[hunter23]

Fascism tends to have these attributes:

  * dictatorial power 
  * totalitarian one party state
  * embrace of political violence as a means to silence opposition
  * strong opposition to Marxism, liberalism, conservatism
  * radical nationalism
  * nationalist economic policy through protectionist schemes

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions

What about a group of employees collectively organizing and protesting non-violently against an internal board at a privatized company is exactly fascist?

[tom_]

It is possibly some groundwork being laid for the argument that the term 'fascism' has been overused so much by 'the left' that it no longer means anything. Should other lines of argument fail, this one can be mobilized as a distraction, giving time to regroup.

[antod]

Well it never had a strict definition once it stopped just applying to the Italian fascist party. In the 30s or 40s it's usage by non-fascists morphed into a subjective umbrella term based on a loose collection of similarities with other groups.

eg for the Nazis, "Fascist" still meant the Italian party despite their own party having quite a large overlap in philosophy. Every political movement seems to care more about internal differences far more than outsiders do (see People's Front of Judea).

It was always hard to pin down and never really ever had a strict definition - just an incomplete collection of possible tendencies (see the Wikipedia article above).

But yeah, usage has always been loose/overused.

[stcredzero]

Fascism tends to have these attributes:

    * dictatorial power 
    * totalitarian one party state
    * embrace of political violence as a means to silence opposition
    * strong opposition to Marxism, liberalism, conservatism
    * radical nationalism
    * nationalist economic policy through protectionist schemes

Funny, but if you just erase the word "Marxism" then you also have something which resembles the Soviet Union under Stalin. It also fits a lot of historical communist regimes, though the nationalism is disguised or submerged as "worker solidarity." However in times of war or crisis, they generally bang the nationalist drum as hard as anyone else. A "nationalist economic policy through protectionist schemes" is just meddling against markets and central planning by another name.

National Socialism and Fascism are identified as "right," but this is primarily through the application of nationalism, conquest, and opposition to communism. Look under those fig leafs, and you find something very different.

National Socialism and Fascists consistently implemented socialist policies. Under National Socialism, control by the state was so complete, the private ownership meant nothing. Property owners were called Betriebsfurhrer -- basically shop managers enacting state policy. What was made, who it was sold to, how much was charged, and how much the workers were paid were largely determined by the government. National Socialism was strongly against liberal democracy. (Liberalism in the 19th century Classical Liberal sense, which in 2019 is labeled "conservatism" in the US.) They were also openly against free markets, multi-party democratic government, freedom of speech, and other individual human rights. Mussolini started out as a Socialist, and at one point, he literally styled himself, "The Lenin of Italy." Also, many of the essentially socialist policies of National Socialist Germany in the 1930's garnered praise from American progressives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNJzqqh-jRw

What about a group of employees collectively organizing and protesting non-violently against an internal board at a privatized company is exactly fascist?

The collectivism is a shared attribute of Fascism. Also, as observed in a different comment, if they are suppressing dissent and speech in their own ranks and using pressure tactics to keep their own ranks in line, then this is another shared attribute.

[orthecreedence]

> Under National Socialism, control by the state was so complete, the private ownership meant nothing.

Sure, state control is a hallmark of fascism/totalitarianism. However, the USSR did not have a socialist mode of production essentially because of the lack of worker control of the state (and therefor the means of production).

I would argue that if the state owns the means of production, then the state must necessariy have some kind form of democratic control by the citizens in order to be considered socialist. The USSR may have had this very early on, but as Stalin rose to power it slipped away and became what is known as state capialism.

There needs to be a distinction between a "socialist country" (as in, a country with a socialist mode of production where the workers control the means of production) and "country rules by socialists" (USSR, China, Cuba, etc) where the means of production is centrally controlled by a government not representative of the population.

As far as I'm concerned, no socialist countries have ever existed for more than a handful of years.

In other words, Marxism, at its core, is at odds with fascism in a fundamental way, and Marxist-Leninists (and by extension Stalinists and Maoists) are fundamentally at odds with Marxism.

I think you can draw a parallel between "people who think they support Marxism" and fascism, but drawing a parallel between Marxism and fascism is a stretch.

[dtornabene]

Given that Fascists universally destroy Socialist Orgs, and openly, wantonly, slaughter every concieveable kind of socialist, from anarchists, to hard stalinists, to simple trade unionst social democrats, it kind of beggars belief that someone can hold this sort of opinion. Theres a tee shirt company "Right Wing Death Squads", you should look them up and then maybe do some digging on why their shirts bear pictures of helicopters with people being thrown out of them. Or maybe why the first people to fill concentration camps in Germany were communists and socialists. Or, really, just read any history of fascism not written by a fascist or a fash-sympathizer. But then you might not be moved to drop hot garbage like this.

[tptacek]

You could just go to AskHistorians and get an actual, not- made- up answer to the question of whether Nazis were "socialists", in the conventional sense. It's asked often enough that it's in the FAQ:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe#wiki_...

(Answer: no).

[leftyted]

"Fascism" is used today to refer to "bad thing I don't like".

It's a mistake to interpret diction literally. Yes, it would be lovely if people used the word "fascism" to refer to right-wing, ultra-nationalist, authoritarian political movements. But that's not how people use words and the ship has long since sailed on that particular word. According to George Orwell "fascism" has a been a synonym for "bully" since 1944 - http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

[hunter23]

Ok, I guess I am out of the loop on the meaning of fascism. However, even if I substitute the word "bullying" the statement doesn't make sense to me:

"Google employees protesting the makeup of the AI Ethics council appeared like the closest thing to bullying in the USA that I have ever witnessed"

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but I genuinely don't understand what the OP is trying to stay in that statement. Is he saying Google employee's protesting of the AI board is the worst example of bullying they have seen?

[cwperkins]

Sorry I left for a few minutes. I don’t agree with Kay Cole James on any issue socially. My read on the situation though is that, by not recommending a viable alternative. I read that as Googlers saying they are not open to have conservative viewpoints on the council, hence them disbanding. That forcible suppression of an opposition viewpoint instead of coming to the table together to debate differences when crafting policy, I see as having elements of Fascism.

[stcredzero]

That forcible suppression of an opposition viewpoint instead of coming to the table together to debate differences when crafting policy, I see as having elements of Fascism.

It's certainly authoritarian.

[wolco]

They have become what they protested against; closed mindedness. Animal farm all over again.

[geofft]

> That forcible suppression of an opposition viewpoint instead of coming to the table together to debate differences when crafting policy, I see as having elements of Fascism.

Do you see Orwell literally taking up arms in the Spanish Civil War against his ideological opponents instead of debating them—especially when he wasn't even Spanish himself—as having elements of fascism, too?

[leftyted]

The OP is trying to say:

"Google employees protesting the makeup of the AI Ethics council is disgraceful"

[geofft]

Orwell fought against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, and found his side being called fascist by the Stalinists. I suspect he was more hoping to return the word to meaning something (he quite passionately cared about fighting fascism) than encouraging its misuse.

[stcredzero]

Much of that time shaped George Orwell's later writings. All of the weird, anti-truth tendencies of The State were references to things done by Franco's Spain, the UK, and the Stalinists. The erasure and rewriting of the past. The use of blatant propaganda. Getting their own ranks to deny the simple truth before them. To George Orwell, the Fascists, the Stalinists, and the corrupt and Machiavellian parts of the British government were all part and parcel of the same evil and corruption.