4 ms·
I have no evidence either way of what this person does and they verbally advocate for violence against people they don't like to achieve political ends. So I'm
by anm89 5y ago
I have no evidence either way of what this person does and they verbally advocate for violence against people they don't like to achieve political ends.
So I'm going to stick with them seeming pretty facistic.
- lucian1900 5y agoViolence isn’t inherently fascist. Capitalism uses violence against the working class to maintain profits for the owning class. Revolutions of the working class are violent, yet they end the former violence and exploitation. Fascism is violence to protect the owning class from a revolution by the working class. Suppression of capitalists after a working class revolution is also violence to prevent them from regaining power to yet again use violence to exploit the working class. Violence is just one way to exert power.
- anm89 5y agoI'll stick with that being fascism. Feel free to debate semantics all you want. It's not the important part of the argument.
- lucian1900 5y agoThe meanings of words matter if we are to understand each other. Fascism has a very specific historical meaning. Violence is a far more general concept.
- anm89 5y agoRight. And what he's talking about is fascism so I'm calling it fascism.
- lucian1900 5y agoNot at all, no. They’re talking about a workers’ state using violence against a capitalist exploiter. If it was a billionaire calling for former small business owners to attack organised labour, that’d be fascism.