[John Lenin]

I think the demoRATS are using the Mein Kampf and Facsim playbook to a T. How many tactics of the facist movement are they using right now ? I'd say almost all of them.

[GermanBabies]

Yes Fascism is making a comeback in Germany and France. No, there won't be big parades and such. Yes, there will be no more freedom of speech or religion (hate crime laws), governmental control of the economy (the 'green' agenda fits here), and plenty of lies.

[Jean S]

This is an interesting source. Did you read their homepage?
http://www.couplescompany.com/

[Dr. Frank fan]

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin.

Not necessarily questioning this, I'm just wondering what this class of citizens was for Mussolini's Italy, exactly.

In general, much of this "definition" of fascism is unintelligible to me. The author employs terms and operates from assumptions which are unfamiliar and probably do not apply in the United States (I wonder if the author is an American). For example, a sentence like

Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution;

reduces to complete gibberish in America, because those terms have no meaning or resonance here. Another way to say this is to observe that according to the author's definitions of "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat", one must conclude that in America either there is no "bourgeoisie", or the "bourgeoisie" is the same thing as the "proletariat" (because basically all of the "middle" class work, which means they are "members of the working class", which is the definition of "proletariat").

Such terms may have made sense to people living in the 19th Century in feudal countries like Germany and Russia. They make little sense in 21st century America. The author seems to carry a bit of Marxist baggage.

[The Duke]

The definition of fascism given here is *WAY OFF BASE* from the defintions I've read elsewhere - where fascism was described basically as an "unholy alliance between government and big business", in which individuals own the business, but government skims off all the profits.

[keithtoo]

I think this is just one person's opinion. I have heard other definitions. This one definition seems to occupy a lot of this author's attention, because his definitions of Communism and Socialism amount to ONE PARAGRAPH! This definition of Fascism goes on for two pages.

The fact is that any form of overcentralization is evil. Whether it is central control or central ownership, it is Socialism and it is evil.

[x]

It looks like you've come across a Marxist definition of fascism, and not an especially clear one. Fascism is a form of tyranny adopted in countries where there is great insecurity and political combat. Fascism differs from other forms of tyranny in its dynamic aspect. It's not simply the army imposing martial law. There's a political movement involved and it includes a large scale mobilization of society.

In its day, fascism involved combat and suppression of Marxists and communists, but the opposition between fascism and communism has often been exaggerated. On the one hand, opposition to communism motivated many to support fascism in defense of property and private enterprise. On the other hand, Leninism was in many ways a model and precursor for fascism, as well as an opponent. Both sought total mobilization and control of society.

It's hard to imagine that fascism would have caught on as much as did without Marxism-Leninists as competitor, threat, precursor and example, but one can easily imagine societies divided along other lines, racial or ethnic or religious or cultural, that would adopt fascist policies. It's egocentrism that makes communists think that it's all about them.

Another important element behind historical fascism was the First World War. The vision of civil society as a battlefield, the hunger for redemption through violence, and the idea of mobilizing society for combat made their way into the bloodstream of the era, left and right.

Many Third World dictatorships in recent years have had much in common with fascism, but the intensity, the hunger for war and conquest, and the fear and desire for revolution weren't present. Fascism is "hot" and impassioned, while contemporary society tends to be "cool" and dispassionate.

But if you asked a fascist what his movement was about, he might well talk about the corporate state and representation by occupational groups, things that get left out of modern polemical definitions of fascism.

[Terriergal]

I'd say that about sums it up.

[x]

Nice Couples Company poll to freep. Go here and scroll down.

[xm177e2]

I disagree with this definition of fascism, racism is not a necessary component (even though it is almost always present in fascist systems, because it is such a useful tool).

Fascism is a dictatorial ideology which calls for government control and organization of private industries (not necessarily all of them, but especially ones vital to the survival, success, and warmaking capability of the nation). Fascism has inherent in it the glorification of strong leadership, strong soldiers, and war as an end and not a means.

Iraq fits this definition of fascism completely.

<Flameshield On>

The economic/industrial description does not fit America, but we do come superficially close to matching the ideological component. We do like having a strong leader, and we do celebrate our military victories, and we do place a very high social value on military service. We like having a strong military, we believe it is very important to our nation.

But I said the resemblance is only superficial: we don't want to rush headlong into war, we've been trying to avoid it. Even the hawk Bush decided to go through Colin Powell and the UN (and Powell succeeded brilliantly there). We do glorify strong soldiers, but only if they are also moral. Part of our high social status for veterans and soldiers is that they are upholding democratic values and human rights.

Our willingness to use military force to protect those values (and to protect ourselves) is sometimes confused by left-wing @$$#0135 for a fascist affinity for war. They are completely wrong, they have completely taken morality out of the equation (which is why the pundit Andrew Sullivan refers to them as "depraved"--a description with which I wholeheartedly agree); they see the US as a bigger fascist than Saddam Hussein, merely because we are bigger.

</Flameshield>

[marron]

Fascism is right-wing socialism, which is to say, nationalist socialism, as opposed to left-wing socialism, which is to say, internationalist socialism (communism).

Most socialists are somewhere on the continuum between the two extremes, and would be our "christian socialists", or "social democrats". Out on the extremes, you find the Stalinists and others of their ilk, who shoot dissenters.

The "left" and "right", actually, are a little deceptive, as the classic left-wing example was Stalin and the other Soviets, who promoted internationalist socialism, but this version always led back to Soviet control, which is to say, they used left-wing ideology to achieve a right-wing result.

Classic liberals, US-style conservatives, libertarians, are not a part of this continuum, they have no place in this left-right model.

[WOSG]

This whole article is mostly crap, designed to confuse not enlighten.

In fact, Hitler *was* a fascist. So was Mussolini. Not mentioning either shows the agenda here: to try to transfer the term to modern Republics and free market free societies.

[WOSG]

Duh, now its obvious ... "to forestall proletarian revolution" ... this is written from the communist perpective....

what this propaganda omits is that fascism and communism are ideological twins, peas in the same collectivist pod. the only difference is that fascism openly allows a (property-controlling) ruling elite as part of the ideology - while communism pretended there wasnt (but in fact there really was, for example USSR had the "nomenklatura" of elites; consequently, Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany wasnt much different for the average person not in the "Party").

[NMC EXP]

Socialism = the state owns the means of production (example: the People's Republic of China).

Fascism (corporatism) = the means of production are privately owned but highly regulated by the state (example: the United States of America).

Regards

J.R.

[Centurion2000]

This is a load of crap ..... simple definitions.

Capitalism : Private property is respected, free market economy

Communism : No private property (government owns the means of production), command economy.

Fascism: Private property with ultimate control residing in the government (rules and regulations) (illusion of ownership). Market is free, but limited by government regulations .

America boiled down is moving towards fascism. 'Communist' China is actually moving towards fascism as well.

[Sparta]

FYI

[UnBlinkingEye]

demoRATS = Republicrats

[Coleus]

bttt

[bonesmccoy]

If you list the major points in Das Kapitale... you'll see that the RATS have basically adopted the Communist playbook.

[tiki]

So are the French and if the Germans didn't invent it they at least have practice.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Duh, I thought a facist was one who carried around a bundle of sticks with an ax head sticking out!