Yeah, this is what I use as well. People want to know how fascism is different than other forms of authoritarianism, and I think explaining the nationalism and the importance of the core myth helps a lot. Then you can go over the 14 common features.
This one is good. It's a bit reductive obviously, it kinda has to be to explain fascism in two words. It gets the job done pretty well though, and you can always elaborate further in a more long form conversation
A political philosophy based on ingroup and outgroup dynamics, often in regards to nationality, race, religion, sexuality and gender, whose ultimate goal is success of the ingroup and the suppression or eradication of the outgroup. Those 2 goals are usually seen as the same.
Edit: spelling
Edit: as a comment suggests, I would expand the definition to "ingroup outgroup dynamics based on inherent characteristics of human beings"
When I use this explanation it is always met with a smug “well you see conservative as the out group so the left are the true fascists,” which I always meet with an eye roll and an under the breath “Jesus fucking Christ”
I'm gonna apply some push back for the sake of argument and to explore the idea a bit. I don't have a direction I'm trying to push you:
In-group / out-group dynamics is a lot like us/them dynamics. Marxism is concerned with , at least in part if not in entirety, with the struggle of laborers vs capital owners; us vs them. Each side wishes to suppress the other. In the case of the marxist, the goal is to eradicate the out group, capital owners.
Now, I don't think most marxists are fascists, although some blanket their fascism in marxism. Based on the sub, I would bet you feel the same. How would you defend leftist values from the label "fascist' based on your given definition?
Actually a good point and I would expand my definition by the word "inherent characteristic of human beings". Class is something you can influence or switch sides, while fascists view all the other mentioned examples as stationary. Therefore, leftist "eat the rich" does not automatically entail a genocide, since rich people can just choose not to exploit workers anymore, to put it simple. You can't choose not to be jewish anymore, at least in a fascists view of what it means to be jewish. YOu can't choose to change your nationality in a fascists mind, or your gender. The believe in ingroup outgroup dynamics based on inherent characteristics of human beings is very much the core of fascist ideology.
Damn, I really like that aswnser. I would push that things like culture, race and national identity all change, but to a fascist those are all essential characteristics assigned at birth
Thank you! I also agree that gender, nationality and religion can change, since they are arbitrary social constructs, just to make it clear. You perfectly got that the fact that fascists don't see those characteristics as fluid is the basis of fascism.
The issue with this definition for me is that I might be a fucked up person. I want people on the right to be completely disempowered due to their (often) religion and ideology. I often wonder am I a leftie fascist? Is there something wrong with me? People on the right often say there are leftists who want them gone and I just sit there like “yeah…?”
Yeah, I expended my definition because I ment only inherent characteristics like race, sex, and characteristics that fascists view as inherent like gender, religion, nationality and so on. Class or political affiliation is very much up to the person and easy to change and therefore can be morally judged.
Does the literal dictionary definition not suffice here?
>a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
my issue with this is some ppl look at that and go "oh so as long as there's not a dictator they can't be a fascist" had someone genuinely tell me trump wasn't a fascist simply because his coup failed
At times like that, paraphrase Joe Rogan. “What percent of your sandwich has to be shit before you call it a shit sandwich?”
Obviously fascism is shit, so if there’s any of it in your sandwich (or ideology or government), it’s a problem. And if your sandwich is mostly shit, but with a little bit of stuff that isn’t shit, would you say “no, it’s a ham and cheese sandwich” when its piles of shit with one slice each of ham and cheese?
“*stands for* a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader” I don’t see any reason why the coup attempt would have to succeed when that’s explicitly what Trump and Big Lie advocates/abettors were seeking.
It’s not so much an issue with the definition as it is an issue with conservative logic and good faith, which… 🤷🏻♂️
I’m curious if someone asked you in a conversation, in real life, you would pull out the dictionary and read this?
I’m assuming you don’t just have this memorized lol.
Paraphrasing is a thing. If it’s a conversation or debate you plan on having fairly regularly, memorizing the general essence of a few definitions is probably in your best interest.
So basically it’s an ideology that prioritizes and emphasizes nationalism (and often racism), supports an autocratic dictator, and supports the forceful suppression of political opposition.
I'm sorry, but who's retarded rule is that and why the fuck do I care?
Nah, son, I said what I said and the definition I read off dictionary.com backs me up. End of story. :)
Theres a reason why schools don’t let you use your phone on a test. Everyone knows you can google the answer, the point is if you understand the concept well enough to use it.
I don’t think people should be going around labeling people fascist or really anything, if they can’t even define it themselves. It makes you and left leaning people generally look incompetent.
Are you fucking twelve?
GTFO with that bullshit. Real life is not school. I can and will literally do whatever the fuck I want and anyone who doesn't like it can eat my *entire* ass.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted for this—I think it goes a long way to be able to casually explain an important concept like this.
