You're viewing a single thread.
There are no centrists when one side is fascism.
The problem is you think anyone to the right of Stalin is a Nazi.
Edit: I'm glad my manic commenting this morning sparked such wonderful debate.
Many major gov'ts currently have major parties courting fascists or are just outright Fascist. Like, have you not been paying attention?
And? Did I say that wasn't happening? Believe it or not, refusing to engage in diplomacy doesn't make the problem go away. And they say centrists bury their heads in the sand.
"Centrists to fascists aren't centrists"
"You just label anyone as Fascist"
"There's a huge amount of fascists right now"
"Irrelevant!"
... what? I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're making a point or if you're just reacting to comments as they come in. Cause that response made no sense in the greater context. I can't even tell what point you're trying to make at this point.
Then let me spell it out for you.
We, as leftists, tend to ignore authoritarians that attach themselves to our movement. I'm talking Marxists, Maoists, etc. These are people who aplogize for mass murderers. When they show up to rallies, they are welcomed. Democrat leaders cozy up to them. I see it happen regularly.
We then turn around and accuse the right of courting facism. This is the right thing to do, but we also need to take a look in our own camp. I don't want authoritarians of any flavor.
I'm at a dead loss as to how your previous two comments relate to this at all. Maybe it's my neurospiciness showing, but I can't connect this thesis with your previous comments in any way.
Also, don't say "let me spell it out for you", it just comes across as condescending. It's like you're saying it's so obvious that this was the point you were making when I just stated my confusion on your point. My confusion is an opportunity for you to clarify, not be a dick about it.
Apparently their argument is that left-wingers in general love tankies, which in my experience isn't true at all.
Well it's probably my own spiciness showing. I was trying to wrap too many arguments in too few comments. I tried to stave off some of the more common arguments that distract from the topic at hand by making some logical leaps. I thought it would be obvious, but I was wrong. I might have also rolled several replies into one.
The important part is this: the idea that centrists can't exist because the other side consists of "Nazis" is flawed. The entire spectrum of right leaning and conservative voters are not facists. In fact, most despise them as much as anyone else. The same goes for centrists, from what I have seen.
As to your question, yes I realize that facists are being entertained the world over. I can see what Israel and Russia are doing, and I know it much more widespread than that. I just don't think the right move is to simply alienate anyone who isn't already on your side and wait for the fash to take over.
And thanks for not returning my dickish energy, I was heated if you couldn't tell.
According to this comment, YOU should be downvoting yourself for your previous two comments.
You straight out suggested we should be diplomatic with the Far Right.
We, as leftists, tend to ignore authoritarians that attach themselves to our movement. I'm talking Marxists,
Oh. Now I see why you are downvoted to Putin's bunker.
Is that the reason? It seems more like they're being aggressive and not explaining their positions is the reason they're downvoted.
"First they came for the socialists..."
The moment someone courts Nazism or Fascism, diplomacy goes out the window for anyone worth being considered. There's a reason the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists, and that reason stands for fascists and other intolerant authoritarians or hate groups.
For what it's worth, I feel the same way about tankies. Anyone who would see me dead or censored by force does not get the right to compromise. The Republicans lost that right the moment the first innocent woman got locked in a cage post-Dobbs, if not pre-Roe in the first place.
And how did that policy work out for us? We lost the Afghanistan war. I'm not flat out saying that your argument has no merit, I just think there is room for compromise with those who are not yet seduced by facism.
This argument also relies on the assumption that only facists can be bigots.
Also, I'm not saying we should compromise on all issues equally or that we can't have our lines on the sand. But I do think there are some issues we can give a little on.
And how did that policy work out for us? We lost the Afghanistan war.
I'm not sure what the Afghanistan war has to do with compromising with fascists. Could you expand your point?
This argument also relies on the assumption that only facists can be bigots.
No. I'll add anyone trying to enforce government-led bigotry to the list.
But I do think there are some issues we can give a little on.
Look where that gets us. You open with a compromise and they say "no". You give them 90% of what they want and they say "no". You finally give in 100% of what they want and they STILL say "no" because it makes them look good. Then they blame you when what they get what they wanted. Just look at Obamacare (not an issue of fascism but an issue with a neofascist party). A conservative president pitching a Heritage Foundation plan got HOW MANY votes from the opposition party after making a bunch of concessions beyond Heritage Foundation? if you're not keeping count, Republicans provided ZERO total votes for the Republican-castrated ACA. And between blaming Obamacare for everything, half the Republicans took credit for the ACA as if it weren't the same thing they voted against.
Fuck compromising with people who deal in bad faith.
Then where does that leave us? What options do we have besides completely stun locking the government? I'd honestly like to hear because that's my major sticking point.
The way I see it, traditional Republicans have no platform. Their platform is simply anti-democrat. This as the reason facists have taken over the party. They, on the surface, represent a solution to the GOPs lack of direction. That's how they're convincing moderates to vote for them, imo.
