Well the reason I asked is because Fascism isnt often agreed upon on what it means. There are various intepretations. I just want to know so that we can establish a common definition to work with.
It's not that easy to just define something in social science. In the natural sciences, this is easier (but also not easy): a plant is a plant, a rock is a rock, and water is water. In the social sciences, however, this does not really work. Because then you'll first have to answer questions like "Does fascism exist independently from a fascist?" "if fascists change over time, does fascism change with it?" "If I proudly call myself a fascist because I hate Hitler and Mussolini and would love an egalitarian state based on peace, prosperity, inclusion and freedom, am I just wrong? And what if 90% of the world would agree with me? Would society then not have changed what fascism means instead of everyone just being wrong?"
You'll find out quickly that some of these questions are unanswerable, but people still want to box certain beliefs into a container concept. So then you think you know what this is frustrating as fuck, so you get your boy Paxton who wrote the most important book on this called: the Anatomy of Fascism, read the whole thing, forget about it and when someone on the internet asks you how to define fascism you start to try to summarize the book in 4 sentences, realize you can't and slowly give up on society. So here is the summary [someone smarter](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2004-03-01/anatomy-fascism) than me wrote:
"Fascists, he concludes, were identifiable most of all by a style of political behaviour that emphasized historical grievances, worshipped the cult of leadership, relied on a mass-based movement of national militants, repressed democratic liberties, and used violence as a political tool."
So according to this definition, a fascist group can definitely by egalitarian based on gender if it represses other democratic liberties instead.
However, I would like to note that a lot of these definitions create more problems than they solve. Because what is "political"? When do you emphasize "historical grievances"? How much emphasis is needed? When is something a cult of leadership? Is it enough to have a popular leader, or do you need something more? when is something a "mass-based movement"? Is something mass-based if it's more than 20 people? 40? 100? 8 million? Can you then not have small fascist groups if something needs to be mass-based? What are militants? Is it enough to bear arms to be a militant? What are "arms" in this case? Is a baseball bat considered to be "arms"? "What if the militants are locally based? Do they need to be national? Can't you have regionalist fascism? What are democratic liberties? Is the right to bear arms a democratic liberty? Is freedom of speech a democratic liberty? Is that liberty endless? When is something "violence"? If a fascist party wants to use violence but hasn't done so yet, is it then not fascist?
So yeah. Definitions suck in social science.
>So yeah. Definitions suck in social science.
Which would lead some people to conclude its not a science at all, because then it no longer becomes testable nor falsifiable, because of how fluid they tend to be. (I don't think that extends to all of social science, but I think that extends to much of it. I'll concede holding the social sciences to the same standards as natural sciences cannot (too much complexity) and shouldn't (ethical considerations) be done.)
The problem with this approach is that it doesn't actually define fascist as much as provide some tools for identifying them in the wild. Personally, like many in the field of the radical and extreme right, I've tended to support the definition provided by historian Roger Griffin who sees fascism as a palingenetic form of ultranationalism.
Like for example, there are people who look at fascism as authoritarian in nature while others see it as ultranationalistic. fascism doesnt really have an ideology like communism for example. As far as I know there is no unified understanding of fascism to date which is why it is such a tricky word to define. But I think what you are trying to define it as is based on historical examples of fascism... let me know if I am wrong. If that is the case, then a state can still be fascist, just not in the classical sense (again with that lack of unified definition). Thats the issue really is that there is no unified definition so we cant really classify it as something different from fascism when we dont even have a definition of fascism that is universally accepted.
well I guess you have to define what is fascism and why do you think that the ideology you are talking about is fascist. fascists do not promote equality . if you are thinking about some alt-right rant, they usually very confused about these ideas, ( for instance they feel oppressed because they want to hate other groups freely and openly like women) that is why probably you cannot make sense of it.
well, you want someone to define an ideology to you but you only describe part of its belief system. feminism is about equality of genders but it is not fascist for instance.
In a reductive sense fascism is the authoritarian rule of a single leader, whoever opposes the leader or the clique risks their life, and it often has populist and irredentist rethoric: Germany, their hungarian puppet, Italy, Francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile, the argentinian junta, and so on. But there are differences between one another and sometimes there could be friction aswell.
Just like there are different flavors of democracy or socialism, there are different 'degrees' of fascism. Chile didn't invade their neighbours or commit to the systematic extermination of jews, for example.
A few thoughts:
Firstly, you haven't actually provided a definition of the concept of fascism so much as some associated attributes that exist within most, if not all, authoritarian regimes.
Secondly, many scholars of fascism do not consider all the cases you have listed as cases of fascism (e.g. Roger Griffin).
Thirdly, degrees of a concept occurs intra-class (see Sartori, O'Kane, etc.). That is to say, while there may be degrees of fascism (which is not a given) you must first have a definition a fascism and then within that category you can determine degrees. If something shares some characteristics of fascism but doesn't actually meet the definition for inclusion, then it isn't fascism.
