As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Historical Context of Fascism

1202123252630

Posts

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The nice thing about French presidential is that they have 2 rounds, so we can track preference ranking a bit.

    From Wikipedia:

    Hamon: 6.4 % first round. Spread as 71% Macron, 2% Le Pen, 27 % Urg in the second round.
    Mélenchon: 19.6% in the first round. Spread as 52% Macron, 7% Le Pen, 41 % Urg.
    Fillon: 20.0% in the first round. Spread as 48% Macron, 20% Le Pen, 32 % Urg.
    Dupont-Aignan: 4.18% in the first round. Spread as 27% Macron, 30% Le Pen and 43% Urg.
    Macron: 24.0% in the first round.
    Le Pen: 21.3% in the first round. Somehow lost 3% of those to Macron in the second round.

    Hamon is from the same party as Macron, with the same overall policies.
    Dupoint-Aignan and Fillon are both from Sarkozi's party and are neoliberals.

    So, the more neoliberal someone's preferred candidate is, the more likely they were to vote for a fascist if they can't have their first choice.
    And that's when the second option was also a neoliberal.
    A second round between Mélenchon et Le Pen would have been terrifying because of that.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    As I recal the Second World War was a teamup between leftists and centrists against fascists. This idea that the only people who ever fight fascists are far left is designed to divide us.

    Er, I don't think that is remotely the same context, given that Germany attacked Russia and France. (Well, also Poland... with Russia. Uhm. It's complicated.) Like... it wasn't like the UK and France just decided to do something about the fascists in Germany. Indeed, Chamberlain continues to be excoriated for not doing anything while the Nazis took over central Europe.

    Meanwhile, the fascists and the communists were very much fighting a civil war over in Spain, while the Western Allies pursued a policy of non-intervention in Spain.

    The entirety of WWII in Europe basically fits into, not repudiates, Sammich's narrative of "centrists" standing back and watching the fascists until it's too late.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Honestly, I think it's naive to assume that fascist allies are allies due to some peculiarity of their version of liberalism or anything to do with the left vs center.

    They're just
    A: Embarrassed fascists
    B: Apolitical assholes doing whatever gives them personally the most power and/or money in the moment

    A true ideological neoliberal should be aggressively opposed to fascism, by any of the like 7 billion definitions that term has.

    Seriously, to further show how dumb every term with 'liberal' in it is in terms of accurately delineating political ideologies, let's look at neoliberal.

    You have it being used to refer explicitly to NOT laissez-faire policies, even for like support of social market economies, in the 30s. Then vanishing in the 60s only to come back as radical laissez-faire stuff in the 80s and 90s, the term coming to be synonymous with radical deregulation and privatization.

    But you also have it defined in places as encompassing everything between social democrats and libertarians, with an emphasis on the importance of wealth redistribution and state intervention to keep the hard edges off capitalism.

    The first part is Reagan and Thatcher, then the second is Clinton Third Way and Blair New Labour.

    Third Way and New Labour turned out to be dead ends though politically. All it succeeded in doing is destroying the labor backing of the Democrats and Labour, while the business types still preferred the Republicans and Tories.

    To expand a bit, the center of the center-left, in adopting neoliberal positions including the drawing down of the welfare state and union power, broke the social contract between labor and capital that had been bloodily negotiated in the West over a century of labor disputes, revolutions, and two World Wars - that labor would get a seat that the table through the center-left parties and coalitions.

    That leads us where we are today, where people who used to be represented by the labor wings of center-left parties and coalitions are now voting for populist, nationalist, fascist, or theocratic parties instead.

    This article has more detail: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-rise-and-fall-of-clintonism/

    That's all completely backwards though. Labour was already long-dying by that point. The whole reason for the New Democrats was that the previous coalition had already fallen because labour cut it's own throat back during the civil rights era and the right-wing coalition was steadily dominating the political landscape. It was a reaction to the destruction of labour's political power, not the cause of it.

