What's new

Is China a Fascist State?

BTW, what are you guys referring to by Fascism? Fascism as in Italian Fascism?? AFAIK Nazi Germany wasn't Fascist, it was National Socialist.

Yes, Italian fascism. But I thought the conventional belief is that Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and to a lesser extent, Francoist Spain were also all fascist.

What would be your defintion/description of fascism then?
 
. .
Germany , Italy and Japan ? I'll have to give my input later. Out barbecueing now. Later folks.
 
.
Yes, Italian fascism. But I thought the conventional belief is that Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and to a lesser extent, Francoist Spain were also all fascist.

What would be your defintion/description of fascism then?
.
Japan and Spain werent Fascist or National Socialist thats a allied propaganda. Nor does expansionism or treatment of minorities or race has anything to do with fascism.
 
. .
Yes, Italian fascism. But I thought the conventional belief is that Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and to a lesser extent, Francoist Spain were also all fascist.

What would be your defintion/description of fascism then?
Ok, so here's my take on what Fascism is and where Nazi Germany stands with regards to Fascism:

Italy was Fascist no doubt about that and so was Franco's Spain. However Nazi Germany wasn't a Fascist state and i'll tell you why:

1). Fascism: Contrary to common misconceptions, Italian Fascism was not a racist ideology as it was conformed around the ethnic makeup of the Italian peninsula which was diverse where you had Germanic Italians in the northern provinces and as you made your way down to the southern tip of Italy and into Sicily you had Italians who looked very much like North African Arabs and Jews. In fact Fascist Italy, along with the Pope also had a Chief Rabbi of Rome who represented the significant Jewish population of the city. Fascism was based on National unity (thus its symbol the Fasces), not racial unity.

“Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.” - Mussolini

The core of Fascism was its economic principles rather than race or religion. Fascism was not opposed to monarchy and aristocracy but rather worked in tandem with the former. Fascism was, in other words, just a economic and political system. Fascism was, however, vehemently anti-Communist, anti-Capitalist, anti-Liberal and pro-Nationalism. Also, Fascism was indigenous to Italy as it naturally conformed to its Imperial Roman past from which it derived considerable influence. Just like Imperial Rome was a ethnically/racially diverse state, so too was Fascist Italy.


2). Nazism: More Appropriately known as National Socialism. National Socialist Germany was a racial state. Its core principle which formed the foundation of its ideology was the race followed by a socialist economic model (not to be confused with Marxist socialism) in line with its racial and nationalist worldview. While Marxist Socialism did not distinguish the masses on the basis of race, religion, or nationality (thus 'International Socialism'), National Socialism did make such distinctions. Also, unlike Marxist Socialism, National Socialism encouraged private enterprise and property as long as the endeavors of the individual were in line with the interest of the national community (Volksgemeinschaft). There was no concept of equality in National Socialism with regards to performance of each individual in society as it took into consideration the laws of nature wherein every individual performed according to their capacity and no two people were alike. If an individual performed better than others in a specific field they were rewarded accordingly with more pay, a promotion, a increase in paid vacation, etc. Similarly if an individual slacked or underperformed they were replaced by someone more qualified to hold their position and this rule applied to any position in society be it a company manager or a government official. Now this might sound similar to today's capitalist system and meritocracies based on capitalism however once again the major difference is that National Socialism puts emphasis on the common interests of the National Community (race) rather than of individuals, and thus the binding factor here is the race. Capitalism does not follow this rule. While capitalism's end goal is maximum profit by any means, national socialism's end goal is serving the interest of the national community by any and all means. Therefore merit based system plays a very important role in the national socialist worldview as long as it serves the interest of the national community.

