The Impact of the French Revolution on Communism and Fascism.

it's often been argued by leftists and even liberals that marxism or communism was superior to fascism in the sense that the former at least shared enlightenment principles of the french revolution. they say that while fascism is only about naked brutality, prejudice, war, violence, oppression, and hierarchy, communism or marxism is about equality, social justice, progressive values, peace, and etc. of course, such notion is based on the definition of fascism that is purely pejorative than ideological. after all, 'fascism' has simply come to mean thuggishness in our culture. to be sure, fascism isn't the only ideology which has fallen victim to widespread pejorative usage. think of how 'anarchist' is often meant to simply describe social chaos and breakdown of law & order--a kind of mindless nihilism--when, in fact, anarchists too sought a form of social order. the anarchist argument was that social violence was the product of institutional oppression. anarchists were not arguing FOR social violence but against social violence arising from class, national, religious, and cultural oppression. anarchists believed in the use of violence but as a means, not as an end. their ideal society was not made up of the kind of soccer fan hooligans that exist in the UK.
to be sure, 'anarchist' hasn't met the exact same fate as 'fascist'. in some ways, the very negative connotations of 'anarchism' are valued as expression of youth rebellion--as among the punkers and beatniks and such. at the very least, 'anarchism' has come to mean justified violence against the system or against 'the man'.
fascism, in contrast, is regarded as the violence by 'the man' to keep the masses oppressed and obedient.
now, there are a lot of dangerous things about fascism. and, fascism, as it became known to the world thru mussolini, hitler, and japanese militarism, was truly a monstrous creed and movement. but, there is much more to fascism than what leftists and liberals would have you believe. it is not simply or even primarily about being thuggish or monstrous. in fact, fascists considered themselves as the bulwark against true thugghishness and monstrousness.
fascism is obsessed with power but in the name of civilization, nobility, and beauty. it is not power for power's sake. it's doesn't have the kind of philosophy of power--if we could call it that--at the core in the 'gangsta paradise'. among many negroes, power is simply about who can whup whose ass. it's about whose pitbull be the baddest mofo dog there be. there is no appreciation of tradition or history, no vision of nobility or beauty, no ideals, no love of anything beyond one's own power and wealth. see the movie 'city of god'--about brazilian negro gangs--, and its concept of power is totally at odds with the fascist philosophy of power. thug power is expressed thru rap music. it's the war cry of savages and animalists. they wanna tear down society, law and order, all rules, civilization, art and culture, etc. fascism's preferred music is classical. since high, noble, and serious culture dosen't have the tough or barbaric element to defend itself, the fascist must resort to power to hold the barbarians at bay. suppose there is a rapper who howls ugly F-words and shakes his fists and acts like he wants to whup everyone's ass. and suppose in his vicinity is a guy with a violin who likes to play mozart or beethoven. the rapper wants to whup the violinist's ass, so what is the violinist supposed to do? the classical violinist is too refined, too civilized, too genteel to fight with his cultural values. the rapper's 'art' is a war cry, a call to mayhem, to whup ass. the art of the violinist is refinement, beauty, elegance, nobility, dignity, etc. clearly, the violinist is helpless before the rapper. this is where the fascist steps in with the club to batter the crazy rapper's ass. the rapper doesn't respect anything. he thinks he can push his weight around and spread ugliness everywhere. he mocks everyone and everything that is 'pussy' or 'weak'. against such savage force, civilized values are helpless. for civilized people to survive such attack, they need to resort to fascist force. in this sense, there is a fascist element in our society as expressed thru the federal law authorities and local police. most of us obey the law and respect civilized laws and obligations. but, some don't and wanna act the savage. since they respect no law and wanna grab power thru ugly means, the fascist element of society must clobber them and throw them in jail.
anyway, fascism isn't simply about thug power. a gangbanger is not a fascist. a rapper is not a fascist. they have no vision or ideal beyond their jiveass hunger for power. fascists serve an higher cause. rapper and gangbangers serve only themselves.
the problem with the fascism of mussolini, hitler, and japan was mainly two-fold. while they demanded respect for their nations/peoples, they failed to respect the rights of other nations/peoples. a true fascist must be nationalist and respect the nationalisms of other nations. hitler attacked his neighbors. so did japanese imperialists.
also, too much stress on civilization ironically leads to barbarism. when the ideals are too lofty, rigid, or impossible, people become intolerant, chauvanistic, and ruthless. hitler's ultra-aryan-ideal led to war and genocide. and, mussolini's highfalutin idea of reestablishing the roman empire was too much for spaghetti munching italians to swallow or handle. as dirty harry said in Magnum Force, 'a man's gotta know his limitations'. mussolini and hitler did not know their limitations, nor that of their own peoples. still, even their barbaric and brutal forms of fascism were not mere thuggery. they were for higher ideals.

