Fascism was a failure under Franco. he was forced to loosen regulations and allow more free market. Hitler's economic success was also mainly based on ramping up military industry, and defaulting on debts. but i doubt u know much about Hitler's economic policies.
Franco never fully loosened up the economy to free market economy. A large part of Franco's successes, are obvious, and contrary to yours. 1.) Opening up to the West for business. 2.) Renovating tourist attractions 3.) Building up Spanish cars, and having Spaniards buy them only. 4.) Building up the infrastructure.
Totalitarianism isn't unique to Fascism either. Totalitarianism is found in all Communist regimes. Capitalists can be totalitarians too look at Pinochet as an example. But, speaking of Pinochet yes he created the Miracle of Chile, sure that's impressive using the economic styles of the Chicago boys like Milton Friedman. Even so, Spain did much better during the Spanish miracle under Franco. So, Franco saw faster economic growth, than Pinochet did using expert Capitalist economic advise from some of the best economists in the World. I don't think this is any kind of coincidence. Might I point out, that Spain isn't doing so well under Capitalism today.
The most unique feature of Fascism is that businesses are controlled by the government using Cartels, or Councils to benefit national interest. What leftists say about things like racism, totalitarianism, or militarism being the most unique features of Fascism is grade A bull plop. Racism policies were not found in early Mussolini's Fascist Italy, however at the same time Capitalist America had racial segregation. (Oh the irony) Totalitarianism, and militarism aren't unique to Fascism either.
Fascist style economics seems to have better success than Capitalist style economies. Capitalism has failed in Africa, Latin America, South Asia, and so forth. Fascist style economics succeeded in Franco's Spain, Peron's Argentina, Nazi Germany, and today in China. Yes, I consider today's China as somewhat Fascist leaning, they do have a government intervention in the economy, much like the Fascists did. I mean about the only so-so Fascist style economy was Mussolini. Now, I'm not denying that some very Capitalist regimes have been very successful, including the U.S.A, Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Ireland etc. However, when we look at proportions, it seems Capitalism has failed more on the whole, than Fascist style economies, we see this all across Africa, Latin America, South Asia etc.
I think Fascist style economics happen to have the best approach. Capitalists = sit back everything will sort it's self out. Communists = control everything until there's no incentive, nor real driven economy. Fascism IMO is a happy economic median.
No, its a very informed conclusion to make. he doesn't fit the definition of the term, so he isn't a Fascist. Trump being potentially dangerous doesn't excuse the misuse of the term Fascism. In fact, it demands that people describe him in accurate terms. To do otherwise undermines any argument against him. Um, no. That is 100% incorrect. Anyone can be a Fascist if they adopt the ideology. Very few of them have any power. You need to do a bit of reading on the political & constitutional differences between Weimar Germany & modern America. Take your time. The detail is VERY important. Clearly you lack that understanding currently, so I'll leave you to your studies. No rush. - - - Updated - - - Throwing around terms like 'Communist' and 'Fascist' are also what Conservatives do when they can't articulate anything more than one word insults & regurgitated checklists. if you are after moral high ground here you won't find it.
You need to do some research. Mussolini ran Italy for about 20 years. Even before he became a dictator he had invaded one of his neighbours & shelled civilian areas. During his time as dictator he: *Invaded Ethiopia. Between 1935 & 1941 about 750,000 Ethiopians died as a result of the invasion & occupation. This doesn't include Eritrean & Ethiopian conscripts who died in Italian service in 1940-1941 - at least 10,000. *Invaded Albania. The ultimate result of the 5 year occupation was at least 30,000 dead, at least 100,000 homeless and the widespread devastation of Albania. *Invaded Greece. Italy dragged Greece in to WW2, a conflict which saw over 400,000 Greeks die. * Tens of thousands of civilians killed as a result of war or reprisal killings in Libya during WW2 (I've seen figures close to 100,000, but don't trust them) including thousands of Jews killed by German troops who were only there because of a failed Italian attack on British territory. * Invaded France & the British Empire. This resulted in a small loss of life to the French & a somewhat larger one to the British. However, the real damage was to Italy. By choosing to enter WW2 Mussolini got over 500,000 of his own people killed, caused a civil war & widespread devastation in Italy & wrecked everything he had achieved (such as it was). The British Empire did some terrible things, but it also left a fine legacy in many places. Mussolini left some second rate art deco buildings & a few decent roads in Ethiopia. The Gondar post office isn't that impressive, and Wolchefit pass isn't worth 750,000 Ethiopian lives.
Anybody who wants to model his or her world according to preference of certain ethnic population is a fascist! Thus, if Donald Trump wants an America without Muslims he is, without a doubt, a fascist and white racist supremist.
