You're Being Very Inappropriate When You Call a Fascist a Nazi

https://lemmy.world/post/36787004

You're Being Very Inappropriate When You Call a Fascist a Nazi - Lemmy.World

I believe that this counts as an Unpopular Opinion. I believe that it is no more political than the Charlie Kirk post that’s up. I personally don’t hold this Unpopular Opinion, commented to that effect, and had my opinion removed by the Moderators for the following reason: >• misinformation. It’s spelld “fascist”, not “nazi” So maybe this is the Moderator’s Unpopular Opinion?

Fascist and Nazi have become generic slurs hurled at political opponents people don’t like.

Charlie Kirk was neither a fascist akin to the Italian fascists. Hitlerian national socialism is also distinct from Italian fascism, and Charlie Kirk was not an adherent of that ideology either.

Charlie Kirk was a reactionary evangelical Trumpist.

Kirk advocated for a christian autocracy which can only be described as facism
Or more specifically as christian autocracy.
It is still a type of fscism
Only because people insist on using fascism as a term to describe anything authoritarian.

No, a Christian autocracy will definitely be fascist.

Fascism right wing definition political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition

Kirk, trump and his Christian supremacist cronies are all right wing. Trump explicitly said that to Christian in In four years, you don’t have to vote again. He said that Christian are oppressed He is clearly trying to destroy any oppositions. They believe that America should be white and Christians again which is a promotion of race. Both Trump and Kirk think Christians are oppressed and decriminated

That’s the definition for totalitarianism, not fascism which is a more specific thing, and nazism which is an even more specific type of fascism.
I gave you the dictionary definition of facism. Give me your definition of facism then

I like to refer to this one, because it’s the most specific one unlike Umberto Eco’s definition which is more open ended and applies to almost every political movement in the 21st century depending on your perspective and are more about the characteristics needed for a fascist movement to rise rather than the characteristics possesd by fascism itself.

Italian historian of fascism Emilio Gentile described fascism in 1996 as the “sacralization of politics” through totalitarian methods and argued the following ten constituent elements: a mass movement with multiclass membership in which prevail, among the leaders and the militants, the middle sectors, in large part new to political activity, organized as a party militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy or class origin but on a sense of comradeship, believes itself invested with a mission of national regeneration, considers itself in a state of war against political adversaries and aims at conquering a monopoly of political power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and deals with leading groups, to create a new regime that destroys parliamentary democracy; an “anti-ideological” and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself antimaterialist, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, antidemocratic, anti-Marxist, populist and anticapitalist, and expresses itself aesthetically more than theoretically by means of a new political style and by myths, rites, and symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize, and integrate the faith of the masses with the goal of creating a “new man”; a culture founded on mystical thought and the tragic and activist sense of life conceived of as the manifestation of the will to power, on the myth of youth as artificer of history, and on the exaltation of the militarization of politics as the model of life and collective activity; a totalitarian conception of the primacy of politics, conceived of as an integrating experience to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses in the organic and mystical unity of the nation as an ethnic and moral community, adopting measures of discrimination and persecution against those considered to be outside this community either as enemies of the regime or members of races considered to be inferior or otherwise dangerous for the integrity of the nation; a civil ethic founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility, comradeship, and the warrior spirit; a single state party that has the task of providing for the armed defense of the regime, selecting its directing cadres, and organizing the masses within the state in a process of permanent mobilization of emotion and faith; a police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition, including through the use of organized terror; a political system organized by hierarchy of functions named from the top and crowned by the figure of the “leader”, invested with a sacred charisma, who commands, directs, and coordinates the activities of the party and the regime; corporative organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the “productive sectors” under control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions; a foreign policy inspired by the myth of national power and greatness, with the goal of imperialist expansion

Christian authoritarianism while having some overlap of course would argue the primacy of the bible, while fascism is more about the primacy of the state and even religion is subjected to the state.

In a Christian autocracy or any other religious autocracy , the state and religion are completely tied and not one subjected  The state instead of using laws decided by the leaders effort would use laws that are are already established in religious scriptures .The Umberto Eco’s do not specify that the fascist state should be secular .

His definition has more similarity to Christian autocracy then differences

You should change your username to temu-goebbles.

Splitting hairs to contest the notion that maga is as evil as nazism is quite the fucking hill to die on mate.

Like either you have lost the plot, you’re an LLM, or you’d be a great contestant for “Who’s smarter than GPT2”

Idk what you’re looking at but I’m reading your definition and everything can be mapped 1:1 onto the maga movement. It’s kind of goofy if I didn’t know you were serious.

I started a list but got bored though it’s all in there. And if not, tell me which prerequisites of your definition disinvite this classification.

I wasn’t debating whether MAGA is fascist or not, but rather whether Charlie Kirk was, and I do not think he was. He was not the same thing as MAGA. I’m not saying his ideals were better, just a different kind of bad.