Wrong use of "Fascism"

[Tahuti]

Which historians might these be?

Among other people, that would include ancient aliens guy of course!

 

[Bugfatty300]

Mussolini clones would actually be a cool topic for a History Channel production.

 

[History_Buff]

In other news, America is a Republic, not some filthy Democracy, amirite guyz?

 

[Dachs]

Mussolini clones would actually be a cool topic for a History Channel production.

italian tapic ?

 

[Leoreth]

In other news, America is a Republic, not some filthy Democracy, amirite guyz?

That bugs me at least 100 times more than any misuse of the word fascism.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

That bugs me at least 100 times more than any misuse of the word fascism.

Yes, since ALL governments are dictatorships (c.f. Marx ) -- people are led to believe America is a republic, when we are, in fact, a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, and not at all a democracy.

 

[warpus]

It is democratic in nature though - corporations and lobbyist groups are able to vote on legislation by donating large sums of money to elected officials.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Exactly.

 

[History_Buff]

America is both a Republic and a Democracy. My point is that it can be both, any argument over which one it is is pointless semantics, and at least as stupid as this argument.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

America is both a Republic and a Democracy. My point is that it can be both, any argument over which one it is is pointless semantics, and at least as stupid as this argument.

A fascist democratic republic, yes, with a touch of Bismarck. Regardless of what it looks like, We The People still do not choose the issues to be voted on.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Fascist democratic republic". Hm.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

With a touch of Bismarck, yes.

 

[Camikaze]

Which historians might these be?

Can't remember any names (which does wonders for my argument), but then I don't suppose many reputable historians fall into the trap, or they probably wouldn't be very reputable. My point is more meant to be that it's a trap that exists when discussing the definition, or when bringing the definition into a discussion, rather than that the current historical discourse on the issue is deeply flawed. Perhaps should replace 'often' with 'sometimes'.

Well, first, semantic knowledge is a kind of knowledge rather by definition, and second, definition applies to concepts as much as it does to words, or we'd have no conceptual framework to speak of. So I'm not really sure what your actual objection is?

The word is the shorthand for the concept; there are regimes with characteristics A, B & C, and we label that phenomenon 'fascism'. Someone else might think that 'fascism' instead refers to the phenomenon characterised by A, B, C & D, but if they are simply making a point in relation to regimes that fit that definition, it's missing it to instead focus on whether their terminology is correct. Okay, so you might prove that the regimes they're talking about shouldn't be labelled 'fascist', but beyond concluding you should name them something else, what does that say in relation to the point being made about regimes sharing characteristics A, B, C & D? It's a distractor.

I wouldn't refer call what I'm saying an 'objection', so much as a drive-by random musing.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

In my biz, if you use a term, you define it. Hence, my definition. Two cardiologists talking to each other had better know the difference between the jugular vein and the aorta, you know?

 

[Borachio]

One cardiologist says to another "I think we aorta talk in a jugular vein from now on."

No. No. Forget I spoke.

 

[Traitorfish]

With a touch of Bismarck, yes.

That really doesn't help clarify things.

The word is the shorthand for the concept; there are regimes with characteristics A, B & C, and we label that phenomenon 'fascism'. Someone else might think that 'fascism' instead refers to the phenomenon characterised by A, B, C & D, but if they are simply making a point in relation to regimes that fit that definition, it's missing it to instead focus on whether their terminology is correct. Okay, so you might prove that the regimes they're talking about shouldn't be labelled 'fascist', but beyond concluding you should name them something else, what does that say in relation to the point being made about regimes sharing characteristics A, B, C & D? It's a distractor.

I wouldn't refer call what I'm saying an 'objection', so much as a drive-by random musing.

What gave you the impression that scholars are debating the use of the word, and not the application of the concept? Most of what I've read suggests that the concern is very much for the latter.

 

[Traitorfish]

[double post]

 

[bhsup]

That really doesn't help clarify things.

It's a city in North Dakota. Really, it makes perfect sense if you think about it. North Dakota borders South Dakota. Mount Rushmore is in South Dakota. Fascism is required before you can build Mount Rushmore.

 

[Camikaze]

@TF - that's good. What gave me the impression was that a lot of what I've read suggests the opposite. I imagine what you've read on the subject outweighs what I've read on the subject, but see above my reply to Dachs, specifically the bit about replacing 'often' with 'sometimes'. Though to be honest, I'm quite happy to be bargained down to "this is a trap people could conceivably fall into".

 

[Borachio]

It's a city in North Dakota. Really, it makes perfect sense if you think about it. North Dakota borders South Dakota. Mount Rushmore is in South Dakota. Fascism is required before you can build Mount Rushmore.

Fascism is a city in North Dakota? Possible, I suppose. Bit of a strange name for a place, though.