|Submited on :||Tue, 10th of Jul 2018 - 20:26:52 PM|
|Post ID :||8xolet|
|Post Name :||t3_8xolet|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2qhnn|
IMF request for CPEC contract details declined
Chris Cuomo: "Why does Trump praise bullies?"
How Both Parties Want to Handle US Saudi Relations
It's pretty well respected that this is both expected and why the Liberals can't be trusted in Leftist theory. They won't stand up for people but instead go where the populism is which puts them on the side of Fascists. Medium touched on it as well. Long read, pretty solid intro to the idea.
I am confident that what we are seeing is not actual support for the RW at this exact moment. We are seeing the failures of Neo-liberalism and the strength of Fascism intersecting. Neo-liberalism did a great job at silencing the Left for a while, and the existence of the USSR made it hard to have discussions about Socialism and other Left ideas without discussion devolving into "So you like the USSR" even when Left Critique of the USSR is well known enough to have a wiki entry with more than 60 authors.
Since the 80's we have seen Neo-liberalism slowly become more popular with very little from the Left to counter it. We have seen utilities around the world privatized, we have seen neo-imperialism exacerbate developing countries economic issues, and all of this has been done with a Left platform slowly crumbling away.
What Fascism provides is great at using Neo-liberals to their benefit, and in a world drinking the Neo-liberal kool-aid Fascism has an easy start. When those in power are already greatly richer than the rest, it's easy for them to take over State Power (neo-Liberalism helps by privatizing things first). These people, once in charge of so much, can then push the people with media and push narratives that aren't actually true by providing propaganda to citizens.
The wars Neo-liberalism started (due to Neo-imperialism) created a massive surge of refugees, who got lumped in with immigrants. This was an easy target for those who have been manipulating people already, as the argument is "Us vs them" and Them is an easy category to put people born in other countries into. So these propaganda machines those in charge control can just push opinion a little bit and it words for them.
Now we know the richest people in the US are funding think tanks and media. We also know Europeans are getting American news over things like Youtube and the people discussing US news there. And then there's the whole Russia influencing elections. My point here is that it's clear that there is lots of propaganda at play and we know it. We also know the Right Wing of the USA (of which AFD is very closely aligned) spends immense amounts on the propaganda as well as showcased.
With what I've shown already, I think I painted a picture pretty clearly that Neo-liberalism and centrism do not actively work against Fascism and instead create a ground where it can thrive and become strong. I do not think we are currently Fascist, but we are at a crossroads.
We haven't really seen a Left vision yet. Corbin is actually providing a vision, like it or not, of how to proceed in this world from a Left perspective. What are we seeing is that the Media, which I just explained was bought by the R-Wing of the society via neo-Liberalism and it's lax regulations, has unfairly treated Corbin. (London School of Economics PDF warning)
So we have media using propaganda to push neo-liberal ideas which allow Fascism to incubate and grow, and the same media is working against Left candidates. What we don't have is a unified Left voice being amplified anywhere (and I don't expect it as I tried to show). We haven't yet been through a world where R-Wing propaganda is the only one being amplified and Left propaganda is being actively silence, but we are in it now. I don't want to tell you how it will shake out either.
All I am trying to say is that where we are is the result of a long road or neo-liberal policies not being intelligently critiqued in the mainstream, consolidation of power (wealth if your Marxist) by those who historically benefit the most from Fascism, and the Left not supplying a strong counter narrative or platform via public policy for the same amount of time. Not that we are becoming Fascist, but that AFD support isn't from Fascists but people who don't have a different narrative to follow.
I don't think Fascism is the most accurate term for what we're seeing across the West at the moment. It takes influence from Fascism, I don't think that is disputed, but it's also clearly quite divergent from Fascism and they reject the label. If you really want to understand what's happening, you've got to try to understand these right-wing groups on their terms rather than looking at them through the lense of ones' own biases. Neo-nationalism might be a good term?
Well, it's also common for Fascists to reject the label because it is too concise for the public to continue to trust them and they know it.
Maybe this is a big thing that isn't expressed well, Fascists aren't generally dumb. Sure they may be dumb at something, but Einstein couldn't have built a car himself but he wasn't dumb. Being unable to do something doesn't make one dumb, and it's all too common to call an enemy "dumb" because it's easier to convince people you can beat idiots. In fact, it's why Jew's are both inferior and run the world in Nazi propaganda.
Maybe that's the thing that is being lost here. They aren't all Nazi's, but the are Fascists. They can try to pervert the word all they want, but until a new word is coined which means exactly what Fascist means, and we start using it widely knowing its meaning, I'm not going to try and coin a new word.
What would you consider listing the differences between Fascism and these modern groups? Please feel free to pull from the link outlining Fascism I provided (5th link). I do truly think the real difference between the Axis and today's Fascists is minimal. Notable, but minimal.
