So what do you define fascism as?

Theres going to be several interpretations but for me the spirit of a fascist is simply someone who wants to control, oppress, and silence their ideology opposition. You're going to see colors of this in either party. It is usually the fringe or a systemic issue. Claiming whole parties or large swaths of people are fascists is often times going to be inaccurate.

Organizing a putsch to decapitate a branch of government and stop the certification of a fair and democratic election is pretty fascist to me.

Thats specifically why I said you're going to see colors of this in both sides. In particular the fringe left and right.

My family has had to live through the Nazi invasion of my grandparents' home country, and my parents had to live through multiple military dictatorships. Throw in Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-fascism and yeah, I just might have an idea of what I'm talking about.

The thing is, a whole lot of people who stood behind the Nazi party and enabled the evil were decent folks. Do you think Germany was just full of evildoers in the 30's?

That's one of the scary things about fascism and authoritarianism. It can coopt decent people into enabling the suppression of their fellow man.

See this is where the sides are not seeing eye to eye. "It can coopt decent people into enabling the suppression of their fellow man" - this is exactly what the right side thinks is happening to them. Each side thinks its the other.

mlyle: I think we need to be a bit fair here. Its not the entire voting base its the fringe. There were many who wanted election answers but did not advocate overthrowing the govt or storming the capital. Just like the fringe leftists caused riots for an entire summer, looting businesses and setting fires. We have an extremist issue on either side while moderates are throwing their hands up.

> this is exactly what the right side thinks is happening to them. Each side thinks its the other.

The symmetry is pretty shallow, though. If you look past the grievances about being criticized and ostracized by the other side and dig into the underlying public policy goals, it's pretty easy to spot categorical differences. When a BLM protestor talks about equal protection under law, they're referring to not getting shot by the government. When an alt-right protestor can be coaxed into listing the ways in which their legal rights are being infringed, they start bringing up stuff like the right to fire someone for being LGBTQ.

Its going to be pretty rare to find a modern conservative who really cares about LGBTQ to the point where they are set out to fire them based on that. (though Im sure you could find someone). I know quite a few conservatives and none of them care.

I honestly see the differences between the moderate left and moderate right as almost insignificant. If a 3rd party was formed I wouldnt even be surprised.

Were running out of room to reply here. Ill just say I guess the republican side is fractured just like the left is. For instance I know a lot of liberals who are not Marxists. Id really like that 3rd party. I feel like sane people are ready to ditch the insane people.

And yet, Republicans (let's not argue who's a true conservative) have continued to put a lot of effort into fighting against LGBTQ protections in recent years.

On the subject of "enabling the suppression of their fellow man", the only really hot-button issue for Republicans that can truly be framed as them defending against their own rights being suppressed is gun control. The rest of their major issues either fall on the wrong side of suppression, or aren't really about somebody being suppressed in any direct way.

In fairness, there are other issues framed this way. The "overreaction" to COVID-19 is seen as suppressing economic rights and livelihoods.

Good point. Though a lot of the backlash against public health emergency powers actually being used when necessary is of a fairly knee-jerk, borderline anarchist nature (reminiscent of some recent anti-taxation movements that have been similarly vague). There's a difference between calling for government to have stronger protections on a particular right or freedom, vs simply rejecting any instance of government having a direct impact on your life.

It tends to be accompanied with a belief that things are not that serious or that there won't be a real benefit from the measures.

And the worst versions impute sinister motives among those implementing controls: that it's an attempt to suppress economic activity and make people slaves of the government/elites/etc.

For something you seem to think is "pretty rare"... I know quite a few people who would gladly discriminate against LGBTQ.

Indeed, a May 2020 Gallup poll says that 32% believe that same-sex consensual relations are wrong and 24% of the US believe that same-sex consensual relations should be illegal. So not only do they want to be able to not hire, they want people who like the same sex to face legal consequences.

And I think the Nazis had a list of a lot of legitimate sounding grievances, too. So I guess we just can't judge.

I'm sorry: one side doesn't get to ignore due process of law and try and overrun Congress, and then continue in the next days to make violent threats. If that can't be controlled on a platform, it's not surprising others don't want to have business relationships with that platform.

People charged the Capitol screaming for Pence's head. Then the next day, we have Lin Wood (whom Trump has repeatedly amplified) on Parler saying "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." Is this maybe out of bounds? Do we not think there's any chance that this call for violence might be heeded?

