It isn't about saying the words individual liberty, it is about policies of individual liberty. When the government stays out of people's lives, that cannot be fascism, because fascism is by definition a collectivist system in which the state is paramount and the people have no individual liberty. When the government doesn't take control of industry, that cannot be fascism, because fascism says everything is within the state, which means state control of industry. If the government doesn't attempt to disarm the people, that cannot be fascism, because fascist governments have strict control over the populace, they don't allow them to be armed. You keep saying that there is an issue with describing authoritarianism when defining fascism, but don't seem to understand that fascism requires authoritarianism. Libertarianism is anti-authoritarian. They aren't my definitions, they are the definitions. No, that's fascism. Mussolini isn't really radical right. Fascism is a "third way". Like communism, it is collectivist. It isn't a system of free enterprise and individual rights, that is liberalism, or even further along that spectrum, libertarianism. I gave you a 10 page document on what fascism is. It is not just authoritarianism, but it is certainly that as well. I did address the ideological component. There is no similarity between fascism and libertarianism, they are polar opposites. Just like libertarianism and communism are polar opposites. A collectivist, authoritarian ideology is wholly incompatible with libertarianism. Even the article you posted agrees with that. Maybe you didn't read it, but it acknowledges that libertarianism is not fascism. It suggests that libertarians who become disillusioned with their own economic failures can turn to fascism (though the only reasoning they give is that neither supports "egalitarianism" in economics, by which they don't really mean egalitarianism (egalitarianism is libertarianism, everyone has equal rights and opportunities, the government doesn't play favorites or pick winners), they mean redistribution to create equal outcomes. The author also makes most of his arguments not against libertarians, but against a new group he calls neolibertarians, although he doesn't maintain this distinction and frequently reverts to calling this new group libertarians. This group complains about foreign workers laboring for lower wages than native workers will accept, among other things. The author also conflates general conservatives like Reagan with fascism, so it isn't too surprising he is so loosey-goosey with his terminology. Essentially he thinks populism is good if it is associated with communism/socialism, but bad when associated with conservatism, and somehow attributes conservative populism to libertarians (who are not at all conservative populists). I don't know why you would want anyone to read that, it is embarrassing to associate yourself with it.
All those words and not a iota of a conversation about intent motivations etc. The reason why American branded libertarians often turn to fascism is precisely because American libertarians usually are at the top of the social and economic hierarchy. They almost all own property. They mostly are small business owners to venture capitalists. When economic wealth divide become drastic enough where a bunch of workers are wanting to organize and limit private property rights, those libertarians become scared that there is a economic class at the bottom that wants to change the hierarchy. You want to pretend there is this principled version of American Libertarianism when in reality it's just narcissists looking out for their self interest and will go to extremes when they feel their is a large class of people wanting to upend the current hierarchy. American Libertarians waxing lyrical about individual liberty has "founding fathers waxing lyrical about freedom while owning an army of slaves" energy. It's vapid. It's purely self interest motivated. Again a bunch of Panglosses. You have to resolve the fact that almost all humans inherently want "individual liberty".
I'm not projecting. I'm making an observation about how someone dedicated a decade of their life on a Rocket fan message board b****ing about Muslims and trans people.
A. She never calls for a ban B. Censorship isn't fascism anyway. If it were DeSantis would be a fascist on that alone.
I would say censorship is a tool used by fascists. It's also a tool used by authoritarian neo-liberals, authoritarian communists etc. Basically it's a tool used by groups under the entire umbrella of the nebulous term "authoritarianism".
People can wax on and on about the political roots of fascism, but ultimately, in both instances of its birth in Germany and Italy, it formed out of a desire to overthrow the status quo and targeted leftist socialists as the real enemy and cause for the countries failures, as well as other fringe groups that were easy to attack and villainize. In Germany especially. conservatives were well aware that the Nazi party sought to overthrow the establishment but felt that their common political cause of defeating the leftist socialists was cause for an alliance. Where does this sound familiar?
The majority of landowners and business owners in those countries, which side did they chose? Surely not the "socialist" party.
