Plataea, Corcyra, Megara and Fascism

Look, I know it is an an anachronism to apply an analysis of fascism in ancient Greece.  Fascism is a quintessentially modern phenomenon and calls for a whole different way of thinking than existed in ancient times.  Nonetheless, I am looking to see how far back proto-fascism goes, so here goes.

Middle class populist movement that punches up some but predominantly kicks down:  I think it goes without saying that anytime oligarchs overthrow a democracy, they are kicking down.  They are, at a minimum taking political power from people accustomed to having it.  They may or may not seriously oppress the people they have disenfranchised.  Oligarchs seeking to overthrow a democracy might punch up against some rival elite that they see as usurpers, as for instance an old landed aristocracy punching up against commercial classes that are richer, though less pedigreed, than they are.  However, Thucydides offers no evidence that the oligarchs of Plataea, Corcyra or Megara did so.  Nor do any of them appear to have kicked down in a populist manner, by stirring the middle class against the lower class.  Plataea was arguably done in by populism in the sense of a populist resolve to defy the Thebans and Spartans when it should have been clear that this was not a wise course of action.  Left-wing populist hatred of the oligarchs who had tried to seize power doubtless played a major part in tipping Corcyra over into civil war.  The Megarian democratic leaders seeking a deal with Athens were not being populist at all, but acting in the knowledge that the general public would not support their opposition to letting the oligarchic exiles return.

Driven by fear and ambition, but primarily by fear:  Actually the oligarchs in all three cities seem to have been motivated by ambition rather than fear.  Plataea met its doom because the people were not afraid enough of a powerful enemy.  The Corcyran oligarchs met their doom because they lacked a healthy fear of an angry population.  The only fear at work appears to have been in the Megarian democratic leaders, who feared the exiled oligarchs more than the Athenians.  These fears proved to be well-founded.

Paramilitary party claiming a political monopoly:  In all three cases, the oligarchs apparently claimed a monopoly on political activity, albeit on democratic terms within the oligarchy.  But there does not appear to have been a paramilitary in Plataea.  The Corcyran oligarchs may have had the beginnings of a paramilitary when they invaded the council chamber and killed democratic leaders. The people's response sounds more like spontaneous mob violence than a true paramilitary.  The exiled oligarchs returning as bandits could be called a paramilitary, but not a paramilitary party that participated in regular politics but played dirty.  The people opposing them were a regular military. Thucydides does not mention a paramilitary in Megara, but the act of forcing the people to convict 100 democratic leaders would seem to imply one.

And now for the standbys:

Fascist negations:
Anti-radical:  This is closely linked to fear, specifically, fear of radicals overturning the social order. I see no sign of it in any of these instances.

Anti-liberal:  An oligarchy seeking to overthrow a democracy is inherently anti-liberal, at by the definition of seeking to narrow the circle of people who matter.  Whether they partook of the anti-liberal ideology of the Old Oligarch Thucydides does not tell us.

Anti-conservative:  To the extent that the democracy was established in all these cities and the oligarchs were seeking to overturn the status quo, they might be called anti-conservative.  But my guess is that these oligarchs are better characterized as reactionaries  hearkening back to a time (probably quite recent in Megara, unknown in the others) when these cities were oligarchies.

Ideology and goals:

• Creation of a nationalist authoritarian state not merely on traditional principles or models
• Seeking "some new kind of regulated multiclass integrated national economic structure"
• Goal of empire or radical change in the nation's relations with other powers
• "Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture."

As discussed before, except for the empire or radical change in relations with other powers, these are modern notions that simply do not occur in a classical context.  (I don't even know what the last one means).  In terms of foreign policy, none of these states were imperialistic.  They were not powerful enough to even consider being imperialistic.  In Plataea and Corcyra, the oligarchs wanted a change in relations with foreign powers, not in the sense of dominating others, but in the sense of leaving the Athenian alliance.  In the case of Corcyra, this meant domination by Corinth.  In Plataea, it meant outright absorption by Thebes.  In Megara, oligarchs liked their current foreign policy just fine.  It was the democrats who were ready, out of fear and desperation, to seek alliance with Athens.

Styles and organization:

Aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects:  This is really part of fascism's populist appeal.  Nothing in Thucydides suggests such measures.  Nor are they likely among oligarchs who are not trying to rile the people up.

Mass mobilization, militarization of political relations, and party militia:  Mass mobilization is not something any oligarchy cares to achieve!  Nor was it done in either Plataea or Megara. Arguably, in Corcyra there was a mass mobilization of the oligarchy, countered by a mass mobilization of the common people.  But mobilization was not a favored style.

Violence:  Yes, in all three cases.  The Plataean oligarchs, who used least, urged the Thebans to kill the democratic leaders. No doubt the Thebans later regretted not doing so.  In Corcyra, there was ample violence on both sides.  In Megara, it appears to have been more subdued and mostly on the oligarchic side.

