Local Localist wrote:
Right, but I don't see how 'belief in ethnic superiority' would really relate to the graphing of ideology. Mussolini's view of race was fairly normal for his time, and there's no way to *not* classify him as a fascist. While fascism is generally imperialistic, I would say that 'imperialism' as it is traditionally understood in the Western sense belongs more in my 'traditionalist' sphere, as on the international scale, it was practiced originally by semi-feudal powers such as Britain, France and Russia.
Fascism is only 'generally imperialistic' -- ? Half of Europe *doesn't count* for you?
Would you like to revisit your answer here?
Also, your 'political debt' is building up -- here's a *contradiction* I pointed out in your position, and also a follow-up:
ckaihatsu wrote:
Socialism doesn't overlap with fascism because fascists support the corporatist state, while (workers-of-the-world) socialists are *anti-capitalist*, and call for workers power, and workers councils to collectively control social production.
viewtopic.php?p=15105842#p15105842
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay on the above, but would you like to explain how you conceive of fascism as being 'more progressive'?
viewtopic.php?p=15106065#p15106065
---
Local Localist wrote:
I've explained my view of corporatism in other places, but basically my understanding is that Mussolini justified it
Why are you accepting the word of a *fascist*?
Local Localist wrote:
as redirecting socialism so that rather than viewing the proletariat as being oppressed by the ruling classes, the entire nation was to be seen as oppressed by other nations.
Yeah, people say all *kinds* of shit, like you, but if the locus is on the *nation-state*, then it's *nationalism*, and not workers-of-the-world socialism.
Here's why *class* is the main divide in society, and I have it at the very *top* of my 'history' taxonomy:
[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision
---
Local Localist wrote:
This means that the state is to be granted supreme control over every aspect of the economy, and would work to secure the development of industry and thereby further the progress of the productive forces for its own people at the expense of those in other nations.
So you're defending fascism.
Local Localist wrote:
How is corporatism more progressive than feudalism? Well, Imperial Japan, for instance, introduced education for women. Nazi Germany abolished inheritance. All the Axis powers provided welfare and social programs for their citizens. In my mind, this is in stark contrast with peasant 'muck farmers' tilling the fields at the behest of their landlords for their entire lives, as Catholic traditionalists would like to return to. This is why I view neither liberalism (capitalism) *nor* fascism to be fundamentally reactionary in the same sense as feudalism is.
Aren't you forgetting the *political* side of fascism -- ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_tollThe logic of fascism, that you just described (ultra-nationalism), means that some persecuted minority group is *scapegoated* and mass-murdered, to 'justify' the top-down polarization by race or ethnicity. You seem to find this treatment *acceptable*, for some reason, which is atrocious. You should revisit your position.
---
Local Localist wrote:
I plotted some names if that makes things any more clear:
1280927092872364032
You're certainly not showing how fascism is 'progressive', or related to socialism. Stalin *defeated* the fascists, remember -- ?
In the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943),[18][19][20][21] Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia. Marked by fierce close-quarters combat and direct assaults on civilians in air raids, it is one of the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare, with an estimated 2 million total casualties.[22] After their defeat at Stalingrad, the German High Command had to withdraw considerable military forces from the Western Front to replace their losses.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
---
Local Localist wrote:
Well, I hope this doesn't undermine my point too much, but I'm actually very young. Perhaps people with properly developed views tend not to be idealistic enough for such endeavours.
I think some people are just more *careful* with the subject matter, than others.