• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think they would allow genocide to preserve the interests of the state. maybe you don’t know what fascism is.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Wikipedia definition is probably the most concise

      Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

      As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify. I don’t disagree that they wouldn’t allow a genocide to preserve the interests of the state, but that is literally every government.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify.

        i flatly disagree. the fact that the democrats threw out their own primary votes in favor of a coronation indicates a centralized autocracy, tehy support militarism, they’ve arrested political opponents, certianly subordinated individual interests for the percieved good of the nation (usa patriot act and all its progeny), and promoted a strong regimentation of society and the economy.

        you can’t disagree with the facts, only the interpretation. just because you don’t consider it fascism, doesn’t mean a reasonable person can’t disagree.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Democrats are not a far right party even by the most expensive definition:

          The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.

          Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.

          Democrats do not forcibly suppress the opposition.

          Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.

          Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.

          Democrats do not believe in a strong regimentation of society.

          One could argue that many Democrats believe in strong regimentation of the economy, but that quality alone is common in various types of governments other than fascism.

          As you say, you can’t disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.

            sure they do: look at how they endorse the capitalist system of haves-and-have-nots.

            • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is a developed social hierarchy, not a natural one. An example of a natural social hierarchy is the belief that whites are naturally a superior race of that women are inherently subordinate to men.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                i don’t think you know anything about theories of hierarchy or even the natural world. what you’ve written here is incoherent.

                • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Let me simplify. You used the example of Democrats believing in haves and have nots. Observing that some people are more wealthy than others is reality, not belief in a hierarchy. Believing that rich people are rich because they are innately better and poor people are poor because they are innately worse is a belief in a natural social hierarchy.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.

            oh? seems to me the curtailing of gun rights is a major part of their platform, as well as constant incursions into my right to digital privacy.

            • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Those are not examples of subordination of personal interest. Those are balancing the rights and personal interests of one group of citizens vs another. One group has right to guns, another has a right not to get shot to death. The same goes for digital rights. Your right to privacy has to be balanced with others right now to be the victim of crime/terrorism.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.

            that’s a lie: “vote blue no matter who” and accusations against the green party highlight this. tehy also arrested jill stein at the debate in 2012.

            • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Vote blue no matter who is a political slogan, not an order with any weight. It’s not like people are prevented from voting Republican in any way.

              Stein was arrested because she didn’t meet the polling threshold to be eligible to be considered as a candidate and then tried to force her way on stage. It’s no different than you or I going to hear a band play and trying to force our way on stage because we thought we could play guitar better.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                again, it’s a matter of interpretation. you making excuses for it would look bad if the prevailing opinion matched mine.

                • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Facts are facts. She was not a political opponent because she did not get enough support to even participate in the debate. She was arrested for breaking the law, not for being a political opponent

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.

            but the democrats would have it if they could. their philosophy is autocratic even if they still lack the means of effecting that policy.

                • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They arrested her because she was trespassing and causing a disturbance, not because she was a political opponent. It’s not like she posed any threat to their power. She had 0% chance of becoming president. It’s completely absurd to think they needed to arrest her to beat her. She didn’t get enough votes to participate and she threw a Karen fit.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    the voters were disenfranchised by being denied a legitimate voice. she was systematically excluded from every media platform. the debate was just one example in a long series of disenfranchisement. her arrest there was clearly to prevent her from challenging them.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            As you say, you can’t disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.

            this is some gymnastic bullshit. you are ignoring facts and then claiming they support your interpretation of them.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                the facts must be interpreted to determine whether they fit the definition. words do have meanings, and i’m willing to believe that you honestly don’t think the facts point to fascism, but i would say that’s a failure in your ability to interpret the facts, where i recognize you probably feel the same about my interpretation.