wusteman)
Date: 06 May 1996
Message-Id: <wuste-0605960928470001@stemmons27.onramp.net>
Is a better defining notion the relationship between individual and
collective in society?
Fully blown Fascism and Communism are alike in denying the validity of
any private sphere of autonomy against the State. They differ in that
Fascism is essentially nationalistic or race oriented in its
collectivism, while Communism, at least in theory, is or was
international. The corporatism of Fascism, and the curious politics of
divide and rule employed by Hitler in the economic sphere are among
the curious historic expressions of a confused intellectual origin. By
the way, did you know that W B Yeats was a leader of the Irish Fascist
movement -- the Greenshirts (whose flag consisted of nine rows of
beans!)