Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Open thoughts… But I feel like it’s dumb to equate every “fascist” to Hitler and use Hitler and WW2 imagery. I feel like it dumbs things down.
If you believe Trump or whoever is a fascist their actions and their own image is enough. People aren’t going to think differently because X is portrayed as Hitler. It seems like gimmicky propaganda to do that. Anyone you would ever want on “your side” would understand this. As result people disregard both “sides”. Do you want people to switch to your side because of social political marketing or because they are actually cognitive enough to have a real understanding of life and reality? Imo it seems like a way to get useless people to join your side out of emotion. In turn dumbing down your side to emotionally reactive people. Marketing doesn’t get you a base that cares, it gets you a following.
I suppose that’s fine in war if you want cannon fodder to use… But that also sounds like something an anti fascist wouldn’t want.
In modern politics it’s like it’s an art to build the biggest base of useless people to abuse for cannon fodder.
While we shouldn’t imply that every little chucklefuck is literally Hitler. Or that every group of fascist are literal Nazis. It would be more disrespectful to not learn the lessons of history. And wait till someone is on the verge of challenging the score. Republicans and trump have had their bonifides verified.
You are right, but many Americans probably wouldn’t get it if you used Stalin. For better or worse, Hitler is the face of fascism; Stalin the face of communism. They were both fascists, as were Mussolini, and Stalin.
It’s just short-hand imagery; everybody knows what you mean. Pinochet was a fascist dictator, but he was also a brutal sociopath, so he’s confusing, even if people recognized him.
Stalin was a totalitarian not a fascist. You can have authoritarian regimes without fascism. Stalin actively fought fascists, was the main reason we won D-Day. He was also a brutal vicious cruel man who ruled his inner circle through fear and paranoia.
A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, intolerant, racist or nationalistic views or behavior
How do neither of these apply to Stalin? Note the “or” in the second definition. The “Nazi” party was the “National Socialist” party. You have to look at the actions, not just the labels, right? Stalin was authoritarian, intolerant, and nationalistic. He created an authoritarian hierarchical government.
Stalin fits both definitions of Fascism. It doesn’t matter that he was at war with other fascists; monarchies had for millennia fought other monarchies - it didn’t make them not-monarchies.
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
I’m only ignoring it because what you’re saying isn’t in the dictionary definition of “fascism,” and I’m not a political theorist. I’m just going by what the good book says.
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy
What about Stalin makes you think he demonstrated any of this?
“belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy”
Is a direct quote from the link on Fascism,
I don’t believe Stalin demonstrated any of that through policy.
Open thoughts… But I feel like it’s dumb to equate every “fascist” to Hitler and use Hitler and WW2 imagery. I feel like it dumbs things down.
If you believe Trump or whoever is a fascist their actions and their own image is enough. People aren’t going to think differently because X is portrayed as Hitler. It seems like gimmicky propaganda to do that. Anyone you would ever want on “your side” would understand this. As result people disregard both “sides”. Do you want people to switch to your side because of social political marketing or because they are actually cognitive enough to have a real understanding of life and reality? Imo it seems like a way to get useless people to join your side out of emotion. In turn dumbing down your side to emotionally reactive people. Marketing doesn’t get you a base that cares, it gets you a following.
I suppose that’s fine in war if you want cannon fodder to use… But that also sounds like something an anti fascist wouldn’t want.
In modern politics it’s like it’s an art to build the biggest base of useless people to abuse for cannon fodder.
The RNC had a stage shaped like a Nazi pin and put up on an electric sign ‘we are all domestic terrorists’ but okay.
The father of the concept you’re talking about. Has come out to say the trump comparisons are apt and not uncalled for.
While we shouldn’t imply that every little chucklefuck is literally Hitler. Or that every group of fascist are literal Nazis. It would be more disrespectful to not learn the lessons of history. And wait till someone is on the verge of challenging the score. Republicans and trump have had their bonifides verified.
You are right, but many Americans probably wouldn’t get it if you used Stalin. For better or worse, Hitler is the face of fascism; Stalin the face of communism. They were both fascists, as were Mussolini, and Stalin.
It’s just short-hand imagery; everybody knows what you mean. Pinochet was a fascist dictator, but he was also a brutal sociopath, so he’s confusing, even if people recognized him.
Please add Spain’s dictator, Francisco Franco. That bastard allowed Mussolini and Hitler to test their military during Spanish Civil War.
I could never make a comprehensive list; fascism has been all-too common.
Well, I probably could make a comprehensive list, but I’m not. But Franco was another prominent one, so that was a good catch.
Stalin was a totalitarian not a fascist. You can have authoritarian regimes without fascism. Stalin actively fought fascists, was the main reason we won D-Day. He was also a brutal vicious cruel man who ruled his inner circle through fear and paranoia.
How do neither of these apply to Stalin? Note the “or” in the second definition. The “Nazi” party was the “National Socialist” party. You have to look at the actions, not just the labels, right? Stalin was authoritarian, intolerant, and nationalistic. He created an authoritarian hierarchical government.
Stalin fits both definitions of Fascism. It doesn’t matter that he was at war with other fascists; monarchies had for millennia fought other monarchies - it didn’t make them not-monarchies.
Because Stalin was a Soviet Dictator. Fascism had a direct capitalist economic component that you’re completely ignoring.
This might be of interest for your further research
https://www.britannica.com/topic/totalitarianism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
And also
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
I’m only ignoring it because what you’re saying isn’t in the dictionary definition of “fascism,” and I’m not a political theorist. I’m just going by what the good book says.
What about Stalin makes you think he demonstrated any of this?
“belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy” Is a direct quote from the link on Fascism,
I don’t believe Stalin demonstrated any of that through policy.
Fascism is strictly a right wing ideology
Thanks for the reasonable response!