6 million? No way the number is that high.

8 million and half are active. Thats what I'm getting on a search anyway.

In most democratic countries it's quite common to see actual fascists in elections getting 5-15% of the vote. It is very much a fact that that's erring on the smaller side of the proportion of people in democratic societies who hold authoritarian positions.

What does "fascist" mean?

> Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions

"far-right" just to be clear that can mean anything and has throughout history. It also easily flips. The key thing to focus on is "authoritarian" which can occur within any political party.

pmiller2 The fact that youre saying both american parties are right wing is exactly what im trying to point out. The labels are pointless, people just call themselves whatever they want. The actions are the actions.

No, it really isn't. It's both. That you choose to believe that "far right" is some ineffable quality does not mean others may not 'ef' it.

In all honesty, both major American parties are quite right wing. We just have the ultra right party, and the slightly less right wing party.

I always thought it was a portmanteau of "failed" and "socialism."

Fascism is in no way related to socialism. They are about as opposite on the political scale as you can get.

Debatable. Socialism is depriving people of the right to own private property and instead having a central authoritative figure decide who gets what. That sounds like fascism to me. And no public services is not socialism. The fire department is a public service funded by the capital markets. People like to confuse this.

Except that none of that is true. People still have personal property under socialism. Means of production are what's referred to as private property, and those are owned by the workers.

Fascists are just the socialists who want to keep going after socialism doesn't work. They like the "We're in power" part and don't mind the poverty/disease/war it always brings.

Citation needed.

There are a lot more people on Parler already than there are fascists.

Consider what this looks - and feels - like from their perspective.

I’m actively watching people I grew up with who have never been involved in politics at all become increasingly aware of this push. Do you think they’re going to be open to liberalism when this is their first interaction with it as an ideology?

So they slept through four years of Trump and this outrage is the first step in their Great Awakening? I'll go out on a limb and suggest that they were never going to be "open to liberalism" in the first place.

Anyone using the place is a fascist by definition. If they haven't been involved in politics until now, their perspective doesn't deserve to be heard.

Your post inspired me to track down an old essay I saw on arguing by definition:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cFzC996D7Jjds3vS9/arguing-by...

I don't think that type of language helps anything. Are you suggesting that conservatism is now synonymous with fascism?

It seems ludicrous to suggest that millions of conservatives across the US are fascists. It isn't productive nor does it offer any solutions for people to communicate, resolve their differences, and coexist.

Yes, that is exactly what I am implying. If you follow an egomaniac, misogynist, sociopathic coward who wants a personality cult at the cost of democracy, and you're dumb or ignorant enough to follow that guy, by definition that makes you a fascist.

I don't even know what "fascist" means any more. :(

More to the point, Trumpism is synonymous with authoritarianism. (A particularly lazy and incompetent authoritarianism, fortunately.)

Trump support is now synonymous with fascism. The die was cast when Congress was attacked in an attempted coup.

Not all conservatives are Trump supporters.

Trump won 74MM votes, I think it's safe to say for that all intents and purposes a conservative is a Trump supporter.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers

The vast majority support overturning the election to install their own leader.

What would you call that?

> The vast majority support overturning the election to install their own leader

That's an opinion and a generalization of tens of millions of people.

It's an opinion backed up by solid, repeatable polling of Republicans and conservatives in general.

Example: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/2020-election-results-almost...

It’s a widely held opinion, but it’s also complete bullshit with no evidence to support it.

Except all those polls. Let's see yours.

Those polls show that most people don’t show that the election was stolen.

So if we were going by polls, it’s clearly complete bullshit.

But polls aren’t evidence. There is no evidence. If there were, it would have been presented, and Trump would be on his way to his second term.

Here is a poll:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/capitol-siege-majority-americans-t...

Does this make it true that Trump should resign?

We're talking about conservatives, not people in general. Don't move the goalposts.

I’m not - I’m pointing out that the fact that a minority of the country thinks something simply is not evidence that it is true.

Opinion polls are not evidence of truth.

Tens of millions of people who are, and always have been, more concerned about fake voter fraud than actual voter suppression.

I think we can all agree that a key tenancy of fascism is suppression of dissent, often violently. These companies effectively are the public square.