Anonymous #1 5w

I genuinely do not care if you think Trump has done any good for this country you can suck my fat left nut

9

Anonymous #1 5w

Trump obsessed fr. Can never shut up about him for even a second

-2

Anonymous #2 5w

Yeah man fascists would love it if we all just shut up and stopped criticizing him fr fr

7

Anonymous OP 5w

The critiques have been the same over washed ones for the past 3 months (actually more)

-3

Anonymous #2 5w

The truth about TDS

2

Anonymous #2 5w

I would think the same thing if I watched Fox News with three knuckles up my nose riding my Trump branded dildo all day too

3

Anonymous #2 5w

We’re in a democracy we’re allowed to criticize our leaders, if you don’t fuck with that go to Russia. Stupid ass hoe.

11

Anonymous #4 5w

*china

-1

Anonymous OP 5w

It gets boringgg. Even when he wasn’t in office it was “Trump this, Trump that” while his fatass was playing golf

-2

Anonymous #2 5w

trump’s department of health pick is responsible for the death of 83 people (mostly infants) in American Samoa

6

Anonymous #6 5w

Here is a very strict and not all encompassing definition from the Merriam-Webster. However, when the entire ideology is vibes based and changes its beliefs constantly to avoid upsetting the population it wants the most, a strict definition does not grasp the full concept of fascism. It isn’t a word, it’s a complex ideology with constantly changing policies to adapt to the most people at one time

7

Anonymous OP 5w

Whats the origin of the word dictator?

-2

Anonymous #6 5w

If you’re on this app odds are you’ve been to college or taken a college level English course. At any time in your education at least one teacher or professor should have explained to you how the origin of a word means it is a different word and that definitions can change over time

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Was Cincinnatus a fascist?

-2

Anonymous #6 5w

Fascism originated in Italy before the rise of Mussolini. You can’t call a leader from before the invention of fascism a fascist, but you can point out fascistic ideas and how especially Roman era leaders were the basis of fascism

7

Anonymous #6 5w

You’re not going to get me on some gotcha this is literally my area of expertise

7

Anonymous OP 5w

Good, so we agree “fascist” is a historically bounded term. Which means using it outside its temporal and structural context is an analogy, not a definition. So what, exactly, are the structural traits that make a dictatorship fascist rather than simply authoritarian?

-2

Anonymous #6 5w

The two main aspects of fascism are a deep loyalty to the state to the point of placing it above the individual and a fanatic belief in national/ethnic superiority

6

Anonymous OP 5w

Ok, so if ethnic superiority is required, then a multiethnic authoritarian state without such ideology, like say Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, wasn’t fascist. Correct?

-2

Anonymous #6 5w

If your argument is just going to be that since the United States is ethnically diverse it can’t be run by fascists then I’m stopping the conversation there. Very real fascists are in charge of our government, the literal president has said immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of our country

5

Anonymous OP 5w

That’s exactly why we need to pin down the definition. If we’re calling something fascist, we need to know if it’s because of a specific set of structural traits, like the two you listed, or because it shares some rhetoric. Otherwise, we can’t distinguish between regimes that are fascist and those that are authoritarian or nationalist without being fascist.

2

Anonymous OP 5w

Because by the two traits you've provided, Leninist regimes during their revolutionary phase often demanded total loyalty to the state above the individual, and some paired that with nationalist rhetoric. Would that make them fascist, or is there something else in your definition that distinguishes them?

2

Anonymous #6 5w

I’m very libertarian in my beliefs, so I believe any devotion to the state is a negative mentality. To answer your question though, when I say “fanatic beliefs of national/ethnic superiority” I do mean nation in the cultural sense of the word, not the political definition. So no, a Leninist state in the revolutionary period is not fascist because they do not believe in the superiority of a single race or ethnicity

3

Anonymous OP 5w

So then, and just to be clear, any regime without an ethnic superiority doctrine can’t be fascist by your definition, even if it’s authoritarian, militaristic, and suppresses dissent?

