Any idea what Socialism actually is?

No. My point was that you treat fascism as an offshot of socialism while in reality they were clearly opposites. Not just different in some things, but different and inherently opposed in all the important matters. And yes, including economic issues, too.

There's still no such thing as economic fascism. This is a notion that you invented and a notion that I refuse to accept. And I do so because fascism had an economic system and it was a variation of corporatism (which, unlike economic fascism is an actual thing) and not socialism, because it has a corporatist and not a socialist approach. Social democracy however, in most of its forms is a tendency within the broader socialist movement, even if it utilizes corporatist measures in some cases. Use correct terminology. Social democracy is social democracy, not economic fascism. Furthermore, fascism is corporatist. If we have a correct term for it, then why invent new notions that don't make any sense? Our debate is clearly about correct use of the terminus technicus, nothing more, really.

 

Do you realize that there it is entirely possible to have a socially conservative socialist society? When we talk about socialism, capitalism, and fascism, it only makes sense that we talk about economic aspects because, apart from fascism, those terms have no inherent non-economic policies.

"Corporatism: The control of a state or organization by large interest groups." - Oxford English Dictionary

"Use correct terminology. "-Strangelove

Social democracy, for our purposes of discussion, is an abundantly meaningless term. It is, in essence, nothing more than socialism achieving by democratic means (per Oxford English dictionary, in case you want to dispute terms again) - the distinction is moot. It's still socialism.

"Economic fascism" is merely shorthand reference to the economic structure employed by fascism - unless you want to insist that "the economic structure of fascism" does not and never existed, lol.

And "economic fascism" was not corporatism. You keep trying to emphasize the non-economic aspects, which are completely irrelevant to our topic of discussion. Corporatism is where the state is effectively controlled by a few powerful interest groups - kind of like an indirect oligarchy (and is not actually an economic model at all). Economic fascism is the opposite - it is where the state effectively controls business - so essentially an indirect socialism. That is, in case you get confused, where the state indirectly controls the means of production.

 

Fascism was declared by Mussolini himself as corporatist and it was in practice. Earth will not become flat just because you say so. Fascism was corporatist and the Earth is a geoid. Socialism =/= state intervention in economy. It is just more complex than that. And this is why you can't call fascist corporatism a variation of socialism because there is only one thing that is actually common in the two: rejection of laissez faire capitalism. That's it and no more. Other than that, there are only differences.

Social democracy nowadays usually doesn't has the goal of achieving a communist society through democratic means but rather making capitalism more livable.

 

to sum up, your response is: "nut uh!" You have not yet, at a single point, disputed the fundamental distinction made, because you can't. Capitalism is where private hands own the means of production. Socialism is where the state owns the means of production. Fascism is where private hands own at least some (usually a majority and not necessarily all) of the means of production, but is effectively controlled by the state. It is therefore, a kind of indirect socialism.

 

You do get paid, just not with money. You get a share.

 

Money or share or dineros, it's all about paying me as much as I can get. If your socialist system can pay me more than a capitalist system, then great!

But I kinda get the feeling your idea of a "share" is a whole lot less than I can get on the market. That's why you'll have to do without me.

I'm sure that most people who are worth more than an equitable "share" feel the same way, which is why you'll have to do with the dregs.

Good luck!!!

 

I believe a medium of exchange is still too practical.

 

Sum it up then.

1. Despite widespread academic and popular use of the term, and despite that Mussolini and Gentile themselves declared fascism to be a corporatist system, you reject this term and use economic fascism instead, which you see as identical to social democracy. Therefore you think that economically speaking, Sanders and the like are fascist.

2. You reject to acknowledge that even economically speaking, there are enough differences to conclude that fascist corporatism is not a variation of socialism. Not in practice, and most certainly not in theory. Even in existing socialist systems, there were central plans, state ownership, collectivized agriculture, socialist emulation, and (officially) full employment. While the state was of course pretty powerful, fascist corporatism lacked these. You define socialism (and even then just one form of socialism) by one characteristic, which is state ownership of means of production. Thus you classify all economic systems where there is state ownership as socialist, even though there is a separate term for that: state ownership. And that's it. According to you, command economies (like Park Chung-hee's South Korea) and fascist corporatist states are socialist as well while lacking the basic foundations of any kind of socialist theory. You basically precieve socialism as mere state control or supervision over economic issues.

