Part of the issue is that Donald Trump isn’t using these words in any factual sense, but in a purely rhetorical sense. He is utilizing them as boogeyman terms to scare people away from Harris. It doesn’t matter that’s it’s not factually correct because average people don’t know otherwise.

That brings me to the other part of the issue, which is fascism is notoriously difficult to pin down. Umberto Eco talks about this in his essay Ur-Fascism. He notes that fascism isn’t actually dependent on one or two attributes, such as complete totalitarianism, or support of capital, and doesn’t necessarily have a single religious philosophy. He notes historical examples of things like anticapitalist fascism, religious fascism, atheist fascism, etc.

Still he notes 14 qualities that are typically associated with fascism

• The Cult of Tradition
• Rejection of Modernism
• The Cult of Action for Action’s Sake
• Disagreement is Treason
• Fear of Difference
• Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class
• Obsession with a Plot
• The Enemy is Both Strong and Weak
• Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy
• Contempt for the Weak
• Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero
• Machismo
• Selective Populism
• Newspeak

Much of these are relevant to Trump’s campaign, even more than I had anticipated. Definitely give it a listen or check out the Wikipedia page, it’s a worthwhile half hour just to hear the perspective of someone who actually lived through Italian fascism.

Yeah, wtf, I thought I was going crazy reading this post. Palestinian protesters aren’t going to vote for Trump, and them protesting the DNC is not going to increase his chances of winning.

They should keep protesting and putting pressure on the Democratic party. They should vote for Harris, but keep up the pressure, and not listen to people like OP.

Also, imagine thinking that Palestinian protestors are doing it to feel superior. They’re doing it because their tax dollars have gone toward a genocide that has thus far killed 40k people. They have no choice that their money goes toward this shit. They should not have to think about whether their protest will hurt an election campaign, nor should they care. They care that their country (even when there is a Democratic president) is arming a genocide and doesn’t seem like it has much plans to stop.

Yeah, unprecedented event after unprecedented event. Still you could’ve been vindicated if anything mildly unfortunate had happened before the DNC. Like if Harris picked a different VP, if Vance was actually in any way adept, etc. And hey, knock on wood, but you could still be right in the end – we probably shouldn’t count our chickens before they hatch.

Good on you though for being a good sport about your previous comments. I was on the “drop out” side (not that Biden would drop out, but I thought pretty much anyone else would have a better chance), but at the end of the day I kinda think we’re all talking out of our asses to a certain degree, because political science isn’t actually a science at all.

Hey, no need to be rude. I’m using the word colloquially, not in the technical sense. Besides, in another comment I admitted maybe dynasty wasn’t the right word, at least for Obamas and Biden. It’s more appropriate (though, you’re right in that it is still not technically accurate) for people like the Clintons and Bushes.

In those cases, maybe dynasties isn’t the right word – although I do sort of see Michelle Obama as a bit of a politician, herself, even though she hasn’t held office. She at least has more power than, say, you or me. Still, I’m more thinking about Obama and Biden in the sense that I am thinking of Biden and Kamala – it was sort of Joe Biden’s turn. Conservatives see that sorta stuff – they rightly see these people as elites, and it gives them more reason to think the Democratic party is corrupt. The reality is it would be difficult to find a politician who isn’t corrupt in a system that has legalized bribery and has necessitated the solicitation of those bribes by our “leaders.”

I’m about to throw a word salad out here about how I can sympathize (never thought I would say that) with Trump supporters in a sense. Hopefully someone chimes in and can challenge a couple of my views here, because i think they could probably be honed a bit, or explained further, but…

It’s very easy to blame his allure all on racism, all on stupidity, all on nationalism, because certainly Trump espouses all of that. But his populism is also due largely to working-class people seeing (rightly) the Democratic party as corrupt. They see people like Gates and Soros, Hollywood elites like Clooney hanging out with Pelosi and, understandably, get upset seeing all these ultra rich people walking in and out of the private/public sector. They see political dynasties like the Clintons and the Obamas and Bidens as antithetical to the idea that anyone can serve their country in politics, and rightly so. Even Harris – it was essentially “her turn” for the nomination – and they see that as undemocratic and bullshit, which – can I blame them?

Now, where they go wrong (and, ironically, where hardcore Democrats also go wrong) is thinking that their party isn’t also participating in the same bullshit. Trump isn’t anti-establishment, he’s literally a billionaire property magnate. He is part of the ruling class in America that consists of landlords, bankers, and company shareholders. Both parties would uphold our current system of rule by the few, and back up that rule with the monopolization of violence by the police.

This isn’t to say the two parties are completely the same. In terms of willingness to uphold capitalism (ultimately the extraction of money from labor), the military-industrial complex (see, Palestinian genocide), and American hegemony internationally (again, genocide), and police violence, they are similar. But then you also have Republicans trying to ban books, surveil women’s bodies, control what people do in the bedroom, or medical care they receive, espouse various forms of hate, etc. So I do see them as worse, but think you’d be hard pressed to find a person in the US, democrat or republican, who didn’t agree with the statement that “all politicians are corrupt.” It’s just the nature of our political system, which has essentially legalized bribery.

