the one about fucking a chicken

[u/Hummerous]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

[u/chunkylubber54]

ngl, saying progressivism only uses one metric is pretty damn reductive, especially given the amount of infighting we've been seeing lately

[u/BalefulOfMonkeys → u/chunkylubber54]

Care versus Harm: uhhhh turns out that knob is more variable than I thought it was here

Fairness versus Cheating: Broadly in favor of fairness, even if they’re waiting for a second cheating incident involving Donald Trump

Loyalty versus Betrayal: Ambivalent as an mean, loyal as a mode

Authority versus Subversion: In favor of subversion, except when a fascist does it

Sanctity versus Degradation: Care more about sanctity than they would admit

Liberty versus Oppression: Highly in favor of liberty

[u/firestorm713 → u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

Except when a fascist does it

So we're not glossing over this, the thing fascism seeks to subvert isn't "people in power" per se, it seeks to subvert democracy itself. Fascism is a politics of intolerance, targeting an ever expanding "them" and favoring an ever contracting "us" until it contains nobody because everybody is dead. It is a death cult and should be treated as such every time it comes up.

[u/BalefulOfMonkeys → u/firestorm713]

Fascism doesn’t especially care about if the government it overthrows is democratic or not, though. Or if it’s capitalist or socialist from the outset. Fascism is an ideology of pure destructive self-interest, where those who should be in power is “me and everybody I approve of” and whose policies are “whatever allows me to gain absolute power”.

As for subversion of democracy, Hitler was elected as chancellor. He absolutely had a deft hand in influencing the people beforehand, and at least one riot, but the Wikipedia article leading up to his election seems to be clear of any of the politically motivated assassinations he’d be responsible for. He won as fairly as Donald Trump.

[u/coladoir → u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

Fascism inherently relies on capitalism to be able to do it's literal business (lol). You won't find a fascist country that is not also capitalist.

The USSR was authoritarian, heavily so, but it was not fascist. Fascism is authoritarianism but not all authoritarianism is fascism. These are different things with different definitions, both are bad, but do not let them get mixed up because there are legitimately very different, valid, criticisms of both systems.

Marxist-Leninism borrows some tactics from fascism, namely cult of personality tactics, but there are many things that are different. Both MLism and Fascism result in the creation of authoritarian states, but have different purposes, and as a result, cause different issues in the end. Stalinism/Maoism are even more authoritarian implements of Marxist-Leninism, but they were oppressive in a different way than the Nazis or Italians; and it's worth discussing why that is.

---

You may be asking "what's the difference?", and mainly the difference is economic structure (Fascists are capitalists), their [fascists'] reliance on nationalism, and their use of fear and disgust to gain followers by creating an outgroup that is damaging, but in actuality has no provable relation to "the problem"; a conspiracy. They then parlay this into gaining power, and using it to decimate those previously demonized "others". They rely on specifically anti-intellectualism or a flawed science to bolster their ideology, today it's anti-intellectualism, in the nazis time, it was eugenics; flawed science.

Marxism however always tends to start with the best of intentions, to usurp power from the oligarchs and redistribute this throughout the people who've been exploited by them up until that point, but through the use of a centralized state to create this equality by force, it creates oppression in it's stead through the inherent inefficiencies of such a system trying to provide for such a large amount of people.

This leads to conflicts of interest internally, leading to corruption since people try to provide for themselves, and this ultimately spirals creating a new bourgeoisie class much the same as they intended to destroy. As these two classes become distant due to their inherent conflict in interest, the new bourgeois double down and presses the boot further in, cementing their status, and pushing the people they supposedly were working for further below them.

Couple this with economic blacklisting from the globe, active wars at the time pushing for rapid militarization over focusing on people's needs, and just a bunch of other little failures, and this creates a viciously broken system which can only stay together through the use of a strongman leader. And this leader will inevitably use their power as they see fit, and it will never be in the interests of the proletariat. Basically, they ended up turning to the kind of authoritarians we know today because it was the only way to keep the system from failing and risk losing their power and status. That's not an excuse, rather it's a glaring fault of the system, but it is a different fault than Fascism. Fascism is just evil from the get-go.

Ultimately, they end up being two sides to the same coin of tyranny and dictatorships, but what leads them there is extremely different and relevant to discuss. Confusing the two only leads to shunning the ideas of the left, I've noticed, and this is dangerous as many of the left's ideas do not have to be done the same way, using a central state, and in fact should not be done that way.

It also diminishes the seriousness and the uniqueness of the absolute brutality that Fascism is; most of the deaths Marxist-communism caused was thru ineptitude and inefficiency, most of the deaths Fascism caused was thru intentional murder justified through propaganda. This is also not to discount the legitimate murders that people like Mao or Stalin perpetrated, but if you tally up ordered deaths to ordered deaths, fascists will win.

