HAVANA (AP) — Four Russian warships, including a nuclear-powered submarine, will arrive in Havana next week, Cuban officials said Thursday, citing “historically friendly relations”…
I'm not going to hide the ball. My point is that fascism is more than just "country has a long-term ruler the U.S. doesn't like."
The embrace of fascism by its ruling political party, the fascist political structure, the fact that it's built in the image of another fascist state
These are circular -- "it's fascist because it's fascist" --
and the last two are the same point. It's not the formal structure of a government that makes it fascist, either; the actions of the government matter more than the words in the constitution.
its embrace of anti-communism
Getting closer, but this doesn't fit the facts. Russia's second-largest party is the Communist Party. While Russia, as a capitalist state, is hostile to communism, it's less hostile than any Western European state, to say nothing of the U.S., and it's nowhere close to your classic examples of fascism like Nazi Germany, Pinochet's Chile, the ROC, the ROK, etc.
anti-minority (whether those be gender and sexual minorities or religious and ethnic minorities)
Painting with far too broad of brush. Every country on the planet has work to do on treating all minority populations fairly, and most have had explicitly anti-minority policies in the recent past. These are reactionary policies and bad, but there's a far cry between that and fascism. Was Cuba fascist before its new Family Code was passed? Is the U.S. not fascist if a queer woman can become a drone pilot?
all the fucking nazis and fascists involved with or connected to the ruling party
There are Nazi elements present in every capitalist country. Is every non-AES state fascist? Seems reductive.
I'm not going to argue this unless you can provide me a definition of fascism (I.e. not "Must call their ruling party "The fascist party") that is useful and doesn't include the Russian government.
Actually let me rephrase:
Come up with a definition that includes Chile, the RoC under the KMT, South Korea, et al, but does not include Russia.
Such a definition does not exist, and cannot exist. Classic definitions of fascism promulgated by people like Robert Paxton fit Russia, definitions of fascism like a decaying capitalist state run by a bourgeois lashing promulgated by people like Clara Zetkin fit Russia, definitions like Dmitrov's definition of fascism as the most reactionary forces of finance capitalism having control over the capitalist state fit Russia.
But apparently Russia isn't fascist because fascism is more than just being fascist.
The problem with most definitions of fascism is that they apply in one degree or another to virtually every capitalist country. This is especially true if one plays a little loose with the facts, or isn't careful about what governmental actions are common vs. exceptional. And reducing it to fascism = capitalism is unhelpful for a half dozen ways.
I'd define fascism by two characteristics:
The state is ran nominally on behalf of capital, but capital is ultimately subject to the whims of the state. Contrast this with socialism, where capital is similarly under state control, but the state is ran on behalf of the people, and also with capitalism, where capital is both the main beneficiary and is completely running the show. Imagine a wealthy capitalist who displeases the state. Under fascism, the state is ultimately in charge: it can arrest or even execute the capitalist on any or no charges, seize property, etc. Under capitalism, capitalists have strong protections against the state -- rich guy justice -- and unhappy capitalists can and do depose unsatisfactory state actors. A capitalist state has to please its capitalist masters; a fascist state may play nice with capitalists, but the state is the master.
State repression is at an advanced, ubiquitous stage, where it's more of an affirmative policy than a response against opponents. This is the "imperialism fully coming home to roost" part of fascism. Internal repressive institutions aren't occasionally dipping into grotesque tactics; it's now standard operating procedure. Seeking out and destroying (not merely harassing) internal enemies is an affirmative, constant mandate of these institutions, not something they kick into high gear during a crisis. The mandate to destroy (again, not merely harass) internal enemies far exceeds the legitimate police functions of the state (e.g., pursuing crimes that nearly any state would prosecute).
For 1, I think Russian capitalists still have plenty of power and control over the Russian state. For 2, I don't think internal repression in Russia is anywhere near the scale and severity of, for instance, the White Terror under the ROC or the disappearing of prisoners in the Southern Cone regimes of the Cold War.
That would be an interesting definition of fascism, but it fails the test of including regimes that were listed as fascist.
Pinochet's Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet's power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state.
I'm more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.
As for the RoK, that was fully a subject state to US capital interests.
I'm also pretty sure the US is considered fascist in this particular discussion (Or at least that was my understanding), and I think the US capitalist class is kind of uniquely powerful.
If we are to set up a very restrictive definition of fascism, that one would be a worthy one to consider. But I don't think it's a correct or useful one for this particular discussion given our previous inclusions of other regimes that do not fit within it.