    Nixon sold a fascist-like ideology to the public in reaction to the instability of the civil rights era and vietnam and all that whole time and it worked. The current blooming of fascism in the Republican party is merely the endpoint of that decision.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    redx wrote: »
    As I recal the Second World War was a teamup between leftists and centrists against fascists. This idea that the only people who ever fight fascists are far left is designed to divide us.

    Meh.

    Who got involved in WWII before they felt they were directly threatened?

    Well... technically, the British and French "got involved" when Germany invaded Poland... with Russia. So. I guess they did "get involved" before they were directly threatened. That being said, they didn't get involved until after German had subsumed Austria and Czechoslovakia, and said "involvement" was just a detente in which they dropped fliers on Germany until the Nazis bypassed the Maginot line, soooooo....

    And then the Soviets didn't get involved until they were attacked.

    And then the Americans didn't get involved until they were attacked.


    ... there were a lot of people not getting involved until they got attacked, is what I'm saying. At which point I'm not sure how much credit they deserve for fighting fascism.

    hippofant on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    In the US case that's a kind of narrow definition of getting involved. We were in the war by March of '41 at the latest. It just wasn't declared yet.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Honestly, I think it's naive to assume that fascist allies are allies due to some peculiarity of their version of liberalism or anything to do with the left vs center.

    They're just
    A: Embarrassed fascists
    B: Apolitical assholes doing whatever gives them personally the most power and/or money in the moment

    A true ideological neoliberal should be aggressively opposed to fascism, by any of the like 7 billion definitions that term has.

    Seriously, to further show how dumb every term with 'liberal' in it is in terms of accurately delineating political ideologies, let's look at neoliberal.

    You have it being used to refer explicitly to NOT laissez-faire policies, even for like support of social market economies, in the 30s. Then vanishing in the 60s only to come back as radical laissez-faire stuff in the 80s and 90s, the term coming to be synonymous with radical deregulation and privatization.

    But you also have it defined in places as encompassing everything between social democrats and libertarians, with an emphasis on the importance of wealth redistribution and state intervention to keep the hard edges off capitalism.

    The first part is Reagan and Thatcher, then the second is Clinton Third Way and Blair New Labour.

    Third Way and New Labour turned out to be dead ends though politically. All it succeeded in doing is destroying the labor backing of the Democrats and Labour, while the business types still preferred the Republicans and Tories.

    To expand a bit, the center of the center-left, in adopting neoliberal positions including the drawing down of the welfare state and union power, broke the social contract between labor and capital that had been bloodily negotiated in the West over a century of labor disputes, revolutions, and two World Wars - that labor would get a seat that the table through the center-left parties and coalitions.

    That leads us where we are today, where people who used to be represented by the labor wings of center-left parties and coalitions are now voting for populist, nationalist, fascist, or theocratic parties instead.

    This article has more detail: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-rise-and-fall-of-clintonism/

    That's all completely backwards though. Labour was already long-dying by that point. The whole reason for the New Democrats was that the previous coalition had already fallen because labour cut it's own throat back during the civil rights era and the right-wing coalition was steadily dominating the political landscape. It was a reaction to the destruction of labour's political power, not the cause of it.

    Nixon sold a fascist-like ideology to the public in reaction to the instability of the civil rights era and vietnam and all that whole time and it worked. The current blooming of fascism in the Republican party is merely the endpoint of that decision.

    And to continue on my prior point. This was compounded in 1980 when the unions split for Reagan. They were called “Reagan Democrats” and they stayed wih the Republican party even though we ran an even more pro labor candidate in Mondale the next election.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Considering how the left is going in Britain, I think the left is as effective at opposing fascism as anyone else.

    Which is why fascism is so insidious. It specifically exploits weaknesses in unity in order to gain it's own power, amd doesn't particularly care where that power comes from.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    Honestly, I think it's naive to assume that fascist allies are allies due to some peculiarity of their version of liberalism or anything to do with the left vs center.

    They're just
    A: Embarrassed fascists
    B: Apolitical assholes doing whatever gives them personally the most power and/or money in the moment

    A true ideological neoliberal should be aggressively opposed to fascism, by any of the like 7 billion definitions that term has.