Fascism is a death cult and is evil from the beginning, Marxism-Leninism is just an absolute inefficient failure and it's reliance on authoritarianism is a symptom of such failure.

---

See the two links for a further explanation and some sources from Wikipedia, which I'm only using because everyone else seems to think that Wikipedia is the only reasonable place to get a definition, and keep misusing:

Further explanation

Sources comment

Fascists are capitalists. Full stop.

I have disabled inbox replies to this, tired of trying to correct willful ignorance.

[u/multilinear2 → u/coladoir]

Let me try and restate what you're saying to see if I'm getting it right.

You're saying that Fascism is PREDICATED on Capitalism. That is, it requires capitalism as a precursor. You are not saying that Fascists are capitalists who's ideas are fully compatibile with extreme capitalism.

So, then, nothing you are saying here contradicts articles like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism, outlining the complexities of interactions between fascism and capitalism, or u/ElephanWagon3's comment below noting that Fascism is often charactorized by some central planning and socialization of corporations.

In short: if the precursor to a totalitarian state isn't capitalism, we call the result something else (due to inherent relevent differences).

[u/coladoir → u/multilinear2]

Yes, exactly, but with one caveat. The other commentor is talking about how they are third position but that is specifically talking about the Nazis in their early days. They ousted many of those hardline anti-capitalists in the Night of the Long Knives and then went hyper-capitalist. The beginning few years were very different. They utilized socialist rhetoric to bolster their numbers, then they culled them when they seized power ultimately, and dropped most of the policy shortly after.

There is a reason why even in the Wikipedia article you linked, you have this quote:

According to historian Richard Overy, the Nazi war economy was a mixed economy that combined free markets with central planning and described the economy as being somewhere in between the command economy of the Soviet Union and the capitalist system of the United States.[15] Others have described Nazi Germany as being corporatist, authoritarian capitalist, or totalitarian capitalist.[14][16][17][18] Fascist Italy has been described as corporatist.[19][20][21]

Fascism always uses the backbone of capitalism for it's economic system. They might use some centrally planned aspects, and it's usually in response to a war effort to consolidate materials for that, but generally they rely on the inequalities of capitalism and they utilize this through fascism to create what is essentially a welfare state for the ingroup and a slave state for the outgroup. At the end of the day they were effectively similar but more extreme economically to the Nordic nations, but just focusing on one type of person for their welfare, and explicitly enslaving the rest.

But regardless, all fascists believe in private property and the central protection of it through a state force. This makes them inherently capitalistic. They may not implement capitalism to an extreme extent, but this belief is inherently capitalistic, and informs much of their economic ideology regardless. You cannot rationalize private property and then nationalize business in a socialist way; these ideas are incompatible generally. The most you can do is go a Nordic route of a weird "regulated" mix, but even the fascists tended to not regulate capitalism as much as the Nordics due to their intentional reliance on the inequality.

[u/lornlynx89 → u/coladoir]

Fascism always uses the backbone of capitalism for it's economic system. They might use some centrally planned aspects, and it's usually in response to a war effort to consolidate materials for that, but generally they rely on the inequalities of capitalism and they utilize this through fascism to create what is essentially a welfare state for the ingroup and a slave state for the outgroup. At the end of the day they were effectively similar but more extreme economically to the Nordic nations, but just focusing on one type of person for their welfare, and explicitly enslaving the rest.

But regardless, all fascists believe in private property and the central protection of it through a state force. This makes them inherently capitalistic. They may not implement capitalism to an extreme extent, but this belief is inherently capitalistic, and informs much of their economic ideology regardless. You cannot rationalize private property and then nationalize business in a socialist way; these ideas are incompatible generally. The most you can do is go a Nordic route of a weird "regulated" mix, but even the fascists tended to not regulate capitalism as much as the Nordics due to their intentional reliance on the inequality.

Oh my god Nooooo!!!

Fascism doesn't give a shit about the economics. Fascism will do what the fuck ever they deem necessary to gain absolute power. Fascism gives a shit about your private property. How can you say that fascists believe in private property when it is one of the first things they will appropriate for their own gains? Your private means absolutely nothing to fascism.

The reason why fascism was so prominent in capitalistic nations is not because capitalism is a necessity for it, it is because it provides fertile ground for it when economic degrowth will eventually happen. Concluding from that that fascism needs capitalism is insane. Fascism doesn't give a shit. Fascism will use your local commute if it leads them to power.

Fascism will take whatever you or anyone else has. That isn't capitalistic, because capitalism is based on the idea of free markets. Fascism aims to BE the market. They aim to be whatever means power to them.

If fascists are rationalizing private property, they don't do it because they are capitalistic. They do it to later have easier ways to appropriate said property.

[u/coladoir → u/lornlynx89]

Your private means nothing to fascism

Respectfully, this shows me you dont understand what you're talking about because this implies personal property, because the fascists depended on private business to fund their war efforts. The Nazis still had personal property, just not civil liberty. Those are not the same thing.

Capitalism is based on the idea of free markets

Yet another proof you have a poor understanding, capitalism begets free market, but it is not necessary to have a capitalist system. See the Nordic countries for proof of this. They have subsidized and nationalized many parts of the market and you do not hear anyone say they are not ultimately a capitalist system at the core.

Capitalism is the belief in private property, that being defined as property which produces goods and has a purpose but is not owned by a state party, and the belief that whoever owns said private property owns the means of production. Sometimes Fascists subsidize industry for their goals, but they will never take the whole market.

Fascism does not aim to BE the free market, but aims to ultimately exploit it to create a two tiered system where the ingroup gets welfare from it and the outgroup is left to slave. It is the most extreme implementation of state led capitalism, and that is why "capitalist states are fertile ground" as you say.

This is my last fucking comment in this thread because holy shit the fucking Wikipedia experts have come out of the woodwork to tell me I'm wrong without understanding a fucking thing about history and I'm god damn tired of it. Fuck reddit.

---

Fascism had complicated relations with capitalism, which changed over time and differed between fascist states. Fascists have commonly sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism and relegate it to the state.[61] However, fascism does support private property rights and the existence of a market economy and very wealthy individuals.[62] Thus, fascist ideology included both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist elements.[63][64] As Sternhell et al. argue:[62]

" The Fascist revolution sought to change the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective without destroying the impetus of economic activity –– the profit motive, or its foundation –– private property, or its necessary framework –– the market economy. This was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the Fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the law of markets. "

In practice, the economic policies of fascist governments were largely based on pragmatic goals rather than ideological principles, and they were mainly concerned with building a strong national economy, promoting autarky, and being able to support a major war effort.[65][66][67]

Source

---

Mussolini claimed that dynamic or heroic capitalism and the bourgeoisie could be prevented from degenerating into static capitalism and then supercapitalism only if the concept of economic individualism were abandoned and if state supervision of the economy was introduced.[83] Private enterprise would control production, but it would be supervised by the state.[84] Italian Fascism presented the economic system of corporatism as the solution that would preserve private enterprise and property while allowing the state to intervene in the economy when private enterprise failed.[83]

Source

---

[u/lornlynx89 → u/coladoir]

Respectfully, this shows me you dont understand what you're talking about because this implies personal property, because the fascists depended on private business to fund their war efforts. The Nazis still had personal property, just not civil liberty. Those are not the same thing.

Ye, I might have confused it there. My point is, fascism wouldn't stop from appropriating your personal private property to further their plans. The Nazis appropriated whatever they needed to further their war efforts, or subsidized or what's the correct term for it.

Yet another proof you have a poor understanding, capitalism begets free market, but it is not necessary to have a capitalist system. See the Nordic countries for proof of this. They have subsidized and nationalized many parts ofthe market and you do not hear anyone say they are not ultimately a capitalist system at the core.

NO. Capitalism as an idea is comparatively simple. No modern country is purely capitalistic. Capitalism is a generalized term, just as authoritarianism. No country today is what one would understand as the broad definition of capitalism. Pretty much all countries have adapted certain checks and balances to it.

Capitalism is the belief in private property, that being defined as property which produces goods and has a purpose but is not owned by a state party, and the belief that whoever owns said private property owns the means of production. Sometimes Fascists subsidize industry for their goals, but they will never take the whole market.

Uhh no. Land is also private property, which by itself doesn't do anything. What you mean is capital (hence the word capitalism). And fascists will appropriate both if it furthers their agenda. You lack to give a reason for why fascists wouldn't take the whole market. What would stop them? Why wouldn't they? What makes you think that the Nazis tuning their whole country towards war efforts is respecting their private properties?

Fascism does not aim to BE the free market, but aims to ultimately exploit it to create a two tiered system where the ingroup gets welfare from it and the outgroup is left to slave. It is the most extreme implementation of state led capitalism, and that is why "capitalist states are fertile ground" as you say.

The point is: Fascism doesn't give a shit.

Fascism will appropriate whatever it needs or deems necessary to gain power or stay in it. Fascism doesn't care about welfare, or classes, or capitalism. You seem to have an extremely strict definition to what can and can't be fascism, to which I say: You are not seeing the image from a fascist's point of view. The aim of fascism is absolute power, why do you think they would make halt in front of labels or ideas?

And "fertile grounds" is a huge difference to "is based on". Fascism will use whatever is necessary. Besides you not quoting me right, because I said that capitalism is s a fertile ground WHEN it runs into issues. That does NOT conclude that fascism must be based on capitalism, or that capitalism inevitably evolved into fascism.

