this might be a more accurate way to see it, but if the obscenely wealthy require the state and its trappings to maintain power, then functionally it is no different: the state is still primary, and all other institutions must be brought in line with its interests (which are to serve the obscenely wealthy).
if the shoe fits…
the Doctrine of Fascism quite literally contradicts their points.
it does not
in fact contradicts the point being made
it doesn’t
I am not intimately familiar with the institutions in every corner of the earth, but I live in the USA, and I certainly feel that the interests of the state have subsumed all other institutions.
personally, I prefer anarchism. without a state, a state cannot coopt all of society.
mussolini specifically wanted to shift away from individualism, whereas (at least in lip service) chiangs plan was to teach democracy to the Chinese. a military dictatorship does have a lot of similarity to fascism, though. I suppose I can see where, in this one case, an agrarian societies emergence from warlordism may have been fascist.
it’s not mussolini’s fascism, where the state brings all other institutions in line with its interests. fascism is a specific thing. that’s what the meme is about.
there is a cure for political illiteracy.
liberal democracies are breeding grounds for fascism. every fascist regime has emerged from them.
you can also read mussolini. he says explicitly what fascism is and why. eco is not singularly authoritative on fascism, and his definition gives liberal democracies far too much leeway. modern america, and much of the rest of the developed world, is doing exactly what mussolini would have had us do.
democrats and republicans are both fascist. they don’t need to be hitler to be protecting the interest and primacy of the state at the expense of the interests and power of all other institutions. in fact, having hitler as a foil serves well to protect them from accusations of fascism.
harm reduction is a specific strategy, and voting is not harm reduction.
The candidate that does the least harm would probably be Cornell West or Jill Stein. voting for the senator who put in place the conditions for roe v Wade to be turned over, the senator who confirmed some of those very same justices, to be president does not reduce harm. if you won’t take it from me maybe it’ll take it from this guy
https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/
harm reduction as a specific thing. The best example of it is needle exchanges and safe injection rooms for addicts. you recognize that the bad thing is happening, and you do what you can to mitigate the harm that comes from the bad thing. The bad thing is bad people being in power. what you can do to mitigate that is engaging in mutual aid and community organizing around issues that are affecting you locally. voting for a Democrat or Republican won’t stop the bad things from happening. The Democrats have brought us to the point where Trump is seen as reasonable by half the electorate. The Democrats have shared power with the Republicans for the past hundred years as fascism has taken over the government. voting for them doesn’t reduce the harm that they cause.
edit
voting for Democrats is like giving out free Suboxone and saying at least it’s not heroin. That’s not harm reduction. harm reduction is recognizing that the addicts are going to use the substance of their choice and making that as safe as possible.
voting is not harm reduction.
Therese kind of personal attacks have no place in this community
you asked why she was there. its state affiliation wasn’t relevant to the answer, but it is a well-known fact.
no one was hiding that
no, take 50 cents from anyone who thinks your wrong
total lack of self-awareness