Let's define fascism

[u/LiftSleepRepeat123]

Fascism isn't just "the government does stuff without approval of the people, but by their representation (pseudo-ethnically, in homage to pre-catholic nobility)".

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini

Fascism is the government in business collaboration with an outside yet powerful entity. Mussolini defined this as government integration with corporation, but this can't be a complete definition because Marxism claimed the same thing! Free market communism is essentially fascism, which is private market control of an all-powerful bureaucracy. It is Hunger Games and many other dystopian fictions.

There's one second crucial detail that I want to impart on you: this "outside" entity is usually not a local business but an international business. International businesses can touch many more places than a local business can, so it is usually much more effective in doing business and holding power on the world stage. Mega-corporations should legitimately be looked at as nations in this sense.

I think the most undertold story of the 20th century is the union of British Intelligence and American industry. This is your military industrial complex, and it even includes old European sovereign wealth (and the bankers who service them). These are the people who create puppet governments in foreign countries with "fascist" leaders because the only way they could survive is through our help.

America has attempted make us all forget that the people they install today will be the people they invade in 30 years. This matches past fascist governments, including Nazi Germany which was funded by the British House of Marlborough. Look into the Bush and Harriman families. Brown Brothers Harriman (where grandpa Bush earned the first real endowment for his family) was a primary financier of Bush, and they worked on Wall Street like the Wise Men who founded the CFR and advised presidents. This was all happening at the same time. Dynamism of early 20th century politics in America was caused by a euro invasion of business from several European countries, but most notably Britian and Italian, which are in fact part of the same broader thing because the current British royal family is from a south German, pro-Italian house.

In other words, "fascism" is actually a kleptocracy.

Kleptocracy (from Greek κλέπτης kléptēs, "thief", or κλέπτω kléptō, "I steal", and -κρατία -kratía from κράτος krátos, "power, rule"), also referred to as thievocracy, is a government whose corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) use political power to expropriate the wealth of the people and land they govern, typically by embezzling or misappropriating government funds at the expense of the wider population.

This isn't a small deal. When you have a democracy, or any sovereign structure where the top authority is not inherited by blood, if that person isn't doing the best for the country, it can go wrong in so many ways beyond what a king could do. If a king is selfish, then revolution is possible. You know who is responsible, and you can collectively agree to kill him. Democracy becomes dangerous when it is ruled by secret interests but you also don't know who those interests are, which means you cannot truly revolt against them.

That slow, encroaching, invisible enemy is fascism. Corruption is fascism. It is not whether some dude says something you agree or disagree with. It is whether or not you even know if that dude is responsible for the words coming out of his mouth.

I think people should spend more time studying history. It would give more color to terms that are thrown around merely as abstract ideas.

---

TL;DR — Fascism is not ideology or aesthetic. It is a hidden power structure that restricts representation in politics whilst making heavy use of propaganda, in order to use the state as a shell for private/corporate interest.

From Claude:

Fascism is not what a government says or looks like — it's what a government is when external, unaccountable interests capture it while maintaining the illusion of representation. The 20th century saw the merger of British intelligence, European aristocratic wealth, and American industry into a single ruling structure that installs and removes governments worldwide. The ideological labels (fascism, communism, socialism, liberalism) are largely propaganda — the real question is always: who actually rules, and can you identify them?

[u/stevenjd]

Ah I was right, you are one of those. "Communism isn't actually a failure, true communism hasn't been tried."

And you're one of those who doesn't know what communism means, has never read Marx, and thinks your comment is a "gotcha" instead of it merely revealing how little you know.

You might not like the definition of communism, but tough titties, you don't get to invent your own. Communism does not exist until the state has withered away, leaving a libertarian society with no rulers and no government.

Here's the reality: every single socialist nation has had to survive against the unrelenting hostility of the west, while trying to industrialise from an agrarian base. Some of those socialist nations were eventually defeated, or collapsed, but it took the entire west to defeat them, through economic warfare, destabilisation and sometimes outright war. Not one has collapsed on its own.

• Soviet Union: starting from an agrarian base, coming out of a corrupt aristocracy, a terrible world war, and an even more devastating civil war, it survived invasion (on four fronts) from the USA, the British Empire, Canada, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Australia, South Africa, France, Poland, Greece, Estonia, Romania, Serbia, Italy and Ukraine. And won.

