Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Historical Context of Fascism

ElkiElki get busyModerator, ClubPA mod
All the rules outlined in our announcement apply to this thread

This is thread will cover discussions of fascism, totalitarianism, and other modern authoritarian governments. And the parallels or lack thereof between our contemporary society and the one experienced during the rise of those governments in an effort to have a deeper understanding of the dangers presented in the Trump administration and forces driving it.

smCQ5WE.jpg
Wraith260ShadowfireMrVyngaardForarjdarksundispatch.oTetraRaykimeKaputaGiggles_FunsworthadmanbIncenjucarCambiataArmorocHellerbooyLoisLaneFencingsaxemp123Hakkekagejimb213descJoeUserBucketmanHavelock2.0TofystedethwanderingToxCantidoHeffling14357Fallout2manZilla360
«13456729

Posts

  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Let me kick this off with a question. What is a good term to describe today's Chinese brand of authoritarianism? They call it Communism™, but obviously it isn't any more. And it is gaining admiration from strongmen the world over.

    In the darkest timeline I wonder if we are inching towards a similar system. Democracy with American Characteristics. If so, what is this beast even called?

    enc0re on
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    The closest thing I can think of that the US could (note that's could, not will!) feasibly be hauled towards would be a Russian-style authoritarianism rather than the Chinese one - the "managed democracy" model where the structures are still in place as they are but where the government either plays games with the electoral process to get the 'correct' results, or neuters the non-executive branches so that they can make various noises but not actually affect policy. It'd take fewer structural changes to pull off than emulating another wholly different constitution.

    Zibblsnrt on
    NSDFRandMrVyngaardElldrenBertezBertezHakkekageWraith260InfamyDeferredDeliciousTacosToxqwer12CelestialBadgerjakobagger
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    enc0re wrote: »
    Let me kick this off with a question. What is a good term to describe today's Chinese brand of authoritarianism? They call it Communism™, but obviously it isn't any more. And it is gaining admiration from strongmen the world over.

    In the darkest timeline I wonder if we are inching towards a similar system. Democracy with American Characteristics. If so, what is this beast even called?
    I've heard "state capitalism" used to describe the Chinese system, which I think might be a good starting point. But I think the US and EU systems, contemporary Chinese system, and 1930s fascist systems could all fit under that term (with differences in the details of the relationship and distribution of power between the State and capital), so perhaps it's too vague. To a degree I think the historical and material conditions of the 20th century ended up imposing a broadly similar social structure on all or most highly industrialized societies.

    Kaputa on
    NSDFRandGiggles_FunsworthZilla360
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    Eh, I don't think China really fits under the rubric of fascism at all. China under Mao, then you definitely have a great case, but nowadays there's not a lot of relation. The Chinese people aren't united under the all-seeing leadership of one strongman, if anything defines China nowadays it's more the lack of civic engagement. Despite the occasional butting heads with America Chinese domestic rhetoric is not particularly militaristic, nor does it really try to present some sort of uniting existential threat. China has a lack of free expression, free press, and is undemocratic, but it doesn't really possess any of the particular qualities of fascism, either. And as repressive as it may be it's still following a generally liberalizing trend compared to Mao's reign.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
    ElldrenNSDFRandFakefauxThe EnderMegaMekshrykeZibblsnrtFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthVegemyteAbdhyiusKaputaQuidkimeInfamyDeferredTofystedethJuliusFallout2man
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Agreed with Zibblsnrt and Kaputa. The Chinese system is too complicated to describe with a vague label like State Capitalism. They are still structured similarly to the Soviet model with a local council (usually headed by a party member) at the village level, township, prefecture, and province level up to the National People's Congress. In addition to the NPC is the CPPCC (Committee of the People's Consultative Conference) which is an advisory body to the National People's Congress made up of social leaders and celebrities. A few years ago they experimented with limited direct democracy in a few villages, then quickly hushed it up. They've been slowly opening up their economy to foreign involvement since Deng Xiaoping succeeded Mao. Over time they've shifted from a completely command economy to a somewhat mixed market system with State Owned Enterprises, private corporations (the first private enterprise being a "sports drink" manufacturer inspired by the 84 LA Olympics), commercialization of national events (also inspired by 84 Olympics), encouraging foreign investment and adoption of foreign business management practices. In the last few years they've slowly decreased the government presence in both State Owned Enterprises and private companies.

    That's contrasted to the Russian system which underwent significant privatization under Gorbachev and then Yeltsin (with a new constitution) only to see Putin rise to power with the backing of the oligarchs (who came to rise under Yeltsin) and establish a super-presidential system. The Russian system looks similar to ours descriptively: The Duma votes on a piece of legislation after 3 readings, it goes to the Federal Council (similar to the Senate) and the same process, then goes to the Government (executive) and is signed or vetoed. If vetoed the Duma and FC can get a 2/3 majority and override. There is also a judiciary. In reality the Government (AKA Putin) proposes legislation and the Duma and FC are essentially rubber stamps. And the judiciary seeks to please Putin because he is the true arbiter of appointments/nominations. The way Putin has pushed their system the President is the sole center of gravity and everyone tangentially involved with the Federal government does what they can to curry favor with Putin and the United Russia party.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    Fallout2man
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Kana wrote: »
    Eh, I don't think China really fits under the rubric of fascism at all. China under Mao, then you definitely have a great case, but nowadays there's not a lot of relation. The Chinese people aren't united under the all-seeing leadership of one strongman, if anything defines China nowadays it's more the lack of civic engagement. Despite the occasional butting heads with America Chinese domestic rhetoric is not particularly militaristic, nor does it really try to present some sort of uniting existential threat. China has a lack of free expression, free press, and is undemocratic, but it doesn't really possess any of the particular qualities of fascism, either. And as repressive as it may be it's still following a generally liberalizing trend compared to Mao's reign.

