What is our RHP def of Facism? Seriously.

@moonbus said
I would add that fascism runs on idolizing the leader, who typically claims “only I can fix what’s wrong”, in short a personality cult.

Also that fascism can be left or right in terms of political ideology. E.g. Russia is a fascist socialist state.

@divegeester

Don't forget Franco's Spain.

Well it is a given that a term like this is not easy to define.

This is evidenced by the Wikipedia page on the issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

Of Course a real debate on the term should be led by reading the actual work of the People quoted there. Maybe a Fascist and a Marxist. Or should we go for someoen who is not Party?

@divegeester said
Also that fascism can be left or right in terms of political ideology. E.g. Russia is a fascist socialist state.

Was dive was, its now a fascist oligarchical state with a personality cult and a state religion at its black heart.
But yes it can be left or right

@joe-shmo said
Fascism ( as far as I can tell ): Any belief in individual rights/responsibility...

But....the 'urban dictionary' says that the individual must realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with existence of its nation. That would mean NO individual rights/responsiblity? Unbelievable. (I really dont know what the urban dic is).

Then, you have Webster saying that it is ultranationalism, forcible suppression of opposition, etc. To tie that into today's events, is the Twitter thing oppressive when you see that the new govt will not likely stop it, thus becoming a part of it, using it as an arm of government to, indeed, suppress?

@shavixmir said
Fascism to me is an undemocratic political system (so the political party in power can stay in power) which forces business to obey the will of the party and suppresses all other politcal parties and oppossing voices.

It’s also nationalistic. So anything (cultural, political, ethnic, religious, etc. ) which is different from party doctrine is also oppressed.

The polit ...[text shortened]... g business to obey and the normal worker having no say at all: so anti-communist, anti-trade union).

Here, again, the word 'oppressed'. If the new administration takes over, and I assume revel in what Twitter is doing, is that not oppression by the government? Just askin ...............

@averagejoe1 said
But....the 'urban dictionary' says that the individual must realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with existence of its nation. That would mean NO individual rights/responsiblity? Unbelievable. (I really dont know what the urban dic is).

Then, you have Webster saying that it is ultranationalism, forcible suppression of opposition, etc. To ti ...[text shortened]... t likely stop it, thus becoming a part of it, using it as an arm of government to, indeed, suppress?

Try to remember that Trump is the state and Twitter is the private citizen in this scenario and your almost there Joe.

@averagejoe1 said
Here, again, the word 'oppressed'. If the new administration takes over, and I assume revel in what Twitter is doing, is that not oppression by the government? Just askin ...............

Obviously not.
trump is the government and twitter is a business.

@kevcvs57 said
Was dive was, its now a fascist oligarchical state with a personality cult and a state religion at its black heart.
But yes it can be left or right

Indeed.

@shavixmir said
Obviously not.
trump is the government and twitter is a business.

We'll just see how it goes, Ole Joe here is nervous wreck, I am doing some scrambling.
Many talking heads (on my channels of course!) are finding all of this quite tenuous.

@averagejoe1 said
We'll just see how it goes, Ole Joe here is nervous wreck, I am doing some scrambling.
Many talking heads (on my channels of course!) are finding all of this quite tenuous.

MEDIC!

@averagejoe1 said
We'll just see how it goes, Ole Joe here is nervous wreck, I am doing some scrambling.
Many talking heads (on my channels of course!) are finding all of this quite tenuous.

Why?
Stop and think man!

For hundreds of years political party power has swung a bit to the left, a bit to the right, in the US.
One session it’s the republicans in power, the next it’s the democrats. Swings and roundabouts.

There is no difference now.
One party wants slightly less centralized power, one party wants slightly more centralized power. Neither, in actual terms for the working average Joe, are going to change anything much.

What you are doing is getting sweeped up in this extreme right-wing sludge. It’s aimed at you creating an enemy to fill the gap left by the fall of communism.

What you are seeing are changing cultural interpretations. This has happened every decade for the last 2500 years. But for some reason someone’s trying to make it out as a bigger deal now than ever before.

It is not. It’s always been like this, it always will. One moment homos are freaks.
The next moment trailer park inhabitants are freaks.
Then when they emancipate (for the reality is that they are caught in a poverty gap) there will be a new bunch of people who will seem freakish.

Just take a step back and look at the much larger, historical tapestry and smile.
You’re not living in a cave and you have Netflix.

Life has never been better.

@kevcvs57 said
It’s not a democrat thing dufus, corporate sponsored media have been pulling shows that they don’t like for years and years. What you hate about this version is that it’s been democratised and there nothing a right wing Tea Party / Trumpian hates more than democracy.
Suck it up there’s plenty more to come.

My favorite was that Republican senator complaining that his First amendment rights were violated when a published pulled his book deal. They claim to be the party of personal agency and responsibility but then whine everytime they confront the consequence of their actions.

Your book deal is protected by the first amendment? Hahahahahah

@wildgrass said
My favorite was that Republican senator complaining that his First amendment rights were violated when a published pulled his book deal. They claim to be the party of personal agency and responsibility but then whine everytime they confront the consequence of their actions.

Your book deal is protected by the first amendment? Hahahahahah

I know they constantly get confused about their right to free speech and their non existent right to make other people listen to or facilitate their speech.
It doesn’t matter how many times you explain that this debate is only viable if a government takes away your free speech rights or sanctions you for exercising that right.