[Daktoria]

The old "Stalin's state socialism modernised a backward country" line isn't incorrect if you look the other areas that state socialism helped modernize: China, Iraq, Egypt, etc. Modernization is pretty much the only worthwhile consequence of socialism. The only problem is that state socialism employed alongside class warfare has always led to massive murders in almost all the cases that I know: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. The nationalist state socialist regimes of Saddam and Nasser weren't that brutal precisely because they lacked the incredibly idiotic concept of class supremacy. The best socialism is the Prussian one, in my opinion.

Before or after Bismarck?

[Rei Murasame]

Okay, I thought I'd just inject some sanity here: Fascism isn't 'centrist'. This whole thread is basically rubbish.

the Nolan chart

Why this thread is rubbish.

Analysing fascism through liberal lenses, is like trying to analyse PMS through the eyes of a 12 year old boy.

"If you bleed for several days you will surely die!"

"If I cram just your economic policies into my liberal spectrum, you appear to me kind of like you are centrist!"

[Preston Cole]

Before or after Bismarck?

After. He implemented that "State Socialism" program to cut off support for the SPD.

Strictly speaking, fascism is center-left economically, but trying to fit it in the classic spectrum is problematic to start with.

[Fitzcarraldo]

The old "Stalin's state socialism modernised a backward country" line isn't incorrect

It most certainly is - it ignores that Russia was a Western-civilised nation for hundreds of years (how can any cultured man call St Petersburg 'backward'?). It was not some miserable Asiatic despot under the Romanovs. It also ignores the rapid industrial growth rate of Russia under the Tsars during the late 19th and early 20th century. The Soviets only caught up with Tsarist industrial input in the early 30s as far as I can recall.

[Andropov]

I would say that, in general, Fascism and Nazism were left-wing movements and are viewed as 'right-wing' primarily due to their anti-Marxism. Right-wing movements traditionally are reactionary, monarchists, loyalists of the Ancien Régime. Fascism and Nazism, in general, is mass-based and democratic, modernist and scientific - which are pretty much traditionally left-wing. What attracted genuine reactionaries (like Jünger, or Hamsun) and right-wingers to this fundamentally left-wing movement was its anti-Bolshevisim. Nothing really else can explain how thoroughly anti-modern and traditionalists (i.e., reactionaries) could be swayed over to something so contrarian to their views as fascism.

What are the axioms of your reactionary views? What good reason is there to maintain tradition? Why should things be preserved, and why should things be chosen because they were that way in the past instead of based on their merit?

[starman2003]

It most certainly is - it ignores that Russia was a Western-civilised nation for hundreds of years (how can any cultured man call St Petersburg 'backward'?).

The bulk of the people were peasants. Serfdom wasn't abolished under the tsars until 1861 IIRC.

It also ignores the rapid industrial growth rate of Russia under the Tsars during the late 19th and early 20th century.

Woefully insufficient to stand up to Germany; even Japan could clobber the tsarist forces.

The Soviets only caught up with Tsarist industrial input in the early 30s as far as I can recall.

They vastly surpassed it. Whereas the tsarist military was beaten by Germany and Japan, the Stalinist military bested both e.g. the japanese at Khalkin Gol--largely due to military industrial output.

[Fitzcarraldo]

The bulk of the people were peasants.

As they were under the peasant Stalin. Your point is what exactly?

Woefully insufficient to stand up to Germany; even Japan could clobber the tsarist forces

What are you talking about? By the times the Germans helped the Austo-Hungarians to push the front back towards Russia in 1915 (after Russia had great successes in the first year), the line was virtually unchanged until 1917 when liberals, socialists and Bolsheviks brought down the Tsar and brought mutiny, desertations, low morale, and other treachery to the military. "Woefully insufficient" is quite clearly nonsense.

I am rather unsure how precisely this relates to the rapid industrial growth of the Russian Empire, amongst the fastest in the world. Should I bring up the Soviet embarrassment in the Winter War as some sort of evidence that the Soviet Union did not have industrial growth? because that seems to me precisely what you are attempting here.

They vastly surpassed it.

It took them ~20 years to match it.