It is certainly one that would fit for a lot of traditional 20th century fascist powers, and one with a very clear outlook on what is being discussed.
Pinochet's Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet's power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state.
Do you know of any examples of capitalists having a genuine conflict with Pinochet and winning? I don't, because I don't think there were many conflicts between those two parties to begin with.
I suppose you could look at Chile, the ROC, and the ROK as neocolonies instead of relatively weak fascist states, but then you could describe a colony as a weaker fascist client of the metropole, too.
I'm also pretty sure the US is considered fascist
I'd say it's capitalist (it would be a lot easier for Jeff Bezos to get rid of Joe Biden than the other way around, so it fails condition 1) but imperialist (comfortable doing fascism abroad). As bad as its internal repressive institutions are, they're still far from the scale and severity of governments most would label fascist. Would fascist police bother with body cams and similar reforms?
Looking at this the other way: what definition of fascism includes Russia, but doesn't also include almost every capitalist country?
Do you know of any examples of capitalists having a genuine conflict with Pinochet and winning? I don't, because I don't think there were many conflicts between those two parties to begin with.
I mean his attempt to stay in power? He lost enough influence that he lost his role and was not only unable to maintain the military rule, but was unable to maintain any official role within the state despite his attempt to.
Isn't that pretty explicitly him losing a conflict with his bourgeois backers?
Or would that not qualify (And if so what specifically would qualify?)
Looking at this the other way: what definition of fascism includes Russia, but doesn't also include almost every capitalist country?
I don't have a totally cogent and empirical definition, but I tend to agree with Franz Neumann (Well, the Chavismo reading of Neumann) that fascism is a conspiracy by big business and government. Where the interests of capital and the interests of the state in the face of crisis blend together and form a united front that rather than face the crisis begin to oppose their "common enemy" the proletariat and the "proletariatized", through a call to action that seeks to rally the population under a reactionary banner that still remains elitist even if the movement is supposedly a popular one.
Which is a fairly broad definition and you could include many capitalist regimes in that (If you can call a group of people "Oligarchs" without irony you're halfway there). The US would certainly qualify, as would Israel and the UK. On the other hand states like China, Venezuela, Cuba, et al obviously don't. Most states that still have vestiges of Keynesianism or developmental capitalism at least try to address their crises and so may escape, and others give no pretext to a popular movement and are essentially despotic or aristocratic without necessarily being fascist (But are certainly fascist adjacent. Like I'm not gonna complain if someone calls Saudi Arabia fascist, even if I don't think it technically qualifies)
Edit: also of course this definition imo does include the RoC with the KMT (Who at least tried to become a popular nationalist movement, and who did respond to crisis by blending together capital and state and going after anyone but the problem), Pinochet's Chile, and I'm not entirely sure about worst korea but it would at least be fascist adjacent.
pretty specifically said I think a lot of countries don't fit this definition of fascism. I also don't think I meaningfully agree with your definition of collaborator.
I think working with Russia is lamentable. Hence, cringe. I think if Cuba gets anything from it, that's their decision to make but I would be cautious and pessimistic about the affair, bearing in mind that they are cooperating with a fascist power that is only not a full collaborator with the western hegemony because the US decided to exclude them, and who has not been able to stop the US from interfering with other Latin American countries.
I don't think engaging with this makes them meaningfully supportive of fascism as an ideology. But I think forging closer connections to other powers would have been better news.
Its so strange that you can understand most basic Russia material reasons for supporting Cuba yet you somehow think the Cubans shouldn't trust in those reasons. Also what in the world is your definiton of collaborator if it somehow doesn't include things like being in BRICS? Im curious to see if it actually means something and is not just and excuse to avoid calling every AES state fascist for thinking Russia is a reliable friend.
The soviets got what they could from the Germans before the war started, and got as much industrial support as they could from western powers to set up their own manufacturing and industrial base and I view this in and BRICS in similar terms. Calling the Soviet Union under Stalin "Fascist collaborators" would be ridiculous, but arguing that the nazis were not fascists would be equally ridiculous.
Although I don't find Russia to be quite as virulent as the nazis, the point of "Get what you can and ditch the fascists as soon as you can" to be about the same, and I wish they found another way.
He lost enough influence that he lost his role and was not only unable to maintain the military rule, but was unable to maintain any official role within the state despite his attempt to.
