I think citing the weak correlation with economic dissatisfaction kind of misinterprets the data. If everyone is dissatisfied with the way the economy is structured then yeah, we'd expect lower correlation, but that's not the same as no relationship. I'd point to the resurgence in serious leftist policy among Democrats here. Everyone dislikes the economy, some people break for fascism and others go a better way.
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I have to say I have been weirded out by this discussion because nobody would blink if you said all mainstream parties and politicians were capitalist. Nobody would argue that it is too vague or applies to too many parties to be useful, even though one need not be capitalist. You could just as easily argue that "capitalist" is a slur or whatever, but we'd all recognize that that would be silly.
Neoliberalism is basically just the current mainstream interpretation of capitalism. You can certainly interpret capitalism different, like Libertarians in all their various clubs do. Or fascist for that matter, who conflict with neoliberalism but can save those conflicts for last. That Economist piece is almost a perfect illustration of the trap here, because there is no reason Bolsonaro could not eventually nationalize the oil or logging industry. Fascism has no ideological economic (capitalist) commitments, it can pick and choose.
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
edit: Random thought on a completely different line of conversation, sorry ADHD strikes.
I'm perhaps going to show my ignorance here, but what exactly separates the USSR from fascist nations? Other than it's dubious claim to being leftist and its rivalry with fascist nations?
Popular authoritarian nationalism with an state-guided economy that's not really capitalist or socialist, leveraging ethnic and social divisions to appease the majority by crushing the minority, I'm not sure what's missing for fascism there.
Under Stalin it was pretty close, but I'd argue that the USSR had different ideological commitments. Like, the state owned the means of production because it should, not because Stalin wanted it. It was directed at communism, whereas fascism is very much not. Oppression was to prevent opposition, not because those groups deserved to be oppressed.
That's theory and not the reality of practice of course, but Stalin's cynical approach aside I think it gives the gist of the difference in why things were happening.
Random example, the USSR made huge leaps in gender equality and by law and frequently practice women were the equal of men. In fascism that very much doesn't happen.
Where liberal/neoliberal policy is relevant is where it created the living conditions that created an environment where gullible racists felt that hiding their racism was less important than being pandered to and told that someone had the answers to all their problems
Widening wealth inequality combined with a massive propaganda effort and virtually nobody in politics making a serious effort to fix it opened the door to Make America Great Again sounding pretty good to a lot of people, and the racism coming out of that campaign was the peanut butter to their chocolate
I'm not sure how it did that. Unless we're talking like the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Because racism has always been massively powerful in American politics.
In the context of propaganda, yes
But propaganda doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s easier to convince people that their lives suck and The Other is a problem if their lives actually do suck
This is my biggest disagreement with socialists, in the context of the US. White supremacy isn't about scapegoating someone else for their problems, it's about preserving the existing power structure which privileges white people. It's disconnected from people's economic status. Which happily tracks with it actually being middle class white people that powered Trump's rise.
Why are the two incompatible?
I'm reminded of that article about how many Trump voters were upset at what they saw as immigrants "cutting the line." That would seem to me to fit both: they're upset about being left behind, left out of America's economic prosperity, shoved down by growing income inequality, but they also want to preserve the existing power structure because they expected it to uplift them next, because if they're ever going to be on the top-side of things they need others to be on the bottom.
I'll also note that fascism isn't exactly an intricately rational ideology. Trump is the obvious modern example, but Hitler and Mussolini too were known for using a lot of words to say nothing much at all, a vague vacuous way of speaking that let people graft whatever beliefs they had onto the words they were hearing. The Nazis were fairly socialist* themselves right up until the Night of the Long Knives, then suddenly they were aligned with the German industrialists, and nobody batted an eye.
* Plz don't yell at me Sammich. You know what I mean.
I think you can't look at modern american fascism and not see it's deep roots in white supremacy. Or rather, that it's the exact same thing.
The idea that american fascism is about economics is just not well supported by what correlates with support for Trump. Economic dissatisfaction is nowhere near as strong as it's correlation with racism and sexism.
I mean I'm not sure what a fascist movement without racist elements would even look like. The argument is mostly what the causal relationship is.
It would just use different divisions, such as caste or appearance or ancestry.
fascism is often pinned on poor people. it's supposed to be - times become tough, poor people are angry because they' re poor, so they become racist
but what happens just as often is - the middle class see people getting poorer, they become concerned about preserving their own wealth and status against redistribution, they look for ways to dehumanise poor people. such as racism
most of bolsonaro's support comes from wealthy brazilians, for example. poor people voted for the other guy
While the wealthy were more inclined to vote Bolsonaro many of the poor and oppressed did, as well, for different reasons. His tough on crime rhetoric were primed for these people who were sick of crime elating to horrific levels and they saw the opposition as being toothless and/or corrupt to stop it. Fear, crime and security - the old fascist (and conservative) playbook. Brazil was extremely vulnerable to this strategy regardless of their class status. That's how he 55% of the vote.
Another angle on this was right wing teenagers via social media. A popular tactic fascists have co-opted, which has ongoing results in various countries.
I think citing the weak correlation with economic dissatisfaction kind of misinterprets the data. If everyone is dissatisfied with the way the economy is structured then yeah, we'd expect lower correlation, but that's not the same as no relationship. I'd point to the resurgence in serious leftist policy among Democrats here. Everyone dislikes the economy, some people break for fascism and others go a better way.
Except we can control for other factors and there's multiple types of research supporting the same thing. These aren't outliers. These are consistent results. The big correlations with supporting Trump was racism and sexism. Which should surprise no one because, you know, look at the campaign he ran.
At the end of the day, american fascism seems to be white supremacy.
I think citing the weak correlation with economic dissatisfaction kind of misinterprets the data. If everyone is dissatisfied with the way the economy is structured then yeah, we'd expect lower correlation, but that's not the same as no relationship. I'd point to the resurgence in serious leftist policy among Democrats here. Everyone dislikes the economy, some people break for fascism and others go a better way.
Except we can control for other factors and there's multiple types of research supporting the same thing. These aren't outliers. These are consistent results. The big correlations with supporting Trump was racism and sexism. Which should surprise no one because, you know, look at the campaign he ran.
At the end of the day, american fascism seems to be white supremacy.
i honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove here
i don't think anyone was asserting that fascists aren't racist
I think citing the weak correlation with economic dissatisfaction kind of misinterprets the data. If everyone is dissatisfied with the way the economy is structured then yeah, we'd expect lower correlation, but that's not the same as no relationship. I'd point to the resurgence in serious leftist policy among Democrats here. Everyone dislikes the economy, some people break for fascism and others go a better way.
Except we can control for other factors and there's multiple types of research supporting the same thing. These aren't outliers. These are consistent results. The big correlations with supporting Trump was racism and sexism. Which should surprise no one because, you know, look at the campaign he ran.
At the end of the day, american fascism seems to be white supremacy.
i honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove here
i don't think anyone was asserting that fascists aren't racist
Then why are you arguing with my point at all?
The argument of the post I was responding to was literally that the weaker correlation with economic dissatisfaction as compared to racism/sexism was wrong. I'm pointing out it's not. That those are, in fact, the dominant factors at work. I'm not sure what your point is.
Liberals/neoliberals/conservatives will vote for a fascist over voting for a social democrat.
Social democrats will vote for liberals/neoliberals/conservatives over voting for a socialist/communist.
But both sides will act out of a context where the opposite is the case!
That's how it is in the Western/White/off-white part of the world. This is the damage the Soviet regimes have done to the Western psyches.
Does that damage extend to before WWII as well? Cause, again, the KPD did the exact same thing too, preferring to attack the social democrats rather then the fascists.
It strikes me that the commonality is more that everyone, from your communists to your conservatives, underestimates the fascists and thinks they can be controlled or dealt with later.
I think citing the weak correlation with economic dissatisfaction kind of misinterprets the data. If everyone is dissatisfied with the way the economy is structured then yeah, we'd expect lower correlation, but that's not the same as no relationship. I'd point to the resurgence in serious leftist policy among Democrats here. Everyone dislikes the economy, some people break for fascism and others go a better way.
Except we can control for other factors and there's multiple types of research supporting the same thing. These aren't outliers. These are consistent results. The big correlations with supporting Trump was racism and sexism. Which should surprise no one because, you know, look at the campaign he ran.
At the end of the day, american fascism seems to be white supremacy.
i honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove here
i don't think anyone was asserting that fascists aren't racist
Then why are you arguing with my point at all?
The argument of the post I was responding to was literally that the weaker correlation with economic dissatisfaction as compared to racism/sexism was wrong. I'm pointing out it's not. That those are, in fact, the dominant factors at work. I'm not sure what your point is.
that's not how i understand styrofoam's post at all
he is saying that there is a relationship between fascism and economic dissatisfaction, not that there isn't one between fascism and racism
I think citing the weak correlation with economic dissatisfaction kind of misinterprets the data. If everyone is dissatisfied with the way the economy is structured then yeah, we'd expect lower correlation, but that's not the same as no relationship. I'd point to the resurgence in serious leftist policy among Democrats here. Everyone dislikes the economy, some people break for fascism and others go a better way.
Except we can control for other factors and there's multiple types of research supporting the same thing. These aren't outliers. These are consistent results. The big correlations with supporting Trump was racism and sexism. Which should surprise no one because, you know, look at the campaign he ran.
At the end of the day, american fascism seems to be white supremacy.
i honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove here
i don't think anyone was asserting that fascists aren't racist
Then why are you arguing with my point at all?
The argument of the post I was responding to was literally that the weaker correlation with economic dissatisfaction as compared to racism/sexism was wrong. I'm pointing out it's not. That those are, in fact, the dominant factors at work. I'm not sure what your point is.
I think the issue is with the "dominant" bit. Because the argument reads like people go: "I am a racist. Thus I will vote for the racist party."
American society is founded on racism. It is not like Democrat voters are not racist or whatever. And it's not like any GOP campaign wouldn't have been hella racist. All the primary candidates ran on racism and sexism. That is their thing.
American fascism will always be white supremacist, but that doesn't mean that racism is the reason for fascism.
Where liberal/neoliberal policy is relevant is where it created the living conditions that created an environment where gullible racists felt that hiding their racism was less important than being pandered to and told that someone had the answers to all their problems
Widening wealth inequality combined with a massive propaganda effort and virtually nobody in politics making a serious effort to fix it opened the door to Make America Great Again sounding pretty good to a lot of people, and the racism coming out of that campaign was the peanut butter to their chocolate
I'm not sure how it did that. Unless we're talking like the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Because racism has always been massively powerful in American politics.
In the context of propaganda, yes
But propaganda doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s easier to convince people that their lives suck and The Other is a problem if their lives actually do suck
This is my biggest disagreement with socialists, in the context of the US. White supremacy isn't about scapegoating someone else for their problems, it's about preserving the existing power structure which privileges white people. It's disconnected from people's economic status. Which happily tracks with it actually being middle class white people that powered Trump's rise.
Why are the two incompatible?
I'm reminded of that article about how many Trump voters were upset at what they saw as immigrants "cutting the line." That would seem to me to fit both: they're upset about being left behind, left out of America's economic prosperity, shoved down by growing income inequality, but they also want to preserve the existing power structure because they expected it to uplift them next, because if they're ever going to be on the top-side of things they need others to be on the bottom.
I'll also note that fascism isn't exactly an intricately rational ideology. Trump is the obvious modern example, but Hitler and Mussolini too were known for using a lot of words to say nothing much at all, a vague vacuous way of speaking that let people graft whatever beliefs they had onto the words they were hearing. The Nazis were fairly socialist* themselves right up until the Night of the Long Knives, then suddenly they were aligned with the German industrialists, and nobody batted an eye.
* Plz don't yell at me Sammich. You know what I mean.
I think you can't look at modern american fascism and not see it's deep roots in white supremacy. Or rather, that it's the exact same thing.
The idea that american fascism is about economics is just not well supported by what correlates with support for Trump. Economic dissatisfaction is nowhere near as strong as it's correlation with racism and sexism.
I mean I'm not sure what a fascist movement without racist elements would even look like. The argument is mostly what the causal relationship is.
I can quite easily conceive of a fascistic movement which doesn't have a race element. Fervently nationalist, without an ethno-nationalist strain, is definitely possible, although I am not sure that it has ever existed.
Where liberal/neoliberal policy is relevant is where it created the living conditions that created an environment where gullible racists felt that hiding their racism was less important than being pandered to and told that someone had the answers to all their problems
Widening wealth inequality combined with a massive propaganda effort and virtually nobody in politics making a serious effort to fix it opened the door to Make America Great Again sounding pretty good to a lot of people, and the racism coming out of that campaign was the peanut butter to their chocolate
I'm not sure how it did that. Unless we're talking like the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Because racism has always been massively powerful in American politics.
