Wrong use of "Fascism"

Notice how Falconiano us like totally nowhere on this thread? We have proven him right.

Bismarck is a battleship. You're thinking of Napoleon. No, that's a pastry.

Nevermind.

I stand by my definition of fascism. And we got it in the US.

Where is the Russian Tank Offensive when we need it?
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
In this analogy, your use of "fascism" would be like using the word "aorta" to refer to the sciatic nerve.

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.
 
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.
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?
 
And non-American Anglophones don't "misuse" fascist?

Of course they do, but I get the sense from his posts that he is pretty much the stereotypical anti-US Euro.

I believe words mean whatever a general consensus of a social group decides they mean. So if the general population decides fascism is going to be a synonym for dictatorship, then so be it. As peter grimes stated earlier: People change the meaning of words all the time. It doesn't mean those people are somehow uneducated or inferior, it just means they draw different conclusions and connections from those words than previous generations.
 
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?

#A: For real, Dachs, did you honestly think I was talking about you? You have much more self-confidence than that.

#B or C, lost count: I didn't make up a definition, I cited Dimitrov (you know, the guy who beat the fascists in their own courts) and his address as well as a clinical definition. But.... since wikipedia probably says something contrary, I doubt it'll get much play here.

#3: Really, do you think doctors just made up terms so they could talk about it, or do they use clinical terms so they could save lives.

Fifthly: Besides, in the real world, I do not come across as the "working class hero," in fact I am just another communist cadre in a sea of communist cadre in 40 year-old movement with folks still at it since The Beginning.

I'm just having fun here. :)

But thanks for the heads up, NERD!
;)
 
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 :D

Wait what.
 
Time to really bring it on:

Liberal_Fascism_%28cover%29.jpg
 
Yes, since ALL governments are dictatorships (c.f. Marx :groucho:) -- 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.
Yeah, that was totally what I was talking about.

"Fascist democratic republic". Hm.
"Democratic Republic" is always a helpful identifier for questionable regimes. Insert a "people's" into it just to be sure.

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.
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".

That's what Reindeer Thistle is abusing when he's proposing an internally consistent definition of "fascism" which he only really concocts to characterize things he dislikes as "really bad" to anyone who stands nearby and listens.

It's exactly this behavior that has rendered fascism a completely meaningless term and I can't blame scholars for giving up on trying to salvage the term and abandoning it outright.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.


The problem with labeling any government totalitarian, or absolutist, is that it's actually an impossible standard. No matter how much the people running the show would like it to be, they fall short in implementation.
 
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.
Okay, I hope he sees this.
 
Back
Top Bottom