New Japanese Fascism

[Dagashi Shojo]

If Japan were to somehow become fascist again, I'd be in favor. The Japanese aren't going to attack the US, this time around they'd clearly be on the US' side which will be wonderful. I don't mind if Japan is free to engage in an arms race with China or to become more fully independent on the world stage.

I think the Japanese have had their fill with militarism. Given it destroyed their nation the last time.

[Transoxthraxia]

Yep, nationalism clearly equals fascism. Japan was never, ever fascist, not even in WW2. Their goals were purely imperialistic and nationalistic, but they lacked most other telltale signs of a fascist government.

Nevertheless, It's about time the Japanese rediscovered their collective backbone. Stop apologizing for your predecessor's crimes and take your place in the world as a right and proper nation.

[Saiwania]

I think the Japanese have had their fill with militarism. Given it destroyed their nation the last time.

The people who lived back then are dying off and as time goes by, it becomes increasingly distant memory. We could be seeing a revival of Japanese nationalism in our lifetime if not the next one.

[Yorkers]

Personally, I have no idea how credible this paper is.

It's not. The National Review is neoconservative garbage.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Yep, nationalism clearly equals fascism. Japan was never, ever fascist, not even in WW2. Their goals were purely imperialistic and nationalistic, but they lacked most other telltale signs of a fascist government.

Nevertheless, It's about time the Japanese rediscovered their collective backbone. Stop apologizing for your predecessor's crimes and take your place in the world as a right and proper nation.

Considering that it's hard to define which is clearly fascist or not, so we might as well say fascist if we're not sure.

[Yorkers]

I think the Japanese have had their fill with militarism. Given it destroyed their nation the last time.

The people who lived back then are dying off and as time goes by, it becomes increasingly distant memory. We could be seeing a revival of Japanese nationalism in our lifetime if not the next one.

That's true. I'd apply this to the European side of World War II as well. Once anyone who was even remotely connected to the Holocaust is dead, I get the feeling that society as a whole will just stop caring. It will be seen as some distant historical event, like the Franco-Prussian War. In fact, I expect the popular view of the Nazis to grow to appreciation at best, and indifference at worst.

But one thing's for certain, nobody is going to care if you call them a Nazi as a political insult very soon. And invoking the Holocaust isn't going to land Israel any more moral support.

[Yorkers]

Yep, nationalism clearly equals fascism. Japan was never, ever fascist, not even in WW2. Their goals were purely imperialistic and nationalistic, but they lacked most other telltale signs of a fascist government.

Nevertheless, It's about time the Japanese rediscovered their collective backbone. Stop apologizing for your predecessor's crimes and take your place in the world as a right and proper nation.

Considering that it's hard to define which is clearly fascist or not, so we might as well say fascist if we're not sure.

Saying something is what it is not because you're "not sure" is horrible journalism.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Considering that it's hard to define which is clearly fascist or not, so we might as well say fascist if we're not sure.

Saying something is what it is not because you're "not sure" is horrible journalism.

Oh, yeah, we might as well call everyone fascist. Donald Trump, fascist. Obama, fascist. Everyone, fascist. Reminds me of several people in the farthest fringes of the left and the right.

Anyway, the post is about the fascist inclination of Imperial Japan during World War II. Fascism in general is very difficult to define and assign clear characteristics and too and I think that Imperial Japan fits a lot of the characteristics of a fascist government it shares with Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.

[Transoxthraxia]

Yep, nationalism clearly equals fascism. Japan was never, ever fascist, not even in WW2. Their goals were purely imperialistic and nationalistic, but they lacked most other telltale signs of a fascist government.

Nevertheless, It's about time the Japanese rediscovered their collective backbone. Stop apologizing for your predecessor's crimes and take your place in the world as a right and proper nation.

Considering that it's hard to define which is clearly fascist or not, so we might as well say fascist if we're not sure.

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy;

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy;

A very vague definition. "Authoritarian", "nationalistic" and "system of government and social organization" really does nothing to succinctly describe fascist governments. Also, the "right-wing" term is a bit lacking since fascist governments are known to mix both left-wing and right-wing elements.

Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[22] Each interpretation of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.[23][24]

It's actually much easier to describe fascism in terms of "what it is not" rather than "what it is".

[Transoxthraxia]

Saying something is what it is not because you're "not sure" is horrible journalism.

Oh, yeah, we might as well call everyone fascist. Donald Trump, fascist. Obama, fascist. Everyone, fascist. Reminds me of several people in the farthest fringes of the left and the right.

Anyway, the post is about the fascist inclination of Imperial Japan during World War II. Fascism in general is very difficult to define and assign clear characteristics and too and I think that Imperial Japan fits a lot of the characteristics of a fascist government it shares with Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.

Well, not only are you wrong about fascism, you're wrong in your thought that Imperial Japan is fascist. It lacked the fascist economic and social organization of any actual, fascist country of its time and later on. The Japanese people weren't dedicated to their country, they were dedicated to their emperor. The Germans, Italians, Spanish, Argentinians, and Brazilians all had dedication to their country, not their monarch, it's a very different concept if you bothered to think about it for about five minutes.

