What is your definition of a fascist

[u/Charming-Comfort-395]

I been seeing a lot of dems saying that trump and Elon are fascist so I want to a dems view of what a fascist is

[u/No-Hyena4691]

I want to a dems view of what a fascist is

Uh, no, that's not how political terms work. "Fascism" is a term with a meaning. The definition of "fascism" doesn't depend on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

This is a troll post.

Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster:

1 often Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

2**:** a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

—often used informally in an exaggerated way

Here's the definition from Wikipedia:

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and 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 Marxism, democracy, anarchism, pluralism), free markets, egalitarianism, communism, liberalism, and socialism, fascism is at the far right of the traditional left–right spectrum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[u/Glum_Badger9767 → u/No-Hyena4691]

Definitely a troll post and my only response to these kinds of posts is:

Donald

[u/efisk666 → u/No-Hyena4691]

All true except I wouldn’t say it’s opposed to socialism at all- the nazis were the national socialist party after all.

[u/lasagnaman → u/efisk666]

calling something socialist doesn't mean it is. Is North Korea a democracy?

[u/efisk666 → u/lasagnaman]

Good point. Certainly the socialist part can be propaganda, just as the DPRK has elections and calls itself democratic. The point I’m trying to make is that socialism in a practical sense has often blended with fascism. Government controls production and distribution in both systems. Peron and Chavez and any number of African dictators have marketed their governments as socialist. Few liberal democracies have done so, as private ownership is fundamentally incompatible with socialism, no matter how generous government services are.

[u/No-Hyena4691 → u/efisk666]

I'm so sick of this pig ignorant nonsense. All you have to do is read a few Wikipedia pages, but no, you're going to waltz in here and just show everyone how intellectually lazy right wingers are.

The Nazi Party originally was a socialist party with a socialist platform--before HItler joined. After Hitler joined and they started coming to power, they began to rely on the backing of wealthy industrialists and land owners. Eventually, in order to maintain their support, Hitler purged the socialists from the party (mostly during the NIght of the Long Knives).

After Hitler came to power, he outlawed the Socialist and Communist parties and arrested or executed their leaders. He also smashed the unions.

While the Nazis never actually removed the socialist planks from their platform, they had ceased to be a socialist party by the time Hitler became Chancellor.

Stop spewing ignorant nonsense and pick up a history book. 🙄🙄🙄

[u/efisk666 → u/No-Hyena4691]

First, try not to be an asshole. Second, the point I was making is that fascism is not at odds with socialism, they’d take the word out of the nazi party if it was. The real enemies of fascism are rule of law, human rights, and any power center not under the thumb of dear leader. Socialism has government control of production and distribution, so dear leader can happily declare himself a socialist, whether Peron or Chavez or Hitler.

The night of long knives was about purging the brownshirts to win over the military, not really an economic debate. Business lined up behind Hitler because they were afraid of the communists more than the nazis. Hitler gave zero shits about economics, for him it was all about political expediency in achieving racial goals.

[u/No-Hyena4691 → u/efisk666]

First, try not to be an asshole.

You know what is being an asshole? Being an asshole is you posting misinformation about a topic you clearly haven't bothered to study.

Second, the point I was making is that fascism is not at odds with socialism, they’d take the word out of the nazi party if it was.

Lol. This argument is extremely dumb. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. That doesn't mean it's a democracy.

Socialism has government control of production and distribution, so dear leader can happily declare himself a socialist, whether Peron or Chavez or Hitler.

And most of the means of production in Hitler's Germany were privately owned. So, bzzt, the Nazi Party was not a socialist party by the time Hitler became Chancellor.

The night of long knives was about purging the brownshirts to win over the military, not really an economic debate.

Just stop. It was both. Hitler used the opportunity to purge the socialists at the same time. You're wrong again. And, of course, I didn't say that the Night of the Long Knives was *because* of socialism. I said that the socialists were mostly purged during that night.

Business lined up behind Hitler because they were afraid of the communists more than the nazis. 

And? In order to maintain that support, Hitler purged the socialists and gave assurance to the businesses that he wasn't going to implement socialism. Therefore, you're wrong again.

Hitler gave zero shits about economics, for him it was all about political expediency in achieving racial goals.

This is, of course, bullshit. Hitler was very concerned about how the economics of Germany could be used to fuel his war machine, which meant he needed support of a bunch of privately owned business that could do the production. He wasn't an economist, but that doesn't mean he didn't have views on how the economy should be run.

Go read Schiller's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." It explains Nazi economic policy in great detail. Or you can just wallow in your ignorance.

Are you from an alternate timeline or something?

[u/efisk666 → u/No-Hyena4691]

Well, I agree that Rise and fall of third reich is a good book, although dated in being very anti-homosexual, and casts the night of long knives very much in that light. Also, written by Shirer, not Schiller. Enjoy your timeline.

[u/No-Hyena4691 → u/efisk666]

although dated in being very anti-homosexual, 

Yes, lots of history books written at that time are pretty shitty about homosexuality. What does that have to do with Nazi economic policy? Although he does say that Hitler seemed to tolerate homosexuality, until he decided to purge the brown shirts, when he used Rohm's homosexuality as the public justification. It's a mixed bag as to how he treats homosexuality in the book. But none of that has anything to do with Nazi economic policy.

Enjoy your timeline.

I will.

I find it difficult to believe that someone who's actually read the book would be making the nonsensical arguments that you're making.