Some funny self denigration, that was...

"Turn into the skid"... that made me laugh.

We've been over "fascism" before... it is hard to pin down, but I think we did it rather well. I can't recall the title of the posts, though...

First of all, you aren't the first to see "Stalinism" as akin to fascism. I think it was J. Edgar Hoover that kept referring to the "Red fascists" during the HUAC hearings in the 50's... to the best of my knowledge, that was the first use of the term.

My understanding is that "fascism":

1) Is an ultra-nationalistic ideology, where the State works to promote a specific ethnic or racial group over another (which I think is different than simply promoting racism or prejudice... say anti-Semetism) as the best and most expedient means by which to build a national identity. The "nation" or "race" is what the government and State represent and protect... never the individual... with that nation or race typified in a single person as the "icon" of the effort.

2) Promotes violence as an acceptable means of both political and social change, at home and abroad. Expansionist military planning, aggressive foreign policy that may include the use of troops, a heightened level of military readiness... all the way down to beatings and torture as a means to a political end. Tight control of the military and domestic police forces are paramount.

3) Historical examples of fascism all seem to show that the will of the Party is equal to the will of the leader... it is nearly always a totalitarian system of government. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Tito, Sadam... all fine examples. This goes beyond a simple de facto understanding, however. 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. In fascist Germany, Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia, France and Iraq, the army swore to defend the leader of the Party as the leader of the armed forces. So did everyone else. The State (or the will of the State) was the will of the leader... by design, not by force of will or personality.

4) Corporatism is the unifying structure of design in fascism. Government, military and civilian agencies are all structured in a highly compartmentalized manner... "corporations" today are the best extant examples of this (although the two only actually share a root word... I'm not an anti-corporate sort, you know).

5) While the economic and domestic engines are "centralized" in fascism, this isn't to deny a level of free enterprise, but to insure that the State can determine how fast growing or expansive the economy or markets grow... where in communism, such centralized control is used to determine the livelihood of every contributing member of society, and in a free-market system it is as unregulated as possible, with growth determined by the markets themselves. Growth and economic development must benefit the State, but not other states or rival parties or interests. Again, Germany, Italy and Brazil are excellent examples of this: All had huge industrial production efforts... cars, trucks, ships, resources, and agricultural produce that could NOT be sold (even at a profit) to rival interests, lest those become assets for someone else AGAINST the State where they originated. Thus, auto manufacturing in Germany was limited to what it could "sell" at fixed prices to the German people... all the rest went to the German military machines.

Furthermore, while I don't think this is a "signature" feature of fascism as a political ideology, history shows us that a large part of the fascist effort went into creating a level of "awe" of the government/Party that isn't seen anywhere else. Political rallies, parades, government functions... all had a level of pomp and sophistication and grandeur that can oly be described as "liturgical". I'm rather convinced that we can thank "fascism" for the fascination that such nations as the USSR, China, Iran, and North Korea all still have for military parades. They've been a major part of their makeup from the beginning of the 20th Century... but are almost unheard of in the US, UK, and Western Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire and the last of the "triumphs" of the Emperors. Yes, there are exceptions to that observation (Napoleon, the Kaisers, and George V are a few)... but the democratic West has not had the need for such propaganda or pomp when it comes to expressions of power and authority. The only times that sort of "high ceremony" is employed in the West (especially here in the US) is at the most solemn or sacred times... the death of a sitting President, for example, or the return (real or imagined) of a national hero from danger (ticker-tape parades is what I'm hinting at here), or the crowning of a new sovereign in Great Britain.

The one point about fascism that I think I hold as "vital" but that the rest of the world doesn't is the focus, by the party/government in question, on the superior nature of one ethnic/racial/national group over all others, and the most expedient way to get that superior group to either its former glory or to a level of power never before achieved. Perhaps racism isn't a fundamental requirement of fascism, but history tells us that it is a common denominator throughout all past fascist states, doesn't it?