3 ms·

The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. At lea

• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Not as much as the rhetoric makes it seems. > Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. Fascists usually integrate the rich that the leadership doesn’t have some other reason to hate into the system, while liquidating those–and not always just their holdings–that don’t fit that description, even if wealthy, so long as they are willing to cooperate, retaining their nominal property but with their actual power and influence more determined by their degree of attachment to the regime, not their nominal ownership of property (that’s a consequence of the authoritarian corporatist–viewing all institutions of society as necessary subordinate to a single vision–aspect of fascism.) Leninists (et al.)…do pretty much the same thing, except that they are more likely to not allow even nominal ownership of property. But since Leninism is (and its derivates are) also an authoritarian corporatist system, it is not ownership of property but position (formal or informal) in the ruling heirarchy that really allows you direct the use of property, just as in fascism.
  • srean 4y ago
    Do you mind breaking up the sentences for ease of comprehension. Reading it made me feel a little out of breath and I lost the plot mid sentence. I know there is an interesting thought here, but the prose is a tad to turgid.