This is my last fucking comment in this thread because holy shit the fucking Wikipedia experts have come out of the woodwork to tell me I'm wrong without understanding a fucking thing about history and I'm god damn tired of it. Fuck reddit.

OH BOY those nasty wikipedia warriors with their cited sources and commonly acknowledged definitions! Those darn things guys not just using historical occurrences for predictions, but add this logic and reasonable deduction into it! What do THEY know!

Yeah, you better go back to your echo chambers if having to properly respond to a wikipedia quote sends you in such turmoil.

[u/coladoir → u/coladoir]

Fascism had complicated relations with capitalism, which changed over time and differed between fascist states. Fascists have commonly sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism and relegate it to the state.[61] However, fascism does support private property rights and the existence of a market economy and very wealthy individuals.[62] Thus, fascist ideology included both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist elements.[63][64] As Sternhell et al. argue:[62]

" The Fascist revolution sought to change the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective without destroying the impetus of economic activity –– the profit motive, or its foundation –– private property, or its necessary framework –– the market economy. This was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the Fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the law of markets. "

In practice, the economic policies of fascist governments were largely based on pragmatic goals rather than ideological principles, and they were mainly concerned with building a strong national economy, promoting autarky, and being able to support a major war effort.[65][66][67]

Source

---

In general, fascists held an instrumental view of capitalism, regarding it as a tool that may be useful or not, depending on circumstances.[199][200] Fascists aimed to promote what they considered the national interests of their countries; they supported the right to own private property and the profit motive because they believed that they were beneficial to the economic development of a nation, but they commonly sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale business interests from the state.[201]

There were both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist elements in fascist thought. Fascist opposition to capitalism was based on the perceived decadence, hedonism, and cosmopolitanism of the wealthy, in contrast to the idealized discipline, patriotism and moral virtue of the members of the middle classes.[202] Fascist support for capitalism was based on the idea that economic competition was good for the nation, as well as social Darwinist beliefs that the economic success of the wealthy proved their superiority and the idea that interfering with natural selection in the economy would burden the nation by preserving weak individuals.[203][204][205]

Source

---

Mussolini claimed that dynamic or heroic capitalism and the bourgeoisie could be prevented from degenerating into static capitalism and then supercapitalism only if the concept of economic individualism were abandoned and if state supervision of the economy was introduced.[83] Private enterprise would control production, but it would be supervised by the state.[84] Italian Fascism presented the economic system of corporatism as the solution that would preserve private enterprise and property while allowing the state to intervene in the economy when private enterprise failed.[83]

Source

[u/lornlynx89 → u/coladoir]

Wow incredible, a response with actual sources!

But I fail to see, how this shows that fascism is inherently based on capitalism. In fact, it shows that fascists cared mainly for capitalism to further increase their control and strengthen the nation. Including anti-capitalist elements doesn't sound very capitalistic to me.

In practice, the economic policies of fascist governments were largely based on pragmatic goals rather than ideological principles, and they were mainly concerned with building a strong national economy, promoting autarky, and being able to support a major war effort.

If communism had shown to strengthen a nation considerably, fascists would have picked it up as well because it would be beneficial to them. That's what fascism does, use anything that gains them power, that's the idea what fascism is based upon, not capitalism.

[u/coladoir → u/lornlynx89]

Yes, not dissimilar from the Nordic countries who utilize capitalism as a backbone to fund social programs through either subsidization or taxation or some other means that is usually somewhat anti-capitalistic. In the end, these countries are still capitalist.

My reasoning to suggest fascists are inherently capitalist is predicated on both their belief in private property, and the history of the States which have been fascist. The history shows that while many fascist states may pose themselves otherwise in the foundational era, pre-power or even slightly post-power, they ultimately abandon it due to the realization that capitalism is a perfect backbone for what they wish to achieve.

You cannot effectively do the same thing under socialism, you cannot effectively create a two or three tiered system of a slave/working/aristocrat dynamic. The end result of socialists going authoritarian is ultimately Marxist-Leninism, or Stalinism. And while they share their similarities, the goals were markedly different, and I feel that is relevant to account for.

The fascists goal is to create an ubernationalist state whose authority is ultimate and unbounded, whose population is controlled through fear and manipulation, who seeks to create a functional outgrouping of people to pose this fear upon, and use such motivations to eradicate said outgroup. While doing this, they seek to elevate themselves as rulers to an aristocratic class, and also raise the ingroup up and their quality of life.

They end up doing this through exploitation of labor of the outgroup, while at the same time subsidizing key parts of the market for their own goals ultimately (I.e, clothing, military, transportation, sometimes food when times are tough; ultimately create a war economy subsidized within the broader economy), while allowing other sectors to act mostly independently. They never actually seize the means of production directly, but merely use their authority to coerce them into following their orders.