"We are always on the lookout for ability; especially capacity for leadership (Leitungsfaehigkeit). That precious quality confers upon an individual the right to an agreeable life, a fine mansion, and many other good things. But the instant he shows himself unworthy of his position he loses them all and is cast aside. National Socialism plays no favorites. While princes and rich men have not been deprived of their titles and wealth, none of them have any prescriptive right to prominence in the Third Reich. If a prince in the Party (and we have them) shows capacity for leadership, he goes ahead. Otherwise, he stays in the background." - Dr. Robert Ley, Reichs Minister for Labor


National Socialism would be opposed to today's multibillion dollar corporations who's end goal is only to make as much profit as possible at as low a cost as possible (immigration for cheap labor, outsourcing jobs overseas for cheap labor, etc) even at the cost of the community they are profiting from. Also National Socialism opposes private banks and only the state is allowed to own the banks (banks are nationalized). In National Socialist Germany the state bank was nationalized once the Nazis took power and this was the first major step towards Germany's economic revival. Basically anything that was to the detriment of the national community was in opposition to National Socialist ideals.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - Adolf Hitler, in 1927 speech, as quoted by John Toland in his biography Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography


Unlike Marxist socialism which puts considerable emphasis on class warfare, national socialism seeks to establish class unity/cooperation rather than class struggle. Class struggle only leads to chaos and bloodshed. But seeing that Marxism's goal is revolutionary this is understandable why class warfare would be given considerable importance from a Marxist perspective since communist revolutions have only been successful in times of chaos. National Socialism opposes class warfare as it only serves to divide a nation, leading it to instability and internal strife.

"We have not broken down classes in order to set new ones in their place; we have broken down classes to make way for the German people as a whole. Our education also trains men to respect intellectual achievement: we bring one to respect the spade, another to respect the compass or the pen. All now are but German fellow-countrymen, and it is their achievement which determines their value... What is necessary is to teach each class and profession the importance of the others. All together form one mighty body; labourer, peasant, and professional man."
- Adolf Hitler



A common misconception about National Socialism is that it's an offshoot of Fascism. That is historically incorrect. The only thing the Nazis took from Italian Fascists was their marching style (Hitler's brown shirts were influenced by Mussolini's black shirts). There is no connection between the two movements indicating that one was the offshoot of the other.

Both Fascism and National Socialism were indigenous movements of their respective countries and thus they easily molded to the prevailing mindset in the societies of those countries

Fascism and National Socialism are NOT the same thing. Many people have a tendency to label Nazi Germany as Fascist out of sheer ignorance. By doing so they are doing injustice to historical facts. The labeling of Nazi Germany as Fascist has its origins in Soviet WWII propaganda since the proper usage of National Socialism would have confused the Soviet people as to who they were fighting.

Today a lot of nations in the world have adopted certain principles from Fascism and National Socialism.

National Socialism & Fascism differences & Similarities.png


@Yorozuya @Nihonjin1051 @tranquilium @Psychic
@dexter @Indian Patriot @Nefer @p(-)0ENiX @Jungibaaz @Horus @Irfan Baloch @Zarvan @DESERT FIGHTER @American Pakistani @KingMamba @SOHEIL @Mahmoud_EGY @Aslan @Falcon29 @Malik Alashter @Serpentine @ResurgentIran @flamer84 @Gabriel92 @MarkusS @Peter C @C130 @Frosty @Saif al-Arab @mike2000 @mike2000 is back @Steve781 @Solomon2 @JEskandari @anonymus @Psychic @Chinese-Dragon @ChineseTiger1986
@haman10
@jamahir @Atanz
 
Last edited:
.
Capitalism and socialism have more in common than either with fascism. Both are modern ideologies (modern in the ideological sense of forward looking and emphasizing inclusion and scientific progress) born from industrialization. Today they receive their push from informationization.

Fascism is backwards looking and exclusionary. It cannot be otherwise - it teaches that those from other nations are inferior by default - not because of their character or actions, but because they were born that way. That is why in WW2, capitalists and socialists united to crush fascism - because fascism is more closely related to monarchy.
 
.
Ok, so here's my take on what Fascism is and where Nazi Germany stands with regards to Fascism:

Italy was Fascist no doubt about that and so was Franco's Spain. However Nazi Germany wasn't a Fascist state and i'll tell you why:

1). Fascism: Contrary to common misconceptions, Italian Fascism was not a racist ideology as it was conformed around the ethnic makeup of the Italian peninsula which was diverse where you had Germanic Italians in the northern provinces and as you made your way down to the southern tip of Italy and into Sicily you had Italians who looked very much like North African Arabs and Jews. In fact Fascist Italy, along with the Pope also had a Chief Rabbi of Rome who represented the significant Jewish population of the city. Fascism was based on National unity (thus its symbol the Fasces), not racial unity.

“Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.” - Mussolini

The core of Fascism was its economic principles rather than race or religion. Fascism was not opposed to monarchy and aristocracy but rather worked in tandem with the former. Fascism was, in other words, just a economic and political system. Fascism was, however, vehemently anti-Communist, anti-Capitalist, anti-Liberal and pro-Nationalism. Also, Fascism was indigenous to Italy as it naturally conformed to its Imperial Roman past from which it derived considerable influence. Just like Imperial Rome was a ethnically/racially diverse state, so too was Fascist Italy.


2). Nazism: More Appropriately known as National Socialism. National Socialist Germany was a racial state. Its core principle which formed the foundation of its ideology was the race followed by a socialist economic model (not to be confused with Marxist socialism) in line with its racial and nationalist worldview. While Marxist Socialism did not distinguish the masses on the basis of race, religion, or nationality (thus 'International Socialism'), National Socialism did make such distinctions. Also, unlike Marxist Socialism, National Socialism encouraged private enterprise and property as long as the endeavors of the individual were in line with the interest of the national community (Volksgemeinschaft). There was no concept of equality in National Socialism with regards to performance of each individual in society as it took into consideration the laws of nature wherein every individual performed according to their capacity and no two people were alike. If an individual performed better than others in a specific field they were rewarded accordingly with more pay, a promotion, a increase in paid vacation, etc. Similarly if an individual slacked or underperformed they were replaced by someone more qualified to hold their position and this rule applied to any position in society be it a company manager or a government official. Now this might sound similar to today's capitalist system and meritocracies based on capitalism however once again the major difference is that National Socialism puts emphasis on the common interests of the National Community (race) rather than of individuals, and thus the binding factor here is the race. Capitalism does not follow this rule. While capitalism's end goal is maximum profit by any means, national socialism's end goal is serving the interest of the national community by any and all means. Therefore merit based system plays a very important role in the national socialist worldview as long as it serves the interest of the national community.

"We are always on the lookout for ability; especially capacity for leadership (Leitungsfaehigkeit). That precious quality confers upon an individual the right to an agreeable life, a fine mansion, and many other good things. But the instant he shows himself unworthy of his position he loses them all and is cast aside. National Socialism plays no favorites. While princes and rich men have not been deprived of their titles and wealth, none of them have any prescriptive right to prominence in the Third Reich. If a prince in the Party (and we have them) shows capacity for leadership, he goes ahead. Otherwise, he stays in the background." - Dr. Robert Ley, Reichs Minister for Labor


National Socialism would be opposed to today's multibillion dollar corporations who's end goal is only to make as much profit as possible at as low a cost as possible (immigration for cheap labor, outsourcing jobs overseas for cheap labor, etc) even at the cost of the community they are profiting from. Also National Socialism opposes private banks and only the state is allowed to own the banks (banks are nationalized). In National Socialist Germany the state bank was nationalized once the Nazis took power and this was the first major step towards Germany's economic revival. Basically anything that was to the detriment of the national community was in opposition to National Socialist ideals.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - Adolf Hitler, in 1927 speech, as quoted by John Toland in his biography Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography


Unlike Marxist socialism which puts considerable emphasis on class warfare, national socialism seeks to establish class unity/cooperation rather than class struggle. Class struggle only leads to chaos and bloodshed. But seeing that Marxism's goal is revolutionary this is understandable why class warfare would be given considerable importance from a Marxist perspective since communist revolutions have only been successful in times of chaos. National Socialism opposes class warfare as it only serves to divide a nation, leading it to instability and internal strife.

"We have not broken down classes in order to set new ones in their place; we have broken down classes to make way for the German people as a whole. Our education also trains men to respect intellectual achievement: we bring one to respect the spade, another to respect the compass or the pen. All now are but German fellow-countrymen, and it is their achievement which determines their value... What is necessary is to teach each class and profession the importance of the others. All together form one mighty body; labourer, peasant, and professional man."
- Adolf Hitler



A common misconception about National Socialism is that it's an offshoot of Fascism. That is historically incorrect. The only thing the Nazis took from Italian Fascists was their marching style (Hitler's brown shirts were influenced by Mussolini's black shirts). There is no connection between the two movements indicating that one was the offshoot of the other.

