Why is it that when people get told off on the Internet theh start to talk like fucking sephiroth.

Reddit moment

No one has produced anything approaching a "Dogwalking". You have all just decided that I am bad and anything anyone says is therefore smart.

And this thing about Robert Paxton is getting funny. I presented a concise version of his definition. Even if I hadn't read his book the thing to do would be to point out how that thing was wrong. Which of course no one could do because I am right. Anyway. I'm gonna head off for today. Then I'm gonna block all of you, and keep posting

"You shouldn't be surprised people use gendered slurs about you"

Maximum reddit.

Literally yes, but somehow I think tradcaths would be more annoyed by being called gay.

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.

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

i called you the british name for a pussy

in other words, you used a gendered slur. Please don't be cute about this.

you ain't helping yourself in any way, just go

You don't get to call me a slur and then act like you're doing me a favor.

about as mad as you are, yes.

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.

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.

Apologies comrade, I didn't realize I was doing liberalism.

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

Reddit moment

No u

Again, no, I'm just correct and you're mad about that.

There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments

No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.

I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't). It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.

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?

No, I'm "Correct".

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.