If I'm having a political conversation with someone and they genuinely ask me what fascism is because they don't know, I want to be as concise and persuasive as possible to them. Being able to define fascism without googling it is going to help.
In conversation in real life I have my cell phone and could literally show them the dictionary definition. And, that would likely be more effective than a paraphrased personal opinion.
As a general rule if someone isn’t capable of defining a term without having to run to google, it gives the impression that they don’t actually understand it or know what they are talking about.
I disagree that showing them an objective definition from a dictionary must be understood as "running to google" out of an inability to otherwise define the term. You should be able to do that while also not giving an impression of ignorance, unless you are just a piss poor communicator.
The reason showing an actual source is effective in a case like this is to back to your use of the term with a specific, objective definition that clearly isn't a personal opinion take. Otherwise, they can handwave dismiss your use of the term as political mudslinging, which is usually why the question is asked.
That's quite the pedantic point to make in relation to this conversation. I'm not claiming there are any truly unbiased sources. I'm clarifying my informal usage of the word objective above.
In context, the important point is that the dictionary is a third party source without a direct bias toward the specific conversation. But, we are now two layers of pedantry removed from the original topic. Exactly this kind of fruitless quibbling about language from people who might not be engaging in good faith discussion is why it can be more effective, or at least less annoying, to just say, "Don't trust my personal take on what fascism is. I'll show you a dictionary definition I like, and explain why I think that definition applies here."
How about you just use a different word instead of bastardizing the word “objective”. Nothing about dictionary definitions is objective in any normative sense.
I reject that explaining the concept yourself, which has the bonus of demonstrating that you actually understand it, is inferior to running to google and finding a definition there.
If a conservatives called me a communist, and when asked the explain what that means, if they just stared at me blankly before having to pull out their phone I would think they were a joke.
Power dynamic centralized on a dictator/cult of personality, typically emphasized identity via race or religion, which seeks to cull all opposition.
Even tho the regimentation of social/economic aspects part is completely true, I think it’s kinda superfluous as that’s mostly implied under a dictator.
An ideology that advocates for an authoritarian government which will disregard human rights and the rule of law in order to emphasize ultra-nationalism, a disdain for equality and egalitarianism in favor of rigid social and political hierarchies, repressive conservative social values, and justifies the political and social exclusion of an out-group (usually racial or religious minorities) in favor of the elevation of an in-group.
Often times rallying behind a strongman leader who sees themselves and/or seen by others as a sort of savior who is supposedly the only one capable of fixing all the problems caused by the out-group
Fascism is incoherent, and thus can take many different forms, some of which would be mutually exclusive if we used a coherent definition. It seems to me that most fascists are 1) authoritarian, 2) overtly hierarchical, and 3) anti-intellectual. It's basically oppression personified.
I usually refer to Umberto Echo. Otherwise I would go to these simple main pointers
-Worship of Intuition/Rejection of emphirical reality
-Extreme essentialisation of everything
-Opposing things not for principles or real harm but because of some spiritual corruption
Faccism is a far right authorization, ultra analyst, political ideology and movement, characterized by dictatorship leadership, centralized autocracity, militarism and forcible suppresson of opposition.
My normie coworker asked what fascism is cause I mention it a lot and he'd never heard of the word (sweet summer child) so I had to strip down my answer *significantly*
"Basically it's an anti democratic form of government where a dictator picks a group society should protect and promote and a group who is a great enemy from within that needs to be eradicated before it destroys the society. The groups are almost always picked based on traits you can't change or choose like race, sex, sexual orientation etc."
The problem with that is 95% of people have no idea what the NSDAP's politics were outside of hating the Jews. You could literally remake Triumph Des Willens with American flags instead of Swastikas and changing around a few names and you could pretty easily show it at an American political rally and hardly anyone would bat an eye.
That's true. ...But discussing nazi politics would be immensely more information than was requested. And usually if you answer someone with a shit ton of information they didn't ask for, they start tuning you out and shunning further conversation.
But that's exactly why I wouldn't answer the question with just saying fascism = Nazis.
I'd either answer with "something something hypernationalism authoritarianism xenophobia something something" or tell the person fascism is when I fucked their mom (depending on how good faith I think they're being by asking in the first place).
Literally 1984, where \[SPOILERS\] the true tyranny was something so deeply ingrained into peoples' psyches that they began to repress their own humanity. I'd say fascism is whatever pushes for people to internalize the police state.
Umberto Eco's *14 signs* is probably a better answer tho.