in other respects, fascism is also much more than leftists would have us believe. for example, fascism isn't a simple-minded reactionary ideology. rather, it was a syncretic and fusionary ideology which tried to coordinate if not harmonize the best elements of various systems and ideologies. fascism was not pure capitalism nor pure socialism. it was not pure traditionalism or pure modernization-ism. it wasn't pure spiritualism or pure secularism. it wasn't pure nationalism or pure internationalism. at their best, mussolini's fascism and hitler national socialism achieved many worth goals in the 20s and 30s while most western democracies were mired in economic depression and social chaos, or when communist USSR achieved its progress at the cost of tens of millions of lives, destruction of traditions, mass prison camps, total extinction of freedom. indeed, up the hitler's invasion of poland, the human rights record of fascists were much better than that of USSR. and if we compare mussolini's italy in its entirety with any communist nation, mussolini's italy comes out much better. and, when it came to treatment of its own people, national socialism was more humane than soviet communism--or any communism--even during the terrible war. and, recall that during this period, the so-called democratic world powers were imperialists in their own right. indeed, it was funny when france and UK condemned mussolini's invasion of ethiopia when the former nations had much bigger empires around the world--and after WWII, france would fight two terrible and bitter wars in vietnam and algeria against national liberation movements(in other words, french were doing to many people what the germans had done to them during WWII).
the great crime of german fascism or national socialism was rooted in hitler's insane racial ideology which deemed that jews were an inferior race of sewer rats that had to be exterminated. now, there are alot of bad things about jews in the sense that every people have their unique negative traits--whether germans, japanese, arabs, mexicans, etc. but, hitler made jews out to be some subhuman cockroaches that had no reason to exist. and, so fascism forever became associated with the holocaust. and, as the jews came to dominate the media and academia of the most powerful nation in the world, the jewish-biased definition of 'fascism' came to stick. also, as western europe--the most influential and powerful part of the world next to the US--came under attack by national socialism, most western europeans equated fascism with the worst political system. had western europe fallen under stalinism, our remembrance of history may be very different.
anyway, fascism wasn't so simple as people make it out. if it didn't have a core unified ideology like communism, it was because fascism was flexible, pluralistic, and openminded. it didn't adopt pure capitalism or radical socialism. it believed that society could use and indeed needed elements of both. though social democrats were ideologically closer to communists, in practice they were closer to fascists. both social democracy and fascism were for hierarcho-socialist, not egalo-socialist. they were for providing basic services for all people within the national polity but not opposed to the idea of classes and hierarchy in income and privilege. in theory, social-democrats expounded that social-democratic system was merely a step to future communism, but in practice, social democrats were not all that interested in radical change or shifting to communism. they knew that capitalism was the goose that laid the golden egg which paid for socialist programs and services. so, social democracy was economically both capitalist and socialist. nazi germany was economically very similar to sweden which would come to epitomize european social democracy. of course, the crucial difference was that sweden was democratic while nazi germany was not. but, communist nations were even less free than nazi germany.
anyway, fascism was doomed to fail for two reasons. both italian and german fascism came to rely on the concept of the infallible leader, a very dangerous idea investing all the power in a megalomaniac who grew more and more reckless and ambitious. also, even if hitler had been cautious and didn't wage war and maintained his own nation, in the long run all dictatorships grow stagnant because necessary criticism and freedom are suppressed. still, had it not been for hitler's crazy racial ideas and wars based on them, the history of fascism in the 20th century would have been much more humane than the history of communism.
fascism, at least in the domestic or national sphere, was more conciliatory, peaceful, and tolerant than communism. indeed, this was precisely why so many leftists came to hate fascists. it had stolen left's thunder. the left had argued that there is the bloodsucking capitalists and noble suffering workers and the twain shall never meet. the workers must overthrow the bloodsuckers. also, there could be no peace between secularists and spiritualists. so, communists in russia smashed 50,000 churches and killed millions of christians.
