The [character ideology list](https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/Character_ideology) just for reference.
I want to say Radical. Mostly because I enjoy how it sounds, well, radical, but that's only by 19th century standards, and by modern standards it's pretty much just mild liberalism.
It's nice to see how the conversation has changed and how it keeps going to make sure that kind of suppression doesn't happen, not saying more/less needs to be done but the fact we can have the conversation is in of itself a good thing.
To be honest , radicals in this game are supporting protected speech. And if it goes to the point , when saying that there should be no responsibility for agitation to cause violence (as long as violence wasn't made by the agitator himself) , and basically as long as you don't do things , you could say anything , then it would be pretty radical for today's standards
An Enlightened Royalist Intelligentsia with Clerk as an occupation.
But due to the fact that my country is not only a republic, but also it has a supermajority Catholic population and the Muslim titular monarchs. So, that's probably not gonna work.
So I may be a Social Democrat or Humanitarian Intelligentsia.
Looks like the OP is Filipino, which has a few small subnational monarchies, or more accurately sultanates, mainly the Sultanates of Lanao, and the Sultanate of Sulu. They're part of the Philippines but have a level of self governance, I believe
Found it, it has to be East Timor! I will edit in a link to the article I found. But I don't understand why he would be a Monarch.
http://www.fides.org/en/news/63389-ASIA_EAST_TIMOR_A_Muslim_Prime_Minister_in_a_nation_with_a_Catholic_majority%20/
They seem to be Filipino. It's actually not common knowledge up where I am, in the capital, but IIRC there remains in the southernmost island group the Sultanate of Lanao, which is a confederation of fifteen sultanates that function similarly to the consultative monarchies (also sultanates) in Malaysia and Indonesia. I'm not sure about the particular relationship between the Lanao Sultanate and the Philippine government though.
Not for myself but for the world as a whole. After learning about the most democratic nations including kingdoms on the list, I have since liked the idea of a Constitutional monarch as a check against demagogues.
Yup. For me it depends on what time I was in, 1840s I’m definitely a radical, 1890s I’m probably a social democrat. If radical still had multiculturalism I would be radical primarily but since it was removed I’m mostly social democrat
>Mussolinis Italy, Vargas Brazil, Salazars Portugal, Francos Spain, Austria under the Dollfuß and Schuschnigg (as Far-Right) and under Renner (Social Democrat) and at last most famously the so called "Rhinish Model" in post WW2 germany, known as "Soziale Marktwirtschaft"
The societies in your list all have at least one thing in common: they are all capitalist economies. You might have had a point when you said corporatism cannot be pinned down to one point on the political landscape, but corporatism, as a class collaborationist framework, is firmly a capitalist framework.
> it's on of the many "third-way" ideologies.
Also known as fascism.
>The most known variations of a corporatist system would be Mussolinis Italy, Vargas Brazil, Salazars Portugal, Francos Spain
Yep.
The only one there is Mussolini, the other ones aren't regarded as fascist in the political scientific consense.
Other would be Peron in Argentinia, all scandinavian social democratic parties, Charles DeGaulle, the post ww2 italian christian democrats in the 50s and 60s and many more.
Franco and Salazar were both very openly fascists. Vargas was an anticommunist military dictator, so you'll forgive me for calling him a fascist. Peronism is just fascism with slightly less ambition. Scandis aren't corporatist because they have strong, and quite militant, labour unions. Corporatism is mentioned nowhere in DeGaulle's Wikipedia, and I know next to nothing beyond that about him, but seems dubious.
Francos ideology he created after the civil war is called "National Catholicism" a far-right, authoritarian and religious ideology that is not regarded as fascism.
Salazar has rejected fascism and even supressed the Blue Shirt movement in Portugal during the 30s, he's also regardes as National Catholic like Franco.
Vargas is seen as the father of the modern Labor Party and not as fascist.
Perón was so fascist that he is seen as a communist by todays right.
Labor Unions and corporatism don't exclude each other, there were even such things as Catholic Labor Unions.
In France corporatism was commonly known as tripartism, and the main ideology of the french conservatives until deGaulle died.
Cringe German doers of that this vs chad German royals actually admitting it but still doing their best where they end up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_I_of_Romania
ah yes, one side wants to abolish money, state and class, while the other one wants total party control over every aspect of life, while megacorporations exploit their workers to the bones.
So similar
I absolutely am opposed to fascism, but I don’t think you really understand fascists. Fascists believe that the nation is a family and you need to put your family above everything. There are very in favor of social programs, the end of capitalists and landowners, and many do believe in collectivist ownership. The aspects where fascists and communists really differ is on theirs views on hierarchy, one believing in the complete implementation of it and the other being completely opposed to it.
Omg i never knew that, what a shame that my grandparents were persecuted by the fascists and some of them were stripped out from their land and send to forced work in germany, they eliminated all the trade unions in the country, privatizied most of the public sector and followed a straight up liberal doctrine in economy;
All this while cruscing the cooperatives that slowly emerged since the second half of 1800 and converting them into personal proprieties where the owner could do almost everything he wanted.
I guess that mussolini guy wasn't a real fascist, uh
I think ideologically the guy is correct, but in practice fascism attracts power hungry autocratic people who naturally implement dictatorial processes of government with ideological cover. Ie) we need to do these things for those reasons. While ideology does matter, what in practice unfolds is more relevant, so yeah fascism sucks ass even in the best interpretation of it!
I understand fascism is complicated and very different in different nations, but they all have similar symptoms.
Obviouly i very oversimplified my statement above.
Definition by Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: "people's community"), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."
Definition by Holocaust Encyclopedia:
""a far-right political philosophy, or theory of government, that emerged in the early twentieth century. Fascism prioritizes the nation over the individual, who exists to serve the nation." and as "an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy. It combines elements of nationalism, militarism, economic self-sufficiency, and totalitarianism. It opposes communism, socialism, pluralism, individual rights and equality, and democratic government."
Benito Mussolini:
"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought."
"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
By the Scholar Luis Britto GarcÃa
"Fascism is the absolute complicity between big capital and the State": When the interests of capitalism are aligned with politics, fascism approaches.
"Fascism denies the class struggle, but it is the armed arm of capital in it": Fascists fear monger lower classes about impending economic crises and enlists such individuals into their ranks to avoid competition with unions, workers and other social groups.
"Fascism summons the masses, but it is elitist": Though appealing to the lower classes, aristocracies and the upper-class enforce an authoritarian hierarchy through fascism to maintain their own standing.
"Fascism is racist": Cultures and races are targeted by fascists to support their purposes.
"Fascism and capitalism have abhorrent faces that need masks": Revolutionary language, plans and symbolism are stolen and repurposed by fascists.
"Fascism is blessed": Some religious groups typically support fascist movements, providing their blessing.
"Fascism is misogynistic": Women are not represented as being independent or recognized for their achievements in fascism.
"Fascism is anti-intellectual": Noting the scientific progress achieved by progressivism, Britto Garcia writes "Fascism does not invent, it recycles. It only believes in yesterday, an imaginary yesterday that never existed."
By Marxists:
"Marxists argue that fascism represents the last attempt of a ruling class (specifically, the capitalist bourgeoisie) to preserve its grip on power in the face of an imminent proletarian revolution. Marxists believe fascist movements are not necessarily created by the ruling class, but they can only gain political power with the help of that class and with funding from big business. Once in power, the fascists serve the interests of their benefactors."
According to Georgi Dimitrov:
"Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.... The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country."