Pinochet wasn't the sole ruler, but the leader of a junta. In 1980, the junta announced a referendum would be held in 1988. He lost, and from my understanding it was other members of the junta -- military and police officials -- who frustrated his attempts to ignore the result. I think this was a result of international pressure (the regime kept killing or disappearing foreign citizens, plus the pope condemned the government), the neutering of the socialist movement around the world (the Cold War was ending), and Pinochet getting old (the term he wanted from the '88 referendum would have had him rule well into his 80s).
Pinochet did maintain a role in government, too. He was commander in chief of the army until '98 and a senator "for life" until '02.
Which is a fairly broad definition and you could include many capitalist regimes
This makes it unworkable for me -- what capitalist regimes wouldn't fit? There is no capitalist state where the interests of capital and the interests of the state aren't closely aligned, because capitalism is characterized by the state controlling the working class on behalf of capital. There's occasional state pushback (liberalism), but it's all very gentle and inevitably rolled back.
I'm more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.
I mean the ROC during the Warlord Era functionally wasn't even a state, let along a capitalist state. Unless you want to give fascism a transhistorical character (ie you want to speak of "Carolingian fascism" or call Julius Caesar a fascist), it doesn't make sense to call ROC fascist. The understanding of Chinese academia is that the particular mode of production that China had during the Century of Humiliation, of which the Warlord Era was a latter stage of it, was semi-feudal semi-colonial. Thus, it cannot be fascist by the vast majority of Marxist definitions which explicitly specifies that the mode of production has to be capitalist. Otherwise, we can spend an eternity arguing whether Kublai Khan was fascist or whether Cyrus the Great was fascist.
Now, if you're talking about the ROC declaring martial law in Taiwan after getting kicked out of the Mainland by the PLA, eh. I think it's more Bonapartist than fascist. Taiwanese finance capitalists didn't exist at that time since Taiwan was previously a Japanese colony, and at any case, Chiang Kai-Shek wasn't going to rely on a bunch of benshengren capitalists who collaborated with the Japanese when his power base was waishengren ex-landlords who fled with him. Chiang Kai-Shek also introduced "land reform" where he expropriated land from benshengren landlord collaborators and gave the land to waishengren landlords had their land expropriated by the the CPC.
Let me tell you something about the book you haven’t read but are citing like the wanker you are.
Half of it is a description of why even Franco’s Spain shouldn’t be considered fascist.
But you, the wanker, haven’t read it and you don’t know that. You don’t know the book you’re citing is explicitly about drawing boundaries and lines to delineate fascism from other forms of bourgeois dictatorships, militarism, and other forms of authoritarianism.
You fucking wanker. You haven’t read the book. Haha and you’re being all “wrongo” smug about it.
The problem with citing works you blatantly have not read is that many people here have.
And those of us who actually have read a book think you’re an idiot.
Let me remind you that Robert Paxton has now reached a point where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism in the US and that under Trump the US was fascist in a way it wasn't before and after. So the idea that his definition and understanding of fascism is an inherently very narrow one is just pointless.
Robert Paxton argued that fascism comes from a specific confluence of events in which the traditional elite relies on a radical right wing to maintain their power due to having lost legitimacy or needing power to suppress the left, forming a coalition between traditional stake holders in the state (Like capitalists, clergy, nobility, what have you. In the Russian case this would be the capitalist class who bought out the state during the shock doctrine) and right wing nationalism which tends towards a mass movement character. This movement co-opts the popularity of the movement into a suppression of "actual democracy" (Really liberal bourgeois dictatorship of course) and maintains power by balancing the powers of the coalitions.
This movement then either decays into generic "authoritarian" rule under the traditional elite, or is increasingly radicalized towards genocidal redemptive violence.
Russia of course decayed into oligarchic fascist rule by the traditional power brokers.
Robert Paxton has now reached a point where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism in the US and that under Trump the US was fascist in a way it wasn't before and after
This is an awful take. He thinks Trump was exceptionally different from prior U.S. presidents (by a way other than his rhetoric), that we voted fascism out, but that Genocide Joe is not fascist?
This is an awful take. He thinks Trump was exceptionally different from prior U.S. presidents (by a way other than his rhetoric),
Yes. He does. Which is why I think it's not useful to say that his definition of fascism is uniquely restrictive.
I have a suspicion that my interlocutor, given their focus on Francoist Spain was actually thinking of Stanley Payne who does have a very restrictive definition of fascism that specifically excludes francoism... because he is a francoist.