in fascist italy and national socialist germany, mussolini and hitler proved that tradition and modernity, capitalists and workers, religious and secular, etc and etc could work together, complement one another, and live in peace. it violated the concept of marxist dialectics where one side had to oppress or overthrew the other. just as democrats hated nixon in the 70s for stealing liberal ideas and as republicans hated clinton in the 90s for stealing conservative ideas, leftists hated fascism not for its violence but for its relatively successful peace in dealing with class tensions. of course, with WWII, leftists had plenty of obvious reasons to hate fascists. but prior to WWII, fascist record on human rights was infinitely better than that of communists. with far less bloodshed, fascists in italy and germany provided more for their people, established social peace and mutual respect among various sectors, and staved off violent revolution. as far as the leftists were concerned, fascists were mere stooges of the bourgeoisie who'd devised a system using smoke and mirrors to fool the workers and peasants.

anyway, we were talking about how leftists have defended communism as, at the very least, belonging to the tradition of the enlightenment. as such, communism shares something with liberal democracy and even capitalism. communism is said to be rationalist whereas fascism is just alot of black magic.
now, how true is this? for one thing, enlightenment has its roots in the long tradition of western history. much of enlightenment principles go back to ancient greek and roman civilization. and both mussolini and hitler had the greatest respect for greek and roman antiquity. both mussolini and hitler saw themselves as part of the western tradition of science, progress, art, philosophy, etc. neither mussolini nor hitler was calling for the dark ages or for western man to start living in caves again. to be sure, both mussolini and hitler were anti-democratic but this isn't necessarily anti-western nor even anti-enlightenment. there was much in western political thought that was anti-democratic--beginning with socrates and plato themselves. also, not all enlightenment thinkers were pro-democratic. many thought society should be governed like clockwork--by the 'best and the brightest'. also, communism certainly was anti-democratic. in other words, pro-democratism isn't necessarily pro-enlightenment and anti-democraticism isn't necessarily anti-enlightenment. if so, the argument that communism is part of enlightenment tradition goes out the window.
also, it's important to understand that fascism was rationalist though it's often been described as irrationalist. as it's been labeled 'irrationalist', people assume that fascism was based on hocus pocus or some such. to be sure, there were guys like hess and himmler who were into the occult and such. but, no one opposed reason in the workings of fascism. fascism's link with the irrational was not in order to be irrational but to understand and harness its power. in this sense, facism was the rationalism of irrationalism. irrationalism had two underpinnings--philosophical and political. the philosophical aspect posited that man is a creative, inspirational, artistic, visionary creature. history isn't merely historicist or determinist but created by exceptional men of talent, genius, vision, etc, whether in the arts, science, politics. marx said that there are rational laws that govern history, and we can't do anything about it. fascists say men can do something about it. thru one's 'irrational' creative genius, we can re-write the laws of history. we can change the way we see the world, the way we see mankind. in this context, the 'irrational' means the inspirational, the emotional, the romantic, the spiritual, the musical, the visionary.
in the political sense, 'irrationalism' roughly meant populist. it posited that mass psychology cannot be rationalist. an individual can be rationalist sitting alone working as an accountant, mathematician, scientist. but, masses are about millions. millions cannot think rationally together; newton or machiavelli didn't think in tandem with millions of other people; they rationally thought on their own, and this true rationalism cannot be applied on the large poltical scale. also, people's sense and view of politics tend to be emotional or passionate or about self-centered bread and butter issues. a rational economist may say that the economy is doing well--for example, that the GDP has gone up 5% in the past year--but those who are out of work cannot 'rationally' accept this data. he 'thinks' thru his own experiences or thru his feelings. indeed, all democracies depend on and work because of legalism, not rationalism. people in the political process have never been rational. democracy is the sum product of legally coordinated irrationalisms. if indeed all democratic folks are rationalist, all candidates should rationally agree and all people should rationally vote for the correct candidate who is rationally most sound. but, people mostly vote for their own self-interest or based on their own biases, and candidates play to our emotions, not to our intellect. american democracy works not because it's rational but it is powerful and effective in coordinating a million irrational factors and forces.
this is what fascists rationally understood. they understood that the poltical process, psychology, and development were driven mostly by irrational forces. the problem with a democracy--at least during times of social crises--was that all these contradictions threatened to burst at the seams. to ensure social stability and order, fascists felt that a strong inspirational hand was necessary in order to hold society together. in this sense, fascism wasn't pro-irrational but trans-irrational--for a leader to transcend the irrational longings of the masses. but, this trans-irrationalism was based on accepting the irrational nature of mass psychology and politics. since mass psychology and politics are irrational, the people have to be led thru inspiration and emotional appeal than thru rational argument. there's no way millions of people can rationally think Together. thinking can only be done individually. there are things people can do together but thinking isn't one of them. people can sing choir together in perfect synchronization but cannot think and search for the same rational truth together. if thinking must be done, it must be done individually; even so, a million people may rationally come to different conclusions. conservatives and liberals may consider their views utterly sensible and rational; if so, why do they disagree? they disagree because they start from different interest, agendas, prejudices, biases. as such, even rational ideas are rooted in emotional attachments or preferences.

