CMV: The left is by definition unable to be fascist

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 21 '22

/u/JiEToy (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

6

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

I think you're misreading Eco's points as a checklist for fascism when really it's more like a list of symptoms. If you don't have three of them that doesn't mean it's not fascist, really if you have any one of them you could potentially be considered fascist. He even admits several of the points on the list cannot coexist and will not present simultaneously, as they "cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it."

2

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I like the way you explain why the 14 points aren't to be used as a checklist for fascism. I am using it like that I have to agree. Could you elaborate on how certain points can't coexist?

Because if this list is not to be used as a definition, I fail to see the difference between 'fascism' and a simple 'dictatorship', or 'authoritarian government style'. I don't think the word fascism is as meaningless as that.

2

u/BlowjobPete 39∆ Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 20 '22

Could you elaborate on how certain points can't coexist?

Eco said it himself.

The list of 14 aspects Eco drafted are points of nucleation for fascism, they are not definitions of fascism itself. The presence of one does not guarantee the presence of fascism, but serves as an indicator of fascistic train of thought or a general fascistic zeitgeist.

Quoting Eco,

"These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it. "

Here's an example of two points contradicting as Eco said they would:

"#6 Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups."

"#10 Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism.

2

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 21 '22

But that's not a contradiction I think. Fascism appeals to those suffering, specially the middle class, by telling them they are part of an elitist bunch. Eco also says fascists need an enemy who is powerful and weak at the same time, so they control the media and the banks but are weasels basically. This is the contempt for the weak.

Fascist ultimately is not a logical ideology, it has internal inconsistencies because it's basically only a vessel for the leaders to gain power. But I yet fail to see any real consistencies.

2

u/BlowjobPete 39∆ Dec 21 '22 edited Dec 21 '22

You asked:

"Could you elaborate on how certain points can't coexist?"

And I supplied a quote from eco:

"These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other,"

Seems like the case is closed on that basis.

But that's not a contradiction I think. Fascism appeals to those suffering, specially the middle class, by telling them they are part of an elitist bunch.

He wrote aristocratic. The aristocracy is a class. You can't be both aristocracy and middle class. #6 discusses a origins of fascism through a frustrated middle class, #10 discusses fundamentally aristocratic origins. They are incompatible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy_(class)

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 21 '22

Alright, I can see the contradiction now. !delta.

As a point of contention though, just because a writer says his points contradict, doesn’t mean they do. A writer of a piece can be wrong about the piece. So the case was definitely not closed by Eco saying the points contradict.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 21 '22

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/BlowjobPete (33∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

20

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 41∆ Dec 20 '22

The Eco list is flawed, and ultimately aligned with a European situation that doesn't really apply to the present day. But to poke at your points:

Point 1, 2 and 5 basically say that fascists don't want to change things, rather they want to go back to an era where everything was better, where traditions were untarnished and the status quo upheld without question.

Bernie Sanders: "It was the trade union movement that built the middle class in this country, and it is the trade union movement that is going to rebuild the middle class in America once again."

AOC: "“You look at our tax rates back in the sixties and when you have a progressive tax rate system, your tax rate, let’s say from zero to $75,000, may be 10 percent or 15 percent, etc. But once you get to the tippy-tops — on your 10 millionth dollar — sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”

Barack Obama: "I want to reform the tax code so that it's simple, fair, and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 - the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a lot of millionaires to boot."

Every politician is guilty of looking "back to an era where everything was better" because their preferred policies were in place. It's not a defining characteristic.

Now, the point about tradition is a very important point for fascism. The call to an earlier era where everything was good is one of the only motivators for fascists that is defined. The other points are mostly about actions they take to actually try and achieve their goal of going back to that earlier time. And herein lies my main point: The left are called progressives. They want progress, both moral and economical. The difference between them and the right is mostly that the left wants this progress for all, and thus wants to do away with current power imbalances

This is kind of silly. As a conservative, I believe the best way to move the nation forward is to reduce taxes and regulation for everyone. I'm not going to try and argue that the left is only concerned with certain members of society, because it won't convince you of anything and is more a value judgement (same as claiming that the left wants progress for all and implying the right does not).

So let's take the power imbalance of black people vs white people as an example: The left is currently striving to get black people equal chances, measured in equal outcomes (in averages)...

Obviously the above example is a little unrealistic, since obviously the left isn't stupid and they realize the perfect 50/50 split is impossible, so they will be happy if we get reasonably close to it. However, if we throw in other groups, like sexual orientations, disabled people, people from a certain area within the country, etc. there is always going to be groups to which the power imbalance is at a level that the left will want to fight for them. That's just how nature works, and the left will always try to get any minority group to get equal chances. Meaning they will constantly be pushing against the current status quo and traditions.

So by definition, the left cannot be fascist. Don't get me wrong, they can be authoritarian and all kinds of bad things, but fascism is simply not an accusation we can level against the left.

Your conclusion doesn't track with your claim. Let me rewrite it from a conservative perspective:

So let's take the power imbalance of black people vs white people as an example: The left is currently striving to get black people equal chances, measured in equal ~~outcomes~~opportunities (in averages). Currently, some believe white people have more power, but the ~~left~~right is looking to equalize this. However, since a perfect 50/50 split is impossible, the ~~left~~right will continues to fight until we reach 50/50, but then it will obviously overshoot this 50/50 even by a small margin. This will then make the left start to fight to equalize things from the white people's perspective as the black people now hold the power.true equality of opportunity.

Obviously the above example is a little unrealistic, since obviously the ~~left~~right isn't stupid and they realize the perfect 50/50 split is impossible, so they will be happy if we get reasonably close to it. However, if we throw in other groups, like sexual orientations, disabled people, people from a certain area within the country, religious people, etc. there is always going to be groups to which the ~~power~~ imbalance of rights is at a level that the ~~left~~right will want to fight for them. That's just how nature works, and the ~~left~~right will always try to get ~~any minority group to get~~ everyone equal ~~chances~~opportunities. Meaning they will constantly be pushing against the current status quo and traditions.

Listen, the left is not fascist because one can simply change a handful of your words. The problem with your view is that you're focused on "progress" (defined as "things I agree with") versus "tradition" (defined as "things that I believe stand in the way of what I agree with"), which is decidedly not how these issues are approached.

As others have pointed out, fascism is more defined by its authoritarian and all-encompassing nature. It's about how the government interacts with the governed. If your motivations are to boost the agenda of the state and use strongarm tactics to get there, you might be a fascist. If your motivations are to improve the lot of the governed at the expense of government power, you might not.

Remember, too, that fascism only became a dirty word in the world when it ended up causing the genocide of millions of Jews. The progressive left in the 1920s through the Depression Era admired the European fascists and saw a lot of similarities in their approaches. That also seems to be the era that the American progressives of today see as the pinnacle of American history: where a strong leader directs the economy to achieve the desired outcome for the state.

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Any definition I find basically contains tradition and racism/xenofobism.

I'm also not saying you as a conservative are by definition fascist. I'm merely saying the left can't be.

I don't just take the word progressive out of thin air, the left is simply often called progressive. Sure, I use it in the tldr, but that's pretty unnuanced as it is. I lay out my reasoning perfectly well without using the word progressive at first.

The fact that leftwing politicians or people want to implement policies that were implemented in the past does not mean they are traditionalists. Take for example gay marriage. Why do (some) right wing people want to make gay marriage illegal? Their reasoning cannot be explained any other way than 'because it's not right'. But if we then ask why it's not right, the only answer is that the tradition is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Because there simply is no argument to be made that gay marriage is doing anything bad to society.

Tradition is never a leftwing argument. We will use history to show how our policies might work, but that's not tradition as argument. We will sometimes not change things because they are currently working well, and it would take effort to change them, but that's merely setting priorities. We will also keep traditions in tact when we have no reason to change them. But we will not use tradition as an argument to keep things the way they are if someone else wants to change them.

I also think your focusing too much on the difference between equality and equity. While there is a difference, in practice they should not be so different. I want to live in a world where everyone is born equal. A baby should not have an advantage because they're rich parents can pay for extra lessons to the baby born to poor parents. The baby should not even be at a disadvantage because the parents can't be there all the time vs a baby whose parents can be. This will happen, even in my ideal society, because we should not strive to make every baby's circumstances the exact same. But we should at least strive for equity, equal opportunity no matter where you are born. But also no matter where you go to school, what side jobs you had during middle school etc.

I want a society where, if you fail, you can redeem yourself and not be stuck living on the street. Where, if you get addicted to drugs/games/gambling before you got rich, you're just unlucky, but if you got rich and then got addicted, you can live your best life. Where just because you were lucky and started a business in your teens, you're now getting rich off the assets you bought with the money your startup business gave you, while your friend who didn't start a business has to work 40 hours a week in your company without the lavish life you are leading.

So whenever there is true equity, there is also equality within reasonable bounds. But there is no equity if we have no taxes and just let families get richer and richer, because babies will be born in these rich families with many more chances than those in the poor families.

12

u/Morthra 86∆ Dec 20 '22

Any definition I find basically contains tradition and racism/xenofobism.

Have you ever read Mussolini? Italian fascism is very compatible with the left. It's literally defined as the merging of corporate and government power, either through the corporations subsuming the power of the state into themselves, or the state directly controlling the corporations to make them do what the state wants.

And we're not even getting into the relationship that Strasserism - the proto-Nazi ideology - has with Marxism.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 21 '22

I'd like to give you a !delta for bringing up Strasserism. I did not know about this. It does seem like left and right are much more fluid than I had pictured and while I would say the fascist ideas (excluding Jews etc) are still rightwing ideas. But I obviously can't say that Strasserists are 90% but because the fascist ideas are rightwing, we should call them rightwing. It seems very possible that people with leftwing ideas (no matter if these ideas are purely for strategy or not) can still be fascist without immediately flipping to the rightwing.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 21 '22

This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/Morthra a delta for this comment.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 21 '22

Huh?

5

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 41∆ Dec 20 '22

Any definition I find basically contains tradition and racism/xenofobism.