In the context of propaganda, yes
But propaganda doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s easier to convince people that their lives suck and The Other is a problem if their lives actually do suck
This is my biggest disagreement with socialists, in the context of the US. White supremacy isn't about scapegoating someone else for their problems, it's about preserving the existing power structure which privileges white people. It's disconnected from people's economic status. Which happily tracks with it actually being middle class white people that powered Trump's rise.
Why are the two incompatible?
I'm reminded of that article about how many Trump voters were upset at what they saw as immigrants "cutting the line." That would seem to me to fit both: they're upset about being left behind, left out of America's economic prosperity, shoved down by growing income inequality, but they also want to preserve the existing power structure because they expected it to uplift them next, because if they're ever going to be on the top-side of things they need others to be on the bottom.
I'll also note that fascism isn't exactly an intricately rational ideology. Trump is the obvious modern example, but Hitler and Mussolini too were known for using a lot of words to say nothing much at all, a vague vacuous way of speaking that let people graft whatever beliefs they had onto the words they were hearing. The Nazis were fairly socialist* themselves right up until the Night of the Long Knives, then suddenly they were aligned with the German industrialists, and nobody batted an eye.
* Plz don't yell at me Sammich. You know what I mean.
I think you can't look at modern american fascism and not see it's deep roots in white supremacy. Or rather, that it's the exact same thing.
The idea that american fascism is about economics is just not well supported by what correlates with support for Trump. Economic dissatisfaction is nowhere near as strong as it's correlation with racism and sexism.
I mean I'm not sure what a fascist movement without racist elements would even look like. The argument is mostly what the causal relationship is.
I can quite easily conceive of a fascistic movement which doesn't have a race element. Fervently nationalist, without an ethno-nationalist strain, is definitely possible, although I am not sure that it has ever existed.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that Mussolini's brand of Fascism had explicit ethno-nationalist policies, at least not until pressured into doing so by Hitler.
Where liberal/neoliberal policy is relevant is where it created the living conditions that created an environment where gullible racists felt that hiding their racism was less important than being pandered to and told that someone had the answers to all their problems
Widening wealth inequality combined with a massive propaganda effort and virtually nobody in politics making a serious effort to fix it opened the door to Make America Great Again sounding pretty good to a lot of people, and the racism coming out of that campaign was the peanut butter to their chocolate
I'm not sure how it did that. Unless we're talking like the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Because racism has always been massively powerful in American politics.
In the context of propaganda, yes
But propaganda doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s easier to convince people that their lives suck and The Other is a problem if their lives actually do suck
This is my biggest disagreement with socialists, in the context of the US. White supremacy isn't about scapegoating someone else for their problems, it's about preserving the existing power structure which privileges white people. It's disconnected from people's economic status. Which happily tracks with it actually being middle class white people that powered Trump's rise.
Why are the two incompatible?
I'm reminded of that article about how many Trump voters were upset at what they saw as immigrants "cutting the line." That would seem to me to fit both: they're upset about being left behind, left out of America's economic prosperity, shoved down by growing income inequality, but they also want to preserve the existing power structure because they expected it to uplift them next, because if they're ever going to be on the top-side of things they need others to be on the bottom.
I'll also note that fascism isn't exactly an intricately rational ideology. Trump is the obvious modern example, but Hitler and Mussolini too were known for using a lot of words to say nothing much at all, a vague vacuous way of speaking that let people graft whatever beliefs they had onto the words they were hearing. The Nazis were fairly socialist* themselves right up until the Night of the Long Knives, then suddenly they were aligned with the German industrialists, and nobody batted an eye.
* Plz don't yell at me Sammich. You know what I mean.
I think you can't look at modern american fascism and not see it's deep roots in white supremacy. Or rather, that it's the exact same thing.
The idea that american fascism is about economics is just not well supported by what correlates with support for Trump. Economic dissatisfaction is nowhere near as strong as it's correlation with racism and sexism.
I mean I'm not sure what a fascist movement without racist elements would even look like. The argument is mostly what the causal relationship is.
I can quite easily conceive of a fascistic movement which doesn't have a race element. Fervently nationalist, without an ethno-nationalist strain, is definitely possible, although I am not sure that it has ever existed.
The original Fascists did not care that much one way or another about race. Until Hitler started pressing hard, Mussolini did not really care about racism.
I think citing the weak correlation with economic dissatisfaction kind of misinterprets the data. If everyone is dissatisfied with the way the economy is structured then yeah, we'd expect lower correlation, but that's not the same as no relationship. I'd point to the resurgence in serious leftist policy among Democrats here. Everyone dislikes the economy, some people break for fascism and others go a better way.
Except we can control for other factors and there's multiple types of research supporting the same thing. These aren't outliers. These are consistent results. The big correlations with supporting Trump was racism and sexism. Which should surprise no one because, you know, look at the campaign he ran.
At the end of the day, american fascism seems to be white supremacy.
i honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove here
i don't think anyone was asserting that fascists aren't racist
Then why are you arguing with my point at all?
The argument of the post I was responding to was literally that the weaker correlation with economic dissatisfaction as compared to racism/sexism was wrong. I'm pointing out it's not. That those are, in fact, the dominant factors at work. I'm not sure what your point is.
I think the issue is with the "dominant" bit. Because the argument reads like people go: "I am a racist. Thus I will vote for the racist party."
American society is founded on racism. It is not like Democrat voters are not racist or whatever. And it's not like any GOP campaign wouldn't have been hella racist. All the primary candidates ran on racism and sexism. That is their thing.
American fascism will always be white supremacist, but that doesn't mean that racism is the reason for fascism.
Racism and sexism were the dominant factors determining support for Trump is literally what the research show. That's the whole damn point. "How well does voting for Trump rather then the other side track with X factor?" and then see which factors are strong, which are weak, etc, etc.
The thing you are taking issue with is literally the thing people have gone out to study and come back with the results I'm telling you about. So what exactly is the objection beyond "but I don't like the results"?
We shouldn't try to dismiss the findings or pretend it just applies to everyone or whatever other silliness. America's most openly fascist modern movement is incredibly tightly linked with white supremacy. This is important for understanding the nature and spread of fascist ideology in america.
One way of thinking about Fascism is that it takes advantage of the fact that, Marx was right that the working class is revolutionary under capitalism, but he was wrong that the revolution would always take the form of a class struggle.
