[ralfy]

It is usually possible for fascism built upon a mass movement to transform to one controlled by a smaller group using the military to control the masses.

[starman2003]

Sure, after he gained power, Adolf, with the support of the military, crushed the leftist wing of the nazi movement. To become a mass movement, the party had to appeal to the masses, but its real agenda had little to do with satisfying them.

[Figlio di Moros]

What the hell are you talking about? Nazism had nothing to do with not satisfying Germans, and substantiously improved their way of life. In fact, had Hitler succeeded in WWII, having so much extra land would have substantially improved the standard of living of Germans.

[starman2003]

I meant initially, given the need for substantial sacrifices--guns before butter--to build up a big military in the first place. The regime might've substantially improved the lot of the masses, long term, had it succeeded, but basically that wasn't what it was about, in any event. The nazis always tended to deemphasize materialism in favor of what Ley called "spritual values" which I take to mean identification with a greater whole--the Nation, the Race, the Fuhrer and elite, the cause, as opposed to individual concerns.

[chanakyan]

the socio-economic basis of fascism-
according to laski fascism sought to serve the interest of capitalist class at the expense of masses especially working class.
In my opinion ,among poor countries there is a less chance for fascism because it needs a capitalist economy with a weak democracy.
Economic depression never leads to rise of fascism but fear&frustration arising out of economic depression CAN lead to it.
Among poor countries economic suffering caused by unemployment mitigated by adequate relief,usually now a days international financial institutions & developed countries helping them in such situations.so people of poor countries never feel being useless,unwanted&outside the productive ranks of society.

[starman2003]

..fascism sought to serve the interest of capitalist class at the expense of masses especially working class.

Fascism sought to strengthen the State not any particular class. The party elite was in charge and dictated to business/industry as well as to others.

[Figlio di Moros]

the socio-economic basis of fascism-
according to laski fascism sought to serve the interest of capitalist class at the expense of masses especially working class.

Who the hell is Laski, and why should any of us take his word when we've studied fascism and know he's wrong?

Seriously, people come in here all the time and try to feed us their own perspective of the fascist boogeyman, and it's always bullshit. It doesn't matter whose name you attach to it, the idea fascism was/is a "business-owners system" or socialist, or that it was "progressive", or totalitarian/tyranical, only to support the whims of the dictator, etc. is wrong and we've debunked these misconceptions repeatedly.

[Fasces]

I would presume they mean Harold Laski. From a Marxist perspective, however, they are completely correct. In practice, no fascist state has actually implemented the national syndicalist component of corporativist philosophy, and indeed, the syndicalists were frequently targeted in Spain, Portugal, and Germany, in purges. This being the case, the ownership of the means of production did not transfer to the workers, and while they may have transferred from one individual of the capitalist class to another, they remained within that caste, in a state of nationally controlled and castrated capitalism. While they may have lost power, they still existed - thus making fascism a desperate attempt for survival by the capitalist class in the face of the energized working masses.

[Preston Cole]

This being the case, the ownership of the means of production did not transfer to the workers,

The leftist branches of fascism may have wanted that, but corporatism was never about giving the workers ownership over the means of production. The concept itself is rather unfascist.

While they may have lost power, they still existed - thus making fascism a desperate attempt for survival by the capitalist class in the face of the energized working masses.

Depends on how you look at it. From a narrow-minded Marxist perspective, fascism was a version of the capitalist welfare state looking at an angry working class, but if you look at historical determinations (saving the Nation from left- and right-internationalism) and the attitude of fascists (that the spirit of organic unity can only be achieved through collaboration of classes, smashing separatist/self-interested political systems like Marxism and Capitalism), the fact that the capitalists were in a tight spot and they clung to fascism for salvation is just a by-product of the fascist revolution.

[Fasces]

Depends on how you look at it. From a narrow-minded Marxist perspective, fascism was a version of the capitalist welfare state looking at an angry working class

I would presume they mean Harold Laski. From a Marxist perspective, however, they are completely correct.

That is precisely what I was looking at, Preston.

[starman2003]

but corporatism was never about giving the workers ownership over the means of production.

Not even the communists actually did it.