WatDabney

Very true.

I still think "class war" is the most accurate term for it though, and the fact that the working class isn't (yet) fighting it is just the biggest reason that the moneyed class is winning (so far).

Those who could do something about it won't.

Those who would do something about it can't.

I clearly and concisely supported my contention that the term "fascist" is appropriate to this administration.

You responded with a string of laughably false ad hominems, painfully transparent paychological projection and a pathetic attempt to just dismiss my argument out of hand. The one thing you did NOT respond with is even the faintest trace of intellectual integrity, so there's no point in trying to pursue thecdebate any further.

Oh and... a thing that people like you seem to generally fail to grasp - you don't really fool anyone. The lurkers can see what you're doing just as clearly as I can.

It's really sort of astonishing that every single thing you said here is wrong. And mostly misspelled to boot.

Right, but in the case of the current US and the current administration, the term is accurate.

Fascism is a far-right (check) political ideology characterized by authoritarianism (check), extreme nationalism (check), and the suppression of opposition (check), often led by a dictatorial leader (check). It emphasizes the subordination of individual interests to the perceived good of the nation or race (check) and typically involves a centralized autocratic government (check).

Which is exactly why it's relevant today.

Fascists don't magically stop being fascists just because you happen to hate the same people they do.

It's class war. It's been class war all along.

That's why the courts and the legacy media and the bulk of the political establishment have been at the very least enabling him - because what he's in fact doing, and has been doing since the beginning, is working for the explicit benefit of himself and his moneyed class cronies, to the detriment of everyone else.

Yes.

And some people recognize that it's not a matter of if the world burns, but merely of when, and believe that sooner is less bad than later.

Most of those 'sectarian' spaces are the end result of anti-sectarian attempts

This is a vital observation, and not just in this narrower context but in the broader context of leftism subverted by authoritarianism.

The thing is that we actually can have instances free of sectarianism. All it requires is a population among whom enough people hold to the value of non-sectarianism to not only establish such spaces, but for them to continue to be non-sectarian solely because nobody succeeds in driving wedges (or better yet, nobody even tries). And again, this dynamic holds in the broader context and not just in this narrower one.

But of course the problem, at whatever scale and in whatever context, is that we don't have such a population, and there's no indication that such a population will come to be in our immediate future either.

And that's the exact point at which it starts to go wrong.

Through some combination of indoctrination and irrationality-driven-by-impatience, some number of people, faced with that fact, decide that that means that what we have to do is force it into being, which is inevitably doomed to failure, since it essentially boils down to establishing a hierarchy by which some claim the authority to eliminate hierarchy and prohibit authority.

For the purposes of the autocrats though, a group that isn't really a group is the best kind.

If nobody's a certain member, everybody's a possible member.

Accused of sexual assault

Isn't that a prerequisite for a position in the Trump autocracy?