Imperialist and colonialist and of course it is bad, not arguing the contrary.
It is, and there are a lot more to discuss the causes and how fascism appears, but it is an attempt at a definition because fascism isn’t linearly defined. If you read up on the actual somewhat consensual fascist regimes of 20th century Europe they have significant differences between Salazar, Franco, Mussolini or other. But we don’t consider imperialist UK fascist despite being a political abomination.
Words matter and labeling everything fascist does a disservice for any political discussion.
Regardless my main point is that we must, as individuals, live within the realms of systems we disagree with. And saying everything is the same is just not understanding nuance, in my opinion.
You can understand nuance and still conclude there is no meaningful distinction between 2 things. You’re the simplistic fatalist here. Take a nap on some train tracks, bootlicker
A person with a nuanced understanding of the world would be supportive of Hamas, Iran, Russia and China in their respective fights against the US empire.
You people jerk off to the concept of nuance, which is always just a thin veil to obfuscate the fact you support the status quo, but you wanna be able to flirt with communist hotties. You see some talking head on TV say “well, it’s nuanced” and you don’t think about it any more than that. You don’t think about the fact that the alleged “nuance” leads you to the same point that rabid fascists are at, just maybe with a slight tummyache. It’s also actually not nuanced, it’s incredible simple, straightforward, cut-and-dry and other synonyms.
Let me spell it out for you: Genocide is Bad. Both Candidates Are Fascists. Neither Candidate Will Do Anything Good. You Are A Bad Person For Supporting Genocide And Not Caring About All The Heinous Shit That Is Going On Because You Feel Comfortable Under Democratic Regimes. Just Because You Don’t Hear About Things Happening On Last Week Tonight, Doesn’t Mean They Are Not Happening. What You Think Matters Not, When What You Do Is Supporting Fascism.
Contrary to my fellows, I basically agree with your main point – though I also agree with the counter that Eco’s definition of fascism would consider America fascist – but ultimately when I said that his definition was inadequate because it doesn’t touch on the basic mechanics of fascism at all, your solution was to mystify by saying “well, they’re diverse”.
Here’s the problem with that: You’re still identifying all those states as fascist despite the preponderance of diversity that is such a concern for you. This leaves two possibilities:
Fascism is basically a rhetorical style, not a genuine political ideology
There is something in the mechanics of these political movements that allows you to call all of them fascist
I think that 1 is the much flimsier point. I’m surprised no one has given you a good account of 2, but the really short answer is that it is what happens when capitalism as a mode of production comes under threat (especially from itself) and capitalists unite to find a way to clear-cut more room to expand in, while defending capitalism and its instrument, the state, with the greatest viciousness from any challengers either one face. It is capitalism panicking.
Regardless my main point is that we must, as individuals, live within the realms of systems we disagree with. And saying everything is the same is just not understanding nuance, in my opinion.
Well your main point is dumb
You can understand nuance and still conclude there is no meaningful distinction between 2 things. You’re the simplistic fatalist here. Take a nap on some train tracks, bootlicker
A person with a nuanced understanding of the world would be supportive of Hamas, Iran, Russia and China in their respective fights against the US empire.
You people jerk off to the concept of nuance, which is always just a thin veil to obfuscate the fact you support the status quo, but you wanna be able to flirt with communist hotties. You see some talking head on TV say “well, it’s nuanced” and you don’t think about it any more than that. You don’t think about the fact that the alleged “nuance” leads you to the same point that rabid fascists are at, just maybe with a slight tummyache. It’s also actually not nuanced, it’s incredible simple, straightforward, cut-and-dry and other synonyms.
Let me spell it out for you: Genocide is Bad. Both Candidates Are Fascists. Neither Candidate Will Do Anything Good. You Are A Bad Person For Supporting Genocide And Not Caring About All The Heinous Shit That Is Going On Because You Feel Comfortable Under Democratic Regimes. Just Because You Don’t Hear About Things Happening On Last Week Tonight, Doesn’t Mean They Are Not Happening. What You Think Matters Not, When What You Do Is Supporting Fascism.
Contrary to my fellows, I basically agree with your main point – though I also agree with the counter that Eco’s definition of fascism would consider America fascist – but ultimately when I said that his definition was inadequate because it doesn’t touch on the basic mechanics of fascism at all, your solution was to mystify by saying “well, they’re diverse”.
Here’s the problem with that: You’re still identifying all those states as fascist despite the preponderance of diversity that is such a concern for you. This leaves two possibilities:
Fascism is basically a rhetorical style, not a genuine political ideology
There is something in the mechanics of these political movements that allows you to call all of them fascist
I think that 1 is the much flimsier point. I’m surprised no one has given you a good account of 2, but the really short answer is that it is what happens when capitalism as a mode of production comes under threat (especially from itself) and capitalists unite to find a way to clear-cut more room to expand in, while defending capitalism and its instrument, the state, with the greatest viciousness from any challengers either one face. It is capitalism panicking.