Well economically they're not especially fascist. None are calling for the wholesale seizure of industrial capacity by the government. They seem to flipflop between excessively free-market (with hints of disaster capitalism eg Trumpism or Brexit) to economically no different from your average social democracy (Swedish Democrats).
They're also broadly supportive of democracy in theory. If AfD get into power in Germany, they are not going to end elections and pass the Enabling Act. The Swedish Democrats will not turn Sweden into a fascist autocracy if they get elected. It's just not in their interest to do so and I don't believe they have the stomach for it anyway.
The ideologies share an awful lot of the same philosophical background but in practice I don't think they're as similar as you're suggesting. Really what I think has happened is certain 'conservative' (really radical but pretending to be conservative) elements within the West have hijacked...Caesarist rhetoric in order to mobilise support for their own agendas. But I think those agendas are entirely self interested without any real philosophical depth to them. Say what you want about fascists, but they have a well defined and well reasoned philosophy. I don't see that with these neo-nationalist parties today.
None are calling for the wholesale seizure of industrial capacity by the government
I mean, okay but neither did Hitler and he was definitely Fascist. Privatization and breaking unions is tied more closely to Fascism than government seizing control. In fact I would argue if you own the means and the government does your bidding you have in fact had the government and industry "seized" in the sense that they are working in cahoots for the betterment of the same few people.
Fascists will always be supportive of Democracy, in theory, until they aren't. This isn't crazy either. The White National movement in the US is clearly Fascist and yet doesn't talk about changing Democracy, they just gloss over how they get from a citizen being able to vote to not being able to live in their country.
I think where we are disagreeing is that you seem to not think the Conservative policies based around "Caesarist rhetoric" is not Fascist while I find it to be so. You would need to convince me that Conservative policies are not similar to Fascist policies, which is hard since they have been very big on things like Privatization, which as I said, is a term coined for how Nazi Germany handled it's economy.
I also think the leaders of the party do have the well reasoned philosophy, look at Richard Spencer talk. What they don't do is share it widely. And again, as I said, the people voting for these parties aren't generally Fascists they are the result of a society that doesn't understand how to handle Fascism because everything society has set up functions to assist Fascism while being against Fascism.
Privatization...is more closely tied to Fascism than government seizing control.
That's definitely not true. Monopolising government power over industry is a massive part of fascism. I do take your point, though, that "if you own the means and the government does your bidding..." then that is for all intents and purposes the same thing and that Nazi Germany played with business interests massively.
Fascists will always be supportive of Democracy
Also not true. Early fascists were outwardly anti-democracy from the beginning. Going back to your Hitler example, he always portrayed democracy as the Allied powers' attempt to break Germany and bend it to their will after WW1 from the beginning, as a degeneration of Germany national pride and an embarrassment. He even attempted an armed coup in 1923. Hardly the actions of an ideology which is "in theory supportive of democracy".
I'm not sure why I need to convince you that Conservative policies are not Fascist. That just sounds like your own biases talking -- again privatisation is not an inherently fascist thing, nor are Conservatism and Fascism the same (indeed they are diametrically opposed -- Fascism is inherently radical). I do take your point about "Caesarist rhetoric" though, I misspoke there when I should have just said they've hijacked fascist rhetoric.
I also think the leaders of the party do have the well reasoned philosophy, look at Richard Spencer talk. What they don't do is share it widely.
Could you give me a link to the specific talk you mention here, and perhaps some others too by other thinkers? I let my own biases show massively by characterising them as shallow thinkers and I'd like to correct that.
And again, as I said, the people voting for these parties aren't generally Fascists they are the result of a society that doesn't understand how to handle Fascism...
Agreed. I think what I'm trying to say is that it's intellectually lazy and politically motivated to characterise them as Fascists in the same way that Hitler or Mussolini were Fascists. This is clearly an evolution of Fascism in some sense and treating it as if it's the same thing as existed eighty years ago is ignoring that and, ironically, exactly what you meant when you said "...a result of a society that doesn't understand how to handle Fascism..." You've got to understand the enemy on THEIR terms if you want to defeat them.
Come on man. Origin of Privatization as a word Just look for the origin of the term even. I'm not making crazy commentary.
Hitler was in favor of democracy until he wasn't. He was literally part of a political party that was democratically elected. What argument are you making here even? Do you read 'in favor of Democracy until they aren't' not as 'used Democracy to their end' but instead as 'ran on a platform of eradicating Democracy'? If that's what you understood fine, but I meant the former and I don't find it a far reach.
I know Conservative policies aren't Fascists, did you read my post? Try it again. Conservatives exist in a political framework that helps Fascists gestate and have policies Fascists can use to begin and grow. Try reading it again if you need to, please. My first point was that neo-liberalism caused the modern Fascist's to find some power, not that neo-liberals are Fascist. Conservatives are generally Neo-liberals, although I would wager Conservatives like Sepp Gorka are actual Fascists considering their actions.
