Ron Paul whatever you may think of him is not a fascist. Fascism proposes that war and the profits from it are the primary engine of technological progress and modernisation. A fascist would not be anti-war. The fascists like the proud boys went and fought in Ukraine
Eh, libertarians in the US are just a different kind of fascist as far as im concerned. They're pro-apartheid because of the fig leaf of "property rights" but really theyre just rascists, "anti-war" but only because theyre isolationist who don't understand where the treats come from. The reason they don't support empire is because they think treats materialize from atlas shrugged style industrialists and not from imperial exploitation of the global south. Ron Paul has always been full of shit and a racist clown.
The US empire isn't fascist either it is liberal. Liberalism includes the violent economic exploitation of the global south for imperial benefit a notable example of such a liberal state would be the British empire.
fascism is a specific ideological framework which is incompatible with libertarianism. Both of them are bad but not equally so and it's incorrect to lump them in together
I don't get pedantic when it comes to fash. Its fash all the way down. Liberals are just fash who don't know it yet, but will be in a crisis of capital. Social democracy is the left wing of fascism etc.
that's not not being pedantic it's just being wrong. Fascists love to be lumped in as just another part of the liberal machine
liberals don't magically turn into fascists when capital hits a crisis. When there is a threat of Communism capital will seek safety from violent fascists these will not be the exact same people
calling liberals fascist is barely more politically literate than calling the security guard at the mall fascist for pissing you off
If you accused Ron Paul of being Jack the Ripper i would defend him because what you're accusing him of is blatently false.
There are many legitimate reasons to criticise the man and libertarians but that doesn't make them a fascist.
calling everyone you don't like a fascist undermines your ability to call out fascists like Nick Fuentes and makes them seem like just another part of the right wing. Similar to how republicans calling everything socialist has removed a lot of stigma over the word socialist
The conservative movement that championed Barry Goldwater (who shares Ron Pauls "principled" stance against civil rights) and Ronald Reagan was a crypto-fascist white supremacist movement. After Reagan it became the mainstay of conservative politics in this country. I have a hard time not seeing Nick Fuentes as just another part of the right wing in the US since the right wing in the US has been crypto-fascist my whole life. I think libertarians are completely full of shit about what they believe and that they don't deserve defense just because they pretend to be against US empire sometimes. Is crypto-fash better than fash? I guess, but does it matter? Personally, I don't think so.
You disagree with calling Ron Paul a fascist. Okay. I get that there are differences between the different types of liberals, especially if you want to be specific correct. He's racist, homophobic, antiabortion, he's fought to uphold white supremacist patriarchy his entire life. He is still against the civil rights act. He's against US empire because of archaic isolationist beliefs (ask him about the gold standard lol) and because he thinks taxation is theft and feels agreived that so much money goes to that. So, what does that make him to you? And why is it important to defend libertarians here?
No Reagan was a neoliberal white supremacist. Being racist, white supremacist, anti-abortion, sexist etc are not on their own fascist although they are very much in line with fascism.
fascism is a very specific idea of how society should be run that is admittedly hard to define but does involve a belief in a societal militarism revolving around a conflict of races whereby only some races have a right to exist that also involves the systematic rooting out and killing of those seen as lesser or subversive. That is not Ron Paul but it is Nick Fuentes and the fact you can't see that is terrifying
Reagan began a system of mass impoverishment for black Americans. A fascist would have rounded up and killed them do you see the difference and why I say it is dangerous to conflate them
I think theres a lot less difference between Reagan, Paul, and Fuentes than you do. I'm not saying theres no differnces, I'm just not sure that those differences matter the way you do. I guess because Reagan would have happily rounded up black people and killed them if he could have, and Ron Paul would have been happy to join.
No Reagan wouldn't have rounded up black people to be killed he wanted them as an economic underclass to be exploited and wanted to take away power from black communities that could have been used to challenge capital. He wanted to do these things because he was racist yes but he wasn't an exterminationist. Violent white supremacy does not on it's own qualify as fascist things can be terrible while not being fascist
take the AIDS crisis. A homophobic neoliberal such as Reagan would ignore it as they don't care enough about gay people to affect their belief in the government not being responsible for people's welfare. A fascist would blame the gays, Jews etc and have them all killed
Okay. It sounds like splitting hairs between different kinds of fascists to me, but i respect that these definitions matter to you comrade. Thanks for the discussion :fidel-salute:
Ron Paul whatever you may think of him is not a fascist. Fascism proposes that war and the profits from it are the primary engine of technological progress and modernisation. A fascist would not be anti-war. The fascists like the proud boys went and fought in Ukraine
Eh, libertarians in the US are just a different kind of fascist as far as im concerned. They're pro-apartheid because of the fig leaf of "property rights" but really theyre just rascists, "anti-war" but only because theyre isolationist who don't understand where the treats come from. The reason they don't support empire is because they think treats materialize from atlas shrugged style industrialists and not from imperial exploitation of the global south. Ron Paul has always been full of shit and a racist clown.
