I guess it is a failing that either could fall into, but Nationalism also seems to be more likely to run counter to the material interest of the majority, specifically being anti-immigrant and protectionist in trade. A patriot does not automatically assume that the interests of their country are necessarily in opposition to those of other countries. And of course, a patriot can take as much pride in the symbols of his patria as the nationalist (singing the national anthem) but can accept non-traditional expressions (kneeing during the national anthem) as well.
"The universal application of the adjective "Fascist" to what people see as "the extreme Right" is wrong, and it confuses the issue. The worldwide phenomenon was not Fascism; it was national socialism. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were Fascists; both of them were extreme nationalists, though the latter was careful not to admit this openly…"
I disagree. There is an extensive literature on fascism. Nationalism is a feature of fascism, not a replacement. Fascism encompasses nationalism as well as other features.
That is a beautiful passage: a clever insight, well-expressed, concisely. Thanks for sharing it.
I feel it is marred by the final paragraph you quote, because this claim about the meaning of Fascism is contestable - and contested - for reasons that the preceding paragraphs are not. It is an undermining distraction. The very next sentence implicitly concedes this: "But this is not an article about the terminology of dictatorships."
This piece evokes another reason (among so many) that I dislike labels. These labels mean different things to different people and they are too often are thrown around as substitutes for real discussion or thinking. I think there is one concept that focuses on belonging and group pride, the way you can love your family (with open eyes); but another concept that excludes, focusing on being the most worthy, allowing one to have contempt for "those people." These are two concepts among many and I don't think it's helpful to reduce them to labels (while conflating them with other concepts).
What is your point in publishing this, Brad? If you're warming up to more conservative historians, I recommend you read Peter Drucker, The End of Economic Man - The Origins of Totalitarianism (1939). Drucker was not an academic historian, but nonetheless a serious scholar of history. The most fundamental feature of totalitarianism in both German and Italy was, he wrote, the attempt to substitute noneconomic for economic satisfactions. This does not describe today's China, but it does apply to Russia, Iran and North Korea and ... although I'm sure you will consider me a troll again for saying this, it applies more to America's Leftwing intellectuals than to their Rightwing counterparts.
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
Note that this this does not include other traits that make up fascism -
Defining who is in in group by blood/birth etc.
Excluding out groups by force, including violence, and death
Control of a government with conservative enablers (who may not be nationalists)
Government use/coercion of private companies for directed vs liberal economic goals
Extending territory by force
Fascism may vary in the details, but it is not nationalism alone.
I guess it is a failing that either could fall into, but Nationalism also seems to be more likely to run counter to the material interest of the majority, specifically being anti-immigrant and protectionist in trade. A patriot does not automatically assume that the interests of their country are necessarily in opposition to those of other countries. And of course, a patriot can take as much pride in the symbols of his patria as the nationalist (singing the national anthem) but can accept non-traditional expressions (kneeing during the national anthem) as well.
"The universal application of the adjective "Fascist" to what people see as "the extreme Right" is wrong, and it confuses the issue. The worldwide phenomenon was not Fascism; it was national socialism. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were Fascists; both of them were extreme nationalists, though the latter was careful not to admit this openly…"
I disagree. There is an extensive literature on fascism. Nationalism is a feature of fascism, not a replacement. Fascism encompasses nationalism as well as other features.
That is a beautiful passage: a clever insight, well-expressed, concisely. Thanks for sharing it.
I feel it is marred by the final paragraph you quote, because this claim about the meaning of Fascism is contestable - and contested - for reasons that the preceding paragraphs are not. It is an undermining distraction. The very next sentence implicitly concedes this: "But this is not an article about the terminology of dictatorships."
Perhaps editors are more valuable than you think.
This piece evokes another reason (among so many) that I dislike labels. These labels mean different things to different people and they are too often are thrown around as substitutes for real discussion or thinking. I think there is one concept that focuses on belonging and group pride, the way you can love your family (with open eyes); but another concept that excludes, focusing on being the most worthy, allowing one to have contempt for "those people." These are two concepts among many and I don't think it's helpful to reduce them to labels (while conflating them with other concepts).
What is your point in publishing this, Brad? If you're warming up to more conservative historians, I recommend you read Peter Drucker, The End of Economic Man - The Origins of Totalitarianism (1939). Drucker was not an academic historian, but nonetheless a serious scholar of history. The most fundamental feature of totalitarianism in both German and Italy was, he wrote, the attempt to substitute noneconomic for economic satisfactions. This does not describe today's China, but it does apply to Russia, Iran and North Korea and ... although I'm sure you will consider me a troll again for saying this, it applies more to America's Leftwing intellectuals than to their Rightwing counterparts.
merriam-Webster
nationalism
noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
Note that this this does not include other traits that make up fascism -
Defining who is in in group by blood/birth etc.
Excluding out groups by force, including violence, and death
Control of a government with conservative enablers (who may not be nationalists)
Government use/coercion of private companies for directed vs liberal economic goals
Extending territory by force
Fascism may vary in the details, but it is not nationalism alone.
I got as far as the inaccurate statement about Johnson, who was referring to the Patriot party. I'll read something else.