Yes, that point is established, but that's not what I'm bringing up. The principle of socialism I've seen pushed the most isn't "make everyone equal" (although there is a very notable exception to that), it's "people own a share of the enterprise they work in, which protects them from exploitation". I'm wondering how the wage differential issue undermines the idea of worker-owned enterprises being the driving force in the economy. The neurosurgeon would still earn more and likely get a nicer house and, if he or she is really good and a decent person, social influence and prestige as well... but would this preclude them, at the end of the day, joining the ditch digger, orderlies, nurses, etc., in voting for issues relating to the running of the hospital under a "one person, one vote" system?
Without down playing the importance of medical professionals I think one of the thing covid is doing and will do moving forward is show that the ditch digger is seriously undervalued and does far more in the over all contribution of the running of society than the neurosurgeon. That said I agree that the surgeon would still make more money, and he would be part owner in the hospital as well. He would also probably make more money than the average nurse or even a supervisor. From my understanding a large portion of expense of any hospital or even private practice is caused not due to the procedure itself but goes to prying the money out of the cold dead hands of insurance companies. I have had medical bills reduced by up to 80% if I offer to pay cash upfront. The problem is doing so is a trade off for most people and is not always an option depending on what exactly needs to be done.
Because the argument I've fielded before is that capitalism makes a mockery of human freedom, in that only the capitalists themselves have anything approaching real freedom. Working class, even middle class, people are limited in their choices and in their political influence by the power of the capitalists who own and operate the majority of a society's productive capacity. Their freedoms are in effect curtailed by wages kept as low as their bosses can keep them in order to pad profit margins. Thus the desire for worker-owned enterprises where the profits of the enterprise are more evenly, fairly distributed.
I have seen that argument but it's one that I myself don't tend to go in for. It's true but there is a bit more too it and people's eyes often glaze over. What I usually point to is the way capitalists use government power and influence to both lock others out of competing, and how that same money is locked behind an impenetrable wall to all but the super wealthy. The (shrinking) ability to move between middle class and rich gives a false impression of class mobility. We exist in what is effectively a neo-feudal system.
In terms of the argument you reference however the problem is not just that the wages are kept as low as possible. That is a product of the market and I like markets. A problem is the gap between what the workers make and what the bosses/capitalists make. The problem is not that a gap exists between the lowest paid worker and the boss, again that is expected and most of the time justified. It's the size of the gap which I find unjustified and outright unethical in that it demands an exploitative system in which the boss is rewarded by the capitalist for fucking over the workers as much as possible. The boss isn't rewarded for doing a good job (ie ensuring the general health and long term viability of the company) but is rewarded for fucking over everyone under them as much as they can get away with. It also leads to the creation of perverse incentives in which the boss/capitalist is rewarded for ringing as much out of the company as possible to earn a golden parachute as the flaming remains burn down around those trapped below. The boss made their nut, the capitalist made their nut and then declares bankruptcy so they are not liable, and then the workers and lower and middle management get fucked. And if you are middle management when the company goes under you are doubly fucked.
He has. It boils down to one of two options according to him: "let the tankies take over first and take the brunt of the fighting, then jump in to take them out" or "join the tankies in a revolutionary coalition to bring down society, but make sure to backstab them before they backstab us".
Pay attention. No. Never ever join the tankies under any circumstances. Better a clean death on your feet. I laid out a more detailed description in another reply as to what actions would be taken if there were a tankie/fascist uprising.
Which explains why the tankies would put people like him up against a wall as soon as they took over.
But I was actually referring to how a "Libertarian Socialist" country would defend itself afterwards. Because even if they managed to kill all their own tankies, there'd be plenty more in other lands. All too keen to go and bring Benefits of Government By Vanguard of Revolution to a country that lacked such benefits.
I think there is a bit of confusion which I should clear up. Socialism is an international project. Moving the US to a social democracy and then to democratic socialism in which the workers own their places of employment would qualify the US as a socialist nation. The mechanisms exist to enact the first part and a good push will tip it fully over into that direction. The reason it hasn't been done is because at the moment we are working on expanding the mechanisms as well as putting the mechanisms in place for phase two. Note the governmental structure stays the same and that the military doesn't go away. But that doesn't really describe the socialist project in full which is worker ownership on a global scale with the free movement of goods and people.