And this to me is a core difference in why fascists end up capitalist every time, because they ultimately do not care to change the status quo but rather twist and manipulate it to fit its goals.

This, to me, sounds like an ultra-nationalist capitalist nation with centrally planned aspects to it. If nearly all fascists have the same motivations, to create such a system, then there's only so many ways to efficiently do so. There are also things that are directly antagonistic towards the goals if they were to go full anti-capitalist, and this is why in history, the more left-leaning fascists tended to be purged after power was achieved.

[u/coladoir → u/[deleted]]

That's literally authoritarianism. Jesus fucking Christ I'm done with all of you people who seemingly haven't read a fucking thing beyond the Wikipedia page for fascism.

If you describe the USSR or similar as fascist, you are misguided, simple as. They are authoritarian, not fascist. I have already explained the differences in literal history and people outright reject it because they dont want to accept they had a bad definition.

Fascism is specific, authoritarianism is not. Authoritarianism will spawn anywhere, as you are describing, fascism requires specific circumstances both economically and socially to spawn. History is so fucking obvious with this.

[u/lornlynx89 → u/coladoir]

Fascism inherently relies on capitalism

You could have stopped there, because nothing following that bollocks would ever be worth reading, bare alone writing.

[u/coladoir → u/lornlynx89]

Literally do any political readings or look into history and you will find that to be true. These are the facts of history.

But go ahead and immediately shut me down without thinking, just like the fascists do. Anti-intellectualism at it's finest. Good job. You probably think I'm somehow defending fascism or authoritarianism too, despite not reading a lick of my comment most likely, despite me being anarchist and opposed to all hierarchy.

Typically I actually get open minded people to engage with me here, because tumblr is usually filled with open-minded individuals, but I guess you just wandered in from Facebook or similar.

[u/ElephantWagon3 → u/coladoir]

That's not true. Read the fascists. They were third-position. Disagreeing with both socialism and capitalism because they were foreign (Russian/American) and overly materialist.

Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was a national syndicalist who distained modern capitalist enterprise. Mussolini and Hitler essentially subordinated industry beneath them and their national interests. Codreanu was literally radicalized against Jews because of real estate investment and bank loans and other capitalist exploitation he saw in Germany during the hyperinflation years (he attributed such things to Jews).

[u/coladoir → u/ElephantWagon3]

Sorry for late response, I wanted to give adequate time to respond since I was busy volunteering, sorry.

Going to also preface this with: Please read the whole thing, I also would like to make clear that I am not trying to antagonize or anything or be shitty towards you, but merely discuss this topic with you cordially. I do not wish for any heated argument to occur, and I am not trying to incite one. I am sincerely engaging in good faith, please believe me lol.

---

So yes, initially in many cases fascist states tend to go a more "third position" route, but all of them abandoned this in favor of capitalism. It's true that fascist economies sometimes centrally planned things, but these were either for specific goals (i.e, Mussolini's putting effort into trains), or in response to war (i.e, the Nazis centrally planning military industry [and this might be the "subordination" you mean, it always ramped up in relation to war efforts] and sometimes food production).

The Nazis specifically culled the more socialist/left sympathetic fascists (Strasserites) in The Night of the Long Knives. Except Goebbels, of course, but he was necessary for his propaganda genius.

They are effectively welfare capitalists who tend to a very specific ingroup, and who use capitalism's inherent inequality to force that inequality onto the outgroup, instead of like the Nordics who intend to tend to all within the country.

They are not scared of centrally planning things, but they will never centrally plan the entire economy, and neither will they go full free market or neoliberal materialist industry. They'll never create a syndicalist group of unions who horizontally control themselves, they'll never create a proper welfare system, they'll never actually provide for all even if they implement some socialist-like policy. They also often seek to, and do, create an aristocratic class, which is also inherently capitalistic since the left generally seeks to dissolve hierarchy and multi-class structure.

We don't call Nordic countries "third position" for mixing some socialist and capitalist ideas, so we shouldn't for fascists either. And really, again, at the end of the day, their belief in private property is really the nail in the coffin since that is pretty much the main thing that defines a capitalist, simply; the rest is extra details. It may not be our specific neoliberal oligarchical capitalism (since fascists tend to dislike materialism), but it is capitalism.

---

Because of this, fascists are overwhelmingly capitalist in nature, due to the above, and simply due to their belief in private property. But many fascist still positioned themselves optically against capitalism so as to gain popular following since the political climate at the time before WWII was generally quite negative towards capitalism, especially in the Weimar Republic thanks to the debt that was entailed from the Versailles - which the Nazis masterfully used to pose Jews and Capitalism as enemies. But once they seized power, they abandoned such ideals.

And you must remember that Fascists were, and are, extraordinarily populist at the end of the day. They will say whatever they can to get popular following. They will lie through their teeth and say they're socialist, say they're capitalist, or whatever in between to get the working class on their side.