Both Fascism and National Socialism were indigenous movements of their respective countries and thus they easily molded to the prevailing mindset in the societies of those countries

Fascism and National Socialism are NOT the same thing. Many people have a tendency to label Nazi Germany as Fascist out of sheer ignorance. By doing so they are doing injustice to historical facts. The labeling of Nazi Germany as Fascist has its origins in Soviet WWII propaganda since the proper usage of National Socialism would have confused the Soviet people as to who they were fighting.

Today a lot of nations in the world have adopted certain principles from Fascism and National Socialism.


i believe that "national socialist germany" was a one-off, built for german situation of that time... it cannot be really called socialism because socialism essentially calls for internationalism rather than imperialism.

i was pondering over this since yesterday and found some words to describe it now.
 
.
i believe that "national socialist germany" was a one-off, built for german situation of that time... it cannot be really called socialism because socialism essentially calls for internationalism rather than imperialism.

Internationalism is exactly why the Soviet Union collapsed and Communism failed. The Soviets overstretched themselves while trying to maintain parity with the West and achieving world revolution at the same time. Not only was it economically draining, but it also lead to the lowering of living standards in Soviet society because a massive chunk of state resources were being allocated for the defence and for the support of Communist regimes abroad rather than the development of the Soviet people. Is it any wonder why the people of Soviet block countries were eager to throw off the yoke of Communism and were jubilant when that time came.

Practical Communists abandoned internationalism and adopted a form of national socialism. The Chinese are an example here. Their form of Socialism (it isn't Communism) is adopted to their own National requirements.

Secondly, internationalism is imperialism.


National Socialism worked wonderfully in Germany, and unlike the Soviet Union there was no "Iron Curtain" concept where foreigners were restricted from entering Germany or German citizens were prevented from leaving Germany. In fact Germany's borders were very open and foreign journalists, diplomats, and civilians alike had nothing but praise for National Socialist Germany.
 
Last edited:
. .
Ok, so here's my take on what Fascism is and where Nazi Germany stands with regards to Fascism:

Italy was Fascist no doubt about that and so was Franco's Spain. However Nazi Germany wasn't a Fascist state and i'll tell you why:

1). Fascism: Contrary to common misconceptions, Italian Fascism was not a racist ideology as it was conformed around the ethnic makeup of the Italian peninsula which was diverse where you had Germanic Italians in the northern provinces and as you made your way down to the southern tip of Italy and into Sicily you had Italians who looked very much like North African Arabs and Jews. In fact Fascist Italy, along with the Pope also had a Chief Rabbi of Rome who represented the significant Jewish population of the city. Fascism was based on National unity (thus its symbol the Fasces), not racial unity.

“Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.” - Mussolini

The core of Fascism was its economic principles rather than race or religion. Fascism was not opposed to monarchy and aristocracy but rather worked in tandem with the former. Fascism was, in other words, just a economic and political system. Fascism was, however, vehemently anti-Communist, anti-Capitalist, anti-Liberal and pro-Nationalism. Also, Fascism was indigenous to Italy as it naturally conformed to its Imperial Roman past from which it derived considerable influence. Just like Imperial Rome was a ethnically/racially diverse state, so too was Fascist Italy.