Not that I agree with the modernisation of the Russian Empire anyway, however the Tsar was quite clearly developing his country into a modern industrial power pre-WWI. It would have had similar access to Western capital and access to natural resources and labour power as the Soviet Union under Stalin (without the government promoting active class war, costing millions of lives and vast loss of capital). It is reasonable to suggest that the Russian Empire would have developed quicker and more smoother than the Soviets under the influence of people like Stolypin (killed by a radical Jewish leftist, naturally). Your whole Stalinist apologist line is nonsense as is Stalinist apologia in general.

[starman2003]

As they were under the peasant Stalin. Your point is what exactly?

Illiterate peasants etc.

(after Russia had great successes in the first year)

Sure at Tannenburg.

the line was virtually unchanged until 1917

That's because much of Germany's army was tied down on the western front. Had the Germans used the troops squandered at Verdun against the russians, as the Austrians wanted, they could've knocked Russia out of the war a year earlier. The difference between the tsar and Stalin was the former was beaten by a Germany with one hand tied behind its back, whereas Stalin withstood and beat the reich (1941-43) essentially singlehandedly.

I am rather unsure how precisely this relates to the rapid industrial growth of the Russian Empire, amongst the fastest in the world. Should I bring up the Soviet embarrassment in the Winter War as some sort of evidence that the Soviet Union did not have industrial growth? because that seems to me precisely what you are attempting here.

The Russians just weren't prepared for finnish tactics; Khalkin Gol the previous year showed that basically they were well-equipped and effective--quite unlike tsarist forces fighting japan.

It took them ~20 years to match it.

So the USSR of 1937 was no more industrialized than tsarist russia....

Not that I agree with the modernisation of the Russian Empire anyway, however the Tsar was quite clearly developing his country into a modern industrial power pre-WWI. It would have had similar access to Western capital and access to natural resources and labour power as the Soviet Union under Stalin

But it didn't have the same support. The USSR withstood German invasion largely because it had a better grip on power. Without a lot of power, it would've been very hard to bring about rapid industrialization, because that meant great sacrifice.

It is reasonable to suggest that the Russian Empire would have developed quicker and more smoother than the Soviets under the influence of people like Stolypin (killed by a radical Jewish leftist, naturally).

Symptomatic of the paucity of support for the tsarist system, which calls into question its ability to implement a very ambitious agenda.

[Kman]

The whole ''Stalin saved Russia with his ruthlessness'' meme is annoying and obviously untrue for anyone with the ability to understand how warfare is conducted and how societies work, Russia defeated Germany in spite of having the raving incompetant called Stalin at the helm, not because of it, I am sure if russians had had a competant military thinker in a leadership position back then, a person who would not be retarded enough to kill most of his trained officers a few years before he gets invaded, then I think the Nazi war-machine could have been stopped sooner with alot less casualties and not the millions that died because of Stalin and his fellow idiot communists.

What was the strategic rationale behind sending hordes of unarmed russian men into the german lines? Without guns they will be killed easily, be a little rational and pull them back until your factories have been able to provide with a gun atleast, but hey I guess these sort of tactics were just Stalin's brilliant mind at work right ?

[deSouza]

Stalin wasn't the only one to kill peasants by the hundreds of thousands.
Franco's guardia civil would invade cities and kill anyone and their cousin who had voted socialist, so its really interesting to see people claiming fascism was tame.

They believed in preemptive violence just as much (i'd say, more, although they were in fact more sophisticated and under less pressure from a lot of groups) as your average bolshevik, and have used it everywhere their ideology has touched to reach and maintain power.

Fascism was reactionary on its core (although it used different ideologies to gather mass support, like mussolini borrowing anarchist rhetoric and black shirts), it intended to create a new aristocracy formed by the higher echelons of the party-state. Himmler was bluntly open about it, he wanted to create an empire that would last 1000 years and his SS were knights. Goebbels was reportedly a socialist and almost became estranged with hitler once he rhetorically declared war on bolshevism, it is documented that he referred to hitler as a reactionary.

Fascism is geared towards atomizing the entirety of society under the control of the party-state and utilizes of any form of rhetoric (and groups) to reach it, they are far more power oriented than any other ism in the history of mankind.

