Fascism defined.

[Moreno]

@Stoic Guardian

How exactly?

As far as I can tell, fascisms tend to try to make men cool in temper, strong, not cry, not show fear and cut off from the feeling of it, separate monads and kinda stiff. The woman tend to be seen as homemakers, relaters, soft, the feelers, suffering in silence (though it would be put differently) and not moving into a lot of fields traditionally held by men. Men and woman who do nto fit the stereotype are punished, through various social, economic and even legal means - if they really challenge the stereotype. As a boy or girl, you know what parts of yourself to Control and try to eliminate or pretend are not there. You also know what you should feel like doing, how you should move, relate, express emotions and so on. There is a cookie cutter aspect to this. Pretty much any Culture has these kinds of tendencies, but fascisms seem to me to have a narrower view than others.

Which is? Yes they wish for society to be able to effectively manage itself in the interests of the nation as a whole rather than intetrnational finance and individual greed. Is that wrong.

I am not sure what this has to do with spirituality. And the fascisms all worked with international finance, certainly in South America, Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy. The international banks and Corporations have Always been happy to work with fascists.

True, but it Virtues are what do. As they are both Traditional and Revolutionary.

Everyone Thinks their virtues are the true ones.

It advocates a specific kind of heroism and denies that other forms of brave action are heroic.

Such as?

Being yourself despite the Amazing pressure towards gender stereotypes. Being willing to be critical of the misuse of Power. Wanting to explore ways of living, relating expressing that are not traditional. I am sure there are a lot of examples, fascism is very conformist and has trouble with diversity.

It advocates the Community in a specific set of ways, demanding a lot of conformity - one often evaded by those in Power beyond show versions of it.

Such as?

The private lives of the elites - those who support the fascist governments, often included mistresses, use of prostitutes, in Argentina the stealing of the Children of radicals for adoption by the elites. All sorts of things called decadent. This happens also in communist countries where the private lives of the leaders are often rather capitalist looking.

This is nonsense, Fascists are of the people it is a mass movement of the people, it’s not some overlordling beating down the people to follow a set of principles not in it’s interest.
This is an out and out lie spread by opponents of Fascism.

People, especially people who are suffering, are rather easily led. Once the fascists are in Power, they keep increasing their Power. You can see how Little they trust their people by the lack of openness in their Court systems, their secret police, their Control of the press, their Control of rights to assembly and so on. They don’t trust the people. But it does have to be acknowledged that for a time, in the beginning, they have the approval of the mob.

The Fascist love his Nation and a Nation is it’s people he works for what he beleives is the best interests of his people as a whole, he isn’t opposed to freedom unless such freedom does society as a whole harm.

And he seems to find harm all over the Place with freedom. And yes, what he Believes is the best interest of his people, not what they Believe. Or he would let them talk about their beliefs with each other without carting them off to secret torture Chambers.

Fascist societies aspire to be more organic and natural as opposed to plutocratic soulessness.
They are not the robotic conformity that the left try to frame them as (the well known speechby Charlie Chaplin in “The Great Dictator” while stirring is completely assbackwards in it’s understanding of Fascist Society.)

So far they have tried to instill a robotic conformity. They share this trait with communist regimes. They do allow the well enough off to be free to purchase adn free to exploit other classes, bu tthere is Little else they allow in term of freedom. Maybe some future fascist regime will allow freedom. But you might as well give it Another name, since it will not be like any fascist regime that came Before it.

[Sauwelios]

@Stoic Guardian

@Sauwelios

@Stoic Guardian

Plato was essentially the Proto-Fascist.

To the contrary, he was essentially one of the anti-fascists—other examples being Machiavelli and Nietzsche.—

Elaborate.

As I said, Plato’s ideal state is the state that keeps fascism at bay.

“On three different occasions, Strauss noted what Alfarabi held to be fundamental in Plato’s correction of the way of Socrates: Plato added ‘the way of Thrasymachus’ to the way of Socrates (‘Farabi’s Plato’ 382-84; PAW 16-17; WPP 153). […] Thrasymachus is an actor; his initial anger at Socrates is calculated, he plays at anger to create anger, to anger others against the object of his own feigned anger—Socrates. […]
By play-acting anger at Socrates, Thrasymachus exhibits the city’s real anger at Socrates (78). […]
Thrasymachus’ art is ‘concerned with both arousing and appeasing the angry passions of the multitude.’ […]
How can the philosopher rule Thrasymachus? By showing that his advantage is best served by making his art ministerial to philosophy.” (Source: Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 146, 147, 148, and 151.)

