Not many communist States that I can think of the entwine the state and religion, or protect corporate poor. Authoritarian regimes are going to be authoritarian, whether facist, communist, or monarchichal, but saying that communism and fascism are same suggests you don’t understand what they each involve.
I agree with the rest of your point, but I do want to remark that communist states do entwine state and religion: they don’t leave people’s religious beliefs alone, they promote atheism and discriminate against religious people, as well as gradually hijack leadership positions of religious organizations.
Hard disagree. Corporatism is distinctly on the fascist side of the house, and it distinctly has an in-group and an out-group at its very basic ideological level whereas communism in principle seeks to eliminate classes.
Now, you might have classes in practice, sure, but explicit racism/ethnostate situations is definitely not a defining feature of communism. I would agree if you said this sign describes authoritarian regimes! But, I think that communism has a distinct meaning that is separate from being authoritarian whereas fascism is inherently authoritarian (in group oppresses everyone else). This seems to be conflating something to say that it’s communism as well.
Now, granted, the OP didn’t say anything about corporatism, which was originally developed as a comprehensive ideology under Italian fascism. However, it’s not as simple as in the OP - “corporate power protected” and “labor power suppressed”. In fascism, both corporate and labor power are subservient to the state, and fascist corporatism involved the input of both private industrial interests and labor interests. Ultimately it was the state making the decisions, though. I suppose it’s important to remember that fascism arose as a response to class conflict in the aftermath of the industrial revolution - a third way between bourgeois liberalism and communism. In this sense, the point was to establish an equilibrium between capital and labor. Corporatism was the means to that end. In fascism, in practice, this often meant that capital simply colluded with the state, and left-radicalism in labor was violently stamped out so the workers could be brought to heel. Workers were then treated quite well, assuming they didn’t run afoul of the state because they belonged to one of the many groups that fascists considered enemies.
Many European nations still practice forms of corporatism, although today the state is more like an equal partner to the other parties. So I guess my point is that corporatism is not distinctly fascist, despite developing under fascism.
You could apply this to communism as well
Not many communist States that I can think of the entwine the state and religion, or protect corporate poor. Authoritarian regimes are going to be authoritarian, whether facist, communist, or monarchichal, but saying that communism and fascism are same suggests you don’t understand what they each involve.
I agree with the rest of your point, but I do want to remark that communist states do entwine state and religion: they don’t leave people’s religious beliefs alone, they promote atheism and discriminate against religious people, as well as gradually hijack leadership positions of religious organizations.
Hard disagree. Corporatism is distinctly on the fascist side of the house, and it distinctly has an in-group and an out-group at its very basic ideological level whereas communism in principle seeks to eliminate classes.
Now, you might have classes in practice, sure, but explicit racism/ethnostate situations is definitely not a defining feature of communism. I would agree if you said this sign describes authoritarian regimes! But, I think that communism has a distinct meaning that is separate from being authoritarian whereas fascism is inherently authoritarian (in group oppresses everyone else). This seems to be conflating something to say that it’s communism as well.
Now, granted, the OP didn’t say anything about corporatism, which was originally developed as a comprehensive ideology under Italian fascism. However, it’s not as simple as in the OP - “corporate power protected” and “labor power suppressed”. In fascism, both corporate and labor power are subservient to the state, and fascist corporatism involved the input of both private industrial interests and labor interests. Ultimately it was the state making the decisions, though. I suppose it’s important to remember that fascism arose as a response to class conflict in the aftermath of the industrial revolution - a third way between bourgeois liberalism and communism. In this sense, the point was to establish an equilibrium between capital and labor. Corporatism was the means to that end. In fascism, in practice, this often meant that capital simply colluded with the state, and left-radicalism in labor was violently stamped out so the workers could be brought to heel. Workers were then treated quite well, assuming they didn’t run afoul of the state because they belonged to one of the many groups that fascists considered enemies.
Many European nations still practice forms of corporatism, although today the state is more like an equal partner to the other parties. So I guess my point is that corporatism is not distinctly fascist, despite developing under fascism.
*you could apply this to authoritarism as well
🤓