> > Fascism is one possible failure mode of capitalism. It is capitalism stripped of brakes, guardrails, and ethics.

> This is not a useful definition of fascism, if that is what you mean. Fascism can exist entirely independently of capitalism, and has done.

I think you should look up the definition and history of fascism. You're correct about totalitarism, but fascism is by definition capitalist.

▲

dragonwriter 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Fascism is a reaction against capitalism-the-system in much the same way (but a different direction) than communism (it is "capitalist" in that, like most systems, including pre-capitalist ones, and including most claiming to be "Communist", it has a narrow self-perpetuating class controlling society by means including control of the means of production, but it does not feature the particular structure and features that defines capitalism as a system rather than a feature of other systems; fascist corporatism looks a lot, in practice, like the state capitalism that vanguardist "Communist" regimes tend to get stuck in.)

▲

cycomanic 4 days ago | parent [-]

> but it does not feature the particular structure and features that defines capitalism as a system rather than a feature of other systems;

What do you mean? The defining feature of capitalism is private/corporate ownership of the means of production which is a core part of fascism as well.

▲

dragonwriter 4 days ago | parent [-]

No, the defining feature of capitalism-as-a-system (as opposed to capitalism-as-a-feature of systems including those which predate capitalism-as-system) is the set and preeminence of property rights, which are very different under fascism, because fascist corporatism subordinates all interests (not least of all property interest) to central authority.

Fascist corporatism is as radically opposed to capitalism as Leninist “democratic centralism” is (and, arguably, despite the opposing rhetorical stance, in very much the same substantive direction in practice.)

	▲	cycomanic 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		So where are your definition of capitalism and fascism from? Because seems to me you just made up your own definitions. To me your definition of fascism resembles much more a difinition of general authoritarianism or totalitarianism.

▲

exasperaited 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> but fascism is by definition capitalist.

I think it is you who should look up the definition and history of fascism.

Fascism usually exists in a capitalist context — but "by definition"? No.

▲

panarchy 4 days ago | parent [-]

Maybe we should take the definition from the mouth of an expert on fascism, Mussolini, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

	▲	exasperaited 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe you should do some research on that quote. Because there is literally no evidence he ever said it. It's a widespread but false attribution, as I outlined in another comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46239664 This attribution leads to a truly fundamentally broken reduction of what Mussolini actually thought fascism was (though his own definition of it was largely pseudointellectual drivel). But even then, "corporatism" doesn't mean "capitalism" at all.