[Transoxthraxia]

Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[22] Each interpretation of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.[23][24]

It's actually much easier to describe fascism in terms of "what it is not" rather than "what it is".

Not particularly, no. The reason the definition is unclear in today's terms is because the political left has repurposed it to describe anyone who is even moderately socially authoritarian.

[Dagashi Shojo]

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy;

A very vague definition. "Authoritarian", "nationalistic" and "system of government and social organization" really does nothing to succinctly describe fascist governments. Also, the "right-wing" term is a bit lacking since fascist governments are known to mix both left-wing and right-wing elements.

Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[22] Each interpretation of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.[23][24]

It's actually much easier to describe fascism in terms of "what it is not" rather than "what it is".

Not really, it's fairly easy to describe Fascism. A totalitarian, populist, corporatist, ultranationalist ideology which centers around a charismatic strongman.

[Transoxthraxia]

A very vague definition. "Authoritarian", "nationalistic" and "system of government and social organization" really does nothing to succinctly describe fascist governments. Also, the "right-wing" term is a bit lacking since fascist governments are known to mix both left-wing and right-wing elements.



It's actually much easier to describe fascism in terms of "what it is not" rather than "what it is".

Not really, it's fairly easy to describe Fascism. A totalitarian, populist, corporatist, ultranationalist ideology which centers around a charismatic strongman.

Of which the Japanese lacked a charismatic strongman and most notably populism.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Well, not only are you wrong about fascism, you're wrong in your thought that Imperial Japan is fascist. It lacked the fascist economic and social organization of any actual, fascist country of its time and later on. The Japanese people weren't dedicated to their country, they were dedicated to their emperor. The Germans, Italians, Spanish, Argentinians, and Brazilians all had dedication to their country, not their monarch, it's a very different concept if you bothered to think about it for about five minutes.

I did not meant that Imperial Japan is straight out fascist, but it fits a lot of the characteristics of fascist governments, such as devotion to race and ethnic group, opposition to Marxism, and their attitude to imperialism, war as necessary, and the goal of economic autarky, things that Imperial Japan all did.

It does lack several aspects such as the presence of a single party rule, presence of a dictator. Also, dedication to country and monarch is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

However, I think that "fascism" is a useless term outside World War II and the Nazi and Mussolini's regimes since it could only be applied rigidly to the two.

[Transoxthraxia]

Well, not only are you wrong about fascism, you're wrong in your thought that Imperial Japan is fascist. It lacked the fascist economic and social organization of any actual, fascist country of its time and later on. The Japanese people weren't dedicated to their country, they were dedicated to their emperor. The Germans, Italians, Spanish, Argentinians, and Brazilians all had dedication to their country, not their monarch, it's a very different concept if you bothered to think about it for about five minutes.

I did not meant that Imperial Japan is straight out fascist, but it fits a lot of the characteristics of fascist governments, such as devotion to race and ethnic group, opposition to Marxism, and their attitude to imperialism, war as necessary, and the goal of economic autarky, things that Imperial Japan all did.

Their opposition to Marxism was purely macchiavellian. The "Marxists" that bordered them were political, not ideological, rivals.

It does lack several aspects such as the presence of a single party rule, presence of a dictator. Also, dedication to country and monarch is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

So there you go, Japan isn't fascist.

However, I think that "fascism" is a useless term outside World War II and the Nazi and Mussolini's regimes since it could only be applied rigidly to the two.

That's something else that's wrong; Franco's Spain was extraordinarily fascist, and would fit the term fascist way better than Imperial Japan ever could. Furthermore, Peron's Argentina and arguably Vargas' Estado Novo in Brazil could be considered fascist.

[Geilinor]

Well, not only are you wrong about fascism, you're wrong in your thought that Imperial Japan is fascist. It lacked the fascist economic and social organization of any actual, fascist country of its time and later on. The Japanese people weren't dedicated to their country, they were dedicated to their emperor. The Germans, Italians, Spanish, Argentinians, and Brazilians all had dedication to their country, not their monarch, it's a very different concept if you bothered to think about it for about five minutes.

I did not meant that Imperial Japan is straight out fascist, but it fits a lot of the characteristics of fascist governments, such as devotion to race and ethnic group, opposition to Marxism, and their attitude to imperialism, war as necessary, and the goal of economic autarky, things that Imperial Japan all did.

It does lack several aspects such as the presence of a single party rule, presence of a dictator. Also, dedication to country and monarch is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

However, I think that "fascism" is a useless term outside World War II and the Nazi and Mussolini's regimes since it could only be applied rigidly to the two.

There was a single party, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Rule_Assistance_Association

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Their opposition to Marxism was purely macchiavellian. The "Marxists" that bordered them were political, not ideological, rivals.

It did not change that Imperial Japan banned Marxists and shares similar characteristics with Imperial Japan and Mussolini's Italy.

That's something else that's wrong; Franco's Spain was extraordinarily fascist, and would fit the term fascist way better than Imperial Japan ever could. Furthermore, Peron's Argentina and arguably Vargas' Estado Novo in Brazil could be considered fascist.

