you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 days ago (22 children)

Right. So no countries ever reached communism. Glad we can agree.

Oh man this is getting old. Give me the definition of fascism now, or the 14 tenets or whatever, and we can go through how the US fits most if not all of the markers, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (21 children)

    Right. So no countries ever reached communism. Glad we can agree.

    What do you think about the governments of North Korea, the PRC, Cuba, Nicaragua, Maduro's Venezuela, or the former USSR?

    ​

    Oh man this is getting old. Give me the definition of fascism now, or the 14 tenets or whatever, and we can go through how the US fits most if not all of the markers, lol.

    wt:fascism

    Noun

    fascism (usually uncountable, plural fascisms)

    .1. Any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition. [1922]

    .1. (strictest sense) The ideology and practice of the 20th-century Italian movement from which this name came.

    Coordinate terms: Francoism, Nazism

    .2. (loosely, by extension, derogatory) Any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting, and/or violence against largely unarmed populations.

    .3. (figurative, derogatory) Any extreme reliance on or enforcement of rules and regulations.

    Synonym: sticklerism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (20 children)

    .1. Any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition. [1922]

    Bingo bango America is fascist, lol.

    I hate all governments by the way, some are definitely more worthy of scorn than others though.

    Do you think your time is best spent arguing about the government of a small island 90 miles off the coast of Florida that sends free doctors around the world, or the global hegemonic power that's starving the children there to death, who's also responsible for destabilizing the world for the last 80 years?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago*

    .1. Any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition. [1922]

    Bingo bango America is fascist, lol.

    ​

    right-wing,

    Presumably, many leftists consider centrists to be rightists, while many rightists consider centrists to be leftists.

    ​

    authoritarian,

    The US doesn't seem to be too wt:authoritarian, at least compared to many other countries not generally described as authoritarian.

    ​

    nationalist ideology

    How many countries allow the public burning of its own flag?

    ​

    characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance,

    I don't see that, at least not completely. Some states allow abortion, some don't. Some have the death penalty, some don't. etc.

    ​

    strong regimentation of the economy

    The US arguably has more free enterprise than many other countries.

    ​

    and society,

    Lots of American men have long hair.

    ​

    and repression of criticism or opposition. [1922]

    Trump's anti-defamation suits against Bill Maher failed (and deservedly so).

    Jon Stewart mocks Trump regularly (and rightly so).

    ​

    ​

    I hate all governments by the way, some are definitely more worthy of scorn than others though.

    I'm kinda agree with you there.

    I think the governments of North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and Hamas (what were they thinking would have happened after that stupid stunt on 7 October 2023 (which, btw, was Putin's 71st birthday)) are about as bad as the US government, if not worse.

    The US has done and is doing lots of bad things, but I wouldn't describe them as fascist.

    Indeed, I think I remember watching a YouTube video where calling the US fascist somewhat minimizes what they did in the past. I suppose they're right insofar that neither Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, nor Pinochet's Chile had millions of black slaves, nor stole millions of sq km of indigenous lands (though I suppose with Mussolini it wasn't from a lack of trying).

    It's like the word "genocide". Before I read the UN definition, I thought it was something like mass murdering millions. Now residential schools are considered genocide, while, IIUC, leftists such as BadEmpanada and Roger Waters deny a Uighur genocide.

    We need new words, I suppose.

    ​

    Do you think your time is best spent arguing about the government of a small island 90 miles off the coast of Florida that sends free doctors around the world, or the global hegemonic power that’s starving the children there to death, who’s also responsible for destabilizing the world for the last 80 years?

    Isn't Cuba the 2nd largest island (and largest island nation) in the Caribbean? If it was a US state it'd rank at 35th largest, pushing out Virginia; or bigger than Ireland (both ROC and NI combined) or Iceland—don't be fooled by Mercator. 😁 🙂

    Don't a lot of US doctors work pro bono around the world?

    Is the US banning food imports to Cuba (and why can't Cuba feed itself as its density is less than 150/sq km)?

