You know, I lied. I appreciate an honest response, particularly when coming from such a vitriol laced exchange, so I take back that “last good-faith response” statement.
I do still disagree to some capacity, and think that your take is a matter of muddying the methodology with the goal/results. The autocratic dictator with a strangle hold on the media, using their own version of the law to kill/jail their political opponents, is far more important to what makes a fascist than other elements. But there’s a genuine argument to be made that if I can’t be bothered to do a deeper read on the guy and the state of current day Venezula, maybe I shouldn’t throw around the F word so readily, so I’ll take that. I stand by the “the short description is pretty likely a fascist dictator,” but admit that, if we were to take a more serious, academic approach to it, I would absolutely be jumping the gun.
Regardless, I appreciate the de-escalation and genuine take on the subject. The snarky one liners and snap backs from both of us were disrespectful to both of us.
Cheers mate and I apologize for my tone which probably contributed to this conversation going in that direction initially. Sometimes that snark just feels so good haha.
Personally I prefer to describe these types of governments as run of the mill authoritarian (or totalitarian if they progress far enough). I do think the ultranationalism and xenophobia is an important aspect of fascism though–that’s what makes them able to commit atrocities beyond just historical monarchies or other types of oppressive governments. The dehumanization of anyone who is different combined with that totalitarian power makes mass murder way more likely.
I don’t see that in Venezuela right now but what I really wanted was for someone to make the case that it was rather than just saying they’re fascist because they’re bad. Yes, they are bad, but I really don’t like the simplification of complex political ideas down into quasi-slurs.
You know, I lied. I appreciate an honest response, particularly when coming from such a vitriol laced exchange, so I take back that “last good-faith response” statement.
I do still disagree to some capacity, and think that your take is a matter of muddying the methodology with the goal/results. The autocratic dictator with a strangle hold on the media, using their own version of the law to kill/jail their political opponents, is far more important to what makes a fascist than other elements. But there’s a genuine argument to be made that if I can’t be bothered to do a deeper read on the guy and the state of current day Venezula, maybe I shouldn’t throw around the F word so readily, so I’ll take that. I stand by the “the short description is pretty likely a fascist dictator,” but admit that, if we were to take a more serious, academic approach to it, I would absolutely be jumping the gun.
Regardless, I appreciate the de-escalation and genuine take on the subject. The snarky one liners and snap backs from both of us were disrespectful to both of us.
Cheers mate and I apologize for my tone which probably contributed to this conversation going in that direction initially. Sometimes that snark just feels so good haha.
Personally I prefer to describe these types of governments as run of the mill authoritarian (or totalitarian if they progress far enough). I do think the ultranationalism and xenophobia is an important aspect of fascism though–that’s what makes them able to commit atrocities beyond just historical monarchies or other types of oppressive governments. The dehumanization of anyone who is different combined with that totalitarian power makes mass murder way more likely.
I don’t see that in Venezuela right now but what I really wanted was for someone to make the case that it was rather than just saying they’re fascist because they’re bad. Yes, they are bad, but I really don’t like the simplification of complex political ideas down into quasi-slurs.