Fascism... defined

First off... this is a great post. While you, in the past, have espoused the real genius of the Bund as a "meeting" of like minds, I think it is the ability... nay, the opportunity we provide for open, honest discussion and debate. You cited sources and quotes, clearly defining what was your opinion and what wasn't... a great post.

Fascism. Ambiguous term, indeed... but not as undefined as you made it out to be. I think there are facts and facets of "fascism" that are universal in their application to the term. I won't delve into these terms yet... I wanted to hit on another point first.

Communism. Communism in its most extreme political form (political, as opposed to the much smaller group dynamic seen in such organizations as religious sects, small clan groups or tribal gatherings, et cetera) does share many features with fascism... but the two are not interchangable terms.

One facet of fascism that I think is universal, when discussing national or trans-national politics, is corporatism. As you said in your post, one could draw the line by making the analogy that "communism is business controled by the state" and "fascism is the state's control of business". A far better analogy than I think you know.

Take the example of nearly any European fascist state from the last century, and you will see each one has a disproportionate degree of industrial control lying with national, industrial cartels. The control of these cartels (called "corporations" in my poli-sci texts) lies within the controling party of the fascist state... but only through the leaders of those cartels being recruited (or founding) members of the fascist organization. This membership in the controling group (we'll call it the "party", for ease of use) allows nearly unlimited ability to control markets and resources for the expressed profit of the elite, and not for the state or organization.

This "corporatism" that is a defining (in my opinion) fact of fascism can also be seen in societies that are NOT traditionally seen as fascist. The mind-set of many post-war Japanese corporations that the individual worker is simply a small part of a greater group, and that all considerations for that individual are secondary to the considerations of the company is an EXCELLENT example of "fascist" thinking outside of national politics. No promise was made to the worker of better wages, or improved conditions... only the assurance that they could be satisfied knowing the "company" is doing well.

In the more familiar setting of Nazi Germany shows us that such cartels as Krupp, DWM (manufacturer of the Luger pistol), Junker, Volkswagon, Messershmidtt AG all made the owners and shareholders (literally) BILLIONS of marks over 15 short years... and ultimately utter ruin with the loss of the war. This is in direct contradiction of the intent and direction of communism, as it is ultimately understood to be defined.

Another facet of fascism that can't be ignored (at least European fascism) is its direct, stated and unending opposition to "communism" in any form. Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia, Germany ALL made membership in the Communist Party a crime punishable by death.

I'm not arguing that Stalin enjoyed similar control and command as Hitler... certainly he did, and for far longer. But the systems are not the same, and they can't be seen as simply different faces of the same coin... unless that coin is called "totalitarianism" or "dictatorship". Nothing even remotely resembeling the Volksluhnd tradition of "nationalism" ever existed in the USSR. The slogans painted on walls and billboards across the USSR read "Slava KPSU!" (Glory to the Communist Party!)... not "Glory to Russia!" In a state where more than 65 distinct languages and 200 dialects were spoken and read, I just don't think that kind of exclusionism was applicable.

One final point...

I think it is more important to understand what "fascism" promotes, rather than what it opposes. Fascism promotes aggressive militaristic expansionism at all costs. It promotes ONE social group (ethnic, religious, linguistic, et al) above all others. It promotes complete and utter submission to central authority... usually epitomized in one person. It promotes the utter hatred of an outside social group (again... ethnic, religious, racial, et al) as a focus of policy and national interest. It promotes the agendas and programs of the controling authority through the methodical manipulation of information on every level, denying (in most cases) any access to free and open sources of information. It promotes the use of ALL resources (natural, economic, social, military, et al) for the unequivocal GAIN of the controling elite, and NOTHING ELSE.

Without these facets of operation or policy, I fail to see where the erm "fascism" can rightly be employed... unless it is used only as a derogatory statement.