    Seriously, to further show how dumb every term with 'liberal' in it is in terms of accurately delineating political ideologies, let's look at neoliberal.

    You have it being used to refer explicitly to NOT laissez-faire policies, even for like support of social market economies, in the 30s. Then vanishing in the 60s only to come back as radical laissez-faire stuff in the 80s and 90s, the term coming to be synonymous with radical deregulation and privatization.

    But you also have it defined in places as encompassing everything between social democrats and libertarians, with an emphasis on the importance of wealth redistribution and state intervention to keep the hard edges off capitalism.

    The first part is Reagan and Thatcher, then the second is Clinton Third Way and Blair New Labour.

    Third Way and New Labour turned out to be dead ends though politically. All it succeeded in doing is destroying the labor backing of the Democrats and Labour, while the business types still preferred the Republicans and Tories.

    To expand a bit, the center of the center-left, in adopting neoliberal positions including the drawing down of the welfare state and union power, broke the social contract between labor and capital that had been bloodily negotiated in the West over a century of labor disputes, revolutions, and two World Wars - that labor would get a seat that the table through the center-left parties and coalitions.

    That leads us where we are today, where people who used to be represented by the labor wings of center-left parties and coalitions are now voting for populist, nationalist, fascist, or theocratic parties instead.

    This article has more detail: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-rise-and-fall-of-clintonism/

    That's all completely backwards though. Labour was already long-dying by that point. The whole reason for the New Democrats was that the previous coalition had already fallen because labour cut it's own throat back during the civil rights era and the right-wing coalition was steadily dominating the political landscape. It was a reaction to the destruction of labour's political power, not the cause of it.

    Nixon sold a fascist-like ideology to the public in reaction to the instability of the civil rights era and vietnam and all that whole time and it worked. The current blooming of fascism in the Republican party is merely the endpoint of that decision.

    And to continue on my prior point. This was compounded in 1980 when the unions split for Reagan. They were called “Reagan Democrats” and they stayed wih the Republican party even though we ran an even more pro labor candidate in Mondale the next election.

    They're also the "white working class" voters that have all been interviewed by the NYT in the last two years.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    As I recal the Second World War was a teamup between leftists and centrists against fascists. This idea that the only people who ever fight fascists are far left is designed to divide us.

    The problem is, again, if we're looking at the actual historical context, that's well after the threat metastasized and decided to start annexing territory.

    Up until then, no one in charge actually took the fascist threat seriously, and even in America there was a sizable American Nazi movement.

    Like, the cover to Captain America #1? With Cap belting Hitler in the face? It was actually controversial at the time! Because Hitler wasn't seen yet as some big evil badguy, but as a legitimate foreign leader.

    Like, I don't know where you can stream it, but if you can go and watch the 75th Anniversary of Captain America special that Marvel put together. While it's just a small part of it near the start, they actually do some retrospective about how before America got pulled into the war how things were back then. As Neal Kirby (son of Jack Kirby) notes, "The Nazi Party was very strong in New York City," and that the cover for Cap wound up inciting a flood of hate mail and protests; the threat was strong enough to the point LaGuardia appointed security for Timely's offices at the time.

    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with. Again, in America at least we're not really or properly taught about the rise of fascism or just how pervasive it actually was. We by and large just get this image of it as this almost cartoonish evil that the Germans and Italians got into, glossing over it elsewhere and never even noting that America had a fairly strong Nazi party ourselves that only weakened thanks to going to war with Nazi Germany.

    That's why the Economist article is disturbing, because it feels like a repeat of that same cultural impetus to ignore all the nightmares that the fascist says he wants to bring upon society, so long as he also bolsters a deregulated market economy that gives rich folk a good bit of profit.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    In the US case that's a kind of narrow definition of getting involved. We were in the war by March of '41 at the latest. It just wasn't declared yet.

    ... I dunno how much credit I'm going to extend to neoliberals for selling stuff to antifa.

