The Democrats are Democratic-fascists because they believe winning a 53% majority vote should give them unlimited power to destroy their enemies and remake the government and polity, the Republicans are becoming Republican-fascists because they believe winning an election without the popular vote should give them unlimited power to stop the Democrats from destroying them. Both are fascists because they will end up presiding over a nation where large corporations have fused with a welfare state to direct the economy and control the populace.
|
American Politics Discussion Thread
|
Heh you admitted the Republicans are fascists.
Do you have a logically fact based argument for how Democrats are trying to destroy Republicans. OR OR and let me throw this out there, do you just not like their policies. There is a VAST difference between the two. Edit: as I've stated multiple times the Democrats at least seem to do the most work in anti trust in a generation atm if you actually care about the large corps. Doesn't mean we don't need more / better, but movement in the right direction.
In the academic sense of fascism American parties have unavoidably been so since 1932, and trending in that direction since Wilson's administration.
The academic definition of fascism is not defined idiotically by similarities to Hitler, or even more bafflingly, by similarities to The Handmaid's Tale. Fascism is instead a state attempting a 'third way' style of economic and political governance by having political control over large corporations as well as large scale provided benefits for individuals. FDR did both of these things in his term. To make America un-fascist in this sense would mean completely dismantling the government as it has existed for the past century, and no one who has been near the halls of power has an interest in doing that. And it is very unlikely they could even if they wanted to. The academic definition of fascism is wholly uninteresting to the morons who work in media and journalism, whose job seems to be to say the word over and over. It's good propaganda, because the average voter only understands that Fascism = bad and Democracy = good. If you want a logical fact based argument for why Democrats want to destroy Republicans, they say that they want to. That seems pretty logical to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opini...-kemp.html
So you redefine fascism? Is most of Europe fascist then? I mean if you change definitions you can make anything mean anything. The sky is now purple because I've redefined both blue and purple.
Can we acknowledge the DEEP racial historical issues in the south? The article is pretty clear they just don't want to be hated on and they are specifically referencing racism. Georgia has some of the worst voter suppression laws very much targeted at its black minority.
I question where you're getting your "academic definition of fascism", as "large scale provided benefits for individuals" is counter to most definitions of Fascism which includes some aspect of social Darwinism by which the "undesirables" are weeded from society.
Nazi Germany, despite promoting social darwinism as a propaganda line, oversaw some of the largest expansions to the welfare state in Europe. When they were defeated, most states around Germany adopted their expanded welfare state programs rather than rolling it back, as many other Nazi policies were at the time. Nazi Germany was certainly no stranger to contradictions.
None of this is redefining fascism. Fascism from its inception was marketed as a third wave ideology to curtail the supposed excesses of capitalism and to suppress the fears of communism. It's American propaganda of the last 100 years that has redefined fascism to just meaning 'bad'. Russian state media has also started doing this. They describe their campaign in Ukraine as being necessary to destroy fascism and Nazism, where both words are ultimately just euphemisms for German economic influence, rather than being focused on a preponderance of SS tattoos in the Ukranian military (although there are a lot of those too!) Quote:Can we acknowledge the DEEP racial historical issues in the south? The article is pretty clear they just don't want to be hated on and they are specifically referencing racism. Georgia has some of the worst voter suppression laws very much targeted at its black minority. Yet such efforts are never aimed just at the south. The midwest has been the victim of a lot of the immigrant pushing aimed at vote swinging. (July 22nd, 2024, 08:58)greenline Wrote: Nazi Germany, despite promoting social darwinism as a propaganda line, oversaw some of the largest expansions to the welfare state in Europe. When they were defeated, most states around Germany adopted their expanded welfare state programs rather than rolling it back, as many other Nazi policies were at the time. Nazi Germany was certainly no stranger to contradictions. Oh yes, they were positive models of the welfare state.  Quote:It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill"
Social welfare is NOT fascism. Just because some fascists do social welfare it is not part of the definition.
Would you like to read about how the Poles will destroy the midwest? Would you like to read newspaper articles aimed against immigrant Germans? (the early Wisconsin immigrants were from new england and Germans were swinging the state a different political direction). We have access to a wide swath of history at our fingertips. Racial fearmongering really shouldn't work in politics anymore because we KNOW that its been used before to keep and gain political power. |