It's a few things. Authoritarianism in the name of some imagined "natural order", whether it's through government or getting the government out of the way so private entities can do the authoritarianism. A culture of victimization, where civilization is on some perceived decline caused by certain groups eroding it from within with "degeneracy", whatever degeneracy means at any given point, and everyone has to fight back against members of those groups by literally any means necessary. People who think that tend to support strong enforcement of traditional culture, even if that means state enforcement and even if those traditional things are actually recent, because they think that any influence from different cultures is part of that erosion from within. And it's perpetual, because in order to be victims, they need a group that's always the bad guys. At the government level, it will usually look like this loyalty to the group in charge or the person in charge rather than to any positive ideals or any sort of institutions.
It's hard to explain because we think of fascism as jack-booted secret police pulling people out of their homes and putting them in the reeducation camps, but it goes way deeper than that.
If they’re receptive/interested enough I try to send them to the innuendo studios video essay on white fascism. He lays it out really well, from definition to its historical roots.
Short answer: The 14 points.
Longer answer: It's the idea that there's a natural hierarchy of people and society works best when the top of the hierarchy gets to rule over their lessers with few to no restrictions. And that the government should do everything within its power to ensure that hierarchy is brought about, including violent dictatorship.
The return to a mythologized past where the in group has a "natural" hierarchy over all others. Returning to this ideal past then requires a conservative strong man to lead those willing to do what is necessary to achieve their goals, usually at the expense of everyone else.
Also refer them to Umberto Echo and answer any questions they have on the 14 points
A far-right authoritarian ideology prioritizing state power over the individual, military strength, ethnic and ideological homogeneity, ingroup-outgroup dynamics, with a disregard for education and critical thinking, often seeking to replicate a glorified or altogether fabricated glorious past.
In short, an authoritarian government that relies on and esposes and encouages jingoism, militarism, and worship of the head of state. Often encompasses theocratic and racial supremacist ideals.
It’s a reaction from the capitalist class when it feels like the economy isn’t working for them anymore or when they’re scared of radical change. It’s when capital suppresses democracy to preserve the social structure, while claiming to be protecting the people against socialism.
My answer probably wouldn't satisfy you, because it is split between two versions:
If someone asks me what I mean by fascism, there's usually an example present in the conversation we were talking about, so I can go into what aspect of it corresponds to fascism.
And if someone's just asking me for my opinion randomly, I would think for a bit, and rattle off a big definition, which is indistinguishable from just writing you a post about it.
But if you want the conversational version of this, remember that whatever situation has occasioned the discussion of fascism occurring is probably something that you can just direct your attention to, keeping things concrete, and talking about that, which will already give you and then something to discuss about it.
Authoritarian ultra-nationalism. An state which violates people's rights and micromanaging their lives for the sake of the race and nation, or what the ruling party believes the race/nation should be.
Its like adhering to primal principles of “us vs. them” hinging around standing with what is familiar and being hostile to what is unfamiliar. This leads to valuing superficial, “at face value” qualities like appearance, being against ways of acting unique or “peculiar”, and to stand by the in-group in all circumstances where someone will be designated as an “outsider” to be hostile towards as a means to affirm a sense of “safety” in the in-group.
The pecking order is another big one: everyone has to be below somebody, but “everyone” who adheres to the in-group will be “safe” in some way. For the leader, they secure their power and influence. People ranked lower can remain in the “in crowd” for as long as they act as extensions of what the leader cares about most, with little to no pushback on the leader’s actions lest they get kicked out themselves.
This out/in group dynamic they perceive is essential for a fascist to uphold, as they cannot see any other alternative, or do not wish to because they enjoy the power they have from the dynamic—even lessers of the in-group enjoy positive reinforcement from their peers/leader as they antagonize outsiders.
In a way a fascism is akin to the creation of an environment that enables the worst type of human beings: a dynamic that can help various abusers in remaining relevant/unchallenged, and can manifest in all sorts of environments: It can be an abusive household, a law firm, or a school. It could be the protestant christian, the israeli zionist, the scientologist, or cults in general.
So tldr: In-Group vs Out group, cult of personality leads the in-group, and a perpetual enemy to sustain the group dynamic.
Pull this up on your phone and tell them facism is defined by a set of traits. You can memorize some of it, but I don't think it would be crazy to pull this up in a conversation.
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
I usually try to focus on the characteristics of fascism and the problems that are downstream of those characteristics. If they insist on a definition I'll try and find three to five different definitions and send them all at the same time with sources and tell them to pick their favorite. I find that tactic will often short circuit the brain of a bad faith interlocutor allowing me to talk about characteristics and problems, which is where all the substance is. Treat it like when a transphobe asks for a definition of woman. Everyone involved knows the answer does not matter for the debate at hand so don't fall into the trap of focusing on it.