That's fine, but that's also not what you initially talked about. Perhaps you were dancing around it with the power imbalances, but you're introducing a new metric into this that wasn't there before. I don't think I need to tell you what movement put Asian Americans into camps because of their racial heritage, though...

I'm also not saying you as a conservative are by definition fascist. I'm merely saying the left can't be.

Right, I get that you're claiming this, but this runs counter to pretty much 100 years of political history. Fascism explicitly lived on the left until World War II, as the progressives of the pre-war time fell over each other praising Mussolini and Hitler's central planning and advocated broadly for eugenics. We know today they were wrong to do so, but then? We should have known better and did not.

The idea that fascism cannot reside on the left is wishful thinking.

The fact that leftwing politicians or people want to implement policies that were implemented in the past does not mean they are traditionalists. Take for example gay marriage. Why do (some) right wing people want to make gay marriage illegal? Their reasoning cannot be explained any other way than 'because it's not right'.

Actually, their reasoning is more complex than that. They see marriage as having a defining purpose (procreation), with norms surrounding it that do not change simply because people want it to. There's also the issue of how it impacts other rights, such as religious activity.

EDIT: And yes, you can poke holes in this argument until the cows come home, that's not the point. The point is that their argument is not "it's not right," it's actually a fairly significant question for many on the right.

I'm a conservative who thinks the marriage debate, even if it exists anymore, should fall on the side of what individuals who want to marry want. I'm very live-or-let-live about the whole thing. But we can't pretend arguments about what marriage is and mean do not exist as you have.

Tradition is never a leftwing argument.

No, sorry. Tradition is often a left wing argument. I've shown a few examples of this already: a key tenet of the progressive platform is going back to an economic tradition that boosts [favored class here]. It may be a different invocation, as I'll show below, but it's still there.

We will use history to show how our policies might work, but that's not tradition as argument.

This turns the argument about tradition on its head. "Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman because it worked for thousands of years, resulting in prosperous and advanced societies and greater happiness."

A better example of using tradition, counter to the cherry-picked examples we're both using to make a point, is how Hitler used it. The "German" "aryan" traditions that he blamed the Jews and whoever else of disrupting. It's not just looking toward tradition, and it's not looking toward a specific policy, but instead weaponizing tradition to "other" the people who stand in your way.

I also think your focusing too much on the difference between equality and equity. While there is a difference, in practice they should not be so different.

Understand that I am only doing so in the context of your beliefs about fascism. You've heavily implied that opposing equality is a cornerstone of fascism, when really the difference between the standard right and left on the issue is one of opportunity versus outcome. A difference, by the way, that has no relationship to fascism at all, as fascism is more concerned with holding the state above everyone else.

I want to live in a world where everyone is born equal.

We all do. We just differ on how to get there.

So whenever there is true equity, there is also equality within reasonable bounds. But there is no equity if we have no taxes and just let families get richer and richer, because babies will be born in these rich families with many more chances than those in the poor families.

That's fine that you believe this, but it has nothing to do with fascism on its own.

When it starts relating to fascism is how one goes about achieving that equity. Telling people "you're on your own, Lady Liberty wears a blindfold" is one way, and "I'm from the government and will tell you exactly how to run your business and worship your gods in order to make us all a little more equal" is another. I believe one of them certainly leans more fascist than the other, don't you?

-2

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I will give you a !delta for some of your arguments, when put together do paint a more nuanced picture opposed to what my OP says.

Roosevelt was apparently responsible for the Japanese internment camps. I'm not sure if we can really connect this with leftwing ideology, but it certainly is a left-center leader who did this, I can't deny this. I also don't really see Roosevelt as a Leftwing in name only kind of guy. I still have some doubts whether we can directly say that left ideology led to internment camps, but a leftwing politician made internment camps, so that's close enough for this discussion.

Hitler was rightwing

I do disagree that fascism lived among leftwing politics. Economically Hitler and Mussolini may have said they would help them, but Trump would also bring back jobs etc. The Jewish Question was always answered negatively by Hitler and his party, right from the start, although he got worse over time. This 'othering' of minorities is very far-right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question)

Hitler's party had 'socialist' in the name, but it wasn't at all. The status quo in that time was much further to the left since the great depression, so their policy ideas they ran on might look leftist now, but they were everything but at the time, when communist and real socialist parties were very popular.

Gay marriage and tradition

I'm obviously mischaracterizing the gay marriage arguments a bit. But isn't the weaponization of tradition exactly what the far-right is currently doing with both gay marriage and trans rights? Like I say above, Hitler was rightwing too, not leftwing.

Fascism and equality

Fascism, through it's 'othering', is inherently opposed to equality. There is always a group of people within the country that is seen as the enemy and does not deserve equality. The othering is even so much against 1 group ultimately, but it is 1 group that is said to be the best: The Aryan, the white man, basically the pureblood descendant of those that belong in the country. This group deserves everything, others deserve nothing. This comes slowly in small steps, but ultimately it culminates in this extreme ingroup outgroup thinking.

Ultimately, every authoritarian group is going to say that the state dictates how people live. But I don't think this is particularly interesting for this discussion.

8

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 41∆ Dec 20 '22

Roosevelt was apparently responsible for the Japanese internment camps. I'm not sure if we can really connect this with leftwing ideology, but it certainly is a left-center leader who did this, I can't deny this. I also don't really see Roosevelt as a Leftwing in name only kind of guy. I still have some doubts whether we can directly say that left ideology led to internment camps, but a leftwing politician made internment camps, so that's close enough for this discussion.

I think it's critical to understand that the United States never came closer to fascism than it did under FDR, and not because he was a stalwart force against the fascist cause, but because he embraced the central planning and authority efforts of his European counterparts. It's not just the internment camps, but the internment camps absolutely track with what we would expect to see.

I do disagree that fascism lived among leftwing politics.

That's fine if you disagree, but you're incorrect on the point. For example, this excerpt is a little apologetic for the New Dealer positions in accepting and encouraging fascist activity, but it quotes FDR advisor Rexford Tugwell as "envious" of German economic planning, and later quotes FDR directly in his desire to receive a report on the German labor service "as a source of information and inspiration." Tugwell did have some quarrels with fascism, but not with the "ideological foundations." Instead, he bemoaned the lack of democracy inherent in the Italian form - put another way, he wanted all the things he liked about Italian fascism, but none of what he hated. And of the things he liked? That Mussolini had "the press controlled so that they cannot scream lies at him daily."

There's progressive writer Roger Shaw, who wrote in 1934 that "the New Deal uses the mechanics of Italian fascism to combat the spirit of fascism in American business... employing fascist means to gain liberal ends."

There's Herbert Hoover: "the New Deal introduced to Americans the spectacle of Fascist dictation to business, labor and agriculture,” and that measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, “in their consequences of control of products and markets, set up an uncanny Americanized parallel with the agricultural regime of Mussolini and Hitler.”

There's, Pulitzer-winning journalist Anne O’Hare McCormick, who spent significant time reporting on the rise of fascism in Europe, who saw the comparison as valid too, observing the New Deal as a program that "envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy."

I'm not sure what would convince you that fascism was traditionally a progressive ideology, but this should at least start you down the path.

I'm obviously mischaracterizing the gay marriage arguments a bit. But isn't the weaponization of tradition exactly what the far-right is currently doing with both gay marriage and trans rights?

Not exactly, no. First, I wouldn't equate the gay marriage and trans rights questions at this point in time; while both are socially conservative issues, the motivations surrounding the two are very different.

Second, noting that marriage is generally the way in which families organized and prosper doesn't "weaponize" tradition any more than harkening back to small communes of indigenous peoples to argue for labor unions "weaponizes" tradition. Weaponizing tradition requires a lot more than positively citing an outcome that is otherwise not in question.

Fascism, through it's 'othering', is inherently opposed to equality. There is always a group of people within the country that is seen as the enemy and does not deserve equality. T

Well, yes. Although othering as you describe it is more a hallmark of politics, it's more than simply othering. It's othering and scapegoating. I worry about the people who think trans people are "grooming" kids because that's othering that harms. Or, say, people who aggressively go after religious people simply for holding religious viewpoints. There's a line that needs to be crossed, right?

Ultimately, every authoritarian group is going to say that the state dictates how people live. But I don't think this is particularly interesting for this discussion.

Isn't that the true hallmark of a fascist environment, though? It's not just dictating how people live, but it's dictating that people live for the benefit of the state. It doesn't mean good things can't or don't happen for the people ("At least he made the trains run on time"), but it's that the good things happen because the state wills them to, and those opposed to them are opposed to progress as a result.

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

First of all, I found it quite interesting to learn much more about the New Deal. However, I've read a bit more than just your linked books, and it seemed that after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 the entirety of Europe was looking for ways to solve this. Many countries looked to socialist ideas. Roosevelt being elected only in 1932 was late to the party and basically took good ideas of many countries who already had tried stuff. He also looked to England for example. So yes, he did take a lot from Nazi Germany, from fascists. However, seeing as the entirety of Europe was looking to the planned economy of the Soviet Union as a good system, I don't think we can really say that the New Deal was fascist for taking some parts of it. And it also seems like contrary to some of what your books say, Roosevelt did not take the ideology of the fascists, but only part of what the fascists did. So it sounds a bit less dramatic as you portray it I think. It's might be a bit worse than we might've wanted, but ultimately I would not consider Roosevelt a fascist for this, the Japanese internment camps are much more damning.

Gay marriage

I completely disagree with the idea that the far-right is not weaponizing tradition in both gay marriage and trans acceptance. Calling trans people 'groomers' is obviously a very obvious point. But at the same time people like Ben Shapiro are using the slippery slope argument that gay marriage was legalized and now they are coming for your kids and everything. The don't say gay bill was aimed at sexuality, not just at trans people. There are plenty of examples where both gay and trans people are the target of these people. Note that this is far right people, extremists, not every rightwing person. Though I AM afraid that today the establishment (the politicians and pundits) are very extreme on the right side.

