if your rule led you to this point, of what use was the rule?
LeninsRage
joined 5 years ago
What "plan" they had was the fantasy that those sympathetic politicians would unilaterally abolish elections, which they don't have the power to do either individually or as a group, and would not do even if they could. Only the military can do that, so they would have had better prospects targeting the Pentagon. So essentially no plan, they were trying to alter reality by willing it into existence.
Matt makes explicitly Marxist arguments that to the uninitiated libs are literally alien. This person certainly has no idea what fascism means or "the left" really wants, so they interpret materialist analysis that these CHUDs had no plan and thus could never have accomplished anything meaningful as "agreeing with fash". This then gets spread around their lame Twitter circle like a game of telephone.
Again, what would the CHUDs have accomplished if they had simply occupied the Capitol for a prolonged period? The answer is nothing. Merely occupying one building will not magically force the entire apparatus of state to capitulate to your outlandish demands. The only way they could have actually done a coup is if the military then threw in with them, in which case you have much bigger problems than CHUDs in the capital; regardless, there was zero chance of this happening. Meanwhile these same libs were probably falling over themselves to exalt the generals who came out to condemn Trump the other day, zero cognitive dissonance involved.
Okay I need to be blunt
"Woodrow Wilson was the first fascist president" is literally an argument by the reactionary crank Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism. It is not true.
HOWEVER
Woodrow Wilson being aligned with the capital-P Progressive movement, there are superficial similarities. Chief among being two central aspects of the Progressive Movement - an obsession with eugenics and social engineering, and explicit class-collaborationism. He is also associated with expansion of government to act as economic planner and mediator-manager of capital and labor in a wartime situation. These are aspects superficially in common with fascisms, but there the similarities really end.
Probably the most obvious rebuttal to this thesis is that Wilson was arguably the first liberal internationalist, very ahead of his time. He was the foremost advocate of building a managed, institutional world order along liberal lines. This is vehemently at odds with historical fascisms, which are intensely anti-internationalist and tend to be intensely hostile even to each other because their irredentist aims and drive to self-annihilation drive a wedge between them.
Yes, "anti-interventionist" is definitely the better phrasing.
Because they're full of isolated, dejected life losers and that's the type of personality attracted to fascist movements.
Failed your father's expectations? Overweight and hideous? Crippling social anxiety and can't have sex? Filled with disgust when you see other people having fun and living their best lives? Failing business? Can't get or hold down a job? Have atrocious taste and no talent but insist that you plight in fortune and women is because no one understands you or have lost touch with traditional values?
BOY HAVE I GOT A MOVEMENT FOR YOU!
Dress in a uniform. Our propaganda portrays us as the peak of masculinity and vigorous, vital action. Return to your real roots. Have a docile homemaker and baby machine for a wife. Plus we know exactly who to blame for the tragedy that is your life.
More like radlibs who adopt the "anarchist" moniker as a lifestyle brand name