This is precisely what Plato did. He kept fascism at bay by persuading the would-be “Hitlers”—i.e., the would-be tyrants—into the service of the “Jews”—i.e., the philosophers.

By Machiavelli’s time, however, Platonism—the Platonism for the people called “Christianity”—itself posed a fascist threat: the religious zealotry at the times of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Contra-Reformation. In order to keep this at bay, Machiavelli commanded and legislated the scientific-technological conquest of nature, by persuading the Daedaluses to persuade the people to feed them in their vanity. To this end, Descartes mathematicised and thereby revolutionised science, so that the Daedaluses could invent an infinity of devices that would make the people’s lives easier.

By Nietzsche’s time, however, nature had become a problem:

“Strauss’s essay has shown that nature has become a problem because of the conquest of human nature in a very precise sense, namely, elimination of one of the two natural human types. The Baconian—Cartesian technological conquest of nature is only a means, if an indispensable means, to the achievement of the ideal of the large majority, universal comfortable self-preservation, which makes the other type expendable.” (Source: op.cit., pp. 104-05.)

“Though they were always a threat, the exceptions were nevertheless esteemed because they were useful for the common good of the tribe as its fearless leaders and defenders. But in contemporary Europe they are no longer needed, so they no longer have to be tolerated; the ‘ultimate consequences’ of herd morality render them superfluous. For the herd to become ‘autonomous’ means that it no longer needs superior leaders. […] Affirming eternal return is a means of effecting the rule of the philosopher of the future and forestalling the threatened autonomy of the herd.” (Source: op.cit., pp. 74 and 104.)

Only through love of the seething hatred that is the core of fascism can one attain the love of life that is the condition of sursumgeneracy and thereby of all glory.

So how does Fascism not do this then?

By denying the seething hatred at its core, as you do here.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Moreno

@Stoic Guardian

How exactly?

As far as I can tell, fascisms tend to try to make men cool in temper, strong, not cry, not show fear and cut off from the feeling of it, separate monads and kinda stiff. The woman tend to be seen as homemakers, relaters, soft, the feelers, suffering in silence (though it would be put differently) and not moving into a lot of fields traditionally held by men. Men and woman who do nto fit the stereotype are punished, through various social, economic and even legal means - if they really challenge the stereotype.

Do you have a example of this?

As a boy or girl, you know what parts of yourself to Control and try to eliminate or pretend are not there. You also know what you should feel like doing, how you should move, relate, express emotions and so on. There is a cookie cutter aspect to this. Pretty much any Culture has these kinds of tendencies, but fascisms seem to me to have a narrower view than others.

How so?

Which is? Yes they wish for society to be able to effectively manage itself in the interests of the nation as a whole rather than intetrnational finance and individual greed. Is that wrong.

I am not sure what this has to do with spirituality. And the fascisms all worked with international finance, certainly in South America, Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy. The international banks and Corporations have Always been happy to work with fascists.

Yeah they did trade with the world, they didn’t shut themselves in an enclave but they didn’t allow private interests to pull the Nation into actions that weren’t in it’s interests the way the Capitalists countries did (and continue to do).

True, but it Virtues are what do. As they are both Traditional and Revolutionary.

Everyone Thinks their virtues are the true ones.

Yes, but Fascist virtues hold up under scrutiny.

It advocates a specific kind of heroism and denies that other forms of brave action are heroic.

Such as?

Being yourself despite the Amazing pressure towards gender stereotypes.

I don’t see how this is “heroic” it could just as well be autisitic or idiotic/foolish.

Being willing to be critical of the misuse of Power.

Again I don’t see how Fascism denies this.

Wanting to explore ways of living, relating expressing that are not traditional.

Fascism is not Strickly Conservative or Reactionary, they will adopt change if it is in the best interest of the Nation. But only after thorough examination, not some nut who goes around attacking Cultural norms for the hell of it.

I am sure there are a lot of examples, fascism is very conformist and has trouble with diversity.

It’d help if you posted them because the more i read the more i think your under the false impression of Fascism I used to have, that was corrected once I actually started researching into firsthand accounts.