Being able to say to my conservative-ass family, “Yeah, dude, Obama bombed Syria and bailed out the banks – I feel what you’re saying,” gives us that little bit of common ground to start a conversation about the drastic change that needs to happen in the US.

my original comment was just meant to be a playful comment about your meme use rather than any analysis about the speech.

Like: “I agree with you, but can we talk about this thing or that?”

But honestly forget about it, next time I wont bother

Not angry, just disturbed that there are even more lol

I’m literally agreeing with you. Not sure what you’re fixing about my phrasing – I didn’t watch the speech, so yes, I am ignorant, but am willing to guess that your comment was totally correct.

I’m also saying your meme-game disturbs my meme-less brain.

But I guess according to you, I have no idea what I’m talking about so in that case…you’re wrong? Idk what youre trying to say dude all I know is that just because O’Brien spoke at the RNC doesn’t somehow automatically make him a Trump supporter

Full disclosure I haven’t watched the speech, but I can believe it was in good faith, no doubt pro-labor/anti-capitalist. (btw, it’s crazy how bad the Democratic party has alienated the working class)

What I can’t believe is these disturbing-ass memes you’re posting lmao…I hate them very much and wish I could unsee. Good job!

Hell yeah. Exo one was kinda what I had in mind, something with stupidly simple mechanics. But I am definitely intrigued by POOLS. Looks spooky. Thanks!

This particular attack probably had nothing to do with any of this, but she could probably be described as offensive from the economic equality standpoint, because she is a billionaire, from the environmental justice standpoint, because she is a frequent private-jet user, and from the music scene standpoint, because she seemingly intentionally pushes out other female artists from billboard spots by re-releasing albums in specific locations/time periods during which her peers are releasing their albums.

These right wing-ass fuckers ruin everything you love, and now they’ve come for LOTR.

That’s insane.

Like, no 401k or Roth IRA? Dang. I’m fuckin hard.

If you aren’t comfortable doing that then you aren’t comfortable “working on” your car.

You’ve written a whole lotta junk to essentially end on, “if you can’t jack up your car and remove the wheel, you shouldn’t be changing your headlight in the first place.”

Which is quite a dumb take.

We might be, and I’m definitely not an expert or that immediately knowledgeable (hence, why I just listened to two long-ass books in two weeks), but even your banking example doesn’t really satisfy me. I get what you’re saying – not that banking or capitalism were a spontaneous solution or decision or conscious at all, but moreso that they solved a certain problem many human societies had, and therefore it was further adopted, and further, and further, an almost natural propensity to spread. In some sense, there must be some underlying force that’s pushing capitalism and banking along, because otherwise we wouldn’t have their dominance, today.

But that is still the core idea the authors push back against in those two books. I’d probably argue that banking didn’t spread because it solved the problem (hoarding money), but that it emerged out of early hierarchical societies whose states, themselves, hoarded primitive “money” (grain) and lent it out to farmers at interest, and that the underlying force we’re looking for that caused it’s eventual spread is the concept of debt or becoming whole, itself. But then I am also getting into the territory of banking as some natural sociological phenomenon that was destined to be furthered and furthered , which is, again, exactly what those two books seek to dispel, especially Debt.

I’d like to continue, but this would definitely work better as an in-person conversation where we could push back and forth against ideas, but I do have to work :/

David Graeber has written two ~700 page anthropology books that pretty much debunk this entire line of thinking, one of them a collaboration with archaeologist David Wengrow. That latter includes an almost immediate refutation of the utopian egalitarian hunter gatherer bands that so many pop scientists love to idealize, the same fetishization that you’re talking about. They’re pretty rigorous about it.

You should really check them out. ‘Debt: the first 5000 years’ and ‘The Dawn of Everything’, if you want I can pop the audiobooks on google drive and DM you the link.

I literally just came off listening to both of them in the span of 2 weeks, which is why I see such a generalized statement as “Capitalism was a solution to inefficient resource distribution” as a bit silly, because no one just thought, “oh you know what we need? Capitalism! It will be the solution!”

It has an insanely long history originating from pre-coinage, debt-based societies, some of which had huge populations. They definitely rail against the “agricultural revolution > cities” line of thinking, noting that archaeological evidence across the globe for agriculture shows the whole process took something around 3000 years, during which, again, there were mega-sites (essentially cities) that relied on a mix of agrarian and hunting and gathering.

The second book is, granted, more about hierarchical structures in ancient civilizations and Debt is more about social inequality when it comes to money, but I really really suggest you check em out. Lmk if you want that google drive link, I just gotta upload em

Capitalism was an ugly solution to a real problem

Not really, though. I mean, if you want to stick to looking at the last 2000 years, we still have cities that were fed in a feudal rather than capitalist system. Not that those systems were better or more efficient mobilizing labor, but the problem you’re referring to wasn’t really there.

That’s not to mention at least several examples in the anthropological and archaeological record of large scale societies that did not rely on what we define as capitalism to feed their people.

I think it’s a pretty crazy oversimplification to say capitalism just popped up as a solution to a problem.

lmaooo too funny. And too real

I mean, you’re totally right until the last paragraph. I don’t think Biden locking them up by executive order would shut them up. I think it’s more likely that would spark the civil war they’re so desperate to have. They’re like Kyle Rittenhouse, just waiting for an excuse to shoot a leftist.