4 ms·

You are trying to align a governance type with a political spectrum. It’s a category error. Fascism has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do

by freen 2y ago

You are trying to align a governance type with a political spectrum. It’s a category error. Fascism has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do with whatever is necessary to retain power, given the society fascists intends to rule. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t advocate for mercantilism! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

skissane 2y ago
So, when Ian Kershaw, the esteemed historian of Nazi Germany, said that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall", you are telling me he was wrong? Because you seem to think it is much more of a clearcut question than he does.
- freen 2y ago
  Yes, Ian Kershaw is precisely right! It is very difficult to define because it is a means by which one, either a person, a party, an ethnicity, whatever, pursues and attempts to preserve power regardless of the will or interests of the people they intend to have power over. The difference here is that anti-fascists have ethical and moral standards, create and support political systems that make it possible for them to loose, celebrate those losses. It’s difficult to define a barbarian, but you definitely know it when they come to your town.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - skissane 2y ago
    No, you are putting forward one particular definition as the "right" one, and arguing all contrary definitions should be ignored, even when proposed by esteemed scholars in relevant fields – which is the complete opposite of Kershaw's point.
    - freen 2y ago
      Ahh, so we lack a definition, no one is fascist, and killing political dissidents is equivalent to fair and legal elections. Good is equivalent to evil, because both are hard to define. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t believe in mercantilism, which random authority says is an essential part of monarchism. Plus, how do you define monarchism? You can’t. Humanity is so fucked. (Btw, this problem has been decisively solved by the paradox of tolerance, and was solved in the 40’s, when the apparently undefinable, thus never repeatable, original fascists did their thing.)
      - skissane 2y ago
        > Ahh, so we lack a definition, no one is fascist, and killing political dissidents is equivalent to fair and legal elections. No. One can condemn a regime even if one doesn't agree with labelling it "fascist". I'm sure we both agree that North Korea is a brutal and inhuman dictatorship, but I wouldn't call it "fascist" and I doubt you would either. Because "brutal and inhuman dictatorship" is what really counts here, not whether it is "fascist" or something else. Putin's regime is closer to some Middle Eastern or Latin American military dictatorship than to 1930s/1940s fascism. 1930s/1940s fascism was highly ideological, Putin's regime is post-ideological (Putin doesn't care what your ideology is so long as he gets to stay in charge)
        freen 2y ago
        You are making a distinction without a difference. That you do so with such voraciousness, makes it seem like you are keen to defend those labeled fascist/authoritarian/etc. Split hairs all day, the gulag doesn’t care.
        skissane 2y ago
        > You are making a distinction without a difference. I think it is obvious that your objectives are very different from mine. What's "without a difference" given one set of objectives is a key difference given another. > That you do so with such voraciousness, makes it seem like you are keen to defend those labeled fascist/authoritarian/etc. No. I'm interested in having a historical argument about how to define "fascism" as part of "history for history's sake". You seem by contrast primarily interested in defining words to rhetorically assist you towards some political end. > Split hairs all day, the gulag doesn’t care. I've lived my whole life in Australia. I think it is very unlikely that the current or any foreseeable future Australian government is going to start putting people in anything resembling gulags. To suggest otherwise is rather alarmist.
roenxi 2y ago
That definition doesn't make sense - everyone of every political persuasion is trying to retain power.
- freen 2y ago
  Yes: but do they use collectively agreed upon rules? Do they agree that it is possible, and even more importantly, good that they can loose? Will they end the system that empowered them once in power? Liberal, meaning non-fascist, political movements do not destroy the peaceful means of the transfer of power once they have achieved power. Pretty simple, really. Care to try to unseat Putin? Wonder how that will work for your health. January 6th: anti-democratic, attempting to use force to reverse the peaceful transition of power, hence fascist.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Will they end the system that empowered them once in power? This is one of a couple of points where the lack of a precise definition causes the perspective to fall apart. Liberals would do exactly that by instituting democratic liberalism in a country after coming to power. Changing a system isn't fascistic. Even replacing isn't characteristic of fascism (although what is beyond self-identification), the French are up to Republic #5 and republics generally aren't fascist. It is necessary to evaluate the change and impacts of the change in context to work out what the nature of a political thing is.
    - freen 2y ago
      Well done avoiding the rest of my comment. Fascists may participate in a peaceful transition of power in order to gain power, then do not allow for peaceful transitions of power in the future. Jan 6 was an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power. Just like the Beer Hall Putsch. Unsuccessful, but totally unambiguous. Yes, obviously, changing a system isn’t fascism. Doing so in a way that prevents any other future system change or peaceful transfer of political change is Fascism. How is this even complicated? We all come up with rules. Everyone follows the rules. We can all decide to change the rules, but again everybody decides what those rules are, and those rules allow for future changing of rules and actively support the peaceful transition of power. Sometimes there’s somebody who says rules don’t apply to me and I’m the only person who gets to make the rules forever and if you disagree with me I’ll kill you. One activity is not fascist, the other is. The difficulty is fascists never say they are fascists. they don’t advertise it. They will swear up and down that they’re following the rules, and will abide by the rules right up until they’re powerful enough, that they can just kill everyone who opposes them.