If you are looking for a great tear-down (although in a sarcastic flair) of why Trump isn't Hitler - Some More News did a great tear-down. I don't follow his general approach as my previous comment should show, but we reach similar conclusions which is interesting. Please note the comparisons between Fascism, Hitlerism, Musolinism, and even Hitlerism and how they intersect and don't (12:25). He's really well sourced when he draws his comparisons as well, which makes it interesting powerful.
Come on man. Origin of Privatization as a word Just look for the origin of the term even. I'm not making crazy commentary.
I understand the origin and source of the word. Just because it was first used to describe fascist policies doesn't make it inherently fascist though, does it? Otherwise Margaret Thatcher was a fascist, the EU are fascist for supporting privatisation, the Labour Party in the UK was fascist when it privatised certain things, Obama was fascist, etc, etc. According to your logic, the modern conception of the welfare state is inherently monarchist and ultra right-wing because it was introduced by Bismarck in Imperial Germany to placate the population. Or that workers being given the vote is inherently Conservative because it was introduced by Disraeli for the same reason. It's just a ridiculous argument to claim that privatisation is inherently fascist and, again, you're showing your own biases by claiming it is.
I know Conservative policies aren't Fascists, did you read my post
Did you? I quote:
You would need to convince me that Conservative policies are not similar to Fascist policies, which is hard since they have been very big on things like Privatization
Again you're standing on the false premise that privatisation is inherently fascist and that therefore Conservatives = like Fascists. That's a ridiculous argument and it debases the rest of your argument to claim it is.
Do you read 'in favor of Democracy until they aren't' not as 'used Democracy to their end' but instead as 'ran on a platform of eradicating Democracy'? If that's what you understood fine, but I meant the former and I don't find it a far reach.
Well how else are you meant to interpret it? If the definition of Fascism is "using democracy to your own end" then literally every politician ever elected in a democracy is a Fascist.
So your commentary on Privatization is missing the message:
The word privatization was invented to describe how Fascists operated with the economy. Neo-liberals use the same tactic/planning. This is why Fascism can be shielded within Neo-liberalism and grow unseen.
That does not mean neo-liberals are Fascist. It means they use light Fascist tactics which allow Fascism to hide. Likewise, Fascists create social safety nets for the "correct" population section which is similar to Social Democrats who are also not Fascists. Just because the idealology shares some thing in common does not make it the same thing. I'm beginning to believe you are simply a Conservative who doesn't like to have it explained that they are closer to Fascism than other political groups, which is the unfortunate reality of how the political wants correspond. That doesn't make you a Fascist, and it doesn't make Conservatives alone responsible, I tried to explain that Liberals were also responsible as they share the same general politics as Conservatives. It's not a "one group is bad" type thing here.
This covers your second point as well. Words matter. Being similar is not the same as being identical. I may look like my mother, but I am very much not her. Likewise, political approaches to the economy can mirror each other and not be the same as we have with Conservatives and Fascists. Bringing up Thatcher isn't actually a helpful point because time-lines plotting the rise of Fascism in the West generally start with Reagan and Thatcher for good reasons. Your follow up with Obama doesn't help either, because the Left doesn't like Obama regardless of what you have heard. These people are not "friends" of the Left and have been critisized for a long time for good reason.
Finally, while you make a good point about politically elected people, you are missing the forest for the trees here. It's not that other groups are just as bad, it's that Liberals believe in Democracy and keeping it around, Fascists don't. Nuance is important here, and you seem to want to strip all of it away. However removing all nuance would suggest that modern day UK is politically the same as 1790 Poland politically. That's hogwash, you know it and I know it, but they are both Constitutional Monarchies. The nuance is what matters, much like nuance is what matters when discussing the difference between Fascism and Neo-liberalism. It's worth noting Neo-liberalism is not all liberalism, just a specific flavor.
your comment really resonates with me.
Probably because the "far-right" is just right-wing and centrists are less willing and able to adopt certain policies.
The US ambassador to Germany (Mr. Grenell) has said the US will help the far-right.
“There are a lot of conservatives throughout Europe who have contacted me to say they are feeling there is a resurgence going on.”
“I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders. I think there is a groundswell of conservative policies that are taking hold because of the failed policies of the left,” he added.
“There’s no question about that and it’s an exciting time for me. I look across the landscape and we’ve got a lot of work to do but I think the election of Donald Trump has empowered individuals and people to say that they can’t just allow the political class to determine before an election takes place, who’s going to win and who should run.”
Unafraid to name names, Mr Grenell expressed a deep respect and admiration for the young Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz saying, “Look, I think Sebastian Kurz is a rockstar. I’m a big fan.”