It advocates the Community in a specific set of ways, demanding a lot of conformity - one often evaded by those in Power beyond show versions of it.

Such as?

The private lives of the elites - those who support the fascist governments, often included mistresses, use of prostitutes, in Argentina the stealing of the Children of radicals for adoption by the elites. All sorts of things called decadent. This happens also in communist countries where the private lives of the leaders are often rather capitalist looking.

I wasn’t aware Argentina ever had a Fascist Government, are you talking about Juan Peron?

This is nonsense, Fascists are of the people it is a mass movement of the people, it’s not some overlordling beating down the people to follow a set of principles not in it’s interest.
This is an out and out lie spread by opponents of Fascism.

People, especially people who are suffering, are rather easily led. Once the fascists are in Power, they keep increasing their Power. You can see how Little they trust their people by the lack of openness in their Court systems, their secret police, their Control of the press, their Control of rights to assembly and so on. They don’t trust the people. But it does have to be acknowledged that for a time, in the beginning, they have the approval of the mob.

Again examples would be nice, also every major State I know of has secret police, only they don’t refer to them by that term.

You’re right they don’t trust “people” unequivocally because it understand that their are people that are not to be trusted.

The press in Capitalist countries is controlled too, except by plutocrats looking out for their own interests rather than the interests of the Nation as a whole.

The Downtrodden do tend to be more sympathetic to revolutionaries, I wonder why that is?

The Fascist loves his Nation and a Nation is it’s people he works for what he beleives is the best interests of his people as a whole, he isn’t opposed to freedom unless such freedom does society as a whole harm.

And he seems to find harm all over the Place with freedom. And yes, what he Believes is the best interest of his people, not what they Believe. Or he would let them talk about their beliefs with each other without carting them off to secret torture Chambers.
[/quote]
Your preconception of censorship in fascist socieities is hilarious and untrue.
Disgruntled old man:“Yes i don’t like that hitler fellow!”
Gestapo:“Off to the Soap Factory for you!”

Fascist societies aspire to be more organic and natural as opposed to plutocratic soulessness.
They are not the robotic conformity that the left try to frame them as (the well known speech by Charlie Chaplin in “The Great Dictator” while stirring is completely assbackwards in it’s understanding of Fascist Society.)

So far they have tried to instill a robotic conformity. They share this trait with communist regimes. They do allow the well enough off to be free to purchase and free to exploit other classes, but there is Little else they allow in term of freedom.
[/quote]

Another unsubstantiated claim.

Also being organized and efficent doesn’t make a society “robotic” having a lack of culture and spirituality does.

Maybe some future fascist regime will allow freedom. But you might as well give it Another name, since it will not be like any fascist regime that came Before it.

You’d be wrong. Fascist societies had plenty of Freedom.

[Stoic_Guardian]

quote=“Sauwelios”]

@Stoic Guardian

@Sauwelios

@Stoic Guardian

Plato was essentially the Proto-Fascist.

To the contrary, he was essentially one of the anti-fascists—other examples being Machiavelli and Nietzsche.—

Elaborate.

As I said, Plato’s ideal state is the state that keeps fascism at bay.

“On three different occasions, Strauss noted what Alfarabi held to be fundamental in Plato’s correction of the way of Socrates: Plato added ‘the way of Thrasymachus’ to the way of Socrates (‘Farabi’s Plato’ 382-84; PAW 16-17; WPP 153). […] Thrasymachus is an actor; his initial anger at Socrates is calculated, he plays at anger to create anger, to anger others against the object of his own feigned anger—Socrates. […]
By play-acting anger at Socrates, Thrasymachus exhibits the city’s real anger at Socrates (78). […]
Thrasymachus’ art is ‘concerned with both arousing and appeasing the angry passions of the multitude.’ […]
How can the philosopher rule Thrasymachus? By showing that his advantage is best served by making his art ministerial to philosophy.” (Source: Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 146, 147, 148, and 151.)

This would only be true if Fascism worked on a “might is right” morality, which it doesn’t . It Understands though, that without might you can’t implement any policy in society.
It Works on the same concept of Virtue ethics espoused by Socrates,Plato, and the Stoics.

This is precisely what Plato did. He kept fascism at bay by persuading the would-be “Hitlers”—i.e., the would-be tyrants—into the service of the “Jews”—i.e., the philosophers.