    This is also true. From a first hand source who used to be a Chinese diplomat and worked for the NPC: most party members aren't as beholden to rhetoric anymore. "True Believers" are fading, so to speak. And part of that I imagine has to do with an institutional response to Mao after his death. Deng, who was initially "purged" but still had enough clout to become de facto successor to Mao even if not in name, openly criticized both his economic policy and his constant "social revolution". Both of which were seen as obstacles to actual economic development and caused real harm to many, many people.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    Fallout2man
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    @Elki I've had this kicking around in my drafts for a while. If you feel any of it is worthwhile, feel free to cut those bits out & put them in the OP.

    Ramblings about fascism. No pictures, sorry:
    However matters may go in France or with the French Government or with another French Government, we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have suffered we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye. And freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands—Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, all who have joined their causes to our own shall be restored.

    What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over; the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

    But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."


    What is Fascism?

    The term 'fascism' is derived from the root latin word fascio, referring to a bundle of wooden rods - an icon from the age of Roman imperialism that symbolized the authority of civic magistrates, but re-imagined & re-contextualized in 1920s Italy as an icon of strength through unity. Whereas a single wood rod on it's own may be easily broken, a bundle of rods acting as a cohesive whole is not.

    The most widely recognized grandfather of modern fascism is Benito Mussolini, perhaps better known by his nickname, 'II Duce' ('The Leader'). Mussolini led the National Fascist Party ('Partito Nazionale Fascista') in Italy, who took power in 1922 after a 4-5 year long campaign that emphasized personal strength (literal strength), intellect, and ruthlessness as the qualities Italy would need as it entered the brave new world of the 20th century. These qualities were made manifest in the PNF's activists through acts of mob violence, civil disobedience and utter disdain for existing structures of the status quo (both government structures & cultural norms).

    Fascism fundamentally frames society as an engine to empower military strength, through technical innovation, industrial growth, discipline & obedience to supposedly greater figures that best know how to wield this military strength. Almost always, fascism is alloyed to ethnic and/or religious identity politics, as some Other force is needed to provide an axiom regarding the necessity of a militarized society.

    A Brief History of Fascism

    Italy, like most of Europe, was a complete wreck after The Great War. The world had never seen that scale of violence before; the democratization of weapons like Maxim's machine gun, and later (often miniaturized) platforms built on the same principle, Bell & Wright's flying machines and the beginnings of aerial bombardment weapons & techniques result in death tolls that were just an order of magnitude+ more terrible than produced by any other conflict (at least in terms of sheer casualty figures; things do get a little more even when you factor-in population levels, but that is kind of an academic point). There was public weariness of war, but also white hot rage at the aristocratic systems that seem to have thrust this tragedy upon the world.

    Mussolini leveraged that anger to his advantage and accumulated political support on the back of scapegoating emerging socialist philosophies & old monarchies. In an October march on Rome, Mussolini essentially seized power by force; 30,000~ activist members of the PNF (known as 'Blackshirts') occupied and shut down the train station, intimidated state police and refused to allow free movement through the streets. Mussolini demanded the resignation of the current prime minister, and King Victor Emmanuel III - fearing a violent coup - capitulated to the demand. From 1922-1925, Mussolini created a secret police force that answered directly to (and only to) him, the Squadristi, and began a campaign of systemic assassinations in order to consolidate his power.

    This plan, while effective on a personal level, was probably far too short-sighted: Mussolini could not effectively manage every single government agency plus his own secret police force by himself. The Italian economy did not really collapse, because it was already in tatters - but it certainly did not recover.


    Mussolini was an effective role model & inspiration, though, for a young Austrian man living in nearby Germany - Adolf Hitler. Germany was in bad shape even by the standards of the time in Europe, with a hyper-inflated currency that people were literally burning as fuel in their fireplaces & stoves because it was cheaper to do that than buy firewood or oil. Anti-Semitism has a storied history all across Europe, but it found a swollen & throbbing heart in 1920s Germany; the economic woes of the nation were explicitly and emphatically blamed on a Jewish conspiracy by the Weimar government, and German academic wrote great volumes about 'racial theory' and how lesser races served as an economic drain on society or infiltrated its economic systems and robbed it. Whereas Mussolini was able to cultivate an audience of about 30 to 40,000 persons over 4-5 years from 1918 to 1922 by scapegoating old money & communists, Hitler accumulated his power over a longer stretch of time (from 1920 to to 1934) but with much more explosive force by scapegoating Jews: upon joining the DAP (German Worker's Party) in 1919, which would later evolve into the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or Nazi Party, Hitler found himself a member of a roughly 500~ member pittance of a movement. By 1923, Hitler's fiery speeches had swelled the party to nearly 2,000,000 members - enough that the leadership felt confident in attempting an armed coup (which failed).

    After Hitler was imprisoned for his role in the coup, Nazi membership plummeted to less than half of it's former glory... but Hitler was only jailed for about a year, and at the end of 1929 the stock market crashed. This sent Germany spiralling into what amounted to a civil war. Nazi membership exploded a second time, surging from about 800,000~ people at the time of Hitler's release from jail in 1924 to almost 14,000,000~ people in 1932. At this crucial point, Hitler declared his candidacy for German President; in the coming election the Nazis would win 230 of 577 seats in the German Parliament, the Reichstag.

    The Weimar's aristocracy was crumbling alongside the status quo in Germany, and saw in Hitler only a useful tool for personal gain and/or public manipulation. He was befriended by Franz von Papen, who assisted Hitler in navigating around the bureaucracy & loaned him political capital whenever Hitler faced opposition from either other populist parties or Von Papen's fellow aristocrats. By 1934, the Nazis occupied 288 seats in the Reichstag and Hitler remained their figurehead... and at this second crucial point, as a result of frustrations & interpersonal conflicts, Von Papen recommended to President Hindenburg that Hitler be named Chancellor of Germany. Hindenburg accepted this proposal.

