NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion, are these two ideologies the same? And if not, would you consider Fascism to be a legitimate form of government? Please give your opinions, and supporting arguments if it so pleases you. :)

My understanding is that Fascism involves a high degree of nationalism and militarism, and state control of the nation.

Nazism includes all of Fascism, but adds the racial ideas of Hitler into the mix.

Fascism, like any form of government, could be legitimate. However, Fascism rarely seems to have much interest in anything other than massive conquest for the glory of the state and the beloved leader.

My understanding is that Fascism involves a high degree of nationalism and militarism, and state control of the nation.

Nazism includes all of Fascism, but adds the racial ideas of Hitler into the mix.

Fascism, like any form of government, could be legitimate. However, Fascism rarely seems to have much interest in anything other than massive conquest for the glory of the state and the beloved leader.

Well, Franco's Spain was a Fascist state for several decades. Spain joined NATO as a Fascist state, and never embarked upon any wars of conquest.

Fascism was created by Mussolini, Nazism by Hitler.

In Nazism the goal is the domination of the perfect Aryan race and the elimination of of lesser races. The state is a means to this end. The government is made absolutely powerful so it can most efficiently achieve racial purity.

In Fascism the state is the be all and end all. The state is the highest ideal a human can work towards and should be involved in every aspect of a person's life. The expansion of the state is the main objective.

So in Nazism the state is a means, in Fascism the state is the ends.

So yes they are different.

Nazism just builds on the ideals of fascism and sadly can work as a government style but only through lies, brainwashing and the exploitation of the few. Any government that has to resort to this can not be a legitimate from of government.

Nazism just builds on the ideals of fascism and sadly can work as a government style but only through lies, brainwashing and the exploitation of the few. Any government that has to resort to this can not be a legitimate from of government.

Funny, from what I understand, the American government has been employing these tactics for years...

Funny, from what I understand, the American government has been employing these tactics for years...
:D

Fascism is based on Nietzsche's thinking, and it essentially rests on extreme militarism and nationalism, and on a superior race of human beings (the ubermensch) who rule the country and lead it into war. War is an important aspect of fascism, it used as a way of separating the weak from the strong.

Nazism is basically this, with an extended personality cult and a well-developed racial hierarchy, rather than the normal people and the ubermensch.

Good God man, Nietzsche WAS NOT A FACSICT OR NAZI. His idea of Ubermenchen was all about man over coming his failing though strength of will, it never once mentions anything about race. His Sister Who was a member of the Nazi party hijacked them for her own use. It was Mussolini who founded it the Italian fascist party being the first, and he only actively imposed his racial policies in the 30's to get in line with Hitler.

And To answer the proposed question

Fascism is literally a system of oligarchic government that believes in strict militarist rule (not necessarily racism Franco was a Fascist but had little to no racist policies)

Nazism, aka National Socialism, is an extreme form a militaristic socialism that believes in the expansion of countries power by force. HITLER DID NOT FOUND IT, it existed before him he merely assumed control of the Nazi party and then injected his racist policies into its doctrine

Fascism is based on Nietzsche's thinking, and it essentially rests on extreme militarism and nationalism, and on a superior race of human beings (the ubermensch) who rule the country and lead it into war. War is an important aspect of fascism, it used as a way of separating the weak from the strong.

Nazism is basically this, with an extended personality cult and a well-developed racial hierarchy, rather than the normal people and the ubermensch.

Well, I must humbly disagree. Nazism identifies more with the cult of the overman than does Fascism. And Nietzsche was more of an anarchist than an fascist, imho. War is not at all an important aspect of Fascism, perhaps of Mussolini's Fascism, but not of Fascism in the global context. Fascist programs very often emphasize the organic nation united under a peaceful and stable government functioning according to some variation of the "third position".

I don't agree, according to what I have read in texts from the early 19 hundreds it is as this.

In the end of the 18 hundreds thinking grew that we might refer to as national socialism, this was the first time the elements had been combined. As a national socialism has to be different from each group that applies it is ntural, nazism is simply the racistic, german national socialism.

In the meantime a new movment was born among italian anarchists/nihilists/nationalists, the Fasces movement. Untill Mussolini finally got a high position the fascists spoke for, nationalism, capitalism, militarism and a (for the time) very democratic society. The ideal of democracy was never strong though, and when Mussolini seized the movement he was a culmination on an authorian trend among the fascists. Fascism is thus authorian, capitalistic, militaristic and nationalistic, whilst nazism, or not even national socialism itself have any real relation with fascism and they do in the vital points differ.

Í think the reason to why the groups have been cooperating is that both Nazi-Germany and Fascist-Italy were hardcore militarists and nationalists with the rest of Europe against them, and todays cross-overs like the Terza Pozisione movement are eraising the differencies even more.

