[jleyank]

There’s a whole lot of working definitions provided by the 20th century that can be used as measuring sticks on the passage to the right. Signs include a breakdown or suppression of a free press, simplification of the political spectrum, identification of and processing of enemies of the state, weakening of the rules and protections of government and so on. A shift from the idea of equality of all (protection of minorities) towards the will of the majority.

There dan also be an anti-rational or anti-scientific aspect. And as an old history prof lectured, the political spectrum is not linear it’s a circle. The far ends turn out to be the same part of the circle. Power for the in group and problems for the rest. Read animal farm.

[dahfizz]

You're conflating "the right", "far right", fascism, and totalitarianism. Which, I think, is why the term "far right" was invented - so leftists could basically call other people fascists without having to substantiate the claim.

Being "on the right" is about policy. Someone on the right believes in democracy, freedom, capitalism, human rights, etc. They hold policy positions such as lower taxes, controlled immigration, and greater punishment for criminals. These policy positions put them in opposition to those on the left.

Someone "on the right" is not a fascist, and is not nearer being a fascist than someone "on the left". Fascism means the abolition of human rights, democracy, free capitalism, and everything "the right" believes in.

It's common to cherry pick little policy points from previous facsict states and use that as evidence that the right is facsict. "Hitler limited immigration, the Tories want to limit immigration, the Tories are fascist!!!!". That makes no sense. "Mao raised taxes, Biden wants to raise taxes, Biden is literally a communist!!!".

Facsism is not about policy. It is a fundamentally different, totalitarian, way to structure a society.

[jleyank]

Ok, then socialism and communism aren’t associated with the far left. This makes right/left terms about where they sit in parliament. We’re trapped by common usage when it comes to jargon, and your usage of fascism vs. Nazism shows you’re not parsing them correctly. The former was a corporatist state that preserved trappings and some legitimacy of existing governmental power. The latter, well, didn’t.

How about: leaders <- government <- owners <-> workers -> government -> leaders. Which I can’t format in a circle. And the presence or absence of “for all” can be a tell about where on the political spectrum people or groups sit.

It’s generally accepted that the red states sit to the right vs. the blue states and the us sits to the right of Western Europe. There’s a spectrum of countries as there’s a spectrum of states (or provinces in Canada). The “political middle ground” can be constructed from this set and then decorated with secular or religions states from elsewhere throughout.

[oblio]

> communism isn’t associated with the far left

In what world? :-))

[jleyank]

The same world where fascism isn’t associated with the far right. Where jargon is fluid and arbitrary. Was responding to previous post trying to separate fascism/right wing.

[currere]

How do you like Umberto Eco's attempt to characterize ur-fascism?

[dahfizz]

> The same world where fascism isn’t associated with the far right.

I made no such argument. Fasicm isn't associated with the actual, modern day right wing of politics.

This is why "far right" is such a slippery and nefarious term. It allows you to conflate right wing politics and facsism.

If you think the Tories are fascist, then make that argument. Don't hide behind this newspeak.

[randomswede]

In the same world where fascism isn't associated with the far right.

There are many possible axes to divide politics, in many (but not necessarily all) conservative politics and fascism tends to be projected to similar spaces and Soviet-style communism and socially-progressive politics to the same.

Once you start looking at multiple of these at the same time, things do tend to look quite different.

[temp8964]

> Signs include a breakdown or suppression of a free press, simplification of the political spectrum, identification of and processing of enemies of the state, weakening of the rules and protections of government and so on. A shift from the idea of equality of all (protection of minorities) towards the will of the majority.

The Chinese Communist Party has all the stuff you listed here.

[jleyank]

True, and I stated the spectrum is a circle with absolutism or totalitarian being a leader-only political setup. The workers might own the means of production in China but they damned well better not try to act on that thought. Ask jack ma.