Reactionaries tend to be short sighted in that they are unable to see how a rising tide raises all boats. Raising ones neighbors standard of living raises ones own standard of living. It's selfishness appearing as altruism. I don't care about ending poverty because it will make the lives of nameless faceless people better, or because it will make the lives of the people I know (but don't necessarily care about) better. We are all motivated by ego centrism (even if there are people that like lying to themselves about it). I care about ending poverty because it will greatly reduce crime which will greatly increase my own standard of living and the standard of living of people I do know and care about. The problem reactionaries have is they seem incapable of thinking long term and so balk at a high upfront cost without considering the long term cost which ends up being far more expensive.
I guess he thinks he would take over the world all at once?
When the hell have I ever suggested that? You keep reading the opposite meaning into everything I say. Even if I had the ability to press the big red "Socialism right this moment" button I wouldn't push it. In fact I would destroy it. Socialism has to come from a bottom up approach not a top down approach. The only thing those "at the top" can do is remove roadblocks.
I'm pretty sure that's not true, to my recollection historians view WW1 as having laid the groundwork for WW2, but it is not viewed as a continuation of that war and is instead deemed to be an entirely separate conflict. The allies seem to have viewed it in quite different terms, given their radical change in goals between the wars. In WW1 they wanted an armistice and a peace deal and let their defeated foes mostly alone, in WW2 they demanded unconditional surrender and a years long occupation and top to bottom reconstruction of the axis governments.
Not exactly? You are leaving off a huge chuck and only looking at the end of the war and not its cause or the animosity which was thinly veiled between the various countries. Additionally the scale of retribution against Germany was nearly unprecedented in history and ensured a continuation of conflict at a future date. A major part of the settlement after WWII was the huge reduction in debt. The parallel I have seen drawn was to the 100 years war in which long periods of armistices would exist before armies would be rebuilt and the fighting would continue. The conflict was driven mostly by nationalism, by colonial conflicts, historic animosities, and power destabilization alongside the crisis in the ottoman empire.
I don't see there as being a meaningful difference. You've said in the past you view the use of violence at these events as an issue because of poor optics, not an issue of being morally wrong. I disagree, I view those actions as being fundamentally wrong, so splitting hairs about justifications vs employability or whatever doesn't matter, at the end of the day my issue is the morality of using force, your issue is with the practicality of it.
Then you were not paying attention. I did bring up the bad optics, however I also brought up (what I think is the more important point) that the problem with the use of such violence is that it can spiral out of hand very quickly. Which is why even if I think violence is justified it doesn't mean I think it is a good idea. I think the problem here might be that while I did bring that up as a problem my analysis overshadowed that statement leading others to believe that my primary objection was the optics and my secondary objection was that the use of violence can easily spin out of control. Looking back I did not do a good enough job explaining how the justification is proportional to the risk of said violence spiraling out of control. If I left any other impression then that is on me as a failure to communicate clearly my position. As I stated previously the fact that the counter-protesters had no policies in place whatsoever with regards to violence was a moral failing. I am not referring to the lack of a non-violence mandate, but rather to the fact that ethical vs non-ethical use of violence was never even addressed. Knowing for a fact that some of the counter-protest organizers had long term experience that is un-excusable.
Fascism, or rather "Fascism", for one.
I hesitate to call fascism an idea and it certainly isn't about conveying ideas. Fascism is about conveying pseudo-arguments intended not to put forward any particular idea but rather to instill fear and psychologically and emotionally manipulate groups. Do I trust people (including myself) not to be emotionally manipulated? Hell no. I know far too much about how emotions operate and both individual and group psychology to ever trust emotions. The conspiracy which was being pushed at the time was the myth of white genocide which was being framed in highly emotional and manipulative language intended to instill xenophobia among the white middle class. What I and many others saw was something we had first hand experience with from the 80's and 90's only worse. It was an attempt to recreate the moral panic of the satanic panic only this time with clearly identified targets. I strongly recommend you do research into the manufacturing of moral panics and the way they play out as well as the tactics of manipulation they employ.
