I know a lot of people disagree with my politics, but he literally told me that Democrats are Republicans and that fascism has no definition. I mean, come on! That’s just denying objective reality.
There you go again parroting something that was never said. I said the definition is fluid and adapts to changing situations to remain in control, like a virus.
I just found out he banned me and deleted my messages a few days ago when pointing out that not voting against Trump was bad. What a power tripping psycho.
Saying that democrats are republicans is a silly way to word that, and pointing out the non-static nature of fascism is an interesting choice when you can just point to how Democrats are fascist, but the point stands that democrats are a right wing party and that they actively advance fascism
This is the first document summarizing the MLM definition of fascism I found. It explicitly says the US is not fascist. It points to the ability of the people to speak, publish, organize, and assemble.
I am sitting in the US accessing information directly critical of the ruling regime using a search engine run by one of the most intensely capitalist corporations in existence, which I think shows there is not suppression of oppositional thought.
Yes, it is the same document I read a few years ago.
It explicitly states that the United States is not fascist.
But it also says: The fifth principle: Fascism and bourgeois democracy are theoretical extremes or archetypes; all real regimes contain elements of both types of bourgeois government.
However, I believe the relevant principle is the seventh one and its generalization: the laws passed by Trump against our trans comrades or migrant workers are fascist; the same applies to the law Biden signed depriving railway workers of the right to strike, or the economic and military aid provided to Israel to exterminate the working class of Gaza.
Those fascist laws were the work of the two major U.S. liberal parties, and anyone who does fascist things is usually called a fascist. BTW, I’m not MLM, but I think that their definition, with the generalization, covers the common usage of fascism.
For reference:
**The Seventh Principle: Individual laws or actions by the bourgeois state can be categorized
as fascist if they correspond to the sorts of laws or actions typical of the fascist theoretical
archetype, and whether or not they occur in a regime which we overall categorize as fascist.**
Strangely enough, there is a very common tendency to resist calling laws which are characteristic of
fascist countries “fascist laws”, when applied to laws in a country which is overall correctly called a
bourgeois democracy. The idea seems to be that there can only be fascist laws in a totally fascist regime!
This is complete nonsense.
There are in fact many laws and government policies characteristic of fascism in even the most
democratic bourgeois state, and it is by no means wrong to label them as such. In fact it is very important
to label them as such, as part of the continuing struggle against fascism.
As we said earlier, every actual bourgeois regime has a mixture of fascist and bourgeois democratic
elements. That means that of necessity there are always fascist laws, restrictions, policies, actions and the like on the part of the state. And these fascist elements should be labeled for what they are, and firmly opposed.
Are all repressive laws properly viewed as fascist laws even under a bourgeois democracy? This
might depend to some degree on what is meant by a “repressive law” in the first place. But if the term
refers to a law that actually restricts or prohibits what would otherwise be properly considered some
democratic rights of the working class and masses, then yes, it can and should just as well be called a
fascist law too. I see no reason to support the notion that there are “two categories” of the suppression of
democratic rights: “ordinary repression”, and “fascist repression”. That would echo back to the old notion
that something should only be called “fascist” if it brings all the horrors of Nazi Germany to mind. If
there are two distinct categories, “repressive laws” and “fascist laws”, on just what grounds do we decide
that a particular law is one or the other? There would need to be some principle which leads us to make
the appropriate choice.
Moreover, if we arbitrarily decide to call a law or policy a fascist one only if it occurs in a fully fascist
country, this would then force us to say that identical laws, with identical results, are fascist in one
country and merely “repressive” in another country! Wouldn‟t that amount to using a euphemism for the
law in the bourgeois democratic country? Wouldn‟t it be sort of a cover-up or implicit apology for the
bourgeois democratic country? It seems much better to simply say that if a law or policy is a fascist one in
a fascist country, then it is a fascist one anywhere else too.
I have a pretty weird analogy but I’m going to make it anyway. It’s a bit like the difference between sexually suggestive art and pornography. Every article of clothing a person takes off, the more sexual the image becomes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that nudity is inherently pornographic (think Michaelangelo’s David). How the nudity is presented and the context of the situation can make something pornography.