When I say "compromise," maybe I'm not being precise enough,that's my fault. I don't nessisarily mean on actual policy. I do think we need to compromise there as necessary, but I agree with you that we've given too much in exchange for too little. What I'm talking about is compromise in regards to how we engage in discourse.
Yea, we need to hold GOP voters accountable if they vote for neofacists. But most arguments we are far too aggressive (much like my own earlier comments). It helps nobody and only give ammunition to the opposition. They are not courting facists, facists are courting them. I believe that this is an important distinction. It means they can still be saved from joining the cult.
Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think that anyone (includong you and me) can be convinced to do horrible things if they presented in a way that exploits their existing beliefs.
Then where does that leave us? What options do we have besides completely stun locking the government?
Super-short-term, no options except playing HARD defensive against the bullshit. But remember the political climate right before Trump won. Republicans were convinced they needed to become more moderate, and thought Trump would be the death of their party.
Fast-forward to the recent House shenanigans, AND THEY WERE RIGHT. All we need to do is not give into terrorists and not negotiate with anyone who doesn't start negotiating in good-faith. If the Republicans become two parties, at some point the ones disgusted by the Alt-Right groups will have to decide that conservative Democrats are better than burning the country to the ground.
The way I see it, traditional Republicans have no platform. Their platform is simply anti-democrat
Traditional Republicans have the platform of regression. For 50+ years, their motto was that the New Deal was the death of the American Dream, and that if they could just reverse civil rights (and maybe the 14th Amendment) they'd be happy. It was a platform, and one we unfortunately compromised with WAY too much already.
This as the reason facists have taken over the party. They, on the surface, represent a solution to the GOPs lack of direction. That’s how they’re convincing moderates to vote for them, imo.
Your conclusion is correct, but I don't think your steps are. The fascists have taken over the party because that's what happens with conservative parties every single time. A man preaching fascism was able to steal the votes of bigots because active racism is more pleasant to the KKK than passive racism. Keeping out brown people was a HUGE voting motivation in 2016, right when we were told we were starting to overcome racism.
Yea, we need to hold GOP voters accountable if they vote for neofacists. But most arguments we are far too aggressive (much like my own earlier comments). It helps nobody and only give ammunition to the opposition
I understand your motivation here, but there's a problem. Have you ever heard of "normalization"? Arguably the biggest botch in the last decade was the Joe Rogan effect, talking heads avoiding direct confrontation with idiocy until neutral observers learn it's "okay" to take that idiocy seriously. "Blue lives matter" bullshit doesn't just sit on tv next to other discussions, but anything even slightly extreme on the left wasn't being given the same privilege. "Liberal media" news would spent 5 minutes talking about how BLM was all criminals perpetuating riots and then segue into how horrible Kathy Griffin was because of her joke about killing Trump.
Every time we treat a bigot, or racist, or fascist, like their monstrous position has any hint of legitimacy, we are telling them it's ok to be that way. Deprogramming is a complicated process (and yes, controversial in its techniques), but the one common thing is that it NEVER involves validating the person's irrational belief. The proper first steps are to actively attack the legitimacy of whatever authority spawns their belief while showing why those opinions have no compatibility with reality. First steps because that's never enough on its own.
Right of...Stalin? Yes. Of course he does. Was this a joke?
Stalin was authoritarian? Not too far off from a Nazi with the atrocities he committed as well. Not a really apt comparison.
No, he was totalitarian. Example of authorutarian is Putin. I would reccomend you to watch Shulman's lectures about totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, but you will not understand it unless you know russian. Or unless there is lecture in english.
TLDR: "I will kill you for the Idea" is totalitarism, libertarianism is autocracy.
Totalitarianism is a case of authoritarianism.
On that note, “I will kill you for the idea” is fanaticism.
No. Authoritarism implies depoliticization of society and promises like "we won't touch you, you won't touch us", while totalitarism implies very politicized society. Both are dictatorships, but they work differently.
Not saying that one dictator is better than the other.
This is not the first time a Russian fails to comprehend Russian language.
The claim you’re making is a description of “informational autocracy”, which Shulman claims modern Russia were.
No idea what she claims now, when Russia has clearly moved past using just information to control its population since February 2022.
The only thing Stalin had in common with the Nazis was that he was a socialist. But like many oppressive figures, he only liked the idea of socialism because it traps your underlings into dependency which makes them easier to control under a tyrannical rule.
"He committed atrocities" is not the definition of being a Nazi. If that's your definition, that's non-standard and people will misunderstand your points.
Nazis weren't socialist. They picked the title to muddy the water on their actual position. They killed socialists and communists first.
Check the 25-point program of the NSDAP. They definitely had socialist points like
We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).
and
We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
But yeah, once they gained their dictatorship they were more focused on nationalism and killing those they didn't like.
https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-by-pastor-martin-niemoller/
How do so many people get this wrong?
