The ongoing ISIS massacres

[dannubis]

It is in any case better than your continued misuse of words.

[Sava]

HC has very strong authoritarian views. He's expressed a preference for dictatorial governments over ones who follow a democratic process (using islamaphobe arguments... revealing his racism). He has a strong preference towards using violence as a means of promoting his national agenda.

Nazis don't want state-run economies, necessarily. Plus, fascism isn't an economic ideology. You could just as easily have more of a market system with fascism. Above all else, fascists are social darwinists. They tend to oppose welfare systems.

c0ckney has a much better understanding of the word "fascism" than you danny boy

Aside from people who use such labels to self-identify, I prefer to think of it as a spectrum. I suspect many hard core self-identified fascists might actually be less "fascist" than someone like HC. It just so happens, their personal propensity towards violence and enthusiasm for sharing racist views is much greater than our mild mannered Kucibros (I find little distinction between reg and HC's views).

[dannubis]

1. That does make him an authoritarian, not yet a fascist.
2. If you can find a way on how to make everything subordinate to the state without a state run economy I am all ears.
3. And yet you use my (simplified but in this case adequate) definition of fascism Sava boy. So we disagree on HC, not on what fascism is.

[Sava]

1. That doesn't make him an authoritarian, not yet a fascist.

You should try reading before commenting. I don't believe it makes him either one because I don't find labels aside from self-identification to be particularly relevant.

Also, you're just doing a "no true scotsman".

If you can find a way on how to make everything subordinate to the state

Every citizen of every nation is subordinate to the state.

and ultimately, every thing, as well

[dannubis]

You should try reading before commenting. I don't believe it makes him either one because I don't find labels aside from self-identification to be particularly relevant.

That part of your post was not yet showing when I wrote my reply so bite me.

Also, you're just doing a "no true scotsman".

No I am not. I am applying a definition.

Every citizen of every nation is subordinate to the state.

and ultimately, every thing, as well

Really. This is what you come up with when we are talking about fascism ?

[Sava]

That part of your post was not yet showing when I wrote my reply so bite me.

No I am not. I am applying a definition.

Agreed. Your own personal definition... which sadly, does not apply.

Really. This is what you come up with when we are talking about fascism ?

Yes. It is important to have a fundamental understanding of the concept of government.
(I've taught this for a living, you know)
(and not at some catholic school in texas)

[dannubis]

So a fascist is not a totalitarian nationalist ?

And a totalitarian nationalistic regime does not require a state run economy?

What non fluid definition of fascism would you give me then ?

BTW, appeal to your own authority is a slippery slope towards a logical fallacy. But I do applaud the fact you weren't teaching in a catholic school in texas.

[Dr Strangelove]

Fascism is definitely totalitarian, and while a fascist regime may not feature a totally state owned economy the economy in a fascist country is generally supervised by the state.

[Sava]

So a fascist is not a totalitarian nationalist ?

And a totalitarian nationalistic regime does not require a state run economy?

What non fluid definition of fascism would you give me then ?

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[5]

Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. The aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[6] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[7] Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[8] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

BTW, appeal to your own authority is a slippery slope towards a logical fallacy. But I do applaud the fact you weren't teaching in a catholic school in texas.

Agree, mostly. However, I'm not promoting my own ideas. Qualifications matter. Though, if this were some sort of formal debate, I would agree 100% with you.

[Sava]

Fascism is definitely totalitarian, and while a fascist regime may not feature a totally state owned economy the economy in a fascist country is generally supervised by the state.

I would agree with this.

At minimum, private entities would need be compatible with the national interest.

[Sava]

the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.

BTW, does this sound familiar?

I've heard many solid arguments about the US government bailout of the auto and financial industries doing exactly this... putting loss on the public while profits go to corporations.

[dannubis]

The first 2 lines of your answer don't imply a state-run economy? Not as direct as in communism of course but still "You are free to do what the state wants" is not a free-market (regulated by the governement) economy.

[dannubis]

I would agree with this.

At minimum, private entities would need be compatible with the national interest.

I was talking about a state-run economy, not a state-owned economy.

[Sava]

What non fluid definition of fascism would you give me then ?

Speaking of "fluidity"...

"We want to be aristocrats and democrats, conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and revolutionaries, legalists and antilegalists - depending on the circumstances of the time, place and situation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

[Sava]

I was talking about a state-run economy, not a state-owned economy.

If you're going to continue to incorrectly focus on the economic aspects or split hairs about what is state-run or state-owned...

Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policies can be said to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism