What is Fascism?

[Community Values]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I thought it might be a good discussion to have on here. The topic is self-explanatory: What is Fascism?
In addition to this, I would like to provide some examples of fascist nations sometimes thought as fascist and sometimes not, and see if you guys think they were fascist or not.

Was Germany 1932-1945 fascist?
Was Japan 1936-1945 fascist?
Was Argentina 1946-1955 fascist?
Does fascism have any real meaning beyond Italy from 1921-1945?

As for my opinion: I personally believe fascism is exclusively an Italian concept. There's too much difference in the regimes of Germany, Japan, Italy, or any other commonly coined fascist nation that if one definition was applied to all three, the term would be too broad to have any real meaning.

[Donut section]

Germany was a mix of fascism and socialism.

[Sanctissima]

Basically Mussolini's Italy.

That's really the only government in history that can be considered to have actually represented the ideology. And it sucked balls, so...

Regardless, Nazi Germany was not Fascist. It was National Socialist. Admittedly there were many parallels, but ideologically it varied in several important criteria, particularly in terms of economics and social theory.

[Fartsniffage]

...baby don't hurt me.

[Kyrinasaj]

Benito's Italy was ''Fascist'' all other nations modified it to fit their own country, especially Hitler whose version of Fascism named National Socialism is a different beast.

[The Founding Fatherland]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I thought it might be a good discussion to have on here. The topic is self-explanatory: What is Fascism?
In addition to this, I would like to provide some examples of fascist nations sometimes thought as fascist and sometimes not, and see if you guys think they were fascist or not.

Was Germany 1932-1945 fascist?
Was Japan 1936-1945 fascist?
Was Argentina 1946-1955 fascist?
Does fascism have any real meaning beyond Italy from 1921-1945?

As for my opinion: I personally believe fascism is exclusively an Italian concept. There's too much difference in the regimes of Germany, Japan, Italy, or any other commonly coined fascist nation that if one definition was applied to all three, the term would be too broad to have any real meaning.

It's not exclusively Italian, it's just only the Italians did it right.

German National Socialism is only influenced by fascism, it's not fascist itself but more of a racialist socialism. Japan was never fascist nor claimed to be. Argentina and Chile were never fascist. Greece was close, but never fascist. Nazi Germany's satellite states were not fascists, but off-shoot Nazi puppets. The British Union of Fascists was fascist but never came to power. The Falangists were fascists but Franco was not and neither was Spain during his reign. Salazar wasn't fascist and neither was Portugal during his reign, though he was very close.

Italy is the only country to ever come close to fascism. Whether they actually succeeded or not is up for debate, but Mussolini never truly realized his goals so I'd argue it wasn't all the way there quite yet.

[Principality of the Raix]

Fascism, we must look to its maker Mussolini. Who governmentalized industry and allowed small business privatization. However, we must realize that his people rebelled against him. So I guess when I used to say Fascism has killed noone, that's not right as it killed its creator. While Nazism was sorta fascist. But it was more Authoritarian Communist in several cases.

[Stellar Colonies]

It was intended to be a "third way" between communism and capitalism, one which mixed the best of both into a new system that worked the best. The Nazis took fascism and mixed it with a few other things (Like racism) to create Nazism.

[Drittes Grossdeutsches Reich]

What is this?

NAZI Germany was not fascist, it was national socialist, both of these ideologies associate but they are different, Nationalsocialischmus did evolved from Fascism but its aspects are alot different, it's an ideology solely based on biological race while fascism is, in a nutshell, a totalitarian state focused on economy

i'm not going to address the rest because they're even dumber, but what you need to know is that the only TRUE fascist state that ever existed was Fascist Italy

[UKCS]

To say that the fascist regimes were disimilar is kind of a pointless statement.
I mean, it's not like Italy or, idk, Bulgaria were going to be nazi's is it?

And for the record, yes, all were fascist, whether they claimed to be or not (the European ones/Japan anyway). The South American examples are debatable.

[Drittes Grossdeutsches Reich]

What is this?

NAZI Germany was not fascist, it was national socialist, both of these ideologies associate but they are different, Nationalsocialischmus did evolved from Fascism but its aspects are alot different, it's an ideology solely based on biological race while fascism is, in a nutshell, a totalitarian state focused on economy

i'm not going to address the rest because they're even dumber, but what you need to know is that the only TRUE fascist state that ever existed was Fascist Italy

^These pole results are a joke by the way, people's ignorance is infinite.

