Fascism is not socialism.
Do you read the posts your reply to? I made a clear distinction between fascism and socialism.
As for Britt's definition, much of it is accurate in terms of the political nature of fascist regimes, I was addressing the economic aspect. But it doesn't really define fascism, or break out fascist tendencies very well, since most of these points are common to most types of totalitarian regimes, and many regimes that are neither fascist nor totalitarian.
Some of the problems with it.
Religion and ruling elite tied together.
This is an aspect of some fascist regimes, but not all of them, and certainly isn't an inherent part of fascism, still less is it an indicator of fascism. Hitler often expressed distaste for religious organizations. Fascist countries in general did try to co-opt religion, but this was part of their general interest to co-opt every force in their country that wasn't identified as an enemy or otherwise vilified. Also they are hardly alone in this, even Stalin pushed religion the Russian Orthodox Church as a patriotic institution during WWII (after previously persecuting and purging it), and certainly many non totalitarian governments identify themselves with one religion or another.
Power of corporations protected.
"Protected" in the sense that you would put your draft horse in a barn, rather than have him exposed to the elements. The corporations where to line up in service of the state. If they did that there owners and executives might do well for themselves, but the interests of the state where paramount.
Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Frequently its disdain and suppression of the arts and intellectual ideas that don't line up in support of the regime. To a large extent its a co-opting of the arts more than a suppression, although to be sure any artist or intellectual pushing any idea the state doesn't like, or in any way presenting himself in even mild opposition to the state would be suppressed as would the intellectual and artistic diversity. Instead of being diverse and rich the artistic and intellectual culture would be co-opted and to a greater or lesser extent commanded.
Rampant cronyism and corruption.
No more so than many socialist or communist regimes, or other authoritarian regimes.
And then of course your idea, and Britt's is that these conditions exist in the US to an extensive degree is simply false. |
