Fascism needs to be defined by it's core meaning

The word fascist is rooted in the Italian word Fascio meaning a bundle of sticks. The idea is that the individual stick is weak, that a group of sticks tied together is strong.


The concept has worked in many cases such as the workers union, but like anything, taken to a fanatic level becomes a serious problem. Fascism becomes a serious threat regardless of whether it comes from the leftist or the right in that it promotes the “with us, or against us” mentality.

There is no doubt that the Nazis and even Hitlers’ Youth exhibited this behavior. Some years back I watched a documentary on Hitler’s youth and how at its peak, 90% of the kids had joined. One of the old Germans interviewed mentioned that those who didn’t join were often attacked and even beaten up by the other kids. So to be clear I’m not arguing that the Nazis weren’t Fascist, but that they were just one example of a fascist group.

On the left side of fascism had been seen in the rise of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Mao Zedongs reigned in with the same heavy propaganda as the Germans had and even had their own version of the Nazis known as the Red Guards that would carry with them Mao’s “Little Red Book” as though it had been their religion. The Red Guards followed the same blind inhuman actions murdering thousands in the name of social justice.

There are other cases like this exhibited on the left just (ie North Koreas Kim Il Sung, Cambodia’s Pol Pot) as much as we see it coming from the extremist groups coming from the right. This is not an attack on the left. What I’m attempting to point out here is that Fascism is a mindset of a large group that holds the belief that you’re either with us or against us leaving no room to disagree. It’s these groups that we have to watch out for because they’re the ones you won’t see coming before it’s too late.

Your definition of fascism is very limited.

Fascism, Nazism, Stalinisme, Maoism, are totalitarianism.

Totalitarian states share same characteristics:

  • The will to create a new man, be him the Aryan, the proletarian, and so.

-A charismatic leader who cannot be wrong,

  • The duty imposed on everyone, non only to obey but actively to share and support the state ideology.

  • The total control of every aspect of the private life of citizen. In other words, to sum up Hannah Arendt: “Autocratic regimes seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition, while totalitarian regimes seek to dominate every aspect of everyone’s life as a prelude to world domination”

-And last ennemies to eliminate, the Jews for the nazis, the rich for the Stalin’supporters.

Fascism from the left?

The Right has the “Us and Them” mentality
The Left want to be more of a “We” society

1 Like

Don’t you mean “We and They”?

As in, "We are all the good people and “They” are all the bad people.


20 characters

No, the “we” I belong to are the people who believe in evidence and honestly and compassion and an understanding that we need each other, to keep ourselves honest.

That’s cheating. :rofl:. But we do what we have to do. :+1:

You want to watch totalitarianism in action, look at China !

It all sounds the same to me. The Red Guards were a “We” group.

I’m pointing out that the idea of Fascism is based on a separatist mentality that can exist both on the left and the right. PRC had a huge push for Communism, and anyone who disagreed was considered to be the enemy. It’s another case of us vs them regardless of political viewpoint.

And I’m pointing out that you’re are using the definition of Fascism wrong.

If you restart your conversation with “Separatism” exists both on the left and right, then you would be more correct.

I don’t think this describes America. There is polarization, but both sides say they are for freedom. Both say the others are oppressing them. Both are organized around ideas, the Left is definitely not aligned along ethnic lines and not everyone on the Right is either.

I think you are mistaking the way less thoughtful people have been tricked into hating others along political lines, like abortion, environmentalism, causes of poverty, and just fashion. That’s not fascism

So “Separatism” is a sterilized label for “Fascism” ?

Can you explain?

Because this is what Fascism looks like to me:

and in the dictionary you’ll find stuff like this:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

I don’t have the time to do a lot of searching but if you know of “Fascism” and “separatism” discussed in the same vein, please do share.


Not sure what got twerked up with the posts but the statement about "using the definition of Fascism wrong " is mine - to Mitch. And I think you and I are both pointing out the same thing.

And yes - I was thinking along those lines as well, that Mitch is just trying to soften the label “Fascist” that trump has so dearly earned.

To further the delineation:
Fascism (the Right) is about We are better than You.
Communism and Socialism (the Left) is more about We are all equal (just some are more equal than others :wink: )
It is when you use Humans for the implementation that it becomes separatist.

If @mitch70 wants to go back to origins - go back to where Left and Right come from.

It doesn’t take but a second to click on the link I gave.

I took a little longer than a minute to search for “sepa” and to expand the titles in the series of articles on Fascism. Separatism is not mentioned. This is why people say they don’t have time to track down your references. They don’t lead to where you say they do. You put in the least amount of effort possible to defend your stances. Mostly you speak from your gut feelings or whatever culture gave you your beliefs. The idea of a center for inquiry is to examine our beliefs.

Fascism, stalinisme ( you call left fascism) are both faces of totalitarisme. for definition, go to my precedent post.

And yes, there is a difference between Nazism and Stalinisme: Nazis rejected the humanitarian values, as freedom and equality, while Communists claimed they were fighting to really implement them.

Separatism is the will to create a parallel society. It is very different. from totalitarisme who wants to change men and society.

About Trump, sen from Europe, he as an authoritarian ultra right streak.

Now, to become a fascist, he would need to cross a threshold. Fascist want to build a new man and a new order. He is more for restoring a mythical old one.

What post are you talking about?

Can’t find the word, nor in those other links.
Help me out which post, and which quote, are you talking about?

Okay fascists do mount separatist movements, but I don’t think that makes it a defining trait of “fascism” - but I’m open to being educated.

I guess I should point out that the main reason that I was posting this was exactly what you had brought up.

And this can exist on both the leftists and the right. I don’t see either side as evil, but that radicalization of each side is what’s dividing our country. In many cases of totalitarians governments, the greatest atrocities had been committed by the dehumanization of those of opposition (right or left).

The Holocaust
Red Terror
Great Purge
The Armenian Genocide
Rwandan genocide
Khmer Rouge Tribunal

The common element that I’d seen in all these genocides is that all were cases of charismatic leaders convincing people that they are the victims, and how as a group (i.e. Fascio) that they can defeat the “evil” opposition.

You’re right and so was Lausten in bringing this up. I’ve just realized that a major part of my problem is my wording, or even maybe that I take my perspectives farther than I should have. It’s not a defining trait as I had mistakenly quoted, but an ideology that can easily lead to

Yep. And you do that constantly.

You are right, deshumanisation precedes the genocide.

But you are wrong about Armenian genocide and Rwanda genocide which are not linked to a totalitarian state or to a charismatic leader.

All dictatorships are not totalitarian.

And totalitarianism are not separatist. In 1860, in USA, southern leaders were separatist.

But totalitarian parties don’t want to build a separate society, they want to control and change the whole society.

Totalitarian states control the society and are not separatist. They may be looking for self-sufficiency.