comfy

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m starting to feel like all this hate and division is manufactured

Even putting aside biases or conspiracies, mass media and (for-profit) social media has an economic incentive to get people passionate and interested and viewing more ads. So there are systematic factors at play, which I'd say are enhanced by digital technology.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

For my own learning (not trying to argue), can you list some of those basic facts of property rights?

morality

Agreed. I wasn't saying morality is pointless or worthless or anything. Even myself, I often 'do the right thing' on impulse rather than reason. I'm pointing out that morality is an idealistic structure, referencing the ironic appeal to morality from someone who was trying to critique Marxism for being an "idealist ideology". Morality is so subjective and unquantifiable it wasn't even worth arguing against their silly comparison.

It is a powerful tool, although I must admit I have serious issues with the most common frameworks of morality I see today, being framed as absolute rules a vacuum. And like you said, moral arguments can have excellent rhetorical power, and moral righteousness is a powerful motivator. The bottom line is, what anti-capitalists try to do fits into most moral frameworks as clearly good, and that's great!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This is authoritarian nationalism, not fascism.

They're not defining fascism, they're listing the consistent components. Their post is completely agreeing with your statement: "All fascism is nationalist and authoritarian, not all nationalism or authoritarianism is fascist."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

The post you replied to has serious issues, please see the other replies for more info.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

This is just false. There's no interpretation of 'communist economies' that applies to any fascist state ever. Two of the core characteristics of fascism are anti-liberalism and anti-Marxism, which covers basically all socialism. Fascist leaders (even the national-syndicalism types like Mussolini) have an odd relationship with capitalism, but ultimately I don't believe they moved towards socialism either.

Historically, more fascist governments have developed from socialist nations than capitalist.

Apart from Francoist Spain, I can't think of a single example of a fascist government which succeeded a socialist government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

In fact, fascism often gains support from middle class desperation, with the blessing of the booj who prefer it over communism (which tends to rise from the lower classes during similar times of desperation)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's not what fascism is. Fascism isn't "when there are shitty strict rules". In fact, classical fascism is a (failed) class collaborationist ideology where the state was supposed to mediate between interest groups of workers and bosses. protip: it didn't. workers got screwed. (see corporatism, from the root word corpus, not corporation). Nazism didn't do any of that but even they had their own garbage state-run labor front.

But the point being, those business are beyond even fascism. It's straight-up pure raw capitalist dictatorship.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That's the point of having two similar yet distinct characters. Most people don't look at capitalism and see fascism, they appear distinct to most, so having them both be Homelander would be a poor visual analogy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Surely it was a tough pick between using Superman or Captain America in the top panel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

what was that ideology again? Oh that’s right, it’s Marxist socialism

Marxist socialism isn't idealist. In fact, it's one of the few ideologies which isn't idealist. It's based on an scientific economic analysis of capitalism. Contrast this against our current system, liberalism, which is the failed idealization of liberty. Liberalism neglectfully kills hundreds of millions even in developed and politically-stable countries, but it's just normal at this point.

You’re not morally superior to fascists

Morality is idealism.

If Marxist socialists had a similar movement in size and influence to Trump and MAGA and were in a position to win, the sane majority would be just as terrified

Oh no, they're going to improve life expectancy and stop billionaires wasting all our hard work! The terror!

If anything, you, SleezyDizasta, should want Marxists to be in a position which threatens the ruling parties, because them being threatened is the only way you will ever get any of that big list of reforms you posted, bargaining to try and deradicalize the masses away from unrest. We saw this happen in Western bloc countries near the USSR such as the Nordic countries, considered the most progressive but gradually sinking back in line with the rest of Europe now.

dissolution is genocide

Dissolution doesn't even suggest killing, at all. I don't think you know what words mean.

This is the type of [whole paragraph]

I was referring to Palestine. Perhaps I should have specifically said 'the region of Palestine' but I didn't want to be condescending by stating the obvious.

How dumb do you have to be to think that Americans in America would cheer on for idiots that think their country is evil, illegitimate, and should be destroyed?

How dumb do you have to be to think that most Americans like their governments?

[skipped over a lot of obvious bad-faith bullshit lol]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

My mistake, I heard about those but assumed it only applied for state-level politicians, not federal politicians they elect. Thanks for letting me know!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@[email protected] This highlights the problem with using relative terms like 'left' and 'center' and 'far'. They're subjective, and in my opinion, shouldn't be used.

I don't know what country or society you're in. "Left" can often mean anything from centrist liberalism (Democrat Party) to nothing less than socialism (socialists often consider liberalism to be in the center). Then you get literal Fascists (as in, Mussolini and Mosley types, unlike Nazi fascists) who throw a stone in the whole thing: their heritage comes from both the traditional left (namely syndicalism) and the right (ultranationalism), and don't neatly fit into progressive or regressive (BUF notably gained many women supporters for their pro-suffrage policies, progressive at the time).

One can avoid arguments like in the OP just by learning the proper terms for political views and ideologies. Are you a progressive liberalist? Are you a social democrat? Are you a democratic socialist? (yes unfortunately those two get confusing)

For more information about the political compass and examples of why it's not a useful tool, I recommend this video.

view more: ‹ prev next ›