Difference between Fascism and Nazism

[Gostie]

Hi, I was wondering if there was any particular difference between Nazism and Fascism. I've heard conflicting views on the subject and I'd like to find out the truth.

Thanks!

[LSD]

Fascism, in its classical sense, refers to an early twentieth century Italian political philosophy in which the state exerted total political authority through a dictatorial party machine and an apotheotic personal leader. Mussilini himself referred to it as "corporatism" at times because it expanded the power of the private sector and strengthened economic power so long as such power did not threaten the interests of the state military complex.

National Socialism (or Naziism) was a German variant of Fascism which retained its militaristic, authoritarian, and capitalistic elements, but added a theory of racial determinism.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

The only thing that I believe differs from them is that nazism is racist, while fascism isn't.

Ever seen the movie "Starship Troopers"? Well, I'd say that is the closest thing to a more liberal-fascism, if one can call that.

What's more - nazism is built on race and "perfectness", that is, the whiter, healthier and stronger you are, the better.

[OleMarxco]

I don't see the difference of National Socialism and Nazism. I dont' even know why there's MADE a difference. If we take the word itself, nationalistic socialism literally, then we could out of that judge that it would be just as Russia, only with a more patriotic and imperialistic style? I think I can know the difference then. Nazism is the lore of the artic race being the superior race. National Socialism is a "we are the best and must conquer the world"-kind of Socialism, me thinkesth.

[LSD]

don't see the difference of National Socialism and Nazism.

There is none.

Naziism = short for National Socialism.

[Maksym]

Originally posted by Super Mario [email protected] 18 2005, 07:22 PM
I think the more ironic thing is that fascism doesn't really care what kind of system it is - so long there is one leader. North Korea is a perfect example of fascism - yet, Kim Jong Il claims it to be for the people by the people.
Actually the previous system does matter for Fascism to occur. Fascism is the final attempt by the bourgeois to hold onto state power, when the parliamentary system fails.

The analysis of the DPRK is just for humour or were you being serious?

[Zingu]

Nazism and National Socialism are different; even if they are under the same name.


The term "National Socialist" was used as far back as 1889 in France, of course now the name has been sort of "hijacked" by the German ideology.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Super Mario [email protected] 18 2005, 07:22 PM
North Korea is a perfect example of fascism - yet, Kim Jong Il claims it to be for the people by the people.
North Korea would be Fabianist rather than Fascist; it would be more fitting saying its a country under Fabianism than Fascism. Since Fascism is not nessecarily always totalitarian.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2005, 02:24 PM
George Bush maybe a reactionary twit, but he isn't a facsist.
Perhaps not in action but who knows for sure of his ideology... it is close I should think.

[monkeydust]

There is none.

Naziism = short for National Socialism.


He's right - I think in German the name is something like National Sozialitze Arbeit Party (or words to that effect), hence Nazism.

Another thing to anyone who's unsure: don't try to understand the meaning of National Socialism by combining the constituent parts of its name; it's completely different.

[OleMarxco]

As far as I could say, he would've then been a christian fascist, me thinkesth, if so. I do sincerly believe George W. Bush is a, what we call, a "closet-fascist". He doesn't have the guts to right up speak that he is one, but he leaves 'subtle' notes everywhere that he does. Such as? OH COME ON. Just read his lips: "Well, now I'm not a dictator but it sure as hell would've been easier then!" or something such to that extent. WHAT AN OUTRAGE! A democratically elected president says that? To hell with him! Most christians harbor imperialistic feelings that is not unlike fascists and if they had the chanche, they sure as hell would've used them to impose THEIR morals on others with authority. Too bad for them they're kept in check by the constitution, and the police....but that damn christian elite group.....hmmm...whatever it was called again....The Foundation-something?.... is sure as hell no conspiracy theory, 'rats feh'sho! ;)

[OleMarxco]

Then why is it called exactly "National Socialism" if the real thing doesn't mean literally what it's name is? ;)

[Gostie]

National Socialism is an oxymoron anyway isn't it?

[LSD]

Then why is it called exactly "National Socialism" if the real thing doesn't mean literally what it's name is?

Why doesn't anti-semetism mean "literally what it's name is". The eymology of words is far more complex and nuanced than denotation.

It just so happened that the Austrian National Socialist Party chose to call themselves that early on and the BAP (later the NSDAP) chose to adopt it. It was largely a political ploy: trying to appeal to the left (Socialist) and the right (National) at the same time.

[OleMarxco]

So Being Nationalistic has to be on the right, and being Socialistic meanwhile is impossible and an paradox? I haven't thought of THIS before...hmmm....I have always thought being Nationalistic was something neutral of the right/left-wing spectre-bullshit, (I actually hate giving people's politics such stupid names like right or left. Can't we just refer to it as...well, stop referring to it all togheter and just call ideologies their respective names instead of putting them in groups?) and only represented the will to carry out your land's glory in the world, or something ;)

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

I think the more ironic thing is that fascism doesn't really care what kind of system it is - so long there is one leader. North Korea is a perfect example of fascism - yet, Kim Jong Il claims it to be for the people by the people.

[fernando]

If you were to follow that logic it would mean every dictatorship is fascism <_<

[LSD]

If you were to follow that logic it would mean every dictatorship is fascism

Exactly. Fascism has a clear meaning and applying it to every percieved incident of oppression is ludicrous. Too much of the left misuses the word and labels everything they don&#39;t like as "fascist".

