• @Eldritch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 months ago

    That really depends on how you define fascist and capitalist I guess.

    Here’s a definition of facism from Webster:

    severe economic and social regimentation

    That’s not the complete definition. And your ignoring a lot of the disambiguation that comes along with the full definitions. The small piece you quoted is so ambiguous it could apply to any authoritarian group under any economic system. It really seems you’re not engaging in good faith.

    both definitions of capitalism say it involves private (non-government) control. When you get too much government control, it stops being capitalism

    That’s just absurd. Whether it’s private or public it’s still government. Capitalism as you said is about private non democratic control.

      • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 months ago

        Well then, either capitalism is a thing that’s never existed. And never will. Or it has and it does. After all. Dictators have private ownership too. There’s nothing incompatible about the two.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      -4
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      small piece you quoted

      As you can tell, my post was already quite long. I linked the original definitions to not hide anything.

      The problem with fascism is that there isn’t really a single definition that applies everywhere. It’s not really based on any ideology, it’s merely about growing the state for the benefit of the state. It’s authoritarianism sold to the people as benefitting them in some way.

      The economic system isn’t really the point, though mercantilism seems to be the go-to, perhaps with a segment of the economy using capitalism until it no longer benefits the state.

      Capitalism as you said is about private non democratic control.

      Exactly. And facism is more about public, non-democratic control.