I don’t know, it seems pretty simple nowadays. Are you a cunt who gives a shit about whether dudes want to bang dudes or dress like chicks? Do you wish to oppress brown or black people, like on purpose, in an exertive manner? Are you trying to subjugate women? Do you long for a country in which the rule of law is taken directly from fairy tales? Are you trying to institutionally establish a single in-group and several out-groups? You’re a fucking fascist, you deserve to have your shit kicked in.
They explain all these away as not that bad, or not what they want. Some examples:
Are you a cunt who gives a shit about whether dudes want to bang dudes or dress like chicks?
Conservative: No, I am for traditional gender roles and family values
Do you wish to oppress brown or black people, like on purpose, in an exertive manner?
Conservative: No, I just think that people should stay with their own kind.
Are you trying to subjugate women?
Conservative: No, I am for traditional gender roles and family values
Do you long for a country in which the rule of law is taken directly from fairy tales?
Conservatives: The US is a christian nation which means our laws should be based on the Bible
They're going to weasel out of it, not just to stop discussion but also because it makes them feel bad that this is the outcome of their politics.
Have you seen this YouTube video of some black teenagers robbing a Guche bag store? Did you not learn about the immigrants with leprosy? Have you seen what they're posting on Nextdoor?!! Drag queens are invading libraries and trying to turn these kindergartners gay, and this based traditional father isn't going to take it anymore.
They spit on our veterans! They want to have sex with dogs! They are becoming radicalized by Shari Law and turning the big cities into No Go Zones with their Ground Zero Mosques! They are PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS LIKE IN THE BIBLE!
I saw it on Newsmax. They're the only ones reporting on what's in the vaccines.
Why aren't you taking this seriously? Is it because of TikTok? Have the Chinese made you Woke?
Well most of those excuses are just reframing the initial thing to sound better. They're all just "yes, but I don't like you saying it like that."
you deserve to have your shit kicked in.
But you won't, because you're ensconced behind an increasingly large and heavily armed mob of cops
Beautiful 👏
Excellent description. Saved for reference.
I’ve never understood the label. I’ve had to explain on a few occasions that no, you’re not trying to maintain traditional values. You’re just authoritarian.
Authoritarianism is the traditional value they're trying to maintain
it's the traditional conservative value. it's what they're trying to conserve, the time when they're the boss. all the rest is bullshit, every word. If they actually cared about you they'd listen to you
Speaking of traditional values, I still want to know what Southern Pride is if it isn't glorifying the Confederacy.
So am a southerner, and have relocated, southern pride as in pride in the food, music, language/dialect, and culture all of which is heavily influenced by black people is very different than being one of the assholes flying a confederate flag and claiming the south will rise again.
I should add that I grew up in the 90s and witnessed the rise of black culture to the American mainstream so i probably view my enjoyment of southern things differently than someone 20 years older
that's because fascism is not like other political views. it doesn't come from thinkers, economists, sociologists or philosophers. it comes from maniacs doing maniacal shit. there is no "theory" to read on fascism. which is why the best academic text you find on it comes from its critics.
People don't recognise fascism when it's in front of their faces.
-
Huge military budget
-
weaponized, authoritarian police force with little oversight.
-
Nationalist habits like pledging allegiance regularly when young and national anthems when together.
-
a strong belief that they are the best nation on earth, often backed with religious certainly.
Declaring war on inantimate objects/conditions
REJECTION OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY AS A SHAM AND A FRAUD
After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage. Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces. Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant.
-
Ummm many fascists are disguised as intellectuals whose sophistry is only revealed by challenging their assumptions. There were a number of such people who came to rise in Nazi Germany and afterwards, and there are many who are their contemporaries
Fascism is a dictator who thinks they're intellectually creative. Like any nutter or cultist who thinks they've found "the way" to do something that has been obfuscated by [insert things they claimed to be against as they climbed to power], but they're the ones that have the real answer! They're so creative that they do the same thing any authoritarian does: Eliminate critics, make bogeymen up, consolidate money and power, and always fear being overthrown.
Conservatism is a distinct political ideology that basically says not all change is for the better, nothing more--it's in the name: conserve. This is a separate concept from authoritarianism, which is all about how power flows. It's possible to be conservative and liberal at the same time if society is losing its liberal values.