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    I think in a way that's also why North Korea got brought up earlier: If North Korea begins opening up economic development, but retains the its dictatorship and human rights abuses, are we going to see similar levels of praise and apologia, despite the fact it is still a humanitarian nightmare state?

    That is the problem

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with.

    Sure, but we know that Republicans are fascist and fascist adjacent. Extending that to the ideological children of socialism is a stretch. I mean, unless you want to marginalize your allies in the fight against fascism.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with.

    Sure, but we know that Republicans are fascist and fascist adjacent. Extending that to the ideological children of socialism is a stretch. I mean, unless you want to marginalize your allies in the fight against fascism.

    I do not understand what this means.

    Also, it would seem to me that the criticism is that neoliberals are not "allies in the fight against fascism" - that is, the Economist was writing their article, and Fillion and Dupont-Aignan voters were pencilling in LePen as their second choice well before any posts here about neoliberals supporting fascism, so... So, if only socialists weren't so mean to the Economist, they wouldn't be writing pieces praising fascists for deregulatory policies? This despite the fact that earlier in this very same discussion, the defense advanced for the Economist was that they've always written such articles in defense of anybody who pursues deregulation and privatization?

    hippofant on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    I think in a way that's also why North Korea got brought up earlier: If North Korea begins opening up economic development, but retains the its dictatorship and human rights abuses, are we going to see similar levels of praise and apologia, despite the fact it is still a humanitarian nightmare state?

    That is the problem

    Yes, we would. We've been seeing it for decades. Ebum is correct in bringing up Pinochet as a darling of the same people you are talking about and that guy hasn't been in power for almost 30 years. It's the way they've basically always reacted to it.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with.

    Sure, but we know that Republicans are fascist and fascist adjacent. Extending that to the ideological children of socialism is a stretch. I mean, unless you want to marginalize your allies in the fight against fascism.

    I do not understand what this means.

    Also, it would seem to me that the criticism is that neoliberals are not "allies in the fight against fascism," so...

    Democrats are the ideological children of socialism. They are not, nor never have been(in the modern, post realignment era), neoliberal. Painting them as neoliberal, and then attacking neoliberals as enemies in the fight against fascism alienates your allies.

    We had this conversation 4+ pages ago. We do not need to have it again.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with.

    Sure, but we know that Republicans are fascist and fascist adjacent. Extending that to the ideological children of socialism is a stretch. I mean, unless you want to marginalize your allies in the fight against fascism.

    I do not understand what this means.

    Also, it would seem to me that the criticism is that neoliberals are not "allies in the fight against fascism," so...

    Democrats are the ideological children of socialism. They are not, nor never have been(in the modern, post realignment era), neoliberal. Painting them as neoliberal, and then attacking neoliberals as enemies in the fight against fascism alienates your allies.

    We had this conversation 4+ pages ago. We do not need to have it again.

    Oh lord

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Doobh wrote: »
    maybe this is a conversation for a different thread

    bu this is literally the first time I've ever heard of any fighting leftist/centrist alliance in WWII

    and I had a WWII section at least four times during my American public education (who never mentioned the leftists at all)

    Communists are pretty left leaning. American schools are bad, but I'm surprised the left Russia out.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    WWII is just a completely different kettle of fish because you're talking about the biggest land war in the history of the world and it... it just past 1939 it's absolutely not really applicable to say it was leftists (Stalin's USSR? Mao's proto PRC? Nope) and centrists (The US and the British Empire? haha nope) against fascists nor is it even really applicable to talk about 99.99% of political conflict through the lens of a global war which was unlike anything else the world had or has ever seen.

    Like even if you could make an argument that it was fascists vs centrists/leftists, which I would disagree with, but anyway, even if you could do that I would say that when you look at the context of fascism in every other scenario it's a completely different situation. Like, when the fascists launch a military invasion that conquers Europe from the Atlantic to the closest train station outside Moscow, the idea of "fighting against fascists" is on another planet compared to stuff like election campaigns in Brazil.

    Solar on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Lanz wrote: »
    As I recal the Second World War was a teamup between leftists and centrists against fascists. This idea that the only people who ever fight fascists are far left is designed to divide us.

