• vga@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The 4th point yes indeed. Hence the horseshoe theory. Fascists love tradition though and have not usually gone to seizing the means of production in a general way at least.

    • ZhprbE@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The original fascists of Italy went actually extra hard for Futurists (the avant garde movement in art and philosophy, whose main premise was “out with the old, in with the new guns and machines go brrrrrr”), who in turn celebrated Mussolini as a great leader. Nazis were good at incorporating traditionalist aesthetics to make their flair of violent modernism more palatable - it probably helped that industrialisation had developed much further in Germany than in Italy, having already done most of the work of dismantling traditional rural society and the structures it came with. And yeah, they didn’t seize the means of production directly, but it’s also not like German industrialists (who had significantly helped Hitler to power) really had much options in deciding what to produce and to whom, or what kind of opinions to publicly hold, once the Nazis really got their show going.

      Really makes you think about the short-sightedness of the current American business elite propping up their own Fascists. I guess we’ll see who will be faster to eat who this time around

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      horseshoe theory is a centrist nonsense contrivance. It suggests that the left and right both end up taking the public to the same outcomes.