US republicans are fascists through and through that wear a disguise of conservatism on select issues to convince people to relinquish their political power so that they can do whatever they want.
Sure, it's theoretically possible, but I've never met a conservative anywhere who actually wants to conserve what they have today. In practice, they all want to go back to the past, and most prefer some kind of fictional 1960s past.
That’s the tricky part about conservatism. If their values never change, they are eventually left behind by progress and they become reactionaries. Unfortunately, people just keep accepting their use of the label “conservative” when it stopped fitting them decades ago, which is a convenient cover for the more reprehensible ones.
Conservatism is a distinct political ideology that basically says not all change is for the better, nothing more
Based on what? Conservatism's roots go back to royalists after the French Revolution. Conservatives were the American colonists who objected to the war of independence calling it treason against the crown. It's not about change in a general way, it's about resisting democratic movements and preserving autocratic rule.
It's possible to be conservative and liberal at the same time
Liberalism is an offshoot of Conservatism that favors empowerment of the economic elite and institutions over kings and politicians. It's economic totalitarianism instead of political totalitarianism. These become indistinguishable when the economic elite capture the body politic.
US republicans are fascists through and through that wear a disguise of conservatism
This is backwards. The disguise is the thing that turns conservatism info fascism. It's the dressing up of conservative totalitarianism with nationalism, religious fundamentalism, racism, and other forms of identitarianism.
I like the idea of conservatism, but not the way it is executed.. Like why aren't these people for conservation of the environment, or actually financially conservative? All I'm noticing is greed, and corporate corruption.
It seems useful to note that the EPA was signed into law by Nixon. We have fallen a long way since Reagan took office.
The EPA was the idea of the progressives who seemed to have some momentum toward eventually achieving it. The conservatives (and their polluting corporate benefactors) were threatened by it. So, Nixon co-opted it while conservatives were still in power with the purpose of making sure it was ineffective. They achieved that.
You'll notice that when conservatives have power, they castrate the EPA and make sure it does not affect any of their benefactors. The Dem neo-liberals usually bend a little toward the progressives and will re-instate some of the EPA's power when the Dems are in charge, but it's never enough to undo whatever damage the last GOP administration did. This is because neo-liberals are conservatives. (They aren't as conservative as Republicans, but they are conservative by every international standard.)
Do not give credit to Nixon for the EPA. Like everything else ever done by a conservative, it was an act of self-serving deception. Nothing good in all of human history has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
They only thing they want to conserve is their capital/social status.
Conservatism has been those things many times and in many places. It's traditionally moderate liberalism. Conservatism in the US today is regressivism wearing a conservative hat for branding. Were the Nazis socialists? No, but it was in their name. Are conservatives conservative? No, they're authoritarian regressivists, because the goal isn't to be conservative. It's to be anti-progressive. But the conservative hat gives it recognizability and credibility.
Yes! Been calling them Regressives for a while
I see the lightbulb flickering!
Basically admitting that mainstream conservatism is indistinguishible from fascism.
It isn't, he's just trying to pull mainstream conservatives in to defend him. The far right has been very successful at getting normal conservatives to cover for them over the last 50 years. The actual ideas of fiscal and social conservatism are only partially aligned with fascism. The far bigger problem with regards to sliding into fascism is America's pro corporate stance.
"Fiscal conservatism" has always been a straw man though. Literally nobody holds the policy that government should be reckless or wasteful. All fiscal conservatism does is promote one vision of fiscal responsibility, linguistically represented as some ideal.
And of course, social conservatism is just very thinly veiled hate politics.
The far right has been very successful at getting normal conservatives to cover for them over the last 50 years. The actual ideas of fiscal and social conservatism are only partially aligned with fascism.
I suppose you could say packing the wad into the cannon after the gunpowder is an indirectly related development to the lethality of the cannon ball subsequently fired from the cannon….
….but I prefer to see it as one continuous gigantically stupid process beginning with centrists priming the chamber with gunpowder via repeated thrusting of a neoliberal austerity rod to crush the working class and then packing in a wad of rightwing conservatives to shape the social upheaval towards meaninglessly violent vectors when the inevitable explosive juncture is reached.
