Submitted by Dramatic_Astronomer t3_10jrm9o in providence
mightynifty_2 t1_j5odgeq wrote
Reply to comment by SaltyNewEnglandCop in Socialists, Antifa, and a Leftist Militia Defend Drag Story Time In Fall River by Dramatic_Astronomer
They don't though. Fascism and nationalism go hand in hand. Fascism and dictatorships go hand in hand. In a system with checks and balances (when they work properly), fascism shouldn't be a concern.
A fascist is someone who wants the government or dictator to have absolute power over the people. A socialist is someone who believe that tax money should be distributed from the bottom up. Fascism is equally likely to arise in a socialist or capitalist society.
SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5p6crw wrote
I don’t know. Pretty sure the former German party, the Nationalist Socialist Party were pretty fascist.
mightynifty_2 t1_j5p75jk wrote
Ah yes, and the "Democratic Republic of Korea" is a haven of democracy. Even so, the fascism comes from the 'Nationalist' part of their name, not the socialist part.
SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5p79bq wrote
Even so, both part of the same name. Like jumbo shrimp.
mightynifty_2 t1_j5p9vhg wrote
The Nazis were also white. Does that mean all white people are Nazis? Of course not. You're trying to draw conclusions based on repeating stupid shit you've heard online without context. You're a talking point personified.
SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5pdwtu wrote
A lot of liberals have mental health issues, does that mean all liberals have severe mental health issues? Probably.
But yeah, the nazis were socialist. As were the Italians. The North Koreans are something completely different.
But you rarely ever hear of fascists without socialist being tossed in, don’t ya?
trabblepvd t1_j5paxkh wrote
Mussolini's doctrine on fascism defines fascism as his implementation of socialism.
NotoriousKreid t1_j5peofl wrote
It literally says “therefore fascism is opposed to socialism” soooooo no lol
trabblepvd t1_j5pgq1c wrote
You have to read the whole section and not pick one line from it. He rejects groups that divide individuals into class orgs and function independent of the state, but if those groups and their interests under state control, its all good.
>No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.
NotoriousKreid t1_j5pi55n wrote
"you have to read the whole section" .....goes on to copy and past the whole section that reaffirms my original statement. lol.
Nothing in that statement says its his implementation of socialism. The whole document is him distancing fascism from socialism and aligning itself as the polar opposite. Fascism is the response to socialism, they weren't socialists lol
trabblepvd t1_j5pj9y4 wrote
he rejected groups outside of state control. when I said you have to read the whole section, understanding it was implied in that statement, I didn't think I had to explicitly state 'you have to read and understand the whole section'
The whole document defines a socialist system where the state controls all resources, including labor, and the state is put above the individual.
Edit 'cause comments are locked:
He doesn't reject socialism, he rejects groups functioning outside of state, or not in sync with the state
Read this -> Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown,
As this-> > Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to WHICH unity within the State is unknown and WHICH sees in history nothing but the class struggle >The State amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality
Then he says it a little more clearly for trade groups > Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon.
The state is an equalizer, there are no classes under fascism, so if a group is divisive on a class basis, its not in line with fascism. if its not in sync with the state, its rejected.
But these groups are all good if they fall under the state. Their concerns are real and they will have an equal seat at the table under fascism.
>giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State
Theres a lot there, you getting it? He rejects class warfare and groups or philosophies that push it, because you know, fascism has eliminated the class divisions. When in sync with the state tho, those groups and philosophies get a seat at the table. There is no rejection of socialism, but a rejection of the basis of it as a divisive class struggle. He sets up a socialist state, where the state has control of all resources(including labor), but its totally not socialism because there is no class struggle or conflict under fascism as that problem was solved.
NotoriousKreid t1_j5pk9jm wrote
so to clarify, fascism rejected groups outside of state control, and all of the practices of socialism. And the doctrine of fascism says that is opposed to socialism. But fascism is socialism..... reading comprehension is real hard huh?
trabblepvd t1_j5pan6e wrote
Fascism=socialism, and communism go hand in hand with stateism. Nationalism when used talking about socialism or communism isn't the nationalism most understand as pride in their country, but its akin to stateism, meaning putting the nation or the state above the individual, which is essential for socialism/fascism or communism to control resources.
mightynifty_2 t1_j5pc0wi wrote
If this were true, then you couldn't have fascism under capitalism, which you can. Just quit talking about shit with talking points from Brietbart.
trabblepvd t1_j5pcpyh wrote
Go back and re-read the Doctrine on fascism, looks like you missed its key points.
mightynifty_2 t1_j5pldw7 wrote
The one written by a mad dictator who wanted parts retracted because he changed his mind? That's your source?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments