History Question
 

I see fascist/fascism used a lot, but must admit an actual fascist government that labeled itself such seems to be before my time.

I must admit that I do not have any clear cut ideas of what exactly fascism is.

I only know of three formerly fascist countries, and do not know if I am leaving any out or if there are current countries.

Those former countries are :

Spain
Germany
Italy

I don't know a lot about Italy and fascism aside from the name Mussolini; and that he "made the trains run on time".

With Germany, I believe it was not dissimilar to the communists of Germany. In practice they looked similar, it was just in preaching they had their differences. They both had targeted groups to blame and put down, they both were for increasing state say in all matters of business.

With Spain it was incredibly fractured. It boiled down to a NAZI supported faction vs a Stalinist supported faction with many smaller fragments in the end either being destroyed or taking one side or the other.

But when it comes down to it, I really do not know what fascism is.

My perception is that Fascism structures itself very similar to communism.

In communism there are committees put in charge of the means of production and dictate how and where resources and people would be used.

In Fascism the government can dictate to corporations what they will do with their means of production, and dictate how and where resources and people would be used.

To me, my current perception is that the difference between the governments of Hitler and Stalin is really just one of names rather than functions. Perhaps people here know different?

I am from the U.S., and my education is likely biased in favor of our U.S. ally Stalin. As far as I know, both had purges, deathcamps, etc, just one gets more attention than the other.

So what is it? Lots of people seem to be against it; but I wonder how many people against it know what it is they are against? I will admit, I don't know.

My perception is that communism tends to devolve into Fascism - central control corrupts as it is the ultimate power.

Economists will always tell you that dictating to corporations is inefficient (tho some regulation is always necessary) - you want the corps. to get direct market signals instead.

Now sure what the 'it' is in your last questions (or how long this governance theory question will stay out of PARF)

I'll take a stab at it:

Fascism is sold to the masses as the people are serving the dictator for the good of the country

Communism is sold to the masses as the people are serving their government, with a dictator in charge
for equality.

In reality they're both selling a dream of fantasy. I don't think that in actuality there is much of or any real difference other than Fascism is more extreme......

My understanding is that a fascist leader will inform the governed "I will fix this", and a communist leader "We will get to the bottom of this".

The governed do not necessarily have to be under a dictatorship.

Per Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism


Per britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism
Both are bad.

..um.kay.....

The explanation I heard is the fascists get to power by driving a racial wedge into the population. The socialists drive a economic wedge to get power. After they are in power, pretty much the same.

Thanks for your perception.

I have to ask, what racial wedge did Franco Use?

What racial wedge did Mussolini Use?

Great question. I had to look it up. From a quick Google search:

The general and dictator Francisco Franco (1892-1975) ruled over Spain from 1939 until his death. He rose to power during the bloody Spanish Civil War when, with the help of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, his Nationalist forces overthrew the democratically elected Second Republic.

So not necessarily racial. Maybe just some way of dividing the people?

per wikipedia
I don't know enough about Mussolini or Italy's history to know what was involved there.

History repeats itself too as needed

From what I found, in particular he went after the Basque and Catalan secs. So maybe "ethnicity" is a better word than racial???

There is an excellent book called “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.

After WW1 an Italian socialist named Mussolini realized that italian peasants and workers didn’t like German or Russian peasants and workers. He figured that he could simply ad a component of nationalism to the class theory. He rode to power on that.

Hitler took it a step further and added race.


But otherwise still socialism.





Stalin was enfuriated by the competition and branded his rivals as “right wing”. Sort of like trotsky was called right wing. We still suffer under this lie.

Hmm.

The Basque fought for both sides in the civil war. Franco was not inherently opposed.

The issues were more one of Basque independence. They live in an area with natural Geographic barriers to the rest of Spain, and also speak a different language.

The Catalan were strongly anarcho-communists and were very much against the organized government Franco was fighting for. The Stalin backed Communists had a "May Day" to kill/torture/imprison the Catalan leaders rather than allow their free state.

Catalan got the short of the stick from both sides.

Marxism is the best of intentions with the worst of outcomes. It historically devolves into ruling elite fascism rather quickly.

Fascism is government by a ruling elite, typically a highly militarized one. Venezuela and N Korea are good current examples of ruling elite fascism under the thin veil label of socialism.

No

No

Theoretically communism is where the government is working for the benefit of the people. Under Facism the people are working for the betterment of the nation.

In reality both become Dictatorships. Fascist governments do not seem to outlive the person of the strong man Leader Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Peron. Communism can have a succession of leaders. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng etc. Neither system promotes democracy.

Anti Semitism and racial hatred are not tenets of Facism nor Communism for that matter. Hitler was aberrationaly pathological in his homicidal rage. Neither Mussolini nor Franco had overt homicidal tendencies.

Stalin while ruthlessly homicidal was an equal opportunity murderer.

Mussolini and Franco were real SOB's who did kill just not on an industrial scale
nixon had a fascist style without the ideology

This makes a lot of sense based on my limited but expanding knowledge of Fascism's rise in Spain.

It also fits what I know about Germany.

However, I still remain ignorant of Fascism and Italy. I haven't read much in that direction.

Franco was originally a monarchist, but being a monarchist did not result in foreign allies to counter the open support from Stalin that his opponent had. Franco shifted all his different splinter groups into one fascist organization; resulting in support from Italy and Germany to provide counter force to foreign support of his opposing side.

He successfully united most of his factions under one new direction, something those opposed to him failed to do. His goal seems to me to be a preservation of a Spanish State. The opposing side offered either a satellite state to Stalin/Russia, or an anarchist state. The latter of those two were attacked and subdued by the Stalinist in the May days of 1937.

I have a question about Italy, was there a foreign entity attempting takeover/subversion of the country?

In the case of both Germany and Spain this appears to me at present to be the case. Because of this, in both of these countries, fascism seems to have a part of it being a strong patriotic and nationalist foundation. These two things can exist independent of fascism, yet they seem to be an important foundation.