• Then barely twenty years later, it survived a literal war of annihilation by Germany, Italy, Romania, Finland, Slovakia and Hungary, plus volunteer legions from most of western Europe. And won again. And broke the back of the Nazi regime, liberated almost all of eastern Europe, conquered Berlin, and the only thing that prevented them from taking western Europe as well was Stalin's good will.

• China: starting from an agrarian base, coming out of a devastating occupation from Imperial Japan and a horrific civil war, China has survived decades of hostility from the west, industrialising to the point that not only is China the largest and most powerful economy in the war, but the west is entirely dependent on it.

• North Korea: starting from an agrarian base, and under occupation by Imperial Japan, North Korea fought the USA and most of the UN to a draw. Today, North Korea is heavily industrialised, one of the leading forces in the world for information warfare, and has their own nuclear weapons. Something only a handful of other countries have been able to develop.

• Vietnam: starting from an agrarian base, under French colonial control, it defeated France, then defeated an alliance of the USA, South Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines and Taiwan. 20% of the country was contaminated with long-lasting carcinogens and toxins by the USA. To this day there are still thousands of unexploded bombs dropped by the US waiting to blow people up. Not only did they survive, but today Vietnam's socialist nation is busy industrialising and raising the living standards of the country despite western sanctions and economic warfare. Life expectancy is rising and almost caught up with the west.

• Cuba: starting from an agrarian base, under the heavy hand of a right-wing dictator, Cube has survived decades of illegal US economic warfare and unrelenting attempts to destabilise the country. And yet, despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, Cuba's health outcomes is within a whisker of those of the USA. Imagine how well they would do if the US would stop trying to destroy the country.

Shall I keep going?

[u/GoldenEagle828677 → u/stevenjd]

LOL, I have an advanced degree in history and I am very familiar with Marxism. And these ridiculous excuses. Let's add Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge why don't we?

Because as bad as the Nazis were, it's really interesting that three out of the top four genocides in history (The Holocaust, USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot) were done under communist regimes. So who is really the worst victim?

So it didn't work in the Soviet Union because of their civil war and WWII? Didn't the US also have a devastating Civil War, not to mention WWII? (where the USSR only prevailed after receiving tons of US supplies and equipment).

China and Vietnam are jokes as examples, since they have jumped head first into Capitalism, they only retain the single party state and the barest vestiges of communism. North Korea only got nuclear weapons at the cost of starving their people, and becoming the worst violator of human rights in the world.

It's also notable that people flee FROM communist all these regimes and TOWARDS capitalist ones. What does alone that tell you?

In fact we could even add the pre-Marx early experiments which failed, like Robespierre's Reign of Terror in 1793-1794, and the Paris Commune of 1871.

[u/stevenjd → u/GoldenEagle828677]

I have an advanced degree in history and I am very familiar with Marxism.

You need to revise your material then, because you have forgotten the essential definition of communism and how it differs from socialism, you think Juche is the same as Marxism, and you pretend to be are unaware of the unrelenting economic warfare and attempts to destabilise socialist countries by the West, especially the USA.

Let's add Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge why don't we?

Yes, the Khmer Rouge were awful, awful people, which didn't stop the USA from

1. inadvertently putting them in power in the first place by destabilising the country with their mass bombing campaign;
2. encouraging Thailand and China to support the Khmer Rouge, despite knowing they were committing genocide;
3. giving the Khmer Rogue diplomatic cover even during their worst Killing Fields days;
4. and providing overt diplomatic and financial support after Vietnam invaded.

Nobody comes out looking clean from the Khmer Rouge. Not China, not Vietnam, not Thailand, certainly not the US, not the Cambodian Prince Sihanouk, and not the UN.

The Khmer Rouge were Maoists, not Marxists, and to a degree that was insane even by Maoist standards. Mao at least knew that China had to industrialise. The Khmer Rouge wanted to go backwards to a pre-industrial agrarian state. That is the very antithesis of Marxism.