[Principality of the Raix]

To say that the fascist regimes were disimilar is kind of a pointless statement.
I mean, it's not like Italy or, idk, Bulgaria were going to be nazi's is it?

And for the record, yes, all were fascist, whether they claimed to be or not (the European ones/Japan anyway). The South American examples are debatable.

Not truly, Japan was Imperialist. China was, I think Imperialist too, until Mao. While same with Korea, before the split. The European part on that is simple, it has been explained above by most commentators. While Argentina began as Democratic Socialism and fell a part, basically.

[The Founding Fatherland]

To say that the fascist regimes were disimilar is kind of a pointless statement.
I mean, it's not like Italy or, idk, Bulgaria were going to be nazi's is it?

And for the record, yes, all were fascist, whether they claimed to be or not (the European ones/Japan anyway). The South American examples are debatable.

For the record, no, they weren't.

Italy was fascist, none of the others were. Argentina, Portugal, and Greece were close but not quite. Spain was almost, but Franco ruined that. Japan and the others aren't even worth bringing up.

[Sanctissima]

To say that the fascist regimes were disimilar is kind of a pointless statement.
I mean, it's not like Italy or, idk, Bulgaria were going to be nazi's is it?

And for the record, yes, all were fascist, whether they claimed to be or not (the European ones/Japan anyway). The South American examples are debatable.

Imperial Japan wasn't anything even remotely similar to Fascism. You're equating Right-wing authoritarianism with Fascism, which is a highly inaccurate view of the ideology.

Aside from Mussolini's Italy, the only other country that even came close to being Fascist was Salazar's Portugal. And even then, he moreso just adopted some aspects of Corporatist economic theory and disavowed the rest, so one can't really say that the Portuguese Estado Novo or any other country aside from Italy was ever Fascist.

[Community Values]

To say that the fascist regimes were disimilar is kind of a pointless statement.
I mean, it's not like Italy or, idk, Bulgaria were going to be nazi's is it?

And for the record, yes, all were fascist, whether they claimed to be or not (the European ones/Japan anyway). The South American examples are debatable.

To say that the totalitarian regimes were dissimilar is kind of a pointless statement then, by your logic.
I'd agree to some extent that Germany could be considered fascist, but Japan was in no way so. Their government structure didn't allow for fascism, plus they actively crushed and killed many of the fascists in Japan. There was no para military organization, and the party wasn't an official organ of the government. It's better to say that they were a militaristic monarchy more than anything else.

[Liriena]

Was Germany 1932-1945 fascist?
Was Japan 1936-1945 fascist?
Was Argentina 1946-1955 fascist?
Does fascism have any real meaning beyond Italy from 1921-1945?

Yes
Maaaaaaybe?
Eeeeeeh, it's complicated. Perón himself wasn't all that clear on where exactly he stood in the political spectrum, and though his movement certainly had its fascist elements, it ended up developing more as a weird populist nationalist labor movement that had some respect for democracy and whose violent elements seemed more like a bug than a feature.
Yes.

[The Founding Fatherland]

To say that the fascist regimes were disimilar is kind of a pointless statement.
I mean, it's not like Italy or, idk, Bulgaria were going to be nazi's is it?

And for the record, yes, all were fascist, whether they claimed to be or not (the European ones/Japan anyway). The South American examples are debatable.

To say that the totalitarian regimes were dissimilar is kind of a pointless statement then, by your logic.
I'd agree to some extent that Germany could be considered fascist, but Japan was in no way so. Their government structure didn't allow for fascism, plus they actively crushed and killed many of the fascists in Japan. There was no para military organization, and the party wasn't an official organ of the government. It's better to say that they were a militaristic monarchy more than anything else.

Nazi Germany can't be considered fascist because nothing was dedicated to the state. Germany was irrelevant to the Nazis, all that matter was the people living on it. Their irredentism was less about historical territory of the German nation and more about land that belonged to the German people. Nazism was also not bound solely to Germany, but could be applied in any nation the so-called "master race" had a presence in. Hitler's expansion in Eastern Europe was primarily motivated by the desire to feed larger German population. It was considered necessary to exterminate the natives of these lands, not for the German state, but for the German people. So they could live there and make food there for their fellow Germans.

