What do you mean by ‘pure corporatism within economic capitalism’? Suppose you get abducted by aliens and you arrive in an alien civilization. What do you measure in order to know if you arrived to a fascist society or not?
By the way, do you think Mussolini agrees with you? He did write “The doctrine of fascism”.
Either way, the problem with fascism would be losing one’s freedom?
Exactly, that’s why I am asking. Well, if your affairs are not human, then do say so
Or? Either?
That immigrants should begin to wonder about their hard core nationalism, because inter Alia, they practice scrutiny globally as well.
The accidental tourist should hear the saying, beware those who live in glass houses, not to throw stones( or philosopher’s Rocks) (off)?
Nothing seems reel anymore even if OUT FISHING >>>
???<<><
Fascism is widely associated with the right because for a very long time they attached themselves to it, but the core principle of extreme authoritarianism is not exclusive to the right.
Socialism and communism had a party member in every corporation to verify compliance.
So technically you can make both arguments simultaneously:
Communism did use the entire “means of production” to perpetuate it’s own values, system and messages, but technically they were not “individually acting corporations” so… its a pointless nuance thing.
Communism and socialism was authoritarian enough in and of itself, it didnt need subsidiaries for it.
It didnt play these “oh im not taking away your free speech, its facebook that is censoring you, not the government, so its perfectly legal and okay” games. It was up front about it: You submit or you go to the gulag.
Quite right, as a lean toward authority misses the point of a decompensatiry effort to risk misunderstanding for a recognizable difference between the two versions of Authority.
As I recall, Reganamics did overtly say to the Russian counterpart, why complain when your mansion on the Black See is no competition with the Best in the West…
Fascism argues for corporatism from private interests, that’s why calling socialists or communists advocates of fascism makes no sense. Socialism and communism argues things in the name of public interests, not private ones.
Certainly socialists and communists can be authoritarians like my username namesake, but to call them fascists makes no sense.
Collectivism > individualism.
Fascism was always a leftist, socialist project. Moussolini was a card carrying communist, and his later critiques of communism were never about substance, but about method.
Hitler’s party was called socialist, not by coincidence or trickery. They made their bones in syndicalist turf wars. The rhetoric was the same (the working masses against evil exploiters), the objective was the same (a government that destroyed all individuality and absorbed all people as molecules within it, always with the stated goal of “the good of society”).
Fascism is simply the name that military veterans took for founding their communist parties. Militarism is the sole distinguishing feature between the two.
Socialism, including fascism, is the doctrine of the ontological supremacy of the state, its omniprescence without exceptions or hidden corners. Everything is state, and state is government.
Hitler’s appelative for the US?
Reactionaries.
Fascism is the political structure of power from private interests and there’s nothing your silly libertarian delusions can do in the classical definition of the word.
Socialism and communism is literally the direct opposite in organization away from private interests.
If you think about it, it makes sense that a military mentality would be drawn to socialism. Not because of the nature of war, but because of the nature of state armies. They are already a perfect socialist state, where no soldier has indivuduality or rights, they are simply molecules and appendages of the state.
What the uniforms that pseudoai was mentioning represent is the complete denial of personal identity, complete identification with the wider state mass.
Yet you won’t talk about twenty five years of miltarism guided by corporate interests throughout the Middle East I bet.
Libertarians are silly.
Moussolini’s insight, what became the hallmark of fascism, is that it can be more energy efficient to force companies to submit to your dictums with threats, “disappearances,” “cancellation,” regulations and infiltration than to simply take formal ownership.
Ask yourself this: do the facebooks of the world, and the drones they generate, support higher taxes, more regulations, and generally a higher state prescence in every sphere of human life? Are the “regulations” they enforce internally in line with formal political socialist aims?
Not to mention:
Show me a single modern day out and out neo nazi that doesn’t hate Trump.
How does a society function without any state regulations? Surely the libertarian anarchist here can inform us how corporate anarcho feudalism works.
And what is the public interest you speak of?
Thats right, whatever the benevolent leader(s) decree.
We are just talking two separate kinds of authoritarianism.
One has extra steps and manifests it’s will through subsidiaries, the other does not and it’s direct.
You are correct that there is a difference, but that distinction is kind of pointless considering the end result.
My teeth will be kicked in under both of those regimes when i try to speak up.
Again: Correct in theory, but moot point in the practice.
Also, it’s not true. Fascism also operates in the “public interest.”
That’s what defines fascism. Society > individual.
That’s also why the name “fascie” to begin with. It literally means knot, and refers to a bundle of sticks tied together, the sticks representing the people.
Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State.
Could have been a Sillicon Valley tech billionaire that wrote it.