Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks
This was my point exactly. The term is thrown around so much these days, I usually don't have a clue what someone means by it unless I ask for qualification.
There may be things I'd add, but I don't know if there would be any point. I could add things, but then it would just be my definition, rather than Webster's definition, and I am by no means an expert on fascism or an expert on what the term most accurately means in the politics of today. I have a fair understanding of what it meant back in WW2, but its meaning back then has been diluted. Words evolve and take on new meaning and historians argue over ideology - nothing wrong with that but I'm not really enough of an authority to take part in that.
I'll bite though - why wouldn't you apply your definition to the Soviet Union? Would you agree that it was a dictatorship? If not, why not? Do you agree that it was a government based on classism (e.g. bourgeoisie/proletariat)? If not, why not?
|
Not what I meant on classism. They were trying to eliminate class all together rather than perpetuate it. That being the whole idea behind communism. I'm not sure how race plays a part in that movement either.
That's not really true about the definition in WW2 either. The original Antifa considered democratic socialism and liberals to be fascist. Actually, they kind of considered anything that wasn't communism to be fascist.