BCom Finance and Accounting Double Major. Completed the CFA and FRM designations. I work in banking. I was originally in computer science before I switched majors. I've read philosophy my whole life. I've probably read more philosophy books than your average philosophy major. Politics has always been an interest of mine.

To answer your first question, each of those systems have extremely broad definitions and it's highly subjective. It depends entirely on what perspective you want to take. The purpose of a label in anything is to categorize something in order to easily identify it. In order to properly define these terms, one needs to ask themselves what the purpose of the definition is. Only then can you properly define it.

Regardless, I can try a quick summary for you.

Fascism: A system that recognizes differences between humans and the inequality in outcome these differences lead to; thus fascism is a just system in that regard. This justice is observed in its economic system and social system. Fascism recognizes individuality and individualism as it pertains to a person's autonomy to determine their own fate; however, this individualism must not and cannot supersede the will of the State. In this regard fascism is a system where people's lives are devoted to the State as their primary purpose with individuality being secondary to the State. Morality is objective as defined by the State with a purpose of enhancing the State's strength and power. This transcends into the realm of production and thus fascism, while there exists capital, is effectively communism or socialism because the State directs what and how what you "own" should be used for. However, in times of no national crisis one could presume that there would be more autonomy in fascism than communism in one's enterprising.

Feudalism: Basic definition I suppose is having set classes and roles/privileges within society as defined by the class. In modern times one might expand this definition to include relationships between groups of people that aren't codified and recognized as classes as readily as historic feudalism was. In this regard you might consider our system similar in the sense that a trust fund baby is a feudal lord and a person who must work to earn a living the serf. I wouldn't go this far. I would suggest there are similarities though. The way in which a Hollywood actor or politician in our society is treated when they break the law vs. a white male conservative is another example of similarities. Also, our system which almost forces people to become indebted through requiring educations that act as nothing more than a piece of paper or rite of passage but aren't necessarily needed to gain certain classes of careers and lifestyles thus being indebted to the system, of which you pay huge taxes on and can never truly escape has similarities.

Communism: This one is trickier because there's essentially the romanticized version of communism that always lives in the minds of idealists or "purists" and then communism the term how it has been used by governments to label their system of government. At a theoretical sense, communism is basically a society without capital,, which is that everyone in the society owns everything (means of production only not your toothbrush) or rather no one owns anything. In theory, given this, everyone should earn relatively similar benefits for their labour because there doesn't exist an owner class that earns significantly more return for the amount of work they put in than laborers. Morality can be anything. In practice communism has essentially been where the government owns everything and provides for its citizens what the government thinks its citizens should have with none to some limited amount of free enterprise to provide some sense of personal autonomy for the population. Morality tends to be objective and defines by the State similar to fascism. Individualism tends to be vilified and communism takes a far more collectivist view of society than even fascism. Inequality is something that is generally not well regarded in any aspect because to admit inequality in any aspect of life admits that perhaps the outcome in regards to resources should in fact be significantly different depending on the value of one's contribution.

BCom Finance and Accounting Double Major. Completed the CFA and FRM designations. I work in banking. I was originally in computer science before I switched majors. I've read philosophy my whole life. I've probably read more philosophy books than your average philosophy major. Politics has always been an interest of mine.

To answer your first question, each of those systems have extremely broad definitions and it's highly subjective. It depends entirely on what perspective you want to take. The purpose of a label in anything is to categorize something in order to easily identify it. In order to properly define these terms, one needs to ask themselves what the purpose of the definition is. Only then can you properly define it.

Regardless, I can try a quick summary for you.

Fascism: A system that recognizes differences between humans and the inequality in outcome these differences lead to; thus fascism is a just system in that regard. This justice is observed in its economic system and social system. Fascism recognizes individuality and individualism as it pertains to a person's autonomy to determine their own fate; however, this individualism must not and cannot supersede the will of the State. In this regard fascism is a system where people's lives are devoted to the State as their primary purpose with individuality being secondary to the State. Morality is objective as defined by the State with a purpose of enhancing the State's strength and power.

