Cool. I’m tired of hearing people talk about how my basic human rights should be stripped from me, and I should possibly be institutionalized against my will or killed. Yours sounds bad too, though.
Pro tip, find and listen to the plethora of historians and other experts on the classification and comparison.
Spoilers, MAGA keep following both the nazi and classic cold war Russian tactics for manipulation.
A lot.
Like, constantly. There are also enablers preventing opposition from gaining any ground.
Are they literal clones of Nazis? No, that’s impossible in a changing environment. That being said, they sure like to follow the nazi playbook in a way that sets alarms off in a way that would be pretty stupid to not have issues with.
At this point it’s “you can’t call them fascist/nazi until we are post-gas chamber,” and even then you will get people saying it’s not the same, for some stupidly specific yet mostly irrelevant differences.
So when the historians all cry “this is some nazi shit,” it might be disingenuous to compare it to more frivolous accusations.
Also there are a lot more valid historical comparisons, because the Nazis aren’t the only ones to do this shit, but they are a good example of the general shape.
edit: emphasis on cold war russian tactics and forward. putin’s russia is not a free democracy, nor a social democratic state. it’s more about how you interact with the oligarchy and fuck over all the out-groups that are convenient for your authoritarian rhetoric.
also nazi’s were textbook authoritarians. my guy, open any textbook ever on fascism, or just got to the wiki
first line
"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.[1][2][3] " next to a picture of hitler.
It’s not convenient to admit because they’ve been used as boogiemen by opposing factions for so long, but the Bolsheviks and Nazis had a lot in common. If we can’t recognize the features that made these regimes so harmful then we won’t recognize them in our own society either, even as they grow stronger every day.
Close enough, welcome back “red fascism” narrative. Are we going to wave tricolors while yelling “no to communism!” while hand-in-hand with fascists as seen historically?
Hyperboles aside, Bolsheviks and Nazis are polar opposites (with some superficial overlap). Bolsheviks were a revolutionary communist party on a mission to liberate workers and help other communist parties internationally, but it eventually fell into opportunism due to various factors such as underdevelopment, failure to achieve internationalism, Stalin being THE opportunist who later ordered for the old Bolshevik guard to be murdered, etc.
Nazis on the other hand were a direct response to existential capital crisis which stemmed from poor post-war economic conditions and worker militancy/uprisings (that aimed to topple the existing capitalist order, being inspired by USSR). Nazis were there to reinforce and protect capital while crushing the workers.
If anything, a more apt comparison would be between Liberal Democracies and Nazism, given how one directly leads to another once existential crisis hits and workers start to rebel, rhetorical similarities such as nationalism, and both having the exact same purpose which is to ensure capitalist domination over society.
Which actions did they take that were polar opposites? Lenin may have written books with different ideas than Hitler, but the way they governed was quite similar. This is because the logic of autocratic power is always the same, and once Lenin had crushed the autonomy of the people (and their Soviets, unions, village councils, etc.), that logic became inevitable.
Stalin simply took the same actions to a further logical conclusion. But they were categorically similar to the earlier Bolsheviks. Even before the revolution, the seeds were planted with Lenin’s ban on internal dissent and tight control over party members.
People always say liberal democracy inevitably leads to fascism but is there actual evidence for this? Is there some serious analysis you can point to? Because on a long enough time scale, every possible society will become every other possible society, but that’s not a very meaningful statement.
Which actions did they take that were polar opposites?
USSR in 1918 granted equal women’s rights through its constitution which was unheard of in liberal world where women were largely under legal guardianship of their husbands. Nazi Germany, meanwhile, actively suppressed them.
Bolsheviks abolished landlordism and redistributed land to peasantry as part of their revolutionary goal, Nazi Germany actively preserved large estates.
Not to mention the differences on who they oppressed (former exploiting classes vs workers + ethnic and racial groups), how they handled education, property, how they handled unions (having them spread communist thought instead of being independent organs vs actively dismantling them and enforcing collaboration between classes), etc.
