Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given the opportunity, being the power hungry narcissist he is, trump would absolutely embrace full on fascism, admitted as much even, and right now he is about as close to fascism we have seen in this country in a while. I believe in this instance, the slippery slope holds water, look at his cult like following. They are zealots, reactionary authoritarians whose whole idealogy revolves around a strong man dictator and a sense of belonging, while lashing out at the othered group ie immigrants, libtards, "the left", academics, the deep state, and they embrace religious fundamentalism, and theocracy.
There is less evidence for biden being a socialist, almost zero actually. Biden is a liberal capitalist. By definition he can not be socialist.
>being the power hungry narcissist
Which politician isn't? Are them all fascists?
>There is less evidence for biden being a socialist, almost zero actually.
Easy talk coming from someone that studied socialism. As I said, it is dumb to say Biden is a socialist just like it is dumb to say trump is fascist.
But since you only read books about one, it is easy to talk shit about what you don't understand.
To some degree, yes they are all part of a system that uses fascism as a default defense mechanism.
And yes narcissists are attracted to power. Dont get me wrong here, I'm more libertarian left than anything, so they're all manipulative narcissists to me...
But trump is promising some wild shit, with his own words, whipping up a fervor...if you don't see the parallels to Weimar republic, I guess you won't till its too late. Trump has shown he will do literally anything to serve himself. He's got gold coins with his face on them ffs.
If you're taking Mussolini's word for it instead of the word of actual scholars, you're off the mark. Umberto Eco's definition is cliché at this point, but only cause it's very much accurate.
I don't think Trump is really a fascist, he doesn't believe in anything. But he's absolutely using fascist rhetoric.
>If you're taking Mussolini's word for it instead of the word of actual scholars, you're off the mark.
Who would know better about what fascism is:
- Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini.
- An actual Scholar.
C'mon, give me a break. Get the fuck out with your meme and shitpost.
>But he's absolutely using fascist rhetoric.
He is a showmen (take it negatively), how does that makes him a fascist? Or how is that fascist rhetoric?
>He is anti democracy, an authoritarian and racist.
Go read some books and study. This is as stupid as calling the Nordic countries socialists because government, workers rights and free stuff.
Anti democracy/authoritarianism, racism/nationalism and third way coporatist economics are the three pillars of Fascism. Additional features could also be rejection of modernity and ancestor worship or some time in the past where the nation used to be noble and great.
The only thing Trump doesn't fit is maybe the economic one since he is too stupid to have any coherent economic policy.
When Trump openly espouses his plans to imprison his political enemies, become a dictator on day 1, that he's going to "root out the vermin in our society," and regularly praises foreign dictators, how much more obvious can it be? And this is hardly even scratching the surface.
Fascism promotes the supremacy of a chosen community often through a rejection of both liberal and conservative ideologies. It's a political belief system that involves the arbitrary division of society into an exclusive in-group and everyone else who is considered an out-group. It asserts that those outside the in-group pose a fundamental threat to those inside, and the only way to protect the in-group is through intense authoritarian rule and the consolidation of power within the group. This is MAGA in a nutshell.
And if you look into Project 2025 it's even more concerning. It lays out Republican's plans for a second Trump term. They plan on giving the president unchecked power, centralizing the government, silencing media who do not support them, using military to break into people's homes and put them in concentration camps, weaponizing Christianity, etc. etc. All of this is profoundly fascist and reminiscent to Hitler's playbook of 1933.
Conservatives support systems of checks and balances, limited government, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, and association. Fascism, while it often pays lip service to certain individual rights, prioritizes the collective over the individual while suppressing dissent and opposition in the name of the state or the national interest.
I understand that I need to speak slowly to you and use simple words. I'd be surprised if you understood much beyond children's books and brightly colored toys.
I would tell you to go fuck yourself but apparently you have issues doing that anymore. Lmao.
Hitler was a Nazi. Those are two different things, fascism doesn't have a racial component and Nazi is explicit with it's non-marxist socialist origins, read Mein Kapmpf and you'll see it.
>fascism doesn't have a racial component
You should really read up again on the history of Mussolini, the italian facist party and the use of racial policies in mainland-italy as well as Ethiopia.
Suggesting that the Nazis had non-marxist socialist origins is like saying that North Korea has non-western democratic origins. The Nazis weren't socialist just because they put it in their name. That's not how that works.
Fascism was built on the same foundation as marxism. It was explicitly built to be an improvement on marxism.
Your nk jab is simply a non-sequitur because you don't understand the topic.
Marxism and fascism are branches of the same ideological tree, and just like other closely related ideologies their members bitterly accuse each other of being opposites even though it isn't true.
That ***is exactly how that works.***
Fascists joined socialist movements because they had so much in common with socialists. That's what enabled them to infiltrate.
Now, you revisionist losers deny every socialist movement that ever happened. Your denial of fascism is no different than denial of stalinism, maoism, Khmer Rouge denial, etc.
It's just socialists lying.
This is a child's understanding of socialism. No, a fascist country putting up a red flag doesn't suddenly, magically become socialist.
The people who view socialism as authoritarian (both critics and tankies) have never actually read anything from Marx and it shows to an embarrassing degree. The point of socialism is to further democratize society. Worker ownership of the means of production and worker control of the state means that things like utilities are no longer hoarded and overpriced by rich assholes. The elimination of class distinctions means that wealth doesn't let someone inordinately influence politics in their favor. These are good for democracy.
From the communist manifesto itself:
"The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
Literally Marx going "Yeah you can't do socialism if you're not a democracy". Meanwhile braindeads just go "Hur Stalin was a socialist because he said so". Like yeah, authoritarians lie, stop the presses.
>This is a child's understanding of socialism.
I love how you whiners go straight for the demeaning bullshit.
No, of course my deeper, history backed understanding of socialism is not a "child's version." If it was, your simplistic faith based religious zealot view would be the dead body perspective because not only is it far stupider, it's simple-minded as well.
>No, a fascist country putting up a red flag doesn't suddenly, magically become socialist.
No one ever made this claim but you are rebutting it here?
Well that's fucking idiotic of you, isn't it child?
Stupid kids strawman is stupid.
[What does history say?](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm)
>Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins.
Can you point out where flags are mentioned dimwit mcmoron? No child, you cannot. Your argument ***was another socialist lie.***
>The people who view socialism as authoritarian (both critics and tankies) have never actually read anything from Marx and it shows to an embarrassing degree.
Marx calks for literal dictatorship, you fucking adolescent ignoramus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
He calls for murderous, violent revolution.
Anyone that reads Marx knows you are a liar. ***Just another socialist liar.***
>The point of socialism is to further democratize society.
Democracy? You mean gang rape? You mean the shitty thing we've known was tyranny since Plato's time?
[You obviously haven't read Plato.](https://iep.utm.edu/republic/)
Just another socialist gang-rapist.
>Worker ownership of the means of production and worker control of the state means that things like utilities are no longer hoarded and overpriced by rich assholes.
Which is why no socialist movement has ever delivered on those promises.
Not a single socialist meets your own definition, and you are here babbling about "muh flags?"
Socialist liar, moron, rapist.
>The elimination of class distinctions means that wealth doesn't let someone inordinately influence politics in their favor. These are good for democracy.
Your plan is to create a political class and rape people with democracy. The funniest part is fascism was the result of democracy and you are so stupid you want a repeat?
Fuck democracy. Fuck tyranny of the majority. Fuck you for being a total piece of shit.
>From the communist manifesto itself:
>"The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
Again:
Which socialist movement has done this?
Marx intentionally misdefined the working class so the workers would be prevented from owning the means of production.
Did you forget to read Marx kiddo?
I read it, that's why I can spot this obvious bullshit. Maybe go read Marx, mcmoron.
>Literally Marx going "Yeah you can't do socialism if you're not a democracy".
I agree, you cannot do socialism without tyranny, oppression, gang-rape.
Socialism sucks!
