So when I kick down your door and execute you for not agreeing with me politically, it won’t be a fascist action, good to know.
It could be. They can do that without being fascist as well. It is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Im probably not going to go through all these, but for 1 your example is far too broad. Every single thing we make is inspired by other things in the past. That’s how we improve. A cult of tradition is more like saying “we are the third Roman empire (third riech), and we are deserving of inheriting their history. We will enforce this idea and destroy anything counter to it.” America does have better examples of this that what you used though. I wouldn’t argue it doesn’t have a cult of tradition.
For 8, that’s also a bad example. I don’t think there was an idea the natives were strong. They were just savage and violent. They needed us to “civilize” them was the (bullshit) idea. I don’t recall seeing much ever about them being particularly strong, just murderous and evil. A better example, though you have to get fairly modern, is communism. It’s both a useless form of government destined to fail, but also we need to send solders and spies all over to protect other countries from falling to it.
9 we do not have really. We are fairly jingoist as a nation, but it’s never (or rarely) said to be treason to disagree. After 9/11 it would be hard to be elected whole disagreeing with a war, but Bernie Sanders did and has done fairly well politically and not executed for treason.
11 is not about individualism. It’s about every person needs to live their life for the glory of the nation. Individualism is anti-hero. A hero should live their lives (and die) for others. Individualism is you should be self-serving.
Go unalive yourself, you deliberately blinded ostrich.
Wow dude. Wtf is wrong with you? What did I do to you?
(Don’t actually, but maybe grow the fuck up and realize that times we fought monarchists and Nazis doesn’t change everything else)
No. Obviously not. I never said such. Things change over time and the same nation could be fascist at one point and anarchist at another. Don’t imply I said something that I didn’t please. This is actually an argument against the US “always” being fascist though, because we haven’t met all the traits you’ve listed at the same time, even using the examples you gave which I don’t agree with. Any nation will meet all of those eventually if you give it enough time.
Also, these are traits of fascism. They are not definitionally fascist. Again, probably the main point of fascism is a dictatorship. Without that you can only be fash-ish not fascist.
The US has a centuries long history of genocide and enslavement that continue into today. All their power and wealth is predicated on this bloodshed in the here and now. And it was all done for the sake of private interests.
You deny that it was always fascism because you and your family are settler house servants in this scheme. You get a small piece of property and a middle class lifestyle in exchange for your implicit support for the US to continue to eat the bodies of he colonized and impoverished.
I don’t deny it’s fascism because I benefit from it. It’s because imperialism is not the definition of fascism or we wouldn’t have two very different words for that. You want to call it fascism because your political vocabulary apparently sucks. Fascism is not just a synonym for something bad, which I agree the US has done tons of evil. It just isn’t that specific word.
My political vocabulary doesn’t suck. You’re a typical reactionary tankie that thinks that using Lenin’s outdated analysis and calling it Marxism gives you the authority to dismiss the grievances of the colonized.
Marxism and capitalism doesn’t have stages. Where capitalism exists all of Marx’s critiques apply. You use the tied old “muh imperialism” argument because you’re a Russian chauvinist that fears that the fascist accusations could apply to current day Russia and the fallen Soviet Union.
Why are you intent on muddling the meaning of words?
The guy you are arguing with conceded that America did bad things, just those things are called something else. What is it with the fetishization of this word in particular?
We can all agree:
Imperialism=bad
Fascism=bad
Imperialism definitionally is not fascism. Words have meaning for a reason.
It’s pretty clear that your definition of fascism is heavily predicated on your feelings. And that judicious reservation of judgment is applied to actions that don’t effect you while emotional appeals are applied when it does.
Man, it’s so easy to dismiss an argument by saying someone is just arguing from emotion. I don’t feel like anything I said had anything to do with emotions, but I guess it makes you feel like you won the argument so I’m glad that makes you happy. It doesn’t make you right, but whatever.
You were given numerous material examples which you handwaved away. No one is dismissing your argument as emotional. It’s emotional because you refuse to engage with the material evidence before you and retreat to unfalsifiable definitions that are based on your feels. This means no one can prove you wrong because know one can know “you’re TRUE feelings”
Typical concern trolling, seen it a million times.
I didn’t handwave them away. I explained why they were wrong, if they were wrong. Also, they aren’t sufficient to call something fascist anyway. They are traits of fashism, not the definition of fascism. How have I refused to engage with “the material evidence?” I engaged with all of the comments and detailed my reasoning. I don’t think I’m the one being emotional. I’m not the one trying to dismiss an argument by saying someone else isn’t engaging in the correct method. I think you are possibly projecting.
Why would I say that. That is a dictator. If they meet the other requirements, sure. They aren’t just because they have a single person ruling, but they could be.
