Anyone downvoting this, should be able to explain why what the the US and European powers did to Africa, Asia, and the americas during the 1700-1900s, was any better or fundamentally different than what fascist formulations from 1920-1945 did. And those atrocities were all done using a far more stable form of government: bourgeois parliamentarism / liberal democracy.
People really need to read Losurdo’s - Liberalism, a counter-history. Liberals invented the slave trade, and the victorian holocausts. The only difference between them and the fascists, are that they’re far better at colonialism and genocide than the fascists were.
I still think the distinction matters, fascism is the empire turned inwards.
America exerting fascism on other populations is just textbook liberalism. The facade of democracy and relative peace at home is different than fascism. Fascism demands obedience of the local population and is a full merger of corporation and state. Laws don’t matter, only the head of states will matters.
They’re both bad, but I think it’s disingenuous to tell people who are about to live under fascism that the liberal government they just had was also fascism because they oppressed populations around the globe.
Basically the time for lectures was when we were living under fake “fascism” and the time for gun and survival training is now
While not exclusive to it, they are elements of fascism.
It’s funny that we have all these lists and essays and books on how fascist ideology and policy is a confluence of many such elements, yet people still act as tough “is this person/party/state fascist?” is a simple yes or no question with no gray area.
There’s a joke that if you ask 10 people to define fascism, you’ll get 10 different answers.
It’s an imprecise term whose definition changes with every author who makes a try of it. Even the more popular lists of traits like Eco’s or Paxton’s have a lot of issues and contradictions which ppl have pointed out.
Any posts that even mention fascism always devolve into ppl trying and failing to agree on its definition, the point of this deflective practice enabling ppl to uphold their own liberal democracies as being sacred and less genocidal.
None of that is fascism. It’s just run of the mill liberalism.
Anyone downvoting this, should be able to explain why what the the US and European powers did to Africa, Asia, and the americas during the 1700-1900s, was any better or fundamentally different than what fascist formulations from 1920-1945 did. And those atrocities were all done using a far more stable form of government: bourgeois parliamentarism / liberal democracy.
People really need to read Losurdo’s - Liberalism, a counter-history. Liberals invented the slave trade, and the victorian holocausts. The only difference between them and the fascists, are that they’re far better at colonialism and genocide than the fascists were.
I still think the distinction matters, fascism is the empire turned inwards.
America exerting fascism on other populations is just textbook liberalism. The facade of democracy and relative peace at home is different than fascism. Fascism demands obedience of the local population and is a full merger of corporation and state. Laws don’t matter, only the head of states will matters.
They’re both bad, but I think it’s disingenuous to tell people who are about to live under fascism that the liberal government they just had was also fascism because they oppressed populations around the globe.
Basically the time for lectures was when we were living under fake “fascism” and the time for gun and survival training is now
Umm… millions of Afrasians lived under Fascism, something that began in the 1920s. With all due respect to the Italian lower classes, their suffering differed in significant ways from that of their Libyan and Somali counterparts.
While not exclusive to it, they are elements of fascism.
It’s funny that we have all these lists and essays and books on how fascist ideology and policy is a confluence of many such elements, yet people still act as tough “is this person/party/state fascist?” is a simple yes or no question with no gray area.
There’s a joke that if you ask 10 people to define fascism, you’ll get 10 different answers.
It’s an imprecise term whose definition changes with every author who makes a try of it. Even the more popular lists of traits like Eco’s or Paxton’s have a lot of issues and contradictions which ppl have pointed out.
Any posts that even mention fascism always devolve into ppl trying and failing to agree on its definition, the point of this deflective practice enabling ppl to uphold their own liberal democracies as being sacred and less genocidal.