I'll address your other bigger point because it is actually worth addressing, I just saw this first.
Trump's incitement of the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2020 removes my objection to the fascist label. His open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line. The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary. It is made even more plausible by comparison with a milestone on Europe's road to fascism—an openly fascist demonstration in Paris during the night of February 6, 1934.
You’re lying again.
Here’s a link to the article you cited but didn’t link because you’re such a dishonest fucking hack.
Paxton hasn’t changed his opinion AT ALL you fucking liar. He didn’t magically make his definition of fascism more broad and inclusive like you are dishonestly presenting here.
He applied his exclusive definition and pointed specifically to inciting public violence to work along side his political movement. How does that apply to Putin you dishonest hack?
In what sense at all has Paxton “reached the point” of changing his definition as defined in that book you haven’t read when finally removing his resistance to calling Trump fascist in light of specifically Jan 6th?
You’re pretending Paxton has shifted to a broad and inclusive definition of fascism and he absolutely has not you liar. If you had read anatomy of fascism then you wouldn’t have claimed what you just did.
No I don't think I have pretended that Robert Paxton sat down and decided to fully rewrite his work during the Trump years, that would have been dishonest. But that his own interpretation of what is considered fascist is broad enough to include Trump but not any previous US president, and that this constitutes a lack of rigor that he has adopted in part out of his own political opinions on Trump becoming sourer through his reign. Which is evident when you compare his first article and his second article.
I think you're just mad that I have demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about.
where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism
This is a fucking lie though. Paxton explicitly argued against equating Trumpism with fascism even in the article where he calls Trump a fascist and if you had read the book you cited and then pretended to have read you would understand why he called it an anatomy of fascism.
No it isn't. He also in the same breath where he points out that Trumpism has differences to traditional fascism point out htat Trump has differences to traditional fascism, but clarifies without making a distinction that the label is not only right but necessarily applied.
It's also of course right before he makes a specific comparison and equivalence between the fascist french veterans storming the parliament and the US protestors storming the capitol on January 6th.
Insults are not a substitute for an argument.
The incitement of public violence is explicitly makes Trump a fascist, to Paxton, and that’s entirely consistent with his book that you pretended to have read and means you were a dishonest hack to present this as though Paxton’s definition of exclusions and attributes is somehow some washy “fascism is a vibe” thing.
That’s not his definition at all, he’s all about line drawing, and he likes bright lines.
And citing books you haven’t read and then pretending to have read them and then saying “I proved I know what I’m talking about” when all you’re proving is that you haven’t read the book you pretended to have read is what makes you a fucking wanker and a hack.
I don't know how to respond to this except to say you're just not arguing with anything I've said, and in the process you've said a lot of stuff that's not true and quite obviously so?
I'm not logging off explicitly out of spite. I didn't give a shit about this beyond saying "Cringe" until the pile on started.
In other words, reddit moment #2
I think you're madder tho. I just read thru all the comments and I'm as annoyed with you as I am with all redditors who wnader in here.
Especially with how Not Mad you took the time to say you were. You're responding to everyone to tell them you're Not Mad, I'm just responding to you.
You should really log out. You're talking about spite and stuff, that's a bad coping mechanic.
yeah i've been down this road before, you aren't doing anything. nothing you will say will change anything. You've already labeled yourself as a subject of mockery, so just fucking leave and let them forget your name so you can just go on. Also just change this stupid opinion of yours.
comrade i am trans don't tell me shit. you're using that card specifically to try to escape your well deserved criticism.
No, I am using that card specifically because it's not actually okay to use gendered slurs about others. Even if you are a woman. I did however remove it because I realize that citing gendered language as a problem is not my place to say to a trans person, especially given that I realize that I am quick to use "Guy" about an unknown gender so it would be hypocritical. The criticism of the slur I feel is still valid. Don't use that kind of language.
Also I'm not gonna leave because you tell me. My opinion is correct, and a bunch of people being wrong at me isn't gonna change anything. If "Many people are disagreeing at me" was a thing that changed opinions, none of you would have migrated over from reddit, you would have just maintained your reddit opinions. Instead you just kept the attitude to arguing.
i don't care at all lmao you are deflecting from the fact you are taking an ultraleft position on literally something as easy as 'cuba getting supplies and sovereignty back with the help of russia' and going 'cringe dude'
lmfao you're really trying to find any solid ground and honestly its my bad for giving any, you seem to be out of it
Honestly through this whole thread you've given me nothing but the vibe of being a smug cracker sooooooooo I dunno why you're surprised you're getting called this, that, and the third by people slightly-less-principled.
