Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

incka · May 17, 2005, 03:58 pm

One problem I find in political debates is that the meaning of terms are not often shared between the debators, one that seems to come up often in debates I take part in is the meaning of Fascism. In my opinion their are three possible meanings for the word, as follows:

- Plutocracy. Rule by the wealthy. As Mussolini is quoted as saying, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". If fascism is defined in this sence, the world has many extremly fascist nations, one of the most fascist being South Korea, and all capitalist countries to some extent would be fascist, an obvious example being the U.S. of A.

- Totalitarianism. Extremly authoritarian rule. Rather like the states of Orwell's 1984, North Korea, the former CCCP, many countries the USA supported in the third world, etc.

- Nazism. Extreme racism, nationalism, expansionist foreign policy, basically refering only to groups who associate with Nazi Germany.

I personally use the word to mean Plutocracy, however this might be just because I can use it to criticize the U.S. of A.

What do you think the word should be used to describe, or do you have your own opinions about the use of the word other than the three I pointed out above?

G. Adams · May 17, 2005, 04:53 pm

I'd argue on your conception of totalitarianism, but only in that it doesn't quite capture the whole picture. An authoritarian regime requires the obediance of the citizens/subjects to it's laws. However, the state usually leaves people alone along as they don't get in the way. A totalitarian state goes further, it forces it's populace to actively support it, because it's end goals are not just to rule, but to change the consciousness of it's citizens.

Fascism is not plutocracy, although I do see the paralels. The difference is that the corporations are, in the end, enthralled to the state under fascism. under plutocracy, it is simply rule by the wealthy, which can occur within, and often does, a weak state.

If we have to boil down nazism to a few words, I don't think your definition is bad, but I don't think we can give a proper idea, especially if we are going to make comparisons, on such a minimal outline.

castille · May 17, 2005, 11:12 pm

Nazism is difficult to define. Do we take Adolf Hitler's theoritical explaination of Nazism, or do we take the reality of the Nazi government? As with communism, theory and practice of Nazism differed very widely.

Under the Nazi state, while Hitler denounced corporations and industrialists, he also secretly recognised that Germany would weaken without their assistance, so he made compromises. But I think Hitler's vision would have preferred state control of production.

rmnunez · May 22, 2005, 02:53 am

I'd always thought the corporate notion in fascism related to an organic conception of the state and its citizens so that the term "corporate" refers to "body" this being (in properly infused and good fascist subjects) the entire nation. Corporatist fascism in the latin tradition involved active decision-making participation by all elements of society in advancing the health, safety and welfare of the nation. The head of state will determine which counsel to heed most, but all groups are supposed to be on the board. Fascism is attractive to a plutocracy because it advances cherished plutocratic principles (private property, heritability and fiscal ease) but its not about advancing corporate interests in the business sense.

May 17, 2005, 03:58 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
incka Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	Fascism: Plutocracy or Nazism? One problem I find in political debates is that the meaning of terms are not often shared between the debators, one that seems to come up often in debates I take part in is the meaning of Fascism. In my opinion their are three possible meanings for the word, as follows: - Plutocracy. Rule by the wealthy. As Mussolini is quoted as saying, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". If fascism is defined in this sence, the world has many extremly fascist nations, one of the most fascist being South Korea, and all capitalist countries to some extent would be fascist, an obvious example being the U.S. of A. - Totalitarianism. Extremly authoritarian rule. Rather like the states of Orwell's 1984, North Korea, the former CCCP, many countries the USA supported in the third world, etc. - Nazism. Extreme racism, nationalism, expansionist foreign policy, basically refering only to groups who associate with Nazi Germany. I personally use the word to mean Plutocracy, however this might be just because I can use it to criticize the U.S. of A. What do you think the word should be used to describe, or do you have your own opinions about the use of the word other than the three I pointed out above?

May 17, 2005, 04:53 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	I'd argue on your conception of totalitarianism, but only in that it doesn't quite capture the whole picture. An authoritarian regime requires the obediance of the citizens/subjects to it's laws. However, the state usually leaves people alone along as they don't get in the way. A totalitarian state goes further, it forces it's populace to actively support it, because it's end goals are not just to rule, but to change the consciousness of it's citizens. Fascism is not plutocracy, although I do see the paralels. The difference is that the corporations are, in the end, enthralled to the state under fascism. under plutocracy, it is simply rule by the wealthy, which can occur within, and often does, a weak state. If we have to boil down nazism to a few words, I don't think your definition is bad, but I don't think we can give a proper idea, especially if we are going to make comparisons, on such a minimal outline. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

May 17, 2005, 11:12 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Nazism is difficult to define. Do we take Adolf Hitler's theoritical explaination of Nazism, or do we take the reality of the Nazi government? As with communism, theory and practice of Nazism differed very widely. Under the Nazi state, while Hitler denounced corporations and industrialists, he also secretly recognised that Germany would weaken without their assistance, so he made compromises. But I think Hitler's vision would have preferred state control of production. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

May 22, 2005, 02:53 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	I'd always thought the corporate notion in fascism related to an organic conception of the state and its citizens so that the term "corporate" refers to "body" this being (in properly infused and good fascist subjects) the entire nation. Corporatist fascism in the latin tradition involved active decision-making participation by all elements of society in advancing the health, safety and welfare of the nation. The head of state will determine which counsel to heed most, but all groups are supposed to be on the board. Fascism is attractive to a plutocracy because it advances cherished plutocratic principles (private property, heritability and fiscal ease) but its not about advancing corporate interests in the business sense.