    In June of the same year, Hitler assassinated former populist political allies, most members of the aristocracy (though Von Papen was spared) and opposition party leadership. He accumulated and kept close a cadre of friends & experts that had been drawn to his message during his long campaign, disposed of the democratic systems of governance and began the long road of re-industrializing and ultimately re-militarizing Germany.


    Fascism Today

    Modern fascism, until very recently, has been very poorly organized and has almost always made at least some effort to distance itself from the past (many will attribute this in no small part because the Allies refused to offer terms to Hitler other than unconditional surrender, which resulted in the complete & horrific ruin of Nazi Germany), out of a desire to retain some color of credibility.

    Stormfront was arguably the first really successful modern online community to spring-up with a no-nonsense fascist identity & explicitly outlined racial ideology:

    CONTENT WARNING: INCREDIBLY RACIST
    Welcome to Stormfront. There are a variety of "triggers" that can cause an otherwise "normal" White person to arrive here and want to listen, at least a little, to what "racists" have to say. Perhaps your neighborhood is becoming increasingly "dark" and it's getting to be time to move out ... yet again. Perhaps you wonder why the United States military is running around the globe getting involved in this-that-or-the-other Third World conflict, while the United States and Europe are being overrun with Third World immigrants. Maybe you have become alarmed by all the Mexicans, Africans or Muslims who are coming into and taking over your country or state. Perhaps you find it strange that Whites are prohibited from having a racial collective identity, while every other racial group is rewarded and encouraged to openly and zealously pursue their own group interests. Maybe you're bothered by the fact that if 40% of Whites vote for Obama, and 99% of Blacks do so, Whites are the ones called "racist". Maybe you have been wondering why the media, government and schools are so obviously and increasingly anti-White. Perhaps you got passed over for a promotion (or school admission) by the latest affirmative action hire. Maybe you've noticed that it is very strange to observe the growing national "debt" of governments which always seem to have to borrow ever more money, yet they never seem to be credited whenever new money is created. Perhaps you're bothered by how someone like Obama, with such a mysterious and shadowy background who hasn't even provided college transcripts, can seemingly come out of nowhere as a media darling and go on to become the president of the United States (and for those in Europe, the strange and harmful leadership of the European Union). Maybe you have become one of the millions of White victims of "multicultural enrichment".

    So, what the heck is wrong in the world?

    Well, if you are looking for the answer, you sure have come to the right place. But, be forewarned, the truth can be difficult to bear. I don't promise it will be easy, only that it is the truth. If given a choice, most people will choose a comforting delusion over an uncomfortable truth. It has been said that the love of money is the root of all evil, but maybe now there is a greater sin - the love of delusion, which ultimately is responsible for most of the suffering in the world - the endless wars and conflict, the poverty, the killing.

    And then there is the issue of what exactly to say. There is a lot of speculation and disagreement within our ranks as what "works" (i.e., gets Whites to see and accept the reality we face). Some people think that we should take it easy and focus on "so-and-so" and not mention some other issue or group. Some think "propaganda" should be kept simple and mindless. Some think we should use a hard core religious approach, while others think God should be kept out of it entirely. Some think we should really focus on the negative behavior of Blacks. Others think that we should focus on the positive aspects of White Western civilization and avoid saying any "bad" things about non-Whites. Still others think we should totally rebel from all forms of "Political Correctness" and be as crude as possible and really let the N-word fly.

    My own approach here is to be direct, upfront, explicit and honest. If some people can't handle that, then they can always back away, think about what they read, and just try to take in those parts that they can handle. But at least they will knooooowww because somebody had the heart to tell them. Furthermore, there will come a time for mindless propaganda for the masses, but what we need now are people who can think for themselves, accept reality, and who care about the future of their world. From these ranks the leaders and saviors of tomorrow will arise. The most valuable people today are those who can think independently, yet still be able to work together for a greater cause, not a herd of mindless sheep, nor individuals who care only about themselves. Dr. Greg Johnson's excellent article, "Premature Populism", discusses why we need to build an elite core before we can hope to win over the more general population.

    So, I'm sorry if what is written here comes as a shock. In consolation, know that most of us here went through our own unsettling awakenings from The Matrix.

    ...But it is very Web 2.0, and a little too obvious (okay, a lot too obvious) to garner a serious following.


    Breitbart News perhaps represents the modern 'second wave' of fascism, coining a new moniker for themselves - the 'alt-right' - and hiding behind just enough excuses about how all Internet behavior is just silly willy nonsense to make racists who don't want to look so racist feel comfortable at home, and doing it with an extremely slick CMS-ey presentation.
    To young people and the politically disengaged, debate in the public square today appears topsy-turvy. The regressive Left loudly insists that it stands for equality and racial justice while praising acts of racial violence and forcing white people to sit at the back of the bus (or, more accurately, the back of the campus — or in another campus altogether). It defends absurd feminist positions with no basis in fact and ridicules and demeans people on the basis of their skin colour, sexual orientation and gender.

    Meanwhile, the alt-right openly crack jokes about the Holocaust, loudly — albeit almost entirely satirically — expresses its horror at “race-mixing,” and denounces the “degeneracy” of homosexuals… while inviting Jewish gays and mixed-race Breitbart reporters to their secret dinner parties. What gives?

    If you’re this far down the article, you’ll know some of the answers already. For the meme brigade, it’s just about having fun. They have no real problem with race-mixing, homosexuality, or even diverse societies: it’s just fun to watch the mayhem and outrage that erupts when those secular shibboleths are openly mocked. These younger mischief-makers instinctively understand who the authoritarians are and why and how to poke fun at them.