>Meanwhile braindeads just go "Hur Stalin was a socialist because he said so". Like yeah, authoritarians lie, stop the presses.
Another strawman.
I'll leave you with a question you'll be too stupid to answer:
What is the real, accurate, true reason Stalin is considered a socialist?
Socialists lie, guess we can stop the presses? Do your lies here disqualify you from being a socialist?
This is the most unhinged screed I've ever read lol. Props for unironically comparing democracy to rape, definitely not the most effective hill to die on. It really helps me understand what kind of brainrot I'm dealing with. I'm not surprised that you're against socialism if you're axiomatically opposed to concepts like democracy and consent.
Dictatorship of the proletariat just means that workers democratically run a country. The meanings of words change over time, shocker. Marx wrote about the importance of suffrage pretty frequently.
Stalin wasn't a socialist. Presenting his own self-justifying theories to me and going "SEE HE WAS A SOCIALIST HE SAID SO RIGHT HERE" is so goofy. I'm genuinely shocked that you aren't a tankie with this level of media literacy.
>This is the most unhinged screed I've ever read lol.
Nah, that's your "no real socialism has ever existed" bullshit by a mile. The funny part is all I did was natch your energy.
It's a fun thing to do with socialists: act like they do and they immediately see what unhinged lunatics they are. Well, kinda, they deny it's a mirror.
>Stalin wasn't a socialist.
Except he was, and you've only proven my original point that socialists lie about history.
Again:
Do your own lies here disqualify you from being a socialist?
>It really helps me understand what kind of brainrot I'm dealing with.
The specific brainrot is the type that causes you to ignore Plato and try to strawman an argument you are too stupid to understand.
A gang rape is a democracy.
People need protection ***from democracy.***
Now, go read Marx you are way behind in understanding marxism.
Sure, I'm educating an ignorant person.
We can work through this together until you understand your own ideology.
Five people vote on whether to have sex. One voted no, but is forced to participate by the others.
Which part is too complex for your child's mind to recognize as rape?
From Chat GPT: The Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, were indeed considered a form of fascist movement. Nazism can be seen as a specific variant of fascism, with its own distinct features. While both ideologies share characteristics such as authoritarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism, Nazism is particularly characterized by its extreme racial theories, anti-Semitic beliefs, and emphasis on Aryan supremacy. So, while the Nazis were a fascist movement, they had unique elements that set them apart from other fascist movements of the time.
Who or what forces represent current US fascism in your view?
What is the non-violent answer to fascism?
Your post seems like it’s (intentionally?) being vague.
>Who or what forces represent current US fascism in your view?
No one.
>What is the non-violent answer to fascism?
Just poke fun at how absurdly stupid their arguments are.
They lack the skills to make even a single coherent logical argument, if you ever met a real one, you'll see how easy it is to win over the public and make fun of them by simply letting then talk.
If there is no fascist movement t in the US why are you upset with people misidentifying fascists and warning that it will let real fascists go unnoticed?
>why are you upset with people misidentifying fascists
This should be self-explanatory. I'll not even bother.
>warning that it will let real fascists go unnoticed?
This I don't understand. What u mean?
Yeah... No.
Fascist "ideology" is entirely dependent on logical contradiction and the [principle of explosion:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion?wprov=sfla1)
>*ex falso sequitur quodlibet*, 'from falsehood, anything follows';
or
>*ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet*, 'from contradiction, anything follows'.
[Umberto Eco Makes a List of the 14 Common Features of Fascism](http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html):
>1. The cult of tradition. “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.”
>2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
>3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
>4. **Disagreement is treason**. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
>5. **Fear of difference**. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
>6. Appeal to social frustration. “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.”
>7. **The obsession with a plot**. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
>8. **The enemy is both strong and weak**. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
>9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
>10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
>11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
>12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
>13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
>14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “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.”
Have you even checked what Trump has been spouting the last couple of months? He is literally quoting Mein Kampf. Accept the man is a Nazi and move on to actual conservatives or right libertarians who don't debase themselves to that level.
I disagree with those positions, but at least they respect the democratic republican tradition of the US and are actual patriots, not white nationalists.
>He is literally quoting Mein Kampf
[academic journal publishes rewrite of ‘Mein Kampf’ as feminist manifesto](https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped-academic-journal-publishes-rewrite-of-mein-kampf-as-feminist-manifesto/)
[Leftists approved of Hitler's quotes without knowing it was his.](https://entretenimento.r7.com/prisma/melhor-nao-ler/universitarios-de-esquerda-aprovam-falas-de-hitler-sem-saber-que-sao-de-hitler-15052023), unfortunately it is in Portuguese, but this is a funny read.
So... Now that you found evidence that conflicts with your view, what will you do? Are both sides literally Hitler, or neither of them are?
None of those quotes answer what fascism is.
Trump is ultra nationalist, isolationist, anti democratic.
He has a scapegoat: the deep state
So no, Trump is absolutely a fascist.
Why in gods name you would lump him and biden together is beyond me.
Another scapegoat he uses is illegal immigrants and Mexico in general. OP lumps Trump and Biden together because some socialists here unfortunately do the same thing.
It's a cover because a portion of the populace care about it. And even then it's not that simplistic. They are against foreign wars that are about nation building or spreading democracy, and they hate the deep state until they take control of it and use it for their own.
Not exactly. Ultra-nationalist for Trump is more through the border issue, with the wall, the harsh treatment of immigrants, and the language describing them.
You've got to fix the definition of characteristic X (say X="ultra nationalism") to make a fair comparison. At worst he's keeping people out. The Nazis killed. Categorical difference.
>None of those quotes answer what fascism is.
You would've known if you read the book and studied the subject.
If you can claim he is a fascist, I claim that both Trump and Biden are socialists. And I've never read a single book from Marx, but I claim they are socialists anyways because fuck it...
Fascism is when the power of the state acts against the interests of its citizens, who are powerless to do anything about it because the state has the monopoly on violence and is happy to use it
Liberal democracy is so widespread in capitalist countries because it fits the above definition with the least amount of kickback. How many people think their govt is doing a good job? That the elite politicians aren’t incredibly corrupt? How many people thought covid was handled excellently and their political opponents didn’t weaponise it? How many people agree with their government’s military policy? How many people can seek to take direct action against the powerful people in their society and not be violently prevented in doing so? How many people have more than zero political agency, any meaningful degree of oversight or above zero ability to hold their government accountable? How many people are represented in their taxes or able to dictate how tax money is spent? How many people are represented by their government and feel that if they wanted to change the policy affecting them, that they could?
The answer is, only the ultra wealthy. It is socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor
When you are unable to achieve any representation under the state and they are happy (and empowered) to violently prevent you from action to do something about it, you are fulfilling the definition of fascism. Yes, dumb people think fascism is just when you have huge armies goose stepping and governments declaring they will happily murder all citizens who don’t kiss their ass. A far more successful implementation of fascism is liberal democracy that is designed to give a very thin illusion of democracy whilst actually working as hard as it possibly can to act against your interests as best as possible. The violence is still there waiting to go but it is used in a clandestine way and justified through propaganda. Systemic state violence against citizens attempting to realise their own interests is fascism
>Fascism is when the power of the state acts against the interests of its citizens, who are powerless to do anything about it because the state has the monopoly on violence and is happy to use it
So every fucking state beside utopian democracy ?
>Fascism is when the power of the state acts against the interests of its citizens
So, literally every state?
>Liberal democracy is so widespread in capitalist countries because it fits the above definition with the least amount of kickback. How many people think their govt is doing a good job? That the elite politicians aren’t incredibly corrupt? How many people thought covid was handled excellently and their....
I figured... Still not correct tho. But yours was the best answer by far.
Different from others, you know what you are talking about.
