• PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I think calling everyone a fascist would just water down the impact of the fascist world just like the far right- or far left-wing words which nowadays are just used on more left/right parties but are kinda not close on their agenda like the 20th century parties were where these definitons came from.

    But educate me if some of these countries have parties which really apply most general aspects of the fascism movement

    • tranarchist@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      the guy running for chancellor in Austria (Herbert Kickl) is calling himself “Volkskanzler”, guess who also called himself that? fucking Hitler. so no, I don’t think I’m over reacting

        • tranarchist@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          57
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          everyone calls themself human, not everyone calls themself Führer, Reichskanzler, Volkskanzler, etc.

          • Lucy :3@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            26
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Now what is a Volkskanzler? In itself it should be a Kanzler, so a part of a democratic government, for the Volk, so the people. And I never actually heard about Hitler calling himself that, only that he was the Reichskanzler, Führer etc.

            Edit:

            After the end of the dictatorship, the original meaning was transferred both directly and indirectly to well-known democratic state politicians such as Ludwig Erhard and Bruno Kreisky.

            So those democratic politicians are Hitlers too now?

            • tranarchist@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              no, they aren’t, because they were leftists trying to reclaim the word so they obviosly weren’t nazis, the people using it nowdays are far right, so it’s not really obvios wether they are nazis or not.

    • Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Wanting to ban mosques, the quran and muslim clothing like niqabs sounds pretty fascist to me (that’s what the biggest political party in The Netherlands wants). Thinking the European far right (that is rapidly gaining grounds) isn’t fascist or fascist leaning is a wild take.

      • PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well it could be a fascist, but nevertheless on which category they are really in, it’s really awful for doing this

      • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        4 months ago

        Unfortunately most leftist parties in Europe suffer from the paradox of tolerance. And rightists are hypocritical in opposing Islam but supporting Christianity. There’s nobody anti-islamic who’s not a fascist, which is ironic since in some ways they are quite similar, and both are harmful to humanity.

        (And to make it clear before you accuse me of being fascist, I oppose the currently dominant version of Islam which is not separable from politics, and which insists on actual belief in god and quran. Once it becomes a weakly held cultural category like Christianity in most of Europe I’ll be fine with it)

        • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          “There’s nobody anti-islamic who’s not a fascis”

          I’m sorry but you can be violently anti-religion without being a fascist. Considering religions for what they are - a way to dominate the people by fear anddesinformation - does not mean that you are going to prevent people from practicing their religion. You are just making damn sure they don’t advocate them in public schools, hospitals and administrations.

          • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m sorry but you can be violently anti-religion without being a fascist.

            Yes, that was exactly my point. I’m complaining that in the current political scene there are no parties that separate those ideas.
            And yes, banning the public display will only make it go underground and become stronger, this is why it’s so important to separate anti-religion from fascism.

          • supertrucker@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            Actually, no you can’t. What you are doing is substituting your political beliefs for your religious ones, and that at its core is what separates a facist from any other political belief system

              • supertrucker@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                That’s the problem with both religion and politics. If you think you’re right and everyone else is wrong, you can’t help but to I fringe on other people’s right to practice. That’s why anyone that thinks a leftist government can be a democracy with opposition political parties is at best wrong

        • Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Where in Europe do you consider islam to be more than a ‘cultural category like Christianity’? Most European countries have large Christian conservative political parties that are preventing trans people from getting the medical care they need and women from having ownership of their bodies when they’re pregnant.

          As a trans person fundamentalist Christians are a much bigger threat to me than fundamentalist muslims. I experience solidarity from muslims who know what it’s like to be marginalised and discriminated against. There are muslim people who would like to restrict my determination over my own body, but there are way more Christians in my country who would like to do the same and they pose and actual threat to me.

    • knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      A few of the AFD highlights

      Member of the Bundestag suggested to shoot every migrant at the border.

      Another one claimed not every SS member was a bad person. Which lost them the support of French and Italian fascist.

      Leader of the party in Thüringen, a history teacher, used a slogan of the SA.

      There is many more…

      • pimeys@lemmy.nauk.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah. Scary stuff. I live in central Berlin, and it’s pretty relaxed here. Did the Mauerlauf last weekend and immediately when you cross the Brandenburg border to some of these villages, they’re full of AfD advertisement. Berlin is definitely the Portland of Germany :D

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      Germany definitely counts. The AfD is above 20%, in some states they might even govern alone. They probably will be part of the next government after the next election and they definitely are fascist.

      • PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s mind boggling how a suspiciously nazi friendly party can get so many votes. Doesn’t Germany have some serious anti-nazi laws written into it’s constitution, or is that treated like a joke too like in Hungary?

        • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nazi symbolism is forbidden and some slogans. One of the leaders of AfD was recently fined for using one such slogan. The secret service tasked with protecting the constitution (Verfassungsschutz) is watching the AfD and a mechanism to outlaw the party is currently worked on. We need to wait for the repost of this secret service to really start the mechanism. Once started it is estimated to need at least 4 years to get a result. So even if successfull the AfD will be in the government in a lot of states till then and possibly be in the federal government.

          Germany is slow when it comes to prosecuting the far right. Usually when there are big protests against the far right the police distracts from them by arresting former member of the far left terror organization RAF which has been inactice for decades.