In the same way, restrictive laws can be steps towards fascism, but they have to be taken in the greater context and require malicious intent. Gaza is undoubtedly imperialism. But is it imperialism to expand the territory of the nation, like Hitler taking Poland? I would say not with Biden at least. Trump has joked about building beach houses on the Red Sea.
You’re forgetting it also has to be totalitarian under a dictator. It is fundamentally antidemocratic.
Do Dems violently suppress opposition? I don’t recall any peaceful Republican protests being broken up by tear gas and riot cops. Dems aren’t nationalist and are actively anti-racist. Hierarchical is a weird one because that applies to any form of representative government.
My sibling in Koalemos’ ignorance, republicans aren’t the democrat’s opposition. Every democrat proudly repeats the lie that America is the greatest country in the world at every opportunity, while stoking the same fears about illegal immigrants republicans do.
Take a step back and actually think about the president for a second. Think about all the mechanisms that exist that are allowing Trump to do what he wants. So what mechanisms were stopping any previous president from doing the same? You are watching a group of people pass the chair between themselves and calling it democracy.
It simply isn’t true that Democrats speak about immigrants the way Republicans do. Republicans treat immigrants as sub-humans without rights.
So what mechanisms were stopping any previous president from doing the same?
They didn’t control every branch of the government and they operated in good faith. No system can withstand a leader operating in bad faith who controls all the checks on his power.
There’s tons of state violence under Democrats. Do you suppose Democrats didn’t vote for private prisons, to help provide cheap slave labour by the mostly black working poor? Did you suppose the Democrats actually defunded the paramilitary cops in your country, or did they just say they would? Did they fully support the construction of an authoritarian surveillance state where your every word is ingested into the machine to enable targeted ICE raids and unfettered access by the fascist cops. What about the dept of homeland security? And they confirmed all of Trump’s appointments right, including Hegseth? And they never engaged in completely unjustified foreign bombing campaigns? What about the endless votes in support of the nra? Does nobody die because of corporations being largely unregulated in America? You are surrounded by violence but you can’t see it.
It’s not specifically targeting the opposition. It isn’t to consolidate the Democrats as the sole party in power. Democrats aren’t throwing people in jail just for being Republicans. ICE isn’t rounding up RNC members. They aren’t teargassing pro-life rallies.
I’m not denying there is violence, but the motive for the violence matters.
They actively pave the way for the openly fascist, and that makes you a fascist. We wouldn’t have the saying “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” if there weren’t a commonly understood definition of fascism which directly implicates liberals.
I wish there were a viable third option, but there is no reality in which come 2027 there is not a Congress lead by either Democrats or Republicans. It will always be better to have “fascist enablers” in power rather than actual fascists.
We wouldn’t have the saying “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”
Wow.
So you think the saying “if there’s grass on the field, play ball” in reference to fucking children is reasonable because enough people have said it that it’s a saying?
Now I’m starting to understand the logic, or lack thereof, that leads you to call Democrats fascists, despite literally not coinciding with the definition of the word.
We have the saying “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” because stupid people exist and are very loud.
Not being able to work together to defy fascism is not the same as actively advancing fascism.
Saying Democrats are fascists is just unbelievably cringe, although I understand that many people who believe that congregate in dbzer0, or get brainwashed by being there, so it’s not like I don’t expect it from you guys. It just doesn’t stop it from making anyone that says it look really, really dumb.
I know a lot of people disagree with my politics, but he literally told me that Democrats are Republicans and that fascism has no definition. I mean, come on! That’s just denying objective reality.
There you go again parroting something that was never said. I said the definition is fluid and adapts to changing situations to remain in control, like a virus.
Yep.
Guy spends all day, every day, trying to convince users on his sub that both parties are literally identical so there’s no point in voting.
He’s stupid and dangerous. Dangerously stupid, if you will.
I just found out he banned me and deleted my messages a few days ago when pointing out that not voting against Trump was bad. What a power tripping psycho.