There is no equivalence, and I think you know it. Here we have a thread based on fabrications, namely 1. A "Dr. Britt" supposedly a respected academic somewhere in the social sciences conducting research on fascism, but that person doesn't exist, merely a retired man writing fiction. 2. An application of "Dr. Britt's" work to pretty much every Republican. In fact, #1 on the "fascist list" should be "has an (R) after one's name." Few of the nonleft posters to this forum would repeat such, make a thread on such, MANY LW posters would and they do daily. Now, people post legitimate differences of opinion here daily, but people also repeat complete fabricated garbage such as this OP daily here too, sometimes several times a day, and odds are very heavily stacked that those people are of the LW. In fact, one side -constantly- posts lists, stats, polls, claims, platitudes, memes, etc., based on nothing at all, the most extreme and obvious cherrypicking, distortions, often obviously so, and the other side does this much less frequently. Moreover, if you think that the RW tosses labels to the extent the left does here on PF (or pretty much anywhere) we are living in different dimensions. To be more specific, while the RW does use labels (Marxist, SJW, Feminist, etc.) its labels have -some- concrete application, connotative/denotative usefulness and consistency generally. Not so the LW. "Fascist" doesn't really mean anything outside a few historical datapoints, yet we are told the fascists are marching through the GOP and roughshod over the people daily by the LW. And here we have the nth thread on "US Fascism" an utter absurdity. The RW seems to engage in such absurdities mostly as backlash to LW hyperbole, and is relatively coherent and consistent otherwise. "Racist," "misogynist," "homophobe," "red state," etc., etc., and all the vast web of distortions and sociological claims that make up the LW, "glass ceiling," "wage gap," etc., heavily emotionalized, sentimental, airy abstractions when compared to the RW. When the RW tosses its labels, there is at least some basis of concreteness in them. Not so the effeminate, hyperbolic, abstract LW. This is because the RW still engages in mostly -policy arguments- while the LW almost never does, preferring what amounts to -advertisements- and placard slogans instead. No, there is no equivalence, not by a long shot.
Seems like British Empire Capitalists are the crown champions of brutality. http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150716/1024692024.html#ixzz4BenlMlGW Citing Australian biochemist Dr. Gideon Polya, Simha underscored that the Bengal Famine was a "manmade holocaust" directly caused by UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill's policies. "Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942, but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh," the foreign affairs analyst narrated in his article "Remembering India's Forgotten Holocaust" in 2014. Just in a year, the manmade famine had claimed the lives of over 3 million Indians. The Famine in India: Natives Waiting for Relief at Bangalore © WIKIPEDIA/ ADAM63 The Famine in India: Natives Waiting for Relief at Bangalore "Winston Churchill was just the last of the many murderous despots who presided over India's fate during the over 200 years of British rule. He said, "I hate Indians. They are beastly people with a beastly religion"," Simha told Sputnik. Can We Classify the Bengal Famine as Genocide? British Moazzam Begg leaves Belmarsh Prison in south London, after his release, Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014 © AP PHOTO/ LEFTERIS PITARAKIS UK Was Always Aware of CIA Torture Practices: Former Guantanamo Detainee Can we classify the Bengal Famine as genocide? Genocide is a systematic killing of a people in great numbers and Churchill intentionally, and with open malice towards Indians, diverted grain from India to Europe, the analyst pointed out. He added that even when desperate pleas came from the administration in Bengal, Churchill refused to dispatch emergency food supplies. The UK prime minister even went so far as to blame Indians for the famine, saying that they "breed like rabbits." "When the British representatives in India asked Churchill to stop diverting Indian food grains to Europe and to supply India with wheat from Australia, he replied: "If there is famine in India, then why is Gandhi still alive?"" the analyst remarked bitterly. The Bengal Famine happened despite India being a food-surplus country with a bumper harvest that year, he stressed. And that had not been the first time when the British rulers facilitated food shortages in India. Simha stressed that during over 200 years of British rule, India saw at least two dozen major famines, which collectively killed 60 million people. The journalist added that the figure is based on numbers collated by British officials and economists and in reality it is significantly higher.
Why would anyone believe government bureaucrats could run the entire economy and marketplaces and production and transportation systems better than the private citizens is beyond me.
Except we know of what we speak. What would you have called Obama and his GM/Chrysler bailout more of, a capitalistic move or a fascist move?
Because it's a great thing that jobs are being outsourced, and illegal immigrants imported by the Capitalists at the expense of the American working classes. Fascism simply wouldn't tolerate this kind of nonsense. But, Capitalism sure does, because Capitalism is about greed even if that greed ruins their own nation.
Germany was pretty nasty during WW1 too. Look at how Germans were killing people with poison gases in WW1. I attribute this more as a symptom of being German, rather than of being Fascist. Germans have a long history of barbarity, they also killed a lot in the 30 year war too.
Not a word about Mussolini, and you quote professional idiot and anti-British bigot Gideon Polya into the bargain. I'll take that as a concession that you were wrong.
Yes, I'm living in the dimension where I pay careful attention to what actually happens. I got to watch idiot left wingers call Bush a 'Fascist' for 8 years, then I got to watch idiot right wingers call Obama a 'Communist' (and occasionally Fascist - see Bluesguy below) for almost 8 years. The output is similar in every way - volume, frequency & intellectual shallowness. All are drawn from the 'internet checklist' school of history/political science beloved of the intellectually lazy & the politically brainwashed. In fact, American Conservatives have a special trick whereby they completely re-write history and politics to make Fascism 'left wing'. Something only possible by completely ignoring the entire modern history of Europe. Yes there is. If you can't see that then perhaps you need to unclog that filter.
Capitalistic for sure, assuming you treat Capitalism as an actual thing (which it is) rather than some abstract theoretical concept (which people pretend it is when it suits their argument). Capitalists invest vast amounts of time, money & effort in getting government to create the conditions that suit them best. That ranges from specific legislation & bailouts all the way to backing dictatorships or demanding government 'get out of the way'. Whatever suits their business best. Being saved by the government suited GM & Chrysler just fine, as it suited Wall St. Capitalism is about outcomes, not process. Fascism is a complete system. Pulling out a single economic decision & trying to suggest it is 'Fascist like' is the equivalent of pointing to Eisenhower's highway building or Reagan's invasion of Grenada as 'Fascist like'.