anyway, what fascists understood about the french revolution--the big kahuna in the enlightenment canon--was that its politics was essentially populist, not rationalist. and, in this sense, fascism owed a great deal to the french revolution--if not in principle, then in actual practice.
a fascist may well ask, what was so rational about the politics of the french revolution? you had intellectuals who were well-educated and rational... yet who Passionately disagreed with one another. also, the revolution was impossible without the support of the masses, most of whom were illiterate, dirty, ignorant, and superstitious. just how rational is a revolution when impassioned leaders must rely on the support of the unruly mob? could this mob be led and guided by reasoned discourse? of course not. they could only be roused to action thru calls for hatred, rage, vengeance, violence, looting, and such. the leaders of the revolution soon learned that the people could only be led thru 'irrational' populism. the leaders had to pander to mass anger, prejudices, and hatred. so, from the very beginning, the french revolution was populist, not rationalist. and, even its rationalisms was more Rationalist than rationalist, introducing the cult of scientism. the leaders of the french revolution began to kill one another for 'rational' reasons. each thought he was more Rational than the other guy. also, in order to prevail, they had to rely on armed gangs and the state police which weren't filled with the best educated of men. in order to be win as the most Rational leader, one needed the ability or the knack to appeal to the greatest number of 'irrational' mob.
in time, napoleon was better at this than anyone else. as such, he became the first populist emperor in history. napoleon also came to embody the spirit of the revolution, and many leftist scholars have argued that napoleon was a great liberator, a progressive. while it's true that napoleon spread enlightenment values in principle, in practice--like his predecessors who brought about the revolution--his real lesson to future generations was the power of irrationalism and populism in politics. is it any surprise that both mussolini and hitler revered napoleon? in this sense, mussolini and hitler were the best students of the french revolution--not so much in what it proclaimed but in how it actually worked. the french revolution was essentially a populist and irrationalist revolution. all the forces at work and all the tools used by its leaders and luminaries were essentially populist and irrationalist. these men flattered themselves as rational prior to the revolution when they had the privilege of thinking as lone individuals or devising theories in their own minds. but when confronted with the reality of power and governing society, they realized that power cannot be maintained rationally nor the people led rationally. power can only be maintained thru the logic of political power which defies all rational theories. and the people's loyalties can be maintained only thru appeals to mass psychology which was something very different than individual rational psychology. is it any wonder that even most democracies today rarely elect real thinkers into government? one look at american presidents in the past 50 yrs ought to prove that there is nothing rational about the political process. at best, it can be moderate which is not synonymous with rational.

french revolution is seen as a landmark event in the development of democracy and human rights, and there's some truth to this. but, it also served as a blueprint for both communism and fascism. most leftist and liberal historians will note the connection between the french revolution and soviet communism but will deny there's any link between the french revolution and fascism. they will insist that fascism stood for everything opposite of what the revolution stood for. on one level, ther is some truth to this. the french revolution was about egality, liberty, and fraternity. fascism was not about equality--but it wasn't about rigid or permanent inequalities either, at least among the people of the nation. and, fascism wasn't for 'liberty' if liberty means democracy. to be sure, fascism was for fraternity, at least for people within the nation.
in contrast, one could argue that communism, in principle, had more in common with the the ideals of the french revolution. it was for equality. it was for fraternity--at least among the proles. it wasn't for liberty if liberty means democracy, but i suppose 'liberty' could also mean liberation from wage slavery or worldwide revolution to free all of humanity from bondage of one sort or another.