Something to note is that I do not deny the moral panic on the part of the counter-protesters. The difference is that I can demonstrate justification for the panic on the part of the counter-protesters in response to the panic of the protesters. Regardless of skin color or country racist nationalist movements (which given the things they were shouting they undeniably were) always historically ends with that if unchecked racist nationalist movement growing to a point where it get's large enough that it begins taking violent action against minorities in the belief that such action is morally justified. The question was never "would the protesters use violence" but "how big will they get before they start using violence?" and "Will they be able to be stopped?".
Now if you or anyone want to have a conversation or make an argument for fascism I am up for that. But the propaganda which the Alt-Right was putting out at the time was not an argument it was propaganda, and just as one cannot hold air, one cannot make an argument where none has been made.
That would be a better answer if there were not large, organized groups seeking to recruit, train, and organize those individuals as footsoldiers. Since such groups do exist, this is clearly no longer a matter of the spontaneous actions of various people, or even spontaneous actions that sweep passerbys up in the moment. when people are showing up with matching uniforms and riot shields, this is no longer about thier singular, individual action.
I am unsure how much you are aware of the history of anti-fascism or the way in which it operates so it is hard to know how to address what you are saying here. In part the difficulty I am having is that I know the way in which I am reading what you are saying and what you are trying to convey are not even in the same solar system. So I am going to try to tease out what I think you are saying and you tell me how close I get to it.
First thought I want to tell you how I am reading what you are saying so you can see my confusion and perhaps explain what you mean better. What your statement suggests to me is that because each individual did not independently hear about the protest and instead heard about it from others and coordinated how to ensure arrival at the event on their own then my point is invalid.? You might see why I find this confusing and why although I know it's not what you mean I am having trouble parsing out what you do mean.
Anti-fascist movements are highly decentralized movements with a very long history focused
almost entirely on local non-violent activism. Decentralized does not mean disorganized as it is good praxis to ensure that you are not working at cross purposes with other's the result of which is to nullify the efforts of both. It is also good praxis to reach out to others for best methods and practices and yes to receive training when necessary (don't reinvent the wheel). Anti-Fascist organizations are almost always small (10-15 people), and are DIY by their nature. This was actually part of the problem with the counter-protest. A few dozen small scale anti-fascist organizations found themselves overwhelmed quickly trying to both cadre for other organizations that sprang up as well as continue their own operations. Things improved when previously retired anti-fascist organizations organizations moved in to fill in the gaps but even that wasn't enough.
As a result the training was half assed and not nearly good enough. The two primary areas of focus for training anti-fascist organisations are identification (how to identify a fascist and why it's important not to label non-fascists as fascists), information distribution (best practices for informing others about fascism and fascists), and event planning. The ball really got dropped on that last one.
Speaking of protests in general if the members of an organization are the only ones to show up the protest is not successful even if it doesn't fail. The purpose of a protest and of a counter-protest is to draw attention to an issue. This means broadcasting the fact that the protest or counter-protest is happening and planning for the arrival of people that are not part of the organizing organization. Organizers are trained in legal issues as well as safety procedures including how to deescalate potentially dangerous situations in addition to developing procedures for safety and coordination.
With regards to the counter-protest in particular the safety and coordination portion was heavily skimped on or entirely dropped past the second or third cadre. It wasn't really anyone's fault per se but a lack of experience on the part of many of the newly formed cadre's in stressing it's importance. That would have been risky enough, but add to that the number of people who showed up to counter protest was far greater than they had planned or had manpower for and it was a bad situation. It was unrealistic to believe telling everyone to go home would work because they didn't have the manpower to support. People who show up especially after driving 6 hours or more to protest will protest. To be honest I was rather surprised things were not worse than they were.
Things were made worse when the ADL chimed in and redefined Antifa from being a general philosophy to being a specific means of resistance setting in the would be counter-protesters an expected behavior. It took a lot of push back before that message was countered and able to be spread among new anti-fascist organizations. In the early days countering that message among new organizations was impossible let alone countering that message to the general public.
The problem was that there was no larger (or even medium) organization to train organizers, and the training to quickly train up such an organization is rarely used and so got lost (for the same reason why the second and third cadre lost the safety and coordination portion). Methods have been put in place to rectify this in the future though nothing is ever assured and by the nature of anti-fascist organizations it is impossible to guarantee it will always remain so. This is in large part due to the impermanent nature of anti-fascist organizations and their relatively small sizes.
