So what is the definition of socialism, communism, fascism, Marxism, etc. exactly...

That's my point, Fascism is vague by design, Fascism is whatever it needs to be in any given context, the only consistent element is a strawman "other" to direct all social ills upon and to redirect potentially revolutionary energies towards reactionary violence and war.

So we are to not take Mussolini's definition himself, despite him being the innovator of modern fascism.

Yet we must entertain some leftist's definition of it instead.

Jesus christ, next time don't complain when capitalists don't understand socialism, you guys do the same shit to fascism.

Of course not, he wasn't a philosopher, he was just a demagogue and a rhetorician. Anything he ever said was pure sophistry, like any Fascist.

Fascism isn't fucking vague at all, it just means the state nationalizes all matter of private properties and engages in fucking imperalism/expansionist in order to expand itself.

Yet we must somehow think fascism is some kind of boogeyman when it's clear fucking cut at what it does.

For fucks sake…

In other word, in the capitalist's mind, we shan't take socialism or Marx's word seriously, because Marx was a charlatan who leeches off Engels.

This is a ridiculously shallow definition of Fascism that doesn't even begin to address how Fascism is unique from Capitalism and Liberalism.

That is how Capitalists view Marx, but I don't see why that should concern Leftists.

That's literally what fascism is, and how Mussolini defined it.

But okay, let's just get fucking leftists to redefine it about everything bad about the world ever.

Fascism is unique from capitalist because it doesn't respect private properties, and it hates liberalist democracy.

pic related

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Ah, yes, fascism, the word that has no definition.

The special word, the unique word.

It just means 'someone you disagree with'.

Impossible, because fascists use the word quite dearly.

So it can mean camaraderie too.

Truly the unique word.

I know this is a very common meme on Holla Forums, that Leftists just use it as a vague insult, but if you go back to my initial post you'll find I have given it a very concrete definition. Fascism is a scenario in which an authoritarian or strongman uses a series of purposefully vague reactionary sentiments to play on the working class' basest impulses and to distract from a crisis at hand. It isn't, and never has been, a concrete philosophy, but rather an aesthetic that opportunists can use in certain extremely chaotic historical moments. It plays on common and irrational fears, fears of foreigners and outsiders, the fear of a breakdown in tradition and civilization, and often can't be parsed as a concrete ideology because it's components are more often then not irrational and based on appeals to emotion.

It's almost as if there is more to fascism than Mussolini. Almost as if there are many variations and tendencies. Really activated my almonds.

except fascists are leftists

see

Where is the concrete definition?

Seizing assets, fixing prices and expansionism aren't fucking vague sentiments, reactionary, yes, but not vague.

And what the fuck, no, fascism isn't an aesthetics, it's an economic and governmental system.

Mussolini coined modern fascism, and if you want to talk about some special snowflake fascism, you should specify that certain.

lel

Did you not even look at the diagram?

I know, because it's arguments were so compelling :^)

And it's fucking hilarious what you just said is vague as hell, compared to Mussolini's definition.

The Corporatism that defined Mussolini's Italy isn't really all that different from how Capitalism already works, China is Capitalist and it practically has a command economy, this isn't enough to distinguish Fascism from Capitalism on an economic level. Capitalist economies already have planning and massive amounts of corporate welfare and government intervention. As for the Imperialism/expansionism shit, I just hope you're not retarded enough to not realize that Imperialism is a core characteristic of Capitalism.
What do you think all the "blood and soil" shit is? What do you think all the rituals, and the uniforms, and the military parades, and the propaganda about strong aryan men is? It's fucking aesthetics, it's meaningless, it's all fluff, this is what I'm getting at, Fascism is just Capitalism in jackboots, it isn't a distinct philosophy, it's just an elaborate and violent song and dance Capitalists but on when they go into crisis mode and they feel the forces of Communism rearing it's head. Why do you think it's so easy for Libtardarians to go full Pinochet the second Leftists grow in numbers? Why do you think it's so easy for Fascists and Liberals to form coalitions whenever Socialism is on the rise? Fascism is Capitalism in crisis, it's empty rhetoric and the aestheticization of politics into an unintelligible mass.

No, capitalism works by respecting private properties, that's the essentialism of capitalism.

If the state intervenes too much and literally seizes assets, then it's no longer capitalism, it becomes close to fascist.

China from the Deng era onward is a fascist economy, where the market exists, yet it's fused into the state.

Capitalism does not

Symbols and propaganda?
Capitalist and "communist" countries use the same.

Symbols and propaganda make men hard and want to fight, that's good for the state.

Are capitalist and "communist" countries fascist now because they use symbols and propaganda?

Because they fear leftists, just like leftists will purge any counter-revolutionaries if they grow in power.
Don't think it's easy, I mean, look at Britain, you have the liberal party forming coalition with the "socalist" party in order to undermine the "fascist" party, same deal in France.

Fascism is capitalism when they recognize capitalism doesn't always work, and sometimes it's better and more efficient for a state to direct the market.

What Fascists said and what they actually did are two very different things.

Anyway, here's what Fascism is: a totalitarian form of nationalism that relies on trans-class mass mobilization of the whole nation, aggressive imperialist war and a cult of of sacrifice and death — all in the name of palingenetic rebirth.

Capitalism is not a core characteristic of capitalism, as there is capitalist countries that have never engaged in imperalism/expansionism, example being Singapore.

yeah, I'm going to trust the guy who defined fascism than the guys who basically think fascism = bad.

It's the same shit with capitalists and socialism, and socialists say capitalists do not understand socialism.

Imperalism is not a core characteristic of capitalism*

So you're going to trust the guy who had every reason to describe Fascism in the best light possible? Do you think it makes sense to believe every word of a politician whose very politics rely on mass propaganda in order to foster mass mobilization? And who, by the way, insisted Fascism was more about guts than brains anyways?