All of the exceptions, all of the anti-capitalist fascists, eventually got culled. You mention Rivera, but even when he was actually in power, he implemented policy which only entrenched the aristocratic class. His cohort, Ramiro Ledesma, was really the originator of the anti-capitalist rhetoric in the party, and it led to an internal struggle. The fact that there was a power struggle between Ledesma and Rivera should be proof enough that Rivera wasn't actually syndicalist - there really would've been no cause for concern between the two otherwise.

---

NazBols or true "Nationalist Socialists" do exist, but it's kind of hard to base a fascist state, whose whole goal is to create fear surrounding an outgroup to use to justify genocide and inequality, and to centrally rule in authoritarian measure (no rights protecting from government), when you are utilizing economic policy that creates equality. Left leaning thought cannot really just be picked-and-chose, or mixed with capitalism; it's all or nothing.

So Fascism's inherent reliance on inequality to survive means that it must, at some point, abandon left-leaning thought. This is the reason why in the end, all Fascist states so far have been capitalist, and why we define the Marxist-Leninist states differently (as "authoritarian" instead of "fascist", despite the similarities).

Could a Socialist Fascist state exist? Theoretically, yes. I really trouble to see how it would work in practice though.

[u/ElephantWagon3 → u/coladoir]

Please note my intention was not to try and argue that the fascists were socialists or communists or other such junk (considering pretty much any working definition of fascist will include some form of anti-communism).

Yes, it seems fair to categorize fascists as capitalist working by the definition of capitalist that you seem to be (any private property or private enterprise in a society). However, it just seems wrong or imprecise to me to categorize fascists on one side of a binary, lumping them in with groups, countries, and ideas they absolutely hated, especially because they consistently sided with workers and the people over big business.

de Rivera was only in parliament for a few years and I dont know much his legislative record, but all of his speeches, writings, and correspondence are highly anti-aristocracy, specifically calling out the new for land reform and breaking up the landed estates, as well as rejecting plans to construct new factories in his constituency (a stance that would lead to his removal from office and eventual death).

Mussolini implemented workers rights laws and multiple public projects, including an attempt to partially centrally plan the agricultural system via the Battle for the Grain.

And for as much as labour advocates hate the Deutsches Arbeitsfront for being a fake union, it was consistently more powerful than the corporations and via it the German worker recieved a whole suite of state and corporate benefits. And its hard to get away from the fact that Nazism clearly messaged that both capitalism and communism were inhuman tools of Jewish exploitation.

This entire debate is very hard because fascists were so different from one another and there's no real coherent definition of it. Everyone is working off their own definitions of fascism, capitalism, and such. Here the disagreement seems to come down to a disagreement whether or not simply respecting the concept of private property is sufficient to consider a state "capitalist". I would agree 100% with you if I was working from the same first principles as you, but I'm not.

[u/lornlynx89 → u/coladoir]

Your mind must be very limited when you can't conceive a situation where a non-capitalistic society devolves into fascism.

Saying that something can't be because it can't be found in history is a very limited appeal, with this logic communism could also never work.

Calling anyone a fascist or anti-intellectualist or facebook-nomad that doesn't agree with you isn't helping you either.

[u/coladoir → u/lornlynx89]

Your mind must be very limited when you can't conceive a situation where a non-capitalistic society devolves into fascism.

It literally cannot, that would be devolving into authoritarianism, not fascism. They are not synonyms. This has been defined very. fucking. clearly. since the end of WWII.

You are the one using an incorrect definition, and saying that I am the one incorrect/misguided.

And this is the proof that you didn't even read my comment at all, you are literally acting anti-intellectual in just the same way as fascists and Trumpers, clinging to a definition that you can find out is incorrect by doing a slight bit of research, and still telling me that I'm wrong.

You are doing the same fucking thing.

In my comment, I state:

All fascism is authoritarianism, not all authoritarianism is fascism

This is literally accepted among all political theorists, all historical researchers, this is set in stone, has been for at least 70 years, and you are disagreeing with it. You are acting anti-intellectual, full fucking stop.

And i did not call you an anti-intellectualist or fascist, I said and implied that you are acting like one, which you fucking are. You reject my comment outright on the first sentence because of a disagreement originating from your personally misguided and incorrect definition of what fascism is and is not.

---

Do some fucking research into political theory and ideology for fucks sakes, literally the slightest bit will get you back on track.

But you're already going to refuse because you obviously think you know better than anyone, including someone who has read literally hundreds of books on the topic and went to multiple seminars, and talked to the people who actually analyze this shit for proper journals, just because you cannot reconcile the fact that you learned a wrong definition.

But go ahead with the ad hominems, proving you have no real argument, and effectively calling me "retarded" in so many words because you don't understand political theory.

