True, but they are still practically part of different nations. Idk how to tell what fascism is except for when someone praises Hitler or whatever at this point. Liberalism is similar and bad enough that it doesn’t really matter. All I know is it can get worse.
I wouldn’t say that’s true for black people, and the government ultimately doesn’t respect the remaining indigenous territories either
I’ve yet to find a perfectly clear definition of fascism; I typically view it as a combination of
1. complete bourgeois control of the state (more or less any imperialist country, and some others), and
2. blatant, violent repression of one or more minority groups of the domestic population,
both of which apply to the US
So by your definition many liberal countries have been fascist before fascism was first theorized (colonialism, homophobia…). Have you read the Really Existing Fascism yet? Roderic basically writes that fascism is little different than regular liberalism besides a return to primitive accumulation.
colonialism is not repression of the domestic population, but homophobia to the point of mass state violence against homosexual people would fit the second criterion; new terms can be applied retroactively
Have you read the Really Existing Fascism yet? Roderic basically writes that fascism is little different than regular liberalism besides a return to primitive accumulation.
I haven’t; that definition doesn’t make sense to me, but maybe it will after I read it
I don’t see how this applies to the US; indigenous and black people are considered citizens
True, but they are still practically part of different nations. Idk how to tell what fascism is except for when someone praises Hitler or whatever at this point. Liberalism is similar and bad enough that it doesn’t really matter. All I know is it can get worse.
I wouldn’t say that’s true for black people, and the government ultimately doesn’t respect the remaining indigenous territories either
I’ve yet to find a perfectly clear definition of fascism; I typically view it as a combination of
1. complete bourgeois control of the state (more or less any imperialist country, and some others), and
2. blatant, violent repression of one or more minority groups of the domestic population,
both of which apply to the US
That can just be liberalism though, there’s not much a difference anyway, but fascism is more specific.
the first item, yes, but the second is not inherent to liberalism (the proletariat is always repressed, but it’s not a minority group)
So by your definition many liberal countries have been fascist before fascism was first theorized (colonialism, homophobia…). Have you read the Really Existing Fascism yet? Roderic basically writes that fascism is little different than regular liberalism besides a return to primitive accumulation.
colonialism is not repression of the domestic population, but homophobia to the point of mass state violence against homosexual people would fit the second criterion; new terms can be applied retroactively
I haven’t; that definition doesn’t make sense to me, but maybe it will after I read it