I hate the way National Socialism contains 'Socialism' in it. I find the two to be quite different, seeing as Socialism is anti nazi and all.
[/rant]

Socalism is one of the most poorly defined things in the world however, It is basically based on the idea of the many before the few, (no its not communism thats somthing else) Even Marx misused it claiming it was a mid staged between capatlism and communism, in fact its about 100 years older than him, come from pre revolutionary French political philospers such a Volitaire. Which could be argued it quite close to Neo-Socalism like that of Britians labour party. Though China considers it self socalist.

I hate the way National Socialism contains 'Socialism' in it. I find the two to be quite different, seeing as Socialism is anti nazi and all.
[/rant]
And nazism differs in some ways from national socialism (which differs from the original socialist movement). look at it this way. Nazism and national socialism aren't socialistic in the normal meaning. They are the mere edges of nationalism: A draconic Utopia for Us, you others, RAUS!

Socalism is one of the most poorly defined things in the world however, It is basically based on the idea of the many before the few, (no its not communism thats somthing else) Even Marx misused it claiming it was a mid staged between capatlism and communism, in fact its about 100 years older than him, come from pre revolutionary French political philospers such a Volitaire. Which could be argued it quite close to Neo-Socalism like that of Britians labour party. Though China considers it self socalist.

How is Socalism truly defined? I always thought it was just a liberal form of communism with a more open market.

Though China considers it self socalist.
China is socialist. Socialism is vague movement and did in it's birth cover basically all actions intending to raise peoples' need of society/ social ways to deal with peoples' needs.

Anything's "legitimate". Would you want to be ruled under it? Hell no.

Anything's "legitimate". Would you want to be ruled under it? Hell no.
That about sums it up I think

Lenin called socialism, "Bourgeoisie society without the bourgeoisie."

Hi Everyone!

It's good to see people here understand that there is a big difference between Fascism and Nazism.
Hitler was an a**hole no question about it. Mussolini however i view in a more positive light and I admit I admire what he did for Italy.
Most 'experts historians' agree that Mussolini certainly wasnt evil and that he made a HUGE mistake joining Hitler.

Also Austria was Fascist before the Nazis shot Englebert Dollfuss dead. Dollfuss was a Fascist not a Nazi and he tried to model Austria on Mussolinis Italy.

Even after 1938 when Mussolini enacted anti-semitic and rascist legislation these rules were often overlooked as the Fascists didnt really believe in Racist idelology. In fact Giovanni Gentile who was the leading philosopher and developed most of the Fascist ideology actually protected his Jewish Teachers and Jewish Fascist Comrades from persecution even though he put himself at considerable personal risk.

I wouldnt mind living under Fascist Rule provided it isnt run by Racists and anti-semites!

In your opinion, are these two ideologies the same? And if not, would you consider Fascism to be a legitimate form of government? Please give your opinions, and supporting arguments if it so pleases you. :)

NO. Nazism is/was a very specific form of fascism.

(( And I advocate the immediate extermination of all nazis on general principle, by the way. ))

Fascism, which is nothing more than "government by club" [as in "men's-club"], is a perfectly reasonable form of government.

BUT,.. anyone within the "power field" of the "clubbers" had better either be members of "the club", or be prepared to face some major probable persecution.

Therefore, if your real question is "Is fascism a GOOD or EVIL thing?", I'd say that it is no more good or evil than any other form of government, except that it is VERY sensitive to being perverted into behaving VERY badly.

Hi!
Fascism is a very legitimate form of government, and it's not the same as Nazism. Those who think it is the same are illinformed or uneducated. Hitler has forever distorted Mussolini's Fascism...
Fascism, when used properly like any ideal, can be the best for its' people. Mussolini did many wonderful things with Fascism for Italy, his only mistake was allying with the nutjob Hitler.
Mussolini rebuilt Rome, created swamps into lush agriculture, popularized sports like soccer in Italy, popularized the vespa (that small, cool looking motorbike you see mods sporting), reversed mass unemployment, made the trains run on time, created many new schools and social welfare programs, etc. As the British Fascist Oswald Mosley said, "Fascism is the synthesis of all great ideas."
There are vast misconceptions out there on Fascism. To learn more about us, join us in discussion at www.americanfascistmovement.com to discuss the virtues of Fascism and the unfortunate misinterpretations and misconceptions.

--Dan

The Sacred Toaster asked how Socialism is defined. I'll give you the definitions of the three major economic theories.

Capitalism is the ownership of the means of production by individuals.
Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers.
Communism is the ownership of the means of production by the people.

These are economic systems, and have little to do with the prevailing political system they operate within. As a libertarian socialist, I don't see national socialism as being socialist, because the nazis had a small capitalist class(bourgeousie owned restaurants, bars, little shops, etc.) and government run industry. During the war they allowed some entrepeneurs to operate industrially under supervision of the gov't(i.e. Shindler).