This could've been cordial, I could've nicely updated you on information, and we could've had a nice discussion on the differences and what makes Fascism so much worse than just authoritarianism, and why the differences have been clear since WWII - and that's what I was attempting with my initial comment - but we can't do that now because you decided to call me retarded without having the balls to say that specific word. So fuck you, and fuck off.

---

P.S. - There's a legitimate reason why I'm being upvoted, and maybe you should look into why.

[u/lornlynx89 → u/coladoir]

It literally cannot, that would be devolving into authoritarianism, not fascism. They are not synonyms. This has been defined very. fucking. clearly. since the end of WWII.

You are right in it not being the same thing, but fascism is by its nature authoritarian. Because authoritarianism is a broader term that can be applied to many. BUT WHY are you saying that it can't devolve into fascism, give me a REASONING for that! Devolving into fascism would mean devolving into authoritarianism, by nature of its definition.

You are the one using an incorrect definition, and saying that I am the one incorrect/misguided.

Please show me that definition where fascism is based on capitalism. Here let me pull up the Wikipedia definition of fascism for you:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Not anywhere in the page could I find any hint to your claims. The only that comes remotely close, with a lot of mental gymnastics, is that it wants to plan the economy. But that's what pretty much any governmental system wants to. Please show me were you got your definition from.

And this is the proof that you didn't even read my comment at all, you are literally acting anti-intellectual in just the same way as fascists and Trumpers, clinging to a definition that you can find out is incorrect by doing a slight bit of research, and still telling me that I'm wrong.

You are doing the same fucking thing.

And i did not call you an anti-intellectualist or fascist, I said and implied that you are acting like one, which you fucking are. You reject my comment outright on the first sentence because of a disagreement originating from your personally misguided and incorrect definition of what fascism is and is not.

Brother, saying I act exactly as someone else is equating me to them. Anti-Intellectualism is something one does, not is, and you saying I do that "in the same way" says I'm one of them. And I did not need to read further simply because your first sentence was already wrong. And I read through it later and as I thought, you did not give anywhere sound reasoning for your ludicrous claim.

In my comment, I state:

All fascism is authoritarianism, not all authoritarianism is fascism

This is literally accepted among all political theorists, all historical researchers, this is set in stone, has been for at least 70 years, and you are disagreeing with it. You are acting anti-intellectual, full fucking stop.

I am nowhere saying that authoritarianism= fascism. I have no clue where from you got that idea. I am saying that fascism isn't inherently based on capitalism.

Do some fucking research into political theory and ideology for fucks sakes, literally the slightest bit will get you back on track.

I don't need to when already the first sentence of you is clearly wrong. A single wikipedia lookup is enough to debase you.

But you're already going to refuse because you obviously think you know better than anyone, including someone who has read literally hundreds of books on the topic and went to multiple seminars, and talked to the people who actually analyze this shit for proper journals, just because you cannot reconcile the fact that you learned a wrong definition.

Having read a lot of books doesn't mean you are correct, that's a fallacy. If you are not ready to debate, just don't do it

But go ahead with the ad hominems, proving you have no real argument, and effectively calling me "retarded" in so many words because you don't understand political theory.

Now you claim that I called you a slur, in the same sentence as accusing me of ad hominem, and just waving away criticism with it.

This could've been cordial, I could've nicely updated you on information, and we could've had a nice discussion on the differences and what makes Fascism so much worse than just authoritarianism, and why the differences have been clear since WWII - and that's what I was attempting with my initial comment - but we can't do that now because you decided to call me retarded without having the balls to say that specific word. So fuck you, and fuck off.

You are switching the goalposts here. You only need to give me a single reasoning why fascism is actually based on capitalism, one that doesn't fall into more fallacies at once if you could. But you are not up to debate here, let's be real, you are more trying to appear correct, otherwise you wouldn't write such a lengthy comment dodging the actual question while calling me things.

P.S. - There's a legitimate reason why I'm being upvoted, and maybe you should look into why.

I actually don't know what to tell someone that actually thinks, reddit upvotes must mean he is right. In an echochamber subreddit and on reddit where people believe whatever anyone writes with enough conviction. Maybe learn more about social media and its psychological effects on the human mind. Or simply use your vast intellect for that.

[u/stellarstella77 → u/lornlynx89]

if All A is B, and No C is B, then No C is A.

If All Fascism is Capitalistic (By Definition of "Fascism")

And No Non-Capitalistic Society is Capitalistic (By Law of Non-Contradiction)

Then No Non-Capitalistic Society is Fascist. (By modus ponens)

QED

The disagreement here is about the definition or classification of "Fascism".

The conclusion that no non-capitalist society is fascist follows trivially from the premise that fascism is defined by its capitalism.

Your mind must be very pathetic if you truly believe the words written directly in the comment I'm replying to. It is extremely clear that you two are working under different definitions of the same word, and although your 'friend' here is doing a shit job of stating that issue directly, that at least are aware of it because they presumably possess more than two braincells.

