If you read Mein Kampf it’s really focused on “the Jews”.
Nazism was about anti-semitism first and foremost. They had a paranoid delusion that all Jews have an inborn desire to subvert the nobler Aryan civilisation.
There were non-anti-semitic fascists too like Eoin O’Duffy
I feel like each answer here is wrong and right.
Literally, Nazi was a shortened version of National Socialist, and was the anglicized name for the German party that Adolf Hitler rose to power in.
In the vernacular, Nazi is a somewhat catch all to describe various fractions and identified ideologies which the broad usage I think hurts discourse.
Some people mean in this general way, any racist, or ethnostate advocate could be considered a Nazi, as could any racist or fascist group.
I’m not for any of it, but the fluidity of usage ends up feeling like hyperbole when someone is not a literal Nazi, or doesn’t even share Nazi values and beliefs.
When describing our enemies, I think static definition matters, because inaccuracies can be an attack surface to dismantle arguments.
Nazism was the ideology of the Nazi party in 1930s Germany, and Fascism was the ideology of Italy under Mussolini. The main difference was that Nazism had more of an emphasis on racial purity and racism, whereas fascism was more focused on totalitarian, authoritarian control.
In the context of insulting a modern day extreme right wing person though, they’re pretty much synonymous.
The term fascism is way older, goes back to at least ancient rome.
The idea being that the group stand above the individual: fasces being a bundle of stick. It motivates sacrifice of self and others for a group by stating the individual stick is weak, but the bundle is strong.
The difference between the word and the ideology.
Ceasar’s rome was fascist in name and ideology.
No, it wasn’t.
Have you looked at Wikipedia already? It is a good starting point.