You do talk about autocratic power a lot, and yes - if you look at it superficially then both countries were single party states. They were different though - in terms of its class character and the function they had. For instance:
USSR’s single party rule was (until bourgeois opportunism completely took over) a dictatorship of proletariat, meaning that the interests which the state advanced were that of the workers - the abolishment of private capital, land redistribution, development of productive forces to meet everyone’s needs, etc. The suppression of dissent was also justified - immediate post-revolutionary periods are the most tumultuous, that’s where you often get back to back revolutions, and this line of reasoning was justified historically with the Russian Civil War popping up shortly after. In other words, the power was used in an attempt to abolish capital, to achieve an entirely different mode of production.
Nazi Germany’s single party rule was there to preserve capitalism and the capitalist ruling class, suppression was used on political opponents to keep the monopoly on power, but also used on ethnic and racial groups so it certainly was more ideological rather than being a necessity at least in this regard.
People always say liberal democracy inevitably leads to fascism but is there actual evidence for this?
Not inevitably - if there’s no worker militancy, then fascism is not necessary.
Still, as shown by historical materialist analysis of Capitalism and actual history (Germany, Italy), the system has internal contradictions that inevitably lead to crisis (falling rate of profit, overproduction, concentration of capital, bubbles - read Capital if you want an academic analysis on these), and if this capital under crisis also gets threatened by the workers, that’s when you get fascism.
It’s a good tool to overcome the existential crisis, suppress the worker militancy and commit some atrocities under the name of nationalism as the unifying cause.
Anyway yap yap wall of text nobody will read, these subjects tend to be much more complicated than “democracy good anything else bad and leads to hitlerism”
Dude, the Bolsheviks were the party of Lenin! They definitionally, not a commendation from me, could have been communists strictly judged from their actions! The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was state capitalist!
Tho I agree that its super sad that the names of this two ideologies are substitutions cartoonishly evil
Everytime I see this I feel like it comes from a highschool dropout who thinks they have it worse or were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Fuck off. I’m not sorry if the people pointing out the writing on the wall annoys you.
When someone idolizes Hitler, uses the same rhetoric, and enforces the same policies, I think it’s fair to call that person a Nazi.
Trump is literally following Hitler’s playbook step-for-step. He’s a Nazi. And people who follow Nazis? Also Nazis. Fuck tiptoeing around terminology. They are actual Nazis in everything but literal National Socialist party membership.
Nazis were a specific fascist movement in 1930s Germany, rooted in German ethno-nationalism, racial purity laws, and National Socialist party ideology. Fascism as a system is broader; it existed in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Japan, and elsewhere, each with unique traits.
Trump is a textbook fascist. He meets Eco’s 14 traits almost line-by-line. But calling him a Nazi is both technically wrong and strategically sloppy. It:
Collapses nuance: Not every fascist = Hitler. Mussolini wasn’t Hitler, Franco wasn’t Hitler. Trump isn’t Hitler; he’s his own brand of fascist.
Hurts credibility: Throwing “Nazi” at everything feeds the exact stereotype of the left as hysterical and unserious. Precision strengthens arguments, inflation weakens them.
Lets fascists off the hook: If you only call someone a Nazi when they literally cosplay as Hitler, you leave room for “non-Nazi” fascists to hide in plain sight. Better to call them what they actually are: fascists.
Yes, some of Trump’s followers idolize Hitler. That makes those people neo-Nazis. But that doesn’t make Trump, or the entire MAGA movement, literal Nazis. They’re fascists. And that distinction matters if you want to be taken seriously instead of sounding like you’re just screaming ‘Hitler!’ at everything.
FFS he’s not literally literally Hitler, clearly. Hitler died in 1945. But he’s literally literally acting like Hitler. Like I said, he’s a Nazi in everything but literal Nazi party membership. There’s more to being a Nazi than being a fascist, and he’s not only a fascist but he’s trying to BE Hitler. I’m gonna keep calling him a Nazi because it’s actually the best description of what he is.