Mussolini was basically the first to put that observation into practice, creating a revolutionary movement that was nationalist, reactionary, and revivalist, instead of socialist.
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!".
Where liberal/neoliberal policy is relevant is where it created the living conditions that created an environment where gullible racists felt that hiding their racism was less important than being pandered to and told that someone had the answers to all their problems
Widening wealth inequality combined with a massive propaganda effort and virtually nobody in politics making a serious effort to fix it opened the door to Make America Great Again sounding pretty good to a lot of people, and the racism coming out of that campaign was the peanut butter to their chocolate
I'm not sure how it did that. Unless we're talking like the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Because racism has always been massively powerful in American politics.
In the context of propaganda, yes
But propaganda doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s easier to convince people that their lives suck and The Other is a problem if their lives actually do suck
This is my biggest disagreement with socialists, in the context of the US. White supremacy isn't about scapegoating someone else for their problems, it's about preserving the existing power structure which privileges white people. It's disconnected from people's economic status. Which happily tracks with it actually being middle class white people that powered Trump's rise.
Why are the two incompatible?
I'm reminded of that article about how many Trump voters were upset at what they saw as immigrants "cutting the line." That would seem to me to fit both: they're upset about being left behind, left out of America's economic prosperity, shoved down by growing income inequality, but they also want to preserve the existing power structure because they expected it to uplift them next, because if they're ever going to be on the top-side of things they need others to be on the bottom.
I'll also note that fascism isn't exactly an intricately rational ideology. Trump is the obvious modern example, but Hitler and Mussolini too were known for using a lot of words to say nothing much at all, a vague vacuous way of speaking that let people graft whatever beliefs they had onto the words they were hearing. The Nazis were fairly socialist* themselves right up until the Night of the Long Knives, then suddenly they were aligned with the German industrialists, and nobody batted an eye.
* Plz don't yell at me Sammich. You know what I mean.
I think you can't look at modern american fascism and not see it's deep roots in white supremacy. Or rather, that it's the exact same thing.
The idea that american fascism is about economics is just not well supported by what correlates with support for Trump. Economic dissatisfaction is nowhere near as strong as it's correlation with racism and sexism.
I mean I'm not sure what a fascist movement without racist elements would even look like. The argument is mostly what the causal relationship is.
I can quite easily conceive of a fascistic movement which doesn't have a race element. Fervently nationalist, without an ethno-nationalist strain, is definitely possible, although I am not sure that it has ever existed.
The original Fascists did not care that much one way or another about race. Until Hitler started pressing hard, Mussolini did not really care about racism.
So, did those early movements have some different other? Communists and the signers of the Treaty of Versailles (other Europeans generally) seem likely scapegoats.
I have this understanding that, kinda because fascism doesn't really have answers, it needs to be some opposition keeping the economy down and causing civil unrest, and a strong central government will be able to protect the country.
Like, you need someone to be strong against to even put the retoric together.
If America has always been racist, why is it only going fascist now?
The 60-year old racist today who voted for Trump was a 40-year old racist 20 years ago and a 20-year old racist 40 years ago. Why didn't they vote for whoever the Trump-analogue was back then? (Or, at least, not in sufficient numbers.)
People are looking at a long string of non-fascist presidents, then a fascist president, and asking, well what changed? Saying, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RACISM, doesn't answer the question. It might not be incorrect, but it's not the answer to the phenomenological question, nor is it really a solution, because if the only way we're getting rid of fascism is to first get rid of racism, we're going to be in it for a pretty long haul.
Where liberal/neoliberal policy is relevant is where it created the living conditions that created an environment where gullible racists felt that hiding their racism was less important than being pandered to and told that someone had the answers to all their problems
Widening wealth inequality combined with a massive propaganda effort and virtually nobody in politics making a serious effort to fix it opened the door to Make America Great Again sounding pretty good to a lot of people, and the racism coming out of that campaign was the peanut butter to their chocolate
I'm not sure how it did that. Unless we're talking like the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Because racism has always been massively powerful in American politics.
In the context of propaganda, yes
But propaganda doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s easier to convince people that their lives suck and The Other is a problem if their lives actually do suck
This is my biggest disagreement with socialists, in the context of the US. White supremacy isn't about scapegoating someone else for their problems, it's about preserving the existing power structure which privileges white people. It's disconnected from people's economic status. Which happily tracks with it actually being middle class white people that powered Trump's rise.
Why are the two incompatible?
I'm reminded of that article about how many Trump voters were upset at what they saw as immigrants "cutting the line." That would seem to me to fit both: they're upset about being left behind, left out of America's economic prosperity, shoved down by growing income inequality, but they also want to preserve the existing power structure because they expected it to uplift them next, because if they're ever going to be on the top-side of things they need others to be on the bottom.
I'll also note that fascism isn't exactly an intricately rational ideology. Trump is the obvious modern example, but Hitler and Mussolini too were known for using a lot of words to say nothing much at all, a vague vacuous way of speaking that let people graft whatever beliefs they had onto the words they were hearing. The Nazis were fairly socialist* themselves right up until the Night of the Long Knives, then suddenly they were aligned with the German industrialists, and nobody batted an eye.
* Plz don't yell at me Sammich. You know what I mean.
I think you can't look at modern american fascism and not see it's deep roots in white supremacy. Or rather, that it's the exact same thing.
The idea that american fascism is about economics is just not well supported by what correlates with support for Trump. Economic dissatisfaction is nowhere near as strong as it's correlation with racism and sexism.
I mean I'm not sure what a fascist movement without racist elements would even look like. The argument is mostly what the causal relationship is.
I can quite easily conceive of a fascistic movement which doesn't have a race element. Fervently nationalist, without an ethno-nationalist strain, is definitely possible, although I am not sure that it has ever existed.
The original Fascists did not care that much one way or another about race. Until Hitler started pressing hard, Mussolini did not really care about racism.
So, did those early movements have some different other? Communists and the signers of the Treaty of Versailles (other Europeans generally) seem likely scapegoats.
I have this understanding that, kinda because fascism doesn't really have answers, it needs to be some opposition keeping the economy down and causing civil unrest, and a strong central government will be able to protect the country.
Like, you need someone to be strong against to even put the retoric together.
Revolutionary movements all begin with taking advantage of discontent with the status quo, whether that is in the form of economic issues or social issues, and after the success of revolution, transforms into a form of state religion (Revolutionary France, Nazi Germany, USSR, PRC, as examples).