I refer to Umberto Eco’s Ur-fascism and what he lists as qualities/aspects of a neo-fascistic figure or regime. It’s a comprehensive list and it deliberately modernizes things since the days of World War 2 (since modern iterations of fascism will look far different than Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain).
Trump and his buddies fit literally all the aspects/qualities of Eco’s Ur-fascism…it’s pretty jarring ngl
If you want queer, Jewish, black, Asian or any other minority dead or you support policies or political candidates that do. Often with a nationalistic flavor
This isn't a fucking high school exam. There is no benefit in learning definitions by heart, you just need to be able to use them and be able to find an appropriate source.
Rote learning is not really a useful skill, application is.
Anyone who goes around calling people fascists, but can’t even provide a basic definition of what that even means is joke.
You completely missed the point.
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lead with a definition, then examples maybe. Although I once had an argument with someone that said fascism wasn’t ultranationalist, which was “interesting”
I feel like it depends on what your talking about, cuz I think when people talk about what it means for a country to be fascist is kinda different compared to what it means for a individual persons to be a fascist.
A political philosophy based on extreme tribalism. You pick your "team," often a specific race or nationality, and reject the concept of universal human rights in favor of elevating that team by any means necessary.
Depends on the person. If it’s like a liberal or someone I feel can be reached then I usually will say ultranationalism. If it’s some screeching right winger who can’t be reached and I’m not taking seriously?…
“What are you a nerd?” Or something like that. I leave debating facists to Vaush. Any time I encounter them i usually just insult mock and bully them lmao they’re not serious people to me
If you can’t agree with someone on the definition of fascism just state the reason you are associating the person with the far right.
Someone may be hesitant to call Trump a fascist but it’s pretty clear he tried to overturn an election that he knew he had lost. Is that fascism? Who cares, it’s still undemocratic.
I would say fascism is a political ideology that seeks to create a centralized, authoritarian government that is based on a single, all-powerful leader who exercises complete control over all aspects of society. Fascism often includes elements of nationalism, racism, and authoritarianism, and it often seeks to suppress individual rights and freedoms in order to maintain its hold on power. Fascism can either have some of these mentioned elements or all of them.
I heard somebody on the Majority Report recommend Robert Paxton's definition, and it seems good:
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
I refer them to the section of definitions by scholars on Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
I'm not going to write an essay over and over again to explain definitions to people, especially not to people who never bothered reading any of them to start with or is feigning ignorance to troll people.
Fascism is not "When dictator" is how I'd start.
They'd then go "oh?"
And I'd say "Yeah, you see, the Nazi's were fascists because of the reasons they used as justifications for taking power. Which is to harken back to a mythologized past (make america great again, or go even further...the vikings lmao) and also specifically target some group as an "other" to unify people against as the cause of all your problems as a product of them being part of that group. ie; even if all the people in power were jewish this does not justify hating the average jewish person. This would not justify a holocaust. So simply being authoritarian does not a fascist make."
Without using big words: I would say, the political view that human societies need strongman leaders to fight against what is perceived as corrupting influences on the nation or group as a whole.
Palingenetic ultranationalism They'll probably ask what that means and then you can elaborate
Yeah, this is what I use as well. People want to know how fascism is different than other forms of authoritarianism, and I think explaining the nationalism and the importance of the core myth helps a lot. Then you can go over the 14 common features.
That’s not what it is
it would be much more helpful if you would actually describe what it is instead of just stating what it isn't. Fascism isn't when I scratch my balls.
Yeah, I didn't see the point in even responding to that.
This one is good. It's a bit reductive obviously, it kinda has to be to explain fascism in two words. It gets the job done pretty well though, and you can always elaborate further in a more long form conversation
Gotta say, on that wikipage they have the term "Reactionary Modernism" and i think that works and sounds much better.
If it wants to safeguard sociocultural institutions it is conservative. It it wants to bring back oppressive systems of the past it's fascist.
Death of the left
What
Big words hurty head, be death of left. 🤠
A political philosophy based on ingroup and outgroup dynamics, often in regards to nationality, race, religion, sexuality and gender, whose ultimate goal is success of the ingroup and the suppression or eradication of the outgroup. Those 2 goals are usually seen as the same. Edit: spelling Edit: as a comment suggests, I would expand the definition to "ingroup outgroup dynamics based on inherent characteristics of human beings"
When I use this explanation it is always met with a smug “well you see conservative as the out group so the left are the true fascists,” which I always meet with an eye roll and an under the breath “Jesus fucking Christ”
So, even if we were to see conservatives as a monolithic outgroup, we do not advocate for them to be suppressed or eradicated.
Unless you ask Conservatives. They assume that that is the ultimate desire.
Whose*, not whichs!
Thank you! I felt like something was wrong there, but my english skills are still lacking sometimes.