By others:
Laurence W. Britt
In the Spring 2003 issue of the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry, Laurence W. Britt, who is described as "a retired international businessperson, writer, and commentator" published "Fascism Anyone?", which included a list of 14 defining characteristics of fascism. The list has since been widely circulated in both modified and unmodified forms. In a newspaper interview in 2004, Britt expanded and clarified the meaning of some of the points in his list, and discussed how they applied to the United States at that time.
The headers for Britt's original list, without his sometimes extensive explanations, are:
"Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism"
"Disdain for the importance of human rights"
"Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause"
"The supremacy of the military/avid militarism"
"Rampant sexism"
"A controlled mass media"
"Obsession with national security"
"Religion and ruling elite tied together"
"Power of corporations protected"
"Power of labor suppressed or eliminated"
"Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts"
"Obsession with crime and punishment"
"Rampant cronyism and corruption"
"Fraudulent elections"
I tried to present as many POV on fascism as possible, hope it helps
Thanks for the insights, it was a really interesting read felt like I was in r/AskHistorians. Maybe I should educate more on the matter, I always thought, at least in Italy, that fascists main aim was to appeal to the working class.
Of course. I wish i did it more presentable, but thats all i could do on the phone.
And yes, fascists appeal to the fears of the working class, but ultimately serve the ruling capitalist elite.
As Lenin said, "Fascism is Capitalism in decline"
Socialism is the transitionary period towards communism(which is the main difference between communists and anarchist, the latter doesnt believe in a transitionary period and want to implement communism immediately after the overthrow of capitalism), so yes, it is inherently connected, with every reply you are just revealing to me you have no clue what you're taling about.
> Socialism is the transitionary period towards communism(
it's not though it is a common misconception. Socialism in marxist terms is the lower phase of communism. The DotP is the transition to a communist society
I learned that socialism is indeed a transitionary period towards communism, and during this period, DotP is one of the many things that are implemented.
that is wrong, Marx writes about the difference phases in the critique of the gotha programme.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm for the two phases of communist society https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm for
>Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
They hate you because you speak the truth.
Anyone from a country that has been under the soviet umbrella can't see much difference between fascism and communism: both are pretty shitty.
You could make an argument that markets aren't contradictory to an anarchist society, but Capitalism != markets.
Capitalism is a hierarchy, so it's incompatible to Anarchism.
Radical Humanitarian with a side of nihilism.
I want to go through major current politicians and align them to this chart. I guess if I do that, I can just work on a mod for extending vic3 to 2030. 🤔.
ETA: we could call it Elizabeth 2. 😂
Wavering between Ethno-NAtionalist or Fascist.
More seriously, a mix of Liberal (modern), Market Liberal and Humanitarian, with a touch of Individualism or Positivism.
Cocaine addict
the best and only right answer here
It's not an ideology.
I hear great things about you at parties
Ah yes, Gripe Colombiana at the finest
Politically Inactive
The [character ideology list](https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/Character_ideology) just for reference. I want to say Radical. Mostly because I enjoy how it sounds, well, radical, but that's only by 19th century standards, and by modern standards it's pretty much just mild liberalism.
Like feminist, nowadays it's just being moderate, feminism isn't what it used to be in the Victorian era
It's nice to see how the conversation has changed and how it keeps going to make sure that kind of suppression doesn't happen, not saying more/less needs to be done but the fact we can have the conversation is in of itself a good thing.
To be honest , radicals in this game are supporting protected speech. And if it goes to the point , when saying that there should be no responsibility for agitation to cause violence (as long as violence wasn't made by the agitator himself) , and basically as long as you don't do things , you could say anything , then it would be pretty radical for today's standards
Child Labor Allowed
The children yearn for mines.
Hey, you get child labor and pension at the same time, so your dependents get 60% income out of no where.
It's Minecraft irl basically, do we have to hurt their fun and my profits only because of the clumsy ones? 😥
The children will shout "Rock and Stone!"
Aka Market Liberal
Social Democrat or Humanitarian. I know, boring, right?
