Falangism, not fascism?

James R. MacLean offers an alternative way of looking at the discussion of fascism:

I think that there is a basic misunderstanding because we forget about a far more common variant of right-wing authoritarianism: falangism. "Falangism", the name of Gen. Francisco Franco's adopted party (he seems to have liked that it was ideologically amorphous and pliant, yet extreme and bitter); also, the name of an extreme party of the Lebanese Maronite community which advocated violence against the Palestinian exile community and its detachment from the Lebanese state.

Perhaps it would be helpful to explain the distinct between falangism and fascism. In North America (in particular), the political right is in favor of devolving power to states or to firms; we are all, I'm sure, familiar with conservative politicians insisting they are the party of freedom because they're opposed to federal control (except that that federal control they're opposed to is nearly always control over firms, or over states, controlling individuals).

In Europe, the extreme right is always in favor of centralizing control. The leftists -- e.g., Karl Marx and the Paris Commune -- actually wanted to see Europe run by cooperatives of cooperatives, not states. In the USA, in contrast, our own traditions of repressive violence have traditionally been checked by a strong federal government. This is not said to absolve the federal government of terrible crimes -- there have been many of them -- but it must be said that crimes such as the Indian genocide, the importation of Chinese as virtual indentured servants (and redneck violence against them), the entire episode of slavery and barbaric savagery against African Americans, pogroms against Latinos--these are usually "do-it-yourselfer" atrocities.

So fascism is a type of tyranny in which the state is at war with the nation; the state is militarized, and the elites (viz., the owners of capital) are sufficiently frightened of the masses that they are willing to cede control to a junta. The fascist state is a praetorian state which exacts a stiff price from the traditional elites for its protection.

Compare this to the falangist state of Gen. Franco (in Spain) and those of Latin America since 1930. The falangist state is in many respects very different from a fascist state, because the elites in a falangist state are much more self-confident and are prepared to administer repression directly. Society is not militarized under a falangist state because the elites simply hire recruits from an underclass.

Another distinction: under a fascist state, laws simply are in abeyance. If you ever get a chance to read about the trial of members of The White Rose (dissidents in Third Reich) it's very illuminating: the tribunal tries them without any reference to any legal framework at all. Nazi Germany was a society where laws, in a sense, were meaningless: the state excluded any theoretical bounds on its own power. Whereas under a falangiast state, such as the juntas of Latin America, there were laws and they did restrain the state; so the junta would have criminal gangs (or the elites would have criminal gangs) who murdered or assaulted people willy-nilly. My point is, the falangist would carry out ITS violence through selectively tolerated criminality. Falangism, in essence, is class warfare by a state which is assuredly devoted to a particular elite and which remains subordinated to that elite.

Now, there's a reason I'm explaining this: it's a distinction which I think is really worth noting. On the one hand, the current administration is horrible; but it's horrible in a way which is very different from the horrible-ness of the European fascist regimes. And it will be noted that sometimes people who accuse the administration of being fascist are tripped up by this distinction, because in many respects a society degenerating towards falangism does the opposite things from one plunging into the hell of fascism. Both are horrid, but apologists for American rightists--or ordinary skeptics--can point to the fact that the GOP's supporters defend the 2nd amendment , tax cuts, deregulation, devolution of power to the states and so forth. And they haven't quite "militarized the state," either.

My point is, since our problem is falangism (and not fascism) the GOP behavior described above DOES NOT refute the drift towards an authoritarian rightwing regime. But it is inconsistent with fascism.

I received this letter just before posting the most recent addition to the series. Afterward, Mr. MacLean wrote in with an addendum:

The reason I mentioned "falangism" in my previous email and the reason I thought it was relevent is that after reading about the "groupuscular" patriot movement I still feel that this movement doesn't really seem to threaten us with a fascist movement such as what was seen in Europe between the wars. On the other hand, I do think falangism is a far more urgent and likely risk; while it is not implicated in monstrosities such as Hitler's Final Solution, it is more ubiquitous and has been implicated in a large number of large-scale terrors. There are certain historical events which would have to happen before that occurred here: one is the fresh anguish of a really horrible war like WW1. Spain was neutral in that war and drifted into a bitter and bloody movement which was closer to being full-blown fascist than I have implied in "my" definition of falangism. But there was one core feature of the falangistas which I think is a crucial distinction, and which explained its ability to endure.

This distinction was that, while fascist regimes are characterized by a boundless praetorian state, falangist states are actually limited in scope and action; and they remain subordinated to a coalition of class interests. I don't mean by this to imply that fascist states are disinterested and non-ideological--but the fascist state really attempts to subordinate all classes and interests to a total state. Civil association outside of the state is impossible and there is no meaningful legal frame of reference. If the fascist state fails to achieve or sustain totalitarianism--not quite the same thing--then it is "doomed" to dissipate into falangism.

In contrast, the falangist state has the same rightist character, but there are associations outside of the state. There are elites who are above the state, enjoy the protection of its laws, and the ability at times to act separately from it. A fascinating case of this in Indonesia, where geography and demographics (and economics) probably prevent true fascism from emerging. I was interested in the fact that Indonesia was terribly violent, authoritarian, had an internal racism of its own, and had soldiers' associations routinely violating the law on behalf of the state (a "pro-state insurgency") There was a weird situation where some elements of law enforcement in the islands were trying to investigate the routine homicides of workers, and of course they were stymied by the very government they were working for. Indonesia's pro-state insurgencies are actually just an extreme example of the contorted violence of falangist states.

So why is this relevent to the US? Because I don't think the US is really vulnerable to fascism at this time. It's not because of our democratic traditions that I think this, but my sense of how the "patriot movement" abets business nationalists other comercial beneficiaries of the far right. And I think fascism is actually quite exotic--it's like a Category 6 storm, rather than a bunch of Category 4's accompanied by flooding and cholera (or falangism). And finally, the groupuscles are already useful to falangist interests whereas it would take stupendous consolidation of the "patriot groups" before they posed anything like shocktroops or a vanguard of fascism. Falangism can function just as efficiently when its practioners hate each other, and when they have mind-bendingly contradictory propaganda.

But there is another feature still. Falangism flourishes when there is right-wing distrust of the state, and scorn for the regime's laxness with crime. Groupuscles need no actual affiliation with the state; they can remain in hate with a state they regard as coddling "commies" or target ethnic groups. And falangism is very simpatico with technocratic administration of a stagnant economy.

At this point, I'll just say that Mr. MacLean makes some interesting points -- I'm not sure he's right, but he raises some worthwhile objections I'm hoping to eventually address.