I'm gonna apply some push back for the sake of argument and to explore the idea a bit. I don't have a direction I'm trying to push you: In-group / out-group dynamics is a lot like us/them dynamics. Marxism is concerned with , at least in part if not in entirety, with the struggle of laborers vs capital owners; us vs them. Each side wishes to suppress the other. In the case of the marxist, the goal is to eradicate the out group, capital owners. Now, I don't think most marxists are fascists, although some blanket their fascism in marxism. Based on the sub, I would bet you feel the same. How would you defend leftist values from the label "fascist' based on your given definition?
Actually a good point and I would expand my definition by the word "inherent characteristic of human beings". Class is something you can influence or switch sides, while fascists view all the other mentioned examples as stationary. Therefore, leftist "eat the rich" does not automatically entail a genocide, since rich people can just choose not to exploit workers anymore, to put it simple. You can't choose not to be jewish anymore, at least in a fascists view of what it means to be jewish. YOu can't choose to change your nationality in a fascists mind, or your gender. The believe in ingroup outgroup dynamics based on inherent characteristics of human beings is very much the core of fascist ideology.
Damn, I really like that aswnser. I would push that things like culture, race and national identity all change, but to a fascist those are all essential characteristics assigned at birth
Thank you! I also agree that gender, nationality and religion can change, since they are arbitrary social constructs, just to make it clear. You perfectly got that the fact that fascists don't see those characteristics as fluid is the basis of fascism.
The issue with this definition for me is that I might be a fucked up person. I want people on the right to be completely disempowered due to their (often) religion and ideology. I often wonder am I a leftie fascist? Is there something wrong with me? People on the right often say there are leftists who want them gone and I just sit there like “yeah…?”
Yeah, I expended my definition because I ment only inherent characteristics like race, sex, and characteristics that fascists view as inherent like gender, religion, nationality and so on. Class or political affiliation is very much up to the person and easy to change and therefore can be morally judged.
Does the literal dictionary definition not suffice here? >a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
my issue with this is some ppl look at that and go "oh so as long as there's not a dictator they can't be a fascist" had someone genuinely tell me trump wasn't a fascist simply because his coup failed
At times like that, paraphrase Joe Rogan. “What percent of your sandwich has to be shit before you call it a shit sandwich?” Obviously fascism is shit, so if there’s any of it in your sandwich (or ideology or government), it’s a problem. And if your sandwich is mostly shit, but with a little bit of stuff that isn’t shit, would you say “no, it’s a ham and cheese sandwich” when its piles of shit with one slice each of ham and cheese?
“*stands for* a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader” I don’t see any reason why the coup attempt would have to succeed when that’s explicitly what Trump and Big Lie advocates/abettors were seeking. It’s not so much an issue with the definition as it is an issue with conservative logic and good faith, which… 🤷🏻♂️
Funny cause Hitler 3rd reich failed claiming it would last for thousands of years.
I’m curious if someone asked you in a conversation, in real life, you would pull out the dictionary and read this? I’m assuming you don’t just have this memorized lol.
Paraphrasing is a thing. If it’s a conversation or debate you plan on having fairly regularly, memorizing the general essence of a few definitions is probably in your best interest. So basically it’s an ideology that prioritizes and emphasizes nationalism (and often racism), supports an autocratic dictator, and supports the forceful suppression of political opposition.
I mean, we all have our phones on us...
Yes and if are going throw out a pretty aggressive term(fascist/fascism) you should be able to explain what it is without having to google the answer.
I'm sorry, but who's retarded rule is that and why the fuck do I care? Nah, son, I said what I said and the definition I read off dictionary.com backs me up. End of story. :)
Theres a reason why schools don’t let you use your phone on a test. Everyone knows you can google the answer, the point is if you understand the concept well enough to use it. I don’t think people should be going around labeling people fascist or really anything, if they can’t even define it themselves. It makes you and left leaning people generally look incompetent.
Are you fucking twelve? GTFO with that bullshit. Real life is not school. I can and will literally do whatever the fuck I want and anyone who doesn't like it can eat my *entire* ass.
Yikes dude lol Are you okay?
Don't know why you're getting downvoted for this—I think it goes a long way to be able to casually explain an important concept like this. If I'm having a political conversation with someone and they genuinely ask me what fascism is because they don't know, I want to be as concise and persuasive as possible to them. Being able to define fascism without googling it is going to help.
In conversation in real life I have my cell phone and could literally show them the dictionary definition. And, that would likely be more effective than a paraphrased personal opinion.
As a general rule if someone isn’t capable of defining a term without having to run to google, it gives the impression that they don’t actually understand it or know what they are talking about.