    The problem is, again, if we're looking at the actual historical context, that's well after the threat metastasized and decided to start annexing territory.

    Up until then, no one in charge actually took the fascist threat seriously, and even in America there was a sizable American Nazi movement.

    Like, the cover to Captain America #1? With Cap belting Hitler in the face? It was actually controversial at the time! Because Hitler wasn't seen yet as some big evil badguy, but as a legitimate foreign leader.

    Like, I don't know where you can stream it, but if you can go and watch the 75th Anniversary of Captain America special that Marvel put together. While it's just a small part of it near the start, they actually do some retrospective about how before America got pulled into the war how things were back then. As Neal Kirby (son of Jack Kirby) notes, "The Nazi Party was very strong in New York City," and that the cover for Cap wound up inciting a flood of hate mail and protests; the threat was strong enough to the point LaGuardia appointed security for Timely's offices at the time.

    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with. Again, in America at least we're not really or properly taught about the rise of fascism or just how pervasive it actually was. We by and large just get this image of it as this almost cartoonish evil that the Germans and Italians got into, glossing over it elsewhere and never even noting that America had a fairly strong Nazi party ourselves that only weakened thanks to going to war with Nazi Germany.

    That's why the Economist article is disturbing, because it feels like a repeat of that same cultural impetus to ignore all the nightmares that the fascist says he wants to bring upon society, so long as he also bolsters a deregulated market economy that gives rich folk a good bit of profit.

    You can make a reasonable case that this was one of the arguments for the New Deal from a patrician like FDR. To address some of the underlying problems that were pushing people towards joining extremist movements (left and right).

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Goumindong wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with.

    Sure, but we know that Republicans are fascist and fascist adjacent. Extending that to the ideological children of socialism is a stretch. I mean, unless you want to marginalize your allies in the fight against fascism.

    I do not understand what this means.

    Also, it would seem to me that the criticism is that neoliberals are not "allies in the fight against fascism," so...

    Democrats are the ideological children of socialism. They are not, nor never have been(in the modern, post realignment era), neoliberal. Painting them as neoliberal, and then attacking neoliberals as enemies in the fight against fascism alienates your allies.

    We had this conversation 4+ pages ago. We do not need to have it again.

    ... I feel like you've entirely skipped the last 4+ pages of discussion wherein it's been pointed out that nobody's called all Democrats neoliberals and... I don't know, substituted it with something entirely of your imagination.


    Oh lord

    hippofant on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with.

    Sure, but we know that Republicans are fascist and fascist adjacent. Extending that to the ideological children of socialism is a stretch. I mean, unless you want to marginalize your allies in the fight against fascism.

    I do not understand what this means.

    Also, it would seem to me that the criticism is that neoliberals are not "allies in the fight against fascism," so...

    Democrats are the ideological children of socialism. They are not, nor never have been(in the modern, post realignment era), neoliberal. Painting them as neoliberal, and then attacking neoliberals as enemies in the fight against fascism alienates your allies.

    We had this conversation 4+ pages ago. We do not need to have it again.

    Especially since actual socialists fall to the exact same ptfalls if given half a chance.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    redx wrote: »
    Doobh wrote: »
    maybe this is a conversation for a different thread

    bu this is literally the first time I've ever heard of any fighting leftist/centrist alliance in WWII

    and I had a WWII section at least four times during my American public education (who never mentioned the leftists at all)

    Communists are pretty left leaning. American schools are bad, but I'm surprised the left Russia out.

    FDR and Churchill are both "centrists" now? I think that'd be a mighty surprise to the two of them that they're supposedly in the same political camp.

    hippofant on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    The importance of critiquing neoliberalism's comfort with fascism is because it's a major factor that lead to fascism's gains in the 1930s to begin with.

    Sure, but we know that Republicans are fascist and fascist adjacent. Extending that to the ideological children of socialism is a stretch. I mean, unless you want to marginalize your allies in the fight against fascism.

    I do not understand what this means.

    Also, it would seem to me that the criticism is that neoliberals are not "allies in the fight against fascism," so...

