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 The dictionary built into my Mac says:
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); 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.
A quote from FDR (via https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt):
Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power.
The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living. Both lessons hit home. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.
Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938).
@peterdrake AWESOME...thanks for your reply...I responded to another person who answered my question which I will copy and paste below. But, I think on some level FDR was alluding to, at least in part, to what my understanding of the term is...that was a good quote...again, thank you!
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.
@Urmothersbtt I think there are always people at the extremes who will accuse the other side of fascism. The Trump situation is different, because he's doing many very unusual things that are mentioned in any checklist describing fascism (e.g., https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/holocaust-museum-warning-signs-fascism/):
* Attacking the press. Sure, the left attacks Fox News (justifiably, in my opinion) and the right might reasonably attack something like Daily Kos, but it is bizarre and dangerous for the President to repeatedly proclaim that the media are the enemy.
* Demonizing various ethnic groups (Mexicans, Muslims, etc.).
* Rounding up immigrant children (including, I believe, some who legally applied for asylum) and imprisoning them indefinitely.
* Failing to condemn people who are literally marching in the streets with swastikas and murdering people.
* Spreading baseless conspiracy theories about millions of fraudulent votes, calling the democratic process into question for no reason.
* Denying passports to members of certain groups.
* Partaking in voter suppression. (That's a GOP thing, not just Trump.)
* Announcing that he is the only one who can save us. All politicians say "I'm the best person for the job", but they don't do this.
* Asserting that an attack on him is an attack on America.
* Asserting that he is above the law and trying to install judges who support this opinion.
Of course, we are not really living in a nightmarish dystopia just yet (although some black Americans might disagree). I can publicly criticize Trump without serious fear that I will be arrested or killed. We're still planning to have an election in November. We on the left are seriously worried, though that Trump is an existential threat to the American experiment in democracy.
@peterdrake Your points are totally understood and I agree with most of them, well actually all of them but in some cases the reality is a bit cloudy, but, nevertheless, my original point is that fascism defines the person and the person doesn't define the term. I'm sure if we asked the social media sphere to come up with a definition for Trump without using fascist that we could come up with some good ones.
And, before I asked this question on this platform I had already combed through all the various dictionaries available on the net...I understand that fascist regimes in the past have exhibited some very repressive and racist behaviors. However, I believe a regime (or Government) can be fascist without exhibiting overtly repressive and bigoted behaviors. While Trump has done, and continues to do, some very despicable things does that make him a fascist? And that is where I refer back to the words of Il Duce when he wrote about the merger of state and corporate interest.
So, in your opinion can a Government be classified as fascist if they aren't Nationalistic, racist, oppressive against descending voicing, etc.?
Also, thanks again for carrying on this conversation...this is great!!!
@Urmothersbtt Of course, word meanings drift and not everyone uses them in exactly the same way.
Etymologically, it looks like the key feature is the "bundling" of power, specifically state and corporate power. I think the left sees this when corporations have power over government and the right sees it when government has power over corporations.
In terms of connotation, I think the important features are brutal oppression (stifling descent or certain groups of people) and centralization of power (usually in one man). Militarism and nationalism tend to go hand-in-hand with these.
