This argument is pretty dumb. If we follow this logic then American liberals are Marxist because American Marxists tend to support the DNC more often than not… But that’s obviously not true, and American liberals don’t support such an evil ideology.
If we follow the logic in a different route and assume that 9 racists are sitting on a table with a civil rights activist, they’re all civil rights activists… But that doesn’t sound right, does it?
Let’s try another attempt, if 10 world leaders are in a conference somewhere. Of those leaders, 9 are liberals from democratic countries and one is a dictator, does that make all 10 of them dictators? Of course not.
The issue with this type of argument is that it’s based on guilt by association, not even that actually, it’s more of guilt by proximity. This is a logical fallacy for all the reasons stated in this article:
Let’s not bring back guilt by association and doom ourselves back to the dark ages due to virtue signaling and ignorance. People should be looked as individuals and judged for their own beliefs.
Fascism is not Marxism. In particular, very few Marxists would be willing to murder you for power, but all fascists would.
This is not what was said. I’ll rephrase it.
Since 9 conservatives sitting around table with 1 right-winger makes all of them right-wingers, will 9 conservatives sitting around table with 1 leftist makes all of them leftists?
Wow, dense. You can’t just replace “fascists” with some other ideology and expect it to make sense. Fascists are monsters and anyone who works with them is a monster, too.
Actually I would argue that Marxism is even worse than fascism because Fascist know they’re evil and own it, but Marxists know they’re evil but pretend they’re humanitarians. It’s pretty sick. Also, looking at the theory of the ideology, it is inherently violent. This is reflected in history as tens of millions ended up being killed as a direct result Marxist violence and persecution in 20th century alone.
Fascism is more of an approach than a specific ideology. Its only core value is Strength Through Unity - but to achieve that it needs some populist values to unite the people over - which is how you get different flavors of fascism. The original Fascist Party was using nationalism. Racism is also a popular choice (fascism + racism = Nazism), and it seems like rightist values are more prune to it - but leftist values are not safe either, like we have seen in the USSR which based its fascism around socialism.
Conservatism can be a base for fascism, but like all these other values - it doesn’t have to be fascist. The rule is simple:
If you want The Gays™ to just stop - that’s regular conservatism.
If you want a strong leader to “stop” The Gays™ - that’s fascist conservatism.
conservatives oppose social progress and want to preserve the status quo, but are happy to fight for that within democratic bounds, more or less. Fascists want to subvert democracy and install a completely new status quo
All institutionalized political power is violently anti-democratic - it’s literally why you are forced to pay for violent paramilitaries to police you and protect the status quo from anything that can be called democratic with a straight face.
Fascists are not unique in that regards.
and install a completely new status quo
The capitalists that funded Hitler and Mussolini into power did not do so because fascists “install a completely new status quo.” The CIA didn’t fund fascists into power all over the third world during the Cold War because fascists “install a completely new status quo.”
They funded fascists into power because fascists protect the status quo. You know… the status quo liberals and conservatives all love so much?
Liberals can be conservatives. Opposite of conservatives are reformists.
All conservatives are liberals - that is, until they cross over into fascism territory. The people that get called “conservative” in the US do not disagree with liberalism in any fundamental way - they still believe in basic liberal ideas such as the fetishization of private property, capitalism, the (so-called) “free market,” and the ever-present “rule of law” (as dictated by a liberal, capitalist elite).
Is voting anti-democratic?
North Korea has voting. Apartheid South Africa had voting. I don’t see any liberals falling over themselves to describe those societies as “democratic” simply because of that… yet the one you exist in must be so simply because your media and your political racketeers told you it is?
The bar for what counts as democracy or not is so damn low you need a deep-sea submersible just to see it.
Very American of you to not know conservatives from fascists
If there are 9 conservatives and 1 fascist sitting around a table, then there are 10 fascists sitting around that table.
So if there are 9 reformists and 1 fascist sitting around a table, would there be 10 fascists sitting around that table?
This argument is pretty dumb. If we follow this logic then American liberals are Marxist because American Marxists tend to support the DNC more often than not… But that’s obviously not true, and American liberals don’t support such an evil ideology.