    Democrats are the ideological children of socialism. They are not, nor never have been(in the modern, post realignment era), neoliberal. Painting them as neoliberal, and then attacking neoliberals as enemies in the fight against fascism alienates your allies.

    We had this conversation 4+ pages ago. We do not need to have it again.

    This completely ignores the presidencies of Clinton and Obama though.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I think that fascism is...

    Well

    Pretty misunderstood by the Left

    In fact I think that the Left in general misunderstands why people support rightist politics and politicians in general.

    The prevailing Leftist political opinion since the 90s has been that Right-Wing politics preys on people's selfishness but I don't think that is true. I think that a lot of people just have right-wing values.

    So let's place the Fascists in the context of that. How many people have fascist values? Shitloads. We can all see that, clearly. Fascist values are actually extremely common IMO.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    Absolutely.

    If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.

    But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.

    Like it matters.

    Fencingsax on
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    I think this WWII argument is so stupid that there are no possible terms that could ever be defined to make it sensible.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    In the US case that's a kind of narrow definition of getting involved. We were in the war by March of '41 at the latest. It just wasn't declared yet.

    ... I dunno how much credit I'm going to extend to neoliberals for selling stuff to antifa.

    This is nutty. If FDR is a neoliberal, the term truly is meaningless.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    Absolutely.

    If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.

    But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.

    Like it matters.

    The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though. The deregulation of the financial system was actually a bipartisan effort.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    hippofant wrote: »
    In the US case that's a kind of narrow definition of getting involved. We were in the war by March of '41 at the latest. It just wasn't declared yet.

    ... I dunno how much credit I'm going to extend to neoliberals for selling stuff to antifa.

    This is nutty. If FDR is a neoliberal, the term truly is meaningless.

    No, I'm saying I don't think "selling shit" to people counts for anything. Antifa eating at McDonald's doesn't make McDonald's an ally in the fight against fascism.

    I just don't want to talk about this WWII argument any more because it's dumb as hell. Like, great, maybe when the alt-right reenact Pearl Harbour, the Economist will start writing critical pieces about Brazilian fascists. Whoooo.

    hippofant on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Jephery wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    Absolutely.

    If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.

    But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.

    Like it matters.

    The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though.

    By the Republican Congress, which everyone seems to ignore in these discussions. Not to defend Clinton too much because he pushed for stuff like that, but I just want to emphasize.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Solar wrote: »
    I think that fascism is...

    Well

    Pretty misunderstood by the Left

    In fact I think that the Left in general misunderstands why people support rightist politics and politicians in general.

    The prevailing Leftist political opinion since the 90s has been that Right-Wing politics preys on people's selfishness but I don't think that is true. I think that a lot of people just have right-wing values.

    So let's place the Fascists in the context of that. How many people have fascist values? Shitloads. We can all see that, clearly. Fascist values are actually extremely common IMO.

    You think so? That's certainly the liberal/centrist explanation I've seen. Most leftists view right wing ideology as a cynical appeal to understandable and sympathetic desires and fears.
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    Absolutely.

    If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.

    But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.

    Like it matters.

    Democrats are only pro-regulation in the context of being compared to the Republican party.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Jephery wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    Absolutely.

    If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.

    But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.

    Like it matters.

    The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though.

    Depends what you mean by deregulation and completed.



    Also, the whole Legislative bramch thing we have.

    Fencingsax on
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Okay let's define some terms

    Liberal = Individual liberty is the most important thing, government should not intervene in your personal or financial life. Ranges from centre left liberal (some sort of welfare state, free one from the restrictions of economic inequality etc), to Neoliberal (see below) and everywhere in between. Capitalists, generally.

    Neoliberal = This is best expressed through free markets and free trade allowing entrepreneurship etc. This has been the strongest form of Liberal thought for a long while. 100% Capitalists.

    Conservative = believes in traditional values and institutions, wishes to preserve traditional structures such as the family unit (wife, husband, kids etc). This is typically a value system rather than an economic strategy. The economic form of this probably some sort of European Imperialism and now conservatives are almost always economic Neoliberals.