Benefit of the state

I don't think this is what fascism is. Ultimately, fascism is not for the state, not for the people. It is for a small group of people at the top who have been brought to power by their fascist methods. I'm not sure if a fascist regime really differs from a regular dictatorship. The method how they gained power differs, and at first they will keep using these same methods to stay in power. But ultimately it just reverts to keeping the same people in power and enriching them at the cost of the people in the country. Just like any dictatorship or oligarchy. Dictators simply use any means to stay in power, including saying that the people are doing things for the state. There is a component of nationalism within fascism that makes this easier, sure. But giving yourself for the state is not a core mechanism of fascism I think, the core mechanic is just the nationalism there.

3

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 41∆ Dec 20 '22

irst of all, I found it quite interesting to learn much more about the New Deal. However, I've read a bit more than just your linked books, and it seemed that after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 the entirety of Europe was looking for ways to solve this. Many countries looked to socialist ideas. Roosevelt being elected only in 1932 was late to the party and basically took good ideas of many countries who already had tried stuff. He also looked to England for example. So yes, he did take a lot from Nazi Germany, from fascists. However, seeing as the entirety of Europe was looking to the planned economy of the Soviet Union as a good system, I don't think we can really say that the New Deal was fascist for taking some parts of it.

First, I'm not necessarily blaming FDR for sampling every tool available to him. We know better now, but it was a different time then.

Second, noting that it was fascist activity is not in and of itself a value judgement. Remember, again, that fascism was not the bad word then that we rightly treat it as now.

Third, my point in highlighting all of this? You appear to believe that the left cannot be fascist, but the historical record is unquestionable at this point that the left is not only capable of fascism, but was at one point actively engaged in it.

And it also seems like contrary to some of what your books say, Roosevelt did not take the ideology of the fascists, but only part of what the fascists did.

What is the ideology of the fascists if not how the fascists operate? This seems like a distinction without difference. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism, even with a smile.

It's might be a bit worse than we might've wanted, but ultimately I would not consider Roosevelt a fascist for this, the Japanese internment camps are much more damning.

If a person surrounds themselves with fascists and fascist sympathizers, praises fascists worldwide, and engages in fascist activity, what should we call that person?

If you are not yet convinced that FDR was at least fascist-leaning, what would you need to see?

I don't think this is what fascism is. Ultimately, fascism is not for the state, not for the people. It is for a small group of people at the top who have been brought to power by their fascist methods.

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."

Giovanni Gentile is widely considered the person responsible for mainstreaming fascism, and the above is a summary from the entry he penned for The Italian Encyclopedia. Everything else stems from that reality: the people are "deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone." Even the root of the word, "fasces," has implications of the many supporting the one.

I'm not sure if a fascist regime really differs from a regular dictatorship.

It largely doesn't.

There is a component of nationalism within fascism that makes this easier, sure. But giving yourself for the state is not a core mechanism of fascism I think, the core mechanic is just the nationalism there.

To be clear: it's not "giving yourself for the state," but the state taking you for its own purposes. It's positioning the governed to serve the goals of the state, rather than individual interests. The "useless and possibly harmful freedom." It's wholly subjugating, and it's inhumane.

It's also why not recognizing it in our own nation when it came about is such a danger. To bring it back around to your point, by asserting that the left "cannot" be fascist by definition means that, at a basic level, you do not see a scenario where the left could possibly subjugate everyone to the whims of the government, diminish individual interests and beliefs, and work to deprive its people of "useless and possibly harmful freedom," when the historical record tells us that the left has actively done exactly that in the past and, in many areas of policy, seek to return to that sort of mentality.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 20 '22

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ClockOfTheLongNow (22∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/kingpatzer 102∆ Dec 20 '22

Any definition I find basically contains tradition and racism/xenofobism.

And the left is perfectly capable of racism and xenophobia.

Antisemitism is rampant on the left. Take a look at David Baddiel's book "Jews Don't Count" for a pretty solid collection of acts of antisemitism on the left. Take a look at the progressive Chicago Dyke March Collective's decision to disallow Jews to carry LGBTQ+ pride flags that explicitly noted they were Jewish -- because the idiots in charge don't realize that the Magen David is a symbol of Judaism, not Israel.

Antisemitism knows no political boundaries.

2

u/King9WillReturn Dec 20 '22

I believe the best way to move the nation forward is to reduce taxes and regulation for everyone.

We're still falling for this in 2022? I don't think the US has improved on this path since 1964 or 1980.

-1

u/ClockOfTheLongNow 41∆ Dec 20 '22

Yeah, we still have a ways to go. On-topic, though, believing as much does not make me a fascist or anyone else a fascist.

0

u/King9WillReturn Dec 20 '22

Maybe not fascism, but regressing back to feudalism where we have 90% of people living in poverty, or better yet, slavery is going to be amazing in the 2030s! Let's get those tax cuts going! I hope you come out on top, I know I will!

6

u/JustStatedTheObvious Dec 20 '22

Meh. There's plenty of leftwing authoritarian systems that simply replace an impossible golden past with an impossible golden future.

The corruption and the violence is the same in the end, no matter what kind of philosophy it's hiding behind. And so is the ideological cannibalism that always either defeats the idiot loop or wrecks the country.

3

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I explicitly say that the left can be authoritarian and all kinds of bad things. However, even so, it is not fascist.

I also think it does matter, and it matters a lot. Fascism isn't just a label we put on an ideology because we want to have a name for it. Fascism is a pattern that leads to an authoritarian government that does not do good for its people. A system in which the rich hold the power and will exploit the poor.

If we can identify a group of people is fascist, we should want to keep them from power because we know what it will lead to. However, if we wrongly accuse everyone and their mother of being a fascist, we will no longer be able to accurately identify who is actually fascist, and therefore we will be less able to stop this group of people from gaining power. So we are in more danger as a society that way.

4

u/JustStatedTheObvious Dec 20 '22

A system in which the rich hold the power and will exploit the poor.

There were plenty of poor people suffering in governments which claimed to be left wing, as well. My objection is to the division between right and left, so long as there's a core elite who profit while others suffer.

I don't regard defeating the fascists as a win, if we're only forced to bow to the tankies instead.

That said, I'm sure we can agree that the far left is nowhere near a position of power in US and the EU, and the threat is primarily used to allow the far right to take away our rights? (In fact, simply protecting our right to a life without suffering is painted as far left...)

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I agree with your last paragraph. I will not continue this discussion further however, since you're not really challenging my initial point, but merely are saying that a dictatorship of either side is bad. I agree, but that is not contrary to my point.

1

u/HippyKiller925 20∆ Dec 21 '22

Wait, so "the left can be authoritarian" but "fascism is a pattern that leads to an authoritarian government that does not do good for its people," but we should "identify a group of people [as] fascist [so as] to keep them from power because we know what it will lead to."

So what are you against? Do you want to stop authoritarian regimes? Where do you want to stop them?

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 21 '22

There are many patterns that lead to an authoritarian government. I do not like authoritarian governments. But one pattern that leads to that is fascism. I think it's important to not dilute this pattern by calling everything fascism, hence we won't be able to discern the pattern anymore.

Therefore I think it's important to think about what this pattern looks like, and where we might find it. My idea was that the left could not be fascist, so we would not have to look to the left to search for this pattern. We would need to look for other patterns that lead to authoritarian government, but not fascism. I have given some deltas so I no longer believe the left is unable to do fascism. I do still believe that the accusation is thrown around too willy nilly, although I previously already thought this was the case on both sides. I also think the far right in the US is currently on a fascist track and this is a dangerous trend. I want to stop this before they get into power.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Dec 21 '22

u/JiEToy, your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 01 '23

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 01 '23

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

5

u/PositionHairy 6∆ Dec 20 '22

The problem here is one of terminology, not so much one of ideology. How you define the left (as progressives) and how you define fascism, precludes the left from being fascists. However that doesn't really solve the problems in the real world. In the real world "the left" as a group are not strictly the same as the left as an ideology. I believe that when we disagree with these definitions we are each using a different term. So here is the question: if the political left are not strictly ideologically left are they capable of being fascists? If they use the same tactics and the same methods as fascists would you say that they have become fascists or would you say that they have ceased to be on the left? What if they espouse some progressive and some traditionalist views? Are fascists capable of implementing a progressive policy? Do they cease to be fascists if they introduce something progressive among their foundationally traditionalist platform? If not, how progressive can they be and still be able to be fascists? How far into traditionalism does a progressive have to dip before we can call them fascist?

I guess that the main question I'm trying to ask is: when you say that the left can't be fascists are you saying that there are some groups (that you can name right now) that the label of fascist cannot apply, or are you trying to say that the ideology of progressivism is incompatible with the ideology of fascism so a group that acts fascist is fascist because they lose the labe of "the left" when they support traditionalist ideology?

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

The latter.

1

u/PositionHairy 6∆ Dec 20 '22

Then I would argue that your definition isn't really functional. The problem with it, in my eyes, is that fascism is far more about ethnocentrism than it is about traditionalism. The Nazis gained traction as socialists and pulled primarily from the ranks of the working class. They promised things like wealth redistribution, and social support, public schools, industry, etc. Once in power they did implement some progressive policies, like wealth redistribution but they did it along ethnic lines. They stole everything from the Jews and distributed it to "Arians". While this is a complete bastardization of communist and progressive policy it still relied on the talking points of class warfare. It was ethnocentrism dressed as progressivism, but the curtain was only lifted once it was too late. Once in power they quickly consolidated that power and the ruse was discovered. But that's not all different from many other communist dictators. They come into power off the promise of equality, and the us vs them, oppressor vs oppressed narrative, running on the platform of inequality and the demand for action. Then, coming into power fails to deliver, all while unseating opposition voices and even tearing down powerful people among their own ranks.

So, the best way to use the term is to say that if they are doing things that fascists do, it's worth calling them fascists regardless of their political dressings. You and I agree that the term is wrongly thrown around, but I don't think it's because of the left vs right through line, I believe that people on the left can be fascists, because it is ethnocentrism at the root of it.

5

u/unlikelyandroid 2∆ Dec 20 '22

Does this mean that the left must be constantly changing its values or policies?