Extreme stress on masculine principle and male dominance, organic view of society:  Nothing suggests any of these oligarchs differed from other Greeks in this regard.

Exaltation of youth, emphasis on conflict between generations:  No sign of it.

Charismatic leaders:  No charismatic leader is mentioned in any of these cities.

Mobilizing passions:

Overwhelming sense of crisis:  This is closely aligned with being motivated by fear.  None of the oligarchs seem to have been motivated by an overwhelming sense of crisis.  The only party driven by an overwhelming sense of crisis appear to have been the Megarian democrats, who acted out of desperation in seeking to betray their city to Athens.  Even the Corcyran democrats who went on the rampage slaughtering the oligarchs seem to have been acting out of anger and revenge rather than fear.

Primacy of the group over all other obligations:  Thucydides does not mention this factor.  It is certainly plausible among oligarchs seeking to establish domination over a hostile population, but the honest answer has to be that we don't know.

Sense that one's group is a victim and acting out of self defense:  Thucydides simply doesn't tell us enough to give us any sense of this, except that it is probably how the Corcyran democrats justified their slaughter of the oligarchs. It is probably  not too far-fetched to say that the Megarian oligarchs felt that way after being exiled.  And oligarchs can be that way when their power and privilege is threatened.  But the only honest answer has to be that we don't know.

Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive influence of individualism, class conflict or foreign influences:  If so, Thucydides never mentions it.  This is common in dominant elites who see their power threatened, but we simply do not know.

Seeking closer integration and a purer community:  I think this is probably true of any oligarchy seeking to establish itself as the ruling power, but not in the same sense that it is true of fascism.  Fascism want to draw the state closer together and exclude hostile elements.  But it does so in the sense that the state's inhabitants and its citizen body are the same or nearly so.  Oligarchs seek a more closely integrated and purer citizen body but take for granted that most residents will not be citizens.

Leader embodying the group's destiny:  No.

Reliance on the leader's instincts:  Since there was no strong charismatic leader, this is irrelevant.

Violence on behalf of the group's success:  Well, the Plataean oligarchs invited the Thebans to kill the democratic leaders, the Corcyran oligarchs did so themselves, and the Megarians oligarchs were more cool and calculating but intimidated the people into executing 100 prominent democrats.  So I would say yes, in all three cases.  Although the Corcyran democrats gave a lot better than they took.

Divine right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint:  This is a bit strong, but yes, it does sound like about what the oligarchs in all cases were asserting.  Doubtless they would argue that they would rule better than the common people and that the whole state would benefit from their governance.  But they none were shy about killing anyone who disagreed.

Summing up all the fascist traits, so far as we can tell, these three cities and Pisistratus play out as follows:

Fascist trait	Pisistratus	Plataea	Corcyra	Megara
Middle class populist	Lower class populist	Oligarchs	Oligarchs	Oligarchs
Fear vs. ambition	Ambition	Ambition	Ambition by oligarchs, anger by democrats	Ambition by oligarchs, fear by democratic leaders
Paramilitary	Yes	No	Maybe	Probably
Anti-radical	No	No	No	No
Anti-liberal	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Anti-conservative	No	No	No	No
Foreign policy	Support other tyrants, avoid war	Leave Athenian alliance	Leave Athenian alliance	No change for oligarchs, democratic leaders consider Athenian alliance
Strong aesthetic	Yes	No	No	No
Mass mobilization	Only while seizing power	No	Only during the civil war	No
Violence	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Male dominance	No more than other Greeks	No more than other Greeks	No more than other Greeks	No more than other Greeks
Exaltation of youth	No	No	No	No
Charismatic leader	Yes	No	No	No
Crisis	No	No	No	By democrats only
Primacy of group	Probably no	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Victimization	Probably no	Probably no	By democrats only	Maybe
Fear of decline	No	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Closer and purer community	No	Yes, for citizens	Yes, for citizens	Yes, for citizens
Rule by leader’s instincts	No	No	No	No
Right of group to dominate	No	Yes	Yes	Yes

The main thing all have in common is the use of violence to get their way.  Pisistratus, the left-wing populist dictator, resembles fascism more than the oligarchs in its populist features -- his appeal to broad audiences, his aesthetic, his charismatic leadership, and even his contesting of power in the normal political process but at the same time playing unfair and using a paramilitary to intimidate his opponents.  But the oligarchs have different fascistic traits, particularly their belief that they have the right to dominate, and their wish to purge the body politic of undesirable members, albeit not in the same way as fascists.

One other remark is worth making.  I promised to consider the role of the victorious general in failures of democracy.  Pisistratus was probably a victorious general playing on his popularity as such to seize power.  But there is no sign of a victorious general playing any role in the failures of democracy in Plataea, Corcyra or Megara.  In Plataea and Corcyra, the oligarchs were flat out traitors acting on behalf of a foreign power.  In Megara, the democrats were the traitors, but the oligarchs were exiles and certainly not military heroes playing on anyone's sense of patriotism.