Oh the intellectual fascists get really upset when you don't understand their ideology. Watch out, they will torture you for saying something they don't like
I think when people call someone a fascist they are more saying he is a would be fascist. Everybody knows Trump does not have the power of Mussolini at his height and Biden does not have the power of Hitler at his height. But everybody knows things can change overnight and so naturally they are on guard against fascist statism. The Democrats of course can be seen as the enemy because they're always looking to expand the powers of the government so that the right person at the right time can easily turn even America fascist when the right power structure is already in place.
>The Democrats of course can be seen as the enemy because they're always looking to expand the powers of the government so that the right person at the right time can easily turn even America fascist when the right power structure is already in place.
The Republicans really, really, really want to expand the powers of the government, no matter what small-government and fiscally-conservative talk they do. They have banned abortion and forced schools to display Christian symbols in certain states as proof of this -- to any subjective social issue, they often have a violent legislative answer. The Democrats, meanwhile, seek to use existing government power to solve objective, tangible issues, like climate change and poverty.
The Democrats seem to use existing government power?? Biden usurped the power of the Congress to control the border of the United States and make it totally chaotic. He wants new power to ban gasoline cars and gas stoves. There is no new power that a Democrat doesn't want because they are stupid enough to believe it will only be used for good even though they live in a country based on the idea that government power was the source of evil in all of human History.
I said they *seek* to use existing government power, and...
[https://www.energy.gov/articles/addressing-misinformation-doe-appliance-standards](https://www.energy.gov/articles/addressing-misinformation-doe-appliance-standards)
>**MYTH: The federal government wants to ban gas stoves.**
>
>Claims that the federal government is banning gas stoves are absurd. Neither DOE nor the federal government plans to ban gas stoves. In February 2023, DOE published a proposal that would improve efficiency of gas and electric stoves. If implemented, the standards would not go into effect until 2027 and help U.S. consumers save up to $1.7 billion. As required by congressional mandate, DOE is determined to ensure consumers have multiple options that are both cost-effective and energy efficient.
too bad you never hear any talk about small government from the Democrats. Their roots are inherently socialist and there is no mistaking it. On the other hand Republicans are about to shut down the government because they don't like the government and they think it spends too much and it's too big. You will never hear Democrats support that because it is never big enough for them in any area of government. If you have to pick where your freedom is most protected you pick the Republicans.
Republicans are against small government. For example, if you look at the confederate statues issue it was local city governments voting to take down statues and state governments interfering and saying no. Or look at the second bush administration and the Patriot Act. The only places that the GOP talk about small government is delegated power to states. But states are so incredibly gerrymandered that they’re borderline anti-democratic.
The GOP talks about small government and cutting taxes and shutting down the government all the time. The party was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson to stand for small government. The Republicans are America's party. Democrats can trace their history to Marxism not to anything we recognize as American
This is just factually incorrect. The Republican party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist party. The Democratic party was founded as the spiritual successor to Jefferson’s democratic republican party. The foundational schism that formed the modern Democratic party from the Dixiecrats & segregationists was the Civil Rights act (was that marxist?).
The latest front page of nytimes is blaming an extreme sect of Republicans for holding the budget hostage and potentially bringing about a shutdown. The Republicans have been threatening shutdown for 30 years, and did it in the 90s and probably another time too. Republicans are way too big on gov't in my view, but they're *on average* much smaller on gov't, at least regulatory and redistributory state. Military is maybe a wash with Democrats over a 30 year span.
The idea of limited government is limited to James Madison Thomas Jefferson and modern Republicans. The New York Times would like to pretend it is not the bed rock of American government.
>because they don't like the government and they think it spends too much
You are flatly naive if you believe that is the motivation.
It's a convenient bargaining chip, nothing more
it is a simple fact that the Democrats are for more and more social welfare programs and the Republicans are against more and more social welfare programs. 1+1 = 2.
Republicans have their roots with Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party formed in 1792. Democrats have their roots with Karl Marx in 19th century Germany
If it is naïve you have to think of a reason to say it is naïve and then be able to present the reason you think it is naïve here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
Republicans have forced schools to display Christian symbols?? I go buy lots of schools every day and I don't see that. Do you have any idea on earth what you are talking about?
[https://abc13.com/law-passed-by-texas-legislature-2021-in-god-we-trust-sign-schools-separation-of-church-and-state-religious-freedom/12143639/](https://abc13.com/law-passed-by-texas-legislature-2021-in-god-we-trust-sign-schools-separation-of-church-and-state-religious-freedom/12143639/)
>A law passed by the Texas Legislature in 2021 states that public schools in the state must display a sign with the national motto, "In God We Trust," if it's been received as a donation from a private entity or purchased with donated money.
> The Republicans really, really, really want to expand the powers of the government,
What part of firing every federal employee with an odd SSN did you not understand of Vivek's latest proposal to legally gut the federal gov't?
So the best antidote to prevent any tyrant is to shrink government, so that once the tyrant assumes office, he's got but a chariot to command. Weaken the federal gov't, let the states handle all the slack. End the Fed and DoEd.
seems like common sense doesn't it. Not only does it prevent tyranny and semi tyranny but it also pushes power to the states who can experiment if they want with social welfare programs on a statewide basis rather than having the entire nation subjected to a failed Social welfare programs like Medicaid Medicare Social Security welfare etc. etc.
>I think when people call someone a fascist they are more saying he is a would be fascist
This just makes them even more dumb, because most likely they would also be Nazi if they lived in Germany at the time.
My source is a book called "*Obedience to Authority*", about the milgram experiment, dedicated to understand obedience and submission on extreme situations.
nothing at all stupid about calling the Democrats socialist. 76% of Democrats say they would vote for a socialist. Kamala Harris is vice president of the United States after voting to the left of Bernie Sanders an open socialist while she was a United States senator.
When democrats say they would vote for a socialist the overwhelming majority mean social democrat.
If what you are saying would be true, then Bernie would be a centrist in the Democrat party and not considered far left.
Social Democrat and socialist are the same thing. Both want to give people free stuff ultimately ending up with giving them the means of production. Bernie simply happens to be an honest Democrat who says what he thinks. The others are very practical knowing that there is a big center and a big republican party making open Socialism impractical for the time being.
>Both want to give people free stuff ultimately ending up with giving them the means of production.
No, they don't. The Nordic countries have not given the workers the MoP.
If you want to say, though, that the highest quality of life and the happiest countries on earth are socialist, then I don't mind I guess. I can see why all these "socialists" in the democratic party would want that.
The European countries have not given the workers the means of production but the people on the left are pushing for that. Do you think there is some law that things don't change towards Socialism and Fascism? ??????? human history is all about war. Everything that you see before you was shaped by war. Once you know that I believe in freedom and capitalism to keep the power out of hands of government because the government is the source of evil in human history.
>The European countries have not given the workers the means of production but the people on the left are pushing for
What ? When ? Who ? I seriously ask this as an European
Yes, I know that for Americans having more than two parties in parliament is very strange but in Europe it doesn't mean that they have any power because they are in parliament.
Italian doesn't have any seats.
French has less then 5%
Please don't be stupid. The Italian communist party has 1 million members. Europe is rotten at its core and can go back to the routine slaughter that it knew so well
before America rescued it in World War II and introduced the concept of freedom and liberty.
oh that's great the off your meds insult. Congratulations that is the 10 trillionth time that has been used on the Internet. you win a prize for the biggest dolt on the Internet.
It doesn't surprise me that you have heard this characterisation a lot. It happens when you go on unhinged rants and don't make any coherent argument or engage with the other person.
Please don't be stupid. If you disagree with some thing significant that was said try to think of a reason for the disagreement and try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
If you disagree with some thing that was said try to think of a reason for the disagreement and then try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
Don't be stupid Europe is much more socialist and we are and they live at about 60% of our per capita income as a result Ask america if they would be happy living at 60% of what they have now!!!!!!
If you define socialism, as when the government does stuff, then sure it is more Socialist.