I'm pretty sure you had nothing to do with it, things calmed down after charlottesville because it was no longer possible for either side to pretend this was a bit of consequence free fun and that what they were doing could have serious effects. There was a before and after video of some guy on the right wing side, where prior to the rally he was acting like this big macho tough guy "we're coming their to defend our rights, blah blah won't be intimidated by a bunch of losers in masks blah blah look at this tacticool gear I'm bringing, we're not going to start a fight but we will win it".....and then he was sobbing in his hotel room later that day, because things had gone totally wrong in way you can't patch up with some ice packs and band aids, and his entire macho persona collapsed.
It was not me alone and I never meant to give that impression. That would be giving myself far too much credit and I am no believer in great man. I and others reached out to the anti-fascist organizers and had very serious long talks over methods, efficacy, and ethics. There was a lot of initial push back and the Black Bloc in particular was/is obstinate.
As to your belief that the reason things settled down was because both sides realized "it was no longer possible for either side to pretend this was a bit of consequence free fun and that what they were doing could have serious effects." At least on the side of the anti-fascists no one thought it was consequence free fun. I understand that is a nice, neat, and fun narrative to run with but it is far from the reality. At the time the Black Bloc and a few of its daughters were pushing for an escalation of violence and were doing a fair job convincing the others. Instead of limiting it to Richard Spencer the Black Bloc wanted to repeat the successful Canadian Punch a Nazi campaign that took place in the late 80's and early 90's. That was a very real possibility.
This wasn't a handful of "rogue agents" showing up and leading a bunch of emotionally changed people into a fight, major portions of both sides had been showing up to these rally with the full intention of fighting, and that was well known to all involved.
I did not say it was a rogue agent, although I can see how you would get that impression having reread what I wrote. "even the best organized events can be sent into a spiral by rogue agents." was one statement. "That the counter-protest was not well organized and that they did not have a policy in place was a major moral failing on the part of the organizers." was a second statement. What I was trying to say there was that even highly well planned protest run the risk of violence. I do not care if the violence at Charlottesville was initiated by a rouge agent or not as it plays no part in my judgement of the moral failing of the organizers.
This sounds a lot like dogmatic rejection of other arguments or sources in favor of the "traditional" sources of wisdom and guidance that shaped the far left worldview to me.
See the problem here is that you haven't actually made an argument but vaguely hinted at something in order to avoid making an argument. What other "arguments and sources" are being dogmatically rejected? in favor of what "traditional sources of wisdom and guidance"? And how does that relate to:
"The Cult of Tradition", characterized by the creation of a mono-culture, even at the risk of internal contradiction. Everything worth knowing has been learned in the past and it is only a matter of refining what we already have. (I have reworded it but kept the original meaning). Given the lefts proclivity for multiculturalism you're claim of cultural syncretism doesn't stand. Given the rejection of modernism in favor of post modernism your traditional sources of wisdom and guidance doesn't stand.
Well, technically they go back a bit farther than merely rejecting the enlightenment and instead lean more toward rejecting western civilization as whole, but that's pretty close to what he says here.
What you have just said is not even wrong. It's not even close to being wrong. What you have said is so wrong that it doesn't even make sense. The order is, The Enlightenment, Modernism, Post-Modernism. I will again rephrase so that your error becomes clear:
The Rejection of modernity and views the enlightenment (Liberalism. ie democracy, liberty, equality, etc) and modernism as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of technological advancement, as many fascists cite their industrial power.
Saying "well technically they go back farther than merely rejecting the enlightenment" does not make sense on so many levels. The Enlightenment was an outgrowth of the Renaissances and rejected the Medieval Period and what came before. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment rejected the Medieval period in favor of building upon the Greek and Roman period. The mythic mono-culture of Western Civilization as if it were somehow a single homogeneous group with a single unified culture or civilization is laughable and creates internal contradictions. While the left rejects Christianity it does not reject the Enlightenment but rather embraces it's liberal values and attempts to build upon and improve said values much in the way the Enlightenment built upon and improved Greek (Mediterranean) values.
