Define fascism for me

Orwell said it's pretty much a synonym of "bully" at this point. Mind you, he said it in the 1940s so imagine how much of a buzzword it is now.

It is national socialism system, totalitarian.There's no right to vote or to speak your mind , no freedom of speech.Art is tolerated, if you don't go against the power.The state takes care of you in all the stages of your life.No workers rebellion no syndacate. The state owns the majority of the industry and comapnies, the private sector is little and weak.
You can be killed or deported or jailed if you question the power.Classes aren't fluid like they're today, if you were born poor there's no way you can die rich.All the resources of the country feed the army: a fascist country in order to survive needs to win a lot of wars because people like winners.
This is just a quick review on fascism, may contain some errors.

Fascism =/= National Spcoslosm

however

National Socialism =/= Fasicsm

>It is national socialism system
>no syndicates
Don't talk about shit you know nothing about.

Well, if have to consider that fascism in italy went through a lot of stages, it was not a sinlge block that you can call fascism.The only relevant difference between the two is that fascism doesn't aim to destroy every other race on earth , but it still is a nationalist movement with socialist features, basically a national socialism.

>no syndicates
I should have said there is one, and only one, but what's the point of it? It has no power, it can't do shit.

Your entire post is one big error

Explain

It's a reaction to class warfare, plus nationalism, plus a hard on for the State.
>Social classes will meet and deal with each other under the neutral and good willing umbrella of the State. That way the problems of class warfare will be dealt with in the most productive manner.
>Communism is destruction. Democracy is a game rigged for the rich to win.

Basically that's it.

The economic base of Fascism is Corporatism, which prescribes cooperation between various interest groups, workers' and employers' unions or guilds under the auspices of the State, as a peaceful way to resolve class struggle. Not only does fascism have syndicates, they're the basis of fascist economics. In practice, fascist states throughout history have heavily practiced capitalism; private sectors in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany weren't small or weak, they were sprawling, and one assumes there was quite a bit of social mobility. Also while the German economy was reliant on war and conquest, that was less so the case with other fascist nations (Spain, Italy, Portugal), let alone their entire economies feeding the military.

Italian fascism was corporatist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism
"In November 1918, Mussolini defined national syndicalism as a doctrine that would unite economic classes into a program of national development and growth."

Your post was an exaggerated description of wartime nazi germany, which is not the same thing as "fascism"

National cooperation and unity.

>Italian fascism was corporatist.
No lel, italian fascism was fascism.

And fascism is corporatist by default.

I meant that its economical structure was corporatist.

Do I have to explain everything to you like a baby?

What's the point of having a syndacate(should represent workers will) if all of his members are chosen by the fascist party and they have no real power?
The state just says the workers :"ok ,you will have what you need to live and that's it, you can't have more than that"
And then says to the rich:"The workers have lost the class war , the state will defend your privilege as long as you'll defend the state"

this:

Italian fascism was that.
Plus in a regime there's no peace , there's no real end to wartime since the state needs something on which people can pour their hate.

...

A.
Simple terms:
For the health and well being of the nation and people.
fascism is a mode of operation more than a way of thought.
B. Fascism is not one coherent ideology.
Fuck off
There is no one coherent ideology known as fascism.
Correct and incorrect.
Mostly correct.
Fascism is not National Socialism
Corporatism is not fascism.
No it isn't.

>"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism..."
t. Mussolini

Mussolini may have described fascism that way, but Fascism isn't explicitly what Mussolini created (implying he even created it, or had one cohesive ideology).
But Mussolini also had no fucking clue what economics was.

Authoritarian Nationalism.

Usually based around a figurehead (though not always).

The rejection of the right-left dichotomy of the French Revolution.

The rejection of liberal ideas and values as weak and degenerate.

The militarization of the state, as well as the merger of both corporate and state owned entities into a single body that, unlike say socialism, is still controlled by the elite.

The criminalization of bolshevik activity, as its viewed as a way to undermine the state.

The idea of expansion and conquest being something that is glorious, and in fact neccesarily to ensure the survival of the nation, which was unique in how it mixed Social Darwinism into political philosophy. Basically, if your nation was not strong enough to defend itself and its people from an aggressor, it was not worthy of existence in the first place.

Just to name a few things characteristic of most varieties of fascism, it's not a coherent idealogy of course but this is just a couple of key points present in most varieties.