    So much more polite. I don't even need the content warning.

    Breitbart News is simply the base of operations; the Pepe costumed crusaders can go off and operate their fascist satellite, with the behavior excused as either just a bunch of jokes or a few bad apples... even though Breitbart engages in centralized campaigns of harassment.


    The Other in modern times is identified with the moniker 'SJW' (Social Justice Warrior), but encompasses all of the old ethnic & racial identities that fascists have traditionally scapegoated (Jews, blacks, homosexuals, the transgender, PwDs, etc) as well as The Great New Enemies, Muslims & feminists. The new enemies seem to be afforded more hate than the old ones, but this may be simply because it's just too obvious to talk about how much you hate Jews in the same way it is too obvious to explicitly outline your racial ideology.

    With Love and Courage
    Edith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthHakkekageForarBurnageDark Raven XtemplewulfFallout2man
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?

    Military mobilization of the public, with an identifiable Other as the cause for the mobilization. It's kind of astonishing how often said Other has been Jews, all throughout history.

    With Love and Courage
    Giggles_FunsworthMrVyngaardDoodmann
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?
    Right, starting by trying to define the term is a good plan, especially since it's used so vaguely in today's political discourse. I'll take a stab at identifying what I see as its main characteristics:

    - A corporatist/statist form of capitalism
    - Political authoritarianism/a one party state
    -Nationalism

    Edit - I'd maybe add "reactionary" to the list of unifying descriptors here

    Kaputa on
    Giggles_FunsworthFallout2man
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?

    Military mobilization of the public, with an identifiable Other as the cause for the mobilization. It's kind of astonishing how often said Other has been Jews, all throughout history.

    This too somewhat confuses me. While we tend to maintain our own culture, we also blend in to mainstream culture more than most other groups. We normalize ourselves in ways other groups do not, but still often end up on the bad end. I'm sure there's much written on it but I've read precious little.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?

    Military mobilization of the public, with an identifiable Other as the cause for the mobilization. It's kind of astonishing how often said Other has been Jews, all throughout history.

    This too somewhat confuses me. While we tend to maintain our own culture, we also blend in to mainstream culture more than most other groups. We normalize ourselves in ways other groups do not, but still often end up on the bad end. I'm sure there's much written on it but I've read precious little.

    The explanation I've heard for this most often, and I think it's perfectly sensible, is that Jewish populations have always been fairly small. There's never been a large centralized Jewish kingdom or church to protect their interests, to flee to if they've felt persecuted, to speak on their behalf in diplomatic circles, etc.

    Bullies always pick on the kids least able to defend themselves. :|

    With Love and Courage
    Giggles_FunsworthMrVyngaardHounHakkekageGennenalyse RuebenFallout2man
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    The Ender wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?

    Military mobilization of the public, with an identifiable Other as the cause for the mobilization. It's kind of astonishing how often said Other has been Jews, all throughout history.

    This too somewhat confuses me. While we tend to maintain our own culture, we also blend in to mainstream culture more than most other groups. We normalize ourselves in ways other groups do not, but still often end up on the bad end. I'm sure there's much written on it but I've read precious little.

    One of the major factors for a long time was Jews not having a state of their own. So they became stateless (this was a major step for the Nazis, stripping German citizenship from the German Jews and later from the annexed/conquered countries) and without a government to protect them. Also applied to the Romani who were similarly massacred. And applies to the Armenian genocide and I think Rwanda. So that's a big one.

    EDIT: Rough outline of how it happened, procedurally in Germany:

    1) Discriminatory domestic laws (Nuremburg Laws). Forbid intermarriage between Germans and Jews, remove Jews from the civil service, etc. This was sort of de facto already, but codifying it got regular Germans ready for the next steps.
    2) Encourage emigration of Jews. Steal all their money on the way out.
    3) Strip citizenship.
    4) Forced emigration.
    5) Concentration in the ghettoes
    6) Final Solution

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    The EnderSleepLoisLaneHellerbooylonelyahavaFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthVegemyteMrVyngaardDarkPrimusHakkekageSmrtnikGennenalyse RuebenvalianceFallout2man
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    The Ender wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?

    Military mobilization of the public, with an identifiable Other as the cause for the mobilization. It's kind of astonishing how often said Other has been Jews, all throughout history.

    This too somewhat confuses me. While we tend to maintain our own culture, we also blend in to mainstream culture more than most other groups. We normalize ourselves in ways other groups do not, but still often end up on the bad end. I'm sure there's much written on it but I've read precious little.

    One of the major factors for a long time was Jews not having a state of their own. So they became stateless (this was a major step for the Nazis, stripping German citizenship from the German Jews and later from the annexed/conquered countries) and without a government to protect them. Also applied to the Romani who were similarly massacred. And applies to the Armenian genocide and I think Rwanda. So that's a big one.

    The lack of a State is often seen as why we were unable to defend ourselves, but I've rarely seen it used to understand why we were attacked in the first place. Huh. It's an interesting topic but I probably shouldn't tangent this too hard on the first page.

    Back to fascists.

    Edit for your edit: the Yad Vashem is painfully clear on those steps. I keep them in mind when observing current affairs.

    Frankiedarling on
  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    The idea of Jews being other was brought up on this forum before. I cannot remember the originator of my understanding. I want to say it was hake, but I could be wrong.

    Anyways the short version is that, before the holocaust, Jews separated themselves from gentiles. You could tell who was Jewish because of their clothing or their hair. They really did stand out more back then. During and after the holocaust blending in took on a survival role. We assimilated into the secular culture as a survival tactic, which may explain why it's so hard, now, to think of how Jews are seen as other. But it's the historical view of Jews that leads them to consistently be placed into the other category.

