This is my issue with that definition, too many false positives
Another example: Was John Brown a fascist? Going by OrangeTide’s definition the answer has to be yes, which shows the failings of such a vague definition.
10 Likes
No, they can’t, unless they are extremely confused. A key feature of fascism has been the violent suppression of Marxists.
Are you a total pacifist?
It’s an ethos, although it’s not a position I support. There are times when violence is the least bad option.
It is a long jump from an embrace of non-violence to the claim that all violence is fascistic. Violence is a feature of fascism, but it does not define it.
Violence defeated fascism last time around. It’d be good to avoid that necessity this time, but that doesn’t mean that every soldier is a Nazi.
13 Likes
I think you could argue that suppression of Marxists isn’t a hard requirement, but it does require a path to power abusing the existing government institutions and norms. You don’t get fascists by violent coups, you get fascists by a minority opinion protecting their existing power by preventing any chance it erodes.
1 Like
In theory perhaps. In practice, fascism is defined by what fascists do.
In the world to date, murdering socialists has been very high on their list of priorities. There’s a reason it’s the first line of Niemöller’s poem.
2 Likes
Yes, in theory. Practically, fascism requires capitalists to back them in order to gain the influence to take power.
continuing on from this, I just saw this today
Remember that when someone claims that Trump isn’t a fascist because he hasn’t started running death camps yet.
14 Likes
This tweet came about b/c Sen. Lindsey Graham and them have decided to say out loud that since Jews aren’t being murdered in death camps, fascism doesn’t exist. The Holocaust Museum and now the Auschwitz Memorial have both stepped up to call bullshit. Fascism is as fascism does, and and persecuting minorites with organized violence is a basic part of the process.
9 Likes
I sometimes think Randall is a lurker on BBBBS…
Re:Popper…
8 Likes
Wow. Can you be any more condescending to @anon73430903, who generally speaking knows a good bit about these political issues. They’ve shown themselves to be quite versed in the actual literature produced by these figures.
And you’re wrong, scholars may disagree, but there are plenty of works that have a decent, generally agreed upon definition of fascism. None of them are as vague as you suggest.
8 Likes
Well an armed insurrection isn’t a system of government, now is it.
If a government formed around the ideas of using force, then maybe. I’m having a hard time imaging a way your example would fit.
I’m not a fan of Eco’s definition. But whatever, this is a discussion and not a search for an absolute perfect definition.
12 Likes
Literally had the exact same thought when I saw that XKCD. Probably not, but if so…
Hi, Mister Munroe! Squee! 
1 Like
Oh, so I finally watched the video. He says he quotes the OED, but he doesn’t. Unless it’s too big to print in a single volume (in a legiible font), it’s really not the OED.
The main problem with his definition is that it assumed that liberalism was a given. And while fascism is a critique of liberalism, liberalism wasn’t in a strong political position in Germany.
3 Likes
A yale philosopher couldn’t possibly know anything about fascism! It’s ineffable…! /s
3 Likes
Full episode 53:59
Giroux thinks some academics simply are not willing to describe conditions in America as “fascist”. It’s often been said that Trump isn’t Hitler — “Of course he isn’t,” says Giroux, “but fascism looks different in different cultures, depending on that culture. In fact, it is the essence of fascism to have no single, fixed form.”
He leaves us with the words of Adam Gopnik: “Fascism takes on the colours and textures of the nation it infects. In Italy, it is bombastic and neo-classical. In Spain, it is Catholic and religious. In Germany, it is violent and romantic. In England, it’s form was paternalistic and aristocratic, through Oswald Mosley. So, it’s no surprise that the American face of fascism would take on the form of celebrity television.”
“Choose the form of the Destructor.”
9 Likes
From February 2016:
7 Likes
Well, it isn’t fun, I can tell you that.
Why is definition being argued and why are people trying to say what is and what isn’t? What is the fruit born of such debate?
The way I see it is that fascism has many functional definitions and while speaking in the academic arena, some definitions are more useful than others. However when the people speak to power about the oppression and fears of future oppression, attempting to limit the definition of fascism becomes counter productive. When people speak about what they view as fascism, technicality involving the “correct definition” does little to assuage fears and nothing at all to address the issue.
In other words, when someone points to a wrong and says “This fascism will not stand”, what good will come from debating the use of the word fascism other than to distract from the actual wrong committed? Indeed, it seems such debates serve only to distract from perceived wrongs and injustices by implying that those who oppose them are applying hyperbolic rhetoric because they didn’t use the word fascism in the manner prescribed by those in authority - which… some would call prima facie fascism.
is that from the big lebowski?