George Bush maybe a reactionary twit, but he isn&#39;t a facsist.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:21 AM
As far as I could say, he would&#39;ve then been a christian fascist, me thinkesth, if so. I do sincerly believe George W. Bush is a, what we call, a "closet-fascist". He doesn&#39;t have the guts to right up speak that he is one, but he leaves &#39;subtle&#39; notes everywhere that he does. Such as? OH COME ON. Just read his lips: "Well, now I&#39;m not a dictator but it sure as hell would&#39;ve been easier then&#33;" or something such to that extent. WHAT AN OUTRAGE&#33;
You mean:

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”–George Bush

For your Christian fascist quote:


"God told me to strike at Al Qa&#39;ida and I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did. With the might of God on our side we will triumph,"–George Bush

Contrast it with Hitler:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."–Adolf Hitler


A democratically elected president says that? To hell with him&#33;

I agree but the "democratically elected" part is disputable.


Most christians harbor imperialistic feelings that is not unlike fascists and if they had the chanche, they sure as hell would&#39;ve used them to impose THEIR morals on others with authority.

Indeed, that is a great deal of what keep imperialist justification going; the clergy uh, sub-class? keeps people in check, as they are owned by the ruling class.

Funny how in its origins Christianity seems almost pacifistic at least anti-authoritarian in many ways... assimilated like so many others (oh well, we can do better).


Too bad for them they&#39;re kept in check by the constitution, and the police....

Well, part of the time; the ruling class must exercise authority, as they wouldn&#39;t want a theocratic power struggle, it happens... *cough* Taliban */cough*


but that damn christian elite group.....hmmm...whatever it was called again....The Foundation-something?

The Heritage Foundation?


.... is sure as hell no conspiracy theory, &#39;rats feh&#39;sho&#33; ;)

Right; "Conspiracy" has become a dirty word... people in power conspire. If you deny it you are naive, confused or painfully, painfully stupid. :hammer:

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:53 PM
National Socialism is an oxymoron anyway isn&#39;t it?
Yes indeed it is on a par with military intelligence.

[OleMarxco]

"There is no military intelligence."-The Hatrix.

[seraphim]

Exactly I guess English isn&#39;t your first language so I&#39;ll provide you with a definition

oxymoron
noun [C]
two words used together which have, or seem to have, opposite meanings

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Funny how in its origins Christianity seems almost pacifistic at least anti-authoritarian in many ways...

It is interesting that the Christian right only has a strong power-base in the USA, while the Christian left is more global.

[LSD]

It is interesting that the Christian right only has a strong power-base in the USA,

Right&#33; ...and Europe, and Africa, and South America...

Christianity has always been rightest and regressive, right from the beginning. Don&#39;t let anyone fool you, all supernaturalism is reactionary&#33;

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Right&#33; ...and Europe, and Africa, and South America...

Yes, well I said that the Christian right has it&#39;s power-base in the USA, not that it didn&#39;t exist anywhere outside.


Christianity has always been rightest and regressive, right from the beginning.

Well, so where the Muslims too, the Egyptians that came before them, the Persian religions, and so on. Of course I am aware of the heirarchy of the Church (and by Church I mean all other religious centers even in other religions) - but not every human being on this planet share the same view of Christianity as they do.

Just like there are those with "leftist" leanings who prefer a stronger leader and state, and those who want the society completely in the hands of the people.

But you can always read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left


Don&#39;t let anyone fool you, all supernaturalism is reactionary&#33;

Are all corporations nazis?

[LSD]

Are all corporations nazis?

Of course not, but they are all capitalist.

Likewise, all religions are by their nature reactionary. They demand "faith" and a subordination of reason and logic to a "deity" or "belief systen". That leads to oppression and ignorance.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 20 2005, 11:35 AM
Christianity has always been rightest and regressive, right from the beginning.
That is a hard one to prove I think but mostly you realty need to specify.
Christianity didn&#39;t really appear until sometime after "Jesus&#39;" death, I believe...
The Romans then sort of assimilated the religion to stifle any anti-authoritarianism and liberation theology. I will agree that liberation theology is not the way to go but we must all admit it has a power of its own.


Don&#39;t let anyone fool you, all supernaturalism is reactionary&#33;
I am going to disagree; much is dogmatic and full of mystification though. The real problem is that the ruling class does what it can to buy out belief systems and use them to control people.

Hey, you have the same amount of posts I had yesterday&#33; :D

[LSD]

That is a hard one to prove I think but mostly you realty need to specify.
Christianity didn&#39;t really appear until sometime after "Jesus&#39;" death, I believe...

Christianity seems to have appeared sometime around the middle to late second century. As an organized, hierarchical religion, it seems to have really come into its own in the early third. Of course after Constantine&#39;s vision and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Christianity really "took off"...


The Romans then sort of assimilated the religion to stifle any anti-authoritarianism and liberation theology.

The point is that while early Christianity was certainly anti-Roman, it was never really anti-authoritarian. In fact, even the earliest Churches seemed to have been run hierarchically with no congregational democracy or even oversight on Church leaders. Furthermore, the early Church, being mainly an Essene Jewish sect with liberal Pharisee overtones, seems to have idolized much of middle Judea and saw the organization of the pre-diaspora kings as the "perfect" earthly government.

They were basically theocrats and monarchists, hardly anti-authoritarian&#33;

[Elect Marx]

Damn you&#33; You are probably right and I am not going to waste time defending X-ianity, let it burn&#33; Maybe I will research something more fruitful...