    Leftist = This starts at the left of liberalism, where the government should be intervening to free people from economic restrictions to an extent, but I think in reality it's defined as an anti-capitalistic mode of thought.

    Nationalism = The nation-state, often an ethno-state, is the most important thing. This can be leftist-nationalism, or rightist-nationalism.

    Fascism = nationalism which ties into an aesthetic of rebirth and a cult of personality in the leader. Capitalist and extremely, violently conservative (reactionary in fact).

    Totalitarianism - the state is the nation and the nation is the state, nothing outside of the state's control is permitted.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    Absolutely.

    If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.

    But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.

    Like it matters.

    The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though.

    Depends what you mean by deregulation and completed.



    Also, the whole Legislative bramch thing we have.

    Come on man, Glass-Steagall

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    I feel like we have, multiple times. I copied a portion of "The Handbook of Neoliberalism" that seemed very on point for defining what we were critiquing.

    It's just everyone ignored it because spatting over "Are you calling me a fascist" was somehow a more interesting conversation than actually delving into the history of fascism's rise and it's parallels today.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    I think that fascism is...

    Well

    Pretty misunderstood by the Left

    In fact I think that the Left in general misunderstands why people support rightist politics and politicians in general.

    The prevailing Leftist political opinion since the 90s has been that Right-Wing politics preys on people's selfishness but I don't think that is true. I think that a lot of people just have right-wing values.

    So let's place the Fascists in the context of that. How many people have fascist values? Shitloads. We can all see that, clearly. Fascist values are actually extremely common IMO.

    You think so? That's certainly the liberal/centrist explanation I've seen. Most leftists view right wing ideology as a cynical appeal to understandable and sympathetic desires and fears.

    And I believe they are incorrect. Or rather, I believe that people have more right wing values than leftists want to really admit.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    I think there are plenty of potentially fine definitions of neoliberal, but it ends up being used in contradictory ways even within a single work or by a single person.

    Thinking of neoliberalism as being mostly about antiregulation can mean the Economist isn't even neoliberal in a lot of cases like when it strongly supports breaking up oligopolies to encourage competition and supporting regulation to ensure competition rather than just letting businesses get bigger and thinking that a major risk of Brexit is Britain cozying up to major international companies. It makes perfect sense to think of this as being neoliberal because neoliberalism has traditionally been seen as a particular mix of capitalism with government regulation, but even a lot of leftists think of that sort of regulation as leftist and being against such regulation as neoliberal.

    Edit: Like regulating big banks or breaking them up is seen by people as being anti-neoliberal, but you can easily make a neoliberal case for all those regulations or breaking up big banks. Trust busting is not anti-neoliberal. Neoliberalism was not supposed to mean laissez faire economics or purely pro-all corporations no matter what politics.

    Couscous on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.

    Absolutely.

    If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.

    But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.

    Like it matters.

    The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though.

    Depends what you mean by deregulation and completed.



    Also, the whole Legislative bramch thing we have.

    Come on man, Glass-Steagall

    That isn't the only part of Wall Street regulations. While it was a fantastically bad idea, you can't put everything on one moment.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Leftists and rightists both hate centrist liberals but centrist liberals have traditionally almost always allied right, because to the right is an unpleasant form of power structures they approve of, and to the left is reform that they don't approve of.

    Liberals do not fight fascists they enable it because they compromise with it, historically. It's nothing to do with the "power base of the left," after all, both liberals, conservatives, the far right etc all cooperate in trying to destroy the left when possible. Historically, you have seen this.

    This is a strange read on history. It was after all the KPD who were the ones pushing "After Hitler, our turn" and the ideas of "social-fascism". Shit, they even supported the nazis is trying to bring down the Prussian regional government in 1931.

    There's a whole idea being pushed here that "the only answer is the far left, all others are fascist allies in waiting" or something, but it's not accurate, historically or otherwise, and basically seems to exist as a bludgeon to attack political positions some people think aren't left-wing enough.

Sign In or Register to comment.