Feudalism: Basic definition I suppose is having set classes and roles/privileges within society as defined by the class. In modern times one might expand this definition to include relationships between groups of people that aren't codified and recognized as classes as readily as historic feudalism was. In this regard you might consider our system similar in the sense that a trust fund baby is a feudal lord and a person who must work to earn a living the serf. I wouldn't go this far. I would suggest there are similarities though. The way in which a Hollywood actor or politician in our society is treated when they break the law vs. a white male conservative is another example of similarities. Also, our system which almost forces people to become indebted through requiring educations that act as nothing more than a piece of paper or rite of passage but aren't necessarily needed to gain certain classes of careers and lifestyles thus being indebted to the system, of which you pay huge taxes on and can never truly escape has similarities.

Communism: This one is trickier because there's essentially the romanticized version of communism that always lives in the minds of idealists or "purists" and then communism the term how it has been used by governments to label their system of government. At a theoretical sense, communism is basically a society without capital,, which is that everyone in the society owns everything (means of production only not your toothbrush) or rather no one owns anything. In theory, given this, everyone should earn relatively similar benefits for their labour because there doesn't exist an owner class that earns significantly more return for the amount of work they put in than laborers. Morality can be anything. In practice communism has essentially been where the government owns everything and provides for its citizens what the government thinks its citizens should have with none to some limited amount of free enterprise to provide some sense of personal autonomy for the population. Morality tends to be objective and defines by the State similar to fascism. Individualism tends to be vilified and communism takes a far more collectivist view of society than even fascism. Inequality is something that is generally not well regarded in any aspect because to admit inequality in any aspect of life admits that perhaps the outcome in regards to resources should in fact be significantly different depending on the value of one's contribution.

BCom Finance and Accounting Double Major. Completed the CFA and FRM designations. I work in banking. I was originally in computer science before I switched majors. I've read philosophy my whole life. I've probably read more philosophy books than your average philosophy major. Politics has always been an interest of mine.

To answer your first question, each of those systems have extremely broad definitions and it's highly subjective. It depends entirely on what perspective you want to take. The purpose of a label in anything is to categorize something in order to easily identify it. In order to properly define these terms, one needs to ask themselves what the purpose of the definition is. Only then can you properly define it.

Regardless, I can try a quick summary for you.

Fascism: A system that recognizes differences between humans and the inequality in outcome these differences lead to; thus fascism is a just system in that regard. This justice is observed in its economic system and social system. Fascism recognizes individuality and individualism as it pertains to a person's autonomy to determine their own fate; however, this individualism must not and cannot supersede the will of the State. In this regard fascism is a system where people's lives are devoted to the State as their primary purpose with individuality being secondary to the State. Morality is objective as defined by the State with a purpose of enhancing the State's strength and power.

Feudalism: Basic definition I suppose is having set classes and roles/privileges within society as defined by the class. In modern times one might expand this definition to include relationships between groups of people that aren't codified and recognized as classes as readily as historic feudalism was. In this regard you might consider our system similar in the sense that a trust fund baby is a feudal lord and a person who must work to earn a living the serf. I wouldn't go this far. I would suggest there are similarities though. The way in which a Hollywood actor or politician in our society is treated when they break the law vs. a white male conservative is another example of similarities. Also, our system which almost forces people to become indebted through requiring educations that act as nothing more than a piece of paper or rite of passage but aren't necessarily needed to gain certain classes of careers and lifestyles thus being indebted to the system, of which you pay huge taxes on and can never truly escape has similarities.

Communism: This one is trickier because there's essentially the romanticized version of communism that always lives in the minds of idealists or "purists" and then communism the term how it has been used by governments to label their system of government. At a theoretical sense, communism is basically a society without capital,, which is that everyone in the society owns everything (means of production only not your toothbrush) or rather no one owns anything. In theory, given this, everyone should earn relatively similar benefits for their labour because there doesn't exist an owner class that earns significantly more return for the amount of work they put in than laborers. Morality can be anything. In practice communism has essentially been where the government owns everything and provides for its citizens what the government thinks its citizens should have with none to some limited amount of free enterprise to provide some sense of purpose for the population. Morality tends to be objective and defines by the State similar to fascism. Individualism tends to be vilified and communism takes a far more collectivist view of society than even fascism. Inequality is something that is generally not well regarded in any aspect because to admit inequality in any aspect of life admits that perhaps the outcome in regards to resources should in fact be significantly different depending on the value of one's contribution.