    The Enderlonelyahava
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    Worth reading in my opinion:

    "What is Fascism and How to Fight It," a compilation of some of Leon Trotsky's writings on the subject, mostly from the 1930s. His analysis is entirely Marxist in perspective (obviously), but is pretty insightful and valuable. The full pieces from which the excerpts are drawn can be found on the site too.

    Kaputa on
    ElldrenThe EnderGiggles_FunsworthMartini_PhilosopherBlackDragon480balerbower
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?

    Military mobilization of the public, with an identifiable Other as the cause for the mobilization. It's kind of astonishing how often said Other has been Jews, all throughout history.

    This too somewhat confuses me. While we tend to maintain our own culture, we also blend in to mainstream culture more than most other groups. We normalize ourselves in ways other groups do not, but still often end up on the bad end. I'm sure there's much written on it but I've read precious little.

    One of the major factors for a long time was Jews not having a state of their own. So they became stateless (this was a major step for the Nazis, stripping German citizenship from the German Jews and later from the annexed/conquered countries) and without a government to protect them. Also applied to the Romani who were similarly massacred. And applies to the Armenian genocide and I think Rwanda. So that's a big one.

    The lack of a State is often seen as why we were unable to defend ourselves, but I've rarely seen it used to understand why we were attacked in the first place. Huh. It's an interesting topic but I probably shouldn't tangent this too hard on the first page.

    Back to fascists.

    Edit for your edit: the Yad Vashem is painfully clear on those steps. I keep them in mind when observing current affairs.

    It's not really a tangent. The scapegoating of all the nation's ills, real and imagined, onto a set of vulnerable minorities is one of the defining features of fascism

    fuck gendered marketing
    The EnderHellerbooyshrykeHakkekageBurnageGennenalyse RuebenTofystedeth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?
    Right, starting by trying to define the term is a good plan, especially since it's used so vaguely in today's political discourse. I'll take a stab at identifying what I see as it's main characteristics:

    - A corporatist/statist form of capitalism
    - Political authoritarianism/a one party state
    -Nationalism

    Edit - I'd maybe add "reactionary" to the list of unifying descriptors here

    Reference to past glory (a specific kind of nationalism) and disdain for the truth seem like big ones to me.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    ElldrenMegaMekKaputaMrVyngaarddescGennenalyse RuebenZibblsnrt
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?
    Right, starting by trying to define the term is a good plan, especially since it's used so vaguely in today's political discourse. I'll take a stab at identifying what I see as it's main characteristics:

    - A corporatist/statist form of capitalism
    - Political authoritarianism/a one party state
    -Nationalism

    Edit - I'd maybe add "reactionary" to the list of unifying descriptors here

    Reference to past glory (a specific kind of nationalism) and disdain for the truth seem like big ones to me.

    Yes. There is always a call to reclaim greatness

    fuck gendered marketing
    The EnderGiggles_FunsworthMrVyngaard14357
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I would argue against including capitalism (in any form) as intrinsic to fascism.

    The traditional model of capitalism (you work for a company, whether state owned or privately owned, derive a wage from that work and can theoretically become a 'self made man' through this process) was not really in effect in the most traditional fascist states (Italy, Japan & Germany), nor in more modern states given the moniker (North Korea, Iraq, etc). Often the trappings are there to some extent, but fundamentally fascist states must rely on slave labor to accomplish their goals. Often there is a sort of hierarchy of slavery - chattel slaves made of Others, peasant slaves working for The Cause and living ghettos, conscripts filling-out military ranks as ablative fodder, etc.

    People working for no wage and without even the illusion of career opportunities are another hallmark of fascist governance.

    With Love and Courage
    ElldrenSolomaxwell6Martini_Philosopher
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2017
    the Chinese system has an internal ideological consistency as a Dengist communist system, with an explicit rejection of symbolic revolutionary politics (hence the black cat/white cat remark), and an affirmation of the importance of administering/advancing the means of production and maintaining a broad mandate/consensus/zeitgeist/revolutionary consciousness, whilst taking a pragmatic approach to other elements of class struggle

    in the present it takes the rhetorical form of Jiang Zemin's three represents but I am not an expert

    regardless, at least internally, it has no problems rationalising itself as communist

    externally, from the pov of Western observers there's a 2000s notion of a Beijing Consensus, which has a descent from the 1990s Asian Values discourse (note the tacit contradiction over whether it is an Asian idiosyncrasy or universal model). In common it has a relatively small group of political elites that set and demarcate political discourse, a strong, massive, and politically-insulated civil service, a weak civil society, and an internally competitive politics where government is legitimised by (supposedly) consensus/objective measures of its administrative performance.

    authoritarian and corporatist, certainly, but a key element is the conscious depoliticization of most elements of daily life. Mass participation in state initiatives is not required; acquiescence is always an option; the state may consult the public but begins, moderates, and ends such consultation sessions at its own discretion. Repression is idealised as selective and targeted; productive co-optation is celebrated; clumsy mass arrests and police confrontations are a marker of the worst possible sin of governments, namely poor performance.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
    Elldren
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    A question, on my part: what is contemporary Russia up to, and how is it understood and conceptualised, especially domestically?

    aRkpc.gif
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    edited February 2017
    The Ender wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Damn, political theory of non-democratic governmental systems is my jam (the day my family wins the lottery is the day i fuck off to get a PoliSci PhD, till then a man's gotta work).

    At first glance, Fascism seems like the most fascinating of the non-democratic forms of modern government. It took inspiration from Bolshevism in the idea of having a vanguard party entrusted to transform society (in this case, to remake society into something strong enough to survive the forces of 20th-century change). It takes the methods of socialism and uses them to reinforce the norms of the anti-enlightenment reaction, using modernism to reject modernism.

    Unlike Bolshevism, though, practically every version of it was different. Baathism, Nasserism, the OG Italian Fascism, Francoism, the Iron Guard, the Guomindong, and the Nazis, all could have some claim to the ideology but all had very different ideals. So what ties them together?

