165
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
165 points (67.7% liked)
Fediverse
28521 readers
335 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
it has to do with the primacy of the state. if the society is built around the supremacy of the state and all of the institutions serve the interest of the state... that's exactly what mussolini was trying to build.
I mean, sure, but I don't think we should base our definition off of Italian fascism per-se. It just doesn't capture modern notions of fascism. Most obviously, it doesn't include contemporary American fascism, which openly derides the state as an institution.
>, it doesn’t include contemporary American fascism, which openly derides the state as an institution.
i would say that's not true. i'd say the democrats are fantastic fascists who laud the state as the panacea for all of society's ills. but even the republicans would never try to degrade the military and policing power of the state.
Democrats aren't generally fascists.
Liberals aren't usually fascists.
Calling these groups fascist is an ✨ a m a z i n g ✨ way to dilute the potency of the label, and thus has negative utility. Any definition of fascism that includes the DNC and excludes the RNC entirely fails in providing a useful foundation, be it for reasoning about the nature of fascism or creating propaganda.
>Democrats aren’t generally fascists.
i'd disagree, but, again, i'm consulting mussolini for my definition, not 21st century vibes.
The reason that people fight against tankies more than what you call fascists is because tankies are far more prevelant than what I and most other people on the platform consider fascism. That is to say, your definition of fascism entirely fails to encapsulate what most people mean when they use the word, and so you shouldn't be surprised that they don't complain about fascism as much as you do. It's like if you went camping and then started screaming about how everyone's suddenly saying that arson isn't a big deal.
English has descriptive definitions; we look at what people mean when they say a word and then base our definition on that, rather than having an official definition that everyone is required to use. If you call liberals fascists, you are alienating a potential ally, and you're going to be called a tankie because that's the kind of backwards shit that Tankies do.
Liberals and fascists are different. You can disagree with liberals, but calling them fascists just lets fascism hide more easily.
>If you call liberals fascists, you are alienating a potential ally
leftists have a saying:
scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
if liberals want to be my ally, they will abandon liberalism.
Try going outside; the sun is good for you.