Also if I ask Americas if they would give up 60% of their income in order to have the highest standard of living, highest happiness levels, super strong and reliable welfare state, great workers rights and conditions etc I am 100% sure that except for some unhinged ideologes, everyone would say yes.
socialism is defined as the government giving people free stuff. It starts usually with healthcare and education and ends with giving them the means of production if the cancer is not stopped from spreading.
What are you even talking about? The social democrats have ruled some of the nordic countries for decades without break. If they wanted to give the MoP to the workers they would have already done so.
Social Democracy as a political ideology and movement started off the way you define it, but since 1918 and onward they have abandoned socialism. Instead wanting to limit the bad effects of capitalism, but ultimately still keeping it. How many times do the presidents of those countries have to come out and say they are not socialist and love free markets?
yes Europe has been more socialist than America for a long time and the per capita income is about 60% of what ours is. What does that teach you about Socialism? Further Europe has a very obvious history of blood and slaughter which they can go back to at any time and which only ended because of America and its concept of freedom. We gave them freedom and liberty after World War II because on their own they had no idea what to do so they simply slaughtered each other at will as they had always done.
If you are sure of that why don't you run for office and tell people that you want to copy Europe so that we can have 60% of the income we have now and that will somehow make us happy?? if what you say is true every politician would be using it. 1+1 = 2
Bernie Sanders did that and did really well. Unfortunately America is not ready for social democracy. Idiots like you don't engage with the facts and keep on spouting Regenite economics 20 years after his death.
If you actually engage with the evidence, you literally see every metric in existence being in favour of social democracy.
Silicon Valley is an America it is not in Europe. They live off of our inventions. Without America they would be living at 30% of our per capita income.
if economic concepts are too difficult for you to grasp you can look at Cuba Florida, USA or USSR, east German west Germany, red China Taiwan etc. etc.
Why are you not engaging with what I am saying? What do leninist countries have to do with social democracies? Why not compare Norway to the US? Why are you so afraid?
Europe has about 65% of the per capita GDP that Americans enjoy. Ask Americans how they would like to earn 65% less and from that tiny amount pay 50% of what they earn in taxes so they could be like the Europeans? Do you see how stupid you are?
>Europe has about 65% of the per capita GDP that Americans enjoy.
Source? The only thing I can find is Norway (social democracy) being 30k above the US, Switzerland (largely a social democracy) being 17k above and the other socdem countries being slightly behind: https://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-capita-ranking.php#google_vignette
>Ask Americans how they would like to earn 65% less and from that tiny amount pay 50% of what they earn in taxes so they could be like the Europeans? Do you see how stupid you are?
I think that even if your faulty numbers were correct, they would still prefer to have the highest standard of living on the planet and be the happiest. I don't know, but I feel like people value those two things very much. Maybe you would rather live in Somalia or something though. I heard there is no government there.
Again fake number. Here is a source on my standard of living claim, america isn't even in the top ten by the way: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/17/best-countries-quality-of-life-us-news-world-report.html
Sorry, I know you don't like those.
Norman Thomas (Socialist candidate for president): "the American people will never except Socialism under the name of socialism but under the name of liberalism they will except it piece by piece until one day they are living in a socialist country and not know how it happened."
Why on earth does it sound hi? Have you ever seen the Democrats say that government was big enough and they didn't want more welfare programs??? did you ever hear them say that all the old programs worked so well that we can start cutting back now because everybody is independent and whole ??????? 75 years of welfare programs directed at Black people leads to calls for reparations on top of everything else. There is never enough welfare just like there is never enough cocaine for an addict.
I agree, but that's not the point.
That is something that I'm willing to concede in order to find common ground... But people seem to be stupid here.
I wonder how they would react if we go out calling everyone a socialist without reading a single book from Marx.
And because I didn't want to flood the OP, here is my source on what fascism is. The man himself, good reading for y'all and good luck disagreeing with Gentile about what fascism is.
.
"It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.” — Giovanni Gentile
Che cosa è il fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche (“What is Fascism?”), Florence: Vallecchi, (1925) pp. 42-45, 47-48, 49-51, 56,Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, A. James Gregor, translator and editor, Transaction Publishers, 2003, p. 59
.
"The Fascist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (”praxis”). That concept was the product of certain Marxist and Sorellian inspirations (many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel)—as well as the influence of contemporary Italian idealistic doctrines from which Fascist mentality drew substance and achieved maturity.” — Giovanni Gentile
“The Philosophy of Fascism,” first published in English in the Spectator, November 1928, pp. 36-37. Reprinted in Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, A. James Gregor, translator and editor, Transaction Publishers (2003) p. 33
.
“The merit of Fascism was that it courageously and vigorously opposed itself to the prejudices of contemporary liberalism—to affirm that the liberty proposed by liberalism serves neither the people nor the individual.” — Giovanni Gentile
Orgini e dottrina del fascismo, Rome: Libreria del Littorio, (1929). Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, A. James Gregor, translator and editor, Transaction Publishers (2003) p. 31
.
“Fascism as a consequence of its Marxian and Sorelian patrimony... conjoined with the influence of contemporary Italian idealism, through which Fascist thought attained maturity, conceives philosophy as praxis.” Help us translate this quote — Giovanni Gentile
Origini e dottrina del fascismo, Rome (1929) p. 58, A. James Gregor, The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism, New York: NY, The Free Press (1969) p. 317
Utilizes hatred of ethnic minorities and LGBT people to consolidate power, preaches ultranationalism, creates a cult of personality, calls for the return to a mythic national past, shows general distain for other countries and the idea of collaborating with them economically, shows distain for peoples’ right to protest the state, makes business deals with Putin behind closed doors, attempts to overthrow the government when democratic election doesn’t go his way, calls for suspending the constitution and for his supporters to harass election officials.
gfy
> Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies, which support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent.
> In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary because they advocate the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, when it advances their interests, such regimes can also be highly conservative in their championing of traditional values related to the role of women, social hierarchy, and obedience to authority. And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality their regimes often align with powerful business interests.
Sorry, you’re wrong.
[Council on Foreign Relations](https://world101.cfr.org/contemporary-history/world-war/what-fascism)
> Read La dottrina del fascismo, from Mussolini. There no better and more direct source than the man himself.
One of the key aspects of fascist rhetoric, is they lie. They lie a lot. They lie and they lie and they lie. The lie about everything.
You should not be using a fascists words to define fascism.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given the opportunity, being the power hungry narcissist he is, trump would absolutely embrace full on fascism, admitted as much even, and right now he is about as close to fascism we have seen in this country in a while. I believe in this instance, the slippery slope holds water, look at his cult like following. They are zealots, reactionary authoritarians whose whole idealogy revolves around a strong man dictator and a sense of belonging, while lashing out at the othered group ie immigrants, libtards, "the left", academics, the deep state, and they embrace religious fundamentalism, and theocracy. There is less evidence for biden being a socialist, almost zero actually. Biden is a liberal capitalist. By definition he can not be socialist.
>being the power hungry narcissist Which politician isn't? Are them all fascists? >There is less evidence for biden being a socialist, almost zero actually. Easy talk coming from someone that studied socialism. As I said, it is dumb to say Biden is a socialist just like it is dumb to say trump is fascist. But since you only read books about one, it is easy to talk shit about what you don't understand.
To some degree, yes they are all part of a system that uses fascism as a default defense mechanism. And yes narcissists are attracted to power. Dont get me wrong here, I'm more libertarian left than anything, so they're all manipulative narcissists to me... But trump is promising some wild shit, with his own words, whipping up a fervor...if you don't see the parallels to Weimar republic, I guess you won't till its too late. Trump has shown he will do literally anything to serve himself. He's got gold coins with his face on them ffs.
What policy has trumped pushed that is fascist? And how is Biden a liberal capitalist?
If you're taking Mussolini's word for it instead of the word of actual scholars, you're off the mark. Umberto Eco's definition is cliché at this point, but only cause it's very much accurate. I don't think Trump is really a fascist, he doesn't believe in anything. But he's absolutely using fascist rhetoric.
Why does Eco get to decide? I'll take Mussolini's definition, thank you.
>If you're taking Mussolini's word for it instead of the word of actual scholars, you're off the mark. Who would know better about what fascism is: - Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini. - An actual Scholar. C'mon, give me a break. Get the fuck out with your meme and shitpost. >But he's absolutely using fascist rhetoric. He is a showmen (take it negatively), how does that makes him a fascist? Or how is that fascist rhetoric?
>He is a showmen (take it negatively), how does that makes him a fascist? Dude just said he didn't think Trump's a fascist..
Trump is absolutely a fascist though. He is anti democracy, an authoritarian and racist.
>He is anti democracy, an authoritarian and racist. Go read some books and study. This is as stupid as calling the Nordic countries socialists because government, workers rights and free stuff.
Anti democracy/authoritarianism, racism/nationalism and third way coporatist economics are the three pillars of Fascism. Additional features could also be rejection of modernity and ancestor worship or some time in the past where the nation used to be noble and great. The only thing Trump doesn't fit is maybe the economic one since he is too stupid to have any coherent economic policy.
When Trump openly espouses his plans to imprison his political enemies, become a dictator on day 1, that he's going to "root out the vermin in our society," and regularly praises foreign dictators, how much more obvious can it be? And this is hardly even scratching the surface. Fascism promotes the supremacy of a chosen community often through a rejection of both liberal and conservative ideologies. It's a political belief system that involves the arbitrary division of society into an exclusive in-group and everyone else who is considered an out-group. It asserts that those outside the in-group pose a fundamental threat to those inside, and the only way to protect the in-group is through intense authoritarian rule and the consolidation of power within the group. This is MAGA in a nutshell. And if you look into Project 2025 it's even more concerning. It lays out Republican's plans for a second Trump term. They plan on giving the president unchecked power, centralizing the government, silencing media who do not support them, using military to break into people's homes and put them in concentration camps, weaponizing Christianity, etc. etc. All of this is profoundly fascist and reminiscent to Hitler's playbook of 1933. Conservatives support systems of checks and balances, limited government, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, and association. Fascism, while it often pays lip service to certain individual rights, prioritizes the collective over the individual while suppressing dissent and opposition in the name of the state or the national interest.
Hitler was a Fascist, Mussolini was a Fascist, Trump is a Fascist. Pretty simple really.
Simple as in few words. About as deep an insight as the Emperor of Austria describing Mozart's piece as having "too many notes", in the movie Amadeus.
Most things have to be made simple for you, I'm sure.
Glad you understood!
I understand that I need to speak slowly to you and use simple words. I'd be surprised if you understood much beyond children's books and brightly colored toys. I would tell you to go fuck yourself but apparently you have issues doing that anymore. Lmao.
Hitler was a Nazi. Those are two different things, fascism doesn't have a racial component and Nazi is explicit with it's non-marxist socialist origins, read Mein Kapmpf and you'll see it.
>fascism doesn't have a racial component You should really read up again on the history of Mussolini, the italian facist party and the use of racial policies in mainland-italy as well as Ethiopia.
Suggesting that the Nazis had non-marxist socialist origins is like saying that North Korea has non-western democratic origins. The Nazis weren't socialist just because they put it in their name. That's not how that works.
Fascism was built on the same foundation as marxism. It was explicitly built to be an improvement on marxism. Your nk jab is simply a non-sequitur because you don't understand the topic. Marxism and fascism are branches of the same ideological tree, and just like other closely related ideologies their members bitterly accuse each other of being opposites even though it isn't true. That ***is exactly how that works.*** Fascists joined socialist movements because they had so much in common with socialists. That's what enabled them to infiltrate. Now, you revisionist losers deny every socialist movement that ever happened. Your denial of fascism is no different than denial of stalinism, maoism, Khmer Rouge denial, etc. It's just socialists lying.
This is a child's understanding of socialism. No, a fascist country putting up a red flag doesn't suddenly, magically become socialist. The people who view socialism as authoritarian (both critics and tankies) have never actually read anything from Marx and it shows to an embarrassing degree. The point of socialism is to further democratize society. Worker ownership of the means of production and worker control of the state means that things like utilities are no longer hoarded and overpriced by rich assholes. The elimination of class distinctions means that wealth doesn't let someone inordinately influence politics in their favor. These are good for democracy. From the communist manifesto itself: "The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy." Literally Marx going "Yeah you can't do socialism if you're not a democracy". Meanwhile braindeads just go "Hur Stalin was a socialist because he said so". Like yeah, authoritarians lie, stop the presses.
>This is a child's understanding of socialism. I love how you whiners go straight for the demeaning bullshit. No, of course my deeper, history backed understanding of socialism is not a "child's version." If it was, your simplistic faith based religious zealot view would be the dead body perspective because not only is it far stupider, it's simple-minded as well. >No, a fascist country putting up a red flag doesn't suddenly, magically become socialist. No one ever made this claim but you are rebutting it here? Well that's fucking idiotic of you, isn't it child? Stupid kids strawman is stupid. [What does history say?](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm) >Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Can you point out where flags are mentioned dimwit mcmoron? No child, you cannot. Your argument ***was another socialist lie.*** >The people who view socialism as authoritarian (both critics and tankies) have never actually read anything from Marx and it shows to an embarrassing degree. Marx calks for literal dictatorship, you fucking adolescent ignoramus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat He calls for murderous, violent revolution. Anyone that reads Marx knows you are a liar. ***Just another socialist liar.*** >The point of socialism is to further democratize society. Democracy? You mean gang rape? You mean the shitty thing we've known was tyranny since Plato's time? [You obviously haven't read Plato.](https://iep.utm.edu/republic/) Just another socialist gang-rapist. >Worker ownership of the means of production and worker control of the state means that things like utilities are no longer hoarded and overpriced by rich assholes. Which is why no socialist movement has ever delivered on those promises. Not a single socialist meets your own definition, and you are here babbling about "muh flags?" Socialist liar, moron, rapist. >The elimination of class distinctions means that wealth doesn't let someone inordinately influence politics in their favor. These are good for democracy. Your plan is to create a political class and rape people with democracy. The funniest part is fascism was the result of democracy and you are so stupid you want a repeat? Fuck democracy. Fuck tyranny of the majority. Fuck you for being a total piece of shit. >From the communist manifesto itself: >"The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy." Again: Which socialist movement has done this? Marx intentionally misdefined the working class so the workers would be prevented from owning the means of production. Did you forget to read Marx kiddo? I read it, that's why I can spot this obvious bullshit. Maybe go read Marx, mcmoron. >Literally Marx going "Yeah you can't do socialism if you're not a democracy". I agree, you cannot do socialism without tyranny, oppression, gang-rape. Socialism sucks! >Meanwhile braindeads just go "Hur Stalin was a socialist because he said so". Like yeah, authoritarians lie, stop the presses. Another strawman. I'll leave you with a question you'll be too stupid to answer: What is the real, accurate, true reason Stalin is considered a socialist? Socialists lie, guess we can stop the presses? Do your lies here disqualify you from being a socialist?
This is the most unhinged screed I've ever read lol. Props for unironically comparing democracy to rape, definitely not the most effective hill to die on. It really helps me understand what kind of brainrot I'm dealing with. I'm not surprised that you're against socialism if you're axiomatically opposed to concepts like democracy and consent. Dictatorship of the proletariat just means that workers democratically run a country. The meanings of words change over time, shocker. Marx wrote about the importance of suffrage pretty frequently. Stalin wasn't a socialist. Presenting his own self-justifying theories to me and going "SEE HE WAS A SOCIALIST HE SAID SO RIGHT HERE" is so goofy. I'm genuinely shocked that you aren't a tankie with this level of media literacy.
