4 ms·

> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term.

by KPGv2 8mo ago

> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to name his government, not describe it analytically. Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto. So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another). The best we can do in a literalist manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity. It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents. So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement: - nationalism - right-wing - totalitarian - violence as a means of control etc. Personally, I like Umberto Eco's delineation of what makes fascism (because he was an intellectual and grew up in Mussolini's Italy): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci... He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism: 1. cult of tradition 2. rejection of modernism 3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value) 4. disagreement is treason 5. fear of difference 6. appeal to frustrated middle class 7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within) 8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong 9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight) 10. contempt for the weak 11. everyone is educated to become a hero 12. machismo 13. selective populism 14. newspeak I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't definitely have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point. At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"

terminalshort 8mo ago
This is an overfit model that contains many basic parts of human behavior and then tags them part of fascism just because the fascists did it.
try_the_bass 8mo ago
The trouble with this definition is that a large number of points fit the progressive left, too. Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well. I think this framework really just describes "tribalism", and not specifically "fascism".
- hjkl0 8mo ago
  I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar. But you can really say that “disagreement is treason” means the same thing in fascism and in “the left”? Are you saying, for e.g., that unions and universities execute dissenters as a matter of course? “Fear of difference” under fascism means that differences you can’t control put your life at permanent risk. In the context of tribalism, it means being embarrassed. So there’s really no comparison between a conservative feeling left out under liberalism to a minority feeling at risk under fascism.
  - try_the_bass 8mo ago
    > I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar. See, this is where I disagree. You can argue that many of these things are "actually happening", but doing so often requires stretching the definitions of these things, or conflating speech with action. Take your example: I see all sorts of instances where folks on the right have accused others of treason, but there's a significant lack of actual charges. You're conflating rhetoric with action. Rhetoric is dangerous, yes, but the rhetoric we see from the right is just the next escalation in a constant game of escalating rhetoric from both sides. I mean, calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" isn't exactly nonviolent rhetoric, either, especially the latter. There are actual fascists and Nazis among Republicans, for sure, but they don't represent anything close to a majority. There are fascists among Democrats, too! The rest of your comment is just another great example of inflammatory rhetoric that isn't really representative of a reality that exists outside your own head, unfortunately.

by KPGv2 8mo ago

terminalshort 8mo ago

This is an overfit model that contains many basic parts of human behavior and then tags them part of fascism just because the fascists did it.

try_the_bass 8mo ago

The trouble with this definition is that a large number of points fit the progressive left, too. Based on my experience (especially on pre-Musk Twitter, but in other places as well), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 apply fairly well. I think this framework really just describes "tribalism", and not specifically "fascism".

hjkl0 8mo ago
I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar. But you can really say that “disagreement is treason” means the same thing in fascism and in “the left”? Are you saying, for e.g., that unions and universities execute dissenters as a matter of course? “Fear of difference” under fascism means that differences you can’t control put your life at permanent risk. In the context of tribalism, it means being embarrassed. So there’s really no comparison between a conservative feeling left out under liberalism to a minority feeling at risk under fascism.
- try_the_bass 8mo ago
  > I think the difference is that in fascism these literal things are actually happening, whereas the worst you can say about “the left” is that you can make a bad-faith comparison and say that things are somehow metaphorically similar. See, this is where I disagree. You can argue that many of these things are "actually happening", but doing so often requires stretching the definitions of these things, or conflating speech with action. Take your example: I see all sorts of instances where folks on the right have accused others of treason, but there's a significant lack of actual charges. You're conflating rhetoric with action. Rhetoric is dangerous, yes, but the rhetoric we see from the right is just the next escalation in a constant game of escalating rhetoric from both sides. I mean, calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" isn't exactly nonviolent rhetoric, either, especially the latter. There are actual fascists and Nazis among Republicans, for sure, but they don't represent anything close to a majority. There are fascists among Democrats, too! The rest of your comment is just another great example of inflammatory rhetoric that isn't really representative of a reality that exists outside your own head, unfortunately.