I mean, she's a chick; so I don't begrudge her the right to reclaim. It might not fly here, specifically; but I'm not finna begrudge her that because be damned if I'd let some cracker police my speech. And fuck off with your pithy "reddit moment", "reddit moment", "maximum reddit" liberal-assed "flag on the play" debate-referee bullshit. Pot, kettle, rim me. Serious people address content, not tone, you fuckin yankee hack.
I'm not going to hide the ball. My point is that fascism is more than just "country has a long-term ruler the U.S. doesn't like."
These are circular -- "it's fascist because it's fascist" -- and the last two are the same point. It's not the formal structure of a government that makes it fascist, either; the actions of the government matter more than the words in the constitution.
Getting closer, but this doesn't fit the facts. Russia's second-largest party is the Communist Party. While Russia, as a capitalist state, is hostile to communism, it's less hostile than any Western European state, to say nothing of the U.S., and it's nowhere close to your classic examples of fascism like Nazi Germany, Pinochet's Chile, the ROC, the ROK, etc.
Painting with far too broad of brush. Every country on the planet has work to do on treating all minority populations fairly, and most have had explicitly anti-minority policies in the recent past. These are reactionary policies and bad, but there's a far cry between that and fascism. Was Cuba fascist before its new Family Code was passed? Is the U.S. not fascist if a queer woman can become a drone pilot?
There are Nazi elements present in every capitalist country. Is every non-AES state fascist? Seems reductive.
I'm not going to argue this unless you can provide me a definition of fascism (I.e. not "Must call their ruling party "The fascist party") that is useful and doesn't include the Russian government. Actually let me rephrase: Come up with a definition that includes Chile, the RoC under the KMT, South Korea, et al, but does not include Russia.
Such a definition does not exist, and cannot exist. Classic definitions of fascism promulgated by people like Robert Paxton fit Russia, definitions of fascism like a decaying capitalist state run by a bourgeois lashing promulgated by people like Clara Zetkin fit Russia, definitions like Dmitrov's definition of fascism as the most reactionary forces of finance capitalism having control over the capitalist state fit Russia. But apparently Russia isn't fascist because fascism is more than just being fascist.
The problem with most definitions of fascism is that they apply in one degree or another to virtually every capitalist country. This is especially true if one plays a little loose with the facts, or isn't careful about what governmental actions are common vs. exceptional. And reducing it to fascism = capitalism is unhelpful for a half dozen ways.
I'd define fascism by two characteristics:
For 1, I think Russian capitalists still have plenty of power and control over the Russian state. For 2, I don't think internal repression in Russia is anywhere near the scale and severity of, for instance, the White Terror under the ROC or the disappearing of prisoners in the Southern Cone regimes of the Cold War.
That would be an interesting definition of fascism, but it fails the test of including regimes that were listed as fascist. Pinochet's Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet's power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state. I'm more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.
As for the RoK, that was fully a subject state to US capital interests.
I'm also pretty sure the US is considered fascist in this particular discussion (Or at least that was my understanding), and I think the US capitalist class is kind of uniquely powerful.
If we are to set up a very restrictive definition of fascism, that one would be a worthy one to consider. But I don't think it's a correct or useful one for this particular discussion given our previous inclusions of other regimes that do not fit within it. It is certainly one that would fit for a lot of traditional 20th century fascist powers, and one with a very clear outlook on what is being discussed.
Do you know of any examples of capitalists having a genuine conflict with Pinochet and winning? I don't, because I don't think there were many conflicts between those two parties to begin with.
I suppose you could look at Chile, the ROC, and the ROK as neocolonies instead of relatively weak fascist states, but then you could describe a colony as a weaker fascist client of the metropole, too.
I'd say it's capitalist (it would be a lot easier for Jeff Bezos to get rid of Joe Biden than the other way around, so it fails condition 1) but imperialist (comfortable doing fascism abroad). As bad as its internal repressive institutions are, they're still far from the scale and severity of governments most would label fascist. Would fascist police bother with body cams and similar reforms?
Looking at this the other way: what definition of fascism includes Russia, but doesn't also include almost every capitalist country?
I mean his attempt to stay in power? He lost enough influence that he lost his role and was not only unable to maintain the military rule, but was unable to maintain any official role within the state despite his attempt to. Isn't that pretty explicitly him losing a conflict with his bourgeois backers?
