Fun fact: People could commonly read in the Middle Ages.
There is wide spread belief that medieval Europeans couldn’t read and write, but most peasants could read and write in their VERNACULAR languages. The idea that only 10% of the population could read and write comes from that fact that only 10% of the population could read LATIN, which is the only reading that they thought mattered.
They weren’t wrong to think this too. Latin was one of the only standardized languages due to its use by the church. Vernacular languages varied very widely from place to place, such that it was very common that two peasants from neighboring towns or regions would not be able to understand each other, even if they could read and write some form of “German”.
Most peasant would then be able to read and write their own notes and records, but probably wouldn’t be able to sent letters to next town or read any books.
Like I said, Fuck the tankies.
Leftist political theory can get very complex, and when people say communism they can mean a lot of things.
Technically, Communism as per Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto, Communism isn’t a government. Communism is a state of anarchy in which people naturally share resources and the means of production communally and provide ownership does not exist as a cultural concept. So going by the original definitions “Communist Government” is an oxymoron. Explaining what the hell happened in Russia is a whole conversation.
When people talk about communism or communist elements in a government, they are probably talking about some form of socialism.
You are not making any distinction between those who would want a fascist state to endure and those who would be indifferent to replacing it with something else. But I think that distinction gets to the heart of the question.
Um… Yes I’ve made that quite clear because both have the same effect on a fascist state. If you’re just going about your business, working your job, not being political, being a centrist, then you are furthering the fascist state, just as you were a foaming at the mouth supporter, because fascist states co-opt the labour and effort of their citizens towards the growth of the state so there is no neutral. In such a situation, you are helping the fascist state to grow unless you are very intentionally fighting it.
You are also assuming that fascists and anti-fascists are only concerned about their own condition. Suppose you asked an American their opinion of Mussolini and they responded "He was terrible". That's clearly anti-fascist. But what if they responded "Never heard of him"? That's neither pro or anti fascist, yet the neutral response won't advance a fascist regime.
You have no idea what I’m talking about. I have no idea where you got the idea “ I’m assuming that fascists and anti-fascists are only concerned with their own condition.” What comment are you reading?
Your supposition about asking an American what he thinks of Mussolini seems entirely tangential to me. I was talking about one’s actions within a context of a fascist state, not regarding foreigners looking in, so what are you commenting on?
Also, having an opinion or talking crap isn’t an into-fascist in any sense of the word. Fascist states need to be combated with direct action, such as economically divesting in financial systems that benefit and fund a fascist state. It’s not germain to my previous comment, as I was talking about people living in a fascist system, but even as a foreigner to a fascist system, allowing a fascist system to function unchecked is effectively the same as supporting it, because fascist government aligned themselves with capital and will use economic output and trade to fund themselves.
So, once again, it doesn’t matter what you say or don’t say. It doesn’t matter what you think or don’t think. You have to take intentional and carefully considered actions to combat fascist states. In this way, thoughts, opinions and statements cannot be anti-fascist. Only actions can be anti-fascist.
I’m not familiar with the British Monarchy so I can’t really comment on how appropriate your framing is.
What I can point out is that your statement is logically inconsistent on its face.
One can’t be neutral towards a fascist state because the fascist state won’t allow one neutral. In such a condition, anyone who claims to be neither for fascism or actively anti-fascism is pro-fascism because the condition of fascist power will direct all the labour and efforts of participants to the support of the fascist state. In such a condition, pro-fascist is the default condition, and anti-fascism can only be achieved through conscious effort and educated and effective praxis. There is no neutrality. One is not neutral in the face of fascism simply because one declares to be so.
So, if the same conditions essential to fascism are true of the British Monarchy, then the nature of the political situation is stopping Brits from being neither for or against Monarchy. If your assumption that fascism is like the British Monarchy is true, then one could only be pro-monarchy, or achieve anti-monarchy through conscious and intentional effort.
Compulsory alliance is sort of a core feature of fascism so you really must be either fascist or anti-fascist.
If fascist government is in power, it will creat a system in which non-partisan participation furthers and advances the fascist state, so one cannot “opt out”. Since a fascist system won’t entertain neutral, the question “Are you fascist or anti-fascist? You can only pick one.” Is not inherently disingenuous.
Communism does not force people into supporting it, there “neither” is an acceptable answer to “Are you communist or anti-communist” in a way that cannot be applied to fascism.
Well, Communism doesn’t force participation as long as you don’t ask the tankiis, but fuck the tankies.