Realtivly accurate post, but less accurate of fascism like the PAP and the BUF

Because fasces has classical roots based on an idea of strength in unity.

The BUF was somewhat of an odd case. The fact that it was supported by many women and sas supported more as a way to reduce factionalism in Parliament rather than undo the entire system itself (or at least at first) makes its ideological roots different from typical fascism. I see it as more of a preservation idealogy to keep the British Empire intact rather than an expansionist one, then again I haven't read much of Moselys work so I don't know what he exactly had planned.

The BUF was an aberration
They were a heavy kind of syndicalists while still being authoritarian and beliebing in nationalism

Mosley was the biggest memer of pre-war Britain

A bunch of faggots.

Good, glad you have some natural insight where 90% of Veeky Forums lacks it.
Just read his 100 questions
Still fascists tho.

Sort-of
They were extremely leftist in various aspects
Mosley even admitted to being a leftist and moving to the center in his last years

They love memes and suck at governing. They control the production of memes, and support the public discourse to by reduced to simple memetics. The memes can even be socialist:
>national socialism
>red fascism
>etc

No shit.
But Fascism has no "left or right" it is not it's own solid coherent ideology.

Fine

The BUF was an extremely socialist wing of facism
Happy?

They'd be considered left wing regardless of how much they reject it. Fascists were anti-monarchist which is what left wing meant

>Fascists were anti-monarchist which is what left wing meant
No they weren't you fucking retard. Mosley and Mussolini were both pro-monarchist. Hitler only hated the Prussian nobility because he believed they lost the war for Germany and never asked Wilhelm to come back to Germany because he saw him as a spineless geriatric who was slowly losing his mind (which he was by 1940).

Mussolini started off being a Republican actually. Later from his talks with the King it can perhaps be seen as a move towards a more accommodating view of the Monarchy.

Mussolini started off writing hot steamy novels

I'd fap to them

Any system with both capitalism and statism.

Fascism is what happened when a bunch of Italian socialists became nationalists.

"fascism" is Mussolinis movement in Italy in early 1900's.

But "fascism" today is mostly used as a general slur devoid of meaning. It's usually taken to mean "bad" or "evil". Anyone you don't like, or political opinion you don't agree with, you are free to call "fascist".

Fascism is a construct used in political science to describe a number of far-right nationalist regimes that shared the traits of being anti-liberal democracy and anti-communist. They usually were reactionary, in the sense of wanting to return to pre-liberal social conditions, but they didn't have to be, and were usually reactionary in quite a different way than traditional conservative parties. They usually considered economic stances to be unimportant compared to national and international politics. However, most of them were explicitly anti-capitalist inasmuch as capitalism supports liberal and internationalist ends, but the symbols of capitalism, and its constituent parts, were accepted on the basis of subservience to the state; private property wasn't touched, and big business wasn't interfered with as long as support for the regime was secured. Corporatist structures were supported, categorizing workers by function in relation to the government, over industrial or trade unionism, e.g. all wage-earners were to be put into one corporation, all technical managers into another, a third for fishermen, and so on, which reflected in many cases the social organization of pre-industrial Europe.

Overall, the systems that Fascist regimes built were unsustainable and usually garnered most of their support from their opposition to democracy and communism, which were two things that were going hand-in-hand during the period of 1918-1933. The most fervent supporters tended to be national industrial magnates and the middle class.

>They usually were reactionary, in the sense of wanting to return to pre-liberal social conditions, but they didn't have to be
I like how vague this is
>They usually considered economic stances to be unimportant compared to national and international politics. However, most of them were explicitly anti-capitalist
This too
> Corporatist structures were supported, categorizing workers by function in relation to the government, over industrial or trade unionism, e.g. all wage-earners were to be put into one corporation
So basically it's just "corporatism".
> two things that were going hand-in-hand during the period of 1918-1933
It doesn't even include Germany during the war period, so were they not fascist? I don't know, it just seems to me that when you attempt to use "fascism" to describe anything but Italy under Mussolini, it just breaks down and becomes a category that is too wide and ill-defined.

>... the symbols of capitalism, and its constituent parts, were accepted on the basis of subservience to the state; private property wasn't touched, and big business wasn't interfered with as long as support for the regime was secured.
It just sounds to me like considerations that any normal state throughout history would have. Very generic and common stuff.