National Socialism isn't about the state, it's about the Nordic-Germanic peoples and their self-applied supremacy over others. As such the ideology can transcend national borders into any Nordic/Germanic population.

[Liriena]

Eeeeeeh, it's complicated. Perón himself wasn't all that clear on where exactly he stood in the political spectrum, and though his movement certainly had its fascist elements, it ended up developing more as a weird populist nationalist labor movement that had some respect for democracy and whose violent elements seemed more like a bug than a feature.

On the other hand, it's almost a consensus among Argie historians that José Félix Uriburu was definitely a fascist.

[Valgora]

To say that the totalitarian regimes were dissimilar is kind of a pointless statement then, by your logic.
I'd agree to some extent that Germany could be considered fascist, but Japan was in no way so. Their government structure didn't allow for fascism, plus they actively crushed and killed many of the fascists in Japan. There was no para military organization, and the party wasn't an official organ of the government. It's better to say that they were a militaristic monarchy more than anything else.

Nazi Germany can't be considered fascist because nothing was dedicated to the state. Germany was irrelevant to the Nazis, all that matter was the people living on it. Their irredentism was less about historical territory of the German nation and more about land that belonged to the German people. Nazism was also not bound solely to Germany, but could be applied in any nation the so-called "master race" had a presence in. Hitler's expansion in Eastern Europe was primarily motivated by the desire to feed larger German population. It was considered necessary to exterminate the natives of these lands, not for the German state, but for the German people. So they could live there and make food there for their fellow Germans.

National Socialism isn't about the state, it's about the Nordic-Germanic peoples and their self-applied supremacy over others. As such the ideology can transcend national borders into any Nordic/Germanic population.

"Fascism was a major influence on Nazism. The seizure of power by Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in the March on Rome in 1922 drew admiration by Hitler, who less than a month later had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists. Hitler presented the Nazis as a form of German fascism. In November 1923, the Nazis attempted a "March on Berlin" modelled after the March on Rome, which resulted in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich."
- Wikipedia

[Community Values]

To say that the totalitarian regimes were dissimilar is kind of a pointless statement then, by your logic.
I'd agree to some extent that Germany could be considered fascist, but Japan was in no way so. Their government structure didn't allow for fascism, plus they actively crushed and killed many of the fascists in Japan. There was no para military organization, and the party wasn't an official organ of the government. It's better to say that they were a militaristic monarchy more than anything else.

Nazi Germany can't be considered fascist because nothing was dedicated to the state. Germany was irrelevant to the Nazis, all that matter was the people living on it. Their irredentism was less about historical territory of the German nation and more about land that belonged to the German people. Nazism was also not bound solely to Germany, but could be applied in any nation the so-called "master race" had a presence in. Hitler's expansion in Eastern Europe was primarily motivated by the desire to feed larger German population. It was considered necessary to exterminate the natives of these lands, not for the German state, but for the German people. So they could live there and make food there for their fellow Germans.

National Socialism isn't about the state, it's about the Nordic-Germanic peoples and their self-applied supremacy over others. As such the ideology can transcend national borders into any Nordic/Germanic population.

Sure, but it definitely had quite a bit of inspiration from fascism. The fact that one cared about the nation and one cared about the state doesn't completely negate the fact that Italy and Germany had similar economic and political structures. I would argue that Germany could be described as either an exception to the usual fascist society or a hybrid-system. It definitely can't be described as purely fascist though.

[Principality of the Raix]

Nazi Germany can't be considered fascist because nothing was dedicated to the state. Germany was irrelevant to the Nazis, all that matter was the people living on it. Their irredentism was less about historical territory of the German nation and more about land that belonged to the German people. Nazism was also not bound solely to Germany, but could be applied in any nation the so-called "master race" had a presence in. Hitler's expansion in Eastern Europe was primarily motivated by the desire to feed larger German population. It was considered necessary to exterminate the natives of these lands, not for the German state, but for the German people. So they could live there and make food there for their fellow Germans.

National Socialism isn't about the state, it's about the Nordic-Germanic peoples and their self-applied supremacy over others. As such the ideology can transcend national borders into any Nordic/Germanic population.

