Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenneth | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for being a great example of what GP was talking about.

Shutting down discussions about issues based on the pretext that the people you disagree with are "fascist" or "bigots" is a huge part of the problem. (And yes, the other side does the same while calling you "communists" — doesn't change anything)

View on HN

In my defense, the one person I accused of being a communist on this board, turned out to actually be one :)

Less flippantly, you're spot on. I'd go further, and say overuse of these words erodes their meaning, and makes it possible for actual facists or bigots (or commies!) to hide among groups of people who have been tarred with the same brush but don't hold the same views.

> And yes, the other side does the same while calling you "communists" — doesn't change anything

Well, both the right and left thinks the other is the fascist. The right also thinks the left is communist. Both think the other is bigoted in different ways.

Calling someone both fascist and communist is, if nothing else, logically incoherent.

How?

They're both ideologically different and socially distinct groups, and for the middle of the 20th century were shooting at each other on that basis?

Both labels have become extremely overused. Not every authoritarian is necessarily Fascist, calling everyone a Nazi isn't useful, nor is calling relatively mild redistributive processes or universal healthcare Communist.

This was basically my point as well. There are certainly better words to describe concerns, and the concerns are more bipartisan than is popularly appreciated.

Fascism is by definition extreme right.

Communism is by definition extreme left.

Reinterpreting history and meaning of words is a national sport now, especially when you can use "bad words" against your opponents but it's nice to use the appropriate words.

Also, wanting free healthcare doesn't make you a communist, wanting market deregulation / more immigration control doesn't make you fascist.

It's a bit like people saying Trump is the new Hitler. Open a history book and read, he isn't 5% of a Hitler.

Using these words an comparison in these contexts completely destroy their meaning.

For some (European) definitions of "right", maybe. In the U.S., reactionary thinking goes back to literal readings of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, though. From that perspective (maybe not your own but a prominent one), large government ideologies have more in common.

> In the U.S.

The US has never been under fascist or communist governments so their definitions of said movements don't really matter. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists, Trump is just right wing with disputable opinions. Stalin and Mao were communists, AOC isn't even moderate left by communists standards.

Saying that Trump is fascist and AOC a communist is plain ridiculous.

Yes, fascism and communism do have, at least in the way they were implemented so far, things in common, but they're diametrically opposed. It's like saying you're a man AND a woman because men and women have 2 legs/arms and you do too.

I was saying fascism isn't the opposite of communism simply because the European right/left paradigm would map them on opposing sides of a spectrum. Other paradigms exist in which they have much in common.

One thing they have in common: being diametrically opposed to a lot of things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com