Seems reductive.
They don’t. Any time a Democrat exercises the slightest bit of executive authority they scream fascism
They know the difference. They just play ignorant when it’s convenient.
Because they’re literal fascists, by definition, and are trying to convince others that they are not.
Fascists always attempt to change the definition of words to suit their narrative.
Don’t let them.
Because it suits them to. That is really all there is to it. “Fascism” got such a universally bad name, that even (almost all) fascists dont want yo call themselves such. Instead, they try to use this negatively associated word to describe the people fighting against them.
Some dont
Because they don’t know what words mean they just know if it makes them feel good or bad based on who it’s directed at.
Fascism is about killing as many people you don’t like as possible, while the richest people in the land consolidate power, and lying about everything to make it possible. It tends to last for decades and destroys the nation that embraces it.
You are all the good things and your enemies are all the bad things. There is no value in truth or rationality.
Good luck.
Because conservatives don’t argue in good faith and at this point the only way you should communicate with them is with bricks
Because they’re fascists.
There are two things you should read.
The Authoritarians by Dr. Bob Altemeyer
To summarize, they do not use any genuine definition of fascism or any other word they wield as a pejorative. Words are weapons that mean whatever they want them to mean. At the same time, the fascist/authoritarian control scheme requires the nurturing of a fear of violence. This fear is irrational, but at the cycle continues and escalates to real violence - particularly among radicalized rightists - it is used to reinforce the fears, which are carefully directed toward the desired out-groups. For example, jews, minorities, immigrants, queer people, and “leftists.”
To summarize further, they are terrorists.
Because, to put it mildly, they lack intelligence.
The people at the bottom, yes, probably. But it bears mentioning that the world’s simpletons are just repeating rhetoric that was carefully engineered and fed to them by powerful people who are smart enough to know it’ll make them more powerful.
Possibly more precisely:
Self-Awareness.
They need an arbitrary definition of separation, because otherwise they would easily be put in one pot.
Self sitting convenience.
Firstly - there is no workable “definition” of fascism that’s remotely useful. Not yet, anyway. It probably has something to do with the fact that fascism isn’t so much an ideology but more a function within the modern liberal nation state - ie, the people who perform the violent repression for the benefit of the rich elites at the top. Sometimes, the elites become so frightened that they will literally hand the very state over to these people in it’s entirety - as happened in Germany and Italy (and other places).
Secondly - these people calling themselves “conservatives” and/or “libertarians” don’t actually care much about labels. The fact that they actually call themselves “conservatives” (essentially a dead ideology they wouldn’t recognise if it bit them on their behinds) and “libertarians” (a term that originally described anarchist and other libertarian socialists) without having the foggiest clue what those terms really mean is a clue. The only thing they understand is that it’s a term they can throw at any people pushing back against their vile (and often fascist or fascist-adjacent) narratives.
That’s pretty much it.
There has been a shinning example of Fascism in the US since it’s creation. From genociding the Native Americans to over throwing countless democracies and installing fascist states.
Sure the founding fathers existed before fascism was envisioned, but they did real good checking off every box. We will call them the proto-fascists, they helped guide the creation of the most destructive fascist nation ever. The kind of nation that nurtured the Nazi movement after creating the the perfect storm by walking away from the aftermath of WWI.
The kind of nation that purged all its left wing back during the McCarthyism Era. A nation whose military complex is bigger and stronger than the rest of the world combined. A country created by the wealthy for the wealthy embracing the corruption of greed from the start to the end.
There has been a shinning example of Fascism in the US since it’s creation.
Yes. Mussolini didn’t invent it… he just gave it a convenient name for us to use. What we call “fascism” today was birthed by colonialist brutality long before it’s vicious logic was applied to the populations of the newly-minted imperial core.
This is why all the (so-called) “definitions” of fascism offered by liberals is so risible - they conveniently forget about fascism’s intimate links with imperialism (and therefore liberalism - the preferred ideology of colonisers) and merely try to write it off as some “aberration” of otherwise “perfect” western civilisation.
Well said.
there is no workable “definition” of fascism that’s remotely useful.
It has been described and defined in great detail.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism
Umberto Eco never managed to “define” fascism, Clyde.
He only provided a list of characteristics of (what he termed) “ur-fascism” - what I’d call “secondary fascism” (ie, the violent re-enforcement of the status quo in the imperial core using methods and justifications pioneered in the colonised world).
Here is what he said himself -
“These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism.”
Ie… no workable definition of fascism.
Okay?
I find it interesting that you touched on the contradictory compartmentalization trait of authoritarians without actually grasping the meaning of what you were trying to quote.
Your own arguments are full of such contradictory compartmentalism, which is quite telling.
Which part of…
Ie… no workable definition of fascism.
