Reddit reviews The Nature of Fascism

> About half of them fit perfectly within your philosophy.

"About half"? That's supposed to mean anything? All political movements are going to share some attributes, including liberal ones, simply by virtue of them being political movements intent on taking power. Don't be dumb.

>You literally deny history, the deaths of millions, the murder of cultures, my own FAMILY being brutally killed.

I'm actually a very careful student of history, who is interested in parsing out what the Nazis genuinely believed and what they just put out in their propaganda. Instead of listening to some ghoulish Social-Darwinist hack rant into a lecture hall for 2 hours about Nazism, how about looking into a genuine work of academic analysis like Paxton or Griffin? Both would tell you that the pillars of fascism are collectivist nationalism, ethnic purity, and an obsession with domination. Collectivism is the only fundamental thing it shares in common with socialist and progressive thought.

It's a shame that most Peterson fans are basically academic illiterates. His "reading list" is literally just a bunch of high school stuff.

>Frankly, this thread is really fascinating and I'm looking forward to discussing it.

No you aren't, you literally abandoned every single line of substantive argument you had with me, then proceeded to Godwin the thread when it became clear you were losing. Your beliefs simply cannot stand up to rational scrutiny, and you know it.

> You have the wrong definition of fascism. This is another huge problem. I’m not getting anything mixed up...see below.

You are incorrect. You're using a bad definition from a bad source. You couldn't even use the baseline definitions outlined on regular wikipedia, you had to go to the more obscure simplified wikipedia? Which is, well, simplified? Quite literally intended for kids, and people who are still learning English and so can't understand wikipedia proper yet? And quite often bad, due to being fringe enough that community quality control doesn't hold up. And on top of that, this article in particular can easily be found to have quite a bit of controversy on both the talk page and in the edits, including frequent and outright misleading edits. Simplified wikipedia is a bad source for anything (unlike standard english wikipedia, which is fairly good), and even more so when it comes to political topics.

If you look at, say, the standard wikipedia article on fascism, here's the corresponding initial paragraph (my bolding):

> Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

The traits and ideologies typically placed on the left of the traditional left-right spectrum are inherently opposed to the traits of fascism; anti-nationalism and marxism most notably. Now, there's certainly been ideologies that use left-wing rhetoric without actually using left-wing ideology or theory; fascists are one of those groups, as are right-wing populists in general. They often use the hardships the working class faces as a means to show that the ruling classes don't care about the working class, but then they twist that by changing what the ruling classes actually mean.

Look at Donald Trump, as a very clear and modern example. He wielded the plight of the rural working poor, saying that "you're losing your jobs and your farms and the elite doesn't care about you". So far that is correct - but then comes the twist: The elite aren't the ruling classes, but, from Trump's propaganda machine, certain specific politicians and "liberals" (in that weird and vague US sense of the word). He uses that to propel himself into presidency, despite being part of that ruling class that doesn't care about the coal miners or farmers. The same tactic has been used by plenty of right-wing populists, from Hitler to UKIP.

For more indepth analyses of fascism, I recommend cultural theorist Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism and even more so historian Roger Griffin's book The Nature of Fascism.

No, sadly you remember wrong. Fascism is far-right on the political spectrum. Here's some material if you want to read up:

https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Fascism-Roger-Griffin/dp/0312071329

https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Reader-Routledge-Readers-History/dp/0415243599