Sure, but it definitely had quite a bit of inspiration from fascism. The fact that one cared about the nation and one cared about the state doesn't completely negate the fact that Italy and Germany had similar economic and political structures. I would argue that Germany could be described as either an exception to the usual fascist society or a hybrid-system. It definitely can't be described as purely fascist though.

As far as Nazism, it is hybrid taking from Socialist and Facism, while trying to establish its own theocracy.

[The Founding Fatherland]

Nazi Germany can't be considered fascist because nothing was dedicated to the state. Germany was irrelevant to the Nazis, all that matter was the people living on it. Their irredentism was less about historical territory of the German nation and more about land that belonged to the German people. Nazism was also not bound solely to Germany, but could be applied in any nation the so-called "master race" had a presence in. Hitler's expansion in Eastern Europe was primarily motivated by the desire to feed larger German population. It was considered necessary to exterminate the natives of these lands, not for the German state, but for the German people. So they could live there and make food there for their fellow Germans.

National Socialism isn't about the state, it's about the Nordic-Germanic peoples and their self-applied supremacy over others. As such the ideology can transcend national borders into any Nordic/Germanic population.

"Fascism was a major influence on Nazism. The seizure of power by Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in the March on Rome in 1922 drew admiration by Hitler, who less than a month later had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists. Hitler presented the Nazis as a form of German fascism. In November 1923, the Nazis attempted a "March on Berlin" modelled after the March on Rome, which resulted in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich."
- Wikipedia

National Socialism is indeed influenced by fascism, yes. I mentioned this before and do not deny such.

That doesn't make it fascist.

Nazi Germany can't be considered fascist because nothing was dedicated to the state. Germany was irrelevant to the Nazis, all that matter was the people living on it. Their irredentism was less about historical territory of the German nation and more about land that belonged to the German people. Nazism was also not bound solely to Germany, but could be applied in any nation the so-called "master race" had a presence in. Hitler's expansion in Eastern Europe was primarily motivated by the desire to feed larger German population. It was considered necessary to exterminate the natives of these lands, not for the German state, but for the German people. So they could live there and make food there for their fellow Germans.

National Socialism isn't about the state, it's about the Nordic-Germanic peoples and their self-applied supremacy over others. As such the ideology can transcend national borders into any Nordic/Germanic population.

Sure, but it definitely had quite a bit of inspiration from fascism. The fact that one cared about the nation and one cared about the state doesn't completely negate the fact that Italy and Germany had similar economic and political structures. I would argue that Germany could be described as either an exception to the usual fascist society or a hybrid-system.

Yes, it does. Fascism is about the state. No exceptions. You see that quote in my signature? Mussolini said that in reference to fascism.

Fascism is dedicated to the state, National Socialism is dedicated to the race. Fascism is about nationalism, National Socialism is about racism.

It's a simple but important distinction that renders National Socialism a separate ideology than - albeit influenced by - fascism.

[The Parkus Empire]

Specifically it's a sophisticated theory and ideology of state and will. In common use it simply means nationalist totalitarianism which allows for a moderate degree of free enterprise.

[Principality of the Raix]

Specifically it's a sophisticated theory and ideology of state and will. In common use it simply means nationalist totalitarianism which allows for a moderate degree of free enterprise.

Yet they are Not Nationalist, but simply Socialist. National can be ignored, the key word is Socialist. However, Nazi's also tend to lean towards Socialism. Nationalism is in no form, what Nazism was about. Besides the retaking of Germanic territory or off shoot countries like France having descended from Germanic tribes, etc. So once more, they are more about Race eitherway one looks at it.

[The Parkus Empire]

Specifically it's a sophisticated theory and ideology of state and will. In common use it simply means nationalist totalitarianism which allows for a moderate degree of free enterprise.

Yet they are Not Nationalist, but simply Socialist. National can be ignored, the key word is Socialist. However, Nazi's also tend to lean towards Socialism. Nationalism is in no form, what Nazism was about. Besides the retaking of Germanic territory or off shoot countries like France having descended from Germanic tribes, etc. So once more, they are more about Race eitherway one looks at it.

They were very much about nationalism in the sense that nationalism is the belief that people are defined and united primarily by nation.