>>You're right. I listened to my German Jewish elders who survived I
believe a proactive response is not only appropriate it's necessary.
>>Does it occur to you that if,
as you claim, it's okay for a person to attack another
simply because of what they THINK, or merely say, that >>somebody reading what YOU say here might very well come
to the same conclusion: That it's okay to attack
(kill?) you simply because >>you say it's okay to attack
people solely because of what they thought or said.
>You can THINK whatever you like. But promulgating it is not the same
as thinking it.
Okay, but TALKING about something is a kind of "promulgating" it, too.
>>You are hypothesizing a series
of continued attacks, without specific examples. How
often do such attacks actually occur? And when >>they do
occur, are they actually the fault of "a nazi" or "a
fascist"? Or, did they occur because somebody who
didn't like nazis or fascists >>decided to attack the
people they labelled as that?
>The 'attack' is existential... Eternal, as Umberto Eco suggested.
You speak in a kind of jargon that I think most people (including myself) don't understand.
>You keep going back to people's so-called 'labeling'. If the label
fits the definition...
In your mind, it might. Problem is, it's only your own mind.
>>I also see a problem with the
labels nazi and fascist. I strongly suspect that people
who heavily use those labels use them merely to refer >>to
others who are:
>>1. Conservative or very
>Conservatives aren't Fascists or Nazis, nor, according to
traditional definition of political conservative, can they be.
Fascism is extremism
Sorry you missed the point. Problem is, you are being too literal. Functionally, a Communist bullet will kill a person just as dead as a Fascist bullet will. Don't get too caught up in these labels, particularly thinking that they have precise definitions. To YOU, they might, but I think most people see totalitarian regimes as similarly dangerous.
>>2. People they desire to
attack. (It's much easier to attack people if you can
lump them with other people whose guilt or
undesirability is already establlished.)
>>So, is there any reliable way
to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a "fascist"?
I wish you'd have been able to answer this question.
>>But that seems to be a circular
definition: It refers to "right-wing", but doesn't
explain why (other than common usage) "fascism" is
thought to be "right wing".
>>I was under
the impression that 'traditional' fascism involved
government control (but not ownership) of the means of
production. But >>Socialism, I thought, amounted to heavy
taxation of the means of production, which is tantamount
to government control, too. And >>Communism might simply
be labelled a form of extreme Socialism. So why isn't
"fascism" merely seen as being another form of
>Refer to Umberto Eco. Fascism is an ideology, a reactionary ideology
without politics. It 'shape-shifts'.
Yes, but does it 'shape-shifts' into Socialism and Communism, as well? I think so: Functionally, I think of extreme regimes of 'the left' and of 'the right' as functionally identical. Don't talk as if "the right wing" is somehow especially dangerous, compared to "the left wing".
that you can justify physically attacking people just
because they have thoughts, or express ideas, that you
don't like. Lest >>they decide that it's okay to do the
same thing to you. "Golden Rule"
>My point IS that Fascists and Nazis, by their very existence, have
made the decision "that it's okay to do the same thing to you"...
Even if >you've never had one bad thing to say about them or harmed
them in any way except their deluded self-perceived harm because,
lets say, >you're black, or Jewish.
You are utilizing a lot of history, including very old history, for the specific purpose of trashing people today, and based nearly solely on YOUR CHOICE to apply these labels to them. I still want to hear from you a definition that actually helps a person to distinguish between "a conservative" and a "fascist".