So the other is whatever the revolution thought of its enemy in the first place, and that enemy and all opposition becomes the other in the state religion.
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!".
If America has always been racist, why is it only going fascist now?
The 60-year old racist today who voted for Trump was a 40-year old racist 20 years ago and a 20-year old racist 40 years ago. Why didn't they vote for whoever the Trump-analogue was back then? (Or, at least, not in sufficient numbers.)
People are looking at a long string of non-fascist presidents, then a fascist president, and asking, well what changed? Saying, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RACISM, doesn't answer the question. It might not be incorrect, but it's not the answer to the phenomenological question, nor is it really a solution, because if the only way we're getting rid of fascism is to first get rid of racism, we're going to be in it for a pretty long haul.
They did. Nixon won twice after all.
Of course, the white majority was feeling less threatened for most of the past 50+ years.
If America has always been racist, why is it only going fascist now?
The 60-year old racist today who voted for Trump was a 40-year old racist 20 years ago and a 20-year old racist 40 years ago. Why didn't they vote for whoever the Trump-analogue was back then? (Or, at least, not in sufficient numbers.)
People are looking at a long string of non-fascist presidents, then a fascist president, and asking, well what changed? Saying, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RACISM, doesn't answer the question. It might not be incorrect, but it's not the answer to the phenomenological question, nor is it really a solution, because if the only way we're getting rid of fascism is to first get rid of racism, we're going to be in it for a pretty long haul.
They did. Nixon won twice after all.
Of course, the white majority was feeling less threatened for most of the past 50+ years.
And Reagan won with the same appeals. The GOP is built on this. Trump is only different in that he says the quiet parts loud.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If America has always been racist, why is it only going fascist now?
Americans could usually assume a white supremacist government and an electorate dedicated to not challenging white privilege. When there was a fear of that no longer being true, whites had no problem weakening democracy to ensure white rule.
If America has always been racist, why is it only going fascist now?
The 60-year old racist today who voted for Trump was a 40-year old racist 20 years ago and a 20-year old racist 40 years ago. Why didn't they vote for whoever the Trump-analogue was back then? (Or, at least, not in sufficient numbers.)
People are looking at a long string of non-fascist presidents, then a fascist president, and asking, well what changed? Saying, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RACISM, doesn't answer the question. It might not be incorrect, but it's not the answer to the phenomenological question, nor is it really a solution, because if the only way we're getting rid of fascism is to first get rid of racism, we're going to be in it for a pretty long haul.
Its because the right is being radicalized by media into a revolutionary state of mind. They've been told that the Democratic party is a satanic, communistic, evil party and that American liberals are the enemy for so long that its actually working.
That is the biggest difference between today and the past.
}
"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!".
If America has always been racist, why is it only going fascist now?
Americans could usually assume a white supremacist government and an electorate dedicated to not challenging white privilege. When there was a fear of that no longer being true, whitea had no problem weakening democracy to ensure white rule.
Stated differently: right wing governance in the US has always been fascist towards black people. The rest of us are just getting to experience it for the first time, because of social media.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If America has always been racist, why is it only going fascist now?
The 60-year old racist today who voted for Trump was a 40-year old racist 20 years ago and a 20-year old racist 40 years ago. Why didn't they vote for whoever the Trump-analogue was back then? (Or, at least, not in sufficient numbers.)
People are looking at a long string of non-fascist presidents, then a fascist president, and asking, well what changed? Saying, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RACISM, doesn't answer the question. It might not be incorrect, but it's not the answer to the phenomenological question, nor is it really a solution, because if the only way we're getting rid of fascism is to first get rid of racism, we're going to be in it for a pretty long haul.
Its because the right is being radicalized by media into a revolutionary state of mind. They've been told that the Democratic party is a satanic, communistic, evil party and that American liberals are the enemy for so long that its actually working.
That is the biggest difference between today and the past.
Nixon did the same shit. And the 60s were WAY more politically violent, kind of obviously.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If America has always been racist, why is it only going fascist now?
The 60-year old racist today who voted for Trump was a 40-year old racist 20 years ago and a 20-year old racist 40 years ago. Why didn't they vote for whoever the Trump-analogue was back then? (Or, at least, not in sufficient numbers.)
People are looking at a long string of non-fascist presidents, then a fascist president, and asking, well what changed? Saying, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RACISM, doesn't answer the question. It might not be incorrect, but it's not the answer to the phenomenological question, nor is it really a solution, because if the only way we're getting rid of fascism is to first get rid of racism, we're going to be in it for a pretty long haul.
Its because the right is being radicalized by media into a revolutionary state of mind. They've been told that the Democratic party is a satanic, communistic, evil party and that American liberals are the enemy for so long that its actually working.
That is the biggest difference between today and the past.
Nixon did the same shit.
The situation we're in is way worse than Nixon. Nixon had a silent majority of racists. Trump has a loud minority of racists. The loud minority is way more dangerous.
And the 60s were WAY more politically violent, kind of obviously.
Yeah, for minorities. But that wasn't a threat to the continuation of democracy.
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!".
The Hard Hat Riot occurred on May 8, 1970, in New York City. It started around noon when about 200 construction workers mobilized by the New York State AFL-CIO attacked some 1,000 college and high school students and others who were protesting the May 4 Kent State shootings, the Vietnam War, and the April 30 announcement by President Richard Nixon of the U.S. invasion of Cambodia. The Hard Hat Riot, breaking out first near the intersection of Wall Street and Broad Street in Lower Manhattan, soon spilled into New York City Hall, and lasted approximately two hours. More than 70 people, including four policemen, were injured on what became known as "Bloody Friday". Six people were arrested.[1]
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, state sanctioned reactionary abuses from a dominant white supremacy is less dangerous to the continuation of democracy than a now revolutionary movement of desperate white supremacy.
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!".
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, state sanctioned reactionary abuses from a dominant white supremacy is less dangerous to the continuation of democracy than a now revolutionary movement of desperate white supremacy.
For white people.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Where liberal/neoliberal policy is relevant is where it created the living conditions that created an environment where gullible racists felt that hiding their racism was less important than being pandered to and told that someone had the answers to all their problems
Widening wealth inequality combined with a massive propaganda effort and virtually nobody in politics making a serious effort to fix it opened the door to Make America Great Again sounding pretty good to a lot of people, and the racism coming out of that campaign was the peanut butter to their chocolate
I'm not sure how it did that. Unless we're talking like the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Because racism has always been massively powerful in American politics.
