Comment on Just coincidence
redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 1 day agoI don’t disagree with you in any particular part, and almost wrote a paragraph clarifying that the swastika and fasces are not 1:1 equivalences specifically because the Nazis divorced the swastika from its original meaning for their own purposes, while the Fascists selected the fasces as their core symbol because of its already established symbolism.
However, you can understand that the circular logic of calling something “fascist” which predates the codification of “Fascism” is doing my head in. If you want to counter that that’s a semantic argument which doesn’t invalidate your point, I tend to agree, with the significant caveat that this entire discussion is semantic in nature, so it’s more relevant than usual.
Long story short, I don’t equate every example of a state using violence to achieve its purpose as fascism, though it’s certainly a necessary ingredient, so I won’t yuck your yums if you do. To me, a war memorial is an appropriate venue for the fasces to appear, given its martial and reflective nature (as in, reflecting on the past), whereas including a fasces as the centerpiece of the nation’s diplomatic emblem is significantly more concerning as a forward looking statement of intent (so to speak).
cabbage@piefed.social 1 day ago
Yeah, I was a bit on the fence writing my comment without getting into these nuances themselves, so fair game. To me, independently of whether state sanctioned violence can be legitimate, the celebration of it that is inherent to the fasces makes it impossible to distinguish the symbol from the ideology. This is not very surprising considering that the ideology is named after the symbol.
I don’t disagree with your point though. The symbol was in all likelihood not used to mirror the emerging political trends in Europe, but as a symbol in its own right. But nevertheless I maintain that any main that carved fasces into marble a hundred years ago cannot legitimately claim fascism to be a foreign ideology.