Unlike you, I cited specific criteria for fascism.
You’re like one of those preachers who says something is “against the bible” without citing a verse. It’s like you either haven’t read it or hope I haven’t read it. You’re afraid.
Maybe you’re not qualified to be in this discussion.
Yeah 'cause we know all the fresh veggie product from such brands as Taylor Farms is perfectly safe…
(jk going vegetarian or vegan is an admirable choice even if you do it noncommittally by reducing your animal protein consumption. Every 1 gram of animal protein required ~9g of feed depending on the animal.)
Democrats aren’t fascists. Words have meanings.
You didn’t provide a definition. You’re afraid to do so because it would open you to refutation, and you know you’ve made a preposterous argument.
I think I speak for all of us when I say,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA
HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA
Agreed. The truth is that Kamala Harris wasn’t a good candidate but she definitely isn’t a fascist under any definition you have provided.
I do. I’m proud of what I was responsible for: trying to prevent fascism.
No word games, sorry. Writing in your mom doesn’t prevent Trump from being president. How then could that vote be a vote against Trump? Take some responsibility. You’ve earned it!
You aren’t interacting in good faith. You’re afraid to state an actual position because then you know you’ll have to defend it. This is itself an admission.
You aren’t interacting in good faith. You’re afraid to state an actual position because then you know you’ll have to defend it. This is itself an admission.
Pick a popular definition for fascism–I’m partial to Eco’s Ur Fascism, which has a 14 point list of the characteristics of fascism–and explain to me how Harris represents any of them. I’d settle for half.
Here I’ll make it easy:
The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
“The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
“The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
“Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
“Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
“Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
“Obsession with a plot” and the inflation of and focus on an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”, On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
“Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both Nazi Germany under Hitler and fascist Italy under Mussolini, worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use – despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty not to build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
“Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
“Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “the Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death”.
“Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.
“Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.
“Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Only votes for Harris made Trump’s victory less likely. Therefore, the only way to vote against Trump was to vote for Harris. You didn’t participate in the last election.
It just seems like this system is capitalism with extra steps, but the extra steps involve replacing the exchange of money with the peddling of influence. The capitalists are replaced by administrators, the hierarchy of wealth is replaced by rank in the decision-making apparatus. I get that it’s supposed to be democratic and protect the interests of the public, but so too is our regulated hybrid public-private system and we see how well that’s going. It also seems like, where our market system began as distributed and decentralized, which was a strength, and began to be ever more concentrated as businesses consolidated and corrupted government, this new system starts consolidated and married to government. A lot of people would say this is too much power in the hands of the state, and ripe for theft by an autocrat. I’m not saying it’s impossible for this to work, but the systems I have seen work best are those where the market does what it does and the government reigns in its worst tendencies when the motive of profit conflicts with the needs of people.
This all sounds philosophical. How does this system actually solve problems in a society where scarcity exists? Do people still have property rights? Who enforces those rights? Who makes the decisions on where scarce resources are allocated? Our current system has answers for all of these questions, it’s just contaminated by the influence of powerful scumbags. The thing is, the powerful scumbags are going to be scumbags in every system, and at least a decentralized market economy limits the ease with which they can exert control.
It’s not. The only way to vote against Trump and fascism was to vote for Harris, because all other votes were the same as simply not participating. If you voted for Trump or failed to participate, rejecting fascism wasn’t as important to you as projecting virtue. Unfortunately, millions of people made that choice. Were you one of them?
How so? You know words have definitions right?
This perfectly describes MAGA. It does not perfectly or even partially describe whatever boring crap the DNC wants:
The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
“The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
“The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
“Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
“Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
“Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
“Obsession with a plot” and the inflation of and focus on an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”, On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
“Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both Nazi Germany under Hitler and fascist Italy under Mussolini, worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use – despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty not to build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
“Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
“Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “the Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death”.
“Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.
“Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.
“Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
See how words have definitions?
This is basically it. Classic liberalism is everything from Margaret Thatcher to Bernie Sanders. The MAGA movement has regressed to fascism–a form of corporate authoritatianism.
So are almost all progressives.
You can’t. He’s trying to use liberal as an epithet when he means neoliberal. If we’re being pedantic, liberal refers to the full gamut of people who think there should be an open and free society, which usually includes a market and certain property rights. The conservatives use liberal as an epithet to decry the left and now the left is using it to decry the middle.
It would be funny if it wasn’t being used to convince naive progressives to sit out elections and let fascists seize power because the center left “only” wants 85% of what they want. You’re seeing it really ramp up because the US is closing in on a big election, and convincing dipshits to sit out elections is easier than convincing anyone the right can govern.
Hmmm which specific quotations of Mussolini would you like me to read? LOL…