zlacker

Not to be an asshole, this will not get fixed. It doesn't matter how reductive people are, helpfully or otherwise. The fascist cat is out of the bag.

>>dfedbe+(OP)
Oh, well, then I guess we should all just give up and deepthroat the boot, right?

Don't be absurd. Fascism rose in Germany, and was defeated. Fascism rose in Spain, and Italy, and was defeated.

We can defeat fascism too. We will defeat fascism too.

It'll just be harder if more people think like you.

>>danari+O4
> Fascism rose in Spain, and Italy, and was defeated.

Someone forgot about the 40-year long fascist dictatorship Spain was under

>>danari+O4
Obviously, fascism will be defeated someday. The cost is the issue. Defeating fascism in Germany required the biggest and most violent war in all of human history, plus a decimation of its population.

>>danari+O4
In Germany and Italy it was defeated by the military loss of a total war. In Span it was defeated by the eventual death of Franco and the assassination of his designated successor, after decades of right wing rule.

You are in such a rush to be sarcastic that you're accusing the GP of wanting to cooperate with fascism, when they're simply stating the reality of the problem. You're saying naying nice words about the outcome you want to see, but ignoring the horrors between the institution of fascism and its eventual defeat. That suggests to me that you don't really have any idea or plan about how to overcome it, you're just wishcasting. The danger of this is that many people will advocate waiting for the next election to decide if it's really fascism (because that's an unpleasant thing people would prefer to avoid), but don't have anything in reserve if the election is subverted, and in any case are giving away the political initiative for a year.

Instead of trying to rally people with WW2 tropes (which the non-fascists are in no position to wage) it'd be better to build momentum toward general strikes, which have a rather successful track record in the US and have been quasi-outlawed as a result (eg by the Taft-Hartley act, which bans solidarity and political strikes by labor unions).

>>anigbr+Ol
I just don't see how you're going to run a general strike against Trump with the Teamsters and much of their membership on Trump's side.

My plan to overcome it is to make it clear to elite decisionmakers that they will be held personally responsible for the misery Trump's administration inflicts on people, including by many of the people who thought they supported Trump before they realized what he was doing. It's not a perfect plan, nor does it have a guarantee of success, but it seems better than the alternatives.

>>SpicyL+Fq
A general strike is general, not just trade unions. Not everyone will join in, nor will it be national in scale, at least at first. But it can disruptive enough as it spreads to slow down the economy, be the top headline every day, and push the administration into increasing untenable positions. A general strike isn't a formal legal state of affairs, but a combination of ongoing protest and economic stoppage that succeeds by the fact of mass participation, without any violent focus.

make it clear to elite decisionmakers that they will be held personally responsible for the misery Trump's administration inflicts on people

How?

>>anigbr+8S
Perhaps we're talking about different things? When I imagine a "general strike", I envision something like the general strike in Italy last month, where major trade unions got together to announce that October 3 is strike day and everyone in Italy should go on strike together. I'm not sure what a general strike without broad participation, national scale, or labor movement backing is.