Or would that not qualify (And if so what specifically would qualify?)
I don't have a totally cogent and empirical definition, but I tend to agree with Franz Neumann (Well, the Chavismo reading of Neumann) that fascism is a conspiracy by big business and government. Where the interests of capital and the interests of the state in the face of crisis blend together and form a united front that rather than face the crisis begin to oppose their "common enemy" the proletariat and the "proletariatized", through a call to action that seeks to rally the population under a reactionary banner that still remains elitist even if the movement is supposedly a popular one.
Which is a fairly broad definition and you could include many capitalist regimes in that (If you can call a group of people "Oligarchs" without irony you're halfway there). The US would certainly qualify, as would Israel and the UK. On the other hand states like China, Venezuela, Cuba, et al obviously don't. Most states that still have vestiges of Keynesianism or developmental capitalism at least try to address their crises and so may escape, and others give no pretext to a popular movement and are essentially despotic or aristocratic without necessarily being fascist (But are certainly fascist adjacent. Like I'm not gonna complain if someone calls Saudi Arabia fascist, even if I don't think it technically qualifies)
Edit: also of course this definition imo does include the RoC with the KMT (Who at least tried to become a popular nationalist movement, and who did respond to crisis by blending together capital and state and going after anyone but the problem), Pinochet's Chile, and I'm not entirely sure about worst korea but it would at least be fascist adjacent.
With a definition this broad the only states that currently exist are either fascist or fascist collaborators. How this useful to anyone?
pretty specifically said I think a lot of countries don't fit this definition of fascism. I also don't think I meaningfully agree with your definition of collaborator.
I think working with Russia is lamentable. Hence, cringe. I think if Cuba gets anything from it, that's their decision to make but I would be cautious and pessimistic about the affair, bearing in mind that they are cooperating with a fascist power that is only not a full collaborator with the western hegemony because the US decided to exclude them, and who has not been able to stop the US from interfering with other Latin American countries. I don't think engaging with this makes them meaningfully supportive of fascism as an ideology. But I think forging closer connections to other powers would have been better news.
Its so strange that you can understand most basic Russia material reasons for supporting Cuba yet you somehow think the Cubans shouldn't trust in those reasons. Also what in the world is your definiton of collaborator if it somehow doesn't include things like being in BRICS? Im curious to see if it actually means something and is not just and excuse to avoid calling every AES state fascist for thinking Russia is a reliable friend.
The soviets got what they could from the Germans before the war started, and got as much industrial support as they could from western powers to set up their own manufacturing and industrial base and I view this in and BRICS in similar terms. Calling the Soviet Union under Stalin "Fascist collaborators" would be ridiculous, but arguing that the nazis were not fascists would be equally ridiculous.
Although I don't find Russia to be quite as virulent as the nazis, the point of "Get what you can and ditch the fascists as soon as you can" to be about the same, and I wish they found another way.
Pinochet wasn't the sole ruler, but the leader of a junta. In 1980, the junta announced a referendum would be held in 1988. He lost, and from my understanding it was other members of the junta -- military and police officials -- who frustrated his attempts to ignore the result. I think this was a result of international pressure (the regime kept killing or disappearing foreign citizens, plus the pope condemned the government), the neutering of the socialist movement around the world (the Cold War was ending), and Pinochet getting old (the term he wanted from the '88 referendum would have had him rule well into his 80s).
Pinochet did maintain a role in government, too. He was commander in chief of the army until '98 and a senator "for life" until '02.
This makes it unworkable for me -- what capitalist regimes wouldn't fit? There is no capitalist state where the interests of capital and the interests of the state aren't closely aligned, because capitalism is characterized by the state controlling the working class on behalf of capital. There's occasional state pushback (liberalism), but it's all very gentle and inevitably rolled back.
I mean the ROC during the Warlord Era functionally wasn't even a state, let along a capitalist state. Unless you want to give fascism a transhistorical character (ie you want to speak of "Carolingian fascism" or call Julius Caesar a fascist), it doesn't make sense to call ROC fascist. The understanding of Chinese academia is that the particular mode of production that China had during the Century of Humiliation, of which the Warlord Era was a latter stage of it, was semi-feudal semi-colonial. Thus, it cannot be fascist by the vast majority of Marxist definitions which explicitly specifies that the mode of production has to be capitalist. Otherwise, we can spend an eternity arguing whether Kublai Khan was fascist or whether Cyrus the Great was fascist.
