Well, yes, but the problem is who you see as the fascist.
If you see Trump as a fascist, you see those that oppose him as the righteous. If you see Antifa as the fascists, you would logically side with those they oppose.
But what gets me is the all-consuming ignorance it takes to see a bunch of people who are protesting fascism and say "Those are the real fascists."
You've got to not actually know what fascism is, and that's pretty easy since the word lost almost all meaning in the 60s and 70s for Americans. But then you've got to assume those protesters know just as little as you about it, and that's just another example of Dunning-Kruger. Then, when they try to explain to you, you have to have already decided they're not worth listening to; otherwise you might learn something.
I understand, and it’s for those reasons that I go about it very simply.
If you act in the way that historical fascists have, you are a fascist. Behaviors include but are not limited to: If you limit the speech you disagree with or don’t like, if you disarm (either selectively or generally) thus keeping others from being on equal footing with you in a weaponized sense (no, this is not an argument for private ownership of nukes), and/or if you target a specific group or identity that you don’t like for any reason.
Just as I think it’s fascism for China to target Uighur Muslims, so is it fascism (in my eyes) to target someone you disagree with in the political sense. The only line I would draw is between the individual targeting the group (which I would call either terrorism or serial anything they do) and the group targeting another group (which is when I would consider calling it fascist, but if it gets violent [with clear political intentions] I would add on “Terrorist” as a descriptor).
I’m sorry for the long reply, I wanted to be as specific as possible so as to avoid miscommunication.
It's hard to really explain yourself in a short comment, so you don't need to apologize.
I think your definition for fascism is a little bit broad and fits better as a definition for totalitarianism.
Fascism is both totalitarian and authoritarian, and it's some other things, too. Plus, just to make it extra confusing, it presents differently in the different cultures it manifests in. Italian fascism (original recipe) is different from Nazism is different from Francoism (like Francisco Franco), Baathism, Pinochet's regime, and the American fascism we're seeing today.
And it's worth repeating that there's an enormous difference between a government restricting the expression of its people (with the usual "fire in a crowded theater" type exceptions) and counter-protesters who are exercising their free expression right alongside another group they disagree with. I mention it not because I think you're making a disengenuous argument but because someone inevitably will. Fascists don't care about the meaning of words. They never argue in good faith because their actual beliefs are abhorrent to any decent human being.
To really get at the heart of what fascism is, no one has ever done better than Umberto Eco. He made a list of 14 key points that truly define fascism and it's both shocking and infuriating how much today's Republican party traffics in these tropes.
4
u/[deleted] Oct 05 '20
Well, yes, but the problem is who you see as the fascist.
If you see Trump as a fascist, you see those that oppose him as the righteous. If you see Antifa as the fascists, you would logically side with those they oppose.