…Whaaaat?

By Machiavelli’s time, however, Platonism—the Platonism for the people called “Christianity”—itself posed a fascist threat: the religious zealotry at the times of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Contra-Reformation.
In order to keep this at bay, Machiavelli commanded and legislated the scientific-technological conquest of nature, by persuading the Daedaluses to persuade the people to feed them in their vanity. To this end, Descartes mathematicised and thereby revolutionised science, so that the Daedaluses could invent an infinity of devices that would make the people’s lives easier.

By Nietzsche’s time, however, nature had become a problem:

“Strauss’s essay has shown that nature has become a problem because of the conquest of human nature in a very precise sense, namely, elimination of one of the two natural human types. The Baconian—Cartesian technological conquest of nature is only a means, if an indispensable means, to the achievement of the ideal of the large majority, universal comfortable self-preservation, which makes the other type expendable.” (Source: op.cit., pp. 104-05.)

“Though they were always a threat, the exceptions were nevertheless esteemed because they were useful for the common good of the tribe as its fearless leaders and defenders. But in contemporary Europe they are no longer needed, so they no longer have to be tolerated; the ‘ultimate consequences’ of herd morality render them superfluous. For the herd to become ‘autonomous’ means that it no longer needs superior leaders. […] Affirming eternal return is a means of effecting the rule of the philosopher of the future and forestalling the threatened autonomy of the herd.” (Source: op.cit., pp. 74 and 104.)

Only through love of the seething hatred that is the core of fascism can one attain the love of life that is the condition of sursumgeneracy and thereby of all glory.

So how does Fascism not do this then?

By denying the seething hatred at its core, as you do here.

I don’t Deny it, and neither do Fascists.

[Moreno]

It seems to me you are asking me to keep backing up all my statements without backing up yours with anything other than ideals. And then ask me to back up my back ups, again without you backing up your sense of how fascism plays out in the real World.
What is a fascist regime you Think was good? let’s work with that.

[Stoic_Guardian]

Because your making dissingenuine claims about Fascism with no substance, im not even asking for a source im just asking for something specific you may be reffering to which I coudl then look up myself or explain.

If you have discrepencies with things i’ve said, then question them, what is it you wish for me to verify?

@Moreno

What is a fascist regime you Think was good? let’s work with that.

“Good” is a very base term, but I think most of them were “Good”.

But also not all the Fascist movement were successful in Gaining power, Such as the British Union of Fascists in the British Empire and Rexism in Belgium and a Few were able to gain power but unable to fully implement Fascist policies, the Falnge in Spain, the Iron Guard in Romania, for example. But even with that the Societies did become more inline with Fascism.

[Moreno]

@Stoic Guardian

Because your making dissingenuine claism about Fascism with no substance, im not even asking for a source im just asking for something specific you may be reffering to which I coudl then look up myself or explain.

I did support my statements in one long post. Then did Another whole long post to answer your questions about my responses and then realized you were the first one to make claims and you were asking me to do a lot of work

You made claims with no substance. Above you mention fascists who did not come to Power. Easy to idealize what never happened. So let’s focus on reality. with actual fascist regimes.

If you have discrepencies with things i’ve said, then question them, what is it you wish for me to verify?

You’d be wrong. Fascist societies had plenty of Freedom.

Which fascist regime allowed for an equal amount of freedom - and for whom - to say, France or Sweden or the US today? I am assuming that the right to vote is not an important part of freedom for you. And if fascist leaders, as you assert elsewhere, are following the will of the people, why do they not allow the people to vote once they are in Power? Would this not be part of a good feedback on the will of the people?

Fascism is generally described as being anti-individualistic and not just by critics but also adherents. How does this fit with the greater freedom found in fascism?

How does fascism’s glorification of war and the military fit with freedom?

Yeah they did trade with the world, they didn’t shut themselves in an enclave but they didn’t allow private interests to pull the Nation into actions that weren’t in it’s interests the way the Capitalists countries did (and continue to do).

Please show how specific Fascist governments avoided this. It seems to me they all worked with international bankers, some starting wars that benefitted GREATLY international bankers and industrialists.