Now, if you're talking about the ROC declaring martial law in Taiwan after getting kicked out of the Mainland by the PLA, eh. I think it's more Bonapartist than fascist. Taiwanese finance capitalists didn't exist at that time since Taiwan was previously a Japanese colony, and at any case, Chiang Kai-Shek wasn't going to rely on a bunch of benshengren capitalists who collaborated with the Japanese when his power base was waishengren ex-landlords who fled with him. Chiang Kai-Shek also introduced "land reform" where he expropriated land from benshengren landlord collaborators and gave the land to waishengren landlords had their land expropriated by the the CPC.
wtf Paxton’s anatomy of fascism absolutely does not apply to Russia.
Sound off all you want but read the book before citing it you wanker.
It sure does though.
Of all the definitions of fascism, Paxton’s would fit Russia the least of them.
You haven’t read it. It’s really obvious. Fuck off.
Wrongo.
Righto.
Let me tell you something about the book you haven’t read but are citing like the wanker you are.
Half of it is a description of why even Franco’s Spain shouldn’t be considered fascist.
But you, the wanker, haven’t read it and you don’t know that. You don’t know the book you’re citing is explicitly about drawing boundaries and lines to delineate fascism from other forms of bourgeois dictatorships, militarism, and other forms of authoritarianism.
You fucking wanker. You haven’t read the book. Haha and you’re being all “wrongo” smug about it.
The problem with citing works you blatantly have not read is that many people here have.
And those of us who actually have read a book think you’re an idiot.
Let me remind you that Robert Paxton has now reached a point where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism in the US and that under Trump the US was fascist in a way it wasn't before and after. So the idea that his definition and understanding of fascism is an inherently very narrow one is just pointless.
Robert Paxton argued that fascism comes from a specific confluence of events in which the traditional elite relies on a radical right wing to maintain their power due to having lost legitimacy or needing power to suppress the left, forming a coalition between traditional stake holders in the state (Like capitalists, clergy, nobility, what have you. In the Russian case this would be the capitalist class who bought out the state during the shock doctrine) and right wing nationalism which tends towards a mass movement character. This movement co-opts the popularity of the movement into a suppression of "actual democracy" (Really liberal bourgeois dictatorship of course) and maintains power by balancing the powers of the coalitions. This movement then either decays into generic "authoritarian" rule under the traditional elite, or is increasingly radicalized towards genocidal redemptive violence.
Russia of course decayed into oligarchic fascist rule by the traditional power brokers.
This is an awful take. He thinks Trump was exceptionally different from prior U.S. presidents (by a way other than his rhetoric), that we voted fascism out, but that Genocide Joe is not fascist?
Yes. He does. Which is why I think it's not useful to say that his definition of fascism is uniquely restrictive. I have a suspicion that my interlocutor, given their focus on Francoist Spain was actually thinking of Stanley Payne who does have a very restrictive definition of fascism that specifically excludes francoism... because he is a francoist. I'll address your other bigger point because it is actually worth addressing, I just saw this first.
You’re lying again.
Here’s a link to the article you cited but didn’t link because you’re such a dishonest fucking hack.
https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652
Paxton hasn’t changed his opinion AT ALL you fucking liar. He didn’t magically make his definition of fascism more broad and inclusive like you are dishonestly presenting here.
He applied his exclusive definition and pointed specifically to inciting public violence to work along side his political movement. How does that apply to Putin you dishonest hack?
In what sense at all has Paxton “reached the point” of changing his definition as defined in that book you haven’t read when finally removing his resistance to calling Trump fascist in light of specifically Jan 6th?
You’re pretending Paxton has shifted to a broad and inclusive definition of fascism and he absolutely has not you liar. If you had read anatomy of fascism then you wouldn’t have claimed what you just did.
You’re such a fucking hack, man.
Read the article you’re citing.
Read the book you’re citing.
You fucking wanker.
No I don't think I have pretended that Robert Paxton sat down and decided to fully rewrite his work during the Trump years, that would have been dishonest. But that his own interpretation of what is considered fascist is broad enough to include Trump but not any previous US president, and that this constitutes a lack of rigor that he has adopted in part out of his own political opinions on Trump becoming sourer through his reign. Which is evident when you compare his first article and his second article.
I think you're just mad that I have demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about.
