Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
So they were fascists if you ignore the accepted definition of fascism and insert your own?
No.
They’re fascists by the very definition of fascism. The caveat in the historical consensus is that fascism is treated as a specific ideology, with the qualifier apparently being the underlying economic system. I disagree with that distinction. Just because Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot were communists does not negate the fact that they also exhibited virtually every defining characteristic of fascism. They embodied nearly every trait of what a terrible authoritarian ruler can be.
Likewise, just because a mass-murdering psychopath who happens to be in charge of a country calls himself a socialist does not automatically make him one in any meaningful historical or philosophical sense. Political leaders do not get to define themselves for the purposes of history. History evaluates them by their actions, not merely by the labels they choose to adopt.
I’m also saying that I disagree with the historical consensus on defining fascism strictly as an ideology. I’ll reiterate that this is not a hard science. I’m not claiming that the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect because I have a philosophical disagreement with them. Rather, I’m arguing for a definition of fascism based on ideological consistency and observable characteristics, not solely on the economic system a regime claims to follow.
That’s a whole lot of other words when you could have just said ‘yes’.
I couldn’t not have just said yes. Jeez dude.