How would you describe this system?

[BR7]

For any purpose at all?

Correct.

Counterexample: Consider fascism-as-non-communistic-authoritarianism. The corporation control game mechanics of Eve Online result in corporations operating in authoritarian manner, but do not support a communistic system very well. The corporation control game mechanics of Eve online can therefore be described as fascistic.

Concise. Accurate. Specific enough that it identifies relevant attributes, but general enough that it covers the possible variation in the situation under consideration. Sounds like a purpose for which that definition is meaningful.

All of them?

[Wherein I reminded you that I am not saying that a particular definition is universal, but that Roger Griffin's should not be assumed to be by default.]

By whose judgment?

[Wherein I implied that you saying so is insufficient to settle the matter.]

So? What if they were fascistic according to that definition? Is this a setup to show that a different definition doesn't apply to situations that don't meet the defining criteria?

Yeah, countries with 5 year plans don't really fit into the fascist label. Especially when their are actual fascist parties.

So it was a setup to show that a different definition doesn't apply to situations that don't meet the defining criteria! Note that "having 5-year plans" is unrelated to the definition you were arguing against, so, by that definition, they do fit the fascist label if the actual criterion is met (that being non-communistic-authoritarianism). Arguing that situation X does not qualify for label F by definition B does not address situation X qualifying for label F by definition A, or the validity of definition A as a definition.

Yes, that sounds like a handy definition of authoritarianism. Now, how does it relate to the discussion?

The link you are citing says that fascism is

Today used to describe any authoritarian government that is not communism

So we seem to agree on this. How does that relate to the things we seem to disagree about?

Seeing as how fascism-as-non-communistic-authoritarianism made it into that textbook. Anyway, note that I haven't been arguing that that's the only valid definition of fascism, but that Roger Griffin's should not be assumed to be the default when not specified. What do you have to say about that, the actual point?

Words fail me. What they are saying is fascism includes absolute monarchies, Roman dictators, viceroys, populists...

Yeah, if they are authoritarian (not all Roman dictators, viceroys, and populists are/were) and not communistic (some populists are/were). The textbook might have used this definition to compare societal attitudes towards things like rule of law in such situations. And this makes the definition invalid how?

So, back to my actual point: What do you have to say about Roger Griffin's definition of fascism not being used by default?

It is like saying that all fruit are bananas because they are edible plants. I can't think of any other analogy tortured enough.

Actually, it's more like defining vegetables as edible parts of plants, then claiming that bananas are vegetables. It's true according to that definition, but it runs counter to the usual consideration of bananas as fruit and not vegetables, as vegetables have a more common, more restrictive meaning.

Wow. You used such a vague interpretation that my school qualifys as a nation. You want to try something more accurate?

You're the one who supplied that definition, not me. If you disagree with my application of it, could you explain your objection in detail?

And yes, your school might qualify as a nation by that definition. Schools are quite capable of analogues of nationalism (That's a crazy documentary. Check out the preview.).

What do you have to say to that?

You said there are no communists in ever because it is impossible to abolish private property. You see the contradiction?

By "that" I meant analogues of racism in contexts where actual race doesn't apply.

I'm assuming your point here addresses a different line of conversation with my point that corporations in Eve can't institute communism because they can't abolish private property. That real communist governments didn't completely abolish it isn't a contradiction. Real communist governments could, in principle, check to see whether a person is hoarding private property, running a black market, etc. and, if found, could confiscate that property. Corporations in Eve can do neither.

I'm getting mixed messages. Don't corporations have guns?

Yes, and they can use them to coerce members to do things if they stay in space in corporation territory. Guns can't hit people docked in stations though. Guns also aren't useful if you can't identify someone to shoot. With regard to establishing a communistic corporation, the game mechanics of corporation control don't give tight enough accounting of member assets to know whether or not members are actually giving all their property to the corporation, and there is no mechanism to take members' private property even if it is known to exist.

[Samuel]

The corporation control game mechanics of Eve Online result in corporations operating in authoritarian manner, but do not support a communistic system very well. The corporation control game mechanics of Eve online can therefore be described as fascistic.

Or we can just say they are dictatorships. Which desribes them perfectly- it doesn't attribute anything but the fact that power is in one persons hands.

Yeah, if they are authoritarian (not all Roman dictators, viceroys, and populists are/were)

Authoritarian means

of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Roman dictators and viceroys, by definition, fit this label. Populists are more varied though.

not communistic (some populists are/were).

None of the populists were communists (I'm refering to the South American variety). One of the major features of populists was that they were corporatists.

So, back to my actual point: What do you have to say about Roger Griffin's definition of fascism not being used by default?

As opposed to authoritarian non-communist? Seriously, it would be hard to find a worse definition.

You're the one who supplied that definition, not me. If you disagree with my application of it, could you explain your objection in detail?

Share common history: Varies; more significant for older/more tightly knit corporations. Within the game, many characters stay with the same organization for years, plenty of time for history in an MMO. Those in leadership positions have often been with the corporation for most or all its existence. If the corporation is active, a few weeks can contain a decent amount of history.

Traditionally a "common history" for a nation concerns things that happened so long ago it is measured in centuries or decades, not years.

Share common culture: Check. Those who don't share it are typically kicked out or never admitted in the first place.

Culture does not just refer to wheter or not the group is a bunch of militant assholes, but what sort of cultural stuff they have. Do they have a similar collection of music, art, food, symbols, stories, etc?

Share common language or ethnicity: Check, especially for language as a practical matter. Corporations based on ethnicity are less common, but they do exist.

Ethnic origin. No, they don't.

Inhabit a particular country or territory: Check. Definitely for territory-holding corporations. Even empire-based corporations often set up operations in a particular spot or spots of choice.

This is the only one that really fits.