LogFAQs > #887276799

scar the 1 posted...

That's not right at all! When you pointed out how Obama is also a fascist, it wasn't under any definition I used. In fact, I was very clear from the start that there isn't a theoretical foundation that fascism sprung from, because one of its core characteristics is that "knowledge is nothing, action is everything". So what I started off by saying was that there is no crisp definition of fascism, and thus the question "is so and so fascist?" will have a fuzzy answer until you're far away from the blurred lines.

Ok, so how about you outline your fuzzy definition of fascism so you can stop accusing me of being off the mark?

I since demonstrated by citing my friend and the scholar who was interviewed by Slate (which you dismissed because the interview was published in Slate, not based on his merits or lack thereof)

Actually I dismissed it because you didn't quote from it nor cite it.

Throughout this topic I've talked about defining characteristics, not a singular definition.

All of which I demonstrated are at least equally applicable to Obama.

Hey, if you simply admitted that Obama is a fascist then I would agree that, by your definition, Trump is also a fascist. But you refuse to stick to your own parameters, which is why I keep calling you out.

So to clarify, I didn't outline Trump's "fascism", I outlined similarities between primarily his rhetoric and fascism, and you have from the start refused to acknowledged that rhetoric plays a part in this at all.

Yes, because saying "the good 'ol days were better" is an insane standard to judge whether someone is a fascist and I can't believe you actually defended that. I would argue that fascism is much more vitally characterized by wanting a powerful central government and seizing private industries and seeks to control the lives of its citizens under the guise of national pride. But apparently the "good 'ol days" rhetoric is more important than that?

You've continuously dismissed opinions on account of coming from leftists even though the premise of the topic is "leftists, explain this".

Once again, if any of you were consistent with your definition of fascism and how it relates to Trump, there would be no issue. But in order to do that, the definitions that have been given must cast a wide net to ensnare Trump's actions, but they inadvertently catch many other politicians in their definition. So when I ask, "Oh, so this person is also a fascist?" and they deny it, the only conclusion that can be drawn is they're just making crap up in order to condemn Trump.

You've cited Mussolini's doctrine essay even though it literally states that fascism is a complete negation of Marxian socialism,

And as I've already explained to you, socialism is not Marxism. Marxism is the ideology that spawned both fascism and socialism. And again, it's important to remember Mussolini himself was a socialist prior to his evolution into a fascist. He saw it as a natural progression, and did bear animosity toward socialists afterward, but that doesn't mean that fascism is not therefore a product of Marxism.

You don't like Obama. I'll never agree that he was a fascist president, as he ideologically lacked some core aspects, like the populism, palingenesis, and apocalyptic tendencies.

Yet you will call Trump a fascist even though he wants less government control of industry, he doesn't want to disarm civilians, and he wants to tax people less.

Is palingenesis really so important to fascist doctrine that it makes Trump more fascist than Obama despite how Obama literally used his office to persecute organizations that criticized him?
---

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
-George Orwell