No, it’s in principle undetermined in ideology. Historical ones, even Stalin or Pol Pot variants, were rather right wing. But the only principles really important for any kind of fascism are violence, anti-rationalism and amorphous ideology.
Oh, the historical fascisms such as under Stalin and Pol Pot, right.
it’s in principle undetermined in ideology
Correct in so far, as it‘s determined by economic system. Which happens to align with left/right ideology.
But the only principles really important for any kind of fascism are violence, anti-rationalism and amorphous ideology.
You making shit up depending on how your tummy feels, don‘t you?
Please stop using the internet.
How to detect a commie idiot without them naming themselves.
I’m actually using Eco’s version, and he’s notably leftist.
Please stop using the internet.
Smart thoughts were chasing you, but you were always faster.
I would have been more impressed, if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead personal attacks.
Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.
Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.
Thank you for your opinion, but for classifying Stalin and Pol Pot as fascist, at the very least. If you have actually read that definition.
You’re making shit up depending on how your tummy feels, don‘t you?
vs
if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead personal attacks.
and
Correct in so far, as it‘s determined by economic system. Which happens to align with left/right ideology.
, I don’t even know, “idiot” doesn’t seem a personal attack in such a situation. Commies are the only kind of people claiming that fascism has any economic alignments, as far as I have seen.
Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place. I dunno about that overview, in the original text it’s clear from the beginning. Either you haven’t read it or you are trying to cheat.
No it’s not entirely clearly defined. But a few elements appear in all of them: Anti- communism/socialism, dictator, far-right idiologies, nationalism…
I wouldn’t say any if these are desired by leftism, or rather opposites.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Bruh do some basic research… Here’s a 101:
14 characteristics of fascism
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Non-leftist doesn’t equal right-wing. Anarcho-capitalism is right-wing, but opposite from fascism.
Fascism requires no logical structure and no coherence in ideology. It requires the ideology to be bendable all ways each moment for each different situation. Which, well, is natural for an ideology reliant upon violence and emotion above all.
That leftists try to mix fascism and normal conservatism is a purely leftist sexual problem, that doesn’t concern others until leftists pretend it’s commonly accepted.
Then, of course, when most of the “revolutionary” competition is leftist, fascism becomes anti-leftist and allies right-wing forces.
But also Nazi and Soviet propaganda on the British Empire were amazingly similar in archetypes and emotion. Which would be a rare case of “fascism against right-wing forces”.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Only in terms of talking the talk. In practice, ancaps who get power quickly go full fasc.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Haven’t heard of any ancaps who got the power.