    Military mobilization of the public, with an identifiable Other as the cause for the mobilization. It's kind of astonishing how often said Other has been Jews, all throughout history.

    This too somewhat confuses me. While we tend to maintain our own culture, we also blend in to mainstream culture more than most other groups. We normalize ourselves in ways other groups do not, but still often end up on the bad end. I'm sure there's much written on it but I've read precious little.

    One of the major factors for a long time was Jews not having a state of their own. So they became stateless (this was a major step for the Nazis, stripping German citizenship from the German Jews and later from the annexed/conquered countries) and without a government to protect them. Also applied to the Romani who were similarly massacred. And applies to the Armenian genocide and I think Rwanda. So that's a big one.

    EDIT: Rough outline of how it happened, procedurally in Germany:

    1) Discriminatory domestic laws (Nuremburg Laws). Forbid intermarriage between Germans and Jews, remove Jews from the civil service, etc. This was sort of de facto already, but codifying it got regular Germans ready for the next steps.
    2) Encourage emigration of Jews. Steal all their money on the way out.
    3) Strip citizenship.
    4) Forced emigration.
    5) Concentration in the ghettoes
    6) Final Solution

    Going back a bit further, according to "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (as far as I've read), the Jewish people in general acted as a population with similar mores, but who were both considered and considered themselves not fully a member of those nation-states. Effectively, they were a trans-European population: needed by the aristocracy and bourgeois, lending to them, granted privileges by them, but still somewhat apart. Emancipation, perversely, would have lead to greater integration, and so I think I read in there that there was pushback from within? (I need to re-read that section and take notes. Not a good bathroom book at ALL). In any case, it was to both the Jews and the aristocracy's benefit to have the Jews acting as an independent, trans-European people, there to act as neutral go-betweens.

    The Jews in general stepped in as money-lenders at both local levels, and higher up within the aristocracy (and later on, as it formed, full-blown nation-states). From what I understand, this lead to curious state of affairs where the Jews were awarded privileges commensurate to their importance to the aristocracy, but that they didn't use those privileges for political power. This meant that as the nation-states were forming, and previous power arrangements were being reshuffled (as the aristocracy lost power and the nation-state came about), they ended up both everywhere, powerless, and the face of the moneylender who wants to repossess your farm after you've had a few bad seasons. Some groups capitalized on that combination and there rose the modern anti-Semitic arguments--back in the 1700s.

    I've undoubtedly gotten details wrong, so anybody with a better understanding of that time of history as it relates to the Jewish people, please speak up.

    It's weird reading about how the Rothschilds became pre-eminent, the claims that they were the power behind the throne--and then have the argument come back that no, they're not and never have been--according to Arendt, anyway.

    And yet 300 years later we still see these claims of international banking conspiracies headed by the Jews.

    Orca on
    evilthecat wrote: »
    "Bioware I want to suck on your teets of gamingness".

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
  • kowikowi Registered User regular
    The idea of Jews being other was brought up on this forum before. I cannot remember the originator of my understanding. I want to say it was hake, but I could be wrong.

    Anyways the short version is that, before the holocaust, Jews separated themselves from gentiles. You could tell who was Jewish because of their clothing or their hair. They really did stand out more back then. During and after the holocaust blending in took on a survival role. We assimilated into the secular culture as a survival tactic, which may explain why it's so hard, now, to think of how Jews are seen as other. But it's the historical view of Jews that leads them to consistently be placed into the other category.

    There is a high possibility that Jews will get themselves in category which separates them from others.

    PSN: kowi - WiiU: kowi - XBL: KoWi - twitch.tv/kowi profile.png - "Yes, Kowi is the King of All" - smilie.png Unbreakable Vow
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I would argue against including capitalism (in any form) as intrinsic to fascism.

    The traditional model of capitalism (you work for a company, whether state owned or privately owned, derive a wage from that work and can theoretically become a 'self made man' through this process) was not really in effect in the most traditional fascist states (Italy, Japan & Germany), nor in more modern states given the moniker (North Korea, Iraq, etc). Often the trappings are there to some extent, but fundamentally fascist states must rely on slave labor to accomplish their goals. Often there is a sort of hierarchy of slavery - chattel slaves made of Others, peasant slaves working for The Cause and living ghettos, conscripts filling-out military ranks as ablative fodder, etc.

    People working for no wage and without even the illusion of career opportunities are another hallmark of fascist governance.

    To me, the idea that slave labor is incompatible with capitalism can be handily disproven by a cursory study of United States history.

    In the context of Nazi Germany, Hitler left the power structures of corporate capitalism pretty much entirely untouched other than appropriating those businesses owned by Jews. Compared to Marxist authoritarian governments (including North Korea), Fascist governments have been intrinsically pro-capitalist both in practical terms and in many cases ideological ones.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    In the context of Nazi Germany, Hitler left the power structures of corporate capitalism pretty much entirely untouched other than appropriating those businesses owned by Jews. Compared to Marxist authoritarian governments (including North Korea), Fascist governments have been intrinsically pro-capitalist both in practical terms and in many cases ideological ones.

    this is untrue as stated; industrialists mostly did not find the Nazi regime objectionable (some notable non-Jewish figures excepting; the arc of Thyssen is especially well-known). But in the pre-war buildup period, the Nazi government passed laws vastly empowering the economics ministry under Hjalmar Schact, up to and including rigid price controls that depressed profits, and vast state infrastructure projects funded by "contributions" from industrialist families (given that the NSDAP had spent the Weimar period assailing governments for those same infrastructure projects as giveaways to Jewish businesses and was now busy literally beating them up...).

