4 ms·

I think you may be overly generalizing. Without doubt certain governments, especially in the Islamic parts of the world, are fascist. It's a paradox that anti f

I think you may be overly generalizing. Without doubt certain governments, especially in the Islamic parts of the world, are fascist. It's a paradox that anti fascists in the West support governments that oppress women, and gays, and hang dissenters. Is your point that this shouldn't be called Islamofascism? I've never heard that term before, but I'm doubtlessly not ignorant to the fact that these governments gained their foothold through literal implementations of Islam coupled with Western weaponry. That combination does seem to define a parallel between Islam and fascism for those specific cases so I don't think that term is necessarily misplaced. Again only in those cases. I could make similar points about the other terms you've listed. That the terms exist may simply be a manifestation of the fact that there are clear examples of them. Whether you choose to apply them more broadly to the extent they are misplaced, I think, is left to interpretation, especially your own.

yawpitch 2y ago
“Islamofascism” is a neologism popularized by George Bush Jr (aka Little Bush) and Co, and it was never aimed at Islamic states, but explicitly for non-state actors like Al Quaeda. IIRC Bush (and at the same time Cheney) started running with it while also being extremely cozy with those Islamic states you might be inaccurately associating with a very loose definition of fascism (it’s accurate to describe those states as authoritarian theocracies, but fascism is a specific authoritarian political program in which the state is the religion, not one in which the religion is the state). Loosening the meaning of the word fascist to move it away from racialist and nationalist corporatist authoritarianism (see America under Little Bush and Big Trump, and definitely the America sought by the religious wrong) was a large part of why that term was popularized, they wanted everyone distracted from their use of Mussolini’s playbook.
- trimethylpurine 2y ago
  >fascism is a specific authoritarian political program in which the state is the religion, not one in which the religion is the state In that case then neither can the American left call the right fascist. By definition, you just said, the moment they are church affiliated they cease to be fascists. Isn't that right? And if that's true then we can say the left's agenda in calling the right fascists looks strikingly similar to the one you attributed solely to the right. It's just a bunch of confusing terms misattributed to a political group, just like "Islamofascism" isn't it? Or maybe, and this is what I think, the definitions are all just messy tools bent to fit whatever blunt use justifies whichever party you so happen to identify with. Sort of like choosing the Bulls or the Clippers. And the center is when you realize that.
  - yawpitch 2y ago
    > In that case then neither can the American left call the right fascist. Both sides call each other fascist, usually by misapplying the term. That said, the political program of today’s American right is much closer in alignment to historical fascism (and includes some self-avowed fascists) than the American left. Which makes sense, historical fascism was always a right-wing and conservative political program. > By definition, you just said, the moment they are church affiliated they cease to be fascists. Isn't that right? Well no, religiosity doesn’t make you fascist, and fascism doesn’t make you areligious… there’s a big leap between church-affiliated and totalitarian theocracy. Though, again, the American right is a lot closer to wanting to establish a totalitarian theocracy than the American left. > And if that's true then we can say the left's agenda in calling the right fascists looks strikingly similar to the one you attributed solely to the right. Well, no… if the American left were calling the American right something like “Christofascists”, then maybe. And I didn’t say that crafting propagandistic neologisms was exclusively a tool of the right, it’s just one the right is really prone to using precisely because those neologisms appeal to the more authoritarian elements of their base. And, yet again, the American right is way more aligned with authoritarianism than the American left, which is what makes the left’s own ignorant base more prone to discord than all joining in a chant of worship to their orange god-king. Precisely the point of this kind of propaganda, really. The real center is when you realize what direction the Overton Window is from you. If it’s too your right, then the odds are you’re yesterday’s centrist and today’s communist. In today’s America the Overton Window is extremely far to the right.
    - trimethylpurine 2y ago
      Let me blur the identity politics a bit. >historical fascism was always a right-wing and conservative political program Like when the right conquered the left in the civil war and freed the slaves? I suppose that could still be fascism, but you'll have to abandon the idea that fascism is wrong if you want to die on that hill. The real point is that to identify it as wrong or right, you need simply bend the meaning of the term. The left has been silencing scientists that disagree with their agenda. That seems pretty authoritarian. Isn't the left working towards censorship through cancel culture? That seems pretty conservative. (Fascist even?) All these sum up to ambiguity and that's the same point we're both making. The subjectivity of the terminology is exactly why it's used so rampantly. You can paint anyone to be anything you want so long as you are using words that have no definition. That's why you said this: >Both sides call each other fascist, usually by misapplying the term. Misapplying is subjective. Both sides can call each other whatever they need to in order to win the ability to collect lobbying dollars from the corporations whose interests they represent. If one of them has succeeded in making you believe that they are the more agreeable, it can only mean that you find their marketing to be particularly effective. Or, if you like, the opposite can be true and we can say that "Islamofascism" is a real term that applies in certain cases. We can take our pick. Both are true depending on the scope of the discussion. And you'll feel justified arguing one way or the other so long as the marketing has created a solid identity and sense of righteousness with which you can carry your argument. Here are a couple more blurry points you can spend time on: 1. Republican Justice Kennedy wrote the ruling that made gay sex legal. [1] 2. A Republican majority congressional vote has been responsible for nearly every Civil Rights Act in the history of the US. [2] Are these examples of conservative fascist religious idealism? As I just explained... sure they are! If you need them to be. But then so must be the Democratic party when they claim to champion civil rights and poverty solutions while enjoying the majority lobbying from Google, Meta, and Netflix. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

