Doubledee

I don't want to dogpile and axont already pointed out a pretty good scholar who talks about the subject, but I did want to add for clarity the reason that it's important to have a precise definition: We could look at, say, Victorian Britain, Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and Suleiman the Magnificent and argue that they were all unquestionably ruled by either a single or a small handful of rulers with no real checks on their power, that they oriented the economy and society around themselves, that they suppressed dissent etc. and conclude, from Webster there, that basically every government except modern American government is fascism. Simply in historical terms that would be an enormous problem, because it collapses all the nuance and distinctions that exist, obviously, between these extremely diverse forms of government.

When people talk about fascism, there's a reason they think of Hitler and Mussolini (who self-described, which makes that a bit easier I guess) even if it's hard to put a finger on exactly what the unifying factors are. Very clearly, Mussolini and Hitler thought their projects were incompatible with communism/socialism, it's why their first steps upon achieving power in their countries were to purge the left and ensure that left resistance couldn't be organized against them. Even if you have critiques of Stalin (I certainly do) I think there are pretty obvious differences between the USSR and the fascist axis that it ended up fighting against, reasons that were ultimately persuasive to Roosevelt and Churchill despite their own misgivings about communism. Everyone at the time understood there was a difference, and we need to be able to distinguish if we're going to talk intelligently about forms of government that western countries don't themselves use.

So in short, I'd say that definition from Webster is too vague to be useful, I'd say there are factors like palingenetic ultranationalism and hostility to the left that seem to be constant in any real fascist regime that should really be a part of a definition of the term. Otherwise 'fascist' just means 'mean' or 'bad' because all of its distinctives are gone.

Anyone else finished the new season of Blowback? Gotta say it really affected my outlook on China and its domestic extremism problem. Definitely more of a fuck around/find out vibe given that they also helped train fundamentalists in the country next door. Such an unnecessary self-own. I'm gonna need to stew on this for a while but I'm curious if anyone else noticed this/had thoughts.

The postal service runs functionally craft unions that don't negotiate together, Rural Carriers bargain separately from City Carriers, who also are separate from the APWU which covers clerks and maintenance folks. There are upsides to this, for Rural Carriers specifically it let them get certain contract items that would be a huge ask to get for other carriers due to the specificity of their job requirements, but it's led to a problem where regular rural carriers are in a pretty unique bargaining position relative to virtually everyone else. Importantly, they're also divided into full time regulars and part time RCAs, which I think creates an engagement problem. When I was an RCA I paid dues, but I rarely interacted with or cared about the union because it was pretty clear pretty quickly that the union was mostly concerned with the regulars who had been there a long time. It was likely to be upwards of 5 years before I became a regular (I knew people who had been working part time for 7 years) and almost all the perks and benefits were negotiated to benefit the regular carriers.

I think over time new regulars are becoming less engaged, especially since there have been recent changes to the craft that undermine a lot of the promises that were ostensibly the reason you waited in line to become a regular in the first place. So the leadership is getting increasingly detached from the actual workforce, and the union is already one of the smaller and weaker ones to begin with.

EDIT: A bigger problem which I probably should have mentioned to begin with is that all postal workers are legally barred from taking a strike. So the unions have something of a more collegial relationship with management than you'd like, because you can only play hardball so far before you run into legal trouble.

Hi, could you explain the reference here? Sounds like something I might want in my back pocket if I have to talk about this topic in real life.

Yeah that was something I encountered last night reading more about him. Although I'm pretty sure the main source I got that from was a Trotskyist so I wasn't sure how much weight to give it.

I think they're worth reading still, to be clear. Especially the first three in the series, he isn't so disillusioned until the last one. At least from what I remember. And the criticism isn't all unfounded or bad, I just wish it wasn't framed as if it was the death knell of the project.