Is anyone interested in debating what the truest definition of Fascism is...I am curious to nail down the true definition of the idea. I feel that too often, these days, that word get thrown out there at anyone who ignites the ire of social media, and I have the feeling that people are merely using that term to defame another without really understanding the definition. Please be civil, no dart throwing 😜

@Urmothersbtt

My definition of fascism is an authoritarian, collectivist rule with little political freedom but more economic freedom. Usually (but not necessarily) coupled with nationalist or romantic ideals.

So fascism is in a sense halfway between democracy and communist - the latter being authoritarian, collectivist, with neither political nor economic freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any examples of nations with political freedom but no economic freedom.

While I think this would be a useful definition, the term is quite loaded, and I don't think it is possible to discuss it in any meaningful way. For instance, China would be an example of a modern fascist nation, but expressing that would likely lead to very heated responses.

Here's another, more detailed take:
heterodoxacademy.org/podcast-h

Follow

@ketil Thank you so much for replying to my post, I was unsure if anyone was going to read what I wrote...this platform is not as active as, say, Twitter. In any case I think your assessment of the term is correct and very well expressed...again thank you.
I suppose my confusion concerning this term is that it gets thrown out there willy-nilly and, in my estimation, falsely attributed to someone which then changes the common understanding of what the term means and therefore leaves way for true fascism to make inroads.
Let me explain my position. When I was in college I spent a lot of my credits studying history and to a lesser extent economics; through these courses I came to view fascism in the way that Mussolini characterized it when he stated:

“The first stage of fascism
should more appropriately be called corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Now, he wrote and spoke many times about fascism, which if memory serves me correctly, wasn't a term until he came to power (not sure, however). But, it would make sense to utilize the definition that the Arch-Fascist used to describe is governing approach.
Since I, rightly or wrongly, have accept this definition of fascism it confuses me to see people today throwing that term out to describe people of the opposite political views. People call Trump a fascist and conservatives level the same at people they deem as "liberal"; when in fact neither side is, according to my understanding, a fascist...they may be other things but I have a hard time describing them as that.
To take my thought just a bit further I do think there is a threat of fascist ideology taking over our government and society. See, I don't think it much matters in a fascist system who initiates the merger between the State and Corporate powers, the out come is still the same. And with the incestuous relationship between corporate america and our government is it too out of line to claim that there is a "merger" of the two which seems to greatly benefit those involved? I could provide pages of examples and how they adversely affect the average citizen and the country as a whole but I'm sure most people would agree with me, they may not agree with my assessment that it is ultimately harmful for the country but...that's their opinion.
So, to bring it back around: If people use the term fascist of the cuff and merely level it at anyone they don't agree with, it changes the definition and makes the word meaningless, when I believe that it should be very meaningful and the force of description that it once held is extremely vital in warning us of what is happening right now.
I've gone too long, I have other thoughts to add but I think you get my jist.
Anyhow, thanks for your reply and I will definitely check that podcast out since I listen to 10 hours of podcast a day while working.

@Urmothersbtt
Happy to oblige :-) I agree the term (fascism) is mostly useless as a description of anything, like so many other -isms, its primary function is tribalistic signaling. Calling somebody fascist firmly establishes them as the bad guys, and you as the good guys.

I'm no expert on fascism, but I think Mussolini's corporatistic state shows the collectivist core of fascism - corporations, just like individuals, are allowed to exist, but only so far as they are useful to the state. This is one step short of communism, where corporations don't exist at all, and the state controls all production of goods.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.