The true definition of fascism seems to be one no one wants it to be. The modern left, right, and libertarians, and even modern self described fascists seems to get wrong. Maybe because what it really is is orthoginal to anything we think about today.
The better way to look at what fascism was, is to look at how Musolini derived it. He was a socialist. But the problem is that the socialist sphere is wrot with dogmas and leaps to logic. Fascism, being a daughter of socialism does too. But first it's worth bringing up what the central premise of socialism is. It is that the rights of individuals don't matter and that all people exist to serve the public. Musolini agreed with that. But one of these secondary dogmas that mainline socialism developed that Musolini didn't appreciate was equality. He saw it as inherently at odds with reality. His idea was that the only way for people to be equal is if they take on equal roles. But people can't maximally serve the public from the same station because people have different abilities. So what if you just remove the secondary dogma, and replace it with a whole host of others related to power dynamics.
And that's what fascism is really. It's socialism minus equality. So absolute loss of indiviual rights without even a dishonest claim of lifting the poor to go with it.
Fascism didn't really get racial until 1938, well after its core ideas had been developed. So it really can't be said that the core true definition of fascism has anything to do with whites or jews. This is an example of what all modern groups are doing. Framing fascism's ideas around their own, either to become more like a fictional fascism they've invented or to be the antithisis of a fictional fascism they've invented.
What fascism is not that gets claimed by one group or another:
Ultra-right wing free marketism
A racial doctorine
The merger of government and corporations
What it is: A varient of radical pro-union sydicalism that replaced the welfare of one's class with the welfare of one's nation.
I don't know who blapinus is. I looked him up and he doesn't seem to exist. I think I know more than him.
Easy way to remember it. Classic socialism, socialism where your class is the public creature you are made to serve. Fascism, socialism but the nation is the public creature you are made to serve. National socialism, socialism but the race is the public creature. Marxism, classic socialism but specifically we are centralizing the means of production.
It's funny how the right and left both want the fascists to be national socialists. But what they really are is unuseful for anyone's narrative when we take an honest historical look at what their ideas where.
Log in
The true definition of fascism seems to be one no one wants it to be. The modern left, right, and libertarians, and even modern self described fascists seems to get wrong. Maybe because what it really is is orthoginal to anything we think about today.
The better way to look at what fascism was, is to look at how Musolini derived it. He was a socialist. But the problem is that the socialist sphere is wrot with dogmas and leaps to logic. Fascism, being a daughter of socialism does too. But first it's worth bringing up what the central premise of socialism is. It is that the rights of individuals don't matter and that all people exist to serve the public. Musolini agreed with that. But one of these secondary dogmas that mainline socialism developed that Musolini didn't appreciate was equality. He saw it as inherently at odds with reality. His idea was that the only way for people to be equal is if they take on equal roles. But people can't maximally serve the public from the same station because people have different abilities. So what if you just remove the secondary dogma, and replace it with a whole host of others related to power dynamics.
And that's what fascism is really. It's socialism minus equality. So absolute loss of indiviual rights without even a dishonest claim of lifting the poor to go with it.
Fascism didn't really get racial until 1938, well after its core ideas had been developed. So it really can't be said that the core true definition of fascism has anything to do with whites or jews. This is an example of what all modern groups are doing. Framing fascism's ideas around their own, either to become more like a fictional fascism they've invented or to be the antithisis of a fictional fascism they've invented.
What fascism is not that gets claimed by one group or another:
Ultra-right wing free marketism
A racial doctorine
The merger of government and corporations
What it is: A varient of radical pro-union sydicalism that replaced the welfare of one's class with the welfare of one's nation.
I don't know who blapinus is. I looked him up and he doesn't seem to exist. I think I know more than him.
Easy way to remember it. Classic socialism, socialism where your class is the public creature you are made to serve. Fascism, socialism but the nation is the public creature you are made to serve. National socialism, socialism but the race is the public creature. Marxism, classic socialism but specifically we are centralizing the means of production.
It's funny how the right and left both want the fascists to be national socialists. But what they really are is unuseful for anyone's narrative when we take an honest historical look at what their ideas where.