In the context of propaganda, yes
But propaganda doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s easier to convince people that their lives suck and The Other is a problem if their lives actually do suck
This is my biggest disagreement with socialists, in the context of the US. White supremacy isn't about scapegoating someone else for their problems, it's about preserving the existing power structure which privileges white people. It's disconnected from people's economic status. Which happily tracks with it actually being middle class white people that powered Trump's rise.
Why are the two incompatible?
I'm reminded of that article about how many Trump voters were upset at what they saw as immigrants "cutting the line." That would seem to me to fit both: they're upset about being left behind, left out of America's economic prosperity, shoved down by growing income inequality, but they also want to preserve the existing power structure because they expected it to uplift them next, because if they're ever going to be on the top-side of things they need others to be on the bottom.
I'll also note that fascism isn't exactly an intricately rational ideology. Trump is the obvious modern example, but Hitler and Mussolini too were known for using a lot of words to say nothing much at all, a vague vacuous way of speaking that let people graft whatever beliefs they had onto the words they were hearing. The Nazis were fairly socialist* themselves right up until the Night of the Long Knives, then suddenly they were aligned with the German industrialists, and nobody batted an eye.
* Plz don't yell at me Sammich. You know what I mean.
I think you can't look at modern american fascism and not see it's deep roots in white supremacy. Or rather, that it's the exact same thing.
The idea that american fascism is about economics is just not well supported by what correlates with support for Trump. Economic dissatisfaction is nowhere near as strong as it's correlation with racism and sexism.
I mean I'm not sure what a fascist movement without racist elements would even look like. The argument is mostly what the causal relationship is.
I can quite easily conceive of a fascistic movement which doesn't have a race element. Fervently nationalist, without an ethno-nationalist strain, is definitely possible, although I am not sure that it has ever existed.
The original Fascists did not care that much one way or another about race. Until Hitler started pressing hard, Mussolini did not really care about racism.
So, did those early movements have some different other? Communists and the signers of the Treaty of Versailles (other Europeans generally) seem likely scapegoats.
I have this understanding that, kinda because fascism doesn't really have answers, it needs to be some opposition keeping the economy down and causing civil unrest, and a strong central government will be able to protect the country.
Like, you need someone to be strong against to even put the retoric together.
The Fascists and Nazis went hard on Liberal society. Like, all the problems were caused by the liberalization of society and welfare for the undeserving.
For example, the Nazis tried to convince people that the reason they could not get enough food was that society was spending too much to keep sick, handicapped and old people alive.
So they tried to convince people that euthanizing grandma would be a good idea. They did that before they got really pushy about antisemitism and racial laws in general.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, state sanctioned reactionary abuses from a dominant white supremacy is less dangerous to the continuation of democracy than a now revolutionary movement of desperate white supremacy.
For white people.
Yeah that is the problem now isn't it? They're desperate that democracy won't be dominated by white people anymore, so they're ready to overturn democracy. Like white people desperate to keep slavery were ready to plunge the country into a civil war.
Nixon and Reagan mollified the white population after Civil Rights into believing that they would still be dominant in politics despite black sufferage. That sense of security is gone now.
We're actually just really lucky that Trump doesn't actually grasp what he is capable of doing with the Republicans being in the state of mind they are right now. If it was anyone smarter and more competent we'd be screwed.
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!".
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, state sanctioned reactionary abuses from a dominant white supremacy is less dangerous to the continuation of democracy than a now revolutionary movement of desperate white supremacy.
For white people.
Yeah that is the problem now isn't it? They're desperate that democracy won't be dominated by white people anymore, so they're ready to overturn democracy. Like white people desperate to keep slavery were ready to plunge the country into a civil war.
Nixon and Reagan mollified the white population after Civil Rights into believing that they would still be dominant in politics despite black sufferage. That sense of security is gone now.
No, my point was that you're being myopic with your definition of "democracy." America was never a democracy for black people and thus not a real democracy. You are now seeing a threat to democracy where there has always been one. The original counterrevolutionary fascist movement in this country was the Redeemer movement, who pre-date even Mussolini by 50 years.
And this movement is very clearly not limited to Trump. John Roberts spent 30 years trying to kill the Voting Rights Act before he managed to do it in Shelby County. Trump is not new, he's just crude.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Where liberal/neoliberal policy is relevant is where it created the living conditions that created an environment where gullible racists felt that hiding their racism was less important than being pandered to and told that someone had the answers to all their problems
Widening wealth inequality combined with a massive propaganda effort and virtually nobody in politics making a serious effort to fix it opened the door to Make America Great Again sounding pretty good to a lot of people, and the racism coming out of that campaign was the peanut butter to their chocolate
I'm not sure how it did that. Unless we're talking like the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Because racism has always been massively powerful in American politics.
In the context of propaganda, yes
But propaganda doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s easier to convince people that their lives suck and The Other is a problem if their lives actually do suck
This is my biggest disagreement with socialists, in the context of the US. White supremacy isn't about scapegoating someone else for their problems, it's about preserving the existing power structure which privileges white people. It's disconnected from people's economic status. Which happily tracks with it actually being middle class white people that powered Trump's rise.
Why are the two incompatible?
I'm reminded of that article about how many Trump voters were upset at what they saw as immigrants "cutting the line." That would seem to me to fit both: they're upset about being left behind, left out of America's economic prosperity, shoved down by growing income inequality, but they also want to preserve the existing power structure because they expected it to uplift them next, because if they're ever going to be on the top-side of things they need others to be on the bottom.
I'll also note that fascism isn't exactly an intricately rational ideology. Trump is the obvious modern example, but Hitler and Mussolini too were known for using a lot of words to say nothing much at all, a vague vacuous way of speaking that let people graft whatever beliefs they had onto the words they were hearing. The Nazis were fairly socialist* themselves right up until the Night of the Long Knives, then suddenly they were aligned with the German industrialists, and nobody batted an eye.
* Plz don't yell at me Sammich. You know what I mean.
I think you can't look at modern american fascism and not see it's deep roots in white supremacy. Or rather, that it's the exact same thing.
The idea that american fascism is about economics is just not well supported by what correlates with support for Trump. Economic dissatisfaction is nowhere near as strong as it's correlation with racism and sexism.
I mean I'm not sure what a fascist movement without racist elements would even look like. The argument is mostly what the causal relationship is.
