3 ms·

Sounds like the word you're looking for is "authoritarian". All fascists are authoritarians, but not all authoritarians are fascist. A few more key characteris

Sounds like the word you're looking for is "authoritarian". All fascists are authoritarians, but not all authoritarians are fascist. A few more key characteristics of fascism: nationalism, overt anti-egalitarianism, militarism. Bolsonero is the fascist here. Lula is not.

andrenth 4y ago
The defining slogan of fascism is “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”. Bolsonaro tried to reduce the size of the state, in direct contradiction with that. Please list concrete actions by his government that can be reasonably characterized as “anti-egalitarian” or “militaristic”. In fact the military in his government was mostly used in the process of helping Venezuelan refugees escape their country into Brazil.
- biimugan 4y ago
  Brazilian politics aside, just because Mussolini said it doesn't make it the definition. Of course Mussolini would describe it in such a way -- it's an incredibly self-serving definition. How else is a totalitarian dictator to mask the fact that his regime is entirely about his own personal power and not some Platonic ideal called "the State"? How else is he to rally normally sensible, everyday people around a cause other than to appeal to their sense of nationalism, probably the only commonality they all share? There's a very good reason Hitler was called Fuhrer and Mussolini the Duce. It should give you a very strong clue about the important aspect of fascism that your comment tries to elide
  - andrenth 4y ago
    I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply about my comment. Can you be specific?
    - biimugan 4y ago
      Fascism is not just "expanding the size of the state". That's just incredibly naive, bordering on denialism. Substitute "the State" with "il Duce" or "der Fuhrer" in the statement you quoted. That's the true meaning behind the statement -- it's propaganda. You really don't need to take the words of notorious propagandists and liars at face value, especially on a subject that's been studied for almost 100 years now. Mussolini and Hitler did not care about empowering "the State" for its own sake. The State was simply a vehicle to exercise a particular racial and/or political ideology and to gain personal power. If they could've excised state apparatuses and achieved power in some other way, they would've. Indeed, that's exactly what both dictators (though more so Hitler) did once they found the appropriate political leverage to do so. Everything is subordinate not to the State, but to the Fuhrer. The State itself was subordinate to the Fuhrer. You only need look at Hitler's public actions leading up to the war, not to mention the private memoranda, letters, and other documents, to see that. How many times did Hitler risk the complete destruction or occupation of Germany by the Versailles powers? How many times did he exclaim that if he failed, Germany would fail, and would deserve it? Hitler did not care about the State, he cared about his own personal power and legacy and maintaining the facade at all costs.
      - andrenth 4y ago
        I never said fascism is “just” whatever you think I did, so your uncharitable read of what I said is unnecessary. Fascists use the state to empower themselves. By reducing its size, by definition, a politician reduces his own sphere of influence. Rereading your comment, I think you’re more or less equating the State with the country, while I’m talking about the government and supporting structure and bureaucracy. Of course Hitler didn’t care about Germany. He cared about his own power and he had an overreaching state under his control to maintain it.

andrenth 4y ago

The defining slogan of fascism is “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”. Bolsonaro tried to reduce the size of the state, in direct contradiction with that. Please list concrete actions by his government that can be reasonably characterized as “anti-egalitarian” or “militaristic”. In fact the military in his government was mostly used in the process of helping Venezuelan refugees escape their country into Brazil.

biimugan 4y ago
Brazilian politics aside, just because Mussolini said it doesn't make it the definition. Of course Mussolini would describe it in such a way -- it's an incredibly self-serving definition. How else is a totalitarian dictator to mask the fact that his regime is entirely about his own personal power and not some Platonic ideal called "the State"? How else is he to rally normally sensible, everyday people around a cause other than to appeal to their sense of nationalism, probably the only commonality they all share? There's a very good reason Hitler was called Fuhrer and Mussolini the Duce. It should give you a very strong clue about the important aspect of fascism that your comment tries to elide
- andrenth 4y ago
  I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply about my comment. Can you be specific?
  - biimugan 4y ago
    Fascism is not just "expanding the size of the state". That's just incredibly naive, bordering on denialism. Substitute "the State" with "il Duce" or "der Fuhrer" in the statement you quoted. That's the true meaning behind the statement -- it's propaganda. You really don't need to take the words of notorious propagandists and liars at face value, especially on a subject that's been studied for almost 100 years now. Mussolini and Hitler did not care about empowering "the State" for its own sake. The State was simply a vehicle to exercise a particular racial and/or political ideology and to gain personal power. If they could've excised state apparatuses and achieved power in some other way, they would've. Indeed, that's exactly what both dictators (though more so Hitler) did once they found the appropriate political leverage to do so. Everything is subordinate not to the State, but to the Fuhrer. The State itself was subordinate to the Fuhrer. You only need look at Hitler's public actions leading up to the war, not to mention the private memoranda, letters, and other documents, to see that. How many times did Hitler risk the complete destruction or occupation of Germany by the Versailles powers? How many times did he exclaim that if he failed, Germany would fail, and would deserve it? Hitler did not care about the State, he cared about his own personal power and legacy and maintaining the facade at all costs.
    - andrenth 4y ago
      I never said fascism is “just” whatever you think I did, so your uncharitable read of what I said is unnecessary. Fascists use the state to empower themselves. By reducing its size, by definition, a politician reduces his own sphere of influence. Rereading your comment, I think you’re more or less equating the State with the country, while I’m talking about the government and supporting structure and bureaucracy. Of course Hitler didn’t care about Germany. He cared about his own power and he had an overreaching state under his control to maintain it.