I did not wake up to choose violence, I was born for it, and therefor I will now start crossposting this to the Tankie comms.
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
189 points (88.0% liked)
History Memes
3426 readers
1984 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 41 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
I find engaging with fascists tedious, but you do you, one supposes.
There are a few I can't crosspost to, exact reasons vary, such as !memes@lemmy.ml others aren't showing up as successfully crossposted on Piefed.world yet but they do appear on lemmy.world very interesting.
Seeing all the removed comments makes me smile lol
Did you know, on lemmy.ml, if you disagree with them, they delete your comment?
I could have made a grad account. I probably would have been happier on a grad account. Why did I ever delete my hexbear account?
sigh
The crux of people thinking fascism can be defeated by violence think WWII was an example of this. Not only did this not stop fascism, it exploded it. Now almost the entire world is fascist and they still somehow think violence is the answer.
Can I ask then, if you know of a time fascism was definitely defeated? Because if it's not by violence, I do not know of a time fascism has been defeated.
On a global scale, I think there's an argument to be made that the fight never ended at all.
But, on a local scale, Chile comes to mind. Pinochet was ousted democratically and the military dictatorship ended. But that was only really because Pinochet was willing to relinquish control (due to external factors mostly, not just some change of heart) which isn't exactly common for fascist and authoritarian leaders, so Im not sure if that example applies much generally.
It would probably be more accurate to say that Pinochet realized he did not have the requisite violence to crush the popular support arrayed against him - the military refused to back his proposal to hold onto power after losing the election, so he stepped down in the hopes (sadly successful) of avoiding a noose for his crimes against Chile.
Institutions - and popular support - matter even when violence is involved, or implicitly threatened.
Well, my belief is that it was never defeated and has become the dominant form of governance around the world.
Long before fascism existed, during the American Revolution we see how the wealthy oligarchy manipulated peaceful colonist into a violent revolution. Shortly after this the first President was sworn in who was a military commander and also one of the more corrupt people in US history.
We see the intersection of a controlled economy run by the wealthy for the wealthy combining with the military to create the first truly fascist nation. A nation that later went on to perpetrate a genocide.
You have to be able to separate propaganda from reality and it is not easy especially for me as I was indoctrinated into the cult of the US.
When you start seeing the government as an illusion to maintain control you begin to make sense of things like the US overthrowing countless democratic governments to install fascist leaders during the Cold war.
I'm trying to figure out what your basis can be for the claim then - if you don't know of an example of fascism being defeated, why are you so quick to rule out "fighting them"?
I hasten to add that I'm not saying WWII was a successful example, but let's be frank about the quality of our assertions.
I think you are caught up in romanticizing violence as a solution to problems. Violence creates new problems, it doesn't solve them. Also, violent pushback is exactly what fascism craves. It is like giving fascist what they want.
Fascism really can't exist without dealing with dissent violently. It is one of the things that makes them fascist. The founding fathers of the US murdered, committed arson against, and bombed colonist dissenters in violent suppression which was integral to their goal and ultimately lead to complete control.
I think another important thing to consider is the mindset of the person advocating violence. Obviously no one is saying to not defend yourself, but committing to violent acts to motivate change is rarely successful by itself. Having a violent element can certainly help with negotiations, but once violence is used it no longer is a bargaining chip.
A lot of people I talk to have the mindset that their ideology will rise up after they have burned down the system. So when the dust settles, so to speak, their "superior" beliefs will magically rise to the top.
I think this goes along with other flawed thinking like the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. This belays the fact that there is no good guy and the ones that murder people are also the only one left to write about the account. This is often phrased as the victor writes the history.
All of that makes sense. As long as there's room for the basic necessity of defending oneself, it feels like there's less daylight between our viewpoints than you're imagining - at least in practical terms. It becomes a matter of how best to defend against fascism.
For my part the strategy has been to build a new life as far away from the US as feasible. The work has not been easy and the solutions have not been ideal, but I feel it does have the moral purity you were hoping to convince me of.
I feel privileged to have the option not to do any actual fighting, yet, but a part of me cannot help but wonder what hope we have as a species if you're right - can enough of us be wise, gentle, brave, and resilient enough for a true and lasting peace to take hold? We live in strange times but that might be the strangest thing of all, if I lived to see it.
