The term "soft fascism" is a necessary rhetorical device at this stage to clarify some of the less draconian moves and strategies. However, in an article in the near future it would be helpful to retire the term and elucidate its true significance as brutality and totalitarianism since there is actually no such thing as soft fascism, as …
The term "soft fascism" is a necessary rhetorical device at this stage to clarify some of the less draconian moves and strategies. However, in an article in the near future it would be helpful to retire the term and elucidate its true significance as brutality and totalitarianism since there is actually no such thing as soft fascism, as women in Texas, Florida, and other red states who have problematic pregnancies have discovered. Mikey Johnson, et al, will soon demonstrate for us how hard fascism is in any form, no matter how well it is disguised by righteous statements, supposedly legal justifications, and confusing and contradictory language or demagoguery. It is coming to a place near you.
That's a great analogy. I agree. However, I was not being critical of the use of the term in the way Thom used it. It is important to note that fascism moves and grows incrementally and with abuses and deprivations which feel tolerable or which only harm certain people, with formal justifications and legal processes which cannot be opposed effectively. It is soft in that the methods are in many cases not seen as cruel and unusual to the uncritical eye and the harms may not be as extreme or broad-based in the early stages. Either way, failing to stop it early enough ends in the real thing, leading ultimately to immense suffering and death. I think we need to detail the ways it is affecting us now at this stage, so that we are conscious of what we are dealing with and what is coming soon if we don't stop it.
Not to mention the inadequacy of the label "conservative." I saw a recent "genius" interview, sorry I can't place it, identifying "conservative" as designating a desire for change to be SLOWER than "progressives" would welcome. That is hardly applicable to the panicked contingency driving to whiplash America, and particularly American women, back to the horrific 1870's.
True. The term reactionary doesn't even capture what these people are all about anymore. It is fascism and it doesn't feel so soft to those who are victims. However, per my above statement to Gloria, the "soft" designation is valid and useful in an analytical sense and for purposes of showing where we are and where we are headed. We shouldn't quibble too much about terms. The important thing is to identify these lesser things such as banning books as a form of fascism and refusing to let them stand under any circumstances. If we look closely enough, we can find hundreds of examples of precursors to fascism in the Republican playbook. That's what I was asking Thom to write about in the future.
The term "soft fascism" is a necessary rhetorical device at this stage to clarify some of the less draconian moves and strategies. However, in an article in the near future it would be helpful to retire the term and elucidate its true significance as brutality and totalitarianism since there is actually no such thing as soft fascism, as women in Texas, Florida, and other red states who have problematic pregnancies have discovered. Mikey Johnson, et al, will soon demonstrate for us how hard fascism is in any form, no matter how well it is disguised by righteous statements, supposedly legal justifications, and confusing and contradictory language or demagoguery. It is coming to a place near you.
Using the term "soft fascism" is like asking a woman how pregnant she is. You're either pregnant or you're not pregnant.
That's a great analogy. I agree. However, I was not being critical of the use of the term in the way Thom used it. It is important to note that fascism moves and grows incrementally and with abuses and deprivations which feel tolerable or which only harm certain people, with formal justifications and legal processes which cannot be opposed effectively. It is soft in that the methods are in many cases not seen as cruel and unusual to the uncritical eye and the harms may not be as extreme or broad-based in the early stages. Either way, failing to stop it early enough ends in the real thing, leading ultimately to immense suffering and death. I think we need to detail the ways it is affecting us now at this stage, so that we are conscious of what we are dealing with and what is coming soon if we don't stop it.
What is meant is "how far along are you", how many months down, how many to go.
Not to mention the inadequacy of the label "conservative." I saw a recent "genius" interview, sorry I can't place it, identifying "conservative" as designating a desire for change to be SLOWER than "progressives" would welcome. That is hardly applicable to the panicked contingency driving to whiplash America, and particularly American women, back to the horrific 1870's.
True. The term reactionary doesn't even capture what these people are all about anymore. It is fascism and it doesn't feel so soft to those who are victims. However, per my above statement to Gloria, the "soft" designation is valid and useful in an analytical sense and for purposes of showing where we are and where we are headed. We shouldn't quibble too much about terms. The important thing is to identify these lesser things such as banning books as a form of fascism and refusing to let them stand under any circumstances. If we look closely enough, we can find hundreds of examples of precursors to fascism in the Republican playbook. That's what I was asking Thom to write about in the future.