2). Nazism: More Appropriately known as National Socialism. National Socialist Germany was a racial state. Its core principle which formed the foundation of its ideology was the race followed by a socialist economic model (not to be confused with Marxist socialism) in line with its racial and nationalist worldview. While Marxist Socialism did not distinguish the masses on the basis of race, religion, or nationality (thus 'International Socialism'), National Socialism did make such distinctions. Also, unlike Marxist Socialism, National Socialism encouraged private enterprise and property as long as the endeavors of the individual were in line with the interest of the national community (Volksgemeinschaft). There was no concept of equality in National Socialism with regards to performance of each individual in society as it took into consideration the laws of nature wherein every individual performed according to their capacity and no two people were alike. If an individual performed better than others in a specific field they were rewarded accordingly with more pay, a promotion, a increase in paid vacation, etc. Similarly if an individual slacked or underperformed they were replaced by someone more qualified to hold their position and this rule applied to any position in society be it a company manager or a government official. Now this might sound similar to today's capitalist system and meritocracies based on capitalism however once again the major difference is that National Socialism puts emphasis on the common interests of the National Community (race) rather than of individuals, and thus the binding factor here is the race. Capitalism does not follow this rule. While capitalism's end goal is maximum profit by any means, national socialism's end goal is serving the interest of the national community by any and all means. Therefore merit based system plays a very important role in the national socialist worldview as long as it serves the interest of the national community.

"We are always on the lookout for ability; especially capacity for leadership (Leitungsfaehigkeit). That precious quality confers upon an individual the right to an agreeable life, a fine mansion, and many other good things. But the instant he shows himself unworthy of his position he loses them all and is cast aside. National Socialism plays no favorites. While princes and rich men have not been deprived of their titles and wealth, none of them have any prescriptive right to prominence in the Third Reich. If a prince in the Party (and we have them) shows capacity for leadership, he goes ahead. Otherwise, he stays in the background." - Dr. Robert Ley, Reichs Minister for Labor


National Socialism would be opposed to today's multibillion dollar corporations who's end goal is only to make as much profit as possible at as low a cost as possible (immigration for cheap labor, outsourcing jobs overseas for cheap labor, etc) even at the cost of the community they are profiting from. Also National Socialism opposes private banks and only the state is allowed to own the banks (banks are nationalized). In National Socialist Germany the state bank was nationalized once the Nazis took power and this was the first major step towards Germany's economic revival. Basically anything that was to the detriment of the national community was in opposition to National Socialist ideals.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - Adolf Hitler, in 1927 speech, as quoted by John Toland in his biography Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography


Unlike Marxist socialism which puts considerable emphasis on class warfare, national socialism seeks to establish class unity/cooperation rather than class struggle. Class struggle only leads to chaos and bloodshed. But seeing that Marxism's goal is revolutionary this is understandable why class warfare would be given considerable importance from a Marxist perspective since communist revolutions have only been successful in times of chaos. National Socialism opposes class warfare as it only serves to divide a nation, leading it to instability and internal strife.

"We have not broken down classes in order to set new ones in their place; we have broken down classes to make way for the German people as a whole. Our education also trains men to respect intellectual achievement: we bring one to respect the spade, another to respect the compass or the pen. All now are but German fellow-countrymen, and it is their achievement which determines their value... What is necessary is to teach each class and profession the importance of the others. All together form one mighty body; labourer, peasant, and professional man."
- Adolf Hitler



A common misconception about National Socialism is that it's an offshoot of Fascism. That is historically incorrect. The only thing the Nazis took from Italian Fascists was their marching style (Hitler's brown shirts were influenced by Mussolini's black shirts). There is no connection between the two movements indicating that one was the offshoot of the other.

Both Fascism and National Socialism were indigenous movements of their respective countries and thus they easily molded to the prevailing mindset in the societies of those countries

Fascism and National Socialism are NOT the same thing. Many people have a tendency to label Nazi Germany as Fascist out of sheer ignorance. By doing so they are doing injustice to historical facts. The labeling of Nazi Germany as Fascist has its origins in Soviet WWII propaganda since the proper usage of National Socialism would have confused the Soviet people as to who they were fighting.

Today a lot of nations in the world have adopted certain principles from Fascism and National Socialism.


Wow, excellent post my friend. It’s currently the weekend here so I can only make a few passing comments for now. I’ll later give you a more indepth reply your post deserve. I have no problem with your definition for the most part. There’s a few key points that I disagree with. For now, I’ll just say something about one of them:

I disagree with your following quote:

A common misconception about National Socialism is that it's an offshoot of Fascism. That is historically incorrect. The only thing the Nazis took from Italian Fascists was their marching style (Hitler's brown shirts were influenced by Mussolini's black shirts). There isno connection between the two movements indicating that one was the offshoot of the other.