The US empire isn't fascist either it is liberal. Liberalism includes the violent economic exploitation of the global south for imperial benefit a notable example of such a liberal state would be the British empire.
fascism is a specific ideological framework which is incompatible with libertarianism. Both of them are bad but not equally so and it's incorrect to lump them in together
I don't get pedantic when it comes to fash. Its fash all the way down. Liberals are just fash who don't know it yet, but will be in a crisis of capital. Social democracy is the left wing of fascism etc.
that's not not being pedantic it's just being wrong. Fascists love to be lumped in as just another part of the liberal machine
liberals don't magically turn into fascists when capital hits a crisis. When there is a threat of Communism capital will seek safety from violent fascists these will not be the exact same people
calling liberals fascist is barely more politically literate than calling the security guard at the mall fascist for pissing you off
Okay cool. But why do you care about defending libertarians, especially Ron Paul of all people?
If you accused Ron Paul of being Jack the Ripper i would defend him because what you're accusing him of is blatently false.
There are many legitimate reasons to criticise the man and libertarians but that doesn't make them a fascist.
calling everyone you don't like a fascist undermines your ability to call out fascists like Nick Fuentes and makes them seem like just another part of the right wing. Similar to how republicans calling everything socialist has removed a lot of stigma over the word socialist
The conservative movement that championed Barry Goldwater (who shares Ron Pauls "principled" stance against civil rights) and Ronald Reagan was a crypto-fascist white supremacist movement. After Reagan it became the mainstay of conservative politics in this country. I have a hard time not seeing Nick Fuentes as just another part of the right wing in the US since the right wing in the US has been crypto-fascist my whole life. I think libertarians are completely full of shit about what they believe and that they don't deserve defense just because they pretend to be against US empire sometimes. Is crypto-fash better than fash? I guess, but does it matter? Personally, I don't think so.
You disagree with calling Ron Paul a fascist. Okay. I get that there are differences between the different types of liberals, especially if you want to be specific correct. He's racist, homophobic, antiabortion, he's fought to uphold white supremacist patriarchy his entire life. He is still against the civil rights act. He's against US empire because of archaic isolationist beliefs (ask him about the gold standard lol) and because he thinks taxation is theft and feels agreived that so much money goes to that. So, what does that make him to you? And why is it important to defend libertarians here?
No Reagan was a neoliberal white supremacist. Being racist, white supremacist, anti-abortion, sexist etc are not on their own fascist although they are very much in line with fascism.
fascism is a very specific idea of how society should be run that is admittedly hard to define but does involve a belief in a societal militarism revolving around a conflict of races whereby only some races have a right to exist that also involves the systematic rooting out and killing of those seen as lesser or subversive. That is not Ron Paul but it is Nick Fuentes and the fact you can't see that is terrifying
Reagan began a system of mass impoverishment for black Americans. A fascist would have rounded up and killed them do you see the difference and why I say it is dangerous to conflate them
I think theres a lot less difference between Reagan, Paul, and Fuentes than you do. I'm not saying theres no differnces, I'm just not sure that those differences matter the way you do. I guess because Reagan would have happily rounded up black people and killed them if he could have, and Ron Paul would have been happy to join.
No Reagan wouldn't have rounded up black people to be killed he wanted them as an economic underclass to be exploited and wanted to take away power from black communities that could have been used to challenge capital. He wanted to do these things because he was racist yes but he wasn't an exterminationist. Violent white supremacy does not on it's own qualify as fascist things can be terrible while not being fascist
take the AIDS crisis. A homophobic neoliberal such as Reagan would ignore it as they don't care enough about gay people to affect their belief in the government not being responsible for people's welfare. A fascist would blame the gays, Jews etc and have them all killed
Okay. It sounds like splitting hairs between different kinds of fascists to me, but i respect that these definitions matter to you comrade. Thanks for the discussion :fidel-salute:
I encourage you to read more leftist theory about what fascism is and how it works.
I respect your rightful anger at Ron Paul and Reagan who are unmistakably ghouls
deleted by creator