politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'd say the article is a summary of someone with very polarized political options trying to milk quotes from a book meant for an academic context. Especially the part where they attempt to define the far right (MAGA) as "not fascist". Which, in the context of the original author is not a fair summary. The author is using very specific language to point to the differences of historical ideas of fascism and a modern day fascism that is not reacting to a popular working class consciousness.
I haven't read the book myself. But even reading the context of the quotes the article uses. Or literally looking up the definition of the specific categorization the author used (in the quotes) tells me this obvious flaw in the articles implied message.
The article is attempting to use this to "blame" any rise in working class resistance to fascist tactics as a cause of escalation. That if, "the left didn't keep pushing" we'd remain in this other thing. A word people find less scary. So it has this implied "it's actually the resistance to blame that we won't return to "normal" after Trump."
It's very typical pseudo intellectual though. It's not a criticism I have of the author of the book. Because I'd have to read it entirely. It's a criticism of the article that I feel is misrepresenting the author in a very specific way that is vague enough that only the average reader of "the guardian" would be perfectly persuaded into its narrative of anti "far left" propaganda.
Edit: you said you read the book yourself. So, I'd love your analysis. I think you may be missing the articles purpose because you have more connection to the source material that is filling in its purposeful gaps for the average reader. But, having only read the article. I feel like it doesn't seem to do the book justice. It glosses over definitions and appeals to an emotion of "not fascism". I'd appreciate your perspective though. I will add it to my reading list.