The use of terms like "the fascist left" makes it harder to appreciate the merits of statements like this. Also, the phrase is a bit oxymoronic as fascism is, specifically, a conservative ideology.

Perhaps the term "the authoritarian left" or "the totalitarian left" would fit a bit better. I think in context their point is very clear though.

For those on the left who're against free speech and such, I've started using "antiliberal left". I'm not even sure they'd object to the term. (Consider this a try at finding out.)

Nobody really knows what fascism is. It's more of an excuse to make up the rules as you go along to obtain a certain objective. Both left and right are susceptible to it. That's why we need transparency and a free and open press.

> Nobody really knows what fascism is. It's more of an excuse to make up the rules as you go along to obtain a certain objective. Both left and right are susceptible to it.

This really only serves to muddy the waters. There are a few clear and well-recognized definitions of fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#By_scho...

There may be some differences, but they very clearly describe the same set of core traits.

A better phrasing of the parent post is that very few people use the term fascism based on its actual definition; it's a highly-parroted word whose colloquial meaning has been entirely diluted, yet still carries gargantuan negative weight.

I will agree that people intentionally misuse the word "fascism."

For example, the people in this comment thread claiming that editors making editorial decisions are the "fascist left" are pretty clearly misusing the word.

I would tend to agree. It would be stronger to extract the individual behaviours in mind, and not use that word incorrectly.

That said, 'not fascistic' does not imply 'good'.

Sure, there's TONS of things that are 'not fascistic' but are bad.

My point was that its not a "left" or "right" phenomenon. The political extremes tend to resemble one another as they are willing to forego principles such as free speech in order to suppress political opponents. Everyone should be very weary of this. We can survive Trump, what we can't survive is a press that feels the need to censor content. If they get away with it, they will use it again and again.

That's not true either though. Fascism is by definition a right-wing form of authoritarianism, because of how it uses class divides to build its political power.

The corresponding left-wing authoritarianism would be "leftist populism", "Stalinism", or some other term.

What you're describing is called Horseshoe Theory, and it's not well-supported by evidence. Right-wing and left-wing populism have a few things in common (authoritarianism primarily), but have much larger differences than similarities.

I will point out that attacks on a free press ARE a clear sign of authoritarian regimes. I would encourage you to take a look at the history of the German word "Lügenpresse" (literally "lying press"). Especially take note if you see similar things being said about the modern media -- and which groups are saying it.

You say "by definition a right-wing form [...] it uses class divides to build its political power", but how does that match the right? The very first thing I associate with obtaining power via class divides is Karl Marx. There's also Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, and anybody in modern USA politics who complains about the "1%ers" or "income inequality". I'm really really not seeing how that matches up as you claim it does. I think you need to accept the uncomfortable and obvious conclusion here.

I phrased that poorly. Fascism uses economic and class features that largely do not exist in a far-left society, such as a sizeable middle class and corporate power.

From Umberto Eco's definition of fascism: "'Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class', fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups."

From Gentile's definition: "corporative organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the 'productive sectors' under control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions;"

I understand that it is appealing to try to dilute the meaning of "fascism" by applying it overly broadly until it loses its meaing. Whataboutism is also convenient way for the Right to distance themselves from the evils committed by the right-wing Nazis and other far-right fascist groups.

The better way for the Right to distance itself is by supporting moderate democratic norms rather than giving in to violent populist impulses. Power is one heck of a drug though.

The world has gone 75 years without real fascism or Nazis, so the definitions shouldn't be changing, yet they have over the last 20 years. Older dictionaries and encyclopedias very clearly contradict the newer ones on the left-right measure of fascism and Nazis.

So, correcting for the projection:

"I understand that it is appealing to try to dilute the meaning of "fascism" by applying it overly broadly until it loses its meaing. Whataboutism is also convenient way for the Left to distance themselves from the evils committed by the left-wing Nazis and other far-left fascist groups."

The facts don't change just because some people want to fling a dehumanizing insult.