-2

Anonymous #6 5w

Yes because a core belief of fascism is a belief in an ethnic/racial superiority. Any regime that does not hold that belief cannot be fascist, even if they are authoritarian and militaristic

6

Anonymous OP 5w

Ok, so then you're saying Saddam Hussein wasn’t a fascist, by your definition?

-2

Anonymous #6 5w

I’m not familiar enough with his regime to make the claim on whether it’s fascist or not. If I remember correctly there were certain cultures that were oppressed under Saddam but I don’t know if it was because they posed a threat to him or if it was a belief that his culture was superior

6

Anonymous OP 5w

That’s totally fair, I’ll concede in that it’s not easy to know all the details about every regime. But what about Franco’s Spain? It had authoritarianism, militarism, and suppression of dissent, but no formal ethnic superiority doctrine. Would that fit your definition of fascism?

0

Anonymous #6 5w

That is a tricky one because Franco was a self proclaimed fascist as well as the regime he led, but his regime wasn’t as explicit in their ethnic beliefs as Nazi Germany of fascist Italy. From the papers and literature I’ve read, Spanish fascism was more of a “quasi-fascism” that focused more on the elimination of political dissent than the elimination of differing ethnicities. There is always room for gray areas in the world because nuance is unavoidable in my opinion

9

Anonymous OP 5w

That’s helpful context. But if fascism hinges on eliminating pluralism, then targeting political dissent instead of ethnic groups would still qualify. In your framework, does fascism require ethnic doctrine, or is the suppression of dissent enough? If it’s the latter, wouldn’t Franco’s Spain fit? If it’s the former, doesn’t that exclude most authoritarian regimes that self-identified as fascist?

2

Anonymous #6 5w

I think there could be a formal definition of fascism where the elimination of dissent through forced removal/violence qualifies as “real” fascism. I would personally say Francoist Spain was fully fascist because the methods used to eliminate pluralism (labor camps, deportations, mass killings, etc.) are so extreme that fascist does fit. Like I said, nuance is unavoidable, but maybe fascism can only be labeled after the fact because of its malleability in its beliefs

5

Anonymous OP 5w

But you described Franco’s Spain as “quasi-fascism” for lacking the explicit ethnic doctrine of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, but now you’ve called it “fully fascist” based on its violent elimination of pluralism, shifting your definition from ideology to method; if fascism is defined by method, the absence of ethnic doctrine is irrelevant, and if it’s defined by ideology, your new classification contradicts your original standard.

2

Anonymous #6 5w

I was only referencing what literature I’ve read about Francoist Spain, which tends to use the quasi-fascist term to describe the regime. In my personal opinion, yes, Spain was fascist, but in the eyes of many academics it can be debated that it wasn’t a fully fascist regime

4

Anonymous OP 5w

So is fascism defined by what a regime believes or by what it does? Because those are different tests, and right now you’re using them interchangeably.

1

Anonymous #5 5w

There we go!

0

Anonymous #6 5w

Just for the record Saddam Hussain ABSOLUTELY had a philosophy of ethnic superiority. There’s a reason he massacred the Kurds.

1

Anonymous #7 5w

If Saddam’s ethnic superiority belief alone makes him fascist, then your definition is based on ideology, not method, which means Franco’s Spain, without that belief, wouldn’t qualify. If it’s method that makes Franco fascist, then Saddam would qualify even without the belief.

0

Anonymous #6 5w

I didn’t say shit about Franco or about “ideology alone,” you must be confusing me with OP. I’m just pointing out that your implication that saddam Hussein didn’t engage in ethnonationalism isn’t accurate. I do think you’re engaging in sophistry atp tho, Franco and saddam have no bearing on the fact that trump is a fascist.

1

Anonymous #7 5w

If Franco and Saddam have “no bearing” on your definition of fascism, that means your definition isn’t actually being tested against history, it’s just being applied to Trump in isolation. A definition that can’t survive comparison across regimes isn’t a definition, it’s an opinion. If ethnonationalism alone makes a leader fascist, then you’ve just expanded the label far beyond its historical meaning.

1