If we look at fascism in Italy instead of Germany we see a bit of a different picture. The fascists in Spain also didn’t seem to use race/ethnicity within their identity politics the same way Germans did.
Fascism requires a group identity to exist,
but this can be national identity, religious identity, cultural identity, political identity, class identity, age group(generational) identity, etc.
Ethnicity is only one of many possible divisions.
Modern usage of the term ‘fascism’ has become ethnocentric through connotation, which eventually solidified into definition. This is because we have separated the original ideology into three new main groups and relabeled them as progressivism, neoconservatism, and neofascism, but only associate “fascism” with the latter.
An interesting thing to note is that the original ‘progressive’ movement (which fought against ethnocentric fascism throughout its history) has nearly the same economic philosophy as fascism, and both were influenced by the same individuals.
Chomsky famously noted this phenomenon, and gave the rationale behind why the debate was limited to these bookends within fascist nationalism and fascist globalism. Excerpts from The Common Good
If we consider the work of Carl Schmitt, Edward Louis Bernays (check out the Philosophy section and also about his influence on Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels), and Giovanni Gentile as being the foundations of fascism, then FDRoosevelt was as much a fascist as Mussolini or Hitler.
Later on in the west (post WW2), we see politics show thinly veneered fascism through focus on the group “communists” as becoming the standard “other” rather than Jews or any racial group. The pre-Civil Rights era Democrat party attempted to use a black/white metric, and the post-Civil Rights era we see the Republicans and Democrats using a urban/rural metric. This idea of setting up political bookends of polarity within a confined ideological context and then polarizing the bookends is “the very meaning of life” according to Carl Schmitt, and should be expected in any fascist society. Carl Schmitt- The Concept of the Political, section 3
Through propaganda, we’ve attached the term “fascism” to a very limited and manipulated subsets and offshoots of German fascist ideology, even though most modern politics are directly influenced by or even founded upon the work of Carl Schmitt and EL Bernays. There’s a reason why everyone can compare everyone else to Hitler, and that’s because very few modern political viewpoints actually reject the basic tenets of fascism, but simply argue about the fringes, all while pretending they’re anti-fascist because they’ve reframed what they define as fascism to be exclusively authoritarian racism.
(To the credit of communist anarchists, they seem to have been influenced the least; but I don’t particularly sympathize with their views either)
Summary: when someone tells you that a problem is the responsibility of “society” rather than the responsibility of individuals, and then goes on to assume that government is a representative of/surrogate for society,
you are talking to a political fascist.
What type of evidence would you like to see of the word ‘fascist’ being used to describe someone who doesn’t fit the academic description;
“a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy”
“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.”
Well it's not my favorite thing. The bank bailouts... the benefits to insurance companies by Obamacare... I don't like corporate welfare, but I also don't want the opposite of corporate welfare. I think a business should succeed or fail on its own merits, not because of government handouts. But if it does succeed, I don't think the government gets to come demanding its "cut" either. Historically, governments getting too powerful does not work out for the governed. That is my primary concern. There are people who are pushing policies which would bring that about - government that is too powerful. It leads to the same, very predictable set of conditions every time.
Peace to you as well, I have enjoyed talking with you. It's rare to find someone who will actually have a discussion, rather than just throwing out talking points without any concern at all for truth. I think you are interested in moving closer towards truth, which is my goal too. Good luck to us both. :)
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767917189/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_NEPLCbBCR8TGH
Past year? They've been doing this a long time.
Well I don't fully understand the entire context of this person's story but I do know something about being publicly shamed. When I was a kid in high school I had to suffer being called a fgot every day. By every one. I had been hospitalized in an altercation and had been involved in several more. My car had been vandalized on more than one occasion. People would openly point, yell the word, and laugh until the whole crowd had joined in. It was an exercise in torture.
No side eye on the train. No wondering what people were shaming me for. The police couldn't do anything about it.
I used to think public shaming was a bad practice given my poor experience with it. When I heard the first stories of people using social media to shame serial offenders of the social norms of public life I thought... who are these people to judge and decide? What if that person had a reason? Do we really want to lower ourselves to this vigilante justice?
However this is 2018. This world has books like, Liberal Fascism. It has platforms for people with radical opinions to gain an audience from the comfort of their living room. Instead of limiting the spread of anti-LGBTQ sentiments it has fostered them and allowed them to spread. Instead of reducing racially-charged crimes and hate speech, social media and the Internet has enabled it. On a whole new level.
I think you should count yourself lucky that the people hurt by your conservative views have made you feel ashamed. You felt the discomfort of someone who doesn't fit in. Welcome to the club. How will you change now?
Quebec was an unstable person who needed psychiatric help. People are free to hear new ideas without being labeled fascists. Fascism requires actual force behind the ideas being consumed.
Your false equivalency no more justifies me reading Mein Kampf then blaming it for my heinous acts, after reading it. As purely an academic excercise, I am still well within my right to read or listen from a subjective standpoint so I may dissiminate truth from that medium. I'm required as an adult to operate within the framework of freedom of thought without inciting violence, something that goes over Felarca's head.
My guess is that most people will assume fascism has something to do with 'repressive conservatism,' or resembles more closely 'the right' by American standards.
Historically speaking and by definition, fascists were originally statist authoritarian leftists. The left has always been violent and historically fascist. Again, I know a lot of dictionaries may (improperly) have 'fascist' as being a 'right-wing' principle.
I think the definition of it should probably be researched by an academic, historian, or political scientist and not determined by what Meriem perceives it to be. I previously thought that also and would assume it is right-wing because we assume any system that wants to confine us is done by the right. Again, one would assume the definition is what the one you referenced is until you look at one of the primary fathers of fascism, Mussolini. He was a leftist, by the book.
This seems to be an interesting read. Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
Here's a link that includes a big chunk of the first chapter that includes the thesis of the author, Jonah Goldberg.
I laughed out loud when Dan, complained about demonization of people rather than ideas and ranted against liberals who label people "Nazis" then, without even the barest hint of irony, quoted Jonah Goldberg . Dan's been losing me for a while, but when he then mentioned that Jonah Goldberg couldn't have fun with political debates because people were too quick to label people as Nazis, it was too much. I'm totally cool with him letting the show die at this point. He jumped the shark.
Hi. I'd like to return this and get back my unbrainwashed dad in return. He's just too much of a bother claiming that cops are a persecuted minority and ranting unironically about the MSM these days. It's not very thoughtful.
My guess is that you may be millenial, don't know history well, or like a lot of people you assume it has something to do with 'repressive conservatism.'
Historically speaking and by definition, fascists were originally statist authoritarian leftists. The left has always been violent and historically fascist. I know a lot of dictionaries may have 'fascist' as being a 'right-wing' principle.
Fascism is leftist, dumbass.
There's a book about it as well.
You people use the word fascism so loosely when historical evidence of fascism links more to the progressive movement than it does capitalism or right-wing politics. Fuck off.
EDIT: I realized you were being sarcastic. Oops!