Thread 514827419

>Fascism is not nazism
>Fascism is socialism

Is he right?

Who even knows, half the retards on here who support commie policies will say they're "heckin national socialists"
All /r/antiwork faggots who need to go back

>>514827544
Would they prefers dictatorship for the right-winger authoritarian version? Miggers are so crazy they can’t even acknowledge the rightwinger version of communism.

>>514827544
If I understand it correctly, national-socialism is different from fascist for the fact that it heavily relies on antisemitism, race, social darwinism, and national expansion.
Fascism actually includes none of these traits.
Fascism is basically copy-paste socialism but for the nation, not for class.

That's why communist states often become 'fascists' in practice, because they quickly abandon the class struggle and instead creates an authoritarian state that reaps from its socialist structure.
That was what George Orwell was trying to say with his books such as Animal Farm. Socialism in practice becomes fascism in theory.

>>514827419 (OP)
Fascism is Mussolini, National Socialism is Hitler, USSR is Communism. Then you've got modern forms of it too, and I didn't mention Spanish Francoism or Hungarian Fascism. There's differences between all of them, and yet they're all socialist, collective and about nationalism.

>>514827544
After all the rules is both sides have their spectrum - either one boss ordering everyone around or congress orders everyone around.

Where would he place Zionism?

>>514828309
Zionism is simply the existence of a Jewish state within and around the historical Judea.
It's not a political system for the state, government, economy and society.

>>514827419 (OP)
He's wrong.
The last time I checked no, or at least very few, variations of socialism advocate for corporatist economies.

>>514828169
yeah so fascism can basically be narrowed down to socialism + nationalism, but it's not National-Socialism.

Kind of a mindfuck desu

>>514828113

You're more or less correct. Tik is right to force the point. The ideologies were distinct from one another in several crucial ways. Fascism was not race based but highly nationalistic, whereas Nazi Germany NatSocialism was very racially based and racially motivated. Both overlap in their quests of imperialist expansionism.

>>514828934
Except fascism has nothing to do with imperial expansionism.
At least not in its core principles, and only Italy stuck out in this, and only after they aligned with Germany.

There were several other fascist states in Europe who did not adhere to any expansionism policies.

>>514828715
Isnt socialism and corporatism virtually the same thing? I googled it and it seems like many say it is.

Fascism was never national socialism. National Socialism is a purely germanic ideology. Imagine trying to implement NatSoc into a med shithole like Italy or Spain where the average person sits outside arguing, smoking and drinking coffee all day. Germanic people are just super industrious and NatSoc ideaology was right to a certain degree when it came to Aryanism. Also saying that Fascism is socialism is the most retarded thing ever, its diametrically opposed, one stands by traditions and nationhood, while the other stands by egaltarianism, atheism, and is blind to nationality and race.

Communism, Fascism and National Socialism are stem from the European socialist movement and the critique of capitalism and parliamentary democracy. They simply offered different solutions to the same problems. Not to mention the distinction between each of them starts to blur given enough time.

>>514829597
>saying that Fascism is socialism is the most retarded thing ever, its diametrically opposed, one stands by traditions and nationhood, while the other stands by egaltarianism, atheism, and is blind to nationality and race.

Fascism isn't about race or religion lol. Why would you even say that.

>>514829872
National-socialism is quite easy to pinpoint though, because it's basically Hitlers own little brainchild and completely relies on race, social darwinism, antisemitism, and national expansion.

It's communism and fascism that has an extremely blurred definition because both were movements against the same issues, presenting virtually the same solution, often led by the same people (many socialists became fascists, and vice-versa).
The main difference as I see it, is that fascism is socialism for the state, while socialism/communism is more about class struggle with the eventual abolishing of the state completely.
At least this is how it is in theory, but most communist states in practice ends up extremely dictatorial and nationalistic (Soviet Union, North Korea, China etc).
Ergo they become fascist.

>>514827419 (OP)
You can describe the Roman Empire as socialism. Socialism is Latin for sharing.
>>514830360
>It's communism and fascism that has an extremely blurred definition because both were movements against the same issues, presenting virtually the same solution, often led by the same people (many socialists became fascists, and vice-versa).
Not even remotely the same. Fascism is a society reliant on merit and the common good. Communism is a society based on materialism and redistributing the wealth. The only thing socialist and capitalists don't agree on is who should hold that wealth. But fundamentally both are based on vain materialism

It's also not correct to say NS is unique as both Fascism and NS inevitably draw from the same well - the Roman Empire.

>>514830360
It’s possible I’m missing something. Natsoc and Italian fascism ( which is awkwardly difficult to separate, and probably draws from early the middle part of the Roman Empire more than it possibly should) are outward looking and allow for expansion on an ideological basis as far as I can tell, whereas gommunism is inherently inward facing.

There is one thing that seems to me, at least, that divides the two loose camps.
Communism builds walls/barriers etc to keep the population in, and the other (two) build barriers/fronts that are permeable in the other direction.

I’m probably completely wrong, and this would not be unusual

>>514827419 (OP)
Well no. The problem with this whole "discussion," if dithering over slanderous semantics can be called discussion, is that it's trying to apply a binary metrics to multivariate political positions. Usually these debates fall along the line
>Left or right?
>Socialist or capitalist?
>Authoritarian or liberal?
without the recognition that these things come in gradients, not binaries, and that there's more than two poles in any particular area, so the number of possible political positions is near infinite and vary along more than one axis. Once you get really specific the number of political ideologies is only limited by the number of people available to hold their own - and that's ignoring hypocrites who may hold a superposition of two or three.

The semantic portion of these talks is pretty much useless from the outset because you can just call fascism fascism and if you want to talk about German fascism in particular you can just say Nazism. The terms already exist and nobody is confused about what you mean when you say them.

This whole "debate" is just about trying to apply or remove naughty no-no cognitive kill switch words from ideologies that you either hate or love respectively. It has no actual intellectual value.

>>514830667
It’s amusing that you posted a slightly different approach to my post, much more eloquently than I did, given how shit I am at expressing myself, and yet you’ve reached a similar conclusion. Similar, but different. I’m halfway through goldworthy’s book on Caesar and I found myself constantly tucking how eerily Rome , as much as it was, was the anti penultimate source of what was seen in the 1920s onwards