I wouldnt mind living under Fascist Rule provided it isnt run by Racists and anti-semites!
I know that Austria was fascist, but it deviated a bit from the classical movement, they even had it called Austro-fascism (it was a bit like the american neo-conservatism).

I would mind. The original fascist movement is one of the best ideologies ever constructed but has unfortnately never been proven effective (like the authorian has). What I can't stand with authorian and austro-fascism is the sense that the state isn't more right than the citizen, but that doesn't matter as the best thing is that the citizen mustl never notice it.
What I like with the original movement is the view on democracy and nationalism, the two can be combined (and probably without ignorance because of the nationalism). The fascism is actually refferring some national-socialistic ideals here, everyone is begged to feel patriotic and contribute to their society, everyone is to be a part of the society and the society stands up for it's citizens.

Original fascism would be hard to realise though, it requires that people actually share the ideals and it would be impossible to run a fascist party today with the meaning the word fascist has.

Those who know a thing or two about governments (hehe we're on nationstates!!) would know that nazism is fascist but it is not the same as fascism!

Original fascism would be hard to realise though, it requires that people actually share the ideals and it would be impossible to run a fascist party today with the meaning the word fascist has.

I disagree. I'm not sure where you live, but in many European countries Fascist parties are main stream and enjoy a large following, such as the Front Nationale in France, Sforza Nuova in Italy, the Spanish Falanga, and the Polish Liga Polskich Rodzin.

How is Socalism truly defined? I always thought it was just a liberal form of communism with a more open market.
No, socialism does not permit market freedom. Communism is where everything is communally owned (no private property) and there is no real government, only communes of workers where everybody is equal. In this way it is more liberal than socialism.

In socialism, everything is owned by the government, which heavily involves the workers in its management. Wealth is evenly distributed, ironing out inequalities. There is no private enterprise.

Both of these are really just economic systems. Socialism can exist under anything from dictatorship to democracy. A comunist commune may lack government, but it ay be socially conservative or socially libertarian.

Which could be argued it quite close to Neo-Socalism like that of Britians labour party.
Britain's Labour party are in no way socialist, neo or otherwise.

Funny, from what I understand, the American government has been employing these tactics for years...
Nearly all forms of big government rely on propaganda, sadly.

I disagree. I'm not sure where you live, but in many European countries Fascist parties are main stream and enjoy a large following, such as the Front Nationale in France, Sforza Nuova in Italy, the Spanish Falanga, and the Polish Liga Polskich Rodzin.
I wouldn't call the Front National a mainstream party. Sure, most French people who are at all interested in politics know who Le Pen is, but the FN doesn't have any parliament seats. The only time their candidates ever succeed is when voter turnout is so low that only the hardcore Nazis come out to the polls.

As regards the League of Polish families, I would agree that they're a mainstream fascist party. But this is Poland we're talking about. They make the American South look like the Netherlands (in terms of social liberalism).

(( And I advocate the immediate extermination of all nazis on general principle, by the way. ))
How does this make you any better than a Nazi?

Fascism is basically a political system where the state and nation is considered more important than the individual and should rule unhindered by democracy, human rights, etc. Nazism is a form of fascism where the emphasis is on race rather than simply the nation.

I hate the way National Socialism contains 'Socialism' in it. I find the two to be quite different, seeing as Socialism is anti nazi and all.
[/rant]


Hitler erased the unemplyment rate in Germany(Im sure this is also a goal for other socialists) He created a national highway or the "autoban"(an idea proposed only by the socialists in Weimer Germany, it was denounced by the conservitives) In his Germany people were not judged by their economical class(a socialist type of society) however they were judged by their race.Nevertheless rich men were drafted to war just the same as poor men(unlike in this country) So you see to some extent there is some socialism in the Nazi ideology(Nazis are socialists that have extreme love for their race and state)

Saying Nazism is Fascism is like saying Liberals and Stalinists are the same thing.

I wouldn't call the Front National a mainstream party. Sure, most French people who are at all interested in politics know who Le Pen is, but the FN doesn't have any parliament seats.

Have you ever been to an FN summer rally? I was at one where there over 10,000 people present. If that's not mainstream, then define mainstream.

The only time their candidates ever succeed is when voter turnout is so low that only the hardcore Nazis come out to the polls.

This statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

As regards the League of Polish families, I would agree that they're a mainstream fascist party. But this is Poland we're talking about. They make the American South look like the Netherlands (in terms of social liberalism).

What a very stereotypical comment. I challenge you to learn a little about Polish politics before you make such statements. The President is a socialist. The Premier and his government are socialists. And do you know who the main opposition is? Another party of different socialists.

The question is pointless. Doh!