What is the true definition of "fascism"?
Is it accurate to say it is a blend of socialism and nationalism?
What do you think?
What sources do you cite?
definition of "fascism"
Posts
Total:
357
-->
@prefix
A socialist wants common ownership of all factors of production and worker's self management of the economy. A nationalist is someone who strongly identifies with their own country and has extreme love, honor, devotion, and loyalty to their country, also supporting action benefiting their country while at the expense of another. Socialists are usually internationalist as they wish to unite all workers of all nations against the global capitalist struggle. Nationalism is often used against socialism by making people identify themselves with their country rather than with their class.
-->
@prefix
A socialist is basically a partial communist depending on how much you are taxed when the government owns a percentage of all production. A pure communist has a tax rate of 100% owning all the production.
A socialist is a partial communist that controls most of what and how you can produce things in a country based on the amount of subsidies and regulations. A pure communist subsidizes every industry and regulates all of the economy.
A fascist socialist demands loyalty to the country and the government. A pure communist just demands loyalty to the government.
-->
@prefix
What is the true definition of "fascism"?
Fascist Italy had very little to do with Socialism, which is why Mussolini did his best to get rid of socialist opponents.
Just like Nazi Germany Fascist Italy had privately owned businesses that worked closely with the state.
Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy privatized certain state functions and industries as part of their economic policies.
while not the ONLY aspect of fascism
privatization and promoting corporate power is certainly a hallmark of fascism (merging state and corporate power)
for example, when the fbi tells facebook which accounts to censor
-->
@Greyparrot
@3RU7AL
@FLRW
Britannica states ..."Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. " the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. "
Allowing me to break that down it becomes a list thus:
"political liberalism,
cultural liberalism,
a belief in natural social hierarchy
the rule of elites
the desire to create a ( society) in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
extreme militaristic nationalism
Above list condensed from ...https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism.
-->
@prefix
Fascism is kinda weird because it's basically socialism with a patriotic dictator, and there were only 2 nations of historical note that had it out of the hundreds of nations over the century. Fascism requires a perfect storm of events.
-->
@3RU7AL
privately owned businesses that worked closely with the state.
So basically America plus the cumbersome ideals of patriotism. Most Americans pee all over the flag on their way to the regulated and crony corner store.
-->
@prefix
a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
ask not what your country can do for you
ask what you can do for your country
-->
@prefix
the rule of elites
seems to be in direct conflict
with "cultural liberalism"
-->
@prefix
-->
@3RU7AL
No conflict.
In my experience, "cultural liberalism" not only embraces "elitism"; it DEPENDS on it.
In my experience, "cultural liberalism" not only embraces "elitism"; it DEPENDS on it.
your source describes
Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
i'm not sure what your definition of "elitism" is,
but from what i understand, it's functionally indistinguishable from OLIGARCHY
which means the rich always win and the poor always loose
-->
@prefix
Nationalism is actually more poorly defined than socialism.What is the true definition of "fascism"?Is it accurate to say it is a blend of socialism and nationalism?What do you think?
What Italian fascists, Japanese imperialists, and German national socialists defined as "the nation" was all slightly different and they did not care about being self-consistent.
It's much better defined in terms of political economy. Fascism is the corporate state, or the corporation as the primary unit or organization of productive activity which is carefully oversaw by the government and the people (who are as one) to make sure that the goals are never greedy but always aimed towards the spiritual and material destiny of the collective (the nation-government-race-people uniconcept). They often made a little room for a small wing of intellectual 'heroes' who would use the power of science, especially "scientific socialism" to help organize the nation-government-race-people uniconcept.
Note that when they say "corporation" they mean something closer to "labor union" than Apple. Always 'owned' by the workers but existing for the betterment of the uniconcept, not for anyone's profit not even the workers.
3RU7AL arguments to the effect of "You can tell what ideologies are different based on who tried to get rid of who" is fundamentally flawed. It would conclude that protestants and catholics have nothing in common because of the 30 years war.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"You can tell what ideologies are different based on who tried to get rid of who" is fundamentally flawed.
fascism is incompatible with socialism
not only did they constantly complain about it
they also did not implement it
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you conclude that "fascism is incompatible with socialism"?
The Nazi party ( literally the "North German Socialist Workers party ) was against both the communists and the capitalists.
Mussolini developed a "state socialism" as his basis for governing.
Both Hitler and Mussolini used state control over resources.