Both Fascism and National Socialism were indigenous movements of their respective countries and thus they easily molded to the prevailing mindset in the societies of those countries

Fascism and National Socialism are NOT the same thing. Many people have a tendency to label Nazi Germany as Fascist out of sheer ignorance. By doing so they are doing injustice to historical facts. Thelabeling of Nazi Germany as Fascist has its origins in Soviet WWII propaganda since the proper usage of National Socialism would have confused the Soviet people as to who they were fighting.

Indeed many people continue to label Nazi Germany as fascist. And many people in academia continue to do so (the retired professor in the first article did so). I just don’t think it’s fair to suggest that it is out of sheer ignorant that they have labelled Nazi Germany as fascist. This might be the case for some layperson, but certainly not for all academic historians and political scientists.

I still believe that Nazi Germany should be placed under the fascist category. I also understand your argument why it should not be so. Some people even go as far as endorsing the removal of the “Fascist” category, arguing that Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy are all unique (and reserving the label “fascist” for Italy only, given that Mussolini was the only one to have explicitly used the word fascism in his modus operandi essay). I think there is no wrong or right in this issue, just different reasons/perspectives why one would prefer Nazi GER and Fascist ITA (and others) to be viewed under the same category and another prefer them to be distinguished.

So let me present you some reasons why many people, including renowned academicians, continue to regard Nazi Germany, Franco Spain, etc. as all fascist. Allow me to do this by quoting an academic historian from a cool tiny book:

There is another even more fundamental problem. The diversity of movements and regimes under consideration is arguably so great that to give them all the label ‘fascist’ would obscure what is distinctive about each of them. Does use of the term ‘fascist’ deny the uniquely evil nature of Nazism? Is it better to classify Nazism and Stalinism together as examples of totalitarianism? The very title of this book implies that I think there is something to be gained by using the concept of fascism. So I must begin by justifying this contention.

Those who study the literature on fascism in the hope of pinning down a precise meaning often throw up their hands in despair – ‘it all depends on definition’, they sigh wearily, ‘so it must be a matter of personal opinion’. Yes, everything does depend on definition, but this should not be a reason for abandoning the concept...
...
One justification for using the term fascism (or any other such concept) is that it enables appreciation and comparison of tendencies common to more than one country and period. The recognition of such generalities is not incompatible with the uniqueness of particular movements and regimes. Indeed, only through comparison can we discover what is unique about a particular case. Sometimes unique features – such as the Nazis’ drive to create a ‘racial state’ – are very important. All the same, it is quite legitimate to emphasize either general or specific aspects, according to one’s interests and questions – so long as the concepts used allow for other perspectives...
...
Scholarly definitions are not so easy to dispose of as those of fascists themselves. Most have some value. So how do we say which definitions are preferable? Besides being potentially falsifiable, definitions must also illuminate and make sense of the things that we know about the world – we couldn’t even recognize fellow human beings if we didn’t have a concept of a person. The diversity of human life is such that no concept can account for every feature of any object of study, and the study of fascism doesn’t depart from this rule. But some concepts explain more than others, so we must ask how much of our object of study, and which aspects of it, are explained by a particular concept.

- From Fascism: A very short intro by Kevin Passmore (sorry will give proper reference later, currently on mobile)

The premise for our view is that there were indeed something in common between Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, etc. And it is these common characteristics that we are trying to identify and arbitrarily label it as “fascism”. On the other hand, you rather emphasise the uniqueness of these past regimes (and reserve the label “fascist” for Italy). There is no wrong or right really, just different vantage points and our disagreement is more about semantics than concepts.

My opinion is that if we start with the commonalities between these regimes, we will get a better vantage point to understand what is really going on behind those regimes and ideology. We try to identify a more fundamental cause/elements of those regimes.

For me personally, I view regimes and ideologies from the vantage point of individual humans because behind regimes and ideologies are just humans after all. And because they are humans, I try to understand their psychological process and phenomenology. Hence, I start out my analysis from the vantage point of the commonalities between these so-called “fascist” regimes and try to identify the common psychological characteristics between them to define what I consider “fascism” is.

