This seems to work under the assumption that Richard Griffin's "Ideal type" Fascism definition is the only kind of model we can have, and we can only quibble about the features of that ideal type.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.
Fascism is a city in North Dakota? Possible, I suppose. Bit of a strange name for a place, though.
In this analogy, your use of "fascism" would be like using the word "aorta" to refer to the sciatic nerve.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?
In this analogy, your use of "fascism" would be like using the word "aorta" to refer to the sciatic nerve.
Okay, so the "working-class hero" garbage (there ought to be a version of Godwin's Law for that stuff) and hilariously off-target insinuations about me aside, you're basically saying that it's okay to make up definitions for words so long as at least one other person knows what you're talking about and uses that definition in the same way. Because, you know, SYNONYMS.No, it means two professionals engaged in a profession have accepted MEANING for terms of their profession.
Do you know what a "shoe" is?
Card dealers deal cards out of it in Atlantic City.
Runners put them on their feet.
Means different things in different contexts.
American Communist revolutionaries talking to each other have an accepted definition of "fascism" that is likely different from book-smart milennials posting from their college dorms.
Hence, why I defined it.
And non-American Anglophones don't "misuse" fascist?
Okay, so the "working-class hero" garbage (there ought to be a version of Godwin's Law for that stuff) and hilariously off-target insinuations about me aside, you're basically saying that it's okay to make up definitions for words so long as at least one other person knows what you're talking about and uses that definition in the same way. Because, you know, SYNONYMS.
You do understand how exploitable that is, right?
English native-speakers often have little time or ability to learn the correct etymology of foreign terms, so they replace it with their own (eg Tyrant, which just means one who rose to power in an illegal way, not one who is by definition cruel).
Iirc in Australia they even are too bored to keep using some English terms, and break them up to simpler English ones. For example an author is just called "a writer of books" (i guess in juxtaposition to a writer of airplanes) 1![]()
But thanks for the heads up, NERD!
![]()
Time to really bring it on:
![]()
Yeah, that was totally what I was talking about.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.
"Democratic Republic" is always a helpful identifier for questionable regimes. Insert a "people's" into it just to be sure."Fascist democratic republic". Hm.
I think what sparks the definition debate is the relationship between a scholarly definition of the term (any of them) and the interpretation of the general public which boils down to "something really bad".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.
Would you say that totalitarianism is a more useful term than fascism? It's not as vague but as you said, it has seen the same treatment of being over-applied to anything that needs to be portrayed in a negative light.
Good point, imo. Nicely Orwellian."Democratic Republic" is always a helpful identifier for questionable regimes. Insert a "people's" into it just to be sure.
Yeah, part of it is probably that people use it to mean "something that's really bad," or "dictatorship." But it also gets used to mean anything that could potentially be construed or slandered as totalitarian in concept, such that all attempts to manipulate people becomes "fascist totalitarianism" or some such thing. But the reality is, all people seek to change the minds of others, all ruling classes seek to establish their rule, legitimize it to others, and change the minds of people who oppose or would oppose them, and will use all available methods to do so. That's not a unique or a new thing, so defining that as Fascism is problematic, as it would include all societies that have ever existed. The Marxist Leninist caveat seems to be that Fascism is anti-communist, but that only modifies the statement to become "all societies, parties, or governments that are not communist," which is no less useful. I mean, there is a sliver of truth to it, in that the communists are seeking the abolition of the root of these forces as opposed to their perpetuation, but what matters to M-Ls is not intent but reality, so until their government succeeds in doing that, it would have to be categorized as Fascist as well, under their own definition.
Okay, I hope he sees this.I defer to Traitorfish on this one. If I remember correctly, he took issue in a very effective way with the concept of an extant totalitarian system.