by freen 2y ago

skissane 2y ago

So, when Ian Kershaw, the esteemed historian of Nazi Germany, said that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall", you are telling me he was wrong? Because you seem to think it is much more of a clearcut question than he does.

freen 2y ago
Yes, Ian Kershaw is precisely right! It is very difficult to define because it is a means by which one, either a person, a party, an ethnicity, whatever, pursues and attempts to preserve power regardless of the will or interests of the people they intend to have power over. The difference here is that anti-fascists have ethical and moral standards, create and support political systems that make it possible for them to loose, celebrate those losses. It’s difficult to define a barbarian, but you definitely know it when they come to your town.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- skissane 2y ago
  No, you are putting forward one particular definition as the "right" one, and arguing all contrary definitions should be ignored, even when proposed by esteemed scholars in relevant fields – which is the complete opposite of Kershaw's point.
  - freen 2y ago
    Ahh, so we lack a definition, no one is fascist, and killing political dissidents is equivalent to fair and legal elections. Good is equivalent to evil, because both are hard to define. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t believe in mercantilism, which random authority says is an essential part of monarchism. Plus, how do you define monarchism? You can’t. Humanity is so fucked. (Btw, this problem has been decisively solved by the paradox of tolerance, and was solved in the 40’s, when the apparently undefinable, thus never repeatable, original fascists did their thing.)
    - skissane 2y ago
      > Ahh, so we lack a definition, no one is fascist, and killing political dissidents is equivalent to fair and legal elections. No. One can condemn a regime even if one doesn't agree with labelling it "fascist". I'm sure we both agree that North Korea is a brutal and inhuman dictatorship, but I wouldn't call it "fascist" and I doubt you would either. Because "brutal and inhuman dictatorship" is what really counts here, not whether it is "fascist" or something else. Putin's regime is closer to some Middle Eastern or Latin American military dictatorship than to 1930s/1940s fascism. 1930s/1940s fascism was highly ideological, Putin's regime is post-ideological (Putin doesn't care what your ideology is so long as he gets to stay in charge)
      - freen 2y ago
        You are making a distinction without a difference. That you do so with such voraciousness, makes it seem like you are keen to defend those labeled fascist/authoritarian/etc. Split hairs all day, the gulag doesn’t care.
        skissane 2y ago
        > You are making a distinction without a difference. I think it is obvious that your objectives are very different from mine. What's "without a difference" given one set of objectives is a key difference given another. > That you do so with such voraciousness, makes it seem like you are keen to defend those labeled fascist/authoritarian/etc. No. I'm interested in having a historical argument about how to define "fascism" as part of "history for history's sake". You seem by contrast primarily interested in defining words to rhetorically assist you towards some political end. > Split hairs all day, the gulag doesn’t care. I've lived my whole life in Australia. I think it is very unlikely that the current or any foreseeable future Australian government is going to start putting people in anything resembling gulags. To suggest otherwise is rather alarmist.

roenxi 2y ago

That definition doesn't make sense - everyone of every political persuasion is trying to retain power.

freen 2y ago
Yes: but do they use collectively agreed upon rules? Do they agree that it is possible, and even more importantly, good that they can loose? Will they end the system that empowered them once in power? Liberal, meaning non-fascist, political movements do not destroy the peaceful means of the transfer of power once they have achieved power. Pretty simple, really. Care to try to unseat Putin? Wonder how that will work for your health. January 6th: anti-democratic, attempting to use force to reverse the peaceful transition of power, hence fascist.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Will they end the system that empowered them once in power? This is one of a couple of points where the lack of a precise definition causes the perspective to fall apart. Liberals would do exactly that by instituting democratic liberalism in a country after coming to power. Changing a system isn't fascistic. Even replacing isn't characteristic of fascism (although what is beyond self-identification), the French are up to Republic #5 and republics generally aren't fascist. It is necessary to evaluate the change and impacts of the change in context to work out what the nature of a political thing is.
  - freen 2y ago
    Well done avoiding the rest of my comment. Fascists may participate in a peaceful transition of power in order to gain power, then do not allow for peaceful transitions of power in the future. Jan 6 was an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power. Just like the Beer Hall Putsch. Unsuccessful, but totally unambiguous. Yes, obviously, changing a system isn’t fascism. Doing so in a way that prevents any other future system change or peaceful transfer of political change is Fascism. How is this even complicated? We all come up with rules. Everyone follows the rules. We can all decide to change the rules, but again everybody decides what those rules are, and those rules allow for future changing of rules and actively support the peaceful transition of power. Sometimes there’s somebody who says rules don’t apply to me and I’m the only person who gets to make the rules forever and if you disagree with me I’ll kill you. One activity is not fascist, the other is. The difficulty is fascists never say they are fascists. they don’t advertise it. They will swear up and down that they’re following the rules, and will abide by the rules right up until they’re powerful enough, that they can just kill everyone who opposes them.