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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
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
Open thoughts... But I feel like it's dumb to equate every "fascist" to Hitler and use Hitler and WW2 imagery. I feel like it dumbs things down.
If you believe Trump or whoever is a fascist their actions and their own image is enough. People aren't going to think differently because X is portrayed as Hitler. It seems like gimmicky propaganda to do that. Anyone you would ever want on "your side" would understand this. As result people disregard both "sides". Do you want people to switch to your side because of social political marketing or because they are actually cognitive enough to have a real understanding of life and reality? Imo it seems like a way to get useless people to join your side out of emotion. In turn dumbing down your side to emotionally reactive people. Marketing doesn't get you a base that cares, it gets you a following.
I suppose that's fine in war if you want cannon fodder to use... But that also sounds like something an anti fascist wouldn't want.
In modern politics it's like it's an art to build the biggest base of useless people to abuse for cannon fodder.
The RNC had a stage shaped like a Nazi pin and put up on an electric sign ‘we are all domestic terrorists’ but okay.
The father of the concept you're talking about. Has come out to say the trump comparisons are apt and not uncalled for.
While we shouldn't imply that every little chucklefuck is literally Hitler. Or that every group of fascist are literal Nazis. It would be more disrespectful to not learn the lessons of history. And wait till someone is on the verge of challenging the score. Republicans and trump have had their bonifides verified.
You are right, but many Americans probably wouldn't get it if you used Stalin. For better or worse, Hitler is the face of fascism; Stalin the face of communism. They were both fascists, as were Mussolini, and Stalin.
It's just short-hand imagery; everybody knows what you mean. Pinochet was a fascist dictator, but he was also a brutal sociopath, so he's confusing, even if people recognized him.
Please add Spain's dictator, Francisco Franco. That bastard allowed Mussolini and Hitler to test their military during Spanish Civil War.
I could never make a comprehensive list; fascism has been all-too common.
Well, I probably could make a comprehensive list, but I'm not. But Franco was another prominent one, so that was a good catch.
Stalin was a totalitarian not a fascist. You can have authoritarian regimes without fascism. Stalin actively fought fascists, was the main reason we won D-Day. He was also a brutal vicious cruel man who ruled his inner circle through fear and paranoia.
How do neither of these apply to Stalin? Note the "or" in the second definition. The "Nazi" party was the "National Socialist" party. You have to look at the actions, not just the labels, right? Stalin was authoritarian, intolerant, and nationalistic. He created an authoritarian hierarchical government.
Stalin fits both definitions of Fascism. It doesn't matter that he was at war with other fascists; monarchies had for millennia fought other monarchies - it didn't make them not-monarchies.
Because Stalin was a Soviet Dictator. Fascism had a direct capitalist economic component that you're completely ignoring.
This might be of interest for your further research
https://www.britannica.com/topic/totalitarianism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
And also
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
I'm only ignoring it because what you're saying isn't in the dictionary definition of "fascism," and I'm not a political theorist. I'm just going by what the good book says.
What about Stalin makes you think he demonstrated any of this?
"belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy" Is a direct quote from the link on Fascism,
I don't believe Stalin demonstrated any of that through policy.
Fascism is strictly a right wing ideology
Thanks for the reasonable response!