3 ms·

The same article also says: > Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."[28] Each group descr

The same article also says: > Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."[28] Each group described as "fascist" has at least some unique elements, and frequently definitions of "fascism" have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow. According to many scholars, fascists—especially when they're in power—have historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[30] So, rather than purporting to define "fascism", the article acknowledges it has many definitions and it is contested which one is right. Read in the context of the whole section "Definitions", I don't think the opening sentence should be read as a definition, except in a very vague ballpark sense, which isn't meant to be used in decisively answering the question of whether any particular thing is an instance of it. Furthermore, it mentions key elements of historical fascism – anti-communism, anti-conservatism, and anti-liberalism – whose presence in Putin's Russia is debatable. Putin has criticised communism, but he tends to go for nuanced and qualified criticism rather than the demonisation of it which was historically found in Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or Franco's Spain. He isn't anti-conservative either. Nor is he rhetorically opposed to parliamentary liberalism – he is accused of undermining the substance of it, but he pays it lip service, unlike Mussolini and Hitler who demonised it. The first actual definition it gives in the "Definition" section is this: > Historian Stanley G. Payne's definition is frequently cited as standard by notable scholars,[31] such as Roger Griffin,[32] Randall Schweller,[33] Bo Rothstein,[34] Federico Finchelstein,[35] and Stephen D. Shenfield,[36] [37] His definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: And the first of those three concepts is: > "Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism. I say Putin lacks all three – he isn't anti-liberal (you can say he is in a contemporary sense, but not in the historical sense that Mussolini was, which is I believe the sense Payne means), he isn't anti-communist (again, not in the sense Mussolini/etc were), and he isn't anti-conservative.

freen 2y ago
You are trying to align a governance type with a political spectrum. It’s a category error. Fascism has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do with whatever is necessary to retain power, given the society fascists intends to rule. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t advocate for mercantilism! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
- skissane 2y ago
  So, when Ian Kershaw, the esteemed historian of Nazi Germany, said that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall", you are telling me he was wrong? Because you seem to think it is much more of a clearcut question than he does.
  - freen 2y ago
    Yes, Ian Kershaw is precisely right! It is very difficult to define because it is a means by which one, either a person, a party, an ethnicity, whatever, pursues and attempts to preserve power regardless of the will or interests of the people they intend to have power over. The difference here is that anti-fascists have ethical and moral standards, create and support political systems that make it possible for them to loose, celebrate those losses. It’s difficult to define a barbarian, but you definitely know it when they come to your town.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - skissane 2y ago
      No, you are putting forward one particular definition as the "right" one, and arguing all contrary definitions should be ignored, even when proposed by esteemed scholars in relevant fields – which is the complete opposite of Kershaw's point.
      - freen 2y ago
        Ahh, so we lack a definition, no one is fascist, and killing political dissidents is equivalent to fair and legal elections. Good is equivalent to evil, because both are hard to define. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t believe in mercantilism, which random authority says is an essential part of monarchism. Plus, how do you define monarchism? You can’t. Humanity is so fucked. (Btw, this problem has been decisively solved by the paradox of tolerance, and was solved in the 40’s, when the apparently undefinable, thus never repeatable, original fascists did their thing.)
lostmsu 2y ago
Frankly I don't care for individual quotes taken out of context. I also don't care in this specific scenario for musings of individual researches or small groups. Wikipedia definition is good enough for this conversation or basically any public conversation that is not a scholarly dispute, especially considering it basically matches https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism and https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism , today's Russia still hitting all checkboxes. Wiki, Merriam-Webster, and Britannica already made compilations for us, came to the same conclusion, and I don't see any reason not to just use what they ended up with. I doubt the two of us, or even the entirety of remotely interested HN could reasonably claim we can do much better. I also disagree with claims about Putin's regime that you made, but feel that it is not worth arguing.
- skissane 2y ago
  > Frankly I don't care for individual quotes taken out of context Which specific quotes are you claiming I have "taken out of context"? How have I done so? > Wikipedia definition is good enough for this conversation or basically any public conversation that is not a scholarly dispute This site is supposed to be about "intellectual curiosity". [0] Disinterest in the diversity and detail of scholarly definitions is the very opposite of intellectual curiosity. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    > Disinterest in the diversity and detail of scholarly definitions is the very opposite of intellectual curiosity. Is it? I personally consider research in classification to be of relatively low intellectual value, especially in the already poor sciences of psychology and sociology. So the expectation of value from it, intellectual or not, is extremely low. I mean, just take "cited as standard by _notable scholars_", "focuses on", and "anti-communism". Then ask yourself: what if the communism did not exist as an idea yet until after 1945, e.g. USSR being just another western democracy, and the holocaust and WWII still went the way they did, would Germany no longer be "fascist"? Somehow I asked myself that question right away, but none of the _notable scholars_ did. This is why in this thread the fact that masses can be manipulated by wordplay seems more interesting than classification of societies. I'm more intellectually curious about what to do with that problem.