This is a fucking lie though. Paxton explicitly argued against equating Trumpism with fascism even in the article where he calls Trump a fascist and if you had read the book you cited and then pretended to have read you would understand why he called it an anatomy of fascism.
You are a hack.
No it isn't. He also in the same breath where he points out that Trumpism has differences to traditional fascism point out htat Trump has differences to traditional fascism, but clarifies without making a distinction that the label is not only right but necessarily applied. It's also of course right before he makes a specific comparison and equivalence between the fascist french veterans storming the parliament and the US protestors storming the capitol on January 6th.
Insults are not a substitute for an argument.
The incitement of public violence is explicitly makes Trump a fascist, to Paxton, and that’s entirely consistent with his book that you pretended to have read and means you were a dishonest hack to present this as though Paxton’s definition of exclusions and attributes is somehow some washy “fascism is a vibe” thing.
That’s not his definition at all, he’s all about line drawing, and he likes bright lines.
And citing books you haven’t read and then pretending to have read them and then saying “I proved I know what I’m talking about” when all you’re proving is that you haven’t read the book you pretended to have read is what makes you a fucking wanker and a hack.
I don't know how to respond to this except to say you're just not arguing with anything I've said, and in the process you've said a lot of stuff that's not true and quite obviously so?
In other words, turned out I fucking knew what I was talking about and you didn't. Which of course I already knew
Removed by mod
What slur did you post
Chunt but the h is silent
Reddit moment
dude just log the fuck off
I'm not logging off explicitly out of spite. I didn't give a shit about this beyond saying "Cringe" until the pile on started. In other words, reddit moment #2
Keep posting through it, definitely the better coping strategy
Lmao you're mad
about as mad as you are, yes.
I think you're madder tho. I just read thru all the comments and I'm as annoyed with you as I am with all redditors who wnader in here.
Especially with how Not Mad you took the time to say you were. You're responding to everyone to tell them you're Not Mad, I'm just responding to you.
You should really log out. You're talking about spite and stuff, that's a bad coping mechanic.
I don't know, I think it's pretty fair to say "Reddit moment" to a gendered slur. But you obviously seem to think those are fine and good
No I think that was the one normal reaction you had
yeah i've been down this road before, you aren't doing anything. nothing you will say will change anything. You've already labeled yourself as a subject of mockery, so just fucking leave and let them forget your name so you can just go on. Also just change this stupid opinion of yours.
comrade i am trans don't tell me shit. you're using that card specifically to try to escape your well deserved criticism.
No, I am using that card specifically because it's not actually okay to use gendered slurs about others. Even if you are a woman. I did however remove it because I realize that citing gendered language as a problem is not my place to say to a trans person, especially given that I realize that I am quick to use "Guy" about an unknown gender so it would be hypocritical. The criticism of the slur I feel is still valid. Don't use that kind of language.
Also I'm not gonna leave because you tell me. My opinion is correct, and a bunch of people being wrong at me isn't gonna change anything. If "Many people are disagreeing at me" was a thing that changed opinions, none of you would have migrated over from reddit, you would have just maintained your reddit opinions. Instead you just kept the attitude to arguing.
okay okay okay i did not use a slur camillepagliacci i called you the british name for a pussy
you can be correct somewhere else and just not sit here exposing how much of a damn annoying 'right' person you are
you ain't helping yourself in any way, just go
in other words, you used a gendered slur. Please don't be cute about this.
You don't get to call me a slur and then act like you're doing me a favor.
i don't care at all lmao you are deflecting from the fact you are taking an ultraleft position on literally something as easy as 'cuba getting supplies and sovereignty back with the help of russia' and going 'cringe dude'
lmfao you're really trying to find any solid ground and honestly its my bad for giving any, you seem to be out of it
Honestly through this whole thread you've given me nothing but the vibe of being a smug cracker sooooooooo I dunno why you're surprised you're getting called this, that, and the third by people slightly-less-principled.
"You shouldn't be surprised people use gendered slurs about you"
Maximum reddit.
I mean, she's a chick; so I don't begrudge her the right to reclaim. It might not fly here, specifically; but I'm not finna begrudge her that because be damned if I'd let some cracker police my speech. And fuck off with your pithy "reddit moment", "reddit moment", "maximum reddit" liberal-assed "flag on the play" debate-referee bullshit. Pot, kettle, rim me. Serious people address content, not tone, you fuckin yankee hack.
Reddit moment
Says the person with an account named after a pedophile.
No you're gonna leave because you're being a debate pervert and your username is sus as fuck.