I still have to giggle - Fascism is a form of Marxism... one of the cardinal rules in Marxism is no private ownership - freely allowed in Fascism. That difference alone is hearsay to true Marxists....
Oh stop with the disingenuous mocking.
Fascism
is a form of Marxism in (inversely) the same way that modern liberalism is a form of liberalism.
Liberalism as it was originally created is now called classical liberalism today. Modern liberalism mixes Marxist philosophical principles with politically pragmatic consideration like a populist sentiment and the appearance and style of classical liberalism.
Fascism is Marxism inversely in the same way; it combines Marxist philosophical substance with politically pragmatic considerations of Nationalism, populism and (in the case of Germany) racism and specifically anti-semitism (which was a very strong sentiment at the time).
There is the technical terminology and then there is the common vernacular. I was using the common vernacular in that instance. Then you tried to equivocate and change the definition to one of a more technical nature to try and marginalize me by mocking me. That is disingenuous and exceedingly rude. You should be ashamed of yourself (assuming you are capable of that).
As to the whole idea of Fascism being a "pro-capitalist" thing, that was a disingenuous attempt by orthodox Marxists to distance themselves from capitalism. The late Yale professor of German history said that Marxist writings claiming that Fascism was somehow pro-capitalist suffered, "from over-reliance on questionable, if not fraudulent scholarship, and from egregious misrepresentation of factual information".
Mein Kampf was decidedly anti-capitalist. In that book, Hitler talked about "dividend-hungry businessmen" calling them, "ruthless" and suffering from "short-sighted narrow-mindedness".
If you look at Mussolini's past, he was a very strong socialist. His father was a devout socialist who read passages of
Das Kapital to a young Mussolini at night. In fact, Mossolini's two middle names (his full name was Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini) were taken from socialist heroes of the time Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa.
He was editor of a publication for Italian Socialist propaganda (
La lotta di classe). If fact, Mussolini was, in many ways, a leading socialist intellectual/propagandist in Europe up until the 1st World War.
Mussolini broke with the Italian Socialist Party when he took a pro-war stance (something many socialists throughout Europe and America at the time were supporting). The Italian Socialist started smearing him. Mussolini responded, "Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood". He also said, "I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones."
Even Hitler acknowledged that fascism was created by Mussolini.
There is no evidence that Mussolini or Hitler were in any way a stooge of capitalists or, in any way "pro-capitalist". The record doesn't support that and their personal intellectual histories show that to be highly unlikely as well.
Those claims of fascism as pro-capitalist are nothing more then a dishonest attempts (for various reasons) by Marxists of the time to smear and label fascists as something other then socialists and as "right-wing" in an attempt to distance themselves from those fascists (keep in mind that fascists regularly referred to themselves as "socialists" during this time). Unfortunately those smears have been accepted by many today as fact when they are not true.
And Fox, don't come back trying to tell me to disprove your claim. That would simply be another fallacious argument called a negative proof or an
argument from ignorance. In fact, you have not given anything substantive to disprove. All you have provided as "proof" of your claim is false accusations by Marxists based in what has become Marxist dogma. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that fascists are somehow capitalists. That involves facts
that logically support your claim. Not spin from irrelevant facts (you are already trying to argue that basically, since they weren't orthodox Marxists, they were capitalists or "pro-capitalist").