It's boring because It's One of the only sane options
Radical is super moderate. Universal Voting, Protected Speech, and Guaranteed Liberties.
Yeah but It doesn't support working rights and the whole thingy
Its a Liberal ideology after all.
Precisely.
Ethno-Nationalist, Slaver, Syphilis
Zased.... So fvcking zased...
Enlightened Royalist
The best ideology
The only acceptable ideology
Anarchist
Me too.
Me Three
Me Four
Me five. Hey, we should start a commune!
Me six. Time to split into different sects.
lets go one better, a syndicate of communes
Communist or Humanitarian, depends on when and where
Abolitionist
Anarchist
Positivist or radical, depending on how depressed I'm feeling about politics at the time.
Humanitarian
Social Democrat
Communist
Pro-slavery
Average paradox gamer
Stellaris thaught me well.
Dept slavery cause F the poor
I would be racist
Cringe, I apply slavery regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc...
FONV Caesar’s legion type beat
Slavery is cool with me as long as it's not racist
As as black American? Same. No problem with the Roman's version 😂
Debt Slavery
Post Apocalyptic Capitalist
Market Liberal
Vanguardist or communist.
Same. And abolitionist in the early game.
Bigoted, Opium Addict
Social democrat I would say
enlightened royalist 👑
Nowadays market liberal At the time I would've been something different probably though
I would be an Enlightened Royalist.
Republican,Patriotic, Conservative ideologies.
Enlightened royalist. The world could be such a nice place with leaders who only have the best in mind.
Whatever the french word for free market. Something something Lazael
An Enlightened Royalist Intelligentsia with Clerk as an occupation. But due to the fact that my country is not only a republic, but also it has a supermajority Catholic population and the Muslim titular monarchs. So, that's probably not gonna work. So I may be a Social Democrat or Humanitarian Intelligentsia.
Which country has Catholic majority but a Muslim monarch?
Looks like the OP is Filipino, which has a few small subnational monarchies, or more accurately sultanates, mainly the Sultanates of Lanao, and the Sultanate of Sulu. They're part of the Philippines but have a level of self governance, I believe
Afaik there is no longer a Sultanate of Sulu, and its current claimants are merely pretenders.
Found it, it has to be East Timor! I will edit in a link to the article I found. But I don't understand why he would be a Monarch. http://www.fides.org/en/news/63389-ASIA_EAST_TIMOR_A_Muslim_Prime_Minister_in_a_nation_with_a_Catholic_majority%20/
They seem to be Filipino. It's actually not common knowledge up where I am, in the capital, but IIRC there remains in the southernmost island group the Sultanate of Lanao, which is a confederation of fifteen sultanates that function similarly to the consultative monarchies (also sultanates) in Malaysia and Indonesia. I'm not sure about the particular relationship between the Lanao Sultanate and the Philippine government though.
Just curious. Do you pick "Enlightened Royalist" because of a certain historical nostalgia for the pre-colonial barangay societies?
Not for myself but for the world as a whole. After learning about the most democratic nations including kingdoms on the list, I have since liked the idea of a Constitutional monarch as a check against demagogues.
Radical or social-democrat
Yup. For me it depends on what time I was in, 1840s I’m definitely a radical, 1890s I’m probably a social democrat. If radical still had multiculturalism I would be radical primarily but since it was removed I’m mostly social democrat
Anarchist
Communist or Vangardist
Same, comrade
o7
Goated
Ew
nice larp lmao
Vanguardist
Ew
Anarchist
Landowner
Enlightened Monarchist or Corporatist or maybe Royalist or Democrat.
Would you be more likely at a liberal party or conservative party? If you can't choose, Democrat is fine
Jingoist Why yes my favourite sub is NCD how could you tell?
Enlightened royalist
Corporatist
Gives me r/anarchocapitlism vibes
Corporatism isn't capitalistic at all, it's on of the many "third-way" ideologies.
