"Is Fascism Back?"

[tallslenderguy]

Johnny Harris analyzes the origins of "fascism" as in the 20th century, then fast forwards to today (around the 40 mark) and identifies several countries where he questions if they are heading towards fascism or are fascist from a list of qualifiers. Then proposes a different term "illiberal democracy"  to consider.  I'm still watching i'm at about the 45 mark.

 

[tobetrained]

extremism is for sure, both on the conservative side and liberal/progressive side. In that, both are increasing as responses to each other.

It's only when we choose to take non-extreme positions that things settle down.

[RubberAustria]

Hi!
European here. Let‘s not call it fascism but populism from the far right. AfD in Germany, FPÖ in Austria, Italy, Orban and -sorry to say- Trump. and many other examples. What they have in common: they divide society and afterwards we see the corruption and nepotism.  May the downvoting start…😱

[hntnhole]

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and forcible suppression of opposition. It prioritizes nation and often race above individual rights, aiming for a national "rebirth" through total social and economic regimentation. "

Wikipedia seems to think so .... 

[hntnhole]

2 hours ago, RubberAustria said:

Let‘s not call it fascism but populism from the far right

Thanks for that interesting response, RubberAustria.  I do have a question, however:  

How different are "fascism" and "populism from the far right"? 

The only difference I see, is that one actually happened in Europe, and the other has not yet fully come to pass here in the US.   

[tallslenderguy]

I know it's a long video/essay and not all will watch. The first 40 minutes are really setting forth the origination of fascism and how it came to be named. After the 40 minute mark, Johnny Harris interviews several scholars and experts on fascism... and, they do not all agree either, but they do come up with a list of things that typically goes along with fascism.  

i'm also concerned with the response to__________________. (whatever one calls the current group in charge).

Out of curiosity, i asked Artificial Intelligence what it 'thought': "Did Europe initially take a moderate approach to hitler?"  (i probably could have included mussolini  in that). Here's the response:

"Yes, Europe initially took a moderate approach to Hitler's rise.
In the early years of Hitler's regime, many European leaders underestimated his ambitions, believing he would moderate his aggressive policies. This cautious response was characterized by several key factors:

Policy of Appeasement

Britain and France adopted a policy of appeasement, hoping to maintain peace by conceding to some of Hitler's demands, such as the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland. This approach was largely influenced by the desire to avoid another devastating conflict after World War I.

Economic Priorities

Many European nations, particularly Britain, were focused on recovering from the Great Depression, which led to a lack of urgency regarding the threat posed by Nazi Germany.

Initial Legitimization

Early diplomatic efforts, such as the Four-Power Pact, conferred a degree of legitimacy on the Nazi regime, reflecting a reluctance to confront Hitler directly."

 

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

Out of curiosity, i asked Artificial Intelligence what it 'thought': "Did Europe initially take a moderate approach to hitler?"  (i probably could have included mussolini  in that). Here's the response:

The problem with AI, it responds based on your question. There was no "moderate approach" to Hitler. It was appeasement as he began expansion beyond Germany. As for what the Nazi's did within Germany, what was "Europe" supposed to do? Germans were angry with the conclusion of WWI and most historians today claim the two wars are single long was with a 20-ish year break. [that doesn't make them correct in their behavior]

To illustrate the point, I de-politicized your question: "What was Europe's approach to Hitler?"

A: "Europe's approach to Hitler in the 1930s was primarily characterized by a policy of appeasement, where leaders, especially British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, made concessions to avoid conflict, believing it would maintain peace. This strategy ultimately failed, as it did not prevent Hitler's aggressive expansion and led to the outbreak of World War II."

I then asked AI: "What did the Nazi's do within Germany before outward expansion?"

Political Consolidation and Control

• Elimination of Political Opposition: The Nazis quickly moved to eliminate other political parties, ensuring that the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was the only legal political entity by 1933.
• Reichstag Fire and Enabling Act: Following the Reichstag fire in February 1933, the Nazis passed the Enabling Act, which granted Hitler the power to enact laws without Reichstag approval, effectively giving him dictatorial powers.

Social Policies

• Control of Media and Education: The regime established tight control over newspapers, radio, and education to disseminate Nazi ideology and glorify Adolf Hitler.
• Youth Programs: Organizations like the Hitler Youth sought to indoctrinate young Germans with Nazi ideals and prepare them for future roles in the regime.

Racial Policies

• Nuremberg Laws (1935): These laws institutionalized racial discrimination, particularly against Jews, depriving them of citizenship and legal rights.
• Kristallnacht (1938): This pogrom against Jews included the destruction of synagogues, Jewish businesses, and the arrest of thousands, marking an escalation in anti-Semitic violence.

Economic Policies

• Public Works Projects: The Nazis initiated large-scale projects like the Autobahn, providing jobs and helping to reduce unemployment significantly.
• Militarization of the Economy: The regime focused on rebuilding the military in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, leading to increased military spending and a push for self-sufficiency.

