What is "Fascism"?

Post Reply New Topic

The question of the "middle ground" and where it sits is an interesting one, but almost entirely subjective, given it can be in a different location based on the individual judging it, as well as what you base it on: As you stated: "America's political "middle ground" isn't actually anywhere near the middle", suggesting that America has a "middle ground", but that this is not the same as some other "middle" to which you are comparing it. As such, it would seem the "middle ground" would only be appropriate with regards to the forum in which the discussion takes place\location being discussed...Discussing the "middle ground" in a "European" context will differ from that in an "American" (or any other) context, simply because of the society\culture\background of that region.

Setting aside the question of how one can determine the "middle", and in fact if some hypothetical "objective middle" can actually exist or be determined, I'd say both sides are equally adept at the "name calling", for example:
* On both sides you have the standard race related ones - one side targetting the person for their race, the other side targeting a person of a given race for not doing what is expected of one of their race.
* On both sides you have terms of disapproval for people of a given sex (generally, though not exclusively female) - commonly either based on their conduct, or their agreement\disagreement with certain opinions\beliefs.
* On both sides you have the politically oriented ones, such as communist\socialist\Alt-right\Nazi\...
* On both sides you have the generalised perjoratives: on one you have terms such as "woke" and "sjw", while on the other there is a wide range of "-phobes" and -isms" (as well as MAGA), all of which the side using considers a "description" of the person\group under discussion, while those on the receiving end would dispute their accuracy and categorise them as "calling names".

Considered on a per-category basis, it may appear one side is more prevalent in this activity, but when considered as a whole, combining all categories\examples\instances, there would likely be little difference between them.

No. The two are not precisely analogous.

Probably, the Climate Change Denier, in the absence of other “denials,” is a bit less oblivious and blind than a Holocaust Denier.

Looks like a clever new strategy on the horizon. Rather than use their own words, they're sticking to quoting other people. Saves them from having to be accountable for what THEY say, since THEY technically didn't say it, they merely repeated someone else's words.

I'll add "fascism" to the list of "things that aren't things".

Not a bad idea though. After all, if you can't use words that describe extreme behavior, you can't talk about extreme behavior, and are by proxy forced to use softer language to describe legitimately harsh acts. It also allows the ability to claim that that thing no longer exists, because "nobody talks about it anymore". After all, there are no "homeless people" if there are only "arbitrarily migrant individuals" (this term approve by the Committee of Acceptable Vocabulary). We solved homelessness! Like the New York mayor that "solved homelessness" by arresting all homeless people and putting them in asylums. True story, speaking of fascism. Rounding up people and locking them up without due process. Does that count as fascism? Or merely "involuntary re-homing"...?

Fascism is discrimination against against anyone or anything that isn't seen as typical in the eyes of a bigot.

It's a shame this addresses a mystical "they", rather than an identifed person\people, as without having this identification, there's a good chance they aren't even aware you are discussing them, and so won't be able to explain the reason behind their actions.

Then again, I imagine referring to a mystical "they", rather than directing a remark towards a specific person\people, is protection for the person doing so from being held accountable for what they say\imply about them...



Is there anything wrong with trying to determine what a given term, commonly used as a pejorative, is believed to mean?

Given the material used as a starting point in the thread to determine a "definition", which was written by someone who had lived through a time where there existed a party built around the term, and where governments of this type were supposedly in existance, suggests people at that time couldn't come to a conclusion as to the meaning, it would seem quite reasonable to try and determine what is meant when it is used today.

Having considered some of the responces, along with various examples of its present use, it seems the conclusions from this earlier time still appear to be the most appropriate, even now.

It depends how far back you're willing to step (assuming one is able to realise that might be necessary in the first place). The most commonly used scale (it's not the only one, but let's stick with it for simplicity) for the political spectrum stretches from communism on the far left to fascism on the far right. The bit in the middle gets complicated as some centrist parties occupy an obvious, narrow position on the scale whereas others may 'cherry pick' from a far wider band of options. That's the political equivalent of comparing (5+5+5+5+5) / 5 = 5 with (7+6+5+4+3) / 5 = 5, when communism is a 1 and fascism a 10. It can also be argued that anarchism is effectively ultra right-wing and ultra left-wing at the same time, effectively turning the whole thing into a loop. Right-wing because it's the ultimate expression of libertarianism and ultra-competitive survival of the fittest, left-wing because allegedly that would result in the re-establishment of mutually beneficial social cooperation without the shackles of the modern day State, maaan. So in a confusing tangent, -1 = 11, supposedly.

I totally agree every human being is capable of name-calling, it's one of our most universal traits.

Where it gets really interesting (and significant distortions begin to occur) is in the ideological control of the political spectrum different nations and peoples operate within. The "society\culture\background of [a] region" that you mention. You seem to be implying that such things are passive and permanent, but they aren't. They can be manipulated, changed and controlled to limit the range of political, economic and social choices that are open for discussion within a society.

Louis Althusser coined the terms Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs) and Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) to explain how people are controlled within society throughout their lives. Althusser was a French Marxist, but the concepts ring broadly true wherever you happen to sit on the political spectrum.

RSAs are direct force, so action by the Police or Armed Forces on behalf of the state to quell dissent and restore the authority of the ruling culture. So for a topical example, recent US Police action against BLM and MAGA protests. They're very obvious displays of power and control.

ISAs are more subtle - education, religion, family structure, societal norms (manners, etiquette, race or gender stereotypes, status symbols, measures of success), organisational hierachies, selective control of information by the media etc. etc. These build the social framework you operate in, but they also define its limits.