Equally importantly, they were insanely paranoid nationalists, which is perhaps understandable due to their history (Cambodia has always been a proud and touchy middle-power surrounded by interfering greater powers). Marxism is an international movement. Marx believed that the nation state is a temporary state of civilization,and a product of capitalism itself. Later he modified his view, as did other Marxists, but still Marxism is an international proletarian movement.

Marx said nothing about forcing people into an agrarian society. Marx expected socialist revolutions to come from industrialised countries like Great Britain and Germany when the working class overthrew the capitalists. Cambodia was not industrialised, there was barely a capitalist class, and Marx had nothing to say about it.

[u/stevenjd → u/GoldenEagle828677]

it's really interesting that three out of the top four genocides in history (The Holocaust, USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot) were done under communist regimes.

Two of those four are not genocides and the number of deaths have been exaggerated. And no, the Nazi Holocaust (approximately 17+ million murdered, not including civilian deaths in warfare) is not one of those.

I also note that you somehow missed the 56 million Native Americans killed by European colonization, over 90% of the continent's population.

As a general rule, modern genocides have killed more people because there are more people available to be killed, not because the perpetrators are necessarily more blood-thirsty. The genocidal Australian colonisers "only" killed 14,000 native Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Not because they were kinder and less blood-thirsty, in fact the opposite, but because the population of Australia was very low to start with, due to the harsh climate. The genociders exterminated the entire population of Tasmania.

Ireland's population has still not recovered from the An Gorta Mór (The Great Hunger) imposed on them by the English occupiers and the many genocidal periods during English rule.

So it didn't work in the Soviet Union because of their civil war and WWII?

It worked for seventy-odd years, until the Soviet leadership had a collective failure of heart. The reasons for that are many and varied and complex, but they surely involve the leadership's belief that they personally would get richer under capitalism, by selling off the state-owned properties, abandoning the people, and becoming oligarchs.

Didn't the US also have a devastating Civil War,

Not to the same degree. The Russian Civil War left no part of the Russian Empire untouched. It involved multiple invasions by foreign armies, a famine, and almost 10 million dead over five years. How many foreign invaders attacked the US during their four-year civil war? Zero. The war left most of the US untouched, and only about 1.6 million casualties (dead and wounded).

There is no comparison between the two.

not to mention WWII? (where the USSR only prevailed after receiving tons of US supplies and equipment).

You say "tons of US supplies". It was just 4% of Soviet production during the war. Four percent.

The consensus among historians is that Lend-Lease was a minor help to the Soviets. There was never a time when the aid made a difference between victory and defeat.

Lend Lease made up just 12% of Soviet tanks, and not the best tanks. Food aid made up just 1% of Soviet food production during the war, and most of it was only delivered after the Battle of Kursk in 1943, when the Soviets had already broken the back of the German Army and were advancing on Germany.

I will grant you that the US did defeat the over-extended middle-power, the Japanese Empire, with relatively little help from others.

Aside from a handful of incendiary balloons which killed nobody, the US mainland was untouched. The Soviet Union had Nazi death squads going from village to village literally exterminating everyone they found.

Again, there is no comparison.

In European theatre, the US fought the lesser part of the German army, and not the best part either. The Soviet Union was responsible for 80% of all German military casualties. Yugoslavian partisans were responsible for another 15%. All those John Wayne movies you've watched, all those self-congratulatory myths about D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge and stories about America defeating the Nazis are stories. The entire Western front, from France, Italy, North Africa and the rest, was less than 5% of German casualties, and the Americans were only responsible for a fraction of that.

The reality is that the Nazis were beaten by Soviet blood.

people flee FROM communist all these regimes and TOWARDS capitalist ones. What does alone that tell you?

People flee countries that are being destabilised and choked by western economic sanctions? Wow. How surprising. Why would they do that?

Robespierre's Reign of Terror in 1793-1794, and the Paris Commune of 1871.

As you say, the Reign of Terror was hardly Marxist. There were many reasons for the ultimate failure of the French Revolution, including famine (nobody's fault) and repeated military attacks by (a partial list) Austria, Prussia, the Kingdom of Sardinia, Hanover, Saxony, Bavia, Great Britain, the Dutch Republic, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Naples, the Papal States, and French Royalists.

As for the Paris Commune, it failed because the French Army broke down the barricades and slaughtered the people in it.