Here are more definitions of Fascism by the most esteemed experts in the field:

Yes, I'm going to trust the guy who coins the fucking word and gives it a definition.

Or you might as well not trust Marx's word on communism, because he tried to describe it the best light possible.

The difference being, Marx was a theorist and Mussolini was a politician. Marx's main motivation was studying history, in fact he spent much more time and effort defining capitalism than he did socialism. Mussolini's main motivation was seizing and preserving power, which means Fascism in its official definition meant whatever he wanted it to mean regardless of the reality of its existence.

If I'm going to trust somehow on the definition of fascism, then he has to be a political scientist, an historian or a sociologist — or even better, all of the above. What do you think is wrong with Griffin's or Paxton's definition?

Its even vague compared to Orwells definition

So if Facsism used to mean whatever Mussolini wanted it to mean? and now it means whatever you want it to mean, doesnt that make you Mussolini?

...

...

So it's just socialism then…… Heh….

Have you ever considered it might just be exceedingly ignorant and people get tired of dealing with the shit of people who refuse to listen to anyone else explaining just how wrong you are?

thread exceptionally autistic. Well done Holla Forums I missed you.

No, that hasnt even crossed my mind and probably never will.

This is possible the gayest thing I've ever seen.

A swastika isnt always racist you bigot.

Fascists tend to have an even vaguer definition of fascism only outclassed by liberals, anarcho-liberals and classical liberals/conservatives who spout the "antifa is fascist" meme.

Used in this context it is.

You would struggle to find a more vague example than this.

After arguing with a few pol/yp/s, i'm more inclined to think that they share the same vague definition, the only difference is liberals think it's bad whereas fascists think it's cool.

Idk, I've always looked at fascism more or less as failed leftism which attempts to keep the idealism of Hegal and merge it with a romantic vison of the nation, group, and/or past as way of dealing with the alienation of industrialization, creating a kind of idealist primitivist ideology that will vary dependant on the nation or culture but still remains coupled invariably to technology and industry of capital. Its an attempt to engage in an escape from the conditions without actually escaping from the system of capital itself, trying to get out of the culture and world capital creates rather then capital itself. What results is a romanticism of the group (blood, tribe, leader, etc.) as a way of dealing with the alienation without actually stopping the alienation. I've heard before the analogy that fascism is like a man in cuffs with the key in his hand who instead of unlocking his cuffs cries and wails trying to break them while cursing others when he can't. In some ways I find it apt, the economic system of the fascist was never the defining factor as it was never really what the governance was more to why it was there. An ideology rather then a system, and so in many ways you could say we all have fascist tendencies inside us.

Those "fascists" are liberals.

To add to this, looking historically at the implementations and retoric of fascism in the past we can see an almost erotic focus on the "feeling of freedom" by belonging, as in to be free and whole one must be "belong" to the system, that to be free one in a capacity must not be free. If all are shackled to the machine, the machine being the still existing commodity production of capital, then by being in this state of preserved production are not all the participants "free"? In a perverse kind of sexual way, it treats the populace as this homogeneous gestating blob which when grafted to production and made harmonious will produce a feeling of ecstasy in all participants and whos production may yield hegelian utopia. And if the ecstasy is not there, the feeling of wholeness not apparent? Then there must be someone in the system or someone outside maliciously engaging in sabotage, and those who resist being grafted to the system just don't know the happiness it will give them and must either be shown it or expunged.

Sorry if this all sounded like a rant, just wanted to get what I've been thinking down. Basically what I'm trying to say is fascism is idealist primitivism made under and utilizing sufficent capitalist technology while covering its almost perverse and erotic sentiments with an attempt at a more pleasing and wholesome aesthetic. And that in some twisted way the fascist, by stuggling to break free of his own latchings, never really wants to be free of his latchings or struggle because the futile struggle is fascism, fascism is actually in the purest way Feels>Reals.

Forgot to add at the end that in my opinion I see it as leftism gone horribly, horribly wrong to the point of strapping itself permenantly to capital

I see your autism chart and raise you my own.

...

Except that's a much better chart.

Socialism - "Social" economics, ie - economy being owned collectively and run democratically
Communism - Classless communal society.
Fascism - Radical nationalism
Marxism - A set of philosophies and political theories based on the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, most importantly historical materialism, dialectics and their critique of capitalist political economy.

The view that political ideology is determined by something being deemed working or not working is the real ideology.

It's just a phrase. It means is it desirable or undesirable, does it function in a way that yields good or bad results.

I hope for your sake that you're only pretending to be retarded.

Nigger, so because Marx was a philosopher, I ought to trust him more than Mussolini, a politician?

Marx's primary motivation was to establish communism, just like how Mussolini's was in establishing fascism. They both have their self-interests.

And if you speak about reality, then fascism as practiced as Mussolini is as real as it can, compared to Marx's theorizing, which has never come close to reality.

Because why use them when Mussolini's definition is accurate? Why use 3rd party's definition at all?

The most vague definition of fascism is already in this thread.

It's "fascism = bad!", the Holla Forumsyps actually understand fascism as it's an economical and governmental system, and a very simple one.

Socialism is when the government does some things, and the private sector does other things.

Communism is when the government does everything, and there is no private sector.

Fascism is when the president doesn't like minorities.

Marxism is when something looks good on paper but bad in real life.

There is no definition, but this is its arbitrary vague structure:

1) No production for profit.
2) The aim is to generate free time instead of work of any kind
3) The aim is human essence realization and fulfillment, i.e. the ideal of human as self-expressing artist.

Why is anyone wasting their time arguing with this brainlet?

We have reached peak autism.

I am just trying to apply basic logic to the situation.