"Hey guys, we took action by attacking this rally, and it didn't seem to work, they're still gathering in rallys and now they're bringing weapons to fight us. Should we reflect on our actions any maybe reconsider?'
"No, merely showing up and fighting proves that we will defend minority communities, we must keep fighting, there's no time to think!"
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with scorns intellectuals and their views and methods and is a system of belief or action that disregards or contradicts rational principles. , and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
Again you make no actual argument and while what you say on the surface at first appears to be related to Eco's point it is in no way demonstrative of "Action for action sake". It fails to ignore the history of anti-fascism and it's development along side ignoring other facts such as the long history of ethnofacism as a movement. This is in addition to attempting to imply that ethnofascism or that fascism in general is somehow "just another valid idea". A deliberate escalation of force is not action for actions sake. This is to ignore the rallies prior to the unite the right rally and the actions taken there. It is to ignore the escalation in size and frequency in alt-right rallies. It is to ignore the references to the day of the rope made by alt-righter's on their twitter feeds leading up to the protests.
Is it the Left which scorns intellectuals and their views and methods? No, while they are neither gods nor priests we respect the work they do and their knowledge, and we consider their views and methods. Is it the Left which disregards rational principles No. We act based on the best information we have at the time considering what has worked in the past and what has failed and why it worked or failed. Is it the left which attacks modern culture? No. We embrace modern culture in all it's multicultural inclusive glory. Is it the left which attacks science? No. The right on the other hand does scorn intellectuals and their views and methods. The right does disregard rational principles in favor of the principle of the moment. The right rejects modern culture and modern art which shapes it in favor of a static over-glorified image of the past which never truly was. The right rejects science in favor of young earth creationism, biblical flat earth, denial of climate change, denial of psychology, denial of biology, in favor of race realism and so much more. The right loves it's pseudo-science. Ah yes. But that is right. It's a grand conspiracy to suppress the truth with only that rare brave soul willing to risk life and career to proclaim to the masses how vaccination causes autism, how climate change is a hoax, how the black man's IQ is because they are genetically inferior, how sex is a binary, gender is a hoax, the moon landing was faked, the and how humans were created 6,000 years ago out of mud. All the science is controlled by the cultural Marxists! It couldn't possibly be that the data is correct. Funny in the 80's and 90's it was the satanists and Illuminati who controlled science.
"Scratch a centrist/liberal and a fascist bleeds", that sure sounds like arguing that anyone who disagrees with a given course of action is a traitor to the overall cause.
"Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues rational conversation and critical reasoning
as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion. *as barriers does not mean that after intelligent discourse and critical thought action is not taken, only that discourse and thought should take place before action.
Of everything in this list you come closest to making a point here. Closest is not having actually made one however. There are two ways to take that statement. The first is unironically ie if you literally scratch a liberal you are literally scratching a fascist. The second is as both a reminder of the past and of conveying something a bit deeper. Historically liberals side with fascists, as a very recent example look at the Labour Party which sabotaged it's own victory in order to prevent Jeremy Corbyn and the rest of Labour from gaining a strong enough majority to govern. When you scratch at a liberals liberalism you find they are not very liberal. While cathartic and punchy this is another one of those things Leftists say that while I agree with the sentiment (ie liberals do not value the principles of liberalism except superficially) I think the trade off for catharsis isn't worth the damage expressing that sentiment that way does optically.
Yes, the far left has their own collection of "them", various groups and demographics they blame for all problems and issues.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
I have noticed that what you keep doing is you take the initial statement, then you abstract what it means, and then you reduce it to essentialism in such a way that it no longer resembles the original statement. It's not just about having a "them" but it's the source of the "themness". are they the "them" because they are different, or are they the "them" for some other reason. Is it fear of difference for the sake of difference, or is there some other reason? As to blaming all problems and issues on "various groups and demographics" this is rather reductionist as well as outright false. The lions share of attention goes to the major identified source of the problems which we are capable of effecting (reactionaries) who tend to be white males. That they are white or male however is accidental to the source of the problem which is their reactionary philosophy. Second wave feminists, the new black panther party, etc all get their turn as well. But, they are both proportionally smaller in terms of both membership and as political forces and thus get less attention.
Every party in existence appeals to the middle class, because that's where they recruit the most people from.