Tsarism was a deeply rooted, extremely traditionalist regime, and viewed any form of change with suspicion. Previous attempts of modernization were met with assassination of ministers, either by nobles or by the tsar himself (over fears of loss of privileges), so I severely doubt the country was heading towards any form of modernization. The reason the narodniks rebelled and later on impulsed the bolsheviks towards a revolution was exactly that... They were intellectuals attempting to develop an extremely backwards country and were met with brutality. Marx had a penchant for industrialization and at some point even considered the british colonization in india productive, as it brought them industries, railroads and massively increased production. I believe this is the single handedly most important factor that motivated liberal intellectuals to adopt or promote marxism (anti-liberal by definition), and still motivates groups with said goal (Nepal had a Marxist revolution on the 21st century... And the first thing their chairman did was claim he would develop the economy).

The whole ''Stalin saved Russia with his ruthlessness'' meme is annoying and obviously untrue for anyone with the ability to understand how warfare is conducted

Stalin's personality cult and pseudo nationalist ideology boosted soviet morale, and that's very effective if you understand how warfare is conducted. Both the tovarisch and the fuhrer were able to set their soldiers in a frenzy against the enemy. Dictatorships have that bonus in warfare, as well as controlled information and eliminating any opposition during wartime. Surely that meant that tukhachevsky was gone (due to literal stupidity, ideology and the regime's necessity for propaganda), but it also meant there was a political body to begin with.

Stunts like celebrating the anniversary of the revolution while the nazis were a few kilometers away were also fairly relevant.

and how societies work, Russia defeated Germany in spite of having the raving incompetant called Stalin at the helm, not because of it, I am sure if russians had had a competant military thinker in a leadership position back then, a person who would not be retarded enough to kill most of his trained officers a few years before he gets invaded, then I think the Nazi war-machine could have been stopped sooner with alot less casualties and not the millions that died because of Stalin and his fellow idiot communists.

There are other factors you're not computing here. Militaries are usually fairly conservative. Can you count the number of socialist leaderships that were toppled by military coups before, during and after cold war? Stalin was paranoid, yes, but the military was also out to get him. Nazi germany, while waging war against the soviet union, managed to form battalions of detractors of the regime. Politics are ineffective and often get in the way of warfare, but they're also necessary to maintain a nation cohese. Ideal is a balance, which stalin clearly didn't have and was slow to change, but who is to say that a different regime wouldn't have sided (or at least caved to) with nazi germany?

What was the strategic rationale behind sending hordes of unarmed russian men into the german lines? Without guns they will be killed easily, be a little rational and pull them back until your factories have been able to provide with a gun atleast, but hey I guess these sort of tactics were just Stalin's brilliant mind at work right ?

Slowing the enemy down. His goal wasn't saving russian lives, in fact, he had no concern for anyone's.

[Social_Critic]

Several years ago I reached the conclusion that fascism and socialism/communism are linked, insofar as both rely on a very strong central government and are anti-democratic. Note that former communists (Russia, China, Cuba) seem to migrate to fascism once their leadership understands that socialism/communism doesn't work very well. Fascists emphasize nationalism and strong government first, and work very well with private enterprise as long as it's either foreign owned or it obeys the government's orders - whether they are legal or not.

I think Venezuela's government can be characterized as neo-fascist, even though they claim to be socialists/communists. The Venezuelan regime is characterized by corruption, crime, extreme nationalism. cult of personality of a self-annointed leader with well known anti democratic beliefs, human rights abuses, and use of a mixed economy in which foreign and national private interests are allowed to function but must at all time be willing to follow the supreme leader's orders. They may think they are communists, but they are closer to nazis. The gangsterism and utter idiocy of the Venezuelan regime are something the likes of which I have never seen since the days of Dr Idi Amin Dada.

[Preston Cole]

The Venezuelan regime is characterized by corruption, crime,

How are those indicative of a fascist government, and why are communists, in your view, incapable of doing the same thing in government?

[starman2003]

The whole ''Stalin saved Russia with his ruthlessness'' meme is annoying and obviously untrue for anyone with the ability to understand how warfare is conducted and how societies work, Russia defeated Germany in spite of having the raving incompetant called Stalin at the helm, not because of it

Had it not been for Stalin, the USSR wouldn't have been industrialized as fast hence wouldn't have built vast quantities of tanks and aircraft etc to begin with.

I am sure if russians had had a competant military thinker in a leadership position back then, a person who would not be retarded enough to kill most of his trained officers a few years before he gets invaded

The remaining soviet generals---Zhukov, Konev, Vatutin etc were more than adequate as history showed. Besides, while Stalin's suspicions were often unwarrented, basically the idea of crushing all hint of internal opposition was quite sound and a key to survival. The last thing the USSR needed was internal rivalry, independence movements, perhaps even civil war, while the enemy was preparing to annihilate them all. Internal unity and discipline saved the nation, and the whole slavic race.

then I think the Nazi war-machine could have been stopped sooner with alot less casualties and not the millions that died because of Stalin and his fellow idiot communists.

Sure he made mistakes, like positioning too much of the armed forces too close to the border in '41. But heck, everybody made mistakes. Basically he was the right leader for the times, and he won.

What was the strategic rationale behind sending hordes of unarmed russian men into the german lines?

Buy time. Actually the soviet infantry was respected by the Germans from the start; they noted the far greater motivation of soviet forces.

[Kman]

Had it not been for Stalin, the USSR wouldn't have been industrialized as fast hence wouldn't have built vast quantities of tanks and aircraft etc to begin with.

Russia would have industrialized even faster if it had had a capitalist system, the enormous economic instability that the commies created did not make Russia a stronger country and it did not increase its productive capacity.

Had I been Czar in Russia at the time then the German army would have been stopped much earlier with far less casualties because russians would have been better prepared, better equipped and better trained.

The remaining soviet generals---Zhukov, Konev, Vatutin etc were more than adequate as history showed.

Let us not exaggerate the competence of these people, from what I understand the russian army lost 3 soldiers for every german they killed.

Besides, while Stalin's suspicions were often unwarrented, basically the idea of crushing all hint of internal opposition was quite sound and a key to survival. The last thing the USSR needed was internal rivalry, independence movements, perhaps even civil war, while the enemy was preparing to annihilate them all. Internal unity and discipline saved the nation, and the whole slavic race.

If the russian people felt the need to defend themselves from the Nazi's then they would have done so without oppression being needed, oppression is not needed in order for a people to defend itself, all that is needed is motivation and with the way Nazi's were behaving towards Slavs I dont think that would have been an issue.

Sure he made mistakes, like positioning too much of the armed forces too close to the border in '41. But heck, everybody made mistakes. Basically he was the right leader for the times, and he won.

Mainly because of the incompetance of the Nazi leaders, a trained chimp could have probably lead Russia better during this time.

Buy time. Actually the soviet infantry was respected by the Germans from the start; they noted the far greater motivation of soviet forces.

Buy time? It doesnt slow an army down to just walk along and gun unarmed people down. Killing an unarmed man takes a few seconds max. It was a horrendously idiotic tactic that accomplished nothing except reduce the size of the russian army for no reason.

[deSouza]

Russia would have industrialized even faster if it had had a capitalist system, the enormous economic instability that the commies created did not make Russia a stronger country and it did not increase its productive capacity.

You seem to be under the impression that the czar would have opted to industrialize Russia and that all the nations in eastern europe would have industrialized as well and joined the allies on the war against the axis.

Let us not exaggerate the competence of these people, from what I understand the russian army lost 3 soldiers for every german they killed.

Its usually what happens when you fight back during an offensive war using combined warfare.
Other historical examples have far worse casualties for the defending side, and in fact the soviet army by the end of world war two was considered the mightiest ground force of the world.

If the russian people felt the need to defend themselves from the Nazi's then they would have done so without oppression being needed, oppression is not needed in order for a people to defend itself, all that is needed is motivation and with the way Nazi's were behaving towards Slavs I dont think that would have been an issue.

Sure they would... Like the polish!

Mainly because of the incompetance of the Nazi leaders, a trained chimp could have probably lead Russia better during this time.

Nazi leaders advised hitler against the eastern front, but he underestimated the soviet union enough to think he could conclude the offensive before he ran out of supplies.
The soviets would have moved their industry as far as Vladivostok and would have continued fighting, because as Hitler said it was total war. I don't think he had a chance at all of pulling it through, and given the conditions i'd say the nazi war machine worked very effectively.

Buy time? It doesnt slow an army down to just walk along and gun unarmed people down. Killing an unarmed man takes a few seconds max. It was a horrendously idiotic tactic that accomplished nothing except reduce the size of the russian army for no reason.