In what ways are the aforementioned regimes fascistic?

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

There was a single party, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Rule_Assistance_Association

But devotion to the party never was a central role in the Imperial Japanese politics and way of life, it was more like devotion to the Emperor and presumably to Japan and the Japanese people. The party is not a very much important figure.

[Transoxthraxia]

In what ways are the aforementioned regimes fascistic?

Well, Franco is a popular figurehead who ruled through populism and the use of Spanish Nationalism. He was an authoritarian who not only used political, but cultural repression to ensure that he remained in power until he died, which he did successfully.

Peronism isn't "rigidly fascist" as you would say, but could definitely be considered fascist. Peronism was "consistently nationalist and populist" [Wikipedia], he nationalized all of Argentina's large corporations, and then nationalized all of the unions as well. Peron put down most of his critics and could definitely be considered a charismatic strongman.

As for Vargas' Brazil, straight from Wikipedia: "[Vargas] satisfied the demands of the rapidly growing urban bourgeois groups, voiced by the new (to Brazil) mass-ideologies of populism and nationalism". Vargas was a dictator who arose post-Great Depression and catered to populist and bourgeois needs, getting himself elected into power and then legally changing the legislature bit by bit to ensure that he stayed in power.

[Dagashi Shojo]

Not really, it's fairly easy to describe Fascism. A totalitarian, populist, corporatist, ultranationalist ideology which centers around a charismatic strongman.

Of which the Japanese lacked a charismatic strongman and most notably populism.

Tojo even said in a speech he was just a humble servant of the Emperor, no different from anyone else, in contrast to the European dictators.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Well, Franco is a popular figurehead who ruled through populism and the use of Spanish Nationalism. He was an authoritarian who not only used political, but cultural repression to ensure that he remained in power until he died, which he did successfully.

Peronism isn't "rigidly fascist" as you would say, but could definitely be considered fascist. Peronism was "consistently nationalist and populist" [Wikipedia], he nationalized all of Argentina's large corporations, and then nationalized all of the unions as well. Peron put down most of his critics and could definitely be considered a charismatic strongman.

As for Vargas' Brazil, straight from Wikipedia: "[Vargas] satisfied the demands of the rapidly growing urban bourgeois groups, voiced by the new (to Brazil) mass-ideologies of populism and nationalism". Vargas was a dictator who arose post-Great Depression and catered to populist and bourgeois needs, getting himself elected into power and then legally changing the legislature bit by bit to ensure that he stayed in power.

So, to become fascist, you need: A dictator, populism, nationalism, authoritarianism, nationalize several corporations.

Where's the fascist social and economic organization there? We can certainly see a lot of these in several regimes and ruling individuals.

Is prominent party rule a prerequisite for actual fascism and pertinent economic organization? Or are you just describing a bunch of dictators?

[Transoxthraxia]

Well, Franco is a popular figurehead who ruled through populism and the use of Spanish Nationalism. He was an authoritarian who not only used political, but cultural repression to ensure that he remained in power until he died, which he did successfully.

Peronism isn't "rigidly fascist" as you would say, but could definitely be considered fascist. Peronism was "consistently nationalist and populist" [Wikipedia], he nationalized all of Argentina's large corporations, and then nationalized all of the unions as well. Peron put down most of his critics and could definitely be considered a charismatic strongman.

As for Vargas' Brazil, straight from Wikipedia: "[Vargas] satisfied the demands of the rapidly growing urban bourgeois groups, voiced by the new (to Brazil) mass-ideologies of populism and nationalism". Vargas was a dictator who arose post-Great Depression and catered to populist and bourgeois needs, getting himself elected into power and then legally changing the legislature bit by bit to ensure that he stayed in power.

So, to become fascist, you need: A dictator, populism, nationalism, authoritarianism, nationalize several corporations.

Where's the fascist social and economic organization there? We can certainly see a lot of these in several regimes and ruling individuals.

Is prominent party rule a prerequisite for actual fascism and pertinent economic organization? Or are you just describing a bunch of dictators?

Populism is social organization :>

National Corporatism is economic organization :>

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Populism is social organization :>

National Corporatism is economic organization :>

Well, if that's the criteria you use to define fascism, then your criteria is a bit loose.

Populism is commonly observed in several colors across many regimes and individuals across the globe, and many governments had nationalized privately-owned corporations.There are also many leaders who ruled as dictators without checks and balances on their power or a form of binding constitution.

[Transoxthraxia]

Populism is social organization :>

National Corporatism is economic organization :>

Well, if that's the criteria you use to define fascism, then your criteria is a bit loose.

Populism is commonly observed in several colors across many regimes and individuals across the globe, and many governments had nationalized privately-owned corporations.There are also many leaders who ruled as dictators without checks and balances on their power or a form of binding constitution.

So, you haven't been listening at /all/ to the entire past couple of posts?

You asked for the social and economic organization, and I gave it, and then you came back at me telling me that those two things alone are the only things that define fascism. They are not. They are the ones you asked me to clarify, not the only things that define the ideology.

Nice try, though.