The cannonball loaded last is the dead brain weight of all the fascists gleefully rolling down into the breach of their fiery demise.
The cannonball is what kills people usually (though many a centrist has died in the process of packing the gunpowder in and setting off a premature explosion), but all the steps are necessary to firing the cannon.
Assuming the post was made in earnest - the poor guy is so close to getting it. Just let yourself start with your last sentence buddy, and think out from there.
I hate the name of the community is US Authoritarianism when there’s so much fascist rise in EU
And for extra lols the dude in the meme should be asked what he thinks are “normal” right wing policies
What a dense, stupid motherfucker. Smacked in the face by a sledgehammer of truth that screams at him at full volume, and STILL he cannot grasp the damn thing.
It totally reads to me as someone making a point to connect conservatism and fascism, but surprisingly, some searching reveals that he's a conservative pundit at the National Review so yeah he's dense and thinks he's being clever but only actually pwning himself.
Look, conservatives suck but theyre not fascists. Calling everybody to the right of you fascist waters down the meaning of the word.
Heres a good take by Umberto Eco on what makes fascism distinct from other political movements: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism
It's hard because, yes you are right, but when can you start calling somone a fascist? Do you have have to wait for them to actually start rounding you up and putting you in prison, or can you point it out early in order to avoid the complete fascist takeover?
I guess my point is that, once a group is actually fully fascist, you will no longer be allowed to call them that.
Yeah good point
Not saying that you're wrong per se, but where would you put Trump in this context? They are very well going in this direction.. And they are not turning back.
I think Trump has some of the fascist traits Eco points out, like xenophobia and appealing to a frustrated middle class. But he is thoroughly lacking in other fascist traits, like (1) the syncretic neo-pagan mysticism and (2) the idea that the state should always be at war, that the state should encourage all citizens to die a hero's death.
So I'd call him authoritarian, christian nationalist, and stupid. But not fascist.
Fascism is a movement led by a cult of personality with no clear direction, but get people to follow with maniacal views and populist energy against a false premise of a target in an "Us V Them" ideology.
Example: "They stand for everything we don't stand for. Also, they told me you guys look like dorks!"
“Trying to define fascism is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."
-Ian Kershaw
But yes, Christian Nationalism, oppressive legislation on civil liberties, exploitative economic systems designed to further widen wealth inequality, and support for militant police conduct are all symptoms of fascism.
Are you willing to vote for an obvious criminal who commits election fraud, commits insurrections, extorts foreign governments, and sells top secret documents to adversarial nations? Then you are a fascist.
that's not what fascism is.
At least here in the US an admitted fascist won the Republican primary, so anyone who is willing to label themselves a Republican should also be perfectly fine with being labeled a fascist.
If you don't want to be labeled a fascist, just do what I do and call yourself an independent voter with a strong commitment to traditional American values.
Then spend every election cycle complaining about all the crime, the bad economy, the disease-ridden migrants, the stupid woke kids, and the need for someone strong, serious, and incredibly patriotic to fix it.
Nationalism, Giving power to corporations, Merging church and state, Undermining elections, Cronyism and corruption, Erosion of civil rights Obsession with national security, Anti-intellectualism, Obsession with returning to greatness of the past
This is easy information to find that the only reason someone wouldn't know it when making a tweet like this is if they're willfully ignorant or lying.
And all this stuff is currently happening
and when we remember that
NEITHER THE DEMOCRATS NOR REPUBLICANS ARE LEFT WING
and call it like it is, we are told we are trying to get the worst fascist elected. no. i'm trying to get you to stop electing fascists, assholes!
You can find those essays here on Lemmy watch this:
Joe Biden is a fascist complicit in Genocide.
Lol, kinda.
But the other guy would "finish the job"
Trump has many stupid lines but the "finish the job" one is probably the most out of context one as the full quote is
“You have to finish up your war. You have to finish it up. You’ve got to get it done,” he said in an interview with Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom. “We’ve got to get to peace. You can’t have this going on, and I will say Israel has to be very careful because you are losing a lot of the world. You are losing a lot of support.”
But at least we can be glad Biden isn't "finishing the jo"... Oh wait Biden is also finishing the job.
Looks like a tortoise!