It could be. They can do that without being fascist as well. It is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Im probably not going to go through all these, but for 1 your example is far too broad. Every single thing we make is inspired by other things in the past. That’s how we improve. A cult of tradition is more like saying “we are the third Roman empire (third riech), and we are deserving of inheriting their history. We will enforce this idea and destroy anything counter to it.” America does have better examples of this that what you used though. I wouldn’t argue it doesn’t have a cult of tradition.
For 8, that’s also a bad example. I don’t think there was an idea the natives were strong. They were just savage and violent. They needed us to “civilize” them was the (bullshit) idea. I don’t recall seeing much ever about them being particularly strong, just murderous and evil. A better example, though you have to get fairly modern, is communism. It’s both a useless form of government destined to fail, but also we need to send solders and spies all over to protect other countries from falling to it.
9 we do not have really. We are fairly jingoist as a nation, but it’s never (or rarely) said to be treason to disagree. After 9/11 it would be hard to be elected whole disagreeing with a war, but Bernie Sanders did and has done fairly well politically and not executed for treason.
11 is not about individualism. It’s about every person needs to live their life for the glory of the nation. Individualism is anti-hero. A hero should live their lives (and die) for others. Individualism is you should be self-serving.
Wow dude. Wtf is wrong with you? What did I do to you?
No. Obviously not. I never said such. Things change over time and the same nation could be fascist at one point and anarchist at another. Don’t imply I said something that I didn’t please. This is actually an argument against the US “always” being fascist though, because we haven’t met all the traits you’ve listed at the same time, even using the examples you gave which I don’t agree with. Any nation will meet all of those eventually if you give it enough time.
Also, these are traits of fascism. They are not definitionally fascist. Again, probably the main point of fascism is a dictatorship. Without that you can only be fash-ish not fascist.
The US has a centuries long history of genocide and enslavement that continue into today. All their power and wealth is predicated on this bloodshed in the here and now. And it was all done for the sake of private interests.
You deny that it was always fascism because you and your family are settler house servants in this scheme. You get a small piece of property and a middle class lifestyle in exchange for your implicit support for the US to continue to eat the bodies of he colonized and impoverished.
I don’t deny it’s fascism because I benefit from it. It’s because imperialism is not the definition of fascism or we wouldn’t have two very different words for that. You want to call it fascism because your political vocabulary apparently sucks. Fascism is not just a synonym for something bad, which I agree the US has done tons of evil. It just isn’t that specific word.
My political vocabulary doesn’t suck. You’re a typical reactionary tankie that thinks that using Lenin’s outdated analysis and calling it Marxism gives you the authority to dismiss the grievances of the colonized.
Marxism and capitalism doesn’t have stages. Where capitalism exists all of Marx’s critiques apply. You use the tied old “muh imperialism” argument because you’re a Russian chauvinist that fears that the fascist accusations could apply to current day Russia and the fallen Soviet Union.
Lol. Getting called a tanky for saying America isn’t fascist. That’s different. I don’t know why you’re talking about Russia.
Okay fair enough, you’re just a western fascist stooge.
Why are you intent on muddling the meaning of words?
The guy you are arguing with conceded that America did bad things, just those things are called something else. What is it with the fetishization of this word in particular?
We can all agree:
Imperialism=bad
Fascism=bad
Imperialism definitionally is not fascism. Words have meaning for a reason.
It’s pretty clear that your definition of fascism is heavily predicated on your feelings. And that judicious reservation of judgment is applied to actions that don’t effect you while emotional appeals are applied when it does.
Man, it’s so easy to dismiss an argument by saying someone is just arguing from emotion. I don’t feel like anything I said had anything to do with emotions, but I guess it makes you feel like you won the argument so I’m glad that makes you happy. It doesn’t make you right, but whatever.
You were given numerous material examples which you handwaved away. No one is dismissing your argument as emotional. It’s emotional because you refuse to engage with the material evidence before you and retreat to unfalsifiable definitions that are based on your feels. This means no one can prove you wrong because know one can know “you’re TRUE feelings” Typical concern trolling, seen it a million times.
I didn’t handwave them away. I explained why they were wrong, if they were wrong. Also, they aren’t sufficient to call something fascist anyway. They are traits of fashism, not the definition of fascism. How have I refused to engage with “the material evidence?” I engaged with all of the comments and detailed my reasoning. I don’t think I’m the one being emotional. I’m not the one trying to dismiss an argument by saying someone else isn’t engaging in the correct method. I think you are possibly projecting.
Next thing you’ll say is that a constitutional monarchy can’t be a fascist state.
Why would I say that. That is a dictator. If they meet the other requirements, sure. They aren’t just because they have a single person ruling, but they could be.
Ah, so some kind of Grand Council wouldn’t count either?