I can quite easily conceive of a fascistic movement which doesn't have a race element. Fervently nationalist, without an ethno-nationalist strain, is definitely possible, although I am not sure that it has ever existed.
The original Fascists did not care that much one way or another about race. Until Hitler started pressing hard, Mussolini did not really care about racism.
So, did those early movements have some different other? Communists and the signers of the Treaty of Versailles (other Europeans generally) seem likely scapegoats.
I have this understanding that, kinda because fascism doesn't really have answers, it needs to be some opposition keeping the economy down and causing civil unrest, and a strong central government will be able to protect the country.
Like, you need someone to be strong against to even put the retoric together.
The Fascists and Nazis went hard on Liberal society. Like, all the problems were caused by the liberalization of society and welfare for the undeserving.
For example, the Nazis tried to convince people that the reason they could not get enough food was that society was spending too much to keep sick, handicapped and old people alive.
So they tried to convince people that euthanizing grandma would be a good idea. They did that before they got really pushy about antisemitism and racial laws in general.
Right. I forget, sometimes about all the problems they would have had with a queer, social deviant, with a learning disability, for which they received government aid, and a preference for progressive contemporary art.
Yay passing, being white, and American fascism's focus, mostly, on racism.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, state sanctioned reactionary abuses from a dominant white supremacy is less dangerous to the continuation of democracy than a now revolutionary movement of desperate white supremacy.
For white people.
Yeah that is the problem now isn't it? They're desperate that democracy won't be dominated by white people anymore, so they're ready to overturn democracy. Like white people desperate to keep slavery were ready to plunge the country into a civil war.
Nixon and Reagan mollified the white population after Civil Rights into believing that they would still be dominant in politics despite black sufferage. That sense of security is gone now.
No, my point was that you're being myopic with your definition of "democracy." America was never a democracy for black people and thus not a real democracy. You are now seeing a threat to democracy where there has always been one. The original counterrevolutionary fascist movement in this country was the Redeemer movement, who pre-date even Mussolini by 50 years.
And this movement is very clearly not limited to Trump. John Roberts spent 30 years trying to kill the Voting Rights Act before he managed to do it in Shelby County. Trump is not new, he's just crude.
There is actually a real difference between a democracy founded on liberalism which has a capacity to grow beyond what it was, and the fascist state that will be created if things go as bad as they could go in this moment of history.
The fascist state will not be able to advance past racism, it will enshrine racism into its core principles.
That Trump doesn't have anything to do with this movement is what makes it so dangerous. If it were just Trump we would be fine because he is an idiot. Its the smart, charismatic guy that comes after Trump who will be a nightmare. It is a leaderless white revolution waiting to be led.
Also I would definitely consider the Confederate States of America to be close in character to a revolutionary Fascist state.
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!".
at some point you do have to concede that political ideologies don't have clear boundaries and the question of "is X neoliberal" is inherently a fuzzy one
the original question that kicked off this whole thing was "does the Economist praising some aspects of Bolsonaro's administration constitute evidence that neoliberals have a tendency to support fascists?" if you're a leftist you're going to see it as part of an ongoing pattern, if you're a liberal you're more likely to see it as a one-time thing or an excusable lapse. i don't know if we're going to figure out which of those things it actually is just by yelling at each other. it almost seems like you'd have to do some kind of statistical analysis
I feel like this question is kind of silly honestly. The Economist has a long-standing history of praising those characteristics of administrations they agree with (usually economic, usually opening of border and trade to the free flow of goods/services/people). Hell, they've done that with Trump when something good is proposed. But for the most part they completely go against fascist and authoritarians and push human rights in certain areas much earlier than other publications will (see: LGBT people, whom they've supported for longer than most other major publications).
Posts
Neoliberalism is basically just the current mainstream interpretation of capitalism. You can certainly interpret capitalism different, like Libertarians in all their various clubs do. Or fascist for that matter, who conflict with neoliberalism but can save those conflicts for last. That Economist piece is almost a perfect illustration of the trap here, because there is no reason Bolsonaro could not eventually nationalize the oil or logging industry. Fascism has no ideological economic (capitalist) commitments, it can pick and choose.
Under Stalin it was pretty close, but I'd argue that the USSR had different ideological commitments. Like, the state owned the means of production because it should, not because Stalin wanted it. It was directed at communism, whereas fascism is very much not. Oppression was to prevent opposition, not because those groups deserved to be oppressed.
That's theory and not the reality of practice of course, but Stalin's cynical approach aside I think it gives the gist of the difference in why things were happening.
Random example, the USSR made huge leaps in gender equality and by law and frequently practice women were the equal of men. In fascism that very much doesn't happen.
It would just use different divisions, such as caste or appearance or ancestry.
While the wealthy were more inclined to vote Bolsonaro many of the poor and oppressed did, as well, for different reasons. His tough on crime rhetoric were primed for these people who were sick of crime elating to horrific levels and they saw the opposition as being toothless and/or corrupt to stop it. Fear, crime and security - the old fascist (and conservative) playbook. Brazil was extremely vulnerable to this strategy regardless of their class status. That's how he 55% of the vote.
Another angle on this was right wing teenagers via social media. A popular tactic fascists have co-opted, which has ongoing results in various countries.
Except we can control for other factors and there's multiple types of research supporting the same thing. These aren't outliers. These are consistent results. The big correlations with supporting Trump was racism and sexism. Which should surprise no one because, you know, look at the campaign he ran.
At the end of the day, american fascism seems to be white supremacy.
i honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove here
i don't think anyone was asserting that fascists aren't racist
In which case the fascists will create divisions to exploit.
Social democrats will vote for liberals/neoliberals/conservatives over voting for a socialist/communist.
But both sides will act out of a context where the opposite is the case!
That's how it is in the Western/White/off-white part of the world. This is the damage the Soviet regimes have done to the Western psyches.
Stars upon thars.
Then why are you arguing with my point at all?
The argument of the post I was responding to was literally that the weaker correlation with economic dissatisfaction as compared to racism/sexism was wrong. I'm pointing out it's not. That those are, in fact, the dominant factors at work. I'm not sure what your point is.
Does that damage extend to before WWII as well? Cause, again, the KPD did the exact same thing too, preferring to attack the social democrats rather then the fascists.
It strikes me that the commonality is more that everyone, from your communists to your conservatives, underestimates the fascists and thinks they can be controlled or dealt with later.
that's not how i understand styrofoam's post at all
he is saying that there is a relationship between fascism and economic dissatisfaction, not that there isn't one between fascism and racism
I think the issue is with the "dominant" bit. Because the argument reads like people go: "I am a racist. Thus I will vote for the racist party."
