Yeah we have a clear disagreement over what fascism is. What you've described is a political tactic that's used by any and all authoritarian governments regardless of left/right orientation. A big part of the ML project is suppressing opposition and strict regeneration of the economy (which I tend to think is totally justified in the name of building a classless society).
Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. I think there are parts of this that do make sense in the modern context for how the US and the world operates, but I tend to think that's largely distinct from the broader neoliberal project.
What is the use of fascism for the capitalist (and in terms of Weimar Germany) and aristocratic classes?
What is it for the petit bourgeoisie?
If it is about exclusionary nationhood into which the populace transcedence isn't it in direct conflict to the capitalists in the country seeking markets and profits outside its boundaries? As in the manifest is written that in capitalism 'everything that is solid melts into air', so shouldn't the reduced definition you used here clash with that aspect of capitalism?
To make it short, what is your theoretical framework and in addition which theoretical sources do you draw your fascism theory from?
The materialist application of fascism is still different than the material conception of neoliberalism.
Within fascism, elites maintain their primary allegences to their particular nation state. The success of the fascist project will benefit the elites from their own nation at the expense of elites from other nations. Although it's usually petite bourgeois that are most directly engaged in the fascist project.
Under neoliberalism, elites reject their national identity in the desire to be globally sovergn. Their point of loyalty is to the doctrine of the free market and it's ability to reach all corners of the globe. Elites are totally uninterested in nation building within a neoliberal order and see zero problem selling their country for scraps to the highest bidder.
These two ideologies are fundimentally in conflict.
Maybe you are the moron, considering cracksmoke gave you a basic polsci info and you're still trying to equate two different ideologies just because they align on some scales.
neoliberalism is globalist fascism.
Even this quote is stupid as hell(globalist fascism? This nears on being an oxymoron) but even passing the inherent contradiction between two words, you can't just add qualifiers to one thing to make it seem like another thing. I can't just call Hungary christian Syria.
you are incapable of divorcing your concept of fascism from the nation, in spite of nationalism being only one aspect, but somehow im the moron? ye okay.
you cant qualify words to make them mean different things and thus equate concepts which are otherwise very similar? and thats your analogy for it being impossible?
you are incapable of divorcing your concept of fascism from the nation
Because nation(and tradition) is a central aspect you dingbat, not a side concept. Neoliberals and fascists don't operate with same motives or same tactics. Just because US government has neoliberals and fascists trying to govern it together doesn't mean they are the same thing. Go outside your bubble once and see how neoliberals and fascists despise and fight each other outside US.
it is a core tenant only in the sense that if you... remove that tenant.. oh hey now you have neoliberalism, you dipstick.
much like how if you take a leftist and delineate by belief in nationstates you end up with mls and anarchists being seperate. my god. what a surprise. :shocked-pikachu:
Great analogy, that's why you call them leftists just like you would call fascists and neoliberals right wingers. And since you don't call anarchists MLs because that would be really stupid, you shouldn't call neoliberals fascists, you absolute dumbass
If you go to France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Mexico etc. and try to argue that socdems are secretly commies you'll only convice nazis, so your stupid analogy only works in anglosphere
Also that wasn't the point you were trying to argue you moron, stop calling people libs to cover up how stupid you are
No you moron, i'm saying they are a different kind of evil compared to fascists and treating them like they are the same is not fruitful. They need different strategies to be beaten
Yeah we have a clear disagreement over what fascism is. What you've described is a political tactic that's used by any and all authoritarian governments regardless of left/right orientation. A big part of the ML project is suppressing opposition and strict regeneration of the economy (which I tend to think is totally justified in the name of building a classless society).
Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. I think there are parts of this that do make sense in the modern context for how the US and the world operates, but I tend to think that's largely distinct from the broader neoliberal project.
What is the use of fascism for the capitalist (and in terms of Weimar Germany) and aristocratic classes?
What is it for the petit bourgeoisie?
If it is about exclusionary nationhood into which the populace transcedence isn't it in direct conflict to the capitalists in the country seeking markets and profits outside its boundaries? As in the manifest is written that in capitalism 'everything that is solid melts into air', so shouldn't the reduced definition you used here clash with that aspect of capitalism?
To make it short, what is your theoretical framework and in addition which theoretical sources do you draw your fascism theory from?
The materialist application of fascism is still different than the material conception of neoliberalism.
Within fascism, elites maintain their primary allegences to their particular nation state. The success of the fascist project will benefit the elites from their own nation at the expense of elites from other nations. Although it's usually petite bourgeois that are most directly engaged in the fascist project.
Under neoliberalism, elites reject their national identity in the desire to be globally sovergn. Their point of loyalty is to the doctrine of the free market and it's ability to reach all corners of the globe. Elites are totally uninterested in nation building within a neoliberal order and see zero problem selling their country for scraps to the highest bidder.
These two ideologies are fundimentally in conflict.
lol literally calling yourself a red fascist to own the libs and you think your propagandizing is how to beat them. fucking hilarious
No you just don't know what fascism is.
i literally gave you the textbook answer of what it is. you are just a moron.
Maybe you are the moron, considering cracksmoke gave you a basic polsci info and you're still trying to equate two different ideologies just because they align on some scales.
Even this quote is stupid as hell(globalist fascism? This nears on being an oxymoron) but even passing the inherent contradiction between two words, you can't just add qualifiers to one thing to make it seem like another thing. I can't just call Hungary christian Syria.
you are incapable of divorcing your concept of fascism from the nation, in spite of nationalism being only one aspect, but somehow im the moron? ye okay.
you cant qualify words to make them mean different things and thus equate concepts which are otherwise very similar? and thats your analogy for it being impossible?
you are beyond stupid.
Because nation(and tradition) is a central aspect you dingbat, not a side concept. Neoliberals and fascists don't operate with same motives or same tactics. Just because US government has neoliberals and fascists trying to govern it together doesn't mean they are the same thing. Go outside your bubble once and see how neoliberals and fascists despise and fight each other outside US.
it is a core tenant only in the sense that if you... remove that tenant.. oh hey now you have neoliberalism, you dipstick.
much like how if you take a leftist and delineate by belief in nationstates you end up with mls and anarchists being seperate. my god. what a surprise. :shocked-pikachu:
Great analogy, that's why you call them leftists just like you would call fascists and neoliberals right wingers. And since you don't call anarchists MLs because that would be really stupid, you shouldn't call neoliberals fascists, you absolute dumbass
my god, you are a dense.
does the right wing hesitate to call anyone that isnt a fascist a commie? no, no they do not. because thats how agitprop works you dumbfuck.
the whole point is to call them fascists regardless of if its technically correct.
fucking libs on this site i swear
If you go to France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Mexico etc. and try to argue that socdems are secretly commies you'll only convice nazis, so your stupid analogy only works in anglosphere
Also that wasn't the point you were trying to argue you moron, stop calling people libs to cover up how stupid you are
you are literally arguing that we must respect neoliberals and not equate them with fascists on a post about neoliberals loving sweatshops.
youre a lib. get over it. :cope:
No you moron, i'm saying they are a different kind of evil compared to fascists and treating them like they are the same is not fruitful. They need different strategies to be beaten
You're just a child
no u