freen 2y ago

You are trying to align a governance type with a political spectrum. It’s a category error. Fascism has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do with whatever is necessary to retain power, given the society fascists intends to rule. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t advocate for mercantilism! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

skissane 2y ago
So, when Ian Kershaw, the esteemed historian of Nazi Germany, said that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall", you are telling me he was wrong? Because you seem to think it is much more of a clearcut question than he does.
- freen 2y ago
  Yes, Ian Kershaw is precisely right! It is very difficult to define because it is a means by which one, either a person, a party, an ethnicity, whatever, pursues and attempts to preserve power regardless of the will or interests of the people they intend to have power over. The difference here is that anti-fascists have ethical and moral standards, create and support political systems that make it possible for them to loose, celebrate those losses. It’s difficult to define a barbarian, but you definitely know it when they come to your town.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - skissane 2y ago
    No, you are putting forward one particular definition as the "right" one, and arguing all contrary definitions should be ignored, even when proposed by esteemed scholars in relevant fields – which is the complete opposite of Kershaw's point.
    - freen 2y ago
      Ahh, so we lack a definition, no one is fascist, and killing political dissidents is equivalent to fair and legal elections. Good is equivalent to evil, because both are hard to define. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t believe in mercantilism, which random authority says is an essential part of monarchism. Plus, how do you define monarchism? You can’t. Humanity is so fucked. (Btw, this problem has been decisively solved by the paradox of tolerance, and was solved in the 40’s, when the apparently undefinable, thus never repeatable, original fascists did their thing.)

lostmsu 2y ago

Frankly I don't care for individual quotes taken out of context. I also don't care in this specific scenario for musings of individual researches or small groups. Wikipedia definition is good enough for this conversation or basically any public conversation that is not a scholarly dispute, especially considering it basically matches https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism and https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism , today's Russia still hitting all checkboxes. Wiki, Merriam-Webster, and Britannica already made compilations for us, came to the same conclusion, and I don't see any reason not to just use what they ended up with. I doubt the two of us, or even the entirety of remotely interested HN could reasonably claim we can do much better. I also disagree with claims about Putin's regime that you made, but feel that it is not worth arguing.

skissane 2y ago
> Frankly I don't care for individual quotes taken out of context Which specific quotes are you claiming I have "taken out of context"? How have I done so? > Wikipedia definition is good enough for this conversation or basically any public conversation that is not a scholarly dispute This site is supposed to be about "intellectual curiosity". [0] Disinterest in the diversity and detail of scholarly definitions is the very opposite of intellectual curiosity. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lostmsu 2y ago
  > Disinterest in the diversity and detail of scholarly definitions is the very opposite of intellectual curiosity. Is it? I personally consider research in classification to be of relatively low intellectual value, especially in the already poor sciences of psychology and sociology. So the expectation of value from it, intellectual or not, is extremely low. I mean, just take "cited as standard by _notable scholars_", "focuses on", and "anti-communism". Then ask yourself: what if the communism did not exist as an idea yet until after 1945, e.g. USSR being just another western democracy, and the holocaust and WWII still went the way they did, would Germany no longer be "fascist"? Somehow I asked myself that question right away, but none of the _notable scholars_ did. This is why in this thread the fact that masses can be manipulated by wordplay seems more interesting than classification of societies. I'm more intellectually curious about what to do with that problem.