None of the woman I have been with have had any problem with facism. For a better sample size, consult @Jontro
I've skimmed through this thread and I largely agree with this. Fascism as other posters have noted is about centralized power of the state through with a focus on an individual leader. What differentiates it from other authoritarian leaders is it's focus on Nationalism and "traditional" values. Generally with a very strong "law and order" bent to it's rhetoric. If you look at what are considered the most often cited examples of Fascist states (Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile) those all follow that pattern. If you compare that to Mao's PRC or NK under the Kim's those were authoritarian states with strong focus on the leader but specifically against traditional values and in Mao's case against Nationalism. What is interesting about he PRC is that under Xi it is morphing into a more of Fascist state than a revolutionary Leftist state. Under those definitions Libertarianism is very Anti Fascist (yes I mean that). As it ideally it's against strong central government control, against traditional values, and against Nationalism. For example Liberatariansm would say that the government has little interference in the role of business while a Fascist would say that business should serve the government interests, that things like recreational drugs should be legalized with individuals free to decide whether to take them while a Fascist would say drugs are harmful to moral and physical health, and a Libertarian would say that there is no individual duty or loyalty to the state while a Fascist would say the opposite. That many self-declared Libertarians have seemingly embraced some aspects of Fascism or might be on the path to Fascism has to do with that Libertarianism is a Utopian system that has problems when faced with the reality of human nature and the odd combination in the US of business interests being tied with tradititional and religious and nationalistic movements. In many ways these aren't compatible and it's why we see so much contradiction within the what passes for the Conservative movement such as the party of business going after private businesses when they don't agree with their social agenda. The party of Law and Order supporting rioters and criminals when they act out of their belief in Nationalism and loyalty to the leadership.
Also just to note a frequent problem with these terms. Socialism is primarily an economic system. You can have an authoritarian Socialist state and a Democratic Socialist state. That it's been used a catchall by many on the Right for "what I disagree with" and that many on the Left have used to advocate revolutionary change to traditional mores and social justice is a disservice to the term. Fascism is a governing and social system. That is why Nazism is "National Socialism" because under the Nazi government the state does own or at least has a heavy control of the means of production centralized control is justified on Nationalism and the power of the leader. Communism is ideally an anarchic society where the state doesn't exist but all control the means of production collectively. There is no centralized leadership. Other than in very small societies this has never really existed for large states. One of the big problems with our debates is that depending on where you are on the ideological spectrum these terms get used interchangebly and basically get conflated with "what I don't like."
So it isn't that libertarianism is fascism, it is that you have a made up story in your head that in some possible future there will be a communist revolution and that the libertarians will abandon their principles and turn to fascism to oppose this revolution. LOL. I'm sorry your fantasy involves people that are opposed to government control magically switching to an authoritarian government. Not being a communist is insufficient to declare someone a fascist, sorry. But chowderhead said that fascism was explicitly about not overthrowing the status quo and was instead only about the maintenance of existing hierarchies, generally in the face of the scary poors.
Mussolini and Hitler hated leftists. They blamed their county's failures on the left. That's the reality whether you want to believe it or not.
I'm not responsible for the words of other posters. Fascism is all about overthrowing the current system for one that radically reshapes the power structure towards a single individual on the guise it is what's best for restoring pride to the nation. Make Italy Great Again Make Germany Great Again. That kind of stuff
I know, I was just teasing our communist brother. I would say that is a necessary but not sufficient aspect of fascism. It isn't enough that there is regime change resulting in a dictator who say he is doing what's best for restoring pride to the nation. That would include things like the USSR, Cuba, Maoist China, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Libya, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Fascism also requires that the State is central and above all else. The Ayatollah overthrew the current system for one that radically reshaped the power structure toward a single individual with the promise that it was what was best for restoring pride to the nation, except it was through the lens of Islam and generated a Muslim theocracy. Mao did the same thing, but it was to establish a nation of peasant farmers who would all work together to uplift the Chinese people to a Communist utopia. The key to fascism is that it is about the primacy of the state, to which all other things are subordinate. In Iran, Allah was above the state. In China, the people were above the state. In fascism, the church, the people, the economy, everything is subordinate to and for the advancement of the state.
Mao’s vision of China was about overturning history and defeating traditional elites. He saw the PRC as a vanguard of revolution throughout humanity and to be exported. He created an authoritarian state but not a Fascist state like Mussolini, Hitler or Franco.
Yup - I agree. I am only speaking to one specific pillar of fascism, but yes it's about primacy of the state, an individual leader who is cult of personality, and extreme nationalism.
