Mswas - without meaning to detract from your attempt to make this thread into another ‘mswas demonstrates he’s an idiot’ thread.
You do realise that the footnote you bolded is connected to the ‘In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a “Third Way” in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.’
And so is only a sub-set?
And then can I draw your attention to the end of your own bloody quote:
‘No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.’
And:
‘Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism,[10] rationalism, liberalism, conservatism and communism.’
I know this has been said to you so very many times but - have you ever given some consideration as to citing stuff that supports what in your imagination you believe is a reasoned argument instead of stuff that undermines whatever you think you are arguing?
You state “Yes absolutely as Fascism is a form of socialism.”
You then link to a definition of socialism which claims, “socialism itself is not a political system; it is instead an economic system distinct from capitalism.”
Is it therefor your contention that Fascism is not a political system?
Nitpick: the Piechs were the Porsches. Ferry Porsche’s sister, Louise, married a lawyer named Piech, who later became the manager of the Wolfsburg Volkswagen plant.
I’m sure he’ll be back as soon as he’s cleaned his screen of spit and glanced at another righty-tighty insane blog with a link that claims to be to something that proves black is white. Just don’t expect him to either read or understand it.
He’s the internet equivalent of a monkey flinging shit at a wall to see if anything will stick.
You equate communism and socialism in a thread like this an I am an idiot.
This isn’t a refutation of what I said, go back and try again. Next time reply to my actual post instead of ranting about communism.
As for your attempts to belittle and demean me while not actually responding to what I’ve actually said, I get called an idiot and brilliant about equal amounts, so I just let the two cancel each other out and don’t take much stock in people who try to make me believe I am either. Usually they have an agenda.
Fair enough. Fascism is a political system that utilizes socialistic economic policies in its practice.
It is neither extreme of Capitalism or Communism, it is SOCIALISM, a third way economic idea that unites the business of state with the business of industry. Thus the ‘NATIONAL SOCIALIST’ party. So National Socialism is Socialistic just as Communism is Socialistic, just as modern day Europe is Socialistic, and even modern America is Socialistic.
Okay, so just accepting your terms for the debate (I don’t agree with them, but we’ll get to that shortly), you agree that fascism and socialism are in fact two different things.
Can you see the possibility that fascism “utilizes socialist economic policies” to produce outcomes that are radically different from the sorts of outcomes promoted by “socialists”, as the term is traditionally defined?
To give one good example, socialism is traditionally “internationalist”, in the sense that all members of the proletariat have common interests, regardless of nationality; while fascism usually (always?) is “nationalistic”, in the sense that it elevates national identity to central organizing principle. Can you see that difference?
No I don’t see that because that’s a no true scotsman argument.
Well that is assuming that socialism is a political movement and not an economic system.
As for your question regarding what differences I can see, I invite you to read ALL that I have written in this thread to avoid more redundant questions.
Seems you are painting with too broad a brush. To me it is akin to you saying since gorillas and orangutans and chimpanzees and humans are all hominids the differences are not important. Sure, you concede they are not the same but still want to paint with a broad brush that obscures the very real and very important differences. Since you can technically collect them all under one categorization may as well just throw them all into one big pile and call them the same.
Applying “socialist” to Hitler, while perhaps correct to the letter of the law (so to speak), obscures the massive differences Hitler had with the likes of Stalin (and the massive differences between WWII Germany and Soviet Union). Hitler’s socialism and Stalin’s socialism are as alike as a monkey and a gorilla (i.e. two wholly different creatures with only some similarities).
Yes he’s saying, “They’re not real socialists because they didn’t conform to…”
Maybe I am painting with too broad a brush, but the point is that both Socialism AND Fascism have been hotly debated as to what they mean.
I am saying that Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and Humans are all primates, but that there are differences in them.
Just like Fascism, Communism, Modern Europe and Modern America are all Socialistic but there are differences in them.
I disagree. I think arguing AGAINST IT obscures those massive differences. A more germane argument would be to argue. “Yeah they were both socialists, but so what? It’s not socialism that is the problem, but the extreme methods they used to implement it. Even though both were socialistic there were even massive differences between Hitler and Stalin let alone the two of them and Barack Obama.”
