That pacifistic stance is based on ideals, but ignores the reality of history and politics. Not everyone shares those ideals, nor are they objectively right. Violence is the only good tool against fascism. Where it fails to stop it, non-violent means would also fail.
I agree, which is why I said violence is a last resort, not something that should be completely sworn off. I don’t think Spain is in imminent risk of a Francoist revival, though I can’t pretend to be an expert of Spanish politics. But if I’m thinking of European nations at grave risk of backsliding into actual fascism, I’m more inclined to think of Hungary rather than Spain.
How exactly do you define fascism though? Seems like that term gets used quite a bit.
Not this awful argument please. Why do liberals always come with the “everything I don’t like is fascism” argument when someone argues against fascism.
Sounds like you don’t have a definition either. The problem with a loose definition of fascism is it gets used to justify lots of atrocities. Putin used it as a justification for invading Ukraine, for example.
The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?