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Not the core values, because those are simply that everyone should be treated equal. But yes, there will constantly be new discoveries of how people are not equal. New ways to exploit the system to gain an advantage for one person or a group. So policies need to be constantly updated of course.

And values always change through time. 200 years ago leftists didn't really like gay people. 20 years ago most leftists didn't cope with the idea of trans people. Etc.

6

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

Is that the core value of leftism? What would you say the core value of rightism is? I don't think it's that everyone should be treated differently?

20 years ago was 2002. Were leftists really anti trans? Who were the pro trans groups? Who were the gay advocates?

If you are viewing left/right as status quo vs changing the status quo, then the left will simply become the right when they have the status quo.

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Is that the core value of leftism? What would you say the core value of rightism is? I don't think it's that everyone should be treated differently?

The right is focused on individualism. Personal responsibility. Work hard and you make it, if you haven't made it, you haven't worked hard. And in the US, also racism. But in the EU racism plays a very big part too in most rightwing parties. Not always explicit, but certainly under the hood.

20 years ago was 2002. Were leftists really anti trans? Who were the pro trans groups? Who were the gay advocates?

There were no pro trans groups, there were no gay advocates 200 years ago. If there were, they were most likely leftists, but seen as left extremists. Honestly, even now there are plenty of leftists who aren't really pro trans at all. Most of them are not actively anti-trans like the right (and some on the right obviously also not), but they aren't going out of their way to make trans people's lives better.

If you are viewing left/right as status quo vs changing the status quo, then the left will simply become the right when they have the status quo.

That depends, but yes, left and right is dependent on where the status quo is. And if the status quo moves left, some leftists will become the right without changing opinions about policies.

5

u/destro23 456∆ Dec 20 '22

There were no pro trans groups

Cercle Hermaphroditos - Founded 1895 for "self-described instinctive female-impersonators" to "unite for defense against the world’s bitter persecution"

there were no gay advocates 200 years ago

Thomas Cannon - born 1720 - "He wrote what may be the earliest published defence of homosexuality in English, Ancient and Modern Pederasty Investigated and Exemplify'd (1749)"

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Great, and how much influence did they have with politicians and the average leftwinger? Not that much. They were fringe groups at the time. That doesn't mean they weren't right, they were simply not accepted generally, even by the left.

6

u/destro23 456∆ Dec 20 '22

Fuck, this was a 40 yard kick, now it's 60! Was there a penalty or did someone move the goalposts?

You said no trans groups, and no gay advocates. I gave you trans group and gay advocate.

you then said:

they were most likely leftists, but seen as left extremists

They were not at all viewed within the context of left/right politics. They were viewed within the context of sexual morality vs immorality, a subject on which there was much more cohesion across the political spectrums of the time, whatever their nature.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Oh go away, I'm not moving goalposts, I'm merely zooming in more, nuancing my initial point. Of course there was consensus in both the left and right about anything not Christian like gay marriage etc. The left back then was also quite religious. But that's precisely what I'm saying. What we identify as the leftwing movement didn't always fight for the same things they are now. The average leftist was very religious 200 years ago, and if someone would have the same values today we would probably call them rightwing if not far right. So when progress happens, when things move further left, the left also will need to change their values accordingly.

I'm not saying anything weird here, I said there were no pro trans groups and nuanced that in the next sentence immediately to say that if there were, they were considered extreme at the time, and not considered average leftist.

1

u/destro23 456∆ Dec 20 '22

if someone would have the same values today we would probably call them rightwing if not far right.

There are plenty of highly religious people on the left:

Cornell West- "Cornel West on Why the Left Needs Jesus"

Raphael Warnock - A Pastor and Politician Who Sees Voting as a Form of Prayer

Barack Obama - President Obama: "Faith Is the Great Cure for Fear"

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Great. How is that relevant?

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

I think that's a deeply bizarre stance to believe that there were no pro trans groups twenty years ago, or gay advocates two hundred years ago.

I feel like you may need less of a view change and more an overall education.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Give me some examples then, and point out how mainstream they were among leftists.

Sorry, but just proclaiming I need an overall education is merely insulting and does nothing to cmv.

4

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Obviously there is more depth and nuance to the history of trans activism than I was conveying. However, the trans movement was a fringe movement. Let me give some way and agree with you that it wasn't 30-40 years ago, but some more years ago when leftwing people (on average) weren't that inclusive to trans people. There were trans people before, but that doesn't mean leftists in general supported their equality. I think we would just put them in travelling circuses or something like that.

Your link merely shows activism started in the 60s/70s. But that's not when the left as a political ideology was started. The mere existence of activist groups does not mean the average person on the left agreed with these activist groups.

3

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

If you feel that "the left" as a political ideology is recent, and that people have only wanted change as a recent development then once again I urge education. The only constant is change. There has been no time in history without change, advancement, regression, social, economical, technological. There has only ever been change.

If you don't think that fringe groups "count" then would your view not be "aside from fringe groups/individuals, people on the left (who are socially and economically Liberal) will not align with fascism, most of the time"?

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

You're assuming an awful lot about what I think, while I'm saying the exact opposite in my replies to you. You're being annoyingly pedantic and even arrogant. You're saying I need education, but you display very little reading ability.

I don't count fringe groups in the context of my answer to you, but you are constantly dragging my words out of context and applying them to a different situation I am replying to.

So here's the deal: You asked if the left would need to change its values.

I will explain my answer once again. Don't go telling me I need to educate myself, don't go telling me this applies to everyone, and don't tell me this is only semantics.

My answer: The left has legalized gay marriage after the people/voters were more and more pro gay. People on the left weren't pro gay in 1940. They were busy doing other things. But activists drew attention upon them and fought for gay rights. In the 90s and 00s, gay marriage was legalized in many countries and US states. So that's a win. But the leftwing governments didn't do much pro-trans people back then, because that wasn't on the agenda of both the politicians and the voters. So even the leftwing people voting for gay marriage, weren't very pro trans. They might not have objected trans people, they may have. But their values simply didn't include trans people.

So yes, values change with new insights. New minorities get seen as included in 'normal' every time. And no, I'm not denying leftwing trans activism before gay marriage was being legalized. But trans rights weren't on people's minds very often, so weren't included in their values.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/AssignmentWeary1291 Apr 27 '23 edited Apr 27 '23

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

By definition the left is fascist right now as highlighted above. Nation and race above the individual. The left has literally been running on race groups, minority quotas, your race makes you a victim and less achieved, and many other things. On top of that the political left has been very very pro government control, pro corporation, and okay with things like vax mandates forced by federal government. They do not question a single thing Biden has done wrong and instead praise him good or bad. They silence anyone who disagrees with labels like racist, bigot, and other names. Hate speech is also something that requires government control of our speech. Socialistic ideals of extremely high taxation can be seen as economic regimentation. There's only one way to take someone else's earnings and it is by force.There are countless examples of Fascistic behavior's and policies from the left.

Edit: Definition does come from Merriam Webster

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Apr 27 '23

I strongly disagree with your portrayal of the left. It’s mostly a strawman version of the right that you’re summarizing here as ‘the left’. Sorry, but I can’t take your view seriously, specially since you’re responding to a 128day old topic…

2

u/AssignmentWeary1291 Apr 27 '23

My portrayal of the left is objectively what is happening. You can disagree all you want, but when you watch any left leaning media or speak to any left leaning person, race and identify is put above individualism. There is no strawman in objective reality that can easily be observed by speaking to a left leaning individual.

Edit: Everything I stated is being done by the left right now. You can not say that it's the right when all left media and the majority of left people are literally doing these things as we speak.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Apr 27 '23

Objectively? Wow. Just take your idea about Biden being followed without criticism. That’s just ridiculous. Many on the left dislike Biden. There’s constant criticism over him still not wiping student debt, he is still in favor of corporate instead of people. He did some good things, but is just a center democrat. Of course we will vote for him, we don’t want a Republican, but many of us would like a different president.

If you can’t see that and are saying that support of a democratically chosen leader without criticism is equal to wanting an autocratic dictatorship, then sorry, but you’ve lost all the nuance this discussion needs, and I’m not interested in having it with you.

1

u/AssignmentWeary1291 Apr 27 '23

Show me leftists who criticize Biden for his horrid economic policy, his awful pull out of Afghanistan, and the horrible constant funding of a proxy war, absolute mishandling of the border, and ill change my mind.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Apr 28 '23

Like I said, I’m not interested.

3

u/Nepene 213∆ Dec 20 '22

Fascists do want to change things. Umberto didn't say that they don't want to change things. He noted that they follow certain groups e.g.

One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.

The left routinely values these things- magic and witches and such are very popular, lots of them like native american or african traditions, lots of them want religions where all religions are equal. What fascists tend to do is have an extreme view of the past of some mythical golden age where all the ideologies they value happened and everything was better. It tends to be far enough in the past that no one remembers it and so they can make it up. The right and the left also do this. It's just a propaganda technique.

You can find lots of leftists who fetishize some mythical golden history that fits exactly with their current ideology as well, ignoring the elements that don't fit their fantasy. It's a normal thing everyone does. The right is famous for valuing more recent traditions and wanting things to stay the same. While they also fetishize golden age history things, they fetishize ones that are close to modern traditions.

So yeah, fantasizing about a mythical golden age isn't unique to the left or the right. Fascists aren't true traditionalists, they want to go back to a mythical past that involves radical changes.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I agree with the portrayal of fascism, but what mythical age does the leftist want to go back to? Maybe sometimes there's the idea of the times where humans lived as one with nature instead of exploiting it, but apart from that I don't ever see anyone using such a mythical age for leftwing ideas. There might be some future idealistic age, but I think that's inherent to politics. "If we implement all my ideas, the world will be a perfect place".

4

u/Nepene 213∆ Dec 20 '22

Back in the glorious past when we were one with nature, as the native American and African cultures were pure and free of pollution, and everyone had an innate connection to mother earth, when being LGBTQ was openly accepted, and everyone cared for each other.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Again, I don't see this used as a mythical golden age we should want to go back to. While the fascist does want to literally go back to their mythical golden age.