As if. Building holes and obstacles for tanks slowed the germans down considerably, and the psychological effect of being shot from random places and being attacked by angry russians surely damaged the velocity of the german offensive.

http://english.pobediteli.ru/

[Social_Critic]

Preston, communists are fascists dressed in red, as far as I can see. I added corruption and crime to the Venezuelan mix because it allows individuals who are connected to the government - government officials, the military, PSUV leaders, etc, to benefit personally as the legal system breaks down. It's a lot easier to steal when private corporations are allowed to exist - the money is stolen by giving sweetheart contracts to well connected corporations - many of which are linked to government officials.

When I lived in Venezuela, I lived in a pricey building, and we began to see the noveau riche arrive, these were known as Boligarchs (for Bolivarian revolutionary oligarchs). They moved into the fancy condos, drove the fancy cars, had lots of bodyguards (crime is a serious danger in Venezuela, even more so for those who are flaunting their money the way they do). From what I heard, they have networks to steal money, which usually require links to individuals placed outside. This is needed so that a foreign corporation or business can get the deals, gets paid in subsidized US dollars, a portion of which are deposited in the offshore accounts of these so called "communist leaders". The amount of money stolen has to be really high, because the contracting procedures are violated all the time - an honest businessman can't do business and make a profit in Venezuela anymore, because the only way to get ahead is to payoff and bribe. I realize corruption was fairly common in Venezuela in the past, but what is seen now is incredible. It's shoddy corruption, which could not proliferate in the past, when it was a lot more subtle and subdued. These boligarchs and their government allies steal by the hundreds of millions, and many of them have become super rich.

[deSouza]

Preston, communists are fascists dressed in red, as far as I can see. I added corruption and crime to the Venezuelan mix because it allows individuals who are connected to the government - government officials, the military, PSUV leaders, etc, to benefit personally as the legal system breaks down. It's a lot easier to steal when private corporations are allowed to exist - the money is stolen by giving sweetheart contracts to well connected corporations - many of which are linked to government officials.

When I lived in Venezuela, I lived in a pricey building, and we began to see the noveau riche arrive, these were known as Boligarchs (for Bolivarian revolutionary oligarchs). They moved into the fancy condos, drove the fancy cars, had lots of bodyguards (crime is a serious danger in Venezuela, even more so for those who are flaunting their money the way they do). From what I heard, they have networks to steal money, which usually require links to individuals placed outside. This is needed so that a foreign corporation or business can get the deals, gets paid in subsidized US dollars, a portion of which are deposited in the offshore accounts of these so called "communist leaders". The amount of money stolen has to be really high, because the contracting procedures are violated all the time - an honest businessman can't do business and make a profit in Venezuela anymore, because the only way to get ahead is to payoff and bribe. I realize corruption was fairly common in Venezuela in the past, but what is seen now is incredible. It's shoddy corruption, which could not proliferate in the past, when it was a lot more subtle and subdued. These boligarchs and their government allies steal by the hundreds of millions, and many of them have become super rich.

Lenin was a genius because he managed to cloak a totalitarian structure into an ideology/movement that desired to smash the state, but fascism and communism are clearly very different. A fascist state distinguishes itself from pretty much any other because it requires racial theories, corporatism, and an all powerful military-industrial complex that is constantly fed with wars by official ideology.

[starman2003]

Russia would have industrialized even faster if it had had a capitalist system, the enormous economic instability that the commies created did not make Russia a stronger country and it did not increase its productive capacity.

Soviet industrialization was more rapid than industrialization in capitalist countries, and enormously increased russian power. Not until the nazis invaded Russia did they face real competition on land--hordes of tanks troops and guns etc they never knew existed.

Had I been Czar in Russia at the time then the German army would have been stopped much earlier with far less casualties because russians would have been better prepared, better equipped and better trained.

Extremely naive. It's like having your cake and eating it too--a leader based on archaic mumbo jumbo ("divine right") overseeing the modernization of a whole nation...There wouldn't be enough support among the intelligentsia, those needed to help modernize, if they didn't believe in the system. Communism may be flawed but at least it was a rational system which enjoyed great support and motivated many to build a modern nation in the '30s.

Let us not exaggerate the competence of these people, from what I understand the russian army lost 3 soldiers for every german they killed.

