What is fascism...

Nope that's socialism. Communism us according to Karl Marx a system without government. Which is why it's never been and never will be. Human being drop out the chute selfish and that selfishness at the extremes has to be regulated. The argument between left and right at least to some extent is about what those extremes are and how best to regulate them.

The system first begun by Mussolini, has, in fact existed in almost every developed country of the world to a greater or lesser extent since the beginning of WWII.

 

Marx didn't say much about government. Subsequent communist leaders did. And it's what you originally described as "impossible". You are confusing Communism with Anarchism. And while anarchism CAN be one form of Marxism, the ones that are related to socialism are Leninism, Maoism, ... and others that DO promote a strong government.

But this thread is about fascism. Fascism DOES promote a very strong and very authoritarian government. Pretty much like many of today's Republican leaders do: Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, ...

 

In fact, fascism, like all forms of totalitarian socialism, creates a massive kafkaesque bureaucracy.

“Since totalitarianism in power remains faithful to the original tenets of
the movement, the striking similarities between the organizational devices
of the movement and the so-called totalitarian state are hardly surprising.
The division between party members and fellow-travelers organized in front
organizations, far from disappearing, leads to the "co-ordination" of the
whole population, who are now organized as sympathizers. The tremendous
increase in sympathizers is checked by limiting party strength to a privileged
"class" of a few millions and creating a superparty of several hundred thou-
sand, the elite formations. Multiplication of offices, duplication of functions,
and adaptation of the party-sympathizer relationship to the new conditions
mean simply that the peculiar onion-like structure of the movement, in
which every layer was the front of the next more militant formation, is
retained. The state machine is transformed into a front organization of
sympathizing bureaucrats whose function in domestic affairs is to spread
confidence among the masses of merely co-ordinated citizens and whose
foreign affairs consist in fooling the outside, nontotalitarian world. The Leader,
in his dual capacity as chief of the state and leader of the movement, again
combines in his person the acme of militant ruthlessness and confidence-
inspiring normality.”
THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, Totalitarianism in Power, By Hannah Arendt, Meridian Books,New York, 1958. p. 110,111.

Even older unfavored agencies often remain in place after new ones take over most of their important functions.

 

What a joke. The vast majority of the definition you provided is textbook modern leftist in this country.

Big government that is overbearing on social and economic matters, and suppression of opposition....nothing better describes the modern day left. Then throw in the communist/socialist side of the left with 'nation above the individual' and you have the modern democrat party.

But sure, go on and keep saying that fascism is 'far right' despite, quite literally, nothing in the definition being even remotely right leaning.

 

I'm a fan of Arendt. Her insights in The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition are right on target IMO. But it's her commentary on the Eichmann trial and the banality of evil that hooked me as an admirer

 

Both Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, creators of fascist doctrine, came from socialist backgrounds and stated it was an evolved form of socialism.

 

Lenin came to power proposing a direct democracy utilizing the structure of the soviets.
That was forgotten almost instantly.

“Communists are not alone in demanding the abolition of the state. Anarchists, too, demand its abolition. However, as Lenin stated:

We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as an aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, temporary use must be made of the instruments, means, and methods of the state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary for the annihilation of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his position against

the anarchists: when they have cast off the yoke of the capitalists, ought the workers to “lay down arms” or ought they to use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by one class against the other, if not a “transitional form” of the state (State and Revolution).”
SEVENTEEN MOMENTS IN SOVIET HISTORY, The State Withers Away, P. STUCHKA, THE LAST ACT OF THE STATE: IT WITHERS AWAY. 1926, Michigan State University, Original Source: From Uchenie o gosudarstve proletariata i krestianstva i ego konstitutsii (5th ed. rev.; Moscow-Leningrad 1926), 288-91.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1924-...ialist-legality-texts/the-state-withers-away/

 

It either fits the definition or it doesn't.

 

It would be hard to find any current professional American politician, from either party, who does NOT "promote a very strong and very authoritarian government."

 

Yes he did, he stated that under marxism there is no state.

 

Fascism, is jus's t a nationalist form of socialism. It's far from an right wing ideology which argues for personal freedoms, open markets and less centralized government.

 

Because you give that type of reply countless times, this advice applies to many if not most of your posts, not just this one.

If you want to assert that it doesn't, it is incumbent upon you to explain your rationale as to why it does not. Throwing out one line "yes it does" or no it does not" is a waste of space and accomplishes nothing.

Sincerely, I don't even remember nor care what this particular topic was about. I only care that you need to learn how to articulate your position beyond "no it doesn't". At least try. Giving this advice is doing you a favor.

 

I don't know of any in the Democratic Party. There are several in the Republican Party who tell their voters that they are not for an authoritarian government, but then turn around and ACT in an authoritarian way when they are in power.

 

Marx spoke in length about "states", but virtually NOTHING about governments.

 

You can't have a state without govt.

 

Correct, and I detailed how it's FAR (seriously not even close) more descriptive of the left than the right.

But by all means, respond with 'no it isn't' and nothing more so I can confirm you actually don't have an argument at all.

 

Born of a Cuban mother and domiciled in Cuba during a large part of my childhood, I also put border security above my soft spot for Cubans. I am definitely not a democrat. It isn't as odd as you think. My mother came legally and naturalized. Current Cubans are encouraged to do the same thing.

 

But you can have a government without states.

 

Oh wow .. and they existed for whole decades you say?

Still outliers, with no power beyond cultural mimickry. It wasn't until the 20thC that sufficient people felt safe enough to indulge 'sitting around thinking fancy thoughts', that their fancy thoughts become ideology. That was the end.

 

That is true. DP politicians seldom pretend to be anti-Big Government.

 

well that's what nationalism is and I'm operating under my definition so why did you say extreme nationalism that doesn't make sense?

Your answers are a misinterpretation of terms.

See what's going on here this is why you don't use meaningless words.

But nothing seems to me all your capable of doing.

Look up George Orwell's meaningless words and you'll see the point I'm trying to make about the term nationalism.

 

State colleges and university and public schools are part of the administrative state. Feigning in the administrative states bad habits is a good thing.

 

Sorry for your confusion but communism the communist utopian state comes after the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

The Democratic party created today's government over a period if eighty years beginning in 1933.