The mods of all the major communities there remove comments criticism Hexbear and usually follow it up with a ban. It’s absolutely clear what is happening and it shouldn’t be allowed to continue.
The mods of all the major communities there remove comments criticism Hexbear and usually follow it up with a ban. It’s absolutely clear what is happening and it shouldn’t be allowed to continue.
When people support a genocide I tend to consider them fascists. When they consider leftists to be extremist of fascist, they are usually fascist themselves. When they promote authoritarianism, intolerance, xenophobia,… When people talk about wokes or wokism, they’re usually fascists. When they support US imperialism.
Most fascists blind themselves though, and the propaganda picture anyone against the fascists as fascists.
The biggest lie to picture the left as fascist simply because they don’t support liberalism. Leftists have always been the first victims of fascism. That should give you a hint.
Being mistaken about the nature of fascism or disagreeing with people on the left does not make someone a fascist. What definition of fascist are you using that allows that?
And what definition of tankie is used here? I’ve been called a tankie several times on this thread and on lemmy while I discovered this word here on lemmy.
Are you concerned you might be a fascist or are you trying to disregard and disqualify me based on whtt I consider a fascist?
My point is that here there is a witch hunt against supposed tankies whyle fascists are welcome. Considering the political climate in western countries, do you think fascism or tankism will be more prevalent? Why is the fight against tankies so much more prevalent on lemmy.world then?
I generally regard people who perform apologetics for fascist states and insist that anyone who doesn’t agree with them isn’t left-wing while simultaneously decrying sectarianism as “tankies”.
I called you a tankie because tankies tend to refer to people as “fascist” wantonly and haphazardly. You even admitted that you consider people who disagree with what you refer to as leftists to be fascist, which lends credence to my assessment. I actually can’t say that you really are what I would consider a tankie, and I’m certainly willing to admit that I was wrong.
My definition of fascism is as such: Fascism is a political strategy that seeks to preserve, create, and entrench structures and relationships of power imbalance by means of promoting and facilitating mass, broad-spectrum chauvinism in ways that are likely to encourage widespread individual and systemic violence. “Chauvinism” here-in refers to an irrational belief that one’s own identity makes them superior. Note that this definition essentially covers the 14 characteristics of fascism as detailed by Umberto Eco, and generalizes them. It is not a type of governance nor is it a coherent political philosophy.
I’m not afraid that I may be a fascist because I constantly analyze my own thoughts and I’m very critical of myself. I also don’t really care if you think I’m a fascist or not, because I already believe that your opinion on the matter isn’t valuable given what you’ve already said.
Now if you answer the question I already asked instead of playing this game, I’ll be happy to address the rest of your comment. So, again: What definition of fascism are you using?
I asked you about tankies, not fascists.
Going on a witch hunt against tankies and calling tankies everyone who disagree with you is not really showing you under a good light. As you said, referring to people as tankies want only and haphazardly will make you called a fascists, because only the fascists are hunting down tankies with definitions known to them only.
Again, throughout history the leftists are the first to fight and to be hunted down by the fascists. And as a matter of fact, the fight and the hunt has started in the western world.
Sure, Russia and China are fascists countries and bad in many ways. But USA and Europe are turning fascist too. That is what concerns me. And turning fascist in order to fight Russia or China is just stupid.
You asked me why the fight against tankies was so much more prevalent, and my answer was:
And that’s my answer. My answer is that you’re wrong to call liberals fascists, and if you can’t get along with someone you disagree with to fight against someone who’s trying to kill you your ideology is going to fail. Tankies have historically betrayed Anarchists and allied with fascists to secure power, and liberals have historically been far more tolerant of differing views. I’d much rather be friends with an honest liberal than a tankie, because the liberal is far less likely to stab me in the back and put my friends in a goddamn camp.
Edit: I’m sorry, I was arguing with someone else and didn’t realize it, my bad.
Edit2: actually, I’m done with this conversation now. You’re not answering my question and demanding that I answer yours instead, so I’d rather be left alone.
Sure, so tankies are everywhere on lemmy, and I’m probably one apparently, but no definition will be given…
>Fascism is a political strategy that seeks to preserve, create, and entrench structures and relationships of power imbalance by means of promoting and facilitating mass, broad-spectrum chauvinism in ways that are likely to encourage widespread individual and systemic violence.
fascism is a social theory that elevates the interests of the state above all else, bringing all other institutions into line with the goals of the state.
sometimes, this will require strict stratification. people will not support the state while thy don’t believe in the fairness of the stratification.
chauvinism may be a useful tool to some regimes, but it’s not necessary or sufficient to identify a society as fascist.
imho.
You’re defining fascism as an organizational structure? So an island nation that’s able to be efficiently organized from the top down due to its small size is fascist, regardless of other considerations?
it has to do with the primacy of the state. if the society is built around the supremacy of the state and all of the institutions serve the interest of the state… that’s exactly what mussolini was trying to build.
I mean, sure, but I don’t think we should base our definition off of Italian fascism per-se. It just doesn’t capture modern notions of fascism. Most obviously, it doesn’t include contemporary American fascism, which openly derides the state as an institution.
>, it doesn’t include contemporary American fascism, which openly derides the state as an institution.
i would say that’s not true. i’d say the democrats are fantastic fascists who laud the state as the panacea for all of society’s ills. but even the republicans would never try to degrade the military and policing power of the state.