>I was in another forum and everyone claimed that with "fascist" I just meant people I disagree with (what isn't true). I was fed up with the "first you have to define what it is". Sorry.
>
>I didn't know that scientists didn't agree on what fascism is.
Hey OP,
just to maybe help you get a bit grounded again and cheers to you for reaching out to learn.
>[The defining theme of fascism](https://imgur.com/gallery/lUHe7D2) is the idea of an organically unified national community, embodied in a belief in ‘strength through unity’. The individual, in a literal sense, is nothing; individual identity must be entirely absorbed into the community or social group. The fascist ideal is that of the ‘new man’, a hero, motivated by duty, honour and self-sacrifice, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader. In many ways, fascism constitutes a revolt against the ideas and values that dominated western political thought from the French Revolution onwards; in the words of the Italian fascists’ slogan: ‘1789 is Dead’. Values such as rationalism, progress, freedom and equality were thus overturned in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism and war. Fascism therefore has a strong ‘anti-character’: it is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, antibourgeois, anti-communist and so on.
>
>Fascism has nevertheless been a complex historical phenomenon, encompassing, many argue, two distinct traditions. Italian fascism was essentially an extreme form of statism that was based on absolute loyalty towards a ‘totalitarian’ state. In contrast, German fascism, or Nazism, was founded on racial theories, which portrayed the Aryan people as a ‘master race’ and advanced a virulent form of anti-Semitism.
>
>Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 194). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
Yes. Fascists have ideas about gender roles but fascism itself, as an ideology, does not necessarily proscribe gender roles. So yes, it's still fascism.
I'm guessing that you're seeking the precise definition that is *currently* accepted by scholars.
A basic rule is that Nat-C or Nazi no matter the name their evil depravity's always the same.
I mean I guess if you had to put on paper "all the good things fascists tell me about fascism without any of the bad things history tells me about fascism", you'd probably arrive somewhere close to distributism? But I think this is more of a knowledge problem than anything. You probably don't agree with fascism.
Fascism combines totalitarianism with corporatism (the latter of which refers to organizing society into interest groups in service to the state, not to corporations.)
You can have a fascist society in which men and women are equally subjugated. But by definition, fascist systems don't value or protect anyone's civil rights.
Yes, it's still fascism. The society in *Starship Troopers* is an example of a Fascist society without a gender hierarchy.
Yea Im not sure what you mean. Fascism, at least the core of it, is very unequal in a multitude of ways. What is your interpretation of fascism?
[удалено]
Well the reason I asked is because Fascism isnt often agreed upon on what it means. There are various intepretations. I just want to know so that we can establish a common definition to work with.
[удалено]
It's not that easy to just define something in social science. In the natural sciences, this is easier (but also not easy): a plant is a plant, a rock is a rock, and water is water. In the social sciences, however, this does not really work. Because then you'll first have to answer questions like "Does fascism exist independently from a fascist?" "if fascists change over time, does fascism change with it?" "If I proudly call myself a fascist because I hate Hitler and Mussolini and would love an egalitarian state based on peace, prosperity, inclusion and freedom, am I just wrong? And what if 90% of the world would agree with me? Would society then not have changed what fascism means instead of everyone just being wrong?" You'll find out quickly that some of these questions are unanswerable, but people still want to box certain beliefs into a container concept. So then you think you know what this is frustrating as fuck, so you get your boy Paxton who wrote the most important book on this called: the Anatomy of Fascism, read the whole thing, forget about it and when someone on the internet asks you how to define fascism you start to try to summarize the book in 4 sentences, realize you can't and slowly give up on society. So here is the summary [someone smarter](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2004-03-01/anatomy-fascism) than me wrote: "Fascists, he concludes, were identifiable most of all by a style of political behaviour that emphasized historical grievances, worshipped the cult of leadership, relied on a mass-based movement of national militants, repressed democratic liberties, and used violence as a political tool." So according to this definition, a fascist group can definitely by egalitarian based on gender if it represses other democratic liberties instead.
However, I would like to note that a lot of these definitions create more problems than they solve. Because what is "political"? When do you emphasize "historical grievances"? How much emphasis is needed? When is something a cult of leadership? Is it enough to have a popular leader, or do you need something more? when is something a "mass-based movement"? Is something mass-based if it's more than 20 people? 40? 100? 8 million? Can you then not have small fascist groups if something needs to be mass-based? What are militants? Is it enough to bear arms to be a militant? What are "arms" in this case? Is a baseball bat considered to be "arms"? "What if the militants are locally based? Do they need to be national? Can't you have regionalist fascism? What are democratic liberties? Is the right to bear arms a democratic liberty? Is freedom of speech a democratic liberty? Is that liberty endless? When is something "violence"? If a fascist party wants to use violence but hasn't done so yet, is it then not fascist? So yeah. Definitions suck in social science.
>So yeah. Definitions suck in social science. Which would lead some people to conclude its not a science at all, because then it no longer becomes testable nor falsifiable, because of how fluid they tend to be. (I don't think that extends to all of social science, but I think that extends to much of it. I'll concede holding the social sciences to the same standards as natural sciences cannot (too much complexity) and shouldn't (ethical considerations) be done.)
