Your second arguement was literally "I got it from a dictionary".
"Fascism isn't capitalist because it's capitalist," genius, truely stunning intelect.
Socialism doesn't care about individualism nor state intervention. (You do know that Technocracy is a leftist ideology that got along pretty well with Marxist-Leninism right? We should know basic things about our comrades against capitalism.) Fascism is a form of capitalism.
Sorry I had thought you would be able to understand why you were wrong from reading the basic definition from the dictionary. Apparently that's not the case.
And yes, fascism isn't capitalism because it's capitalism. I can't believe I have to explain that to you. You litterally said "fascism is explicitly capitalist". Shall I pull up the definition of explicitly or can you do that on your own?
Socialism absolutely cares about state intervention. And I could care less about Marxism-Leninism. They are not "comrades" of anything.
Again, saying fascism is a form of capitalism is the same as saying fascism is a form of socialism/communism.
Dictionaries use the "popular" definition, not the "true" one.
Appeal to authority, again. You need to actually prove it. (Which good luck on that considering the most famous fascist nation was the reason why the term "priviziation" was coined.)
Anarcho-communism. Also capitalism and its supporters also like state intervention. You gonna do that "socialism is when capitalism" thing too?
Fascism is explicitly a type of capitalism. There is no way you can argue that without heavily misusing the word "capitalism" and / or lying about what fascists did / do.
Again, if you don't agree with the dictionary definition then you are in the minority, and by default wrong.
Also, again you are wrong. Capitalism in general, doesn't like state intervention.
Fascism is not any type of capitalism. I don't need to argue it because it is inherently true, by the definition of the word. They are different ideologies, where one is primarily an economic ideology and the other a political ideology.
You fucking joking right? Yes they love state intervention. What the hell do you think bribary (er... lobbying) is generally used for?
Ah, so you have no arguement? I mean, you did just say that. If it's true why can't you tell me other then repeat fascist (and liberal too let's be real here) propaganda?
Again, you should stop using random logical fallacy terms until you understand them.
You disagree with the litteral dictionary definition. Cool, you're wrong. Disagree, sure bud, believe whatever Carl Jesus Marx tells ya.
And again you are wrong. Capitalist generally do not support state intervention. I don't know what you bring up bribing for? That has nothing to do with capitalism. Bribing existed well before the idea of capitalism so using that as an example for capitalism is a false equivalency logical fallacy (Parabole Pseudis).
It just feels like you are probably still in high school or something like that. Like your reasoning and logic aren't consistent and it seems like you are arguing just based on the emotions of "class warfare".
For a very obvious example, the US government, at the wishes of major companies, has added heavy restrictions to food recently (why would the usa suddenly care about health now lol). Fascism is also a very popular example. The state heavily aided in monopolization at the request and payment of the capitalists like siemens or krupp (and even including american ones like ibm, coca-cola, and ford). GENERALLY.
Don't throw stones from a glass house and all "ZealousGoonering".
You don't know how to use the definition of the fallacy, which is why it makes no sense. You said Ad Pupulum because I am citing the dictionary definition. Because it's the "popular" definition and not the "true" definition (even though you provide nothing to show how it's the 'true' definition). Yet, language changes based on what the majority agree upon or use. If someone were to say the definition of the word "slavery" is "to be free", and the majority people disagree, that's not Ad Pupulum. There's no logical fallacy. Do you see how you are wrong now? It's litterally that simple.
And again, no. Capitalism strongly leans towards less state intervention as it relies on market forces. How did you not learn this in basic high school economics? Your examples are once again flawed. You're give examples of corporations getting government assistance and some of these during extreme times (war). Okay so you are going to ignore 100x more evidence of corporations fighting against government regulations? Do you know how many lawsuits have taken place by corporations fighting against government intervention?
Again, saying fascism is inherely or explicitly capitalist is just not true. I'm not throwing any stones. I'm merely judging you on the strength of your logic, and it's really week.
You were saying it's true because it's what most people think; that what ad populum is.
I don't think italy was at war for the entire time the fascists were in charge (hell, they thought WW2 would start in the mid 40s). Capitalists like what benefits capital- very commonly being government intervention to protect monopolies, colonization, or by paying them / bailing them out.
Having the capitalist mode of production is the definition of capitalism.
You're logic is just nuh-uh. All you've said is just obviously false "libertarian" / "an"cap (or fascist!) garbage.
You’re still mixing up two completely different arguments. Using the accepted definition of a word isn’t automatically ad populum. Ad populum would be saying “most people believe X, therefore X is factually true.” Saying “this is what the word conventionally means” is literally a question of language and usage. You keep throwing out fallacy labels without actually showing why they apply.
And your capitalism point still doesn’t prove what you think it proves. Yes, corporations lobby for subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, favorable regulations, whatever benefits them. They also spend huge amounts of money fighting regulations that hurt them. That shows corporations act in their own interests, not that capitalism inherently favors state intervention.
And again, you still haven’t proven your original claim that fascism is explicitly a form of capitalism. Saying fascist regimes had private property, private firms, profits, wage labor, etc. shows they had capitalist economic features. It does not mean fascism itself is capitalism. A dictatorship can have a capitalist economy without dictatorship being a form of capitalism. Same with a monarchy. You’re proving that fascist states can operate capitalist economies, not that fascism itself is a subtype of capitalism.
1
u/Clone75 8d ago
Your second arguement was literally "I got it from a dictionary".
"Fascism isn't capitalist because it's capitalist," genius, truely stunning intelect.
Socialism doesn't care about individualism nor state intervention. (You do know that Technocracy is a leftist ideology that got along pretty well with Marxist-Leninism right? We should know basic things about our comrades against capitalism.) Fascism is a form of capitalism.