We need to reach the revolutionary classes in our societies with this correctness and connect it to our normative claims and strategies. How we do that? Idk we’re still working on it. But being constantly right would be great if the rest of the strategy was worked out…
Damn I’m gonna try to get my brother to do that marathon with me there. Make it my first. Well, if it’s at all affordable
Thats Capital and its direct minions 
Wait is this real? I thought I’d seen a similar post before but don’t remember it being from her?
Anybody trying to define fascism based on the very specific characteristics of Italy, Japan, or Germany is going to run into reasons to call trump a fascist or not and be able to debate. Like the 14 from ur fascism. I don’t think that’s a useful way to spend our time. I think that the definition of “Actually Existing Fascism” from redsails is the one that is useful, and there Trump can really only be considered the current captain of a success of fascism. The US has been fascist (in expropriating from its shifting periphery) since it’s inception, and just survived the birthing pains. The “classic” fascist examples failed to become the dominant force of their own existence and thus failed. So Trump is just as much a fascist as every other American president; he just shifted the periphery to be an internal enemy instead of external.
Western definitions always find that shift mega-important, but I think Cesare’s famous quote (“fascism=colonialism turned inward”) was dialectically supposed to mean that all the expropriation at the periphery has been fascism too, not that fascism should be defined by its inward turn. That would only make the definition of fascism be an easy way to hide the oppression of the 3rd world as better than oppression of the 1st world. We Marxists should not accept that.
So yes, his fascism aims slightly different than the democrats, but of course he’s a fascist
Well there’s 2 options to accept here if we accept that society will change at some point revolutionarily: 1. (Less likely) We need to change our strategy to reach those people because they are revolutionary. That’s not someone’s fault or something that anyone deserves to have to deal with, but if we want to progress, we have to find some way to connect. Or 2. (More likely) Those people aren’t the revolutionary class, and my word “societies” needs to be interpreted more broadly to encompass whoever has the potential to revolutionarily change your society. These people may be physically far away, but we should be using our correct analysis to undergird the strategies we build with them.
I’m not dismissing the racism, sexism, abelism, or any of that, to be clear. I doubt the people expressing that in the 1st world are really part of any revolutionary potential. Or at least won’t be until some more major changes happen.