This is exactly the problem. You admit he’s not a literal Nazi, but then you want to redefine the term until it just means “fascist who reminds me of Hitler”. That’s sloppy and self-defeating.
If Trump is a fascist, call him a fascist. Fascism is already enough; it carries all the authoritarian, ultranationalist, and anti-democratic weight it needs. When you inflate it into “Nazi” three things happen:
You blur history. Nazis weren’t just fascists; they were a specific movement tied to German racial ideology, Lebensraum, and National Socialism. Pretending it’s interchangeable erases the fact that fascism takes different forms in different places.
You hand them a defence. If you call Trump a Nazi, he and his defenders can instantly go “See? They’re hysterical, everyone’s Hitler to them”. The word loses its punch. If you call him a fascist, there’s no escape, it sticks because it’s technically correct.
You dilute urgency. If Trump is a “Nazi” then what do you call the actual neo-Nazis goose-stepping with swastikas? Once you’ve maxed out the language, you’ve got nowhere left to escalate when something worse comes along.
Calling Trump a Nazi might feel cathartic, but it’s lazy. Calling him a fascist is both correct and harder to dodge. Accuracy is a weapon, why throw it away?
Nazi this, nazi that. Everyone’s nazi these days. I’m tired of it
How about this then, "Useless fuck face fascist’ that work for you?
Cool. I’m tired of hearing people talk about how my basic human rights should be stripped from me, and I should possibly be institutionalized against my will or killed. Yours sounds bad too, though.
Fuck the republican party and fuck the cartoonishly undemocratic system of the USA, but the former is not fascist by definition!
I am also tired of all these Nazis
then help us get rid of the fascists
Pro tip, find and listen to the plethora of historians and other experts on the classification and comparison.
Spoilers, MAGA keep following both the nazi and classic cold war Russian tactics for manipulation.
A lot.
Like, constantly. There are also enablers preventing opposition from gaining any ground.
Are they literal clones of Nazis? No, that’s impossible in a changing environment. That being said, they sure like to follow the nazi playbook in a way that sets alarms off in a way that would be pretty stupid to not have issues with.
At this point it’s “you can’t call them fascist/nazi until we are post-gas chamber,” and even then you will get people saying it’s not the same, for some stupidly specific yet mostly irrelevant differences.
So when the historians all cry “this is some nazi shit,” it might be disingenuous to compare it to more frivolous accusations.
Also there are a lot more valid historical comparisons, because the Nazis aren’t the only ones to do this shit, but they are a good example of the general shape.
edit: emphasis on cold war russian tactics and forward. putin’s russia is not a free democracy, nor a social democratic state. it’s more about how you interact with the oligarchy and fuck over all the out-groups that are convenient for your authoritarian rhetoric.
also nazi’s were textbook authoritarians. my guy, open any textbook ever on fascism, or just got to the wiki
first line "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.[1][2][3] " next to a picture of hitler.
some of these takes gotta be fakes.
Authnratorism is not nazism? They can be cartoonishly evil without being nazis, which they are not by definition
So nazi and commie at the same time? Dude, you’re living in an echo chamber
Russia has not been communist for quite a while now. Putin may have cut his teeth in the communist party, but Russia under Putin is an oligarchy.
It’s not convenient to admit because they’ve been used as boogiemen by opposing factions for so long, but the Bolsheviks and Nazis had a lot in common. If we can’t recognize the features that made these regimes so harmful then we won’t recognize them in our own society either, even as they grow stronger every day.
Close enough, welcome back “red fascism” narrative. Are we going to wave tricolors while yelling “no to communism!” while hand-in-hand with fascists as seen historically?
Hyperboles aside, Bolsheviks and Nazis are polar opposites (with some superficial overlap). Bolsheviks were a revolutionary communist party on a mission to liberate workers and help other communist parties internationally, but it eventually fell into opportunism due to various factors such as underdevelopment, failure to achieve internationalism, Stalin being THE opportunist who later ordered for the old Bolshevik guard to be murdered, etc.