Repression and Control

• SS and Gestapo: The Schutzstaffel (SS) and Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) were instrumental in enforcing Nazi policies, through surveillance, arrest, and persecution of dissenters.
• Concentration Camps: Early camps were established for political prisoners, later expanding to detain Jews, homosexuals, and other groups deemed undesirable.

Many of these these things define extremism and populism regardless of exact ideology.

Of these 10 bullet points above, Trump/MAGA scoring:

• Political Opposition: No. They playing politics for sure. There has been ZERO movement to eliminate other parties -- legally.
• Enabling Act: No. As yet, nothing has been proposed. Trump is absolutely taking advantage of congress' decades-long abdication of power.
• Media and Education: No. As yet, no control...beyond calling out and trying to eliminate the control from the left.
• Youth Programs: No. I haven't heard of anything...let's not forget Obama actually tried youth programs.
• Nuremberg Laws: No. Nothing proposed.
• Kristallnacht: No. Nothing proposed or enacted.
• Pubic Works: No. Nothing, if anything the reverse...some of his followers are angry over that -- see: NY/NJ tunnel project -- attempt to withhold funds.
• Militarizing the economy: Not really. Mainly to get Europe to handle it's own self-defense and not rely on the US as primary defender.
• SS and Gestape: No. Nothing has been instituted. And to some ICE accounts for this...but it's an established group to handle the undocumented. They are not legal citizens.
• Concentration Camps: No. None exist. Again, detention centers are for the undocumented before transit back to home country... not for citizens.

So @tallslenderguy, this argument is pretty weak but open to hear how it's not.

[RubberAustria]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Thanks for that interesting response, RubberAustria.  I do have a question, however:  

How different are "fascism" and "populism from the far right"? 

The only difference I see, is that one actually happened in Europe, and the other has not yet fully come to pass here in the US.   

Thanks for that discussion. I am a PHD of history. There are clear „signs“: fascism has „camps“ to lock in people. TV/ Newspaper are controlled. The still existing parliament ist just a „show“, The problem is it can happen so fast.

[tobetrained]

But I would also point out to this convo, we're also at a point where the reciprocal extremism is also here, across the West.

• An NYC Mayor who doesn't stand up for his police officers when attacked
• The French National Rally supporter killed by anti-fascists extremists -- for their assumed views of him/his group -- which including a low-ranking worker in the LFI (French far-left party)
• Yet another -- poorly planned -- assassination attempt on Trump

And this is just the last week.

[bareback-flipflop]

2 hours ago, RubberAustria said:

Thanks for that discussion. I am a PHD of history. There are clear „signs“: fascism has „camps“ to lock in people. TV/ Newspaper are controlled. The still existing parliament ist just a „show“, The problem is it can happen so fast.

As a person from one of the above mentioned countries I would confirm what you said. Perhaps it’s not the same as it was 100 years ago but there’s a lot of signs. 
However, the point is perhaps not the label but the things that happen. I have been living for almost 16 years in a country where democracy and rule of law has been building down from step by step. 
We hardly have free press, right to free assembly is restricted. The government created enemies, among them us, gays. 

They also tried to destroy the opposition, the civil society. We will have general elections in April but we must worry about not only its fairness.
It’s not an isolated phenomena. 
It’s like a virus: in even more countries the same or similar signs

 

[tallslenderguy]

20 hours ago, tobetrained said:

extremism is for sure, both on the conservative side and liberal/progressive side. In that, both are increasing as responses to each other.

It's only when we choose to take non-extreme positions that things settle down.

What "non extreme positions" will "settle down" trumps extremism?  

[PozBearWI]

58 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

What "non extreme positions" will "settle down" trumps extremism?  

I think we have a first duty, and that won't be settling down; but reversing those things which are violating our constitution; which is our agreement with each other.  When one violates those, that violates our agreement with each other.  So first, let's work off the same agreement.  If one wants to change that, put forth legislation to do that.  Else follow the constitution.  

[rawfuckingonly]

20 minutes ago, PozBearWI said:

I think we have a first duty, and that won't be settling down; but reversing those things which are violating our constitution; which is our agreement with each other.  When one violates those, that violates our agreement with each other.  So first, let's work off the same agreement.  If one wants to change that, put forth legislation to do that.  Else follow the constitution.  

Who is "we"? Who? "We" -WHO is "we"??? 

"Violating our constitution" -for example?? Please provide specific instances where "our constitution" was violated according to the left cult who continues to make that claim. 

Go ahead. The floor is yours...

Edited 4 hours ago by rawfuckingonly

[tallslenderguy]

For anyone who is interested, a google search will produce numerous examples of trump being called out for violating the constitution. i'll  quote and link one source  below.  Without a doubt, trump and his supporters will disagree.  Of course, none of "we,"  left, right or in between get to decide those things, they are being considered in our court system.  And, no doubt, there will always be disagreements with court rulings.  Where "we" do get a say in how our constitution and laws are interpreted by our government, is at the ballot box. 

One recent example where the supreme court ruled:

"... the Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that many of his tariffs—those that invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—were unconstitutional."

[think before following links] https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/times-trump-violated-constitution-ce6ac3