Motherland vs Fatherland

I agree, that capitalism is no easier to nail down to a 5 or 6 word definition then fascism, but that's my point. Capitalism is a catch all phrase to describe almost any free market, regardless of whether that level of freedom is on par with France or the US. Such is the "catch-all" case with fascism, in my opinion. And almost every numbered explanation of your first response could describe Stalinism (and I know you realize this, and were simply giving thoughtful indulgence to my quarry).

So, lets go at this another way. I thought about it after rereading your post, and something stood out to me. Clearly the Soviet Empire was organized around Marxist economic theory. "Class, bourgeoisie, Cossacks, worker" are all phrases that defined whom was the enemy and whom was not. But could we not say that it was fascist tactics that the Party used to employ this economic theory, creating the image we all conjure up when referencing a "communist state?"

Perhaps this is a better way of saying it: communism, capitalism, and socialism are all varying economic theories. Republic, democracy, or parliamentarian are all variations of a free society. Totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and despotism are all variations of a closed society. However, "fascism" seems to me to be the act of implementing and maintaining either a closed society or an unworkable economic theory. Rather then being a model of government or economic theory, it is the tactic used to maintain any despotic regime, Party, individual dictator, or imposed economic system.

And I say this because almost every web definition of fascism I look up also describes the Soviets, short of Marxist economic theory. Or perhaps it is better said - fiscally they are different, but physically they are identical.

This still leaves the identifiers of ultranationalism and racism, which don't fit into my definition of fascism as the tactic of maintaining a closed society or imposed economic system. First I would say that I don't think (I note think) ultra nationalism is enough to carve out fascism as a separate model of government. I would argue that the various monarchy states of Europe were ultranationalist. Yet we don't typically conjure up Henry VIII when ticking off fascist rulers. To be English, to be French, to not be French, these strong points of pride seem to me to have been based on nationality, not race (they were all Caucasian, after all). Go to a soccer match and you can still see "ultranationalism" in Europe. And I find Soviet era Russia quoting Motherland this, and Motherland that, "for the Motherland", time and again. Was that not a line, or line of reasoning, the Party promoted? Also, does "ultranationalism" not describe the US throughout WWII? As I said, I don't think that one identifier is enough to carve out fascism its own territory as a separate government model.

Racism ... I've never heard of this as an identifying trait of fascism. And you made it clear that was your opinion, and not that of the at large intelligentsia. But perhaps in adding this to your personal definition you ventured over into the most identifiable "fascist" state in history, or more precisely, the ideology of their most infamous Party, Nazism (is that with one "i", is there a "dash" between the two? I don't know). Nazi ideology, I think, is what you're mixing into your definition of fascism. And although Germany is the most referenced fascist state, I don't think fascism automatically equates to Nazism, thus I would consider omitting racism from your personal definition (boy, I feel like I'm reciting a horribly gone wrong Dr. Seuss poem).

Now, 2 side notes to this discussion ...

"Stalin was a totalitarian leader... but not because of the fundamental make up of the Soviet system. Members of the Red Army didn't take an oath of allegiance to Stalin, but to the Party."

No beef on whom the oath was to. But I would argue that Stalin's totalitarianism was made capable precisely because of the fundamental make up the Soviet Union. That in fact, totalitarianism was the only avenue for employing such a system. Certainly Stalin was their most extreme example. His body count stands alone in history. But can you name one Premier or Party head from Lenin to Gorbachev that was not a totalitarian?

Lastly, you wrote:
My point is simply this: When I used to (and I have stopped doing it, you know) call you a "fascist" back in the day, it was because you were so prone to take what you perceived as the "patriotic" stance, and I am very (VERY) afraid of "patriotism" as a general definition of intent.

And you followed with:
I define patriotism as "devoted love, support and defense of one's country" and that is a fine thing...

I know what you mean, but some friendly advice if you will - you should reverse the order of those 2 lines. And quite honestly, I would also suggest using the phrase "blind patriotism." I happen to know that's what you mean to critique here, but go around saying that "patriotism scares you" to Joe six pack and you're libel to end conversations before they begin. As an American, being "prone to taking a patriotic stance", in general or otherwise, isn't exactly frowned upon, nor should it be. Being blindly patriotic, now that's a different story. And a different way of conveying your thoughts on the matter, minus the scowls, tempers and name calling your original phrasing is bound to garner.