Agents use facial recognition, social media monitoring and other tech tools not only to identify undocumented immigrants but also to track protesters, current and former officials said.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      No, it’s in principle undetermined in ideology. Historical ones, even Stalin or Pol Pot variants, were rather right wing. But the only principles really important for any kind of fascism are violence, anti-rationalism and amorphous ideology.

      EDIT: What I mean is that fascism is that “third way”, not left-wing or right-wing. And has made situational alliances with things from both. That was its main difference from old conservatives in the beginning of XX century.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Non-leftist doesn’t equal right-wing. Anarcho-capitalism is right-wing, but opposite from fascism.

          Fascism requires no logical structure and no coherence in ideology. It requires the ideology to be bendable all ways each moment for each different situation. Which, well, is natural for an ideology reliant upon violence and emotion above all.

          That leftists try to mix fascism and normal conservatism is a purely leftist sexual problem, that doesn’t concern others until leftists pretend it’s commonly accepted.

          Then, of course, when most of the “revolutionary” competition is leftist, fascism becomes anti-leftist and allies right-wing forces.

          But also Nazi and Soviet propaganda on the British Empire were amazingly similar in archetypes and emotion. Which would be a rare case of “fascism against right-wing forces”.

          • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Anarcho-capitalism is right-wing, but opposite from fascism.

            Only in terms of talking the talk. In practice, ancaps who get power quickly go full fasc.

      • doben@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Oh, the historical fascisms such as under Stalin and Pol Pot, right.

        it’s in principle undetermined in ideology

        Correct in so far, as it‘s determined by economic system. Which happens to align with left/right ideology.

        But the only principles really important for any kind of fascism are violence, anti-rationalism and amorphous ideology.

        You’re making shit up depending on how your tummy feels, don‘t you?

        Please stop using the internet.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          How to detect a commie idiot without them naming themselves.

          I’m actually using Eco’s version, and he’s notably leftist.

          Please stop using the internet.

          Smart thoughts were chasing you, but you were always faster.

          • doben@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            I would have been more impressed, if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead of personal attacks.

            Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.

              Thank you for your opinion, but for classifying Stalin and Pol Pot as fascist, at the very least. If you have actually read that definition.

              You’re making shit up depending on how your tummy feels, don‘t you?

              vs

              if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead personal attacks.

              and

              Correct in so far, as it‘s determined by economic system. Which happens to align with left/right ideology.

              , I don’t even know, “idiot” doesn’t seem a personal attack in such a situation. Commies are the only kind of people claiming that fascism has any economic alignments, as far as I have seen.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place. I dunno about that overview, in the original text it’s clear from the beginning. Either you haven’t read it or you are trying to cheat.

              • doben@lemmy.wtf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                Stop making stuff up, it’s time to bring the receipts. Where exactly does “Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place”?

                Eco treated Stalinism as a seperate, parallel example of totalitarianism, explicitedly not labeling it fascist.

                You gotta leave your confused reactionary, red fascism narrative and anti-communism stance behind, if you actually want to understand the world. Maybe start by not being so dishonest.


                Some passages from Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism:

                If by totalitarianism one means a regime that subordinates every act of the individual to the state and to its ideology, then both Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarian regimes.

                It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.

                Nevertheless, historical priority does not seem to me a sufficient reason to explain why the word fascism became a synecdoche, that is, a word that could be used for different totalitarian movements. This is not because fascism contained in itself, so to speak in their quintessential state, all the elements of any later form of totalitarianism. On the contrary, fascism had no quintessence. Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.

                • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  He’s providing a list of fascist regimes in that essay, with Stalin’s included. Stop lying.

                  And read the quotes you’ve already provided, they are good.

                  • doben@lemmy.wtf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    Only that he doesn‘t. And I don‘t.

                    Your pattern: Make stuff up > act all incensed for being confronted with your bullshit > use personal attacks and accusations of lying > make stuff up again.

                    Either you now provide the sourcing and the quotes of what you keep yapping about or I‘ll consider you a bot, because you‘re acting like one.

                    Bring the receipts.

      • fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        No it’s not entirely clearly defined. But a few elements appear in all of them: Anti- communism/socialism, dictator, far-right idiologies, nationalism…

        I wouldn’t say any if these are desired by leftism, or rather opposites.

    • ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I did some reading, it seems I had a misunderstanding of some of the finer details. Perhaps authoritarian or totalitarianism are better terms? I’m not sure, but regardless, I fail to see how many of the tactics of fascism couldn’t be employed by the political left, which I guess is the point I was originally getting at.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I fail to see how many of the tactics of fascism

        Leftism overtly opposes the tools of fascism: sexism, racism, imperialism, nationalism, etc.

        Maybe you should more reading before posting about this topic.

        • ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Except left-wing nationalism is a thing that exists. And those aren’t the only tools of fascism. Fascists are known to control mass media, but thats not inherently a right wing thing. Corruption and cronyism aren’t mutually exclusive to the right. Military supremacy isn’t inherently right wing. What am I missing here?