What do you expect, they commanded troops, many of them peasants or asiatics, against the greatest offensive force in history up till then, and still beat it.

If the russian people felt the need to defend themselves from the Nazi's then they would have done so without oppression being needed, oppression is not needed in order for a people to defend itself,

In fact it was needed. Compare the USSR with the western democracies in 1940. What if democracy, not "oppression" had triumphed in Russia c 1926. It wouldn't have been possible to impose the great sacrifices --capital investment instead of consumption, guns before butter--to build an adequate industrial base and military in time to survive. Any fool can see the need for sacrifice in wartime, but the USSR desperately needed vast improvement well before then or it would've been too late. Under democracy, the stupid people would've voted for idiots who said "under me you won't have to work so hard and sacrifice nor serve in the army." Preparations would've been woefully inadequate and the whole slavic race would've been wiped out.

all that is needed is motivation and with the way Nazi's were behaving towards Slavs I dont think that would have been an issue.

The Russians were by far the most motivated enemy the nazis had encountered up to 1941--much more so than the poles or western allies. I suggest you read Metalmann's Through Hell for Hitler for some insight on the cause of that motivation. In any event, motivation was not enough, there had to be authoritarian leadership with Stalin's foresight and power to prepare the country.

Mainly because of the incompetance of the Nazi leaders, a trained chimp could have probably lead Russia better during this time.

Those "incompetent" nazi leaders had little trouble beating every nation on land until they attacked the USSR.

[Figlio di Moros]

A fascist state distinguishes itself from pretty much any other because it requires racial theories, corporatism, and an all powerful military-industrial complex that is constantly fed with wars by official ideology.

We respond to these misnomers consistantly here; perhaps try studying an ideology, or atleast reading a few of our threads, before repeating fallacies addressed in every third thread. Other than corporatism(assuming you understand stand the actually meaning of it), that short list is completely incorrect. Aside from the Nazis, racial theory wasn't central to any other fascist state, nor is it exclusive; racial theory was important in many democracies, and to several communist states. The "military-industrial complex" wasn't all-powerful, either, and a number of states, such as Argentina, Spain, and Portugal, remaining at peace for the duration of their reign. Even Austria and Greece, for instance, had to be attacked before fighting(if at all).

[deSouza]

We respond to these misnomers consistantly here; perhaps try studying an ideology, or atleast reading a few of our threads, before repeating fallacies addressed in every third thread. Other than corporatism(assuming you understand stand the actually meaning of it), that short list is completely incorrect. Aside from the Nazis, racial theory wasn't central to any other fascist state, nor is it exclusive; racial theory was important in many democracies, and to several communist states. The "military-industrial complex" wasn't all-powerful, either, and a number of states, such as Argentina, Spain, and Portugal, remaining at peace for the duration of their reign. Even Austria and Greece, for instance, had to be attacked before fighting(if at all).

What makes you think I have not studied the ideology?

If one gathers 20 scientologists in a room and reaches a consensus that rael gave the Egyptians their technology, it does not mean that such had happened. I couldn't give two bits about any "conclusion" reached through fallacies and historical incongruities.

The fact that you can even separate the military industrial complex from fascism leads me to think you do not understand the ideology at all.

" First of all, as regards the future development of mankind, and quite apart from all present political considerations. Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renuncia­tion in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death. Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism. "

Benito Mussolini, the doctrine of fascism.

In other words, war alone according to fascism can forge the new man, a trial by fire of sorts that would create an entirely new society, in the philosophical aspect, and on the pragmatical aspect a whole country's industry is geared toward the war machine, generating new jobs and fighting inflation through sheer destruction of capital/commodities. Sure argentina, spain and portugal managed to remain peaceful in their pseudo fascist existencies, but were they fascist - or even, successfully fascist? The answer is no. They were military dictatorships that cherry picked between fascist ideology and whatever they saw fit to keep themselves in power. Brazil had a "fascist" dictator as well, who even aligned with the axis initially, and once the war swinged to the allies' size he adopted liberalism and even resigned his post of dictator for life to later be elected president on a reformist agenda that had the support of the communist party. Shall we say that fascism is democratic and defends social reforms now?

And yes, racial theories are an intrinsic aspect of fascist ideology/corporatism. They were true in italy, they were true in germany and they were true in any seriously fascist state.