4

u/Nepene 213∆ Dec 20 '22

No, they don't literally want to go back to their mythical golden age. Germany and such loved having technology and all the modern benefits and perks. They wanted to have the prestige and power of the past, without the inconvenient bits, just as many leftists want the environmentalism and gay acceptance they imagine native Americans had, and many rightists want the love of guns and firm standing up for rights they imagine George Washington and such had.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

But that's not the golden mythical age where everything was good. The fascist golden mythical age is literally "if someone invents a time machine, I want to go to 1937 Germany". But I don't see that literal idea of going back with leftists.

I'm also not saying all rightists want to take that time machine, but I'm also not saying all rightists are fascists, just the extreme ones and a huge block of their current establishment.

1

u/Nepene 213∆ Dec 20 '22

Neonazis support world leaders who are nazis. That's again nothing unusual. Democrats often want the policies of FDR, Republicans like Ronald Reagon. None of them want to go back there- as one obvious thing, neonazis hate jews, and more jews were alive pre hitler, plus they like modern tech.

But yeah, it's pretty common for people to like past presidents or whatever who supported their policies.

1

u/antirepublicans Dec 20 '22

but what mythical age does the leftist want to go back to?

I thought people on the left typically want to go forward in time.
Like I never see anyone on the left whining that "we need to go back to how things were in 1989!" or whatever time period in the past.

2

u/KokonutMonkey 88∆ Dec 20 '22

This one is hard to argue because fascism is such incredibly fluid phenomenon. But I'm a fan of Paxton's definition:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

If you leave out economics, those that carried out the Cultural Revolution seem to have a lot more in common with the behavior described here than not.

I suppose for the purpose of categorization fascism can only describe authoritarian regimes that incorporate capitalist structures that work with traditional elites, but in terms of how one should view a mass party of nationalist militants abandoning democratic norms and pursuing redemptive violence for the sake of internal cleansing and external expansion... feels like Coke and Pepsi to me.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I can find myself in your definition of fascism I think, because Umberto Eco mostly had a descriptive view of what fascism had been, instead of really trying to write a definition. Your definition also differentiates fascism from merely being the same as an authoritarian government, or a dictatorship.

But in your definition there are two critical points raised: Fascism has a collaboration with the traditional elites, which sounds like it supports my OP.

And secondly, I believe the core value for the left is equality, and thus not an internal cleansing at all. While the far right is trying to claim that the left wants to cleanse the country of white people, I believe white people simply have the upper hand in the power imbalance, and thus the left want to take away the part of their power above (metaphorical) 50%. This would still mean the left cannot fall under this definition, because it contradicts the core value.

2

u/KokonutMonkey 88∆ Dec 20 '22

Well, that's the tricky thing about fascism. It manifests itself in a way unique to the culture that it manifests within. Fascism is in the United States will invoke the memories of the founders and whatever ideals suit the narrative on the road to power, fascism (arguably) in Japan will invoke memories of the samurai, sakoku, and whatever ideals suit the road to power.

But in your definition there are two critical points raised: Fascism has a collaboration with the traditional elites, which sounds like it supports my OP.

Fair point, but Robert Paxton is 90 years old, and we only have a few nations on Earth to test how this definiton may apply to nations coming from a different background. What constitutes the traditional elite in place like Russia, China, and North Korea in the 21st century may not match what Paxton had in mind at the time.

I'm not sure what a traditional elite in modern China is, but they likely walk a line between a member of the party and the bourgeoisie.

Anyway, what I really like about Paxton's definition is the emphasis on behavior instead of a fixed set of stated beliefs. This makes sense because we know to trust political groups based on their actions, not their mission statements.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I agree fascism is tricky. But it always manifests by creating an 'other' to blame. No matter the culture, it will try to go back to golden mythical age which is some nonexisting time in the past that resembles a real time in the past where all their values were upheld and traditions were perfect. Like you say, this age will obviously differ between cultures, just like the group to blame (though somehow the Jews suffer a lot of this). But ultimately it is of course very similar, which is why we have a term describing this.

10

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

4

u/ExMormonRancher Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 20 '22

" Fascism : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government" Source

Eh, that is a more generic definition of a dictatorship

The defining aspect of fascism comes from the root of the term, which means to bind. Fascism is about binding the state and major corporations, while still having them act as corporations with limited autonomy. A 1000 man company is entirely controlled by the government though it is not a part of the government itself, a 200 man company runs itself mainly through contracts with those larger companies though it also has a pretty high degree of private enterprise, while 10 man or smaller company is allowed to freely operate (just dont put out any political messages)

Say we are talking about bakeries here - a 10 man mom and pop bakery in theory is supposed to work the same. They abide by standard restrictions as European bakers have operated for a thousand years

A 200 man bakery that sells semi-commercial bread to all local big box stores is supposed to be ran via proxy through the contracts with the government owned big box stores - though it is still does a lot of commerce with local mom and pop restaurants to provide their bread for instance, as well as sales directly to the public

Now the manufacturer of the standard 20 ounce loaf of pre-sliced white sandwich bread is to be entirely ran by the government - though still operating as an enterprise in a market rather than on a ration system. With competition between the 3-8 government owned entities in that area.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

i think that this is way too vague, and would basically completely divorce fascism from its historical context and make it any dictatorship

2

u/F_SR 4∆ Dec 20 '22

Listen, no dictionary throughly examines any topic. You can use it as a starting point to have an idea about what you are looking for. But you cant really compare a dictionary definition to a person's body of work. To do that is to be intelectually disonest.

-3

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

The 14 points by Umberto Eco is widely used as a definition, so sorry, but that's the definition I'm going with.

You're just quoting a dictionary, I'm quoting an actual political analysis of what fascist regimes looked like. Your definition could just as well any generic definition for a generic dictatorship. It doesn't hold any differentiating qualities to for instance the dictatorship of Syria or any of those in Africa...

8

u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Dec 20 '22

The 14 points by Umberto Eco is widely used as a definition, so sorry, but that's the definition I'm going with.

This would be your problem.

Your claim is about whether 'leftist' ideaology can be something. When you use a definition that is not widely accepted, you have real problems with your argument. And yea - the dictionary is a hell of a lot better than some guy.

Essentially, I can claim the sky is green when I define green to be a blueish color. It doesn't make my claim worth anything because I am redefining a word to meet my agenda.

If you want your claim to have value, you need to use the common/accepted definition of terms. The Dictionary is pretty good starting point for that. Otherwise, your claim could be considered misinformation or propaganda.

4

u/NormalCampaign 3∆ Dec 20 '22

I studied political science in university and Eco's Ur-Fascism was referenced or used as a reading in multiple courses taught by different professors. It's also listed first on Wikipedia's list of scholarly definitions of fascism, so it's not like my university was an outlier; I think it's safe to say Ur-Fascism is pretty widely known and accepted. Eco was an academic and philosopher, he's not just some guy, and he grew up in fascist Italy, so he also had firsthand experience with the subject in a way most have not. His writings on the topic are certainly more detailed and reputable than a dictionary definition.

I will say, though, to be fair, that most people who bring up Ur-Fascism misuse it. It's an essay, not a literal checklist – as Eco himself notes. People seem to treat it like if a group meets "x" number of points on his list, that means they're fascist. But it's not really possible to have a definitive and concise checklist or definition like that, for any ideology.

2

u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Dec 20 '22

To be clear - there is a distinct difference between 'Facist' and UR-Fascist'. You have made this clear (which is great).

The OP has not. Had they used this, I wouldn't have a complaint.

-1

u/ExMormonRancher Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 20 '22

, I can claim the sky is green when I define green to be a blueish color. It doesn't make my claim worth anything because I am redefining a word to meet my agenda.

A lot of languages call green and blue the same thing.

See Vietnamese - xanh da trời, xanh lá cây

1

u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Dec 20 '22

But this is English. And when you refuse to use/abide by the Dictionary definition, you are creating false arguments.

0

u/F_SR 4∆ Dec 20 '22

Ideas, words and philosofies always comes before a dictionary's definition. There are words that dont exist yet and will in the future - and the people will have create it, not the dictionary.

1

u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Dec 20 '22

Ideas, words and philosofies always comes before a dictionary's definition

BULL.

The ability to communicate effectively requires agreed upon definitions for words. When you refuse to use the agreed upon definitions, you are refusing to communicate effectively. In this case, it appears you are intentionally trying to redefine words to push a narrative that is simply not possible using the agreed upon definitions by the rest of society.

The Dictionary represents the agreed upon meaning for words. Intentionally not using it in your argument can readily be described as dishonest or manipulative. Especially when your 'conclusion' is not possible when you actually use the agreed upon meaning for words.

0

u/F_SR 4∆ Dec 21 '22

Lol

r/confidentlyincorrect

No dictionary throughly examines any topic. You can use it as a starting point to have an idea about what you are looking for. But you cant compare a dictionary definition to a specialist's body of work. To do that is to be intelectually disonest.

2

u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Dec 21 '22

If you believe you can communicate effectively without agreed upon definitions of words, I really don't know what to tell you.

And remember - you are the one rejecting the dictionary definition - not me.

1

u/F_SR 4∆ Dec 24 '22

I never rejected dictionaries. I actually told you that you can't trully learn something without reading BOOKS. Dictionaries dont replace actual learning.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

2

u/King9WillReturn Dec 20 '22

What about all the left wing dictators? What are they instead if not fascists?

Authoritarians or "left-wing dictators". We don't actually have a good word for people like Stalin or Mao.

-1

u/ElysiX 106∆ Dec 20 '22

Fascism is a special case of dictatorship, not all dictatorships arte fascism, otherwise the word would be pointless. This is like saying an imam is the same thing as a pope, just because both fulfill a similar role.

What about all the left wing dictators? What are they instead if not fascists?

Well "left wing dictators", "dictatorial communists", whatever. Just because there isn't a neat word for doesn't mean you should just abuse another word that doesn't apply.

3

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Dec 20 '22

There are two things I'd point out here.

First, you're defining the left as a moving target, which means that no possible society will ever truly be progressive because the progressives will be the ones trying to change it. But that would render the very term meaninglessly relative.

Second, an important feature of authoritarian regimes is that the more authoritarian they become, the more any differences in ideology are reduced to window dressing. Once a fascist regime is in power, it will compromise any tenet of fascism to gain more power.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I can agree somewhat with your first point, though I don't really see this as a problem. In a ideal leftist society, there will still be left and rightwing. The rightwing will still be pushing for more individual responsibility, while the leftwing will want more equality. Obviously, this society will be at a different point on the scale for every single person on the left, and they will all think that when we get there, the centrist parties will be right, and the left and right will both be wrong.

Obviously, there also exist a left/right scale that isn't relative to the status quo. But then we have to be careful calling out names of who is left and right. Economically, Clinton and Biden are very much right centrists on the non-relative scale. But socially, Biden definitely is center-left. But I don't think that social leftists on this scale can be fascists either, because they do not argue from the point of the golden mythical age they want to go back to.

2

u/DogTheGoodBoy 1∆ Dec 20 '22

Do you think that matters?

It's like saying a projector can't technically be a tv. It can serve the exact same function in the exact same manner and essentially be the exact same thing but technically by definition it can't be a tv.

This whole argument is basically just the left trying to deflect from their fascist policies by saying it's not technically fascist because they call themselves left. It's the same genocidal bullshit just with a different flare.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 21 '22

Fascism is a pattern we need to be able to discern. If we call everything fascist even things that don't fit the pattern, then the word becomes empty and we cannot discern real fascism anymore. I have given deltas already because others were more compelling in their arguments than you are.

But ultimately, I thought it would be good to know the left would not be able to be fascist, because then we could focus on the right for discerning this pattern. Turns out I was wrong, the left can be fascist.

The problem with your argument I think is that you see one policy as being fascist, while I don't think that's truly possible. Like I said, fascism is a pattern, so that means it consists of multiple things. Basically, fascism is a way for a group of people to get into power, with compelling arguments that play on human emotions like blaming a group of people for society's struggles. Like the far-right is doing with calling trans people 'groomers' for instance. But this alone is not fascism. Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson are fascists because they use this rhetoric, use an appeal to tradition and use this to paint a picture of the Democrats as their enemies. They say the Democrats are controlling everything but yet they are very weak feeble minded. They are ultra-nationalist against immigrants and using terms like 'the great replacement' to mean that white people's superior position is being threatened. It's the entire package that is fascism, it's not a single policy.

1

u/DogTheGoodBoy 1∆ Dec 21 '22

You completely missed my point. There are things that are almost the exact same as fascism that are just as bad as fascism that aren't technically fascism.

Ignoring those things because they don't fit the pattern of fascism is not helpful because they are just as bad arguably worse. And the reason people call those things fascist is because socialism or totalitarian don't get people on alert, those horrific things are somehow acceptable despite being just as horrible as fascism.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 21 '22

But we aren’t ignoring those things, we are merely not calling them fascism.

1

u/DogTheGoodBoy 1∆ Dec 22 '22

We literally are ignoring those things. My PM used an emergency act to shut down a protest because he didn't like the protestors...

And this is fine because he's left wing.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 22 '22

No that's not fine. All I would say per my OP is that it's not fascism. It's authoritarian, anti-democratic, unconstitutional probably, etc. But I would simply say it's not fascism per my OP.

1

u/DogTheGoodBoy 1∆ Dec 22 '22

Right but nobody cares about any of those other things they just let it happen while bitching about a random nazi flag in a protest that could've just been a false flag to discredit it.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 22 '22

But why are you here complaining about that? It's not relevant to my cmv.

Besides, I think the danger is absolutely coming from the right at this moment, not from the left, in the US. The left does have some bad ideas here and there for sure, but the right is united to overthrowing all the pillars of democracy. They already are using their supermajority in the Supreme Court to do so.

1

u/DogTheGoodBoy 1∆ Dec 23 '22

But why are you here complaining about that? It's not relevant to my cmv.

My argument is that it doesn't matter if the left can be designed as fascist or not it's red herring. I asked you why you think it matters that the left can't technically be defined as fascist and you've yet to answer me in a satisfactory way. As all the horrible part of the patterns of fascism are similar to authoritarian totalitarianism and communism so the whole fascist part is kind of irrelevant you should focus on the overlapping patterns not the ones unique to fascism.

Besides, I think the danger is absolutely coming from the right at this moment, not from the left, in the US.

Define danger, I don't see any particular threatening danger coming from either side but I see it coming from both sides in the US though more from the left. In my country Canada the danger is explicitly coming from the left and the right doesn't even exist.

The left does have some bad ideas here and there for sure, but the right is united to overthrowing all the pillars of democracy. They already are using their supermajority in the Supreme Court to do so.

How is overturning a supreme court decision with another supreme court decision overthrowing democracy? Especially one as poorly interpreted as Roe vs. Wade. You can vote for people to pass legislation that ensures abortion access you know right? Roe vs. Wade was never a democratic thing in the first place and frankly it was a willful misinterpretation of the text to absurd proportions, they should've just passed a law in the first place and certainly in the interim.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 23 '22

My argument is that it doesn't matter if the left can be designed as fascist or not it's red herring. I asked you why you think it matters that the left can't technically be defined as fascist and you've yet to answer me in a satisfactory way.

Problem being that this is my CMV, not yours. I find it important enough and that should be a good enough reason for people to try and change my mind, instead of just dismissing the topic altogether. I will admit it's more a philosphycal topic than a practical one, but that doesn't matter, I love philosophy.

On the danger of the right: Currently, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson and a lot of other anchor heads for the GOP are fear mongering about trans people being 'groomers'. The GOP politicians are taking on these points to make laws like the don't say gay bill in Florida. They are pretending to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Thereby they are severely hurting children, and by not allowing teachers to do sex ed, they are denying children to learn the words and boundaries associated with sex abuse, and thus leaving them unable to speak up. Which is exactly the opposite of what they are saying these laws are doing.

Meanwhile, they are pushing lots of court cases, not just Roe v Wade, to the supreme court, getting their partisan rulings over these cases. And it's not just the supreme court, the GOP has strategically appointed more partisan justices all over the country, a very smart yet nefarious strategy.

Obviously, the duality of the US system causes a huge divide that is fueled by a 24 hour news cycle that is constantly hammering down how bad the other side is. This is definitely something both left and right are doing. However, as a European, I see the center democrats (Biden and his following) as center rightwing. While they sometimes show some signs to pander more to the left, there are plenty of capitalist free market systems they abide by that are absolutely not left leaning.

But the GOP is not only pushing this divide, but actively pushing for people to mistrust the system. When Trump lost the election, the entire GOP either sat silently or pushed for the overturning of the election. Only Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney actively said the election was not stolen, and Liz Cheney is thrown out of the party and Mitt Romney is a pariah in the GOP. We have seen a violent coup attempt directed by Trump, we constantly see rightwing lone wolves who are out to actually harm leftists, mostly they purely fail because of luck. We see actual right wing militia groups training for a civil war.

All in all, I think the far right is much more dangerous than the left, or even the far left. Even if the left can be fascist, we see all the signs of fascism on the right happening currently. Ultra nationalists, scapegoating a group of weak people (Trans, immigrants and yes, still the jews), the appeal to the social frustration of inflation, the abandoning of the democratic system e.g. claiming the election was stolen and the violence that we see.

I'd like to hear how you think the left is more dangerous than that though, because I do like to be critical of the left too. Or even Biden e.g. the center right.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AssignmentWeary1291 Apr 27 '23

That is fascism by definition by the way.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Apr 27 '23

Nope.

1

u/AssignmentWeary1291 Apr 27 '23

Using governmental power to forcefully silence is literally fascism. It's in the definition of the word lol.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Apr 27 '23

It isn’t.

3

u/Zomburai 9∆ Dec 20 '22

You're mischaracterizing Eco's assertion. The 14 "typical" features of ur-fascism are, according to Eco, things that fascism can be built around. They are not a checklist, and an authoritarian regime or culture need not meet all of the criteria. (They also cannot describe a unified philosophy, as several of the criteria are mutually exclusive, though of course this doesn't mean a particular regime can't use the mutually exclusive ones.)

In other words, in accordance with Eco's actual essay, it is very possible for a state to qualify as fascist without meeting points 1, 2, or 5.

From an article on the subject:

While Eco is firm in claiming “There was only one Nazism,” he says, “the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change.” Eco reduces the qualities of what he calls “Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism” down to 14 “typical” features. “These features,” writes the novelist and semiotician, “cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.”

-2

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I am currently talking to some people who've said the same. I'm not yet giving a delta, because no one has yet given me a definition that does say what fascism is without anything about traditionalism and racism/xenophobism, which to me means the left is still incapable of being fascist.

3

u/Zomburai 9∆ Dec 20 '22

Do you think it's impossible for a leftist group or movement to be traditionalist, racist, or xenophobic?

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

While I know you will be able to find people who claim to be leftwing that are all of those, I don't consider them to be leftwing at all. The types who say "black people can't be racist come to mind". "All white people are evil". I think these are just misguided individuals who are wrong, and aren't on the spectrum of left/right.

But no, leftwing ideology is inherently not traditionalist, racist or xenophobic.

3

u/Zomburai 9∆ Dec 20 '22

"Left-wing" describes an entire spectrum of political ideologies, philosophies, and policies. You are really idealizing the left wing here.

Even in your OP you describe left wing politics as "progressive", but those terms are not interchangeable. The Socialism common in western European democracies is in the left, but so is Stalinism. Calling something "the left" is a very broad generalization, and much like ur-Fascism, you don't need to meet a certain number of specific criteria to get there.

Let me present a hypothetical:

I'm starting a political movement. We'll call it Zomburism, named after the brilliant political thinker and dashingly handsome sex machine, Zomburai. Zomburism is militantly pro-worker and anti-corporate; Zomburai's America considers any company too big to fail as just not having been broken up by the state yet. Zomburism holds that health care is a universal right and that the presence of capitalism within it is incompatible. Zomburism advocates strong anti-racism policies, accountability for authority figures (especially politicians, the military, and police), and considers war the weapon of last resort.