Fascists are of the people it is a mass movement of the people, it’s not some overlordling beating down the people to follow a set of principles not in it’s interest

The Fascist love his Nation and a Nation is it’s people he works for what he beleives is the best interests of his people as a whole, he isn’t opposed to freedom unless such freedom does society as a whole harm.

Specific government and how you know they did this.

Yes, but Fascist virtues hold up under scrutiny.

In context this meant that Fascist virtues hold up, but those of others do not. This sounds like you mean something more than you and other fascists like them, that they hold up objectively. Please demonstrate this.

Me: Being yourself despite the Amazing pressure towards gender stereotypes.

I don’t see how this is “heroic” it could just as well be autisitic or idiotic/foolish.

Please show me how the fact that because it could be autistic or idiotic, means that it must be. If it need not be, then please respond to Point in a relevent manner.

I am sure there are a lot of examples, fascism is very conformist and has trouble with diversity.

It’d help if you posted them because the more i read the more i think your under the false impression of Fascism I used to have, that was corrected once I actually started researching into firsthand accounts.

here you are asserting that Fascism does not have trouble with diversity and is not conformist. Could you give examples of fascist regimes that fit this description?

Again examples would be nice, also every major State I know of has secret police, only they don’t refer to them by that term.

You’re right they don’t trust “people” unequivocally because it understand that their are people that are not to be trusted.

The press in Capitalist countries is controlled too, except by plutocrats looking out for their own interests rather than the interests of the Nation as a whole.

The Downtrodden do tend to be more sympathetic to revolutionaries, I wonder why that is?.

Including communist revolutionaries. As for the rest, this implies that fascist countries have not relied more, than say Western democracies, on secret police, Control of the media - for example shutting down papers that are critical of the government - interfering with rights to assembly. Could you mention a fascist regime that you Think was no worse than Western democracies around freedom of the press, the right to assemble and the use of torture and secret police for political Control of the population?

Disgruntled old man:“Yes i don’t like that hitler fellow!”
Gestapo:“Off to the Soap Factory for you!”

It really seems like you are saying that the Nazi’s did not send people to concentration camps for political beliefs. Is that what you Believe? Would this, if true, mean that it was OK to send people to concentration camps because of their race?

[Fixed_Cross]

Fascism can perhaps best be defined as a fetish, sexual obsession with means of power.
It is a powerlust of the mob, but a particular mob, one that is bred very thoroughly with the narrative of power and heroism, and has decayed into modern politics.

The fascist top-clique may have come to be from heroism, but is pressured by circumstances into power in a process of stripping and reducing, leaving only the very most puerile idea of heroism - unchallenged domination - intact.

The means of war then become toys.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Fixed Cross

Fascism can perhaps best be defined as a fetish, sexual obsession with means of power.

This is ridiculous, the only Fascist fetishists you’'ll fine are some degenerates on Deviantart.

It is a powerlust of the mob, but a particular mob, one that is bred very thoroughly with the narrative of power and heroism, and has decayed into modern politics.

No, they fight against the decay of Modern politics.

The fascist top-clique may have come to be from heroism, but is pressured by circumstances into power in a process of stripping and reducing, leaving only the very most puerile idea of heroism - unchallenged domination - intact.

The means of war then become toys.

This is nonsense framed as metaphysics.

[Moreno]

So, regarding…
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=183664&p=2418212&hilit=+fascism#p2418212
what fascist society fits the claims you make for them?

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Moreno

So, regarding…
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=183664&p=2418212&hilit=+fascism#p2418212
what fascist society fits the claims you make for them?

The only two that were realised.
Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany.

[Moreno]

@Stoic Guardian

@Moreno

So, regarding…
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=183664&p=2418212&hilit=+fascism#p2418212
what fascist society fits the claims you make for them?

The only two that were realised.
Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany.

So how did they live up to the claims you make for fascist societies. I also raised a number of other related points in that post you did not respond to.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Moreno

@Stoic Guardian

@Moreno

So, regarding…
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=183664&p=2418212&hilit=+fascism#p2418212
what fascist society fits the claims you make for them?

The only two that were realised.
Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany.

So how did they live up to the claims you make for fascist societies. I also raised a number of other related points in that post you did not respond to.

As going throught it is a bit convoluted, could you kindly restate your points?

[Moreno]

@Stoic Guardian

As going throught it is a bit convoluted, could you kindly restate your points?

I just relooked at my post and it seems clear to me. If there are specific parts you do not understand I can reword those.

