politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I understand where you're coming from, and I understand why you believe this is true, especially when you take into account the current consensus among historians and other authority figures on the subject. They generally agree that Stalin and the other figures you mentioned were not fascists.
I disagree.
They qualify as fascists under every metric of the definition, and in abundance. Being communist, or labeling Stalin’s system “Stalinism,” does not exclude it from being fascism. Those labels do not change the underlying structure.
By every measurable standard, they were fascists, unequivocally,
Saying that a totalitarian ultra-nationalistic authoritative and violent regime isn't fascist because they called themselves communists is historically and morally disingenuous.
What a great little technical out for some of the worst people on Earth and in human history to not be called fascists.
So you're acknowledging that there's a general consensus among historians and political scientists and rejecting it anyway?
Well, you do you I guess.
That guy literally won't even concede the fact that America uses prisoners for slave labor, lol. He doesn't live in reality.
It can't be slave labor if they're paid a few cents! /s
I stopped reading their replies after so much bullshit, but I think that was one of his slavery excuses, lol.
So they were fascists if you ignore the accepted definition of fascism and insert your own?
No.
They're fascists by the very definition of fascism. The caveat in the historical consensus is that fascism is treated as a specific ideology, with the qualifier apparently being the underlying economic system. I disagree with that distinction. Just because Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot were communists does not negate the fact that they also exhibited virtually every defining characteristic of fascism. They embodied nearly every trait of what a terrible authoritarian ruler can be.
Likewise, just because a mass-murdering psychopath who happens to be in charge of a country calls himself a socialist does not automatically make him one in any meaningful historical or philosophical sense. Political leaders do not get to define themselves for the purposes of history. History evaluates them by their actions, not merely by the labels they choose to adopt.
I'm also saying that I disagree with the historical consensus on defining fascism strictly as an ideology. I'll reiterate that this is not a hard science. I'm not claiming that the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect because I have a philosophical disagreement with them. Rather, I'm arguing for a definition of fascism based on ideological consistency and observable characteristics, not solely on the economic system a regime claims to follow.
That's a whole lot of other words when you could have just said 'yes'.
I couldn't not have just said yes. Jeez dude.