American society is founded on racism. It is not like Democrat voters are not racist or whatever. And it's not like any GOP campaign wouldn't have been hella racist. All the primary candidates ran on racism and sexism. That is their thing.
American fascism will always be white supremacist, but that doesn't mean that racism is the reason for fascism.
I can quite easily conceive of a fascistic movement which doesn't have a race element. Fervently nationalist, without an ethno-nationalist strain, is definitely possible, although I am not sure that it has ever existed.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that Mussolini's brand of Fascism had explicit ethno-nationalist policies, at least not until pressured into doing so by Hitler.
The original Fascists did not care that much one way or another about race. Until Hitler started pressing hard, Mussolini did not really care about racism.
Racism and sexism were the dominant factors determining support for Trump is literally what the research show. That's the whole damn point. "How well does voting for Trump rather then the other side track with X factor?" and then see which factors are strong, which are weak, etc, etc.
Like, shit, here's a Vox article from like a year ago that compiles a bunch of examples of this kind of thing and there's no shortage of other examples if you wanna hit the googgle:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study
The thing you are taking issue with is literally the thing people have gone out to study and come back with the results I'm telling you about. So what exactly is the objection beyond "but I don't like the results"?
We shouldn't try to dismiss the findings or pretend it just applies to everyone or whatever other silliness. America's most openly fascist modern movement is incredibly tightly linked with white supremacy. This is important for understanding the nature and spread of fascist ideology in america.
Mussolini was basically the first to put that observation into practice, creating a revolutionary movement that was nationalist, reactionary, and revivalist, instead of socialist.
"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!".
So, did those early movements have some different other? Communists and the signers of the Treaty of Versailles (other Europeans generally) seem likely scapegoats.
I have this understanding that, kinda because fascism doesn't really have answers, it needs to be some opposition keeping the economy down and causing civil unrest, and a strong central government will be able to protect the country.
Like, you need someone to be strong against to even put the retoric together.
The 60-year old racist today who voted for Trump was a 40-year old racist 20 years ago and a 20-year old racist 40 years ago. Why didn't they vote for whoever the Trump-analogue was back then? (Or, at least, not in sufficient numbers.)
People are looking at a long string of non-fascist presidents, then a fascist president, and asking, well what changed? Saying, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RACISM, doesn't answer the question. It might not be incorrect, but it's not the answer to the phenomenological question, nor is it really a solution, because if the only way we're getting rid of fascism is to first get rid of racism, we're going to be in it for a pretty long haul.
Revolutionary movements all begin with taking advantage of discontent with the status quo, whether that is in the form of economic issues or social issues, and after the success of revolution, transforms into a form of state religion (Revolutionary France, Nazi Germany, USSR, PRC, as examples).
So the other is whatever the revolution thought of its enemy in the first place, and that enemy and all opposition becomes the other in the state religion.
"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!".
They did. Nixon won twice after all.
Of course, the white majority was feeling less threatened for most of the past 50+ years.
And Reagan won with the same appeals. The GOP is built on this. Trump is only different in that he says the quiet parts loud.
Its because the right is being radicalized by media into a revolutionary state of mind. They've been told that the Democratic party is a satanic, communistic, evil party and that American liberals are the enemy for so long that its actually working.
That is the biggest difference between today and the past.
"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!".
Stated differently: right wing governance in the US has always been fascist towards black people. The rest of us are just getting to experience it for the first time, because of social media.
Nixon did the same shit. And the 60s were WAY more politically violent, kind of obviously.
The situation we're in is way worse than Nixon. Nixon had a silent majority of racists. Trump has a loud minority of racists. The loud minority is way more dangerous.
Yeah, for minorities. But that wasn't a threat to the continuation of democracy.
"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!".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot
"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!".
For white people.
The Fascists and Nazis went hard on Liberal society. Like, all the problems were caused by the liberalization of society and welfare for the undeserving.
For example, the Nazis tried to convince people that the reason they could not get enough food was that society was spending too much to keep sick, handicapped and old people alive.
So they tried to convince people that euthanizing grandma would be a good idea. They did that before they got really pushy about antisemitism and racial laws in general.
Yeah that is the problem now isn't it? They're desperate that democracy won't be dominated by white people anymore, so they're ready to overturn democracy. Like white people desperate to keep slavery were ready to plunge the country into a civil war.
Nixon and Reagan mollified the white population after Civil Rights into believing that they would still be dominant in politics despite black sufferage. That sense of security is gone now.
We're actually just really lucky that Trump doesn't actually grasp what he is capable of doing with the Republicans being in the state of mind they are right now. If it was anyone smarter and more competent we'd be screwed.
"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!".
No, my point was that you're being myopic with your definition of "democracy." America was never a democracy for black people and thus not a real democracy. You are now seeing a threat to democracy where there has always been one. The original counterrevolutionary fascist movement in this country was the Redeemer movement, who pre-date even Mussolini by 50 years.
And this movement is very clearly not limited to Trump. John Roberts spent 30 years trying to kill the Voting Rights Act before he managed to do it in Shelby County. Trump is not new, he's just crude.
Right. I forget, sometimes about all the problems they would have had with a queer, social deviant, with a learning disability, for which they received government aid, and a preference for progressive contemporary art.
Yay passing, being white, and American fascism's focus, mostly, on racism.
There is actually a real difference between a democracy founded on liberalism which has a capacity to grow beyond what it was, and the fascist state that will be created if things go as bad as they could go in this moment of history.
The fascist state will not be able to advance past racism, it will enshrine racism into its core principles.
That Trump doesn't have anything to do with this movement is what makes it so dangerous. If it were just Trump we would be fine because he is an idiot. Its the smart, charismatic guy that comes after Trump who will be a nightmare. It is a leaderless white revolution waiting to be led.
Also I would definitely consider the Confederate States of America to be close in character to a revolutionary Fascist state.
"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!".
I feel like this question is kind of silly honestly. The Economist has a long-standing history of praising those characteristics of administrations they agree with (usually economic, usually opening of border and trade to the free flow of goods/services/people). Hell, they've done that with Trump when something good is proposed. But for the most part they completely go against fascist and authoritarians and push human rights in certain areas much earlier than other publications will (see: LGBT people, whom they've supported for longer than most other major publications).