Nazis on the other hand were a direct response to existential capital crisis which stemmed from poor post-war economic conditions and worker militancy/uprisings (that aimed to topple the existing capitalist order, being inspired by USSR). Nazis were there to reinforce and protect capital while crushing the workers.
If anything, a more apt comparison would be between Liberal Democracies and Nazism, given how one directly leads to another once existential crisis hits and workers start to rebel, rhetorical similarities such as nationalism, and both having the exact same purpose which is to ensure capitalist domination over society.
Which actions did they take that were polar opposites? Lenin may have written books with different ideas than Hitler, but the way they governed was quite similar. This is because the logic of autocratic power is always the same, and once Lenin had crushed the autonomy of the people (and their Soviets, unions, village councils, etc.), that logic became inevitable.
Stalin simply took the same actions to a further logical conclusion. But they were categorically similar to the earlier Bolsheviks. Even before the revolution, the seeds were planted with Lenin’s ban on internal dissent and tight control over party members.
People always say liberal democracy inevitably leads to fascism but is there actual evidence for this? Is there some serious analysis you can point to? Because on a long enough time scale, every possible society will become every other possible society, but that’s not a very meaningful statement.
USSR in 1918 granted equal women’s rights through its constitution which was unheard of in liberal world where women were largely under legal guardianship of their husbands. Nazi Germany, meanwhile, actively suppressed them.
Bolsheviks abolished landlordism and redistributed land to peasantry as part of their revolutionary goal, Nazi Germany actively preserved large estates.
Not to mention the differences on who they oppressed (former exploiting classes vs workers + ethnic and racial groups), how they handled education, property, how they handled unions (having them spread communist thought instead of being independent organs vs actively dismantling them and enforcing collaboration between classes), etc.
You do talk about autocratic power a lot, and yes - if you look at it superficially then both countries were single party states. They were different though - in terms of its class character and the function they had. For instance:
USSR’s single party rule was (until bourgeois opportunism completely took over) a dictatorship of proletariat, meaning that the interests which the state advanced were that of the workers - the abolishment of private capital, land redistribution, development of productive forces to meet everyone’s needs, etc. The suppression of dissent was also justified - immediate post-revolutionary periods are the most tumultuous, that’s where you often get back to back revolutions, and this line of reasoning was justified historically with the Russian Civil War popping up shortly after. In other words, the power was used in an attempt to abolish capital, to achieve an entirely different mode of production.
Nazi Germany’s single party rule was there to preserve capitalism and the capitalist ruling class, suppression was used on political opponents to keep the monopoly on power, but also used on ethnic and racial groups so it certainly was more ideological rather than being a necessity at least in this regard.
Not inevitably - if there’s no worker militancy, then fascism is not necessary.
Still, as shown by historical materialist analysis of Capitalism and actual history (Germany, Italy), the system has internal contradictions that inevitably lead to crisis (falling rate of profit, overproduction, concentration of capital, bubbles - read Capital if you want an academic analysis on these), and if this capital under crisis also gets threatened by the workers, that’s when you get fascism.
It’s a good tool to overcome the existential crisis, suppress the worker militancy and commit some atrocities under the name of nationalism as the unifying cause.
Anyway yap yap wall of text nobody will read, these subjects tend to be much more complicated than “democracy good anything else bad and leads to hitlerism”
Dude, the Bolsheviks were the party of Lenin! They definitionally, not a commendation from me, could have been communists strictly judged from their actions! The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was state capitalist!
Tho I agree that its super sad that the names of this two ideologies are substitutions cartoonishly evil
He named two fundamentally opposite ideologies as the same and you and me are being downvoted… I love the internet
Everytime I see this I feel like it comes from a highschool dropout who thinks they have it worse or were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Fuck off. I’m not sorry if the people pointing out the writing on the wall annoys you.
OP doesn’t necessarily supports the trampers, he is just pointing out that republicans despite being cartoonishly evil are definitionally not nazis
Sure, they’re not part of the German National Socialist party, but their policies sure rhyme with them.