Fuck trump and fuck him
Saying that democrats are republicans is a silly way to word that, and pointing out the non-static nature of fascism is an interesting choice when you can just point to how Democrats are fascist, but the point stands that democrats are a right wing party and that they actively advance fascism
Democrats are not fascist under any commonly understood definition of fascism. Authoritarian or corporatist, sure, but not fascist.
You are wrong, there has been definitions of fascims that include libs and also social democrats.
Tips: Look for MLM definitions or the phrase ‘social democracy is the moderate wing of fascim’
– A not usian, like 95% of world population
https://massline.org/Politics/ScottH/Fascism-MLM-Conception.pdf
This is the first document summarizing the MLM definition of fascism I found. It explicitly says the US is not fascist. It points to the ability of the people to speak, publish, organize, and assemble.
I am sitting in the US accessing information directly critical of the ruling regime using a search engine run by one of the most intensely capitalist corporations in existence, which I think shows there is not suppression of oppositional thought.
Yes, it is the same document I read a few years ago.
But it also says: The fifth principle: Fascism and bourgeois democracy are theoretical extremes or archetypes; all real regimes contain elements of both types of bourgeois government.
However, I believe the relevant principle is the seventh one and its generalization: the laws passed by Trump against our trans comrades or migrant workers are fascist; the same applies to the law Biden signed depriving railway workers of the right to strike, or the economic and military aid provided to Israel to exterminate the working class of Gaza.
Those fascist laws were the work of the two major U.S. liberal parties, and anyone who does fascist things is usually called a fascist. BTW, I’m not MLM, but I think that their definition, with the generalization, covers the common usage of fascism.
For reference:
**The Seventh Principle: Individual laws or actions by the bourgeois state can be categorized
as fascist if they correspond to the sorts of laws or actions typical of the fascist theoretical archetype, and whether or not they occur in a regime which we overall categorize as fascist.**
Strangely enough, there is a very common tendency to resist calling laws which are characteristic of fascist countries “fascist laws”, when applied to laws in a country which is overall correctly called a bourgeois democracy. The idea seems to be that there can only be fascist laws in a totally fascist regime! This is complete nonsense.
There are in fact many laws and government policies characteristic of fascism in even the most democratic bourgeois state, and it is by no means wrong to label them as such. In fact it is very important to label them as such, as part of the continuing struggle against fascism.
As we said earlier, every actual bourgeois regime has a mixture of fascist and bourgeois democratic elements. That means that of necessity there are always fascist laws, restrictions, policies, actions and the like on the part of the state. And these fascist elements should be labeled for what they are, and firmly opposed.
Are all repressive laws properly viewed as fascist laws even under a bourgeois democracy? This might depend to some degree on what is meant by a “repressive law” in the first place. But if the term refers to a law that actually restricts or prohibits what would otherwise be properly considered some democratic rights of the working class and masses, then yes, it can and should just as well be called a fascist law too. I see no reason to support the notion that there are “two categories” of the suppression of democratic rights: “ordinary repression”, and “fascist repression”. That would echo back to the old notion that something should only be called “fascist” if it brings all the horrors of Nazi Germany to mind. If there are two distinct categories, “repressive laws” and “fascist laws”, on just what grounds do we decide that a particular law is one or the other? There would need to be some principle which leads us to make the appropriate choice.
Moreover, if we arbitrarily decide to call a law or policy a fascist one only if it occurs in a fully fascist country, this would then force us to say that identical laws, with identical results, are fascist in one country and merely “repressive” in another country! Wouldn‟t that amount to using a euphemism for the law in the bourgeois democratic country? Wouldn‟t it be sort of a cover-up or implicit apology for the bourgeois democratic country? It seems much better to simply say that if a law or policy is a fascist one in a fascist country, then it is a fascist one anywhere else too.
I have a pretty weird analogy but I’m going to make it anyway. It’s a bit like the difference between sexually suggestive art and pornography. Every article of clothing a person takes off, the more sexual the image becomes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that nudity is inherently pornographic (think Michaelangelo’s David). How the nudity is presented and the context of the situation can make something pornography.
