Fascism and suffrage

[kerry]

I'm reading Reason, Religion and Democracy by Dennis Mueller. He argues that the expansion of the franchise in European countries between 1870 and 1930 played a role in the rise of Fascism. Anyone run across this argument anywhere else or know of any similar analyses?

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by kerry

I'm reading Reason, Religion and Democracy by Dennis Mueller. He argues that the expansion of the franchise in European countries between 1870 and 1930 played a role in the rise of Fascism. Anyone run across this argument anywhere else or know of any similar analyses?

Not specifically but the argument is interesting. Prior to that franchise expansion Europe was almost exclusively non democratic monarchies. And facism had much support amongst the people in particular in opposition to communism.

- Peter.

[Maki]

Originally Posted by kerry

I'm reading Reason, Religion and Democracy by Dennis Mueller. He argues that the expansion of the franchise in European countries between 1870 and 1930 played a role in the rise of Fascism. Anyone run across this argument anywhere else or know of any similar analyses?

Ortega y Gasset's "The Revolt of the Masses" comes close.

[tonkovich]

Originally Posted by kerry

I'm reading Reason, Religion and Democracy by Dennis Mueller. He argues that the expansion of the franchise in European countries between 1870 and 1930 played a role in the rise of Fascism. Anyone run across this argument anywhere else or know of any similar analyses?

uh, no. seems like a factor? maybe? is that the whole argument? ( i imagine not) please elaborate?

[kerry]

Originally Posted by tonkovich

uh, no. seems like a factor? maybe? is that the whole argument? ( i imagine not) please elaborate?

Just getting to his substantive argument, the first two thirds of the book is mostly historical. His general line of thought is that religion and democracy are not happy bedfellows.
I believe he is going to develop an argument for limited citizenship.

[tonkovich]

Originally Posted by kerry

Just getting to his substantive argument, the first two thirds of the book is mostly historical. His general line of thought is that religion and democracy are not happy bedfellows.
I believe he is going to develop an argument for limited citizenship.

i humbly await your updates.

[okyoureabeast]

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Not specifically but the argument is interesting. Prior to that franchise expansion Europe was almost exclusively non democratic monarchies. And facism had much support amongst the people in particular in opposition to communism.

- Peter.

I think most Europeans were much more interested in socialism than fascism. Hitler played on this interest when he named his political party.
Communism was the Russian brand of socialism, and not very popular in Europe.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by Chas H

I think most Europeans were much more interested in socialism than fascism. Hitler played on this interest when he named his political party.
Communism was the Russian brand of socialism, and not very popular in Europe.

Germany was only one country with a facist dictator during that period. There were many others. Spain, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia.

Also I disagree that communism wasn't very popular. It was particularly popular amongst many workers resulting in large communist parties in Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia etc. France in particular was severely infected with communism which has often been cited as a significant factor in the defeat of1940.

- Peter.

[kerry]

He's in the process of correlating literacy rates with stable democracies.

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Germany was only one country with a facist dictator during that period. There were many others. Spain, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia.

Also I disagree that communism wasn't very popular. It was particularly popular amongst many workers resulting in large communist parties in Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia etc. France in particular was severely infected with communism which has often been cited as a significant factor in the defeat of1940.

- Peter.

Mussolini was a dictator before Hitler. Neither one of them came to their ultimate power by a vote of the people- to bring the discussion back to the original question. The authoritian regimes in Spain and Greece are not considered to be fascist.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by Chas H

Mussolini was a dictator before Hitler. Neither one of them came to their ultimate power by a vote of the people

Actually, Hitler did. His mob getting the largest share of the vote, the Weimar constitution called for him to form a government.

- to bring the discussion back to the original question. The authoritian regimes in Spain and Greece are not considered to be fascist.

Incorrect. Franco's regime can certainly be regarded as facist though not as extreme in it's implementation as some of the others.

- Peter.

[MS Fowler]

There is probably less agreement on the definition of "fascism" than any other political term. Its use in most "debates" seems to be as an accusation that ends the discussion.

[LUVMBDiesels]

read The Dark Valley by Piers Brendon

Although Franco called himself a fascist - Actually a Falangist, I do not equate him with Mussolini or Hitler in that he was never elected to office but came to power in the Spanish Civil War. The big difference I have seen between Fascism and Boleshi-communism is that in almost every case the Fascists were elected bu the people to office - Germany, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Argentina,Romania, Bulgaria all come to mind. Bolshevist Communist regimes were mainly the result of violent revolution, palace coups or just imposed on a people by Soviet occupation...

This was one of my arguments about too much democracy in an earlier thread - you know that one where I was called a moron by JR

One of the reasons a populistic-fascist movement did not take root here - and there were a few that started in the 1930's is that we have the system of checks and balances the prevent any one part of government from taking complete control.

If you can believe it - Hitler was a fan of Roosevelt in the 1930's and thought he had a lot of the right ideas in his three letter agencies... WPA, NRA (national recovery act not the real NRA) CCC, etc...

If you read the acts and laws done by Roosevelt that were struck down by the SCoUS you can see that he was leaning towards a left-wing fascistic state. Of and by the way in most cases the fascists were pretty left wing.
Mussolini was pretty left wing having split from the Socialists, Ernst Rhoem (sp) was VERY left wing and before he was killed was in talks about JOINING the NAZIs with the Socialists and Communists to smash once and for all the Junkers. That was one of the reasons for the 'night of the long knives' Peron was very left until his own movement was taken over by the right wing of his party, etc...

[Hatterasguy]

Originally Posted by Chas H

Mussolini was a dictator before Hitler. Neither one of them came to their ultimate power by a vote of the people- to bring the discussion back to the original question. The authoritian regimes in Spain and Greece are not considered to be fascist.

The Nazi party was legaly elected by the German people.


Thats why I love our system with all its checks and balances, like the elctorial college. Just in case the people get behind another stupid movement.