People in here acting like authoritarianism is somehow inherent to conservatives but not to progressives. Authoritarianism is a problem. Conservativism is a relative political position, meaning there will always be conservatives on one side of the Overton window, wherever it currently resides.
Eh, depends on what you mean by "conservative" and "progressive".
Authoritarianism is the defining characteristic of the right. The right consolidates wealth and power. The left is egalitarian, and is focused on ensuring that wealth and power is shared more evenly. There is no such thing as "auth left".
If you use "conservative" as a synonym for the right and progressive as a synonym for the left, then there is no such thing as "auth progressive" - you are just using incorrect terminology to talk about different flavors of rightism.
Now if you mean "conservative" as "resistant to change" and "progressive" as "advocates of change" then that's a completely different thing... but the language is STILL messy, because many who call themselves "conservative" are actually advocates of change in favor or more authoritarianism while those who call themselves "progressive" are also advocates of change, but generally in a leftward anti-authoritarian direction... which once again leads us to "auth progressive" being a contradiction.
Auth left is when progressives are willing to force their ideals on others, whether those ideals are social or fiscal. Forcing people to conform to your ideology is not a trait inherent to either side of the political aisle. For instance, the cultural revolution was a progressive authoritarian movement where wealth and power was stripped by force from people. If you really wanted to, you could make an argument about whether that was justified or not, but no matter how you spin it, it's authoritarian.
Thought you were going to make a point about tankies and the worship of self-described socialist dictators, but then you dropped that idea and just went off about the overton window and that kinda pulled your comment in two different directions and that's probably as much a reason for it not doing well as the fact that like... nobody asked. We know authoritarians exist, but this particular POST is about right-wing conservatism.
Read through some of the other comments and it's not so clear that people believe that progressives can be authoritarian. My point is to separate the two concepts. Authoritarianism is one concept and conservatism is a separate one. You CAN have both at the same time, but conservatism also exists without Authoritarianism, just like progressivism can be authoritarian.
Well I think it's because we do have a concept of leftwing authoritarianism already, but it's not called progressivism, it's called being a Tankie. I see the similarities in that if fascist is the extreme of conservatism then Tankie is the extreme of progressivism but that isn't really the case seeing that extreme progressivism is most of the time Anarchism.
The same thing happens on the conservative side, with libertarians being less authoritarian. But now we are headed towards a political compass type of political perspective, which is good for discussion but doesn't necessarily give an accurate depiction of where the power currently resides or how it fits into the Overton window.
I just define fascism as national SOCIALISM and then insist it's fascist when you don't implement my favorite flavor of corporate oligopoly.
If you see a country practicing national SOCIALISM, inform the Pentagon right away. We will liberate it from the tyranny of Communist Dictatorship and restore a libertarian free market economy to your oil production centers ASAP.
As "conservatism" is essentially just liberalsm with extra paranoia and hysterics (ie - liberals overtly sidling up to fascism) one has to wonder where the "brain damage" starts...
Less liberalism and just unchecked capitalism. Once you start dictating the means someone else is allowed to live you start infringing on a number of tenants of classic liberalism like low levels of state interference, the upholding of civil liberties and the safeguards that exist to prevent a "tyranny of the majority". The free market aspect of the balance of it's design is basically a weak flank on the og ideology because over time people are gunna be sneaky self serving bastards.
Like don't get me wrong private property rights are fucking up the world but liberalism's stance on property protections are like only a part of the whole shebang. What conservatives are performing is Liberalism undermined and valuing the fleece to the point its basically just the hollowed out sheep skin wolves can squeeze to fit inside. It's no more a classical liberal ideology at that point any more than the empty sheep skin is a sheep.
Conservatism always seeks to conserve structures of historic power bases. Arguably they will always find ways to exist even if the game changes from liberalism entirely. As long as there's some kind of power structure left standing they will be snarling and snapping trying to keep it intact. Some people are greedy and empathetically deficient. They will gravitate to whatever place allows them to scratch that itch best if you don't watch out for them every second.
Less liberalism and just unchecked capitalism.
It seems to me that the only time liberalism "checks" capitalism is to protect the capitalist class from the consequences of their own actions... almost as if liberalism was designed to do so.