Just once I would like to see you actually not twist what was said out of recognizable intent. ""Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups." There is a difference between seeking to appeal to the middle class and seeking to appeal to a frustrated middle class. You can appeal to the middle class's hope, you can appeal to their sense of fairness, you can appeal to their sense of justice, there are many ways to appeal to someone. Appealing to them out of frustration or fear is much more specific than simply appealing to them. By abstracting what was said however you are then able to essentially it so that it becomes vague enough to drive a bus through. No wonder you said Umberto's list was vague. You are intentionally making it vague disregarding any semblance of what it actually says so that it becomes meaningless. That is not honest. That is not sincere intention. That is not good faith.
Oh yeah. The obsession with the nonexistent nazi plot to take over the country and brainwash everyone into going along with it is easily the most visible and obvious element where the far left lines up with this.
"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Oh, yeah. I forgot. The Civil Rights act got passed and everyone went "well racism is against the law, I guess I will stop being racist" and then racism was ended forever. Let's talk about a racist plot. One we can prove. One in which so obvious the courts over turned it on the grounds that it was too blatant an act of racism to be anything else. Let's talk about the Mississippi redistricting which targeted blacks and other minorities by districting in such a way as to effectively nullify their votes. Or let's talk about how voter ID laws target blacks. Because you know, those racist congressmen and senators stopped being racist and didn't/do not try to pass laws which target blacks.
Obsession: a persistent
disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling.
If you are being demonstrably targeted for discrimination. It's not a disturbing preoccupation. It's trying not to be oppressed and discriminated against. Though I am sure you will abstract and essentialize that too.
"Hey guys, nazis are on the rise and will soon sweep into power and murder all the brown people, and they have the police and the government and the courts and blah blah blah on thier side. Luckily, despite all these advantages, nazis are a bunch of weak manbaby losers and all we have to do is win a few fist fights on the streets to crush them forever".
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
More realistically "Hey guys, fascism is on the rise. Historically if it goes unchecked it grows into a cancer and institutes an authoritarian regime. Let's oppose it by starting with legal options but keep all options open. They are a bunch of pussy's who fear pain and seek to hide it by displace of machismo and are ruled by mob-mentality and the emotion of frustration caused by their own impotence at the lack of their own importance. The trick is to make sure their burst of violent rage happens before they gain enough momentum and the majority of society is swept up along with their insane disease. Once they go home with their tails between their legs they will lick their wounds, grumble about the indignities inflicted upon them by those meany leftists. Then it will be another decade or two before we see them again. They are equivalent to the stupid school bully. Every once and a while he works himself into a frenzy and you have to break his nose to remind him he cannot go around beating the crap out of people because it makes him feel powerful." That is neither portraying them ass too strong, nor is it portraying them as too weak. It is portraying them as weak if managed early on and they grow stronger (ie able to enforce fascist rule) as time passes.
Again, see their contempt for liberals, centerists, and anyone else not openly on their side, who's treasonous calls for "civility" and "discourse" and "not burning down the city because someone had a kekistani flag" are just weak willed calls for surrender to the enemy and an obstacle for the forward march of progress to overcome.
"Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
Abstract and essentialize
The contempt is not for trafficking with the enemy. The contempt is for stupidity (willful ignorance). There is this tactic used by hate groups and destructive cults to recruit new members and it is extensively written about by ex-members and by sociologists and psychologists. Hate groups are layered like onions. On the outer most layer they are civil to a fault. They start out nice and friendly. Then once you have started to build relationships with them the first layer gets pealed back and they start probing. You don't realize you are being probed but these are you new friends and you like them. At first it starts with some jokes that make you slightly uncomfortable. This is the buy in. If you don't say anything the jokes continue until they stop making you uncomfortable. If you say something you are shamed and asked why you are making such a big deal out of a joke. It's just a joke after all. Once the jokes are normalized then comes the induction. They start subtly feeding you a narrative that is just true enough to pass a cursory examination. Then comes the second buy in. You start making the jokes yourself. From there it's a series of continuous buy ins until the cost of leaving the group is painted in your own mind as being excessively high. Each time the bar is raised just a little bit. Enough to make you uncomfortable and then you find a new normal. It's sometimes referred to as the Lucifer effect.