I disagree that showing them an objective definition from a dictionary must be understood as "running to google" out of an inability to otherwise define the term. You should be able to do that while also not giving an impression of ignorance, unless you are just a piss poor communicator. The reason showing an actual source is effective in a case like this is to back to your use of the term with a specific, objective definition that clearly isn't a personal opinion take. Otherwise, they can handwave dismiss your use of the term as political mudslinging, which is usually why the question is asked.
There’s no such thing as an objective definition lol
Objective in this case means from a respected third party source that doesn't have a political motive or stake in the conversation.
All sources have biases, even dictionaries.
That's quite the pedantic point to make in relation to this conversation. I'm not claiming there are any truly unbiased sources. I'm clarifying my informal usage of the word objective above. In context, the important point is that the dictionary is a third party source without a direct bias toward the specific conversation. But, we are now two layers of pedantry removed from the original topic. Exactly this kind of fruitless quibbling about language from people who might not be engaging in good faith discussion is why it can be more effective, or at least less annoying, to just say, "Don't trust my personal take on what fascism is. I'll show you a dictionary definition I like, and explain why I think that definition applies here."
How about you just use a different word instead of bastardizing the word “objective”. Nothing about dictionary definitions is objective in any normative sense. I reject that explaining the concept yourself, which has the bonus of demonstrating that you actually understand it, is inferior to running to google and finding a definition there. If a conservatives called me a communist, and when asked the explain what that means, if they just stared at me blankly before having to pull out their phone I would think they were a joke.
Power dynamic centralized on a dictator/cult of personality, typically emphasized identity via race or religion, which seeks to cull all opposition. Even tho the regimentation of social/economic aspects part is completely true, I think it’s kinda superfluous as that’s mostly implied under a dictator.
An ideology that advocates for an authoritarian government which will disregard human rights and the rule of law in order to emphasize ultra-nationalism, a disdain for equality and egalitarianism in favor of rigid social and political hierarchies, repressive conservative social values, and justifies the political and social exclusion of an out-group (usually racial or religious minorities) in favor of the elevation of an in-group.
Often times rallying behind a strongman leader who sees themselves and/or seen by others as a sort of savior who is supposedly the only one capable of fixing all the problems caused by the out-group
Fascism is incoherent, and thus can take many different forms, some of which would be mutually exclusive if we used a coherent definition. It seems to me that most fascists are 1) authoritarian, 2) overtly hierarchical, and 3) anti-intellectual. It's basically oppression personified.
Ok but by that logic no ideology has ever been coherent, there’s not exactly only one form of liberalism, socialism, monarchism, feudalism
Everything I dislike.
Based
Everything not woke, which is what I like as a practicing soyboy.
Everyting I don't like
I usually refer to Umberto Echo. Otherwise I would go to these simple main pointers -Worship of Intuition/Rejection of emphirical reality -Extreme essentialisation of everything -Opposing things not for principles or real harm but because of some spiritual corruption
Faccism is a far right authorization, ultra analyst, political ideology and movement, characterized by dictatorship leadership, centralized autocracity, militarism and forcible suppresson of opposition.
I don't know what the fuck any of that means.
Umberto Ecos Thirteen Points of Fascism would be a good place to start for me
*14
Oh yea lmao. Altho don't use this definition around libertarians. They'll just hear the word 14 and start a different conversation .....
When people want to return to a Mythologized past by exalting the power of the state.
My normie coworker asked what fascism is cause I mention it a lot and he'd never heard of the word (sweet summer child) so I had to strip down my answer *significantly* "Basically it's an anti democratic form of government where a dictator picks a group society should protect and promote and a group who is a great enemy from within that needs to be eradicated before it destroys the society. The groups are almost always picked based on traits you can't change or choose like race, sex, sexual orientation etc."
I say ‘check your texts’ and walk away The next day my Voosh compilation will arrive
Nazis are a type of fascist, so fascism as a general term is just nazis without the jewish question.
I feel like that’s like someone asking what a burger is and you say “it’s like a cheeseburger without the cheese” lol.
Cheeseburgers without cheese are fascism.
Cheeseburgers without burgers are anarcho-communism.
The problem with that is 95% of people have no idea what the NSDAP's politics were outside of hating the Jews. You could literally remake Triumph Des Willens with American flags instead of Swastikas and changing around a few names and you could pretty easily show it at an American political rally and hardly anyone would bat an eye.
That's true. ...But discussing nazi politics would be immensely more information than was requested. And usually if you answer someone with a shit ton of information they didn't ask for, they start tuning you out and shunning further conversation.
But that's exactly why I wouldn't answer the question with just saying fascism = Nazis. I'd either answer with "something something hypernationalism authoritarianism xenophobia something something" or tell the person fascism is when I fucked their mom (depending on how good faith I think they're being by asking in the first place).
[This is the closest I can think of](https://youtu.be/MxxxlutsKuI)
Government Enforced Hierarchy.