It is vague. Every political label is vague. That's why I explicitly pointed out that it's a construct used in political science, not an ideology as such. It's useful only in very broad strokes. However, everything I said is true. They were usually reactionary, Italian fascism wasn't, and the reaction found in Nazism is mostly trimmings running contrary to all of their practically implemented policy. This is because reactionary ideology was associated with fascism, but wasn't at the heart of fascism, which is, as I said, opposition to liberal democracy and communism, which are the two traits universally found in fascism.

Corporatism was supported only to the extent that it diminished the power of unions, no fascist state ever actually made a strong commitment to sharing political power with them, even Italy, which went the furthest with this idea. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Fasci_and_Corporations)

The range of 1918 to 1933 is the range from the German revolution to the election of the Nazi Party. The impetus to enabling Hitler and dismantling democracy were the striking gains of the KDP and the continued leftward shift of the SDP during this period, with similar things occuring in Italy, an entire social revolution in Spain, and so on. It's a trend.

>It just sounds to me like considerations that any normal state throughout history would have. Very generic and common stuff.

Yes, part of this understanding, along with the rather limp implementation of corporatism, is that fascism -wasn't- a radical reorganization of society. It was a movement primarily empowered to disenfranchise and disempower socialists. That said, they still expropriated the property of international capitalists.

Marxism meets human nature

I don't think many Marxists would call the old monarchy fascist. Libertarian are more prone to it from my experience.

oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fascism

According to Oxford Dictionary

An authoritarian and nationalistic *right-wing* system of government and social organization.

The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian *right-wing* nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

Origin

1920s: from Italian fascismo, from fascio 'bundle, political group', from Latin fascis (see fasces).

** I personally disagree with using fascism as "Right-Wing" or any wing for that matter because A) using the left right style (Binary measurements) of measuring political systems is being very disingenuous ideologies B) it is extremely over simplifying the depth of political philosophy, which is why I use pic related and believe that it is more accurate but still somewhat simplifying the subject at hand.

Great post user.

>...fascism -wasn't- a radical reorganization of society. It was a movement primarily empowered to disenfranchise and disempower socialists.
I think you have convinced me that fascism was just a natural response to the craziness of marxistic ideologies. Without marxism there would have been no fascism i believe. Marxism is the disease, and fascism is only a symptom of this disease.
>That said, they still expropriated the property of international capitalists.
I would expect any authoritarian state through history to engage in this behaviour, to some extent.

Its the middle of the horseshoe

>tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group
Incorrect, as the spiritual definition of race won out in Mussolini's Italy (the archetype fascist state).
>a contempt for democracy
False. And this contradicts the following assertion. Fascist leaders were usually populists. Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.
>an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader
I guess this is true though. But it's true for every state in history, so...
>a strong demagogic approach
Yes, and this is a hallmark of democracy. Just look at Donald Trump for example.

Authoritarian and nationalistic will define any nation-state throughout history. So why do we need the term "fascism" to define them.

>False. And this contradicts the following assertion. Fascist leaders were usually populists. Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.

Hahaha. Find me a single quote from a fascist in support of democracy. Hitler specifically said that the Nazis intended to use electoral means to abolish elections.

Mussolini stated he was against Liberal Bourgeosie Democracy, however supporting Totalitarian Demoracy.

because humans are lazy and want simple terms to define complex and grandiose ideals.

Example: Instead of saying, Private Ownership of the Voluntary Exchange of Goods and Services, it is agreed to say with Capitalism instead.

Solitary Hereditary Autocratic Dictatorship, it is simplified to Despotism or Monarchy

It also maybe a propaganda issue because it's usually put as "US vs Them"

Enemy of Democracy is Communism. I do not need to define either because you already have a clear picture in your head with both.

Simply put: ease of use and understanding of information.

It depends on the kind of fascism, there's Italian fascism, Spanish fascism, Portoguese fascism ecc...

But yeah, fascism is the will of cultural and political superiority of a nation over another, not racial superiority, still national citizens of a nation are a step above of other nationalities

>Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.
yeah but the Nazis never won more than 50% of the vote

Actually Italian and Franco's fascism claimed cultural and political superiority of Italians and Spanish of the nations they conquered, not racial superiority, Italian regime was pretty chill compared to Stalin's URSS or Hitler's Germany

this is why I said

>According to Oxford Dictionary