Imagine if that was the case, huh?
the safeguards that exist to prevent a “tyranny of the majority”.
Soooo... liberalism is fundamentally anti-democratic? Glad I'm not the only one who sees that.
Conservatism always seeks to conserve structures of historic power bases.
And liberals don't? How much money has liberals thrown at the police? You think the likes of Biden, Pelosi and the Clintons won't swing hard-right and run for the protection fascism offers them the minute their wealth and privilege comes under threat?
Of course they will - liberals always have.
To me there is a single defining feature to tell of something is fascist or not. I dont care that much about age old semantics and technicalities. This works as a moral compass for me.
“Does it infringe on the ability of another person to exercise harmless freedom” if the answer is yes its facism.
A harmless freedom being any activity that is not facism according the above, including the right to not be disturbed.
Practical examples:
Physical assault of any kind except as a last resort in order to decrease total harm. - facism
Stating in a conversation about religion that you think religion is unintelligent nonsense - not facism
Telling a religious person in their face that THEY are stupid and believe in nonsense. - facism
Taking a public stance against all kinds of drug use, believing that they only hurt society and have no place within - not facism.
Saying drug use should be punished by police because you believe the users are immoral criminals - facism
Stating that you would never feel comfortable around or if your child turned out lgbtq - not facism
No longer respecting or providing support to your lgbtq children/ placing people you dont like in a disadvantaged scenario - facism
If your left wandering how does one “police” such a world. The harmless freedom to be left unbothered and free of damage seizes to be harmless if the intent is to eacape public backlash from knowingly having commited acts of facism.
A good flow is:
1 notify a person they have committed facism so they can better themselves
2 inform them about aid to help better themselves if they cannot do so themselves, inform other people in the community so they can be alert this person struggles with unhealthy behaviors.
3 If they are not able to voluntarily not hurt others then the last resort is to limit freedoms in just the right amount that they can no longer limit the harmless freedom of others.
In general of course we should start funding proper global education that teaches to respect the world and all its inhabitants. Without that foundation all i just said is a pipe dream.
“Does it infringe on the ability of another person to exercise harmless freedom” if the answer is yes its facism.
Telling a religious person in their face that THEY are stupid and believe in nonsense. - facism
Does an individual telling someone they think their beliefs are stupid infringe on their ability to exercise harmless freedom?
Your real definition seems to be just, "fascism is anything I personally dislike" which deprives the word of any real meaning.
“Does an individual telling someone they think their beliefs are stupid infringe on their ability to exercise harmless freedom?”
The keyword is “their” in their belief, its rarely just theirs so this wording makes it personal and by default people deserve respect.
I understand that this is very context bounded. Saying “your believes” are stupid is a form of assault, attacking what the other person believes is true. Its disrespectful for no reason = an assumption of being more correct or better = the start of an assumption of authority. Therefor i would indeed label this a form of facism.
But Saying “i think this religion is stupid” towards the same person face shares the same opinion but limited to your own perspective, which is of course is by default just as valid. It doesn’t disrespect the other person = you maintain to be equals and you can both agree to disagree in peace.
It also doesn't it make assumptions that they believe every single detail. Most religious people don't know not believe every single verse. Simply making assumptions isn't fascist but still something to avoid. Using assumptions to devalue other perspectives is.
"fascism is anything I personally dislike"
I can see how it looks that way but i can assure you thats not the case. There are plenty of things i dislike and find immoral that is not infringement if rights.
Selfishness is a good example. Someone with abundance watching others suffer from needs and choosing not to share is by my book immoral but not fascist.
To talk to you straight though, I hardly think so literally about this definition in real life. Its much more a fluent awareness of respect. When i try to vocalize and define my logic, thats when i arrive at the above narrow definition.
“Does it infringe on the ability of another person to exercise harmless freedom” if the answer is yes its facism.
this is not what fascism is.
fascism is a method of organizing society so that all other institutions serve the interests of the state.
If there a consensus between all the replies on this post its that there is no single definable definition for fascism that we all agree on.
For that reason opened with “to me” to give a heads-up that my perspective is my own and you’re free to disagree.
Mine is very broad, true. But i think many will find yours way to narrow. Much depends on your definition of state.
