"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -Benito Mussolini
"Corporate" means body, and isnt used in its modern sense. Fascism is, as you'll see, exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting.
A fascist corporation is a collective owned by the state.
When legal protest doesn't work, it's sometimes necessary to resort to civil disobedience. That's messy and gray.
In practice the state did not have economic control over the corporations. In the example of Nazi Germany, the cooperation of large industrialists was necessary for accession to power, and the state was too incompetent to achieve even basic control over the economy, so it was privatised and the leaders of corporations instead were integrated into the social Darwinist structure of society that the Nazis loved so much. Which turned out to work pretty well with unbounded free markets.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-supermanagerial-reic...
The idea that any *dictatorial* state of ww2 era had "unbounded free markets" is pretty insane, and reveals that it is your agenda to associate modern political movemnets you dislike with a totalised military state of the 1940s; in which every citizen was consripted into the military.
I dont know why anyone today things a totalised military state has anything to do with modern politics; it doesnt.
"Totalised military state" is a meaningless sentence, and Fascism existed before and after "every citizen was conscripted into the military". If you think that the defining feature of Fascism is militarism and conscription, you simply misunderstand what fascism is. There is much, much more to fascism than Nazi Germany within a 4 year time period. War is the logical tendency of Fascism, but it is not it's defining feature.
Yes, it's very important to modern politics. If you don't understand what fascism is in its essence, you miss that. I'd suggest a lecture of Ur Fascism if you want an idea of the essence of Fascism, though there are competing views that you could defend as well, none of which are resumed by militarism.
It is pseudo-scientific mumbojumbo. Fascism was the italian response to the mass death of WW1 which confronted european socieites with a choice: either turn all of society into an offense military capbaility; or turn it into a defensive one.
The demoncracies chose the latter, the dictatorships chose the former. And hence didnt merely "conscript" people, they militarised all of society. This is what "totalised" means: that there is nothing outside of the state. This was the only way to respond to WW1 offesively: the whole country had to become a war machine, as world-wars required whole-country organization and militarization.
> The closest approximation is states where winners in the market are winners in politics, and fascism historically approximated that quite well.
Dear me. This is just pseudoscientific literary professors with no understanding of political science repeating slurs.
A free market capitalist system is a state system because its fundamental unit is the collective known as "a business" whose legal integrity is provided by state guarentees.
But the whole point of that system is to entirely divorce the political mechanisms of the state from the economic mechanisms of the market. The state guarentees the integrity of private collectives and private individuals from the state.
You cannot have a free market system in which "winners in the markets" are "winners in politics". You're describing the opposite of a free market system; something much more akin to the commnuism of the USSR. This is exactly the opposite of the intensions of capitalism, in which autonomy is granted to private collectives to enable them to take risks on their on behalf, benefit from their success, and pursure their own economic interests. Where this is subsubmed by the state, the entire purpose of the system is removed.
This would be like saying, "the only true socialism is where the state is a business". Incoherent.
awful: causing dread
https://www.etymonline.com/word/awe?ref=etymonline_crossrefe...
Words are weird. Adults understand context, limits of reductionism.
Police:
in exploiter states, a system of special bodies of supervision and coercion, as well as domestic punitive troops that protect the existing social system by means of direct and overt suppression. [...] As one of the chief instruments of the state, the police in an exploiter society is always separated from and inimical to the people. [...] In modern capitalist states the police are used primarily in the struggle against the revolutionary and working-class movement — against democratic progressive forces.
- The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979)
I'm sure there's a better definition, but iirc "corporation" as a synonym for "enormous faceless public investor-controlled megacompany" is a pretty recent definition.
I would hope it's effective!
You keep arguing as if protesters were intent on preventing workers from returning to their families or suchlike.
That might be the intent on paper but It's basically impossible to only block a gate going one way.
>There's no evidence of any workers being attacked
Maybe in this exact case. But these type of responses is based on patterns of behavior of a political wing of the left that think political violence is ok.
You sound like you've never participated in an organized protest before. My union did exactly that: our membership included parking enforcement, so we denied entry to the parking lot. Blocking egress is illegal, so we'd open to let people out.
Of course, you can't really stop people who are willing to kill for their parking space. But the rest can be stopped with a throng of people blocking all ways but back.