543
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
543 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19096 readers
2882 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, you claimed our military responses in the GWOT made us fascist. The only alternative would have been to bend over and just take it. That's pacifism.
i assure i was not advocating pacifism. i am advocating the abolition of capital, wage slavery, and the state. i don't think anyone ever confused that with "pacifism"
there are a thousand other responses besides military adventurism. some of them were used along side of it, including increased surveillance of innocent people, criminalizing vast swathes of the populace, and restricting movement of people and money.
you don't need to "bend over and take it". you could very well figure out whether maybe we did something to cause it, and fix the underlying issues.
Sure, and I do think fixing those underlying issues is very important. But once attacked, it's bombing time, not reflection time. Then, how do you fight an organization that tries to hide its tracks? There's practical requirements. That doesn't make it fascism.
The GWOT was not Vietnam, we were attacked. People were warmongering hard, and so the government responded.
>But once attacked, it’s bombing time, not reflection time.
please seek help.
So, let's re-condense again.
Sorry, but to do otherwise is actually pacifism. When attacked and thousands die, you find and kill the attackers. I think that's not fascism. It's a far cry from the system Mussolini invented.
that's not what pacifism is.
Okay, what would you say the difference is?
passivism is a policy of never attacking. I'm not advocating for that. I'm saying the US is fascist and it's military adventurism in the Middle East was not justified. in fact it was our military venturism in the Middle East that caused the 9/11 attack. The response should not have been to attack, it should have been to fix the problems, at least some of which included our bloated military and our abusive financial system. instead we inflated the military more and made the financial system even more abusive and incorporated it into a surveillance state.
I agree that the underlying problem of the military-industrial complex was a causative element. But the previous war to that, of defending Kuwait in Desert Storm, was a defensive war. That was a UN force composed of dozens of countries, hosted by Saudi Arabia, not simple adventurism. The Kuwaitis asked for help.
that doesn't make the us any less fascist, it only means that they did something that also benefited other countries. it also bolstered their own military profile, which certainly serves to preserve the power of the state.
I don't disagree that it strengthened the state, and the MIC. I just disagree that there's somehow no distinction between these things and fascism. Not all states using their militaries are automatically fascist or something, it takes more than that.
a modern nation state with a mechanized military is absolutely indistinguishable from fascism.
they will do whatever it takes to maintain the power of the state to field that military, so they will do whatever it takes to maintain the power of the state. everything else, the trappings of law and order, the facade of democratic control, the illusion of economic freedom, they will only exist so far as they are necessary to maintain state power.
under pax americana, our mutual defense treaties have relieved many states of the necessity of fielding their own military to the extent necessary to defend their state, but the mutual defense treaties make them absolutely complicit in the fascism of the states capable of defending them. in particular, the usa, but any other military power as well.
opposing the creep of outspoken politically fascist movements to seize the reigns of these technocratically fascist states is secondary, in my consideration, to the dismantling of the technocratic fascist states.
it seems that you are content to tolerate the fascist state so long as someone you can't identify as politically fascist controls it. i am not.
Still seems like a poor excuse to attack, after we helped. I could see being angry about being abandoned, but attacking is a strong measure.
I see. Personally, I prefer the older, textbook understanding from back in the 20th century. That's fascism. What you describe would need another word.
So long as we maintain civilian control of governance, aren't erasing our domestic out-groups, aren't subjugating our individuals and removing the possibility of social mobility, etc, we're a distinct thing imo.
We do flirt with these things, for the record, but an actual fascist regime taking over in the US would be a terror the planet has never seen before. We'd win where Hitler failed, mainly because of the nukes, and a likely alliance with Russia.
> aren’t erasing our domestic out-groups, aren’t subjugating our individuals and removing the possibility of social mobility, etc, we’re a distinct thing imo.
mussolini never proposed these be part of fascism. only the primacy of the state.
>So long as we maintain civilian control of governance
we don't have that. the pentagon flat out lied to trump about carrying out his orders.
When?
And yeah, but he jumped on board once Hitler started. Until then he just suppressed democratic elements.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/11/us-official-admits-misleading-trump-on-us-troop-numbers-in-syria/
damn, looks like they won't tell the truth to congress, either:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/jan-6-generals-lied-ex-dc-guard-official-523777
Jan 6th was an actual coup attempt, however sloppy, and that Gen. Flynn is the brother of Trump's Nat Security Advisor. So, yeah, I'm sure there is a lot of shady shit that went down that day, many people still have not met consequences for it. Trump is even running again.
The Syria thing is new to me. I can't say I disagree though, I was always upset that we bailed on the Kurds after all the work we did together. Not just aid like with the Mujahideen, but fighting side by side with them. We saved the Yazidis together. That guy is lucky he's retired though, that's not acceptable behavior. He would have been punished for it if he wasn't already out.
>>aren’t subjugating our individuals and removing the possibility of social mobility,
this absolutely happened under biden's crime bill and patriot act, and now he's in the presidency.
kuwait isn't what caused 9/11
it was our abandoning of the mujahideen.
They won though, they defeated the Soviets and kicked them out. With some of our help. Why attack us for that?
russia left, but not before we abandoned them.
it was an overt betrayal.
the us is fascist, and the war on terror was just an expression of that.