This is what the fascists seek to do.
Life is not permanent warfare. Permanent warfare is an unhealthy way to live. This doesn't mean that one ignores threats or that one allows threats to grow unchecked. Both permanent pacifism and permanent warfare are equally destructive. One leaves you unable to fight off threats, while the other means you live under constant stress. The contempt for liberals comes from a call to discourse with people who have no interest in sincere and honest conversation. They have made up their mind and no amount of discourse will make the irrational rational. They abstract and essentially everything said so that even if the leftist does take the time to talk with them the two are not even having the same conversation. The responses the reactionary gives are either vague nothing statements or they are some warped version of the truth. If the leftists says something that breaks the orthodox narrative the leftist is lying. If the leftist attempts to add nuance to the conversation they are accused of over complicating things. If they use a term the reactionary is not familiar with they are accused of using jargon. Jargon is equated to new speak. If deconstructing something the reactionary says takes time and well crafted effort instead of one or two sentences the leftist is accused of being long winded. The reactionary latches on to single out of context sentences to fashion their own narrative. Every single bit is devised for a single purpose. Because the reactionary in particular the fascist is not actually interested in conversation. It's all devised to prevent the reactionary from considering that they might be incorrect. Being incorrect is an expensive place to be for the reactionary, and the more reactionary the more expensive. It means they have to resolve the contradictions they are walking around with which is hard.
I'd argue that the far left attitude toward "marginalized" groups, IE, that they are so traumatized by the nebulous oppressive forces of "them" that these marginalized peoples cannot be expected to behave themselves in the public square and have no choice but to lash out at anyone outside their group, and that it is unreasonable to expect any better from them, etc, is in fact a contemptuous attitude that frames those people as "weak" and irrational and unable to behave themselves in a civil fashion.
"Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
Before deconstructing and destroying your "argument" I would like to take a crack at making a version of your argument which actually relates to Umberto's point.
The "white savior" image embraced by the far left as needing to rescues minorities who are unable to rescue themselves demonstrates a high level of chauvinistic thinking on the part of the far left. As if somehow these minorities by virtue of being minorities and not part of the white leftist are somehow too stupid to think for themselves and so need the brave leftist white to come in and show them the way. That is elitism of the highest magnitude. It also creates tension between minorities and their "white savior" because nobody likes being treated like they are stupid when they are not. It reinforces the hierarchical structure which leftists say they are against and it encourages "white saviors" to despise minorities who do not respond well to being treated like they are second class or stupid.
Now while all of that paragraph is bullshit it's at least good bullshit in that it incorporates meaningful aspects in the argument even if the argument itself is untrue and comes from a conflation between liberals and leftists as being the same thing.
With that out of the way let's deconstruct your bullshit. You do not get to have your cake and eat it to. Either they are a nebulous them or they are a Nazi threat which must be crushed. Take your pick I don't care but which ever you pick stick with it. The far lefts attitude is that material conditions dictate outcomes. The far left points out that marginalized groups such as blacks have had their wealth deliberately and maliciously destroyed repeatedly and that municipal, state, and federal governments have done nothing to redress this. The far left has pointed out that several of these attempts were deliberately allowed to occur or were spearheaded by the local police. As a single example see black wall street though there are many others. The left has pointed out that blacks have been the deliberate and malicious target of legal discrimination and that this legal discrimination even that of past discrimination has a material impact on blacks today. The far left has pointed out as can be factually demonstrated that police polices in combination with discriminatory sentencing disproportionately impacts blacks. The left has rightfully pointed out that lead which infest black neighborhoods causes decreased impulse control and that removal of lead from black neighborhoods would reduce crime. The far left has pointed out that gerrymandering to suppress the black vote still takes place today. The far left would point out that it is not some nebulous "them" who oppresses the black community, but is rather a visible and identifiable group namely Republicans who enact policies with the deliberate intent of harming the black community. Further the far left would point to Lee Atwater and his admission that Republicans have built their platform to appeal to racist voters in such nebulous language so as to be unknown by the centrist.
