Hacker News Reader

Comment by whiddershins | Hacker News Reader

It’s always the our group that is fascist.

Both sides will claim that the other side is fascist, because calling something fascist is a powerful rhetorical tool. Still, it's possible for one side to be correct and the other side to be incorrect in their characterization.

One part of why we're in the pickle we're in is the both-sidesism from the press and others.

In its original iteration, the Nazis were very much not accusing their opponents of such things. Fascism is very visible, with displays of strength, mass events, iconography, etc. They concept of the enemy was more conspiratorial in nature, i. e. the jewish conspiracy.

It's really only the most mindless middle school name calling of the last two years or so where you get Trump people saying "oh, but it's national socialist" and now Putin. It's trolling, "flooding the zone with shit". The Nazis were better than that.

> the Nazis were very much not accusing their opponents of such things

That's because they (and their Italian buddies) hadn't yet etched in world consciousness the image problem fascism and Naziism has that such attacks seek to leverage.

They did accuse their enemies of being all of the (often mutually contradictory) equivalent boogeymen of the day, though.

It’s also possible for neither side to be correct.

Absolutely. My point is that even if one group is provably fascist and the other group is provably not fascist, you would expect both groups to call each other fascist. Whether Qanon is fascist or not is a separate conversation.

Or for both sides to be correct! Who is to be the ingroup, and who the outgroup, is one of the most important questions in all of human history.

I assume you mean "out group".

I will add that confirmation bias is powerful: all of the listed traits are easy to find almost anywhere you look. One exception might be traditionalism, but lots of revolutionaries quickly pivot to having their own traditions if they have any success anyway.

Ya it’s definitely the Democrats obsessed with machismo and weaponry. /s

Right, they’re only obsessed with “toxic masculinity”, and military budget increases endlessly sailing through Democrat-controlled Congresses in no way represent an obsession, just common sense. Biden promised a transition to climate-friendly military vehicles and materiel after all.

Is that how Mussolini’s Italy approached masculinity?

Sorry I thought we were discussing these 14 general points which constitute the decisive authority on fascism. Why are you bringing up history?

Interesting, neoliberals seem to now support the authoritarian state, the various intelligence agencies, NATO going to war with Russia, censorship, etc.

Has been a strange shift.

I also remember when the liberals were anti-war and pro-free speech.

Liberals/left side is significantly different from the establishment of the democractic party or neo-liberals. neo-liberals are supporting the current system, in a "nicer" way. Leftist, lets say Sanders or Warren wants taxes on the rich less war and more healthcare for everyone for example. A more equal society.

The same can of course be said for the GOP, Mitch McConnel is very much for the continuation of what is now with perhaps slightly harsher rhetoric while the flank is very counter-revolutionary.

No significant faction supports going to war with Russia (which would actually be the WW2-Era American choice, sans nuclear weapons, to just assist Ukraine in recovering its sovereign territory and maintain a peaceful global order.)

The establishment in the US (or Britain) always support those things (except going to war with Russia that if any support comes from the GOP).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com