Well like I said, if you rather look at the differences, and analyze and focus on the unique details, then there is nothing wrong with that, and that method of analysis will yield insights that the other method will not (simply because my method usually ignore those details you’ve mentioned).
But my method also yield insights that your method will not. My method tries to take a step further back and ask the more fundamental question of why the Nazi German or Fascist Italian or Francoist Spaniards implemented their specific policies.
Let’s consider Nazi Germany’s Lebensraum ideology and Fascist Italy’s Spazio Vitale ideology. On the surface, they are different. One is based on the concept of Aryanism, racial superiority, etc. while the other emphasizes the cultural heritage and linkage to the Roman empire, etc. And the two ideologies also yield different policy...Hitler tried to expanded into foriegn territories and made alliances based on the ideas of Aryanism, etc. while sometime Fascist Italy justified their expansionism by invoking historical claims about the Roman empire, its former territories, cultural linkage, etc.
So on the surface, Lebensraum and Spazio vitale are unique and “affects” how Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy implemented their policies in different ways (just like some of the stuff you have described). But beneath the surface, they are the same thing: Expansionism. So if I were to ask the more fundamental question of why they have accepted and implemented those policies, the answer would be the same for both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy: to expand and secure the necessities to become a major power. Then I could ask even more fundamental questions of why they want to become a major power and I would end up getting into the area of human psychology, and even deeper would get us into the area of evolution psychology, sociobiology, etc.
So bascially, it is on this more fundamental level that I want to analyse what fascism is, what socialism is, etc. And it is on this level that I see the similarities and commonalities between the socalled “fascist” states, and the differences between true socialism and the said fascism.
Hence, your methodology asks different questions and will yield different insights (especially if the focus is on the history of Germany, Italy, etc.) while mine different question (more fundamental) and will also yield different insights.
This wouldn’t be a big concern for me. Let’s remember what I said in the first few pages:
So even the author of the opening article, a fanatic socialist professor, have accused China of being fascist (although I wouldn’t go that far, I just see some resemblence in a few area).
And the purpose of this thread is to discuss and learn what fascism is and what
true socialism/communism is, not a corrupted version of it as implemented by certain groups (Marxist-leninist, Stalinist, etc.).
With that in mind, I agree and disagree with some of your comparision:
This may be the case or not for the Soviet Union. I won’t dispute it. Some argued that “communism” was a tool for the Comintern to consolidate their self-serving power, while others argued that some in the Comintern did genuinely believed that what they were doing would be good for the world. Both views has merits, so I won’t dispute it.
As for some other non-fascist states having the same desire for power and glory, I agree. And having the desire to be great is in itself not bad (unless you are religious or a buddhist). But keep in mind that possessing this character alone does not imply that one is fascist. My definition says that this character is necessary but not sufficient to constitute/become fascist. It is only when this desire is combined with all the other characteristics I’ve listed would it be sufficient to become/constitute fascism.
BTW, I’ve also attempted to give my own definition of “true” socialism in the 2nd or 3rd page. This character trait is one of the core elements that differentiate fascism from true socialism.
First of all, let’s make a distinction between an ideology and a corrupted form as implemented by various group, just like how we would want to differentiate “true” Islam from the corrupted form as practiced by extremists, agree?
Secondly, I will have to agree with what
@FairAndUnbiased have said. There is an important and fundamental differences between the sectarianism as promoted by Nazi Germany/Italian Fascism and the “class struggle” as promoted by socialism/communism.
The distinction between us and the “other” made by Nazi GER and Fascist ITA are made based on factors bestowed upon by nature (or something divine, you don’t choose your ethnicity, you were born that way) and this distinction must be enforced (yes, even fascist Italian espoused a certain form of racism/racial superiority but different from Nazism due to the different social context of the Italian population).
On the other hand, the class differentiation made by socialism/communism are not based on something that have been bestowed upon by nature or the divine. Like what fairandunbiased said, the bourgeoisie choose to become that class. And more importantly, socialism/communism do not want to keep this distinction like how the fascist wants to maintain theirs (maybe I need to make this clear in my original definition). In theory, socialism/communism
wants to remove the distinction between the classes (class struggle), while the fascists wants to enforce theirs. According to socialism, the bourgeoisie needs to be reformed so that society would become
classless. Even in Viet Nam and China, the purpose of the once common re-education camps was to “reform” and “rehabilitate” the bourgeoisie, not to punish or eliminate them. Although I have to admit that most of these “re-education” camps ended up being tools to punish and eliminate the “others”. But we must not judge an ideology based on the corrupted form or practice of a particular group.
Hope this clarifies things.
Yes, I won’t dispute this. I’ve also previously said in this thread that I’m not too fond of the stalinist for this reason. But as I said above, please don’t judge an ideology based on the a corrupted form as practiced by a certain group.
As above.
Again as above. Also the author of the starting article argued for the same thing as you on this point.
As above.