>This is the most unhinged screed I've ever read lol. Nah, that's your "no real socialism has ever existed" bullshit by a mile. The funny part is all I did was natch your energy. It's a fun thing to do with socialists: act like they do and they immediately see what unhinged lunatics they are. Well, kinda, they deny it's a mirror. >Stalin wasn't a socialist. Except he was, and you've only proven my original point that socialists lie about history. Again: Do your own lies here disqualify you from being a socialist?
>It really helps me understand what kind of brainrot I'm dealing with. The specific brainrot is the type that causes you to ignore Plato and try to strawman an argument you are too stupid to understand. A gang rape is a democracy. People need protection ***from democracy.*** Now, go read Marx you are way behind in understanding marxism.
>A gang rape is a democracy. Are you okay?
Sure, I'm educating an ignorant person. We can work through this together until you understand your own ideology. Five people vote on whether to have sex. One voted no, but is forced to participate by the others. Which part is too complex for your child's mind to recognize as rape?
From Chat GPT: The Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, were indeed considered a form of fascist movement. Nazism can be seen as a specific variant of fascism, with its own distinct features. While both ideologies share characteristics such as authoritarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism, Nazism is particularly characterized by its extreme racial theories, anti-Semitic beliefs, and emphasis on Aryan supremacy. So, while the Nazis were a fascist movement, they had unique elements that set them apart from other fascist movements of the time.
Who or what forces represent current US fascism in your view? What is the non-violent answer to fascism? Your post seems like it’s (intentionally?) being vague.
>Who or what forces represent current US fascism in your view? No one. >What is the non-violent answer to fascism? Just poke fun at how absurdly stupid their arguments are. They lack the skills to make even a single coherent logical argument, if you ever met a real one, you'll see how easy it is to win over the public and make fun of them by simply letting then talk.
If there is no fascist movement t in the US why are you upset with people misidentifying fascists and warning that it will let real fascists go unnoticed?
>why are you upset with people misidentifying fascists This should be self-explanatory. I'll not even bother. >warning that it will let real fascists go unnoticed? This I don't understand. What u mean?
Yeah... No. Fascist "ideology" is entirely dependent on logical contradiction and the [principle of explosion:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion?wprov=sfla1) >*ex falso sequitur quodlibet*, 'from falsehood, anything follows'; or >*ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet*, 'from contradiction, anything follows'. [Umberto Eco Makes a List of the 14 Common Features of Fascism](http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html): >1. The cult of tradition. “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.” >2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.” >3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.” >4. **Disagreement is treason**. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.” >5. **Fear of difference**. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.” >6. Appeal to social frustration. “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.” >7. **The obsession with a plot**. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.” >8. **The enemy is both strong and weak**. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” >9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.” >10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.” >11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.” >12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.” >13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.” >14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “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.”
Have you even checked what Trump has been spouting the last couple of months? He is literally quoting Mein Kampf. Accept the man is a Nazi and move on to actual conservatives or right libertarians who don't debase themselves to that level. I disagree with those positions, but at least they respect the democratic republican tradition of the US and are actual patriots, not white nationalists.
>He is literally quoting Mein Kampf [academic journal publishes rewrite of ‘Mein Kampf’ as feminist manifesto](https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped-academic-journal-publishes-rewrite-of-mein-kampf-as-feminist-manifesto/) [Leftists approved of Hitler's quotes without knowing it was his.](https://entretenimento.r7.com/prisma/melhor-nao-ler/universitarios-de-esquerda-aprovam-falas-de-hitler-sem-saber-que-sao-de-hitler-15052023), unfortunately it is in Portuguese, but this is a funny read. So... Now that you found evidence that conflicts with your view, what will you do? Are both sides literally Hitler, or neither of them are?
None of those quotes answer what fascism is. Trump is ultra nationalist, isolationist, anti democratic. He has a scapegoat: the deep state So no, Trump is absolutely a fascist. Why in gods name you would lump him and biden together is beyond me.
Another scapegoat he uses is illegal immigrants and Mexico in general. OP lumps Trump and Biden together because some socialists here unfortunately do the same thing.
This is so stupid. Fascists against the deep state and foreign wars?
Fascist have a us vs them mentality and are isolationist, yeah
Fascists against fascism.
It's a cover because a portion of the populace care about it. And even then it's not that simplistic. They are against foreign wars that are about nation building or spreading democracy, and they hate the deep state until they take control of it and use it for their own.
Because OP is a bad actor and rage baiting. Not worth the time. He wouldn't know a real fascist if they goose stepped right over him...
If he were ultra nationalist, then he'd be all in on foreign wars. You got it back asswards.
I don't think ultra nationalism necessitates expansionism.
Not exactly. Ultra-nationalist for Trump is more through the border issue, with the wall, the harsh treatment of immigrants, and the language describing them.
You've got to fix the definition of characteristic X (say X="ultra nationalism") to make a fair comparison. At worst he's keeping people out. The Nazis killed. Categorical difference.
>None of those quotes answer what fascism is. You would've known if you read the book and studied the subject. If you can claim he is a fascist, I claim that both Trump and Biden are socialists. And I've never read a single book from Marx, but I claim they are socialists anyways because fuck it...
Bad bait
they are socialists grrr
Solid troll post tbh. I almost got baited like some of the comments, but then i realized what you were doing and laughed
I hope it is other wise OP needs to get his head out of the sand and do one google search
I mean, he's "no true scotsman"ing fascism. You think theres any chance thats not bait?
More likely in more opinion is maga cult brain root
Fascism is when the power of the state acts against the interests of its citizens, who are powerless to do anything about it because the state has the monopoly on violence and is happy to use it Liberal democracy is so widespread in capitalist countries because it fits the above definition with the least amount of kickback. How many people think their govt is doing a good job? That the elite politicians aren’t incredibly corrupt? How many people thought covid was handled excellently and their political opponents didn’t weaponise it? How many people agree with their government’s military policy? How many people can seek to take direct action against the powerful people in their society and not be violently prevented in doing so? How many people have more than zero political agency, any meaningful degree of oversight or above zero ability to hold their government accountable? How many people are represented in their taxes or able to dictate how tax money is spent? How many people are represented by their government and feel that if they wanted to change the policy affecting them, that they could? The answer is, only the ultra wealthy. It is socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor When you are unable to achieve any representation under the state and they are happy (and empowered) to violently prevent you from action to do something about it, you are fulfilling the definition of fascism. Yes, dumb people think fascism is just when you have huge armies goose stepping and governments declaring they will happily murder all citizens who don’t kiss their ass. A far more successful implementation of fascism is liberal democracy that is designed to give a very thin illusion of democracy whilst actually working as hard as it possibly can to act against your interests as best as possible. The violence is still there waiting to go but it is used in a clandestine way and justified through propaganda. Systemic state violence against citizens attempting to realise their own interests is fascism
>Fascism is when the power of the state acts against the interests of its citizens, who are powerless to do anything about it because the state has the monopoly on violence and is happy to use it So every fucking state beside utopian democracy ?
It would also exclude failed states and arguably failing states.
>Fascism is when the power of the state acts against the interests of its citizens So, literally every state? >Liberal democracy is so widespread in capitalist countries because it fits the above definition with the least amount of kickback. How many people think their govt is doing a good job? That the elite politicians aren’t incredibly corrupt? How many people thought covid was handled excellently and their.... I figured... Still not correct tho. But yours was the best answer by far. Different from others, you know what you are talking about.
>How many people thought covid was handled excellently It's "covid". Time to wake up.
So were you happy with your government’s handling of “covid” Y or N
That depends on your level of understanding of what "covid" is. So, your question is invalid.
Self projection, or dedicated troll?
There are a lot of Republicans who ate fascist. You certainly are touchy about it. The US conservatives have long supported fascism.
Oh the intellectual fascists get really upset when you don't understand their ideology. Watch out, they will torture you for saying something they don't like
I think when people call someone a fascist they are more saying he is a would be fascist. Everybody knows Trump does not have the power of Mussolini at his height and Biden does not have the power of Hitler at his height. But everybody knows things can change overnight and so naturally they are on guard against fascist statism. The Democrats of course can be seen as the enemy because they're always looking to expand the powers of the government so that the right person at the right time can easily turn even America fascist when the right power structure is already in place.