    For much of the past 80 years, it seems the world has been relatively stable. Of course there was the cold war, but it never went to nuclear blows. After greatly helping, as an Ally, to disinfect Germany of much of its Nazi vermin, and Japan of much of its militarist vermin, those countries have done pretty well. China grew from Mao, to Deng, to its current dictator (and Taiwan even more so), India got its independence, and now it has an ≥$5 trillion GDP.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (18 children)

    Liberals man. They'd stick their heads in the sand before considering anything counter to their beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago* (14 children)

    We're hated by many in the far left and far right.

    ​

    (You can't please them all, I guess.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (13 children)

    Surely the best course of action is somewhere between "free healthcare, housing and food" , and "rounding up undesirables to turn into chimney smoke!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (12 children)

    Some might consider free healthcare, housing, and food to be the centrist policy.

    The rich get houses and mansions, but the poor get free government apartments.

    Two-tiered health care will help the rich, those very devoted to paying for their own health, and/or those who take measures in their personal lives to maintain good health; while the rest get government-paid health care.

    The rich and/or those so particular-they'd-pay-over-30%-of-their-income-on-food get to dine on filet mignon, $60-a-loaf bread, and drink wp:Civet coffee (rd); while the poor get at least 3000 calories a day plus their RDA of micronutrients.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (11 children)

    Some might consider free healthcare, housing, and food to be the centrist policy.

    They would be very incorrect, and politically ignorant, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (10 children)

    Do you think that such are necessarily leftist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (9 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (7 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    That is an advocacy for leftism, which is another argument.

    A wants to grow corn and soybeans on a patch of land because there will be a harvest in autumn; while B thinks hazelnuts are more lucrative and might even be less harmful to the environment; C says there's enough food stored, so leave it fallow and maybe do some extraction, and thus save on costs and labor.

    Presumably the leftist advocates that they should talk it out, and maybe reach an agreement, maybe use part of the land for each purpose.

    The rightist might say the land should be divided by the three of them and see who competes better, and because each is doing what wt:thon wants, each will presumably give thons whole effort; nor does it negate voluntary cooperation: while many leftists want to abolish private property—"property is theft" and all of that (and besides "theft" of what? Theft of property? But property is theft.).

    ​

    But again, free healthcare, housing, and food as a centrist, even liberal, policy doesn't necessarily mean equal healthcare, housing, and food, just adequate, or adequate enough to curtail revolution. Presumably if all Russians and Chinese had adequate nutrition, places to sleep, and even basic health care (such as vaccines), neither Lenin nor Mao would have had much of a chance.

    Presumably in the US relatively few starve, nor must be wet in the rain or freeze to death in the cold, and most got their covid-19 shots, hence it's unlikely that the far left will take over the US anytime soon.

    Yes, I can see it now:

    2028, progressives will push for their candidates in the Democratic primaries, the moderates will win—maybe Gavin Newsom—and progressives will rally behind him because shit-lite isn't as bad as shit, and I'll be downvoted on Lemmy for advocating 3rd parties, and yet a centrist will be elected. People will talk about rank balloting and/or PPR, when such are against the 2-party state.

    but I digress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    while many leftists want to abolish private property—“property is theft” and all of that (and besides “theft” of what? Theft of property? But property is theft.).

    if you knew where that phrase originated, you could just go read the work where it originally appeared. if only there were a way for you to find out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    wp:Property is theft (rd to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon#Private property and the state)

    Property, in his view, is both theft and freedom. It is theft when one person owns the property that others need to survive. Property is theft when the person who owns it can own it without occupying it and can derive rent, income, and profit simply because they hold legal title

    So if a person builds a house, and then rents it, that person is a thief, but if wt:thon sells it, that might be okay? Maybe don't build houses you don't intend to live in or give away, I suppose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    I presumed in your previous post that you were, at least somewhat, suggesting that by free healthcare, housing, and food you meant equality and/communal ownership of property, which IIUC, is characteristic of leftism. I suggested that it merely meant the minimum for all people, in an otherwise mixed economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments