Quick example of sophistry and rhetorical trickery to muddy the waters. In a 20 minute video discussing how Umberto Eco's semiotic analysis of fascism is being abused by certain leftists, Tali made ONE comment (not even close to the main point) that Eco was not a socialist... 
The MAIN point was that the 14 points can't be used as a "definition" of fascism in the way many leftists use them, that they have to be viewed in the context of semiotics to be of any use. But we got dozens of comments fixating on the "Eco wasn't doing socialist analysis" aside.
This is obviously a deflection, ignoring the main point that semiotics can't be used the way so many leftists are using them, and that trying to shoehorn these semiotic "14 points" leads to misunderstanding and mislabeling of people as fascists who are not.
This is what happens when a "movement" is based on idealist rhetorical trickery. This is not going to lead to progress, just more misunderstanding of the nature of fascism, more left-anti-communism, and the fascist-jacketing of more oppressed people.
Here's the video being referenced:
If you want a good analysis of fascism from a class conscious perspective, we highly recommend Parenti's Black Shirts and Reds. It's also available as an audio book from a few people on YouTube!
BTW: it's totally valid to criticize socialists for not having a socialist definition of fascism. As Parenti makes it very clear in Black Shirts and Reds, fascism is tightly aligned with the capitalist plutocracy and used to suppress the working class wherever it gains power.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