 

That's not true. I don't reject the term - it is a term, it exists. You reject economic fascism - you reject that it exists. I already gave you the dictionary definition of corporatism - you haven't even discussed what corporatism, to which I'm not surprised because if you did I'm sure you'd have a hard time countering my actual assertion, which is that economic fascism (that is, again, since it seems to be confusing you: the economic policies of fascism) is indirect socialism, and is that which Sanders and his types advocate.

Identical so social democracy?! Should I give you the definition of straw man?

Because the fascists weren't corporatists - again, it seems little wonder then that you've completely evaded the issue of what corporatism actually is. Economic fascism is even more different than corporatism because it results in state control of industry which is, by another means, the exact aim of socialism. Hence, indirect socialism.

It's really not that complicated.

You're still rejecting the dictionary.

lol, your fight isn't with me, Strangelove, its with the dictionary. I mean, I define socialism as it is defined, lol!

And no, I don't "classify all economic systems where there is state ownership as socialist." Socialism is where the government owns and controls the industry - economic fascism is where the government effectively controls industry without owning it. Corporatism is something entirely different but since, lol, you don't believe in the dictionary, I think telling you again what it means would be futile.

lol, now you're getting everything all twisted. Did the word "indirect" not register, Strangelove? Do you think that by "indirect socialism" I meant "socialism", and that the word "indirect" was just there to take up space? Do you also think that indirect fire (any artillery ever) is also a meaningless distinction, and that artillery shells actually follow a flat trajectory and never account for gravity? lol

 

Fascist corporatism (which is the correct term), what you define as a variation of socialism or indirect socialism is not socialism at all. There are multiple reasons why it is not, economic, historical, and the like. It is my fault that I started to go into definition wars. Now you wave dictionaries in my face and refuse to accept any other argument. Indirect socialism as a term is as non-existent as economic fascism. Which is fascist corporatism. But settle it already;

This is a definition of socialism. How socialism and its tendencies and variations (like communism, social democracy, Folkhemmet, or even third way) worked in practice is something you seemingly don't want to discuss. But in self-declared socialist systems of the Eastern Bloc there were central planning, collectivized agriculture, etc. I wrote that earlier, too. Fascism lacked these. Social democracy has both state and private ownership and usually has an effective social safety net among other things and also co-operates with trade unions and such.

This is a definition of fascist corporatism. As you can see, it is not even indirect socialism. This is also not what Sanders advocates. It is just different. It may be called a command economy which shows some similarity with only one aspect of socialist states, (so not all forms of socialism, just one) and this one aspect is planned economy, but even then it is not the same. Based on just one similiarity I would not call fascist corporatism as some kind of socialism, or indirect socialism. But if you want to, do it. I just don't think that's correct.

 

You're the one who said, "economic fascism doesn't exist", and after insisting on rejecting it - because it isn't in the dictionary (even though I explained it very clearly), you then went on to insist that corporatism and socialism are entirely different from the dictionary. You're trying to create two separate rules. You just said its your fault you started to go into definition wars - yet you're still doing it.

I've explained exactly what was meant by "economic fascism" and "indirect socialism". Since you can't argue with the fact of the matter that fascist economic policy fits perfectly with the terms I've ascribed, and that they don't fit with yours, you're stuck saying, "those terms don't exist" as your only defense. You have no argument - it is settled.

It is the definition of socialism. Deal with it.

So you, denying dictionary definitions, instead insist on an alternate definiton which is exactly what I said it was, indirect socialism. In case you're still struggling, let me clear up what the word "indirect" means, because you seem to think it is NOT a modifying term. When you say, "democratic socialism", all that it means is socialism achieving by democratic means. When I say, "indirect socialism", all that it means is the essence of socialism (state control of production) achieved indirectly. But no, you wish to deny that modifying words exist.

 

A social bailout of Capitalism, like usual.

 

Not always but when Wall St digs itself into a deep hole it could be described as socialism except it's back to front socialism robbing the poor to save the rich from their own stupidity and greed.
Even Ayn Rand rolled in her grave over that one.

 

Yes, thankfully I grew up in an era when history was still taught in public schools.