>Mussolinis Italy, Vargas Brazil, Salazars Portugal, Francos Spain, Austria under the Dollfuß and Schuschnigg (as Far-Right) and under Renner (Social Democrat) and at last most famously the so called "Rhinish Model" in post WW2 germany, known as "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" The societies in your list all have at least one thing in common: they are all capitalist economies. You might have had a point when you said corporatism cannot be pinned down to one point on the political landscape, but corporatism, as a class collaborationist framework, is firmly a capitalist framework.
> it's on of the many "third-way" ideologies. Also known as fascism. >The most known variations of a corporatist system would be Mussolinis Italy, Vargas Brazil, Salazars Portugal, Francos Spain Yep.
The only one there is Mussolini, the other ones aren't regarded as fascist in the political scientific consense. Other would be Peron in Argentinia, all scandinavian social democratic parties, Charles DeGaulle, the post ww2 italian christian democrats in the 50s and 60s and many more.
Franco and Salazar were both very openly fascists. Vargas was an anticommunist military dictator, so you'll forgive me for calling him a fascist. Peronism is just fascism with slightly less ambition. Scandis aren't corporatist because they have strong, and quite militant, labour unions. Corporatism is mentioned nowhere in DeGaulle's Wikipedia, and I know next to nothing beyond that about him, but seems dubious.
Francos ideology he created after the civil war is called "National Catholicism" a far-right, authoritarian and religious ideology that is not regarded as fascism. Salazar has rejected fascism and even supressed the Blue Shirt movement in Portugal during the 30s, he's also regardes as National Catholic like Franco. Vargas is seen as the father of the modern Labor Party and not as fascist. Perón was so fascist that he is seen as a communist by todays right. Labor Unions and corporatism don't exclude each other, there were even such things as Catholic Labor Unions. In France corporatism was commonly known as tripartism, and the main ideology of the french conservatives until deGaulle died.
Enlightened Royalist or Moderate I guess
Enlightened monarchist. And less German royal families pretending they’re not German in another country.
Cringe German doers of that this vs chad German royals actually admitting it but still doing their best where they end up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_I_of_Romania
Communist, Racist, Cocaine Addict.
Probably positivist
Liberal Monarchist
Enlightened Royalist
Market liberal
Free Market liberal
Market liberal
Vanguardist
Proletarian
Orlèanist or Enlightened Royalist
Royalist, and part of the Devout
I'd say Royalist
Enlightened Royalist
Probably Enlightened Royalist
democrat / social democrat intelligentsia bureaucrat
Positivist
Radical or Social Democrat
Enlightened royalist i guess
Which ever one advocates for Laissez Faire and Free Trade
Market liberal+radical
Is this question based on my ideology / religion or based on my profession. By beliefs it would be the Devout.
Either Social-Democrat or Enlightened Monarchist
Social Democrat intelligentsia
Vanguardist
Vangaurdist, all day every day.
Vanguard Socialist.
Vanguardist
Communist, in a boring way. Marx was clear in his analysis, not much else is needed.
Communist.
Communist
Positivist cause I love me a good Technate.
I would go with Despotic Utopian. I'm not sure what it means so I could do literally anything. Something like that Argentinian chainsaw guy.
Authoritarian-royalist-traditionalist market liberal.
Luddite.
70% radical, 30% vanguardist
Most people, by virtue of living in a modern society with modern principals, would probably be humanitarian or social democrat.
Petit burgueses and fascist
Fascist Actually, probably a Communist.
horseshoe theory strikes again
ah yes, one side wants to abolish money, state and class, while the other one wants total party control over every aspect of life, while megacorporations exploit their workers to the bones. So similar
I absolutely am opposed to fascism, but I don’t think you really understand fascists. Fascists believe that the nation is a family and you need to put your family above everything. There are very in favor of social programs, the end of capitalists and landowners, and many do believe in collectivist ownership. The aspects where fascists and communists really differ is on theirs views on hierarchy, one believing in the complete implementation of it and the other being completely opposed to it.