    • Jones@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      An example, a Dutch minister for the biggest party (PVV, in my opinion (very close to being) a fascist party) was an active member on an internet forum called Stormfront which is known to be a forum for neo-nazis

    • Markus Sugarhill@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      We are allowed by court to call members of the FPÖ Kellernazis (people who are secretly Nazis when drinking with their buddies under the cellar) the FPÖ will most likely be the strongest party after the next Nationalrats election on September 29th. They will have something between 30 to 35% which is pretty strong. They have actual plans in their program to overthrow governments via referendum of the public and other things. So yes, it fits.

      • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        They are expected to have between 25 and 30 percent*

        And usually prognosises tend to value them higher than they end up, so I guess we can expect them to get around 25%. Plenty of space for other parties to form a coalition.

      • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        “if using a word improperly muddies it’s definition, so be it”

        Are you anti dictionary or something?

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          the fact you are in denial doesnt make the latest fascist wave any less fascist.

    • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There is no careful use of language that can stop people from preferring hatred. Humans are machines for making the world worse, and they will continue to do so, and while they do it they will rationalise doing it, and while people get hurt (including themselves) they will blame the victims.

      “It’s not fascism!” they complain as minorities are scapegoated and children die. Just get used to the fact that anything that is pointed entirely towards harming people for fun and profit is going to attract a range of derogatory words, and maybe think about how to stop humans from hurting humans instead.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This started with “the war on terror.” And then any time there was anything someone didn’t like, it was “terrorism.”

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Most fascist movements die out before they can hold onto power long enough to transform society.

      We tend to focus on the fascist movements that have obtained power on held onto it long enough to transform a country into a fascist state. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler etc.

      But the danger is there so it’s important to be vigilant.

      That being said… yeah, on lemmy.ml, anyone that fails the leftist purity test is a liberal and all liberals are fascists. Everyone is a fascist that isn’t an authoritarian with a red and yellow flag.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        on lemmy.ml, anyone that fails the leftist purity test is a liberal and all liberals are fascists

        Liberals: “You can’t just call everyone a fascist every time you disagree with a policy, it isn’t civil.”

        Also Liberals: “My political opponents are fascist and any third party vote is a vote for fascism and if you don’t vote you’re supporting fascism and if you argue with me on foreign policy or debt relief or you hurt my election chances in any way, then you’re going to let a fascist back into the White House.”

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          The politcal system means that voting for a third party means you’re not actually opposing fascism. It has the exact same effect as not voting at all. While it’s not supporting fascism, it’s also not opposing fascism. So it’s just being fascism neutral.

          It would be nice if you had a system where a third party vote wasn’t the same as not voting but that kind of system will never happen if you continue to waste your vote.

          • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            I live in a blue state. Using that same logic, my vote for a Democrat is a wasted vote, because my state is going to go blue whether I vote for them or not.

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              If you actually want a potential President Kamala Harris to have some good legislation to sign, you might want to consider voting for congressional candidates that will write the kind of legislation you want. And if you want to end the Electorial College bullshit, you might consider voting for state reps. And while you’re there, you may as well vote for Harris if for no other reason than you might someday say to your grandkids that you voted for the first woman President. That’s a better story to tell than explaining about how you were too angsty about “the system” to bother going out to vote.

              • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Where did I say that I wasn’t going to vote? I’m voting Green. If there’s a good Democrat running for Congress, I’ll vote for them, too. This isn’t complicated.

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Voting Green has the exact same effect as not voting. Yeah, it shouldn’t be that way, but it’s the way it is. There’s wanting the ideal system where third party votes matter and there’s pretending it already is an ideal system

                  You don’t get to an ideal system by voting for people that won’t have any power to change things. You make a difference by writing to and calling the people who do have power and ensure the people you call are at least sympathetic to what you want.

                  It is indeed not that complicated.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            that kind of system will never happen if you continue to waste your vote.

            Why would the winning party change the system that compels you to vote for them?

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              A ranked choice type system would mean a third party wouldn’t be just something that screws up elections. In fact it would probably really benefit Democrats as people who might not go to vote otherwise might go vote green as their top pick and then vote Democrat as their second pick. If the Green candidate won, that’s someone they could make some compromises with to get legislation passed. If the green candidate loses, then many of their votes would go to the Dem candidate making it more likely they would win.

              Twice in this century a GOP candidate has won the EC without winning the popular vote. So it’s obvious why the Democrats would want to get rid of that.

              But as it stands voting third party (or not voting) is just letting everyone else decide how things should be. The way it works now is you vote for the candidate most likely to care about your concerns (and who could feasibly win) and write to them and tell them what you want. Yeah it’s a pain in the ass to write to a representative, but it’s more likely to have an effect than anything you write on the internet. Be polite, tell them the things you want that can be reasonably be implemented. Also you’re probably going to have to vote in many elections to get what you want. But if it’s something you really care about you’re willing to vote in as many elections and write to your rep as many times as needed to get it done.

              It takes time, but it’s more effective than doing nothing.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                In fact it would probably really benefit Democrats as people who might not go to vote otherwise might go vote green as their top pick and then vote Democrat as their second pick. If the Green candidate won, that’s someone they could make some compromises with

                This is a naive understand of how the Democratic Party wants to function.