And more importantly, as Prof. Passmore said in the quote, finding and analyzing the commonalities between these so called “fascist” regimes allows us to identify the “tendencies common to more than one country and period”. More importantly, it allows us to identify these “common tendencies” so that we can identify whether any present regime are heading towards the same path.

Hence, in post #55, I defined fascism in terms of personal characteristics and psychology of the human agents behind these regimes, their egoism, desire for glory, disregard for the dignity of people outside their group, etc. I also made my description general rather than specifics. For example, I consider them “sectarian” rather than the much narrower characteristics of “racism”. Sectarian, as I mentioned in post #55, can be along the line of nationality, ethnicity, etc. (it can even be trans-national if you believe in the elitist iluminati theory).

So basically, I’m just trying to explain why we prefer to consider and analyze “fascism” in its much broader meaning. It’s not really fair to call us ignorant for putting Nazi Germany under the category of “fascism”. I also understand why you prefer to keep the notion of “fascism” much more narrower. No right or wrong here, just different vantage points in making our analysis. Rather than viewing these commonalities as mere co-incidents between unique regimes, I try to identify those commonalities as fundamental elements/causes of those regimes which I label as “fascism”. I just hope now you get some idea what angle I’m coming from when I gave my definition of “fascism” in post #55. You are welcome to critique it. My definition is still in progress and I’m still only learning here, especially when psychology is not my area of specialization (@Nihonjin1051 is the resident expert here).

There are also a few things I disagree with your defintion (especially when you said internationalism is imperialism) which I will reply later when I have more free time.
 
Last edited:
.
Excellent exchange here between @Desert Fox and @Yorozuya ! Keep it up, Gents !

I still believe that Nazi Germany should be placed under the fascist category. I also understand your argument why it should not be so. Some people even go as far as endorsing the removal of the “Fascist” category, arguing that Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy are all unique (and reserving the label “fascist” for Italy only, given that Mussolini was the only one to have explicitly used the word fascism in his modus operandi essay). I think there is no wrong or right in this issue, just different reasons/perspectives why one would prefer Nazi GER and Fascist ITA (and others) to be viewed under the same category and another prefer them to be distinguished.

Interesting dialectic paradigm. To be honest, i was always confused on the term 'socialist' 'fascist' in years past and always , mistakenly, intertwined their meanings. Probably not a good thing, now that i recollect it. Thanks for emphasizing the difference between the two terms, @Yorozuya . I guess this is something that most folks rarely ever think about or just simply associate (fascism being socialism). Also, great emphasis in your past post on the use of racial superiority in German style of socialism.

I have a question for you, since you seem to have a strong command on this subject.

My question is: Was the concept of German racial superiority purposely created within the Nazi ideology , or was this a pre-existing concept even before the rise of the Nazi Party? This concept of an 'Aryan Bloodline' or 'Aryan Superman'.



Advanced thanks.
 
. . .
I have a question for you, since you seem to have a strong command on this subject.

My question is: Was the concept of German racial superiority purposely created within the Nazi ideology , or was this a pre-existing concept even before the rise of the Nazi Party? This concept of an 'Aryan Bloodline' or 'Aryan Superman'.



Advanced thanks.

I don’t really have a strong command in this area. It is only one of my AOI, not AOS.

As for your question, I’m not really sure of the answer myself. Maybe I can request Germany residents like @Viet to answer for you.

My personal opinion:

Some form of racism and racial superiority did exist pre-Germany National Socialism. However, I believe the Nazi did purposely promoted and re-inforced it much stronger than it had ever existed before in order to serve their agenda (that agenda I mentioned in post #55).

Furthermore, I believe that at the core of “fascism” are common elements/traits that manifest itself differently due to the different social-historic context of each countries. In the context of Nazi Germany, their sectarianism was manifested through racism due to their context of having a relatively ethnic homogenous population (compared to say, Italy), the pre-existing racism in certain segment of their history, etc. In Italy, the sectarianism was manifested through ultra-nationalism due to their social context.

But I am really not sure on this and am probably wrong about the history of racism in Germany (and its influences/rise). German members may have a better understanding.

Alright, gotta go now. I’ll talk more later.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom