New tagline just dropped.

  • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I usually just dismiss these goofballs by replying with “Tell me you don’t have a functioning definition of fascism without telling me” and maybe I’ll challenge them to define fascism in their own words without looking it up.

    If, by some miracle, they start invoking the trash-tier Umberto Eco definition of fascism then you have two clear routes:

    1. You demonstrate how the US comfortably fits this definition, point by point

    2. You draw upon a Marxist analysis of fascism which centres the importance of materialist analysis of fascism, such as from the works of Georgi Dimitrov

      • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it only considers fascism from an aesthetic and cultural angle without any regards to the material basis of it and the conditions that fascism arises from.

        It’s a hazy definition that describes the psychology of fascism more than it describes the phenomenon of fascism itself, and I think—like is the case a most pseudo-radical cultural critique—its analysis can be, and has been, misapplied because there’s no solid definition underpinning it.

        It’s a bit like how if you ask a SocDem for a definition of socialism they’ll tell you that it’s welfare programs and democracy and restricting corporations and anti-authoritarianism etc.; they’ll give you a laundry list of characteristics which fails to form a cohesive analysis that strictly defines their concept, thus leading to them to miss the fact that Bernie was not campaigning on a socialist platform or that AOC/the Nordic countries etc. aren’t socialist, and if you challenge them on these matters they’ll deny your rebuttal outright because these things just feel socialist to them.

        I guess in short, it’s a question of vibes vs material analysis.