The far left would point out that advocating alongside (not in front of) a marginalized group amplifies the voice of the marginalized group and spreads its needs for the targeted campaign of oppression and suppression to stop. That this is rather than contempt a display of empathy and compassion. The far left would then go onto say that dis-empowered individuals "lash-out" out of frustration at a lack of control over their own lives. The likelihood of any individual lashing out is directly proportional to how little control they perceive themselves of having within their own life. It is exacerbated by factors such as stress and lack of good nutrition. Finally the far left would point out that it is only by luck that someone is or is not born into or ends up in those kinds of circumstances, and that it is cruel, absurd, and stupid to believe that individuals deprived of nutrition and opportunity will somehow manufacture nutrition and opportunity out of air.
Everyone in every society and subculture ever wants to be a hero, and self-sacrifice is a common virtue in nearly all of them.
"Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
Again and again abstraction and essentialization. There is a profound difference between fantasizing as a child being the knight in shining armor or the space warrior princess and an eagerness to die some noble martyrs death.
Ok, this one doesn't fit.
Well... you are at least capable of recognizing when something becomes to incredible to twist.
Something something Trump was elected something something our democracy is broken something something Bernie was robbed. Sound familar?
and we are right back to abstraction and essentialization
"Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
It's like you zeroed in on the word populism and then ignored everything else. Selective populism means the will of the masses is superior to the will of the individual. Bernie was indeed a populist. Yet what he practiced was not selective populism there is a meaningful difference. The difference between populism and selective populism
Populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Selective Populism: The people are conceived monolithically and the leader interprets their will which is greater than any individual.
Nuance does matter.
Further let us recognize that it is possible for our democracy to be broken, for Bernie to have been robbed, and for selective populism to have nothing to do with either. You have manged to have here both a red herring and a non-sequitur.
Every idealogue ever has jargon, shorthand, thought stopping cliches, etc. The far left seems to be worst at this than usual, but then I've always been on the right so perhaps I'm just used to the jargon and shorthand we use (though since you're not on the right and can easily hold a conversation with us without us having to change how we talk to you....perhaps not).
Jargon: special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.
Newspeak: In "The Principles of Newspeak", the appendix to the novel, Orwell explains that Newspeak usage follows most of the English grammar, yet is a language characterised by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning.
Jargon is not newspeak, newspeak is not jargon.
It is not fallacious to argue that a source is wrong because the author has no idea what they're talking about, have no education in the field they are attempting to speak authoritatively in, and in fact have no relevant experience with the thing they're trying to describe whatsoever.
So you have now made an appeal to authority. Did you know you do not need so much as a high school diploma to be published in an academic journal? This is because authority does not come from the diploma it comes from showing that one is knowledgeable in the field one wishes to publish in. Does he have education in the field? Hmmm. Let's think. Does reading extensively and corresponding meaningfully with individuals educated in the field make one educated? I would say so. Is reading as much fascist literature as it is possible to read relevant to the study of fascism? Again I would say it is. Is experience of the material experience? Again I would say yes. Ah but yes. Let's not forget the anti-intellectual tendencies of reactionaries. But you keep running your narrative, I am sure it provides you comfort.
Again, people have been slinging the term "fascist" around as a catch all term for people they don't like for about 90 years. There is no feasible way to divorce it from it's history as a rhetorical blungon and start only using it to describe a certain, narrowly defined portion of the political spectrum, particularly not since other people are actively attempting to use it as a blungon against an ever widing part of that spectrum as we speak.
Okay now you are literally involved in obfuscation with the deliberate intent to muddy the waters. Fascism had a specific meaning which was generally understood up through the end of the 1970's. In the 1980's the term began to become muddled primarily through a disinformation campaign by actual fascists who tried hiding the fact that they were fascists by confusing the word. Now you and I when discussing fascism are completely capable of coming up with a workable definition.
Fascism: is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Considering that this definition or something like it is the one which is historically accepted by both popular dictionaries and by scholars past and present it is the one that I use when people decide they are going to over muddy the waters. You are free to find an academic definition that counters this one and to provide it to me if you like. But you will not find one.
Why are you trying to muddy the waters?
en.wikipedia.org
. 110 This new form of local government involved in each area an assembly called a zemstvo. In regards to new localized government, the reforms put in place a system where the landowners were now able to have more of a say within their newly formed "provinces".[13]