In the same way, restrictive laws can be steps towards fascism, but they have to be taken in the greater context and require malicious intent. Gaza is undoubtedly imperialism. But is it imperialism to expand the territory of the nation, like Hitler taking Poland? I would say not with Biden at least. Trump has joked about building beach houses on the Red Sea.
Both your parties tick most of the boxes of the commonly understood definitions of fascism, being able to choose your fascists doesn’t really change that.
You’re forgetting it also has to be totalitarian under a dictator. It is fundamentally antidemocratic.
Do Dems violently suppress opposition? I don’t recall any peaceful Republican protests being broken up by tear gas and riot cops. Dems aren’t nationalist and are actively anti-racist. Hierarchical is a weird one because that applies to any form of representative government.
My sibling in Koalemos’ ignorance, republicans aren’t the democrat’s opposition. Every democrat proudly repeats the lie that America is the greatest country in the world at every opportunity, while stoking the same fears about illegal immigrants republicans do.
Take a step back and actually think about the president for a second. Think about all the mechanisms that exist that are allowing Trump to do what he wants. So what mechanisms were stopping any previous president from doing the same? You are watching a group of people pass the chair between themselves and calling it democracy.
It simply isn’t true that Democrats speak about immigrants the way Republicans do. Republicans treat immigrants as sub-humans without rights.
They didn’t control every branch of the government and they operated in good faith. No system can withstand a leader operating in bad faith who controls all the checks on his power.
Biden and Obama both deported more people than Trump.
Ah yes, as we all know, words speak louder than actions and you shouldn’t believe someone when they show you who they are.
Convenient that you ignore immigration rates and the rate of legal immigrations processed, which were both higher under Biden and Obama.
There’s tons of state violence under Democrats. Do you suppose Democrats didn’t vote for private prisons, to help provide cheap slave labour by the mostly black working poor? Did you suppose the Democrats actually defunded the paramilitary cops in your country, or did they just say they would? Did they fully support the construction of an authoritarian surveillance state where your every word is ingested into the machine to enable targeted ICE raids and unfettered access by the fascist cops. What about the dept of homeland security? And they confirmed all of Trump’s appointments right, including Hegseth? And they never engaged in completely unjustified foreign bombing campaigns? What about the endless votes in support of the nra? Does nobody die because of corporations being largely unregulated in America? You are surrounded by violence but you can’t see it.
It’s not specifically targeting the opposition. It isn’t to consolidate the Democrats as the sole party in power. Democrats aren’t throwing people in jail just for being Republicans. ICE isn’t rounding up RNC members. They aren’t teargassing pro-life rallies.
I’m not denying there is violence, but the motive for the violence matters.
They actively pave the way for the openly fascist, and that makes you a fascist. We wouldn’t have the saying “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” if there weren’t a commonly understood definition of fascism which directly implicates liberals.
I wish there were a viable third option, but there is no reality in which come 2027 there is not a Congress lead by either Democrats or Republicans. It will always be better to have “fascist enablers” in power rather than actual fascists.
Removed by mod
Lol
Wow.
So you think the saying “if there’s grass on the field, play ball” in reference to fucking children is reasonable because enough people have said it that it’s a saying?
Now I’m starting to understand the logic, or lack thereof, that leads you to call Democrats fascists, despite literally not coinciding with the definition of the word.
We have the saying “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” because stupid people exist and are very loud.
OP said there’s no common definition of fascism that includes libs and that’s very clearly false as evidenced by the phrase I quoted
Lol.
Not being able to work together to defy fascism is not the same as actively advancing fascism.
Saying Democrats are fascists is just unbelievably cringe, although I understand that many people who believe that congregate in dbzer0, or get brainwashed by being there, so it’s not like I don’t expect it from you guys. It just doesn’t stop it from making anyone that says it look really, really dumb.
Ah, now I understand your lib comment- you’re just insecure, huh?
Aren’t we all though. For starters, we are communicating on the internet