• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    While they are common traits, they are not requirements to be considered part of fascist ideology. While used by more famous fascist governments, they are not necessary to impart the general ideology of fascism through authoritarian control by a dictator.

    For example the Spanish Falange was considered a fascist movement. It supported conservative ideas about women and supported rigid gender roles that stipulated that women’s main duties in life were to be loving mothers and submissive wives. There was no economic system defining the fascist movement.

    • Cowbee [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      What is the “general ideology of fascism?” You’ve stripped fascism of its defining characteristics and defined it as “bad,” which isn’t particularly useful for avoiding fascism or preventing it.

      You’ve stripped it of historical context and now it’s just something that can happen, sometimes, for no reason.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Where did I write “fascism is bad?” It is a vague ideology that is centrally defined as I stated above.

        For example, Oxford defines fascism as an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.

        There is no specific economic system required for a government to be considered fascist. Historically, fascism has grown out of more socialist nations than capitalist. That doesn’t make fascism inherently socialist either.

        Joseph Stalin stated in a speech in 1924: Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.

        The definition skews depending on the source. The qualities change depending on the government. The policies vary depending on the leader. The only consistent factors are the ones I stated earlier.

        • Cowbee [he/they]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Where did I write “fascism is bad?” It is a vague ideology that is centrally defined as I stated above.

          The vague ideology you described is so vague, it ceases to be a useful descriptor, and becomes “bad.”

          For example, Oxford defines fascism as an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.

          It’s right-wing, ergo it is built on Capitalism and Corporatism. You’ve debunked yourself.

          There is no specific economic system required for a government to be considered fascist. Historically, fascism has grown out of more socialist nations than capitalist. That doesn’t make fascism inherently socialist either.

          That’s a wild thing to say, and completely historically inaccurate, fascism has risen out of corporatism, ie later Capitalism. Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, or even fascist movements like the British Union of Fascists have all been right-wing Capitalist ideologies.

          Joseph Stalin stated in a speech in 1924: Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.

          Stalin is generally correct here, yes, which aligns with Umberto Eco’s 14 points. Fascism arises during Capitalist crisis, and is a violent tool of the bourgeoisie to collaborate with the “middle class” against the lower classes. Social Democracy is Capitalist, with safety nets, not Socialist in any manner. You continue to prove yourself wrong.

          The definition skews depending on the source. The qualities change depending on the government. The policies vary depending on the leader. The only consistent factors are the ones I stated earlier.

          You’re wrapping around to your vague initial point after debunking yourself this entire comment, for some reason.