>Fascism >Liberalism>Communism So why can't people come up with a universal agreed concrete definition for these ideologies
>fascismgroup of authoritarian regimes in europe from the end of ww1 to the end of ww2 characterized by aggressive militarism>liberalisma belief in individual liberty and systems and laws that ensure them such as democracy, free speech and human rights>communismin theory a stateless classless economy, in practice they usually ended up dictatorships though with an inclination towards planned economics
>>16810210The true nature of ideologies is often hidden behind propaganda, and different perspectives lead to diverse definitions.
>>16810210Why would you want to define the 3 bullshits that should be left to rot in the 20th century where they belong?
>>16810235Its almost fascinating how you managed to give 3 different types of definition, 0 consistency at all
>>16810235>a group>a belief>a theorySo does this mean you can be all three at once?
>>16810210At least in the sense of fascism.From britannica.>One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany—were different in important respects. In Italy, for example, anti-Semitism was officially rejected before 1934, and it was not until 1938 that Mussolini enacted a series of anti-Semitic measures in order to solidify his new military alliance with Hitler. Another reason is the fascists’ well-known opportunism—i.e., their willingness to make changes in official party positions in order to win elections or consolidate power. Finally, scholars of fascism themselves bring to their studies different political and cultural attitudes, which often have a bearing on the importance they assign to one or another aspect of fascist ideology or practice. Secular liberals, for example, have stressed fascism’s religious roots; Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars have emphasized its secular origins; social conservatives have pointed to its “socialist” and “populist” aspects; and social radicals have noted its defense of “capitalism” and “elitism.”>For these and other reasons, there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of general characteristics that fascist movements between 1922 and 1945 tended to have in commonThese are some of the characteristics they tend to have in common.>Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nationhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
>>16810210Fascism has a concrete definition. So does Communism. The problem is people who write about them or promote them lie about what they are. They claim Fascism is all Nazism and requires military tyranny. They claim that Communism is all sunshine and rainbows once you get past the revolution and try to sell it on that basis. They don't tell the truth and ignore the definition that the people who came up with the ideas gave them.
>>16810500>>16810210Communism is a goal to achieve through socialism, and because there are different types of socialism, that's where the complications arise.I don't know what's so special about liberalism.It's kind of like libertarianism but without smaller government. >Fascism has a concrete definitionNo it don't.
>>16810522Also meant for >>16810506
>>16810210Fascism is when racism.Communism is when government.Liberalism is when gay.Simple as.
>>16810506"There is a universal and concrete definition, but people are just dumb and pretend it doesnt exist!" great insight man
>>16810210FascismReactionary answer to liberalism where actions are taken to curb liberty in so called defense of the state.LiberalismRule of the bourgeois class where capital moves freely between states. The supremacy of capital in the country is what marks this ideology.CommunismStateless and moneyless society.
>>16810210>So why can't people come up with a universal agreed concrete definition for these ideologiesBecause they are abstractions.NEXT!
>>16810627Rather glib, but okay.
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/472801232
