“Hitler and Mussolini were anti-capitalism, obviously” I would suggest you become a better student of history and economics. Fascists doesn’t spring from the air, it is the most extreme form of capitalist rule. Hitler only included “socialist” in the name to fool people. He has fooled you, obviously.
I’m sorry, but the person here that is fooled is you. Capitalism and authoritarian control over society and economy are mutually exclusive.
What seems to be often missed in an analysis of fascist economics (which tended to be admittedly vague) is that authoritarians tend to be, well, authoritarians. Capitalism, which is driven not by government policy but by market forces, is decidedly NOT authoritarian in nature.
Authoritarianism in economics is not a black/white matter, I hope you understand. Even in dedicated, free market countries which private ownership of production is used, authoritarians try to control businesses by using the law to force said businesses to make certain “acceptable” decisions through regulation. And although in “socialism”, the government actually OWNS those means of production, there are variations on those themes which still permit private ownership. One would be how the Chinese government places politicians on the boards of directors of all their systemically important corporations. Another (more common in Nazi Germany) was, where the government didn’t own the means of production (they owned a LOT of it), to use the bully pulpit of the government to force business to follow the dictates of the goverment.
When it comes to authoritarianism, these are all distinctions without a difference.
If you’d like to argue how authoritarians are not really authoritarians, in reference to the above, it would be entertaining to hear your musings.
At any rate, Svetlana Voreskova has written in detail on how Fascism and Communism differed only in a few minor social factors, and that their control over the economy was, in both cases, absolute, and used the same methods. I suggest you reference a few of her postings, where she dives into detail on how Facism, Socialism, and Communism are only small variations on the Authoritarian theme.
The question is not whether one can be “anti-refugee” WITHOUT being racist, the question is what do we call people who take [meaning refuse] families fleeing for their lives from the likes of sarin and barrel-bomb attacks, and lump them in with economic immigrants and “wish to tread cautiously before entering the world of open borders” while the refugees being refused are murdered.
Two issues are in play here, now. The first is if being anti-refugee is, by definition, racist; the second attempts to glean the motivations behind someone who doesn’t seem to give a hoot about refugees fleeing an untenable theater of war.
Two different issues, I suggest you not conflate the two. Although I quite see how it’s in your best interests to attempt to do so; if one can confuse an issue enough, one can pretty much get people to agree to anything. :)
The question not whether it is possible to claim one is not racist while being anti-refugee, and possibly anti-immigrant to boot! The question is what are the real motivations of those promoting the Muslim ban, the Mexican wall, and lumping refugees in with immigrants [not you, of course] and is this campaign really designed to protect the American worker or to stoke racism?
Well, I’m no immigrant, but my inlaws are. If you want my views on all those matters, all you have to do is ask. Wouldn’t that be better than blanketing a charge of “racism” on everyone who you disagree with? Hm?
First of all, there was never a “Muslim Ban” as you well know. The TEMPORARY ban on travel and the acceptance of refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries was levied as an anti-terrorist measure. Underline “temporary”; and even many of us Muslims quite agree that there are certain countries which are hotbeds for terrorism that we’d prefer to adopt a “wait and see” attitude towards. (Oddly, the media never wants to interview us; they look around for other Muslims who want to go off on an Anti-Trump tirade.)
I should also add here that my in-laws are mostly from Syria. And some (not all) of my relatives, who had been coming here annually for decades, were inexplicably unable to get visas in 2016. Before Mr. Trump was elected.
So, you;ll forgive me if I see the lefties as a bit hypocritical on this issue, considering Mr. Obama levied restrictions which were only different in how they were implemented, but had much of the same effect.
Secondly, although I think a hard “wall” along the entire border is a bit of overkill, I see no reason why believing that borders should be enforced should be conflated with racism.
Thirdly, it seems to be accepted without question on the left that there’s some sort of political advantage in “stoking racism”. Considering the number of overt racists in the US, as measured by certain questions in the General Social Survey, is quite small (3–12%), and that the demographic for those racists is, well, let’s just say that they tend to be in the late latter stages of life………and since more americans seem to be repulsed by hyperbolic rhetoric than like it…….what’s to be gained?