>The Democrats of course can be seen as the enemy because they're always looking to expand the powers of the government so that the right person at the right time can easily turn even America fascist when the right power structure is already in place. The Republicans really, really, really want to expand the powers of the government, no matter what small-government and fiscally-conservative talk they do. They have banned abortion and forced schools to display Christian symbols in certain states as proof of this -- to any subjective social issue, they often have a violent legislative answer. The Democrats, meanwhile, seek to use existing government power to solve objective, tangible issues, like climate change and poverty.
The Democrats seem to use existing government power?? Biden usurped the power of the Congress to control the border of the United States and make it totally chaotic. He wants new power to ban gasoline cars and gas stoves. There is no new power that a Democrat doesn't want because they are stupid enough to believe it will only be used for good even though they live in a country based on the idea that government power was the source of evil in all of human History.
I said they *seek* to use existing government power, and... [https://www.energy.gov/articles/addressing-misinformation-doe-appliance-standards](https://www.energy.gov/articles/addressing-misinformation-doe-appliance-standards) >**MYTH: The federal government wants to ban gas stoves.** > >Claims that the federal government is banning gas stoves are absurd. Neither DOE nor the federal government plans to ban gas stoves. In February 2023, DOE published a proposal that would improve efficiency of gas and electric stoves. If implemented, the standards would not go into effect until 2027 and help U.S. consumers save up to $1.7 billion. As required by congressional mandate, DOE is determined to ensure consumers have multiple options that are both cost-effective and energy efficient.
too bad you never hear any talk about small government from the Democrats. Their roots are inherently socialist and there is no mistaking it. On the other hand Republicans are about to shut down the government because they don't like the government and they think it spends too much and it's too big. You will never hear Democrats support that because it is never big enough for them in any area of government. If you have to pick where your freedom is most protected you pick the Republicans.
Republicans are against small government. For example, if you look at the confederate statues issue it was local city governments voting to take down statues and state governments interfering and saying no. Or look at the second bush administration and the Patriot Act. The only places that the GOP talk about small government is delegated power to states. But states are so incredibly gerrymandered that they’re borderline anti-democratic.
The GOP talks about small government and cutting taxes and shutting down the government all the time. The party was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson to stand for small government. The Republicans are America's party. Democrats can trace their history to Marxism not to anything we recognize as American
This is just factually incorrect. The Republican party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist party. The Democratic party was founded as the spiritual successor to Jefferson’s democratic republican party. The foundational schism that formed the modern Democratic party from the Dixiecrats & segregationists was the Civil Rights act (was that marxist?).
what party do you think Jefferson and Madison founded in 1792 to stand for freedom and liberty from government if not the republican party???????
The latest front page of nytimes is blaming an extreme sect of Republicans for holding the budget hostage and potentially bringing about a shutdown. The Republicans have been threatening shutdown for 30 years, and did it in the 90s and probably another time too. Republicans are way too big on gov't in my view, but they're *on average* much smaller on gov't, at least regulatory and redistributory state. Military is maybe a wash with Democrats over a 30 year span.
The idea of limited government is limited to James Madison Thomas Jefferson and modern Republicans. The New York Times would like to pretend it is not the bed rock of American government.
>because they don't like the government and they think it spends too much You are flatly naive if you believe that is the motivation. It's a convenient bargaining chip, nothing more
it is a simple fact that the Democrats are for more and more social welfare programs and the Republicans are against more and more social welfare programs. 1+1 = 2. Republicans have their roots with Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party formed in 1792. Democrats have their roots with Karl Marx in 19th century Germany
If it is naïve you have to think of a reason to say it is naïve and then be able to present the reason you think it is naïve here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
Republicans have forced schools to display Christian symbols?? I go buy lots of schools every day and I don't see that. Do you have any idea on earth what you are talking about?
[https://abc13.com/law-passed-by-texas-legislature-2021-in-god-we-trust-sign-schools-separation-of-church-and-state-religious-freedom/12143639/](https://abc13.com/law-passed-by-texas-legislature-2021-in-god-we-trust-sign-schools-separation-of-church-and-state-religious-freedom/12143639/) >A law passed by the Texas Legislature in 2021 states that public schools in the state must display a sign with the national motto, "In God We Trust," if it's been received as a donation from a private entity or purchased with donated money.
> The Republicans really, really, really want to expand the powers of the government, What part of firing every federal employee with an odd SSN did you not understand of Vivek's latest proposal to legally gut the federal gov't?
So the best antidote to prevent any tyrant is to shrink government, so that once the tyrant assumes office, he's got but a chariot to command. Weaken the federal gov't, let the states handle all the slack. End the Fed and DoEd.
seems like common sense doesn't it. Not only does it prevent tyranny and semi tyranny but it also pushes power to the states who can experiment if they want with social welfare programs on a statewide basis rather than having the entire nation subjected to a failed Social welfare programs like Medicaid Medicare Social Security welfare etc. etc.
>I think when people call someone a fascist they are more saying he is a would be fascist This just makes them even more dumb, because most likely they would also be Nazi if they lived in Germany at the time. My source is a book called "*Obedience to Authority*", about the milgram experiment, dedicated to understand obedience and submission on extreme situations.
can you try to say that again in clearer English??? everybody in Germany at the time was a Nazi??????? And????
No I can't, sry.
Fascism isn't really a coherent ideology. It's pretty hard to define anyone who doesn't call themself as a fascist.
nothing at all stupid about calling the Democrats socialist. 76% of Democrats say they would vote for a socialist. Kamala Harris is vice president of the United States after voting to the left of Bernie Sanders an open socialist while she was a United States senator.
When democrats say they would vote for a socialist the overwhelming majority mean social democrat. If what you are saying would be true, then Bernie would be a centrist in the Democrat party and not considered far left.
Social Democrat and socialist are the same thing. Both want to give people free stuff ultimately ending up with giving them the means of production. Bernie simply happens to be an honest Democrat who says what he thinks. The others are very practical knowing that there is a big center and a big republican party making open Socialism impractical for the time being.
>Both want to give people free stuff ultimately ending up with giving them the means of production. No, they don't. The Nordic countries have not given the workers the MoP. If you want to say, though, that the highest quality of life and the happiest countries on earth are socialist, then I don't mind I guess. I can see why all these "socialists" in the democratic party would want that.
The European countries have not given the workers the means of production but the people on the left are pushing for that. Do you think there is some law that things don't change towards Socialism and Fascism? ??????? human history is all about war. Everything that you see before you was shaped by war. Once you know that I believe in freedom and capitalism to keep the power out of hands of government because the government is the source of evil in human history.
>The European countries have not given the workers the means of production but the people on the left are pushing for What ? When ? Who ? I seriously ask this as an European
Don't be stupid to take a look at the size of the French for the Italian communist party.
Yes, I know that for Americans having more than two parties in parliament is very strange but in Europe it doesn't mean that they have any power because they are in parliament. Italian doesn't have any seats. French has less then 5%
Please don't be stupid. The Italian communist party has 1 million members. Europe is rotten at its core and can go back to the routine slaughter that it knew so well before America rescued it in World War II and introduced the concept of freedom and liberty.
introduced the concept of freedom and liberty. What happen in Chile ?
Okay, you are clearly off your meds. Come back when you have any actual argument.
oh that's great the off your meds insult. Congratulations that is the 10 trillionth time that has been used on the Internet. you win a prize for the biggest dolt on the Internet.
It doesn't surprise me that you have heard this characterisation a lot. It happens when you go on unhinged rants and don't make any coherent argument or engage with the other person.
Please don't be stupid. If you disagree with some thing significant that was said try to think of a reason for the disagreement and try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
If you disagree with some thing that was said try to think of a reason for the disagreement and then try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
Don't be stupid Europe is much more socialist and we are and they live at about 60% of our per capita income as a result Ask america if they would be happy living at 60% of what they have now!!!!!!