Defending yourself is a natural right for sure. Not really sure how close our viewpoints are, but I would gather we are more alike than different.
I think getting away from the US is reasonable if that is what you choose to do. God knows I have wanted to leave it many times in my lifetime!
The battle for the human mind will continue as always. The best defense is critical thought.
As far as everyone else? Well, the world has gotten a lot better for a lot of people. Billions more have access to fresh water and electricity. War is down and so is crime across the board in all countries.
Things aren't that bad and perhaps that is what ideologically many people can't handle. There is no doubt the US is the biggest and most powerful fascist nation ever. It is not a new thing either.
Knowing this can help inform your decisions and save yourself from being confused why your country does what it does. I will join you in hoping for the best. Strange times indeed.
What a bizarre view of world history.
You have not studied the revolutionary period of the US critically. If you did, you would.see our modern interpretation is based purely on propaganda.
Long before fascism existed, during the American Revolution we see how the wealthy oligarchy manipulated peaceful colonist into a violent revolution. Shortly after this the first President was sworn in who was a military commander and also one of the more corrupt people in US history.
We see the intersection of a controlled economy run by the wealthy for the wealthy combining with the military to create the first truly fascist nation
Is not critical so much as it is the mirror image of a caricature of nationalistic hagiography.
You have to go back and read primary sources of civilians at the time who were not wealthy land owners to see the reality. This is the foundation of a critical analysis.
This is not about a patriotic re-envisioning centuries later. This was cold and calculated propaganda used to manipulate people at the time. A great example of this is the Boston Massacre which was used as a rallying cry against British oppression.
You see the corruption was there from the very start. The lies, hyper nationalism, military conquest, violent suppression of dissent, victimhood, etc. They had already checked off all the boxes of fascism before it was even a concept.
You have to go back and read primary sources of civilians at the time who were not wealthy land owners to see the reality.
Except when they disagree with your campist analysis, at which point they're to be rejected out of hand as simply fooled by the propaganda, of course.
I have read them and you haven't so I suppose you will have to research it yourself or take my word about it. Let's just say you are not at the level I am on this topic.
On a personal note, you act like a pompous asshole. Is that on purpose?
I have read them and you haven’t so I suppose you will have to research it yourself or take my word about it. Let’s just say you are not at the level I am on this topic.
Lol
Fantastic assumption.
On a personal note, you act like a pompous asshole. Is that on purpose?
Lord. What irony.
Now you are down to lol and one word responses. It is clear you are just acting like a shit-talking troll. I hope no one takes you seriously here.
[removed by mod]
[removed by mod]
You forget that, contrary the the four-power pact or the German-French non-aggression pact, the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was a military alliance, in which both parties divided eastern Europe between themselves. There's a big difference between a non-agression pact and an alliance…
[removed by mod]
I mean America isn't one person, so the meme still tracks. Whoever invented manifest destiny is definitely in the running though.
I mean America isn’t one person, so the meme still tracks.
"America allowed a controversial and counter-protested Nazi rally" doesn't really compare to "Stalin invaded a fourth of Europe in coalition with the Nazis"
Whoever invented manifest destiny is definitely in the running though.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that they could not have been Nazi collaborators, on account of the lack of Nazis at the time.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that they could not have been Nazi collaborators, on account of the lack of Nazis at the time.
Eh, technically one-sidedly helping Nazis isn't collaboration, but it's close enough.
Oh look, „America first”-ers have arrived!
Volunteering for bans. America has many sins, which are freely discussed and memed about on this comm, but anyone who comes in to play "WHATABOUTISM" apologia for Nazi collaborators is not welcome.
It’s just that I can’t avoid seeing irony in Americans (or people overfocused on US) dismissing literally everyone to build their worldview around US faults.
I mean, take a look at dessailnes’ essays repository. The whole thing is built around US, and fuck anyone else who dares to exist in the real world, because only US and recognize adversaries of US matter, apparently.
Wait… Isn’t he the .ml admin that removes everything that disagrees with their native? The admin that cowardly hides behind “Rule 1” infractions so he doesn’t have to explain that he doesn’t have the strength of conviction to admit that he just wants an opposition-free wind-tunnel?
Who on earth would care to read a repository of propaganda that could twist a narrative into the laughably sad cartoon that it exist as now?
Oh wait…. Communists.