“Fascism “ means basically “really bad” the same way “Hitler” means “really bad”. I really hate it that most groups have their favorite bad words, be it “racist”, “socialist”, “fascist” or “neocon” without having even a basic understanding of their meaning or history. They all just mean “so bad that it can’t be even discussed or questioned”.

Every single action taken by the fascist left mimic traditional fascism. They have taken the tactics from Mussolini and adapted well for their own purposes. Suppression of different ideas, censorship, etc. The only difference is that it's flown under the banner of the left, but their tactics are very much the same.

This is not a uniquely fascist thing. Every dictatorship suppresses different ideas, censors etc.

Otherwise you could argue that giving speeches or writing pamphlets and books is a fascist thing.

Here's an actual, in depth definition of fascism from Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism. The connections to the modern left are tangential at best.

    "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.

    "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.

    "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.

    "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.

    "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

    "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

    "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

    Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

    "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.

    "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.

    "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."

    "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."

    "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."

    "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

> Every single action taken by the fascist left mimic traditional fascism. They have taken the tactics from Mussolini and adapted well for their own purposes.

There's no such as even fascist left, even in the kind of disputable way in which Leninist and non-Leninist Marxists will argue over whether Leninism is a genuinely Marxist, Communist, or leftist movement, or a form of right-wing state capitalism.

Fascism is an ideology, not a set of tactics. Yes, right and left wing groups (both moderate and extreme) often learn tactics from each other. No, that doesn't make the ideologies the same.

That's a reference to National Bolsheviks, which haven't existed since the night of long knives.

"There should be a communist utopia...for aryans as they crush all other races under their boot" is not a movement with really any members anymore.

Try reading the links for once. It has nothing to do with National Bolsheviks. The links talk about more modern forms of left-wing fascism.

One of Gentile's elements defining fascism is "a police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition, including through the use of organized terror." Sending in the military against protesters would be literally a textbook example.

Cotton's OpEd was a prominent member of government advocating for fascist actions.

The irony here is palpable.

He specifically said rioters, not protesters. Read the actual op-ed.

I did, when it came out. Labeling them as rioters did not make the piece any less concerning.

Read up on the Reichstag fire and how it was used to justify suspension of civil rights. The parallels are striking.

You didn't read it properly, because he never said protesters. Changing "rioters" to "protesters" completely changes the meaning of what Cotton said. I don't agree with him, but I am vehemently against people twisting others' words to spread lies and misinformation. He said "rioters". Don't lie and say he said "protesters" because then you are implying he is trying to quash free speech with the military.

In this case, you are the one in the wrong. Spreading misinformation purposefully to trick people into agreeing with you is what is destroying this country right now and you are doing this.

> You didn't read it properly, because he never said protesters. Changing "rioters" to "protesters" completely changes the meaning of what Cotton said.

This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters and drum up support for treating them as such.

Even without reading into it, Cotton was advocating for bringing US military troops into US cities to put down the protests because some of them turned violent. That is NOT normal, and NOT something we should see in a healthy democracy.

I might add that once the police stopped attacking protesters violently, the protests calmed down pretty quickly.

> Spreading misinformation purposefully to trick people into agreeing with you is what is destroying this country right now and you are doing this.

Projection is such an ugly thing to see.

> This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters

I don't think this is true. Quoting from his piece:

"Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...

He clearly says in plain words that the majority are law-abiding protestors. I suppose you could argue that the piece actually means something other than the plain words that it uses, and you could certainly argue that he's drawing the line between protestors and rioters in the wrong place, but at no point does the op-ed make the claim that all protestors are rioters.

In context, many had, and continue to, misconstrue protests as riots. As such, a call to send in the military against rioters cannot be differentiated from a call to send in the military against protestors, unless you can get cotton and the protestors to agree on what the differences between protest and riot are.

Yes, it was a calculated move to try to paint ALL the protests as riots and justify potentially deadly use of force.

Not publishing an editorial calling for an authoritarian crackdown is facism now?