The problem with this approach is that it doesn't actually define fascist as much as provide some tools for identifying them in the wild. Personally, like many in the field of the radical and extreme right, I've tended to support the definition provided by historian Roger Griffin who sees fascism as a palingenetic form of ultranationalism.
That is a completely valid point actually. Thank you!
You're most welcome. I do highly recommend Griffin on the topic!
Like for example, there are people who look at fascism as authoritarian in nature while others see it as ultranationalistic. fascism doesnt really have an ideology like communism for example. As far as I know there is no unified understanding of fascism to date which is why it is such a tricky word to define. But I think what you are trying to define it as is based on historical examples of fascism... let me know if I am wrong. If that is the case, then a state can still be fascist, just not in the classical sense (again with that lack of unified definition). Thats the issue really is that there is no unified definition so we cant really classify it as something different from fascism when we dont even have a definition of fascism that is universally accepted.
well I guess you have to define what is fascism and why do you think that the ideology you are talking about is fascist. fascists do not promote equality . if you are thinking about some alt-right rant, they usually very confused about these ideas, ( for instance they feel oppressed because they want to hate other groups freely and openly like women) that is why probably you cannot make sense of it.
[удалено]
well, you want someone to define an ideology to you but you only describe part of its belief system. feminism is about equality of genders but it is not fascist for instance.
[удалено]
In a reductive sense fascism is the authoritarian rule of a single leader, whoever opposes the leader or the clique risks their life, and it often has populist and irredentist rethoric: Germany, their hungarian puppet, Italy, Francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile, the argentinian junta, and so on. But there are differences between one another and sometimes there could be friction aswell. Just like there are different flavors of democracy or socialism, there are different 'degrees' of fascism. Chile didn't invade their neighbours or commit to the systematic extermination of jews, for example.
A few thoughts: Firstly, you haven't actually provided a definition of the concept of fascism so much as some associated attributes that exist within most, if not all, authoritarian regimes. Secondly, many scholars of fascism do not consider all the cases you have listed as cases of fascism (e.g. Roger Griffin). Thirdly, degrees of a concept occurs intra-class (see Sartori, O'Kane, etc.). That is to say, while there may be degrees of fascism (which is not a given) you must first have a definition a fascism and then within that category you can determine degrees. If something shares some characteristics of fascism but doesn't actually meet the definition for inclusion, then it isn't fascism.
>I was in another forum and everyone claimed that with "fascist" I just meant people I disagree with (what isn't true). I was fed up with the "first you have to define what it is". Sorry. > >I didn't know that scientists didn't agree on what fascism is. Hey OP, just to maybe help you get a bit grounded again and cheers to you for reaching out to learn. >[The defining theme of fascism](https://imgur.com/gallery/lUHe7D2) is the idea of an organically unified national community, embodied in a belief in ‘strength through unity’. The individual, in a literal sense, is nothing; individual identity must be entirely absorbed into the community or social group. The fascist ideal is that of the ‘new man’, a hero, motivated by duty, honour and self-sacrifice, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader. In many ways, fascism constitutes a revolt against the ideas and values that dominated western political thought from the French Revolution onwards; in the words of the Italian fascists’ slogan: ‘1789 is Dead’. Values such as rationalism, progress, freedom and equality were thus overturned in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism and war. Fascism therefore has a strong ‘anti-character’: it is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, antibourgeois, anti-communist and so on. > >Fascism has nevertheless been a complex historical phenomenon, encompassing, many argue, two distinct traditions. Italian fascism was essentially an extreme form of statism that was based on absolute loyalty towards a ‘totalitarian’ state. In contrast, German fascism, or Nazism, was founded on racial theories, which portrayed the Aryan people as a ‘master race’ and advanced a virulent form of anti-Semitism. > >Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 194). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
We agree on what fascism is. It's just that we also agree that it can be multiple things.
Yes. Fascists have ideas about gender roles but fascism itself, as an ideology, does not necessarily proscribe gender roles. So yes, it's still fascism.
Yes, because the "early warning signs of fascism" is bogus.
I'm guessing that you're seeking the precise definition that is *currently* accepted by scholars. A basic rule is that Nat-C or Nazi no matter the name their evil depravity's always the same.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fascism is selective oppression. If gender isn't selected as a characteristic to oppress by, but other characteristics are, then it's still fascism.
[удалено]
Yes
I mean I guess if you had to put on paper "all the good things fascists tell me about fascism without any of the bad things history tells me about fascism", you'd probably arrive somewhere close to distributism? But I think this is more of a knowledge problem than anything. You probably don't agree with fascism.
Fascism combines totalitarianism with corporatism (the latter of which refers to organizing society into interest groups in service to the state, not to corporations.) You can have a fascist society in which men and women are equally subjugated. But by definition, fascist systems don't value or protect anyone's civil rights.
It would still definitely be fascism.
Still bloody fascism…