…are you okay with the dems being called communists because they are somewhat left to the reps? After all words don’t mean anything
I’m completely fine with calling the republican party and literally every single person who voted for Trump a fascist.
I’m also completely fine with saying “execute fascists”
But I hate using the term Nazi to describe fascists (unless they are literal self-ascribed neo-nazi’s)
It’s needlessly inflammatory, technically incorrect and has the optics of “everyone I don’t like is Hitler” (it’s kinda juvenile tbh).
Based off Eco’s 14 traits of fascism, Trump and Kirk were full blown fascists.
That doesn’t make them Nazi’s though.
When someone idolizes Hitler, uses the same rhetoric, and enforces the same policies, I think it’s fair to call that person a Nazi.
Trump is literally following Hitler’s playbook step-for-step. He’s a Nazi. And people who follow Nazis? Also Nazis. Fuck tiptoeing around terminology. They are actual Nazis in everything but literal National Socialist party membership.
Nazi is not a synonym for fascist.
Nazis were a specific fascist movement in 1930s Germany, rooted in German ethno-nationalism, racial purity laws, and National Socialist party ideology. Fascism as a system is broader; it existed in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Japan, and elsewhere, each with unique traits.
Trump is a textbook fascist. He meets Eco’s 14 traits almost line-by-line. But calling him a Nazi is both technically wrong and strategically sloppy. It:
Collapses nuance: Not every fascist = Hitler. Mussolini wasn’t Hitler, Franco wasn’t Hitler. Trump isn’t Hitler; he’s his own brand of fascist.
Hurts credibility: Throwing “Nazi” at everything feeds the exact stereotype of the left as hysterical and unserious. Precision strengthens arguments, inflation weakens them.
Lets fascists off the hook: If you only call someone a Nazi when they literally cosplay as Hitler, you leave room for “non-Nazi” fascists to hide in plain sight. Better to call them what they actually are: fascists.
Yes, some of Trump’s followers idolize Hitler. That makes those people neo-Nazis. But that doesn’t make Trump, or the entire MAGA movement, literal Nazis. They’re fascists. And that distinction matters if you want to be taken seriously instead of sounding like you’re just screaming ‘Hitler!’ at everything.
FFS he’s not literally literally Hitler, clearly. Hitler died in 1945. But he’s literally literally acting like Hitler. Like I said, he’s a Nazi in everything but literal Nazi party membership. There’s more to being a Nazi than being a fascist, and he’s not only a fascist but he’s trying to BE Hitler. I’m gonna keep calling him a Nazi because it’s actually the best description of what he is.
This is exactly the problem. You admit he’s not a literal Nazi, but then you want to redefine the term until it just means “fascist who reminds me of Hitler”. That’s sloppy and self-defeating.
If Trump is a fascist, call him a fascist. Fascism is already enough; it carries all the authoritarian, ultranationalist, and anti-democratic weight it needs. When you inflate it into “Nazi” three things happen:
You blur history. Nazis weren’t just fascists; they were a specific movement tied to German racial ideology, Lebensraum, and National Socialism. Pretending it’s interchangeable erases the fact that fascism takes different forms in different places.
You hand them a defence. If you call Trump a Nazi, he and his defenders can instantly go “See? They’re hysterical, everyone’s Hitler to them”. The word loses its punch. If you call him a fascist, there’s no escape, it sticks because it’s technically correct.
You dilute urgency. If Trump is a “Nazi” then what do you call the actual neo-Nazis goose-stepping with swastikas? Once you’ve maxed out the language, you’ve got nowhere left to escalate when something worse comes along.
Calling Trump a Nazi might feel cathartic, but it’s lazy. Calling him a fascist is both correct and harder to dodge. Accuracy is a weapon, why throw it away?
Yeah, because we’re living in a country overrun by Nazis. Funny how that works.
Calling things cartoonishly evil doesn’t have the same gravitas, despite being more definitionally accurate