“If you believe modern states are fascist, then you need to explain how those institutions and structures transformed while preserving a fascist core. Instead, you’ve repeatedly responded to positions I never took rather than the critique I actually made.”
Back to reality from this kind of garbage.
I never made the argument that Italian fascism took over the world. In fact, I was clear from the beginning. You are the one who is looking for the apparent answer they already know.
Save your leninsplaining for someone else. Cheers!
I never made the argument that Italian fascism took over the world. In fact, I was clear from the beginning. You are the one who is looking for the apparent answer they already know.
I never claimed you said Italian fascism took over the world. I asked a basic political science question: how did those specific modern structures transform while preserving a fascist core? In otherwords, what connects neofascism to fascism?
Calling a request for basic structural mechanics ‘garbage’ means that you don’t have an answer. If you can’t map the actual machinery, you don’t have a theory. This is the hard work you refuse to do.
You are clearly unable to connect it to anything I said.
As I already stated your extremely narrow view of what fascism is prevents you from seeing. You take this as being vague or nonspecific. I totally get that.
I provided multiple examples of my own as well as modern definitions of fascism even from people you sourced. This is ultimately a disagreement over semantics.
I thought you had the answer to your own question. Perhaps I was wrong, my apologies.
You never connected the concepts. Demanding structural rigor is not a “narrow view”. This is the bare minimum required for a coherent framework.
Your examples are historical anecdotes of state violence that completely fail to differentiate fascism from standard capitalism or imperialism operating at the core of a liberal state. Every example you mentioned that is bad about the US can easily be explained without fascism. Flattening these distinct systems into a single category requires ignoring the core arguments of the very thinkers you are citing and renders the term meaningless.
Your interpretation of how corporations connect to fascism completely misunderstands Mussolini’s actual model of corporatism. I have pointed this out three times now, and you have yet to address it.
I have not provided my own definition of fascism because my view isn’t the subject of the critique. I am challenging you to account for the internal consistency of yours. Yet another thing I have stated and you continue to fail to grasp.
Reducing a fundamental structural and temporal breakdown of political mechanics to a mere “disagreement over semantics” just confirms that you are unwilling to do the work to map your own thesis.
Your invective responses are just thin veneers for your rhetorical dodging and inability to wrestle with real structural mechanics in actual history.
What in the actual fuck?
“If you believe modern states are fascist, then you need to explain how those institutions and structures transformed while preserving a fascist core. Instead, you’ve repeatedly responded to positions I never took rather than the critique I actually made.”
Back to reality from this kind of garbage.
I never made the argument that Italian fascism took over the world. In fact, I was clear from the beginning. You are the one who is looking for the apparent answer they already know.
Save your leninsplaining for someone else. Cheers!
🧐⁉️
I never claimed you said Italian fascism took over the world. I asked a basic political science question: how did those specific modern structures transform while preserving a fascist core? In otherwords, what connects neofascism to fascism?
Calling a request for basic structural mechanics ‘garbage’ means that you don’t have an answer. If you can’t map the actual machinery, you don’t have a theory. This is the hard work you refuse to do.
You are clearly unable to connect it to anything I said.
As I already stated your extremely narrow view of what fascism is prevents you from seeing. You take this as being vague or nonspecific. I totally get that.
I provided multiple examples of my own as well as modern definitions of fascism even from people you sourced. This is ultimately a disagreement over semantics.
I thought you had the answer to your own question. Perhaps I was wrong, my apologies.
You never connected the concepts. Demanding structural rigor is not a “narrow view”. This is the bare minimum required for a coherent framework.
Your examples are historical anecdotes of state violence that completely fail to differentiate fascism from standard capitalism or imperialism operating at the core of a liberal state. Every example you mentioned that is bad about the US can easily be explained without fascism. Flattening these distinct systems into a single category requires ignoring the core arguments of the very thinkers you are citing and renders the term meaningless.
Your interpretation of how corporations connect to fascism completely misunderstands Mussolini’s actual model of corporatism. I have pointed this out three times now, and you have yet to address it.
I have not provided my own definition of fascism because my view isn’t the subject of the critique. I am challenging you to account for the internal consistency of yours. Yet another thing I have stated and you continue to fail to grasp.
Reducing a fundamental structural and temporal breakdown of political mechanics to a mere “disagreement over semantics” just confirms that you are unwilling to do the work to map your own thesis.
Your invective responses are just thin veneers for your rhetorical dodging and inability to wrestle with real structural mechanics in actual history.
And we are back to saying fascism doesn’t exist because I can’t connect the dots in your head. sigh
Edit: Just to be clear Fascism didn’t start in Italy.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
Corporatism predates Mussolini by almost a hundred years.
The only person who pretends not to connect the dots is you.
What’s your point?