…didn’t you get the first time around, Clyde?
Excuse me. If they a re not conservative what are they?
If they a re not conservative what are they?
What they are in reality is an extremist, fundamentalist and far-right strain of liberal. Liberalism has always really just been the fig-leaf ideology behind which capitalism hides… but these people calling themselves “conservatives” are really just capitalists that don’t see the need to bother with a fig-leaf at all. Simply consider the behaviour of people like Trump, Musk and all the other billionaires that barely hide their contempt for the working class. They are not true fascists, but I don’t see a problem with people calling them that - they certainly would like to be true fascists but lack the connection to the working class to actually do that like Hitler or Mussolini did. They are just extremely spoilt rich people living in bubbles of privilege… unlike the fascists of old.
Conservatism itself is essentially a dead ideology - the conservatives of Abraham Lincoln’s time would sound like radical leftists in comparison to the people using that label today.
Sorry, no
They are authoritarians with boners for the NAZIs. Simply put.
Lol!
Did you actually read what you posted, genius?
Here. I’ll make this a bit less confusing for you.
“An economic theory in favour of laizzez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.”
Do tell… which of the two formal political factions in the US is most in favour of allowing billionaire parasites (ie, capitalists) to run everything and using the (so-called) “free market” a justification for that?
The people (honestly) calling themselves “liberals” or the people (falsely) calling themselves “conservatives?”
Read this part real careful like… political conservatism is a dead ideology.
You don’t have to believe me - hear it from an actual conservative.
Ha ha!
laizzez-faire! laizzez-faire!
laizzez-faire isn’t an exclusive tenant of liberalism you moron.
If youre posting Noah Chomsky youre talking about NEO-CONS.
Its been 10 years since the GOP has unmasked themselves as authoritarians and youre living in a fucking time capsule.
Hey Buddy, if you’re throwing around pejorative insults on the Internet, you’ve already lost, But you do you sweety.
dont throw pejoratives
But you do you sweety.
Immediately uses pejorative.
Hey, what did I lose? Did I lose an internet argument!??!?!?
Omg, ill never recover.
laizzez-faire isn’t an exclusive tenant of liberalism
Ooooooh… do tell, genius - what other ideology is so blindingly loyal to the capitalist mode of production?
Monarchism, perhaps?
Is there a particular reason you don’t want to admit what liberalism is and always have been?
Is that what the current iteration of the conservative ideology believes???
Crony capitalism is not laizzez-faire
Yeah and “Democrat” used to mean you liked slavery. The meaning of words (especially regarding political ideology) shift over time.
These people are conservatives.
These people are conservatives.
No. They’re not.
But if you really wish to continue flattering them, feel free to call them “conservatives” - it informs them that their pretense is still working.
Flattering them??? Conservatism is not some holy religion but if it makes you feel better. What ever.
You seem very desperate to pretend that there really is a big difference between liberalism and (so-called) “conservatism.”
Are you a liberal, perhaps?
No, im asking you if fascism isn’t the appropriate description of what “conservatives” believe what is it?
They’re conservatives. Regardless of what the word may have used to mean, it means this now. No matter how much people want that to not be true.
A turd by any other name is still a turd, now it’s MAGA Who like to steal and use that term and apply it to themselves, even though it does not relate to how they ever were in the past
This whole argument is just cover for “conservatives”. Conservatives foamented this party, they adhere to it, its their dogma in full view. They dont get to slip out now and pretend there is ‘no true scotsman.’
They don’t. They play the victim a lot more ways than that.
For example: you don’t go to church. They think “Christian values are under attack.” You argue for civil rights. “The right of the White Man is under attack.” Shit like that. And they will call you a fascist, a socialist, a communist, everything but what you are, which is a nonconformist, for not doing exactly what they want you to do.
A conservative, by the simplest definition, is one who opposes change for the sake of change. The ideal of “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” The problem is, while the system may not be broken for them (WASP), it needs work for people of colour, the LGBTQ+, Palestinians, and more. But they don’t want a world that works for the rest of us. They just want to maintain the status quo. A lot of them have much more complicated feelings and opinions than that, but that’s basically conservatism in a nutshell. Not extreme. Unfortunately very few conservatives are basic conservatives anymore.
which is a nonconformist
Thank you for this, it puts it in terms that make a lot of sense. This really helps explain a phenomenon I see so often. I know a few folks who are certainly not pro-trump, but are very anti-political. I’ve been told that I need to shut up, and things would be fine once the next election rolls around.
These folks might not like what’s happening, but they are fine conforming to it.
Maybe it’s a me problem, but I think it’s going to take a little more work than the bare minimum.
they don’t care about the meanings of words, they only care about “winning” the conversation
It’s a convenient place to rest the goalposts until they have to snatch them up and run away again.
