doben
@doben@lemmy.wtf
- Comment on 1 day ago:
Only that he doesn‘t. And I don‘t.
Your pattern: Make stuff up > act all incensed for being confronted with your bullshit > use personal attacks and accusations of lying > make stuff up again.
Either you now provide the sourcing and the quotes of what you keep yapping about or I‘ll consider you a bot, because you‘re acting like one.
Bring the receipts.
- Comment on 1 day ago:
Stop making stuff up, it’s time to bring the receipts. Where exactly does “Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place”?
Eco treated Stalinism as a seperate, parallel example of totalitarianism, explicitedly not labeling it fascist.
You gotta leave your confused right wing, red fascism narrative behind, if you actually want to understand the world. Maybe start by not being so dishonest.
Some passages from Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism:
If by totalitarianism one means a regime that subordinates every act of the individual to the state and to its ideology, then both Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarian regimes.
It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.
Nevertheless, historical priority does not seem to me a sufficient reason to explain why the word fascism became a synecdoche, that is, a word that could be used for different totalitarian movements. This is not because fascism contained in itself, so to speak in their quintessential state, all the elements of any later form of totalitarianism. On the contrary, fascism had no quintessence. Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.
- Comment on 2 days ago:
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.
- Comment on 2 days ago:
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.
- Comment on Framework supporting far-right racists? 3 months ago:
Sure alright, I got heated by your sad apathy. Explain the “Disingenuous” part, tho. What’s disingenuous about what I said?
- Comment on Framework supporting far-right racists? 3 months ago:
Oh, suddenly you don’t care? The only thing, that doesn’t make sense then, is you commenting at all. Curiously you do, tho — with vibes-based political commentary. If you’re really so apathetic, may I suggest to you to stfu.
What I got from your form of verbal maneuvering (lol) is, tho, is that you are not only apathetic, but also ignorant.
- Comment on Framework supporting far-right racists? 3 months ago:
That’s all very vague. Be more explicit. Many argue many things.
What is the ideology you’re hinting at? Communism? What is the body count of communism? Where do you think you’ve got that that narrative from?
To round out the picture, and because body count seems so decisive, we should include capitalism, right — as facism, many argue, is a neccessary consequence of imperial capitalism protecting itself in crisis and it’s our current economic ideology and therefore an ongoing, systematic phenomenon? What’s the body count of capitalism?
Many would argue we currently live by an ideology with a body count of double digit millions of excess deaths annually, through poverty & hunger, healthcare inequality, workplacce deaths & diseases, environmental & climate deaths, structural violence, and of course war & imperial violence.
- Comment on Framework supporting far-right racists? 3 months ago:
Not the same thing. Equating the far left and the far right is nonsensical, as horseshoe theory isn’t a real thing. Giving room for such thought only strengthens extreme right positions and is exclusively used to either distract from or downplay far right commentary or elevate liberal/centrist thought as the only acceptable path. It’s interestingly never used by people from the far left themselves.
Your’s either an ignorant take or one with an agenda, which is it?
- Comment on Framework supporting far-right racists? 3 months ago:
The main difference is that fascism and racism are fundamentally destructive ideologies/traits, while tankie is just a derogatory term for folks on the far left used by people that think extreme left and extreme right are the same kind if evil. It’s a display of arrogant ignorance, congratulations.