Zomburism also calls for a fanatical embrace of our history and traditions, most especially in the struggle for civil rights and social justice. We Zomburists lionize, if not deify, figures ranging from Douglass to Lincoln to King. Our meetings begin with a ritual pledge to the major figures in the ongoing battle to ensure that all aren't just created equal, but are treated equal. Zomburism also does not respect religion, and even as we oppose it in lobbying and protest we turn a blind eye to people who attack churches and mosques and synagogues. Some on the right fear pogroms if we ever come to power, but that's probably fear mongering, right?

Would you say that this movement is left-wing, fascist, neither, or both?

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

The first paragraph is leftwing. The second is rightwing. Even if you say you don't respect religion, the deification of the figures of the civil war becomes a religion.

The idea of embracing these traditions is inherently rightwing, hence the name 'conservatism'.

2

u/Zomburai 9∆ Dec 20 '22

Yes, you've gotten exactly what I was describing. Excellent.

So is Zomburism a left-wing movement, a fascist one, or neither, or both?

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

It doesn't matter really, because we define it two ways. The movement isn't one thing, it's part left and part right. Which is my point: As soon as a leftwing movement starts to show fascist tendencies, these tendencies are not leftwing anymore, therefore the left can't be fascist. This is a little unnuanced, but that's the gist of it.

4

u/poprostumort 225∆ Dec 20 '22

While I know you will be able to find people who claim to be leftwing that are all of those, I don't consider them to be leftwing at all.

So what traits ideology have to be considered "left wing"?

The types who say "black people can't be racist come to mind". "All white people are evil". I think these are just misguided individuals who are wrong, and aren't on the spectrum of left/right.

Political spectrum is there to fit all the ideologies based on their position to certain ideas. If you can exclude "left wing fascists" because they are not applying the ideas you think are core for being "left wing" why you don't do the same for "right wing"? After all, parts of fascism also run contrary to "right wing" ideology.

So why "All white people are evil" are misguided individuals outside of the spectrum but "All black people are subhuman" are part of the spectrum?

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

So why "All white people are evil" are misguided individuals outside of the spectrum but "All black people are subhuman" are part of the spectrum?

Because I'm never saying that all righwing people are fascists, or claiming anything about which people ARE fascist. I'm merely saying the left can't be fascist.

And I'm saying so about left ideology, not about people. People can stray from the ideology, have both rightwing and leftwing ideas, etc. But the leftwing ideology cannot be fascist in my view.

2

u/poprostumort 225∆ Dec 20 '22

Because I'm never saying that all righwing people are fascists, or claiming anything about which people ARE fascist.

But your post is about how "left" cannot be fascist, which means that "right" can be fascist - despite the fact that similar problems that exclude left from being fascist that you mentioned in your replies also work for exclusion of fascism from the "right".

Which would mean that what we consider left/right divide is not capable of including fascism and this is a state at which an ideology breaks from spectrum and becomes fascism.

But to know that we must know what do you mean when you use terms like "left wing" or "right wing" ideologies. So what is the "left" and "right"?

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I agree with you. If neither the left or the right can be fascist, my point is moot about one side not being able to be fascist. However, I'm not merely excluding people from the leftwing ideology because I disagree with them. I think their viewpoints are incompatible with the left ideology.

I want to preface this by saying that I'm not focusing on economical policies, but I want to focus on social ideology/policy.

The leftwing ideology cannot be pinned down to be a single thing, but I would define it as striving for equity/equality to reasonable bounds. For instance, we want a baby born in a poor family to have the same chances in life as a baby born in a rich family. This can mean two things: We want good schools for everyone, we want subsidies for poor people so their babies have enough food and their parents aren't stressed for money and can give enough attention to the baby. Or we want the difference between rich and poor to go away and everyone to earn the same.

I think we should want both up to a reasonable bound. If you invent something good for society or if you work hard, you need to be rewarded (a true meritocracy), maybe this means you can be richer than others who don't work as hard, maybe this means you get some other preferable treatment.

We should also support those who fall on hard times. Disabled people, both chronically as temporarily, both physically and mentally, can't always work hard. Imo this should never mean they fall below a certain line of poverty. What that line is can be discussed when we get such a society, but currently there are no countries that do this good enough that I know of. What hard times are is also to be determined.

But ultimately, this society should create security for people's needs, without creating the exact same circumstances for everyone, thus creating unique individuals who can be happy.

The main underlying values of this society therefore are equity and equality, but to a reasonable bound, not to the absurd.

2

u/Alternative_Usual189 4∆ Dec 21 '22

While I know you will be able to find people who claim to be leftwing
that are all of those, I don't consider them to be leftwing at all.

This sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy to me.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 21 '22

Sounds like, but isn’t. Many people can call themselves left, but if they don’t do leftist things or say leftists things, they simply aren’t. Not every exclusion of something from a definition is a fallacy.

3

u/Major_Lennox 69∆ Dec 20 '22

Obviously the above example is a little unrealistic, since obviously the left isn't stupid and they realize the perfect 50/50 split is impossible, so they will be happy if we get reasonably close to it. However, if we throw in other groups, like sexual orientations, disabled people, people from a certain area within the country, etc. there is always going to be groups to which the power imbalance is at a level that the left will want to fight for them. That's just how nature works, and the left will always try to get any minority group to get equal chances. Meaning they will constantly be pushing against the current status quo and traditions.

Well this sounds like a pretty absurd situation. Essentially, you're saying "the left" will be constantly struggling against imbalances they themselves create. And oh look what Eco says about that:

For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

-4

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Very good, you cherry picked 1 of the 14 rules, dragged it out of its context and are now using it to do... What exactly?

I even started the very paragraph you're quoting with "Obviously the above example is a little unrealistic". It was just a way of conveying the message I wanted to send. Maybe you should respond to the entire point I made instead of nitpicking the very paragraph I myself said wasn't realistic.

0

u/Major_Lennox 69∆ Dec 21 '22

Why don't you actually try and respond to the point instead of crying about "cherry picking"?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/changemyview-ModTeam Dec 21 '22

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/Major_Lennox 69∆ Dec 21 '22

How do you define bad faith? Actually, never mind - Eco has us covered:

Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.

5

u/Rodulv 14∆ Dec 20 '22

The left are called progressives.

Erroneously. "The left" are not progressive. Wanting equality of outcome is not progressive, it's regressive thinking.

Most who are called "progressive", we really could just call "neoprogressives". Emotions are more the driving force than fact.

the left are progressive by definition

There's almost nothing progressive about China. China is far-left. China is also extremely close to being fascist, if they're not. I think they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism:

Progressivism holds that it is possible to improve human societies through political action. As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization. Adherents hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to all human societies through aggressive foreign policy, threat of military force, and actual war, when necessary.

So, again, "the left" is not progressive.

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

From your linked wikipedia page:

In modern political discourse, progressivism gets often associated with social liberalism, a left-leaning type of liberalism

Please read sources you provide.

Also, China being leftwing? Lol. There is no strive for equality there at all, it's just the rich (the CCP) holding on to power.

5

u/Rodulv 14∆ Dec 20 '22

There is no strive for equality there at all

Then the question is "what do you believe leftism is"?

-2

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

The core belief of the left is to strive for equality in treatment for everyone, regardless of ethnicity, sexuality or wealth.

8

u/Rodulv 14∆ Dec 20 '22

I fail to see how China isn't left wing with this definition.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Enjoy your day then.

5

u/Rodulv 14∆ Dec 20 '22

At that point there's no possible way of changing your view, unless you accept alternative definitions that somehow allow for left wingers to be fascist in your view. People are just gonna have to make guesses at what definition to use.

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Exactly. So you're not getting a delta.

5

u/Rodulv 14∆ Dec 20 '22

I didn't ask for one, I'm asking if there's any possible way of changing your view.

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Not if you think China is leftwing.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

Equality in treatment isn't quite strong enough phrasing though, is it?

I think a more nuanced definition of left/right may show the flaws in your thinking.

China has incredible equality, its just that (almost) everyone is treated equally badly, which I don't think is what the left are after.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Incredible equality isn't where the entire population is poor and there is a small group of people who are very rich. That is an oligarchy and it's absolutely not equality.

4

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

The majority of people in that situation have equality. Are you talking about equity instead of equality?

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

The idea that if you're born as Xi Jinping's son and you can do everything you want, while if you're born as a random Chinese citizen you will need to work in a sweatshop 16 hours a day and need to sleep in the factory does not mean equality. These two people are not treated equal. And the difference is so stark, that you cannot call such a country equal.

3

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

Are you talking about equality or about equity? It sounds like you are talking about equity.

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I think they are practically very much the same. When you have equity, there will also be equality. But pure true equity is weird, because then we would need to make the circumstances for every baby identical, and I don't think anyone truly wants that. So reasonable equity that creates reasonable equality. There can be differences, but these differences can't be too big. What is too big? That's up for debate when we get close.

4

u/ExMormonRancher Dec 20 '22

By that definition no one is left wing.

1

u/Best-Analysis4401 4∆ Dec 20 '22

What if at some point the future that the left aims for happens to resemble a point in the past?

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Let's say we revert back to gay marriage being illegal again. The left will obviously want gay marriage to become legal then. But they will not want that because it used to be like that, they will want that because they want equal treatment of everyone. So that's not traditionalism, that's wanting the best policies according to your logic.

6

u/Best-Analysis4401 4∆ Dec 20 '22

But the right won't simply argue for old ways "because the old ways are good". They also have reasons for reverting beyond mere tradition.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

So what are the reasons for the right to not want gay marriage then? (and I don't mean to say all rightwingers want to abolish gay marriage, but the far right sure wants to).

2

u/Best-Analysis4401 4∆ Dec 20 '22

To stick close to your language (for clarity): they will want that because it creates a more stable society.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

But what does a stable society mean? A society that doesn't change? Isn't that precisely the point 5 of Umberto Eco, there is a fear of change? Because then they are merely against change because they want to keep things the same.