There's a good introduction here, reading it will not turn you into a Communist but it might broaden your world view:

RSAs and ISAs

The net result of all this is, not everyone sees the full range of social / economic / political options that could be available for discussion, because that wouldn't be in the interests of whoever is in charge. That's normally pretty blatant when it comes to dictatorships - RSAs are used more readily and ruthlessly, propaganda is blatant, and control of social institutions for political ends seems obvious to an outsider. But is it obvious to those on the inside, who've never known anything different? If all your books at school are written with a particular agenda in mind, how would you know?

An obvious candidate for this sort of analysis is the USSR, which clearly went in for anti-capitalist brainwashing in a big way. In terms of our scale from 1 to 10, the Soviet Union limited the political awareness of its citizens to the range between 1 and 2. It's very easy to point and laugh at the gullible Soviets, believing all that obvious nonsense. But in doing so we forget that we too are subject to similar controls but in the opposite political direction. What we're allowed to see, understand and discuss is limited too, albeit under a thin veneer of "freedom". The difference in western democracies is that the control is nearly all subconscious through ISAs, with RSAs normally kept as a background threat.

If you live within the social construct and never question it, your idea of what is normal and what choices there are will be very different to someone who has stepped outside. That's my point about "middle ground". To Americans the middle is between the Democrats and Republicans, even though both parties are on the right wing in international terms. On our scale of 1 to 10 the overwhelming majority of American political dialogue since WW2 has been between 6 and 8. That hasn't happened by accident. It's a deliberate construct to keep those at the top of the tree exactly where they are, by removing choices that would cause them any significant threat. Bizarrely the GOP have made a big thing recently of the "Democrat ruling elite" but the ruling elite has just as many Republicans in it, and trying to bolster the right hand side of American politics doesn't solve the problem, it exacerbates it. All that is doing is moving the artificial range slightly further right, let's say from 6 - 8 to 6.5 - 8.5, thus shifting the equally artificial mid-point from 7 to 7.5.

The fact that Americans think they're having valid left vs. right political discussions, when they're actually having right vs. more right ones, simply illustrates how tightly the ISA framework is being run. It also means that, no matter what people stuck within that framework think, the balance between justifiable and unjustifiable name-calling is not equal on both sides, because the accuracy is greatly influenced by the artificial mid position. Within the framework (The Matrix, haha) all is fair and justified, but that's a false environment to start with. And that's not a natural, accidental, organic kind of thing, it is most definitely engineered. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as close to Che Guevara politically as Donald Trump was to Augusto Pinochet. That doesn't mean either was particularly close to their supposed counterpart, I'm talking about relative proximity when making comparisons, or indeed calling names. From 6 to 1 is a much greater step than from 8 to 9 on the scale. But if you ask most Americans they'd probably say the Sanders comparison was more valid than the Trump one. Why? Because they're starting from a "central" position that's actually 7.5 on the scale, now.

Last edited by Redd_Kross on 04 Feb 2021, 10:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Why people call left-wingers "commies" as an insult

Why people call right-wingers "fascists" as an insult

Differences between fascism and communism

Hallmarks of a Fascist Regime
By Skip Stone

*One leader who has nearly absolute control of government, despite pretense otherwise. There is no effective opposition to his policies.
*All opposition held in check through various overt and covert means (although they go thru the motions of being an opposition).
*Limited public debate about policies.
*Control over media. Media only reports what government allows it to report. Covert Censorship.
Rigged Elections
*Constant appeals to Patriotism with lots of flag waving. Flags and/or images of the Leader appear everywhere. Those who don't follow along are singled out and ridiculed.
*Vocal Opponents end up dead under mysterious circumstances (Like Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Paul Wellstone for example)
*Leader passes laws giving himself even more powers
*Controls the masses through Fear Mongering
*Scapegoating. Certain class of people blamed for the problems the leader faces, justifying new laws and military actions.
*Must have an ongoing war [or controversy] to keep people's minds off how dysfunctional their own government is.
*No real policy to improve the lives of the average person.
*Leader surrounded only by trusted friends and business people who profit handsomely.
*Most actions favor insiders, friends and Corporate entities at the expense of the people. Laws that monitor and control business practices are removed.
*Constantly preaching morality to the masses (to cover their own immoral actions)
*Government involved in numerous illegal activities, all kept secret through various means.
*Violates, disrespects or refuses to agree to World Conventions on Human Rights, international norms of conduct, and other laws. All manner of excuses offered.
*Spy agencies given broad new powers and funding.
*Government increases covert activities against its own citizens. Citizens are urged to spy on citizens.
*Many civil liberties restricted or suspended.
*An incredible amount of blood is spilled, with no obvious benefit except to those in power.

Does ANY of this sound familiar where you live? Then YOU'RE LIVING under Fascism!

Some well known fascists:
Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Marcos, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Suharto, Sukarno, Pinochet, Milosovich, Bush, Trump.
Please note at one time or another most of these people were either trained or supported by the US government and had numerous business dealings with US corporations.

Fascism is a political ideology, practice and religion that seeks national unity through patriotism, collectivism and strong suppression or extermination of any liberalism and opposition. Fascism generally treats any individual as a subservient to the group; those who do not accept this are considered as enemies; the dictatorship of the strongly organized group is justified. Fascism usually implies the existence of a at least one strong leader, fuhrer; the canonical texts by the leader are considered as irrefutable true. In such a way, fascism substitutes all the historical concepts of morality with submission to the interests of the patriotic group, expressed by the leader.