Too much time gets lost in debating who gets to define a term. Semantic arguments are only useful insofar as you are determining where the semiotic fault lines lie between yourself and your interlocutor. Yes, if an individual is using it idiosyncratically it’s fair to dismiss that usage, but if they are using it in a way that millions of people use it then all it does is create a more sophisticated version of ‘nuh uh’, ‘uh huh’.
I agree with you that it isn’t very easy to fit fascism into the left/right political scale, since it really is a thing unto itself, as far as I know. I’m walking on eggshells here, because I’m aware that there is vast literature about fascism, and I’ve read very little of it, so I’m no expert.
See, this is nonsense, really, because socialism is, virtually by definition, “internationalist.” Socialists abhor nationalism as an ideology because it obscures class-consciousness.
With regard to your current post:
?
No, it’s not. I use a hammer to pound nails; you use a hammer to pound heads. We use the same tool, but achieve radically different outcomes. If “socialism” is purely an economic system, as you define it, it’s the tool: a fascist might use it one way, while a Social Democrat might use it differently. You see?
But of course, this is all kinda hollow. I’m trying to convince you on your own terms, but I think your terms are badly skewed as well. Let’s take the historical record; look at the roots of a fascism in Italy. I’ll quote from Paxman, The Anatomy of Fascism:
So, let me ask you – if the fascists were socialists, why was kicking the snot out of socialists their favorite pass-time? In fact, you can see very clearly that fascism arose as counter-movement to socialism, and in particular to the political success of the Left in Italy.
Then, of course, it’s very strange to try to argue that socialism doesn’t have some sort of political ideology. You’ve heard of socialist political parties before, I hope. Socialism is in fact a political ideology, one with a very clear idea about how to organize the economy – just like liberalism.
If we turn our attention directly to fascism, then, we find it is in fact very difficult to define. But Paxman again comes to our rescue. Relevant to the distinction between fascism and socialism he writes:
Not exactly what you might expect, eh? No wonder political scientists have trouble defining fascism: the above reads more like social psychology, really. Anyway, I can tell you the moblizing passions Paxton categorizes above are a very long was away from the moblizing passions one generally encounters in a socialist.
I think you are confusing socialism with communism.
With regard to your current post:
Yes, I do see. I do so love when someone makes my argument back to me as though they are trying to convince me of something.
Good counterpoint. So let me ask you then, why would Hitler use the term, “National Socialism”?
Yes, but they usually modify the term, as you did yourself by invoking ‘Social Democrat’. Just as ‘Social Democrat’ means one thing, ‘National Socialism’ means another. They are modified by the use of the second term. It changes their connotation. You are talking about an internationalist socialism, I am talking about a nationalist socialism.
You make a good argument. The problem I have with all of these arguments is the assertion that one side is rational and the other is not. I have never found this to be true. I have never found that one side is more rational than the other. One side is more likely to use rationalism as a rallying cry, but that doesn’t make them more rational. It just makes, ‘rational’, another symbolic political icon which can be used to stir fervor amongst the rank and file.
A lot of the criticisms applied by Paxman can easily be applied in other directions.
The primacy of the group, to which one has duties superior to every right…
This can be altered if you think of group as ‘class’. Then the in-group or in-class starts to fit socialism as a whole.
The belief that one’s group is a victim…
This one fits socialism without any modification.
Dread of the group’s decadence under the corrosive effect of a decedant and cosmopolitan liberalism.
This one stands unmodified as well, particularly in the way international communist struggle was fought.
Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood (fascio) whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence, if necessary.
Stalin’s murder of the Kulaks? (Stands unmodified)
An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces individual self-esteem.
Viva la Revolucion!!! (Again stands unmodified)
Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national chieftain…
Dictatorship of the Proletariat anyone? (Again unmodified) By this token you’d have to argue that Maoism and Stalinism were Fascist and not Socialist.
The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success in a Darwinian struggle.
We as the actual producers of our labor deserve to control it more than those elites who are mere capitalistic parasites upon the fruits of our work. (Again unmodified)