But you can start here:
Let’s work with Germany:
if it really is a movement of the people, why do fascist governments stop being democratic?
How can it have been successful when the Nazis drove out of the country so many top scientists, artists, professionals all kinds, not just Jews?
How can it have been OK to kill Jews, gypsies, retarded people, and mentally ill people EN MASSE and how does this fit in with the ideals you claim fascists have?
Fascism is generally connected with militarism and empiricism - both those states considered themselves new kinds of Rome - yet clearly Germany’s military actions, in specific fighting a two front war, including the extended surge into Russia, was a ridiculous mistake. Fascism seems to encourage foolhardy aggression. I mean, they even had Napoleon,often admired by fascists, as an example of the problem of going deep into Russia, and still Germany went ahead and did this. There was no feedback, in the fascist government, for Hitler’s mania.
You claimed that freedom is of a premium in these countries: but in Nazi Germany art forms, including what are considered master painters like Klimt today, and musical forms were banned. Rights to assembly, freedom of the press and other rights were eliminated. This was a very rigid controlled society and yetyou say there was plenty of freedom. Further this freedom, whatever shreds of it were there compared to other civilized countries, was only extended to part of the population.
You asked for examples, oddly, when I said fascism has trouble with diversity. How could you possibly need examples when one of the only two examples you give is Nazi Germany? And do you really think Nazi Germany was not conformist?

and then you put in this…joke?

Disgruntled old man:"Yes i don't like that hitler fellow!"
Gestapo:"Off to the Soap Factory for you!"

It really seems like you are saying that the Nazi’s did not send people to concentration camps for political beliefs. Is that what you Believe? Would this, if true, mean that it was OK to send people to concentration camps because of their race? What was your intent with this small play scene?

[Moreno]

OK, well. No answer. In any case, the failed rather miserably, especially in the German case where overzeaous leadership with no possible checks from the population - given fascisms distaste for democracy not a surprise - Hitler managed to get his own country split up and huge numbers killed. The moment that country moved towards fascism, was the moment it headed towards the most damage for Germans, let alone people some Germans did not consider German.

[Vireya]

@Moreno

OK, well. No answer. In any case, the failed rather miserably, especially in the German case where overzeaous leadership with no possible checks from the population - given fascisms distaste for democracy not a surprise - Hitler managed to get his own country split up and huge numbers killed. The moment that country moved towards fascism, was the moment it headed towards the most damage for Germans, let alone people some Germans did not consider German.

Well, to be fair, Hilter’s conception of National Socialism wasn’t shared by all of the Nazis. From the formation of the party up to the take over the NSDAP had a sizable left/socialist wing championed by the Strasser brothers (Strasserism) who supported a more democratic strain of the ideology. Then you also had the British Union of Fascists lead by Oswald Mosley who proposed a democratic fascism.

Being a syncretic ideology, Fascisms relations to democracy and socialism depended on the country it arose in.

[Moreno]

@Vireya

@Moreno

OK, well. No answer. In any case, the failed rather miserably, especially in the German case where overzeaous leadership with no possible checks from the population - given fascisms distaste for democracy not a surprise - Hitler managed to get his own country split up and huge numbers killed. The moment that country moved towards fascism, was the moment it headed towards the most damage for Germans, let alone people some Germans did not consider German.

Well, to be fair, Hilter’s conception of National Socialism wasn’t shared by all of the Nazis. From the formation of the party up to the take over the NSDAP had a sizable left/socialist wing championed by the Strasser brothers (Strasserism) who supported a more democratic strain of the ideology. Then you also had the British Union of Fascists lead by Oswald Mosley who proposed a democratic fascism.

Being a syncretic ideology, Fascisms relations to democracy and socialism depended on the country it arose in.

I was asking for actual functioning fascisms, he gave his examples. He had made some claims for what fascism was like. It didn’t seem to match what I got from history. That someone might come up with a fascism, get to actually manifest it in a country and have it match his claims for what fascism is and does, well that may well be possible. But its speculative. speculation has its Place, but when it is presented as already demonstrated it seems problematic to me.

Perhaps some of the Nazis the ones you mention would have done something different, for example. But then as part of Nazism they were effectively kept from this perhaps due to the very qualities of fascism and its tendency towards the kinds of leaders it has had so far at state levels.