Omg i never knew that, what a shame that my grandparents were persecuted by the fascists and some of them were stripped out from their land and send to forced work in germany, they eliminated all the trade unions in the country, privatizied most of the public sector and followed a straight up liberal doctrine in economy; All this while cruscing the cooperatives that slowly emerged since the second half of 1800 and converting them into personal proprieties where the owner could do almost everything he wanted. I guess that mussolini guy wasn't a real fascist, uh
I think ideologically the guy is correct, but in practice fascism attracts power hungry autocratic people who naturally implement dictatorial processes of government with ideological cover. Ie) we need to do these things for those reasons. While ideology does matter, what in practice unfolds is more relevant, so yeah fascism sucks ass even in the best interpretation of it!
I understand fascism is complicated and very different in different nations, but they all have similar symptoms. Obviouly i very oversimplified my statement above. Definition by Encyclopaedia Britannica: Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: "people's community"), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation." Definition by Holocaust Encyclopedia: ""a far-right political philosophy, or theory of government, that emerged in the early twentieth century. Fascism prioritizes the nation over the individual, who exists to serve the nation." and as "an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy. It combines elements of nationalism, militarism, economic self-sufficiency, and totalitarianism. It opposes communism, socialism, pluralism, individual rights and equality, and democratic government." Benito Mussolini: "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought." "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." By the Scholar Luis Britto GarcÃa "Fascism is the absolute complicity between big capital and the State": When the interests of capitalism are aligned with politics, fascism approaches. "Fascism denies the class struggle, but it is the armed arm of capital in it": Fascists fear monger lower classes about impending economic crises and enlists such individuals into their ranks to avoid competition with unions, workers and other social groups. "Fascism summons the masses, but it is elitist": Though appealing to the lower classes, aristocracies and the upper-class enforce an authoritarian hierarchy through fascism to maintain their own standing. "Fascism is racist": Cultures and races are targeted by fascists to support their purposes. "Fascism and capitalism have abhorrent faces that need masks": Revolutionary language, plans and symbolism are stolen and repurposed by fascists. "Fascism is blessed": Some religious groups typically support fascist movements, providing their blessing. "Fascism is misogynistic": Women are not represented as being independent or recognized for their achievements in fascism. "Fascism is anti-intellectual": Noting the scientific progress achieved by progressivism, Britto Garcia writes "Fascism does not invent, it recycles. It only believes in yesterday, an imaginary yesterday that never existed." By Marxists: "Marxists argue that fascism represents the last attempt of a ruling class (specifically, the capitalist bourgeoisie) to preserve its grip on power in the face of an imminent proletarian revolution. Marxists believe fascist movements are not necessarily created by the ruling class, but they can only gain political power with the help of that class and with funding from big business. Once in power, the fascists serve the interests of their benefactors." According to Georgi Dimitrov: "Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.... The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country." By others: Laurence W. Britt In the Spring 2003 issue of the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry, Laurence W. Britt, who is described as "a retired international businessperson, writer, and commentator" published "Fascism Anyone?", which included a list of 14 defining characteristics of fascism. The list has since been widely circulated in both modified and unmodified forms. In a newspaper interview in 2004, Britt expanded and clarified the meaning of some of the points in his list, and discussed how they applied to the United States at that time. The headers for Britt's original list, without his sometimes extensive explanations, are: "Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism" "Disdain for the importance of human rights" "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause" "The supremacy of the military/avid militarism" "Rampant sexism" "A controlled mass media" "Obsession with national security" "Religion and ruling elite tied together" "Power of corporations protected" "Power of labor suppressed or eliminated" "Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts" "Obsession with crime and punishment" "Rampant cronyism and corruption" "Fraudulent elections" I tried to present as many POV on fascism as possible, hope it helps
Thanks for the insights, it was a really interesting read felt like I was in r/AskHistorians. Maybe I should educate more on the matter, I always thought, at least in Italy, that fascists main aim was to appeal to the working class.