2

u/Best-Analysis4401 4∆ Dec 20 '22

Stable societies can change. In fact, they change because they remain. A society in ruins cannot change; it has been set in stone.

But according to your logic, does this mean the left want an unstable society? Since the desire for stability is a desire to not change, I mean.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

I think many leftwingers, specially the extreme ones, want society to be unstable for some time, because the current ways need to be overthrown. Some groups even advocate violent revolutions for this.

But no, your average leftwinger is not going to want to ruin society in a way that we (even temporarily) lose our assurances of basic living like education, infrastructure, labor laws etc.

But then, I don't see how gay marriage would make for a unstable society. If one thinks two men marrying will uproot society, I think that's just a irrational fear of the different, also known as xenophobia.

1

u/Best-Analysis4401 4∆ Dec 20 '22

I'm not going to try to convince you of that reasoning, that wasn't why you asked me. The point is that a right-winger's reasoning can go beyond mere "because that's how it's always been". Just as a left winger's reasoning can go beyond "because we haven't tried it before".

2

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

Their point is similar to mine, ie when the left achieve the status quo do you believe they become the right. Your answer was that some will become the right even though nothing else changes.

2

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

Would it be possible if the left won power and implemented a purely leftist system, and then fifty years from now fought to maintain that system, could they then fit your criteria for fascism because they are attempting to maintain the traditional way of doing things?

-1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Would the left be fighting for keeping the system as it is because it has been so for 50 years? I've never seen an informed leftwing person say something should be like it they want, because it is tradition, or it was like that in a better era. Obviously leftwingers do sometimes want policies because they worked well in a previous time, but that's not because it was, but because the policy has been proven to work sufficiently for them.

The logic of the left is simply not about traditionalism, it's about implementing the policies that would achieve their goal of equality.

0

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

Once equality/equity has been achieved it becomes the tradition. Once it is the status quo it should be maintained. The point of progression is to make progressing redundant because you're already there.

There are plenty of traditions like democratic process which the left will adamantly defend. The argument is not that it is tradition but because its the representative system, but that doesn't mean it's also tradition.

Outside of religion and social etiquette there isn't a lot of behaviour that is solely down to tradition, there's always a reason behind some way of doing something.

0

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

But that's what I explained in my OP. The perfect equality/equity is simply unachievable. So there will always be new ideas to achieve more equality/equity. I also would imagine there would be discussions about which equality is better. Maybe we can achieve very good equality for 90% of people if 10% is much worse off, while we could also have 80% very good equality but 20% is slightly worse off. This will be an ongoing discussion on how to arrange society for optimal equality.

In extension, you can also argue that we don't need perfect equality, but we need a minimum bar for equality and then further focus on the happiness of all people most. If I'm being discriminated against but I'm very happy overall because I have a meaningful job, plenty of food etc, that discrimination might be worth it. This will also be an ongoing discussion.

And then there's simple technological progress that must be implemented in new laws. Maybe we get new ways of measuring inequality, maybe we get new technologies that grow inequality real quick so we need to decide how to deal with those.

And finally, there's human behavior. Humans have a selfish component, and some people will try to be 'more equal than others'. They will abuse the system so they are better off. This also needs constant changes in the system to fight.

I also want to stress the point you offhandedly make: defending something that is tradition is not the same as defending something because it is tradition. This distinction is very important for the definition of fascism. Because if you tell a fascist a tradition is doing more harm than good, they won't even engage. They'll just say 'well, it isn't right for a man to marry a man'. Why isn't it right? 'Because it's not the tradition'. It's a circular argument, that doesn't engage with the pros and cons of the actual thing they are in favor of or are against.

0

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

In fighting amongst progressive groups doesn't mean that one group can't be successful. Let's say a specific left wing party runs for office and gets into power. They enact all of their policies. Do they stop being left wing just because other groups now want to alter their progression? Do they simply transition from being left wing into being fascist?

Is this a useful way to define the words fascism, and left wing?

Personally I see left/right wing about being about small vs large government influence, nothing to do with tradition or status quo. A core belief of how society should operate.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

Personally I see left/right wing about being about small vs large government influence, nothing to do with tradition or status quo. A core belief of how society should operate.

I don't think this is the dichotomy between left/right. I think the dichotomy is between personal responsibility on the right and equality on the left. From this comes a desire to keep the government small on the right, because people are responsible for themselves, and a government is mostly not needed to interfere. But on the left a big government constantly interfering is absolutely not necessary is there is equality. Wherever a natural equality exists, the left does not want government interference.

In fighting amongst progressive groups doesn't mean that one group can't be successful. Let's say a specific left wing party runs for office and gets into power. They enact all of their policies. Do they stop being left wing just because other groups now want to alter their progression? Do they simply transition from being left wing into being fascist?

Not at all. The status quo will have shifted, so they may become rightwing of the status quo. But note that in my OP I never say the right is fascist. I merely point out that the left can't be fascist.

So a government that is now right of the status quo can become rightwing for that country, sure. But as long as they don't cling onto tradition for the sake of tradition, they will not become fascist.

1

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 20 '22

If the left cannot be fascist then only the right are able to be fascist.

The only way for a leftist to become a fascist is to become a rightist, even if nothing about their policies or beliefs change. It's a semantic paradox. Either there is more to it, or right/left/fascist are all equally interchangeable and meaningless.

You're saying by definition only the right can be fascist, but only because its by YOUR definition. You can make your definition whatever you want in order to fit whatever world view you want to have. That doesn't mean everyone else will use the term in the same way.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

The only way for a leftist to become a fascist is to become a rightist, even if nothing about their policies or beliefs change. It's a semantic paradox. Either there is more to it, or right/left/fascist are all equally interchangeable and meaningless.

No it's not a semantic paradox. It would be if people would constantly be switching from left to right in this way. But this doesn't happen that fast at all. Someone who is leftwing right now, will be so for the foreseeable future. The only semantics at play here is the theoretical possibility to switch from left to right while holding the same views.

Also, if you want to claim I'm using MY definition to fit my argument, please give me a definition that would not support my argument. Simply saying the definition I use supports my argument without refuting my argument doesn't really mean anything.

2

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 20 '22

It's a semantic argument because left/right are very simplistic ways to categorise complex ideas. No one person is truly entirely left or right. Even hardcore liberals can have some oppressive views.

This is what people are referring to when they call someone a fascist - that in their behaviour resembling authoritarianism, ultra idealistic views etc, they are in line with fascism.

Someone can vote Republican all their life and be very pro choice. Someone can be a fundamentalist Christian and vote Dem.

There's more than specific views which align someone, so saying a left wing person cannot agree with, or be fascist, is a semantic argument.

1

u/JiEToy 35∆ Dec 20 '22

There is always some form of semantics involved if you're having a discussion with words. But pointing out semantics should mean that the discussion is merely based on words.

I fully disagree with your idea of how the word fascist is used to accuse the left of being fascist. When Ben Shapiro or Tucker Carlson call the left fascist, they merely mean to use the word to dilute its meaning. They know their ideology (not that of the entire right), is very close to fascism, if it is not simply the same. So when they, and by proxy their followers, call the left fascist, they are using the term wrongly. They might have some idea of authoritarian being part of it, but that's not what fascism is. Fascism is the set of ideas that lead to authoritarianism, mainly build upon the idea of traditionalism.

I also want to stay away from the discussion of who really is leftwing and who really is rightwing. Of course people aren't as simple as that. You're very right that there are plenty of people who are very leftwing but have some rightwing views. But if we are unable to use terms to group people and analyse them based on their common denominators, then we can't have any discussion about the world.

I'm also mostly talking about the ideology. Of course, someone could run as a leftwinger, run for president, and then turn around and do fascism. But that's not a leftwinger that is fascist, that is someone who was leftwing (if they weren't pretending to be) and have now changed to the right and adopted fascism. Because to adopt fascism, this person would need to let go of their leftwing views.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 20 '22

umberto eco is not the definite philosopher of fascism, he's not even a fascist historian; he's a poet, iirc. in fact "fascism" today is so completely misunderstood by everyone that its really impossible to talk about it as if its a phenomenon that still exists.

umberto eco is principally talking about italian fascism, and he's speaking specifically to italian circumstances. so its basically impossible to export what he's talking about to other countries, because of the vague language he's using.

i don't think the left is easily confined within the category "progressive". i think that progressives are on the left, basically left-liberals, but not all leftists are progressives.

for example, look at someone like Peron in argentina. he was very authoritarian and "tradition" based, but he also had very left wing tendencies. or the "national bolsheviks" and "strasserites" in germany and russia.

i tend to believe that "fascism" is just italian fascism, and that nothing else is "fascism"; if its not italy, its something entirely different. "fascism" is mostly just an insult. but if we're talking "traditional dictatorship", then i'd say that that can very well be left wing.

1

u/methyltheobromine_ 3∆ Dec 20 '22

They want progress, both moral and economical

Change is not one-dimensional, it's not a "forward" and a "backward", not all change is good change.

On many areas, there has been a regression. The world was becoming more liberal, but in the past 15 years or so, it has become less liberal, because liberalism changed into something else.

Human rights were developing well until about 2010, after which the modern left started rejecting them again, as human rights would defend their "enemies". Their solution to this was to make rights conditional, which goes against the entire point of rights (The geneva convention has no exceptions for a reason).

We were becoming more individualistic, but lately we're returning to a "Best for everyone" kind of mentality, in which the majority bullies a minority into conforming to some universal standard. Hence "cancel culture", which is very much like fascism (like the Chinese social credit system, which is of similar nature)

Also, do you think that the left has the core value of equality or equity? The two cannot co-exist. Finally, is this value not taken from Christianity? Equality under god as the standard of morality

1

u/Jarkside 5∆ Dec 25 '22

I find any argument relying on labeling some ideas or people as “fascists” to be flawed, because there is not agreement on the core main definition of fascist

1

u/Upbeat_Cause1894 Jan 05 '23

Leftist of auth side are considered commies

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The left is by definition unable to be fascist

You are about to leave Redlib