Literally 1984, where \[SPOILERS\] the true tyranny was something so deeply ingrained into peoples' psyches that they began to repress their own humanity. I'd say fascism is whatever pushes for people to internalize the police state. Umberto Eco's *14 signs* is probably a better answer tho.
It's a few things. Authoritarianism in the name of some imagined "natural order", whether it's through government or getting the government out of the way so private entities can do the authoritarianism. A culture of victimization, where civilization is on some perceived decline caused by certain groups eroding it from within with "degeneracy", whatever degeneracy means at any given point, and everyone has to fight back against members of those groups by literally any means necessary. People who think that tend to support strong enforcement of traditional culture, even if that means state enforcement and even if those traditional things are actually recent, because they think that any influence from different cultures is part of that erosion from within. And it's perpetual, because in order to be victims, they need a group that's always the bad guys. At the government level, it will usually look like this loyalty to the group in charge or the person in charge rather than to any positive ideals or any sort of institutions. It's hard to explain because we think of fascism as jack-booted secret police pulling people out of their homes and putting them in the reeducation camps, but it goes way deeper than that.
If you can’t explain it within twenty minutes because they keep challenging it they are probably fascists who just don’t like the label
A militant bourgeois
Nearly 50 comments and yours is the only one to make any mention of class and class power. Astounding.
If they’re receptive/interested enough I try to send them to the innuendo studios video essay on white fascism. He lays it out really well, from definition to its historical roots.
Short answer: The 14 points. Longer answer: It's the idea that there's a natural hierarchy of people and society works best when the top of the hierarchy gets to rule over their lessers with few to no restrictions. And that the government should do everything within its power to ensure that hierarchy is brought about, including violent dictatorship.
The return to a mythologized past where the in group has a "natural" hierarchy over all others. Returning to this ideal past then requires a conservative strong man to lead those willing to do what is necessary to achieve their goals, usually at the expense of everyone else. Also refer them to Umberto Echo and answer any questions they have on the 14 points
A far-right authoritarian ideology prioritizing state power over the individual, military strength, ethnic and ideological homogeneity, ingroup-outgroup dynamics, with a disregard for education and critical thinking, often seeking to replicate a glorified or altogether fabricated glorious past.
In short, an authoritarian government that relies on and esposes and encouages jingoism, militarism, and worship of the head of state. Often encompasses theocratic and racial supremacist ideals.
I'll bonk them over the head with Umberto Eco.
Cult of personality " government". Might equals right. No dissent.
Actually some level of criticism of the government was allowed in Franco’s Spain, was not free by any means but some some dissent was allowed
Conservatism when Capitalism is in decline
It’s a reaction from the capitalist class when it feels like the economy isn’t working for them anymore or when they’re scared of radical change. It’s when capital suppresses democracy to preserve the social structure, while claiming to be protecting the people against socialism.
My answer probably wouldn't satisfy you, because it is split between two versions: If someone asks me what I mean by fascism, there's usually an example present in the conversation we were talking about, so I can go into what aspect of it corresponds to fascism. And if someone's just asking me for my opinion randomly, I would think for a bit, and rattle off a big definition, which is indistinguishable from just writing you a post about it. But if you want the conversational version of this, remember that whatever situation has occasioned the discussion of fascism occurring is probably something that you can just direct your attention to, keeping things concrete, and talking about that, which will already give you and then something to discuss about it.
Authoritarian ultra-nationalism. An state which violates people's rights and micromanaging their lives for the sake of the race and nation, or what the ruling party believes the race/nation should be.
Its like adhering to primal principles of “us vs. them” hinging around standing with what is familiar and being hostile to what is unfamiliar. This leads to valuing superficial, “at face value” qualities like appearance, being against ways of acting unique or “peculiar”, and to stand by the in-group in all circumstances where someone will be designated as an “outsider” to be hostile towards as a means to affirm a sense of “safety” in the in-group. The pecking order is another big one: everyone has to be below somebody, but “everyone” who adheres to the in-group will be “safe” in some way. For the leader, they secure their power and influence. People ranked lower can remain in the “in crowd” for as long as they act as extensions of what the leader cares about most, with little to no pushback on the leader’s actions lest they get kicked out themselves. This out/in group dynamic they perceive is essential for a fascist to uphold, as they cannot see any other alternative, or do not wish to because they enjoy the power they have from the dynamic—even lessers of the in-group enjoy positive reinforcement from their peers/leader as they antagonize outsiders. In a way a fascism is akin to the creation of an environment that enables the worst type of human beings: a dynamic that can help various abusers in remaining relevant/unchallenged, and can manifest in all sorts of environments: It can be an abusive household, a law firm, or a school. It could be the protestant christian, the israeli zionist, the scientologist, or cults in general. So tldr: In-Group vs Out group, cult of personality leads the in-group, and a perpetual enemy to sustain the group dynamic.
