When you make this assertion you end up needing to talk about different levels of fascism. Modi, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Marcos, Suharto, Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, and then the Big Three: they're not all exactly in the same category, and not the same as what we have in the US now.
It behooves us to have a rigorous definition of what fascism looks like, connected to a rigorous definition of who fascists are.
I've opted for defining fascism as the petty bourgeois policies that the big bourgeois are comfortable with. Fascism manifests itself differently depending on the material conditions of the time and country so this is definition is general enough while also being clear to anyone with a basic grasp of Marxism. It also covers left-fascism (reactionary social democracy).
Congratulations, you have a definition of fascism that includes the majority of present governments on earth. Do you have any subcategories to separate them from the Third Reich, or are you just fueling the "everything far enough from my position is fascism" allegation?
Like I said, how fascism manifests depends on the material conditions of the place and time. There are some versions that are more violent no doubt, but all of them can and will be as deadly as Nazi Germany if it serves capital. As a Marxist I say that the bourgeoisie are the enemy and fascism is the poison they inflict on us all.
It is worth noting that the US and Western Europe, both the inspirations for fascism and the crevices it was forced back into by the Soviet Union, are now the center of the world system. Their rehabilitation and reintegration of fascists into society is well documented. Their meddling in foreign governments to establish puppet states is well documented. The complete disregard that they and their puppet states have for human life is abundantly clear. Is it that absurd to call the majority of states fascist when they are so clearly controlled by countries that were so intimate with fascism? What could be more fascist than being told that millions of people will die if we don't stop greenhouse gas emissions, having the power to do so, and then choosing to exacerbate the problem by increasing greenhouse gas production? This is exactly what most of these countries are doing at the behest of their financiers in Europe and the US.
I would say that it's more useful to have an umbrella term of "reactionary" that encompasses pro-bourgeois policies, and includes fascism as a specific subset.
When you make this assertion you end up needing to talk about different levels of fascism. Modi, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Marcos, Suharto, Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, and then the Big Three: they're not all exactly in the same category, and not the same as what we have in the US now.
It behooves us to have a rigorous definition of what fascism looks like, connected to a rigorous definition of who fascists are.
The Big Three: Hitler, Mussolini, and a dang cheeto in the White House.
I've opted for defining fascism as the petty bourgeois policies that the big bourgeois are comfortable with. Fascism manifests itself differently depending on the material conditions of the time and country so this is definition is general enough while also being clear to anyone with a basic grasp of Marxism. It also covers left-fascism (reactionary social democracy).
Congratulations, you have a definition of fascism that includes the majority of present governments on earth. Do you have any subcategories to separate them from the Third Reich, or are you just fueling the "everything far enough from my position is fascism" allegation?
Like I said, how fascism manifests depends on the material conditions of the place and time. There are some versions that are more violent no doubt, but all of them can and will be as deadly as Nazi Germany if it serves capital. As a Marxist I say that the bourgeoisie are the enemy and fascism is the poison they inflict on us all.
It is worth noting that the US and Western Europe, both the inspirations for fascism and the crevices it was forced back into by the Soviet Union, are now the center of the world system. Their rehabilitation and reintegration of fascists into society is well documented. Their meddling in foreign governments to establish puppet states is well documented. The complete disregard that they and their puppet states have for human life is abundantly clear. Is it that absurd to call the majority of states fascist when they are so clearly controlled by countries that were so intimate with fascism? What could be more fascist than being told that millions of people will die if we don't stop greenhouse gas emissions, having the power to do so, and then choosing to exacerbate the problem by increasing greenhouse gas production? This is exactly what most of these countries are doing at the behest of their financiers in Europe and the US.
I would say that it's more useful to have an umbrella term of "reactionary" that encompasses pro-bourgeois policies, and includes fascism as a specific subset.
who? Mussolini, Hitler, and ?
Hirohito, although that government doesn't quite fit the mold of the others.