Thus socialism and fascism are "compatible".
-->
@prefix
How do you conclude that "fascism is incompatible with socialism"?
what is your personally preferred definition of "socialism" ?
germany and italy both used the word "socialism" in their propaganda because the word was popular at the time
but they both twisted the definition of the word to suit their own goals
-->
@3RU7AL
You asked....."what is your personally preferred definition of "socialism" ?"
Socialism is an economic and social system wherein the state controls the production and distribution of resources by means of regulation and , in some cases , outright ownership of said entities. ( my constructed definition ).
N.B. There are many types and degrees of "socialism ". No one definition can be taken as complete..
-->
@prefix
N.B. There are many types and degrees of "socialism ". No one definition can be taken as complete..
ok, "state ownership" is "totalitarianism"
the "state ownership" in service of "socialism" is hypothetically to facilitate "social ownership" or "community ownership"
obviously this goal is often neglected once "state ownership" is implemented
and you end up with simple "totalitarianism"
both hitler and mussolini privatized state functions
granting lucrative contracts to "loyal corporations"
-->
@3RU7AL
It appears that both Mussolini and Hitler "privatized" certain endeavors more as a way to bypass councils and boards of control rather than for an application of economic and political theory.
They were actually more in control of "crony industrialists" and therefore able to direct the power of the state toward their operations and goals.
-->
@3RU7AL
for example, when the fbi tells facebook which accounts to censor
Right, socialism is when the FBI tells Facebook not to disseminate Russian misinformation. That’s socialism. Genius
MAKE GERMANY GREAT AGAIN - that’s socialism, specifically, National Socialism
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Right, socialism is when the FBI
what is your personally preferred definition of "socialism" ?
-->
@prefix
They were actually more in control of "crony industrialists" and therefore able to direct the power of the state toward their operations and goals.
"socialism" is "for the benefit of the people"
not
"centralized state control"
-->
@3RU7AL
The NAZI party did many thing to enhance the well being of the population, at least among those considered "true Germans". During the period of 1933 to 1939, many native Germans were quite satisfied with their own situation.
"The [NAZI's] early goals included physical education, a return to rural life, health care for all...." [ Hitler and Hitlerism: Germany Under the Nazis ....Nicolas Fairweather from the Atlantic April 1932.].
In my research, I have found that Europe defines "socialism" differently from the definition used in America. Even in America, different generations seem to define the word somewhat differently.
Socialism as practiced in its many forms has never existed without centralized state control.
-->
@prefix
Socialism as practiced in its many forms has never existed without centralized state control.
Not necessarily. Socialism can involve decentralized forms like libertarian socialism or anarcho-socialism, which do not require centralized state control.
employee-owned corporations are another example of socialism (social-ownership-of-capital) that does not require state-ownership
the point being
TOTALITARIANISM is not synonymous with SOCIALISM
-->
@prefix
health care for all
universal healthcare is NOT socialism (social-ownership-of-capital)
-->
@3RU7AL
You stated "...Socialism can involve decentralized forms like libertarian socialism or anarcho-socialism, which do not require centralized state control."
Kindly give an example of a socialist state which has not been subject to a central government.
You stated ...."employee-owned corporations are another example of socialism (social-ownership-of-capital) that does not require state-ownership"
We are speaking here of state socialism.Also, employee-owned corporations are more an example of capitalism rather than socialism.
TOTALITARIANISM is not synonymous with SOCIALISM
No, but socialism in the real world appears to contain totalitarianism.
universal healthcare is NOT socialism (social-ownership-of-capital)
Correct. It IS NOT socialism. It was used here as an example of a tenet of socialism
To clarify I am trying to get input on "socialism as a system of governance".
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your personally preferred definition of "socialism" ?
The goal of socialism is communism. The goal of communism is to have no government.
or the state owns the means of production
-->
@prefix
The NAZI party did many thing to enhance the well being of the population, at least among those considered "true Germans". During the period of 1933 to 1939, many native Germans were quite satisfied with their own situation.
Yes, imagine how satisfied the MAGA MORONS would be if Trump took property away from black people and other minorities and gave it to the “real Americans”
-->
@prefix
Fascism is onomatopoeic.
Would be no good if it was known as fluffiness.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The goal of socialism is communism. The goal of communism is to have no government.
community working for the good of the community
or the state owns the means of production
which is obviously the OPPOSITE of the goal
and calling TOTALITARIANISM "socialism" is a lie