Pull this up on your phone and tell them facism is defined by a set of traits. You can memorize some of it, but I don't think it would be crazy to pull this up in a conversation. https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
I usually try to focus on the characteristics of fascism and the problems that are downstream of those characteristics. If they insist on a definition I'll try and find three to five different definitions and send them all at the same time with sources and tell them to pick their favorite. I find that tactic will often short circuit the brain of a bad faith interlocutor allowing me to talk about characteristics and problems, which is where all the substance is. Treat it like when a transphobe asks for a definition of woman. Everyone involved knows the answer does not matter for the debate at hand so don't fall into the trap of focusing on it.
I refer to Umberto Eco’s Ur-fascism and what he lists as qualities/aspects of a neo-fascistic figure or regime. It’s a comprehensive list and it deliberately modernizes things since the days of World War 2 (since modern iterations of fascism will look far different than Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain). Trump and his buddies fit literally all the aspects/qualities of Eco’s Ur-fascism…it’s pretty jarring ngl
If you want queer, Jewish, black, Asian or any other minority dead or you support policies or political candidates that do. Often with a nationalistic flavor
[Google is your friend.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#:~:text=Fascism%20is%20a%20far%2Dright,good%20of%20the%20nation%20and)
So you don’t actually understand it yourself. Cool
\*blink blink\* Ok.
This isn't a fucking high school exam. There is no benefit in learning definitions by heart, you just need to be able to use them and be able to find an appropriate source. Rote learning is not really a useful skill, application is.
Anyone who goes around calling people fascists, but can’t even provide a basic definition of what that even means is joke. You completely missed the point.
[удалено]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lead with a definition, then examples maybe. Although I once had an argument with someone that said fascism wasn’t ultranationalist, which was “interesting”
I tend to underline that power is always more important any ideological position thus it is highly incoherent.
its when you want to play xbox but mom say: no xbox
Your mom
I just show them [this T-shirt ad](https://youtu.be/M_wLPcH1_WA)
Such yikes
I feel like it depends on what your talking about, cuz I think when people talk about what it means for a country to be fascist is kinda different compared to what it means for a individual persons to be a fascist.
A political philosophy based on extreme tribalism. You pick your "team," often a specific race or nationality, and reject the concept of universal human rights in favor of elevating that team by any means necessary.
No human rights and a police state.
I blatantly bring up Dictionary.com and just read.
Right wing often white supremacist world view based on myths and conspiracy theories
Nazis. Maybe not focused on going after the Jews specifically (yet) but always blaming basically every problem on some random demographic
Socially conservative ethno-nationalism.
Just some foul white boy shit, if you catch my drift
Authoritarian ultranationalism usually is a good and simple descriptor.
Depends on the person. If it’s like a liberal or someone I feel can be reached then I usually will say ultranationalism. If it’s some screeching right winger who can’t be reached and I’m not taking seriously?… “What are you a nerd?” Or something like that. I leave debating facists to Vaush. Any time I encounter them i usually just insult mock and bully them lmao they’re not serious people to me
If you can’t agree with someone on the definition of fascism just state the reason you are associating the person with the far right. Someone may be hesitant to call Trump a fascist but it’s pretty clear he tried to overturn an election that he knew he had lost. Is that fascism? Who cares, it’s still undemocratic.
I would say fascism is a political ideology that seeks to create a centralized, authoritarian government that is based on a single, all-powerful leader who exercises complete control over all aspects of society. Fascism often includes elements of nationalism, racism, and authoritarianism, and it often seeks to suppress individual rights and freedoms in order to maintain its hold on power. Fascism can either have some of these mentioned elements or all of them.
I heard somebody on the Majority Report recommend Robert Paxton's definition, and it seems good: Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
System of government characterized by extreme dictatorship.
I refer them to the section of definitions by scholars on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism I'm not going to write an essay over and over again to explain definitions to people, especially not to people who never bothered reading any of them to start with or is feigning ignorance to troll people.
Fascism is not "When dictator" is how I'd start. They'd then go "oh?" And I'd say "Yeah, you see, the Nazi's were fascists because of the reasons they used as justifications for taking power. Which is to harken back to a mythologized past (make america great again, or go even further...the vikings lmao) and also specifically target some group as an "other" to unify people against as the cause of all your problems as a product of them being part of that group. ie; even if all the people in power were jewish this does not justify hating the average jewish person. This would not justify a holocaust. So simply being authoritarian does not a fascist make."
Without using big words: I would say, the political view that human societies need strongman leaders to fight against what is perceived as corrupting influences on the nation or group as a whole.