Forums | MacLife

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascist

fascist
adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views

Democracy and liberalism are the antonyms of fascism.

BTW: Socialism is not fascistic. Stalinism is totalitarianism.

Where did you get that definition from?

I posted my source.

I am ignoring the link

Then think twice before asking about it.

Liberalism is a right-wing ideology

No.

by definition Hitler was a liberal

No. I've heard he was a vegetarian though.

The political spectrum has more than a "left-right" scale...

So, according to what bratboy has posted I was right. Fascism is not necessarily a right-wing ideology.

You just reminded me about Thatcher and how badly the world needs another one like her.

So, according to what bratboy has posted I was right. Fascism is not necessarily a right-wing movement.

No it's not, you were correct.

The 'fasces' were bundles of rods that symbolized Roman republicanism. . . a loose confederation of states or provinces who voted in a representative form of government. Normally there were two Consuls in office, Junior and senior who took turns being in posession of the fasces which symbolized the senate's republican nature and authority over the senate as a body. The consul in posession of the fasces was the effective 'president' of the senate.

An axe contained within the fasces held by a governer or consul symbolized the authority to execute within the bounds of imperium. . .

One could probably argue that in modern Communism, the state controls business and tries to control or influence the activity of markets. In modern day Fascism you have a dictator who effectively leaves the markets in place, he's just a dictator. I guess that you could say, Under communism, property is collectivized whereas under fascism, it is still private to varying degrees, depending upon the levels of taxation and government oversight. This set of issues gets clouded as there is really never a totally 'free' market.

One might also erroneously attribute a greater degree of militarism to fascist governments. This gets muddied because both Hitler (Fascist) and Stalin (Communist) were expansionist. In Chile, Allende, who was communist, did not use the army in the same way that Pinochet did, and there, one could argue that the US assisted in the formation of a right wing (Fascist) dictatorship, which it prefers over the left (Communist) because of the right's stance on business.

One who is looking objectively might attribute some of the failures of some modern day commuinist regimes to market pressures brought by capitalist countries. One doesn't have to like or agree with Stalin to be socialist. Looking at the history of the labor movement in the US during the late 19th century and first half of the 20th will tell of the european and even the rivalry between Trotskyite and Stalinist influences brought to bear, which leaders of industry and state saw as being antithetical to their interests.

One thing I find funny is the number of Americans who know nothing about communism and yet are quick to criticize it.

**I posted this is on another thread but noone replied to it as it was slightly off-topic. I think it is worth discussing.**

Fascism is a right-wing authoritarian view.

Right-wing? Not necessarily.
Actually, from the given definition, it seems to me that it is closer to being a leftist movement... ever heard of National Socialism or Stalinism?

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Would you even classify a classical right-wing dictatorship like Pinochet's in Chile as "fascist"?

Facsism and socialism have many things in common.  The ruling class and the serfs.

Both are governments based upon collectivism.

One thing I find funny is the number of Americans who know nothing about communism and yet are quick to criticize it.

Really?

I thnk many  citizens here know a lot about Communism and they know it's no better than living under a so-called "right wing" dictatorship.

Yes you are correct, National Socialism and facism are not inherently right wing, but they are definately not the same thing as socialism.

The most glaring difference between ultra left wring ideologies such as communism or socialism, is that in facism you do not have either government control of the market* or the idea of "To each his own and from each according to his ability".  Strangely enough, facism is not really anti-capitalistic while communism obviously is.


*the big facist caveat we witnessed in Nazi Germany however is that facist states reserve the right to seize businesses and mobilize them for the state when needed- so in that regard it could be construed as somewhat socialist, but in this case the nationalizing of private enterprise is state centric, while in socialism it is (in theory) centered on bettering the working person.

I reject your argument.

The nationalizing of private enterprise is inherent to the seizure of private property.

Collectivism is collectivism,  whether it be left wing or right wing.  Businesses that "exist" in fascism are state-sanctioned and not really capitalistic in that the government has the right to seize the assets, and typically does.

My argument is simply that in classic communist or socialist states (China has reached a quasi socialist state) industry exists for the state specifically, while in facist states they become state run only when such national crises call for it.

Case in point: Germany before World War II.  IBM's subsidiary in Germany was quite powerful and important to not only the German society but the government as well.  Thomas Watson was able to exert quite an influence over the government because of the powerful company he headed. The nazis could have simply seized the company's assets in Germany from the very beginning (they did eventually one the United States entered the war, but they COULD have in the 1930's) but they did not because they did not want to detract from capitalist investors in their state. 

The fact of the matter is, facists embrace private property, but in order to be facist you must accept the state's ability to seize it if the state needs it.  It has the ABILITY to become collectivist, but for the benefit of the state, it is not most of the time.  In the long term,  nationalizing your economy is not a good idea but in the short term it allows for rapid mobilization

To be a communist, you must reject the very idea of private property/enterprise. 


Look at facist Italy- a "less" militaristic facist state which was not tainted as much by the mess of racism and master race talk of Germany.  Very few businesses were seized during WWII and in fact it had a very active capitalist economy before and during the first half of the war.

My argument is simply that in classic communist or socialist states (China has reached a quasi socialist state) industry exists for the state specifically, while in facist states they become state run only when such national crises call for it.

You  have no proof of this.  All manner of industry in a fascist state is either heavily taxed or run for the benefit of the state.  Where, for instance, is private industry in Iraq?  For example, Iraq nationalized the oil wells.

Case in point: Germany before World War II.  IBM's subsidiary in Germany was quite powerful and important to not only the German society but the government as well.  Thomas Watson was able to exert quite an influence over the government because of the powerful company he headed. The nazis could have simply seized the company's assets in Germany from the very beginning (they did eventually one the United States entered the war, but they COULD have in the 1930's) but they did not because they did not want to detract from capitalist investors in their state.

They needed their tax revenues. 

The fact of the matter is, facists embrace private property, but in order to be facist you must accept the state's ability to seize it if the state needs it.  It has the ABILITY to become collectivist, but for the benefit of the state, it is not most of the time.  In the long term,  nationalizing your economy is not a good idea but in the short term it allows for rapid mobilization

That  it has that ability means that totalitarian governments generally do not recognize free enterprise per se.

To be a communist, you must reject the very idea of private property/enterprise.

True.

Look at facist Italy- a "less" militaristic facist state which was not tainted as much by the mess of racism and master race talk of Germany.  Very few businesses were seized during WWII and in fact it had a very active capitalist economy before and during the first half of the war.

I thought Fiat was nationalized by the fascist regime there, was it not?

Totalitarian regimes are NOT going to immediately seize the assets of private companies until they are certain that they have gained the power they have seeked.  We see this now happening in Venezuela.

No way!! In right-wing dictatorships the economy always grows an the country becomes much better for the majority (i.e. those who support the dictatorship).

The only reason that happens is that the totalitarian dictatorship often sides with a specific multinational corporation, in a symbiotic relationship.  Thus you have some "growth," but at the expense of others.  (See your reference to Pinochet and Chavez)

In communist states, on the other hand, everyone starves to death until the regime falls due to its own flaws.

Well, not exactly.  In Russia the only problem they had was not so much survivorship, but an international market for their state produced "goods."  Hence the advent of Glasnost.  We're seeing this happen in China with the "enterprise zones."

One thing that does happen in a communist country is that economic growth and scientific development is so tightly controlled that little or no progress happens.

Just compare Pinochet to Chavez. One brought order and prosperity (and lots of deaths, nothing significant though) and the other brought chaos and poverty.

See my post above, the examples of Pinochet and Chavez apply to that.