but, if we look at the actual practice and product of the french revolution, we can't help but realize that fascists were as good students as were the communists. in some ways, fascists were better and more honest students. communists had something in common with the french revolutionaries in the sense that both were intellectual types who thought they could rationally figure out all the answers. but in practice, both french revolutionaries and communists were hardly different from the fascists. when nakedly dealing with actual power, both french revolutionaires and communists discovered that there is no such thing as rational mass psychology, rational politics, rational social power, or rational laws of history. rather, politics and power are about appealing to the masses anyway you must, holding onto power thru any means necessary, ruthlessly wiping out enemies and rivals, and ruling over the population thru irrational use of symbolism and mythmaking. french revolution led to the napoleon myth and communism created its own gods. it's like this: if highly educated intellectuals who've read 1000s of books cannot agree on principles and policies, how can you expect the masses who are far less educated and intelligent to think or act rationally? those who don't rationally understand the irrationals of politics can never survive in politics. rational thinking is done alone or in small groups. but, ruling a nation and leading the people are done 'irrationally'--thru irrational or populist appeals.
and, this is something fascists learned from the french revolution. the main political difference between fascists and communists was that the former was honest, the latter not. fascists understood and admitted the irrationals of their political reality and practice. communist rule was just as 'irrational' and cheaply populist, but there was the conceit of obeying the rational laws of history... and enough intellectuals--who were supposed to be sooo rational--bought into it(and still buy into it. so much for 'rationalism').

now, i am not arguing that democracy is crap because it too is irrationalist. democracy is the best of all systems because it arrives at some kind of compromise--no matter how messy or imperfect--among all the irrational agendas, conceits, biases, preferences, etc, etc.
to be sure, democracy isn't the best system for all places and times. suppose a nation is made up of 100,000 smart people of race A and 10,000 dumb people of race B. democracy will work because whites will maintain control thru democracy. but, suppose the nation is 10,000 people A and 100,000 people B. in that case, democracy may be worse than dictatorial rule by A because it means people B and their idiot ways will take over and run society.
still, under ideal conditions, democracy is the best of all systems because no one side can take total power and force all others. as such, abuses by all sides are checked.
still, whether a democracy works or not is not a matter of rationalism but of legalism. democracy must be either rooted in tradition--great britain--or constitutionalism/legalism--united states. it must also be led by people of more or less moderate and cautious temperaments.
because the parliamentary system slowly evolved in the UK, british democracy had no conceit of remaking the world in a single day.
and, american democracy was based on sober laws and statement of rights; in contrast, french republic was based on sloganeering and radical proclamations. jefferson's Declaration of Independence soberly states that 'all men are created equal'. it suggests that differences should be resolved thru peace; war should be only the last resort. in contrast, the french 'egalite, liberte, and fraternite' sound shrill and populist. also, we sense bloodthirst, a contempt for compromise.
indeed, it's hard to sum up the spirit of the american revolution with a few slogans. even the brief bill of rights reads very soberly. it's not something anyone would want to shout out in the streets. it's not so much that the american constitution is rationalist; actually, it isn't. rather, it's remarkable for its understanding that humanity and the political process are irrational; therefore, the paramount importance is not mapping out a totally rational system but creating a system that best harmonizes and balances all the irrational forces. rationalism is based on logic, and as such requires an idea to reach its logical conclusion; such is a recipe for totalitarianism in politics. the american constitution doesn't try to unify or explain all political reality thru a single idea or theory. rather, it seeks the best way to allow many different people with different values and ideas to live together in relative social harmony with basic rights and with respect for the law. it helped that the founding fathers were mostly men of even/sober temperament and not pompous hotheads like the french. they were rationalists, not Rationalists. jefferson liked to be rationalist in his own study or labotory, not THE Rationalist ideologue for all of america.

also, people like john adams and alexander hamilton were anti-populists. they understood mob psychology and mass dynamics. they not only saw such as dangerous in and of themselves but as potential political weapons wielded by unscrupulous leaders who might resort to riling up the masses to get things their way. this fear was the greatest with the presidency of andrew jackson but even jackson turned out to be sober and moderate than the napoleon of the US.
because of the strong legal tradition and the moderate political culture established as the norm by the temperate founding fathers, american democracy has proved to be resilient. though there have been populists in american politics--huey long, george wallace, perot, etc--, they've more or less been at the margins. americans love a character but still prefer the system to The Savior or The Agenda. it's remarkable that two of the presidents who did most to change america--lincoln and FDR--were not populists who appealed to naked irrationalism. it's not that they were rationalist; the important thing was that they were sensiblists.
the french and communist tradition was both intellectualist-rationalist and populist-irrationalist. both are dangerous as the former seeks the one Rational idea that logically solves all problems and as the latter relies on the enraged passions of the masses(and, as such, always requires a scapegoat or bogeyman when there are no quick fixes to problems).