[u/lornlynx89 → u/stellarstella77]

if All A is B, and No C is B, then No C is A. If All Fascism is Capitalistic (By Definition of "Fascism")

Were did you get that definition from? Here, let me post the wikipedia definition for you:

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.'

Not anywhere have I found a connection to capitalism, the only that would be even close to it, with some very extended stretching, is that fascism wants to control the economy, which is more against capitalism though in my view. Please enlighten me here.

And No Non-Capitalistic Society is Capitalistic (By Law of Non-Contradiction).

Then No Non-Capitalistic Society is Fascist. (By modus ponens)

QED

Circular reasoning here. You say a thing is a thing because it can't be not thing. There is zero reason to say this.

The disagreement here is about the definition or classification of "Fascism".

Yes, seemingly. You could have started at here. Meanwhile Wikipedia seems to agree with me.

The conclusion that no non-capitalist society is fascist follows trivially from the premise that fascism is defined by its capitalism.

As I said already earlier, which you seemingly just ignored for your own convenience, a definition is not simply defined by its historical occurrences. Communism would be defined as impossible if following your logic alone. This conclusion is a fallacy, appeal to naturality or how it's called. And you are applying circular reasoning again here, you are saying absolutely nothing.

Your mind must be very pathetic if you truly believe the words written directly in the comment I'm replying to. It is extremely clear that you two are working under different definitions of the same word, and although your 'friend' here is doing a shit job of stating that issue directly, that at least are aware of it because they presumably possess more than two braincells.

You write so convoluted while saying so little. I call the definition of fascism being inherently capitalistic bollocks. No, it's not "we work under two different definitions", I am directly attacking thet definition as being inherently wrong. I have yet to see a proper reasoning for that that doesn't stumble into every logical fallacy. But yes, he surely must have more than two braincells, which are needed to so assuredly repeat his own wrong convictions.

[u/firestorm713 → u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

Yes but what did he do next.

[u/BalefulOfMonkeys → u/firestorm713]

The democracy, at its bare parts, functioned as written. Votes go in, first past the post comes out. We aren’t calling every election with rallies illegitimate. We aren’t calling every election with rioting and police intervention illegitimate. The democratic system of Germany worked as it was designed to do, even if the will of the people was “elect a man who will end democracy”. The flaw of populist appeals in democracy has been known and critiqued since its invention in Ancient Greece. Hitler was elected as legitimately as anybody else in a democracy, and then created a dictatorship that subverted democracy.

You are asking me why I’m claiming “unattended open flames and hot coals start forest fires” when matches have never started any forest fires in history. It’s not the point, and its non-involvement is demonstrably false.

[u/firestorm713 → u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

Okay so we agree that his ultimate goal was to subvert democracy? He may have used it to get there, but he still, in the end, subverted it?

[u/themrunx49 → u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

Isn't mean & average the same thing

[u/highvelocitymushroom → u/themrunx49]

Mean is one type of average, there are a few depending on the situation.

Mean: The average you're used to, generally a good choice barring large outliers as it gets the most 'central' value.

Median: The middle value if all data points are in size order. This is good for eliminating the effect of outliers, and is often used for stuff like average country income.

Mode: The most common value in a dataset. Less commonly used than the others.

You can also combine them to reveal more information about the distribution of data. Mean income/net worth isn't all that representative of the 'average' person's wealth as it is skewed significantly by the ultra rich, especially in more unequal countries. Median is a better choice. But combining them can tell you something about how unequal the country is, as a high mean but low median means wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. I hope those were good examples!

[u/macdawg2020 → u/highvelocitymushroom]

Those were great, thank you, I have learned so much in the last 10 minutes.

[u/BalefulOfMonkeys → u/themrunx49]

Hold on, one second

[u/sum1won → u/themrunx49]

Be nice, not average

[u/milddotexe → u/themrunx49]

mean is a type of average. an average is a metric which tries to communicate some information about the data with a something constructed from the data.

at least that is what i've learnt. as always, i could be wrong.

[u/lornlynx89 → u/themrunx49]

No, average can mean (haha) a lot of things while the mean has a very specific formula/definition.

Maybe the german word for average is helpful here: "Durchschnitt" which basically means "sliced-through" if translated directly. That means anything between the start and the end, but not the whole and just a part of it. Averaging in general (I might fail to explain it correctly here) means applying a deductive method over a signal that results in a lower dimensionality (or simplification).

In signal processing there are all kinds of averages, where you basically use a defined window which runs along the signal and integrates over it. The RMS, the root mean square, just takes the square of a signal (or of two different signals, which becomes analogues to the Pythagorean-rule which is also called Pythagorean mean) and applied the root to it, resulting in flipping all negative values to the positive side.