They abused socialist ideas to rise to power, as I have written in my initial post. How did I exactly "get that wrong"?
Look up Gregor Strasser, Hitler's right hand until sometime in the early 1930s and then tell me that guy was not a socialist. Which is probably why he got killed during the Night of Long Knives.
Also look at the poem. Stalin was a communist, so he would have been killed even before the socialists. Saying Stalin was "not too far off from a Nazi" is still something that is in need to be explained lol
By still laboring under the delusion that lying about having socialist ideas in order to gain power for the purpose of slaughtering socialists somehow makes them socialist.
Ok, point taken, I thought it was abundantly clear that I equated the abuse of socialist ideas as the only common factor in the ideology of Hitler and Stalin. I didn't think it was possible to misconstrue
But like many oppressive figures, he only liked the idea of socialism because it traps your underlings into dependency which makes them easier to control under a tyrannical rule.
as calling the Nazis "socialists". I guess, I was wrong about that.
Now explain to me how Stalin was "not too far off from a Nazi"?
I didn't claim Stalin was a nazi, nor did I attempt to defend him in any way.
oh wow my first "nazis were socialists" post on lemmy. [bender taking photo "neat"] Place is getting big. I mean that's how you know you made it to the big leagues.
Just like North Korea is democratic. "It's right there in the name! The Democratic People's Republic of Korea!" /s, for the stupid.
Read the sentence right after the first. Context is important.
I enjoyed the Futurama reference tho.
"He committed atrocities" is not the definition of being a Nazi. If that's your definition, that's non-standard and people will misunderstand your points.
That's the nicest "stop making shit up motherfucker" I've seen
He was a fascist authoritarian dictator who committed countless atrocities under the guise of "socialism". He is very much like Hitler, historically. But no, he wasn't a "Nazi".
Stalin wasn’t fascist, though. Authoritarian, yes; dictator, yes. Fascism is specifically a far-right ideology, though. It’s not synonymous with authoritarianism or totalitarianism, though those terms overlap.
This is what I wanted to express. Thank you for making the effort to understand my post.
makes something up to cry over
The whole "if you say you're centrist you're actually a fascist" argument is literally making something up to cry over.
Anyone not expressly against fascism is perpetuating it whether they realize it or not.
You're either anti-fascist, fascist, or helping the fascists by not caring.
Just because someone is against assholes like you doesn't mean they're not against fascism. In fact, I'd imagine that a lot of them are against you for the same reasons why they're against fascism.
Unthinking status quoists make for the best nazis.
Go back to where you came from redditor. No one wants you here and your smooth brained "le epic trolling XD" is just kind of sad and brings down the mood.
Block me, then.
Good idea.
I have a buddy who is right leaning in several areas. He's not a Nazi. Not fash.
Like, ok, he's not super comfortable about trans people which is disappointing but we talked about how outlawing treatment is fucked and he is agrees.
He is all for socialized healthcare. Less into socializing other stuff. And he is pro-2A like me, who is a lefty as in pro-labor, anti-bigotry, social democrat, ACAB, etc.
We talk about politics all the time. And we can see each other's point of view. Because we talk in person. And we respect each other.
Online with all the trolls and shit especially in this kind of brief social media format, political discourse usually shits the bed and rolls around in it too.
Anyway the folks I consider fascists are the ones who think in social hierarchy instead of equality and think certain identities are below them and want to "put those folks back in their place," by law or force. T
hey are the ones who favor authoritarianism over democracy and a return to some fake ideal before the civil rights era, before sexual revolution, feminism, women's suffrage, or in some cases emancipation. They're people who still praise Trump and DeSantis for the ways they hurt people not like them.
Some of us know what fascism actually means.
Does he still vote in conservatives?
This is the major point that many seem to miss
If they still vote for the GOP they’re endorsing facism, racism and a few other -ism’s and -phobias.
That can’t be reconciled with a good person. If they vote for the GOP I can’t see them as a good person, because they are actively voting against the rights of people like myself.
Yeah I know way too many right leaning people who I wouldn't consider fascist based purely on their political views, but they support right wing politicians who are currently getting way too comfy with fascists
Yeah, my neighbor is pro choice, not religious, and still voted for trump twice. Didn't find out until she refused to get vaccinated while in the Navy.
the folks I consider fascists are the ones who think in social hierarchy instead of equality and think certain identities are below them and want to "put those folks back in their place," by law or force.
So like, the people who aren't "super comfortable" with trans people?
But fascism isn't about what individual people decide to "consider" it to be. It's a real thing. It has a definition. Idk when we got to this point where reality is debatable, but it may be the only thing that we could stand to go backwards on as a society.
Centralization of power is bad in any economic system. That is one way in which both sides are the same. Which style of dictator would you prefer?
Nobody tell them about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
I remember when I thought the USSR was communist - simpler times... simpler me - then I picked up a dictionary.