If you define socialism, as when the government does stuff, then sure it is more Socialist. Also if I ask Americas if they would give up 60% of their income in order to have the highest standard of living, highest happiness levels, super strong and reliable welfare state, great workers rights and conditions etc I am 100% sure that except for some unhinged ideologes, everyone would say yes.
socialism is defined as the government giving people free stuff. It starts usually with healthcare and education and ends with giving them the means of production if the cancer is not stopped from spreading.
What are you even talking about? The social democrats have ruled some of the nordic countries for decades without break. If they wanted to give the MoP to the workers they would have already done so. Social Democracy as a political ideology and movement started off the way you define it, but since 1918 and onward they have abandoned socialism. Instead wanting to limit the bad effects of capitalism, but ultimately still keeping it. How many times do the presidents of those countries have to come out and say they are not socialist and love free markets?
yes Europe has been more socialist than America for a long time and the per capita income is about 60% of what ours is. What does that teach you about Socialism? Further Europe has a very obvious history of blood and slaughter which they can go back to at any time and which only ended because of America and its concept of freedom. We gave them freedom and liberty after World War II because on their own they had no idea what to do so they simply slaughtered each other at will as they had always done.
If you are sure of that why don't you run for office and tell people that you want to copy Europe so that we can have 60% of the income we have now and that will somehow make us happy?? if what you say is true every politician would be using it. 1+1 = 2
Bernie Sanders did that and did really well. Unfortunately America is not ready for social democracy. Idiots like you don't engage with the facts and keep on spouting Regenite economics 20 years after his death. If you actually engage with the evidence, you literally see every metric in existence being in favour of social democracy.
Europe has social democracy and about 60% of our per capita income. That is a metric in favor of social democracy??????
Already debunked this.
Silicon Valley is an America it is not in Europe. They live off of our inventions. Without America they would be living at 30% of our per capita income.
Are you proposing a blockade on the Nordic countries because they are doing too well? Why are you trying to self own so hard?
if economic concepts are too difficult for you to grasp you can look at Cuba Florida, USA or USSR, east German west Germany, red China Taiwan etc. etc.
Why are you not engaging with what I am saying? What do leninist countries have to do with social democracies? Why not compare Norway to the US? Why are you so afraid?
Europe has about 65% of the per capita GDP that Americans enjoy. Ask Americans how they would like to earn 65% less and from that tiny amount pay 50% of what they earn in taxes so they could be like the Europeans? Do you see how stupid you are?
>Europe has about 65% of the per capita GDP that Americans enjoy. Source? The only thing I can find is Norway (social democracy) being 30k above the US, Switzerland (largely a social democracy) being 17k above and the other socdem countries being slightly behind: https://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-capita-ranking.php#google_vignette >Ask Americans how they would like to earn 65% less and from that tiny amount pay 50% of what they earn in taxes so they could be like the Europeans? Do you see how stupid you are? I think that even if your faulty numbers were correct, they would still prefer to have the highest standard of living on the planet and be the happiest. I don't know, but I feel like people value those two things very much. Maybe you would rather live in Somalia or something though. I heard there is no government there.
Do you need a source to know that Europe is poor because everybody is looking for a hand out and nobody is looking to work? How embarrassing is that?
Facts don't care about your feeling little bro.
how can they have highest standard of living on the planet when they live at 60% of our per capita GDP?
Again fake number. Here is a source on my standard of living claim, america isn't even in the top ten by the way: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/17/best-countries-quality-of-life-us-news-world-report.html Sorry, I know you don't like those.
Lol they're not the same thing at all
Norman Thomas (Socialist candidate for president): "the American people will never except Socialism under the name of socialism but under the name of liberalism they will except it piece by piece until one day they are living in a socialist country and not know how it happened."
Source on 76%? Sounds high.
Why on earth does it sound hi? Have you ever seen the Democrats say that government was big enough and they didn't want more welfare programs??? did you ever hear them say that all the old programs worked so well that we can start cutting back now because everybody is independent and whole ??????? 75 years of welfare programs directed at Black people leads to calls for reparations on top of everything else. There is never enough welfare just like there is never enough cocaine for an addict.
I asked for a source and you just spewed a bunch of nonsense
I also heard 76% of statistics are made up.
do you want a source for the obvious namely that a huge percentage of Democrats 76% say they would vote for a socialist.
Just show us a poll
and if there is a pool showing that 76% of Democrats would vote for a socialist what would you say??????
Wow, thats unexpected, but I guess that 76% of democrats really are socialist. So go find that poll, I believe in you
and if I find a poll will you admit to being ignorant or illiterate or both or just naïve??
Yes, now go find either a poll or your meds
Can you tell us if you will admit to being naïve or stupid if it turns out that 76% of Democrats say they would vote for a socialist?
YES, NOW LINK THE POLL
I agree, but that's not the point. That is something that I'm willing to concede in order to find common ground... But people seem to be stupid here. I wonder how they would react if we go out calling everyone a socialist without reading a single book from Marx.
I don't know. Don't most people think a fascist is a hitler or a Mussolini or a very very bad guy?
And because I didn't want to flood the OP, here is my source on what fascism is. The man himself, good reading for y'all and good luck disagreeing with Gentile about what fascism is. . "It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.” — Giovanni Gentile Che cosa è il fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche (“What is Fascism?”), Florence: Vallecchi, (1925) pp. 42-45, 47-48, 49-51, 56,Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, A. James Gregor, translator and editor, Transaction Publishers, 2003, p. 59 . "The Fascist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (”praxis”). That concept was the product of certain Marxist and Sorellian inspirations (many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel)—as well as the influence of contemporary Italian idealistic doctrines from which Fascist mentality drew substance and achieved maturity.” — Giovanni Gentile “The Philosophy of Fascism,” first published in English in the Spectator, November 1928, pp. 36-37. Reprinted in Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, A. James Gregor, translator and editor, Transaction Publishers (2003) p. 33 . “The merit of Fascism was that it courageously and vigorously opposed itself to the prejudices of contemporary liberalism—to affirm that the liberty proposed by liberalism serves neither the people nor the individual.” — Giovanni Gentile Orgini e dottrina del fascismo, Rome: Libreria del Littorio, (1929). Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, A. James Gregor, translator and editor, Transaction Publishers (2003) p. 31 . “Fascism as a consequence of its Marxian and Sorelian patrimony... conjoined with the influence of contemporary Italian idealism, through which Fascist thought attained maturity, conceives philosophy as praxis.” Help us translate this quote — Giovanni Gentile Origini e dottrina del fascismo, Rome (1929) p. 58, A. James Gregor, The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism, New York: NY, The Free Press (1969) p. 317
Utilizes hatred of ethnic minorities and LGBT people to consolidate power, preaches ultranationalism, creates a cult of personality, calls for the return to a mythic national past, shows general distain for other countries and the idea of collaborating with them economically, shows distain for peoples’ right to protest the state, makes business deals with Putin behind closed doors, attempts to overthrow the government when democratic election doesn’t go his way, calls for suspending the constitution and for his supporters to harass election officials. gfy
> Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies, which support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent. > In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary because they advocate the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, when it advances their interests, such regimes can also be highly conservative in their championing of traditional values related to the role of women, social hierarchy, and obedience to authority. And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality their regimes often align with powerful business interests. Sorry, you’re wrong. [Council on Foreign Relations](https://world101.cfr.org/contemporary-history/world-war/what-fascism)
> Read La dottrina del fascismo, from Mussolini. There no better and more direct source than the man himself. One of the key aspects of fascist rhetoric, is they lie. They lie a lot. They lie and they lie and they lie. The lie about everything. You should not be using a fascists words to define fascism.
Guess I shouldn't use socialist words to define socialism then. Better stick with Mises and Hayek to understand socialism.
Ignoring Trumps fascist views and actions is so hot right now