• Bgugi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    Depends on who you ask. It varies anywhere from literal Swatztika toters to “anybody I don’t agree with.”

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This what liberals say because they can’t define fascism themselves, sure.

      And it is a fairly broad accusation, by literal design. Mussolini himself said fascism can be anything convenient for the state in the moment, that’s why when it comes down to a hard definition they’re either descriptions of the actions of fascist states, vague listings of terms like xenophobia and authoritarianism, or pointing to things like Umberto Eco’s description.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Mussolini himself said fascism can be anything convenient for the state in the moment, that’s why when it comes down to a hard definition they’re either descriptions of the actions of fascist states, vague listings of terms like xenophobia and authoritarianism, or pointing to things like Umberto Eco’s description.

        That is a good enough description paradoxically. It’s what’s convenient for the center of violent power, ideologically untied from any moral principle and consistency, and connected to strength and self-sacrifice and, of course, interests of that center.

        To be honest, I’m sometimes thinking that for a political ideology he had a point, and mixing in morality there is just misguided. Like mixing in LGBTQ rights into military strategy as a criterion of its own (and not to have more manpower).