While not exclusive to it, they are elements of fascism.
It’s funny that we have all these lists and essays and books on how fascist ideology and policy is a confluence of many such elements, yet people still act as tough “is this person/party/state fascist?” is a simple yes or no question with no gray area.
There’s a joke that if you ask 10 people to define fascism, you’ll get 10 different answers.
It’s an imprecise term whose definition changes with every author who makes a try of it. Even the more popular lists of traits like Eco’s or Paxton’s have a lot of issues and contradictions which ppl have pointed out.
Any posts that even mention fascism always devolve into ppl trying and failing to agree on its definition, the point of this deflective practice enabling ppl to uphold their own liberal democracies as being sacred and less genocidal.
It’s not quite that ambiguous. I find that when you’re willing to engage with fascist rhetoric and the underlying worldview, you can see the patterns emerge that these scholars have pointed out.
I absolutely agree that (neo)liberal western societies usually only engage with it in order to isolate differences to feel better about themselves. That was my whole point actually. If you understand it’s possible that a society or movement partially but not entirely meets the criteria for fascism, that’s an actual starting point for a conversation to counteract it. Rather than doing the fig leaf thing mentioned above to say “see we’re technically not fascist” as an excuse to shut down that sameconversation.
While not exclusive to it, they are elements of fascism.
It’s funny that we have all these lists and essays and books on how fascist ideology and policy is a confluence of many such elements, yet people still act as tough “is this person/party/state fascist?” is a simple yes or no question with no gray area.
There’s a joke that if you ask 10 people to define fascism, you’ll get 10 different answers.
It’s an imprecise term whose definition changes with every author who makes a try of it. Even the more popular lists of traits like Eco’s or Paxton’s have a lot of issues and contradictions which ppl have pointed out.
Any posts that even mention fascism always devolve into ppl trying and failing to agree on its definition, the point of this deflective practice enabling ppl to uphold their own liberal democracies as being sacred and less genocidal.
It’s not quite that ambiguous. I find that when you’re willing to engage with fascist rhetoric and the underlying worldview, you can see the patterns emerge that these scholars have pointed out.
I absolutely agree that (neo)liberal western societies usually only engage with it in order to isolate differences to feel better about themselves. That was my whole point actually. If you understand it’s possible that a society or movement partially but not entirely meets the criteria for fascism, that’s an actual starting point for a conversation to counteract it. Rather than doing the fig leaf thing mentioned above to say “see we’re technically not fascist” as an excuse to shut down that sameconversation.
Its arguable that its better to define them by the intent of the ideology rather than just their outcomes.