It's not idealism. It's the nature of authority [the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience]. Every government assumes the authority to enforce its laws. Every country fails to represent fringe populations. The measure at which a country uses its authority to use violence to silence, eliminate, control, or otherwise fail to represent the fringe is it's degree of fascism.
When I said "Your personal feelings" I was referring to your opinion that fascism is a white supremacist term, which isn't based in fact at all.
Every country is a little authoritarian, and in equal measure fascist. The authority that enforces the hierarchy is the spiritual ignorance that gives rise to all of the social evils of this world.
This still remains idealism. Your expansion on this idea does not hold up to scrutiny. And the second sentence has no basis in historical material analysis.
The measure at which a country uses its authority to use violence to silence, eliminate, control, or otherwise fail to represent the fringe is it’s degree of fascism.
You have said that authoritarianism is in equal measure fascism, and then more specifically here that using authority for bad things is fascism. But your idea hinges quite heavily on the vague term "fringe group". What if the fringe group you are eliminating is fascists? Presumably the act of silencing and eliminating them is still authoritarian, but is it still equal to fascism?
Equating authority with fascism makes no sense. It only waters down fascism from an actual political ideology that can be criticized, to a vague umbrella term for bad things. This dilution of fascism is dangerous, equating it with other umbrella terms and stuffing it into them renders the term meaningless. And saying that every country is fascist to some degree whitewashes the ideology by pretending there is any equivalence between states that were colonial victims and actual fascist states.
I was referring to your opinion that fascism is a white supremacist term
I never said that. Are you referring to Muad'Dibber's comment?
It's not idealism. It's the nature of authority [the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience]. Every government assumes the authority to enforce its laws. Every country fails to represent fringe populations. The measure at which a country uses its authority to use violence to silence, eliminate, control, or otherwise fail to represent the fringe is it's degree of fascism.
When I said "Your personal feelings" I was referring to your opinion that fascism is a white supremacist term, which isn't based in fact at all.
Now how will you twist my words?
This still remains idealism. Your expansion on this idea does not hold up to scrutiny. And the second sentence has no basis in historical material analysis.
You have said that authoritarianism is in equal measure fascism, and then more specifically here that using authority for bad things is fascism. But your idea hinges quite heavily on the vague term "fringe group". What if the fringe group you are eliminating is fascists? Presumably the act of silencing and eliminating them is still authoritarian, but is it still equal to fascism?
Equating authority with fascism makes no sense. It only waters down fascism from an actual political ideology that can be criticized, to a vague umbrella term for bad things. This dilution of fascism is dangerous, equating it with other umbrella terms and stuffing it into them renders the term meaningless. And saying that every country is fascist to some degree whitewashes the ideology by pretending there is any equivalence between states that were colonial victims and actual fascist states.
I never said that. Are you referring to Muad'Dibber's comment?