    Of course, we know how the Nazis kept the industrialists happy on net: at first, merely resist Versailles, and eventually simply steal enough French and Belgian and Polish capital and resources to postpone the collapse in the balance sheet. Which was not very nice, to say the least. But to say that the nature of capitalist power remained unchallenged is dubious: non-German capital did not find the period especially pleasant, and the German conservative industrialists were certainly surprised by how powerless they would be in the relationship.

    They were not alone in thinking that they could leverage the 1930-1932 Nazi street machine to their benefit, as I remarked in the other thread: the KPD thought it could do so, too, and was equally wrong.

    aRkpc.gif
    ElldrenThe EnderGiggles_FunsworthMrVyngaardFeralGennenalyse Rueben
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    In the context of Nazi Germany, Hitler left the power structures of corporate capitalism pretty much entirely untouched other than appropriating those businesses owned by Jews. Compared to Marxist authoritarian governments (including North Korea), Fascist governments have been intrinsically pro-capitalist both in practical terms and in many cases ideological ones.

    this is untrue as stated; industrialists mostly did not find the Nazi regime objectionable (some notable non-Jewish figures excepting; the arc of Thyssen is especially well-known). But in the pre-war buildup period, the Nazi government passed laws vastly empowering the economics ministry under Hjalmar Schact, up to and including rigid price controls that depressed profits, and vast state infrastructure projects funded by "contributions" from industrialist families (given that the NSDAP had spent the Weimar period assailing governments for those same infrastructure projects as giveaways to Jewish businesses and was now busy literally beating them up...).

    Of course, we know how the Nazis kept the industrialists happy on net: at first, merely resist Versailles, and eventually simply steal enough French and Belgian and Polish capital and resources to postpone the collapse in the balance sheet. Which was not very nice, to say the least. But to say that the nature of capitalist power remained unchallenged is dubious: non-German capital did not find the period especially pleasant, and the German conservative industrialists were certainly surprised by how powerless they would be in the relationship.

    They were not alone in thinking that they could leverage the 1930-1932 Nazi street machine to their benefit, as I remarked in the other thread: the KPD thought it could do so, too, and was equally wrong.

    Well, everyone thought the jumped up raving madman would have to be stymied or would at least burn himself out at some point, so they all ignored him and jockeyed for position. Underestimating him, it turns out, was a bad idea.

    Something to keep in mind 80 years later.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    MrVyngaardSmrtnikGennenalyse RuebenCaptain InertiaV1mCelestialBadger
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Mortius is correct Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    The idea of Jews being other was brought up on this forum before. I cannot remember the originator of my understanding. I want to say it was hake, but I could be wrong.

    Anyways the short version is that, before the holocaust, Jews separated themselves from gentiles. You could tell who was Jewish because of their clothing or their hair. They really did stand out more back then. During and after the holocaust blending in took on a survival role. We assimilated into the secular culture as a survival tactic, which may explain why it's so hard, now, to think of how Jews are seen as other. But it's the historical view of Jews that leads them to consistently be placed into the other category.

    All of this has happened before, and all of it will likely happen again. It's not just a line from Battlestar Galactica, it's the history of the Jewish people.

    We have always been the Other, because that is what we were commanded to be. We were monotheistic and surrounded by pantheons. We circumcised our boys and our women wore their hair covered. We were slaves in Egypt (according to our history. i'm not going to get into a side debate about the authenticity of that biblical story) with our own centers of life and culture. We were outcast by the Babylonians, hounded by the Romans, persecuted by the Chrisitans, almost equal with the Caliphate, accused of Blood Libel, victims of Pogroms, locked into ghettos, and slaughtered in the Holocaust.

    From the Biblical stories of Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Moses, Esther, and many others, we have been taught from a young age that we are Other. We are the Chosen people, the People of the Book. We are the ones beloved and tested of God and as such we must notbe combined with the primary peoples. We study in our own temples, we pray in our own language, and we take care of our own community. And we're taught that this is how it is from the very frist time we go into Hebrew School (if that's a thing that you do).

    Taking all of that into account and realizing that most of the Hebrew school education that we got as kids was moving through Jewish History as it relates to 'who wants to kill us this century', it's no wonder that most American Jews seem to have internalized this truth. No matter how much you think you are a part of the greater community, you will always really be an Other. It's a hard mindset to explain to non-Jews, but it's still there.

    And that's why this whole new rise of facism has so many of us scared as hell. Sure, we're not the obvious targets at this time, but we know this song, we recognize the opening chords, and the baseline is as familiar to us as our heartbeats.

    mRahmaniCaptain Inertia
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    quite. a post I made in [chat], a while ago:
    ronya wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    aha:
    Berlin’s violence led Speier to question the willingness of economic proletarians,
    blue- and white-collar workers who were financially lower class, to support the SPD.
    Moreover, his experiences with workers at the Hochschule and in the SPD’s Labor
    Education Office provoked Speier to conclude that workers were not apolitical, but antipolitical.
    When researching for a seminar on unemployment at the Hochschule, Speier
    met with dozens of workers and their families, where he “saw many families who were
    Nazis today, [but] tomorrow became communists, or were communists yesterday, and
    today they have become Nazis. It depended partly on chance, [partly on] where there was
    more beer, or where there was more noise. I had the feeling that there was not a very big
    difference” between worker support for the Nazis and communists.104 What mattered to
    Speier was that workers were easily duped. By the time of his immigration, he had
    concluded that workers “lacked class consciousness” and the “great majority … did not
    belong to the Social Democracy, [and] were even hostile to it.”105 In Speier’s opinion,
    workers wanted to become middle class and felt no sense of solidarity with fellow
    proletarians. Moreover, those who were politically active were violent extremists. His
    experiences convinced him that salvation was not to be found in the working classes.106

    104:
    104 “Gesprächsweise Mitteilungen zu einer intellektuellen Autobiographie,” Speier Papers, Box 2, Folder 31, 16.