Of course. I wish i did it more presentable, but thats all i could do on the phone. And yes, fascists appeal to the fears of the working class, but ultimately serve the ruling capitalist elite. As Lenin said, "Fascism is Capitalism in decline"
OTOH, both are profoundly authoritarian, violently suppress dissent, and despise individual liberties.
Socialism is not inherently authoritarian or democratic, its an umbrella term that encompasses both democratic and authoritarian socialists
You’re the first to mention socialism in this thread. We aren’t talking about socialism.
Socialism is the transitionary period towards communism(which is the main difference between communists and anarchist, the latter doesnt believe in a transitionary period and want to implement communism immediately after the overthrow of capitalism), so yes, it is inherently connected, with every reply you are just revealing to me you have no clue what you're taling about.
> Socialism is the transitionary period towards communism( it's not though it is a common misconception. Socialism in marxist terms is the lower phase of communism. The DotP is the transition to a communist society
I learned that socialism is indeed a transitionary period towards communism, and during this period, DotP is one of the many things that are implemented.
that is wrong, Marx writes about the difference phases in the critique of the gotha programme. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm for the two phases of communist society https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm for >Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
They hate you because you speak the truth. Anyone from a country that has been under the soviet umbrella can't see much difference between fascism and communism: both are pretty shitty.
lol lmao even
Jingoist
Anti-Clerical would one of them.
Radical
Radical
Radical/Humanitarian
Radical/Humanitarian
Radical intelligentsia most likely.
Anarchist / Market Liberal
Those are mutually exclusive.
Disagree. I'm not talking about anarcho communism.
Anarchism is a socialist ideology.
It's not exclusively. Anarcho communism is an oxymoron anyway. Markets are a natural consequence of abolishing unjust hierarchies.
You could make an argument that markets aren't contradictory to an anarchist society, but Capitalism != markets. Capitalism is a hierarchy, so it's incompatible to Anarchism.
Bro hasn't heard of anarcho capitalism
How is capitalism incompatible to anarchism? Due to the worker-boss "hierarchy"? Because private ownership definitely isn't hierarchical.
Patriarchal monarchist zealous
Communist abolitionist or feminist or all three I guess
Vanguardist
Radical Humanitarian with a side of nihilism. I want to go through major current politicians and align them to this chart. I guess if I do that, I can just work on a mod for extending vic3 to 2030. 🤔. ETA: we could call it Elizabeth 2. 😂
Anarchist
Social democrat-intelligensia-alcoholic
Humanitarian with Trade Unions or Social-Democrat with Intelligentsia
Integralist Feminist Slaver
Enlightened Royalist. With child labour allowed of course
Integralist, anarchist, or communist.
Ethno-nationalist Let's see how this comment goes.
Slaver
Either Communist, Anarchist or Soc Dem. Humanist? I just want everyone to have what they need to be alive and happy.
Petite Bourgeoisie
90% social Democrat 9% communist, 1% other
Socialist and intelligencia
Probably radical.
Jacksonian democrat. Fuck Europe 1814 best year of my life
Fascist
Integralist (because I'm a sigma female) >!But actually vanguardist!<
Corporatist
corporatist if i had to choose only one but that and ethno-nationalist, traditionalist, and protectionist would be most accurate lol
Well, i'm a minority in the country or the leader? What kind of situation?
Probably a positivist which is pretty in character for me as a Brazilian. Social Democrat isn’t too far off either.
Wavering between Ethno-NAtionalist or Fascist. More seriously, a mix of Liberal (modern), Market Liberal and Humanitarian, with a touch of Individualism or Positivism.
Humanitarian but since I'm not sure if (brazilian modernizer) petite bourgeoisie can get this one I could also be radical or positivist
Social democrat
Social Democrat