If we follow the logic in a different route and assume that 9 racists are sitting on a table with a civil rights activist, they’re all civil rights activists… But that doesn’t sound right, does it?
Let’s try another attempt, if 10 world leaders are in a conference somewhere. Of those leaders, 9 are liberals from democratic countries and one is a dictator, does that make all 10 of them dictators? Of course not.
The issue with this type of argument is that it’s based on guilt by association, not even that actually, it’s more of guilt by proximity. This is a logical fallacy for all the reasons stated in this article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Let’s not bring back guilt by association and doom ourselves back to the dark ages due to virtue signaling and ignorance. People should be looked as individuals and judged for their own beliefs.
False analogy is false. Fascism is not Marxism. In particular, very few Marxists would be willing to murder you for power, but all fascists would.
This is not what was said. I’ll rephrase it.
Since 9 conservatives sitting around table with 1 right-winger makes all of them right-wingers, will 9 conservatives sitting around table with 1 leftist makes all of them leftists?
No. Leftists aren’t fascists and aren’t analogous to fascists.
Wow, manipulative. I never said that leftists are fascists. I called fascists right-wingers.
Why no? Or you want to say that group of leftists and conservatives becomes group of conservatives?
Wow, dense. You can’t just replace “fascists” with some other ideology and expect it to make sense. Fascists are monsters and anyone who works with them is a monster, too.
Actually I would argue that Marxism is even worse than fascism because Fascist know they’re evil and own it, but Marxists know they’re evil but pretend they’re humanitarians. It’s pretty sick. Also, looking at the theory of the ideology, it is inherently violent. This is reflected in history as tens of millions ended up being killed as a direct result Marxist violence and persecution in 20th century alone.
Oh, you’re one of them. Can’t say I’m surprised.
Someone who isn’t historically illiterate? I’m not surprised either. Most people who aren’t tend to view Marxism for the evil that it was.
Well, you’ve kinda shown your hand by conflating a socio-economic theory with multiple political ideologies.
Marxism is a full fledged ideology. That’s just objective fact. You can’t erase what it is or what happened because of it.
There’s a difference?
Fascism is more of an approach than a specific ideology. Its only core value is Strength Through Unity - but to achieve that it needs some populist values to unite the people over - which is how you get different flavors of fascism. The original Fascist Party was using nationalism. Racism is also a popular choice (fascism + racism = Nazism), and it seems like rightist values are more prune to it - but leftist values are not safe either, like we have seen in the USSR which based its fascism around socialism.
Conservatism can be a base for fascism, but like all these other values - it doesn’t have to be fascist. The rule is simple:
conservatives oppose social progress and want to preserve the status quo, but are happy to fight for that within democratic bounds, more or less. Fascists want to subvert democracy and install a completely new status quo
No different than liberals, then.
All institutionalized political power is violently anti-democratic - it’s literally why you are forced to pay for violent paramilitaries to police you and protect the status quo from anything that can be called democratic with a straight face.
Fascists are not unique in that regards.
The capitalists that funded Hitler and Mussolini into power did not do so because fascists “install a completely new status quo.” The CIA didn’t fund fascists into power all over the third world during the Cold War because fascists “install a completely new status quo.”
They funded fascists into power because fascists protect the status quo. You know… the status quo liberals and conservatives all love so much?
Liberals can be conservatives. Opposite of conservatives are reformists.
Is voting anti-democratic? Because voting is political institution of democracy.
All conservatives are liberals - that is, until they cross over into fascism territory. The people that get called “conservative” in the US do not disagree with liberalism in any fundamental way - they still believe in basic liberal ideas such as the fetishization of private property, capitalism, the (so-called) “free market,” and the ever-present “rule of law” (as dictated by a liberal, capitalist elite).
North Korea has voting. Apartheid South Africa had voting. I don’t see any liberals falling over themselves to describe those societies as “democratic” simply because of that… yet the one you exist in must be so simply because your media and your political racketeers told you it is?
The bar for what counts as democracy or not is so damn low you need a deep-sea submersible just to see it.