yawpitch 2y ago

“Islamofascism” is a neologism popularized by George Bush Jr (aka Little Bush) and Co, and it was never aimed at Islamic states, but explicitly for non-state actors like Al Quaeda. IIRC Bush (and at the same time Cheney) started running with it while also being extremely cozy with those Islamic states you might be inaccurately associating with a very loose definition of fascism (it’s accurate to describe those states as authoritarian theocracies, but fascism is a specific authoritarian political program in which the state is the religion, not one in which the religion is the state). Loosening the meaning of the word fascist to move it away from racialist and nationalist corporatist authoritarianism (see America under Little Bush and Big Trump, and definitely the America sought by the religious wrong) was a large part of why that term was popularized, they wanted everyone distracted from their use of Mussolini’s playbook.

trimethylpurine 2y ago
>fascism is a specific authoritarian political program in which the state is the religion, not one in which the religion is the state In that case then neither can the American left call the right fascist. By definition, you just said, the moment they are church affiliated they cease to be fascists. Isn't that right? And if that's true then we can say the left's agenda in calling the right fascists looks strikingly similar to the one you attributed solely to the right. It's just a bunch of confusing terms misattributed to a political group, just like "Islamofascism" isn't it? Or maybe, and this is what I think, the definitions are all just messy tools bent to fit whatever blunt use justifies whichever party you so happen to identify with. Sort of like choosing the Bulls or the Clippers. And the center is when you realize that.
- yawpitch 2y ago
  > In that case then neither can the American left call the right fascist. Both sides call each other fascist, usually by misapplying the term. That said, the political program of today’s American right is much closer in alignment to historical fascism (and includes some self-avowed fascists) than the American left. Which makes sense, historical fascism was always a right-wing and conservative political program. > By definition, you just said, the moment they are church affiliated they cease to be fascists. Isn't that right? Well no, religiosity doesn’t make you fascist, and fascism doesn’t make you areligious… there’s a big leap between church-affiliated and totalitarian theocracy. Though, again, the American right is a lot closer to wanting to establish a totalitarian theocracy than the American left. > And if that's true then we can say the left's agenda in calling the right fascists looks strikingly similar to the one you attributed solely to the right. Well, no… if the American left were calling the American right something like “Christofascists”, then maybe. And I didn’t say that crafting propagandistic neologisms was exclusively a tool of the right, it’s just one the right is really prone to using precisely because those neologisms appeal to the more authoritarian elements of their base. And, yet again, the American right is way more aligned with authoritarianism than the American left, which is what makes the left’s own ignorant base more prone to discord than all joining in a chant of worship to their orange god-king. Precisely the point of this kind of propaganda, really. The real center is when you realize what direction the Overton Window is from you. If it’s too your right, then the odds are you’re yesterday’s centrist and today’s communist. In today’s America the Overton Window is extremely far to the right.
  - trimethylpurine 2y ago
    Let me blur the identity politics a bit. >historical fascism was always a right-wing and conservative political program Like when the right conquered the left in the civil war and freed the slaves? I suppose that could still be fascism, but you'll have to abandon the idea that fascism is wrong if you want to die on that hill. The real point is that to identify it as wrong or right, you need simply bend the meaning of the term. The left has been silencing scientists that disagree with their agenda. That seems pretty authoritarian. Isn't the left working towards censorship through cancel culture? That seems pretty conservative. (Fascist even?) All these sum up to ambiguity and that's the same point we're both making. The subjectivity of the terminology is exactly why it's used so rampantly. You can paint anyone to be anything you want so long as you are using words that have no definition. That's why you said this: >Both sides call each other fascist, usually by misapplying the term. Misapplying is subjective. Both sides can call each other whatever they need to in order to win the ability to collect lobbying dollars from the corporations whose interests they represent. If one of them has succeeded in making you believe that they are the more agreeable, it can only mean that you find their marketing to be particularly effective. Or, if you like, the opposite can be true and we can say that "Islamofascism" is a real term that applies in certain cases. We can take our pick. Both are true depending on the scope of the discussion. And you'll feel justified arguing one way or the other so long as the marketing has created a solid identity and sense of righteousness with which you can carry your argument. Here are a couple more blurry points you can spend time on: 1. Republican Justice Kennedy wrote the ruling that made gay sex legal. [1] 2. A Republican majority congressional vote has been responsible for nearly every Civil Rights Act in the history of the US. [2] Are these examples of conservative fascist religious idealism? As I just explained... sure they are! If you need them to be. But then so must be the Democratic party when they claim to champion civil rights and poverty solutions while enjoying the majority lobbying from Google, Meta, and Netflix. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964