    What heartening historical observations I feel secure and safe in our future now thanks ronya

    RXxONnfh.png
    LUH4qCUh.png
    yqrFPjVh.png

    aRkpc.gif
    HakkekageDoodmannFencingsaxArdolZilla360
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2017
    I will say again that Trump lacks the extraparliamentary street machine that made the Nazis so dangerous.

    But a lot can change across an eight year term, and who knows how resilient the cosmopolitan conventional wisdom is, really? It is only too easy to distract civil society with inconsequentialities whilst undermining the political independence of the civil service and judiciary.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
    The EnderMrVyngaardHakkekageFeralMartini_PhilosopherBurnageGennenalyse RuebenArdolEdith UpwardsHavelock2.0JuliusZilla360
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    I will say again that Trump lacks the extraparliamentary street machine that made the Nazis so dangerous.

    But a lot can change across an eight year term, and who knows how resilient the cosmopolitan conventional wisdom is, really? It is only too easy to distract civil society with inconsequentialities whilst undermining the political independence of the civil service and judiciary.

    Yeah; the lack of SA is the only thing keeping me from panicking.


    I mostly just worry now about what the cover of war will bring. At the end of the day the death camps were in occupied territory, and the killings no doubt seemed less an alien act when the whole world was on fire.

    With Love and Courage
    MrVyngaardKayne Red Robe
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    I will say again that Trump lacks the extraparliamentary street machine that made the Nazis so dangerous.

    But a lot can change across an eight year term, and who knows how resilient the cosmopolitan conventional wisdom is, really? It is only too easy to distract civil society with inconsequentialities whilst undermining the political independence of the civil service and judiciary.

    Police in this country are itching to crack down on minorities.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    MegaMekGiggles_FunsworthMatevElldrenMrVyngaardSleepjdarksunHakkekageQuidMartini_PhilosopherIncenjucaradmanbArdolEdith UpwardsEinzelCelestialBadgerTransporter
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    a big, televised race riot and confrontation with the police would be jet fuel for the Trump fire: given the steady fall in crime, something else needs to occupy idle imaginations instead. something more concrete than the bowling green massacre.

    aRkpc.gif
    The EnderMegaMekMrVyngaard
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    Of course the thing with America is that unlike in smaller, more centralized states, there is no "The Police". Even in the case of a riot, Trump is not in the chain of command of the police who will actually be at a riot or protest. Nor is he free to just send federal police or troops in willy nilly.

    And let's be real here, if there's one thing we've seen definitively about America over the last umpteen years, it's that America is very comfortable not responding to violence in black neighborhoods.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
    Giggles_FunsworthElldrenElvenshaeCptKemzikFencingsaxadmanb
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Kana wrote: »
    Of course the thing with America is that unlike in smaller, more centralized states, there is no "The Police". Even in the case of a riot, Trump is not in the chain of command of the police who will actually be at a riot or protest. Nor is he free to just send federal police or troops in willy nilly.

    And let's be real here, if there's one thing we've seen definitively about America over the last umpteen years, it's that America is very comfortable not responding to violence in black neighborhoods.

    I would not be so confident about the supposed security of a large geographic area protecting against consolidated authority over the police; the Soivet Union dwarfed the U.S. in size, and Stalin was quite able to create a strong cult of personality and keep the NKVD a relevant force.

    With Love and Courage
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    he could federalize the national guard and order them to do foolhardy things

    aRkpc.gif
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    he could federalize the national guard and order them to do foolhardy things

    I wouldn't exactly bet on this, but a nightmare scenario in the back of my mind is that the Bundy bunch start kicking-up shit again... and Trump goes out and basically deputizes them & their militia supporters.

    Oathkeepers have chapters in just about every state.

    With Love and Courage
    Giggles_FunsworthMrVyngaardSleepjdarksunOrcadispatch.oIncenjucarGennenalyse Rueben
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2017
    ronya wrote: »
    he could federalize the national guard and order them to do foolhardy things

    There are limits to Title 10 Orders (Federal orders for National Guard components). Not only are there time limits (in case of war or declared national emergency duration of the national emergency or war plus 6 months) but they cannot be put on Title 10 Orders for domestic actions. When National Guard units respond to domestic emergencies it's under the authority of the governor of their state. Reserve components don't respond to domestic emergencies because they aren't under the authority of whatever state they are in.

    NSDFRand on
    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Kana wrote: »
    Of course the thing with America is that unlike in smaller, more centralized states, there is no "The Police". Even in the case of a riot, Trump is not in the chain of command of the police who will actually be at a riot or protest. Nor is he free to just send federal police or troops in willy nilly.

    And let's be real here, if there's one thing we've seen definitively about America over the last umpteen years, it's that America is very comfortable not responding to violence in black neighborhoods.

    I would not be so confident about the supposed security of a large geographic area protecting against consolidated authority over the police; the Soivet Union dwarfed the U.S. in size, and Stalin was quite able to create a strong cult of personality and keep the NKVD a relevant force.

    This is just a completely ridiculous comparison.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
    ElldrenElvenshaeTynnanFencingsax
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    he could federalize the national guard and order them to do foolhardy things

    I wouldn't exactly bet on this, but a nightmare scenario in the back of my mind is that the Bundy bunch start kicking-up shit again... and Trump goes out and basically deputizes them & their militia supporters.

    Oathkeepers have chapters in just about every state.

    The more likely scenario is CBP becomes the Federal Police. They have jurisdiction within 100 miles of the US Border, including the coasts. That's almost every city of any import within the country. And they are just chock full of awful sadistic people who wouldn't give a fuck.

    MrVyngaardSleepDoodmannOrcadispatch.oFeralGennenalyse RuebenEdith Upwards
«13456729
Sign In or Register to comment.