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).
We're not saying they are fascists, only that they will back them in the face of leftist policies that undercut their class power
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).
We're not saying they are fascists, only that they will back them in the face of leftist policies that undercut their class power
I feel like that's a really sweeping generalization of the magazine. They recently just published a number of articles on anti-trust regulation against large tech companies and the need for unions (or some reinvention of unions in the face of new technologies) in order to solve issues like income inequality. Or what about the fact that the Economist supports free immigration and open borders?
Yet there they are with "gee i sure hope he does something about those pensions "
They're saying Bolsonaro has a chance at reform, which is what he was voted into office in Brazil to do? It's the same sort of "he sure seems like a piece of shit but maybe he can do some good" that plenty of people were saying after Trump was elected. It turned out to be false, but there's nothing wrong with putting a little bit of hope in their editorial response to an election. That's not "backing" or supporting a fascist.
I'm not sure rehashing old points about the article in question is going to be very productive, but I'd point out that "He's a piece of shit but hopefully he can do some good" is what capital has said every time before they rolled over to fascists to protect their financial interests.
"He's a piece of shit but there's hope" is what you say about a moderate who cheats on his wife, not a fascist.
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.
Support for any GOP candidate would have correlated with racism and sexism, as should be immediately obvious. I am not taking an issue with the research, I am taking an issue with your implication that it is causal or explanatory. It's a ridiculously simplistic view of voter behaviour, and it ignores the complexities of any such research.
I mean, I would argue that America is halfway fascist any way, and Trump isn't really much of a deviation from the norm as people claim. Little kids pledge allegiance to the state every day, displays of militarism and ultranationalism are so common people hardly even notice them.
But the point is that there are many possible explanations for the data we have, and the research you have mentioned does not contradict the point Styro was making.
Can a nation with a top global military force not be fascist?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Fascism doesn't require racism per se, but it makes it a lot easier.
Also, what the fuck?
There were pre-racism flavors of fascism. The whole modern concept of racism was something that people only really came up with properly in the 1800's. People were racist before that, but, there was so little contact between what modern racists would view as 'the races' that building a government based on it wouldn't really work. Racism was more a national policy (lets invade China! Because Chinese people aren't people!) than a local political influence. Your pre-racism flavors tended to rely on exploiting religious schisms between people and countries and brewing up hate between different local groups based on historical slights.
Before the modern concept of racism was invented, didn't we basically just have different flavors of feudal monarchies in Europe? I feel like there was a long gap between the democracies of Greece and Rome and modern democracies.
Before racism was invented, didn't we basically just have different flavors of feudal monarchies in Europe?
Xenophobia has always been a thing. Modern racism as a pseudo rational pursuit was a gift from the Enlightenment.
+11
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Pretty much! National origin, tribe, sect, family group, etc, these things were of primary importance. Skin color seems to have not been a source of major prejudice in those times from the reading that I've done. You start seeing "whiteness" become defined much later on, and I believe that the reason for this is because as territories and nations change hands, becoming new kingdoms or part of a different kingdom or what have you, the more traditional identity of the people in these areas of extreme political upheaval and instability, which was pretty much all of Europe by the 1300s, began to erode. The black death and other pandemics including TB had demolished society, so much of the world had all but gone. Holy wars and inquisitions were almost certainly an early foundation of what we'd identify as modern fascism and racism.
I'm a very casual student of history though and I'm probably like 100% wrong and if so that's cool cuz that means that someone will tell me and then I can be right
I guess I feel like it can be both of those things
so it might be outside the scope of the thread, but real quick, on this topic:
So American Racism and White Supremacy is like a fucking mutant virus engineered back in the early colonial era, which took on it's own life that's propagated since.
Basically, the way I understand it, is that it was developed as a means of dividing poor white Europeans and African slaves from one another so they posed less of a risk to the landed gentry when it came to the power structures in the colonies, while also working to prevent African slaves from ever being freed under the systems of the time. Like, you could get out of it by accepting Christianity, basically, which became something of a thing for a while.
As you can imagine, the white landed gentry was not particularly fond of losing their free labor. So they started a campaign of dehumanization against Africans in order to prevent losing their labor, and to help placate the poor white settlers by making them feel like there was someone below them.
Give it a few decades and you get the strain of American Racism we've been struggling with for literal centuries.
Slate had an article pulled from Strange New Land: Africans in Colonial America about it, which is my primary cite for it:
i'm awesoming that for the information not the... you know... all the racism.
The Slate Article is really informative, I just always forget to check into the book it's drawing from for the article.
But it's also just like... depressingly horrifying.
I mean, there's a certain amount of hope buried at the bottom of that mountain of garbage. It makes it pretty clear that being horribly racist based on skin color isn't some fundamental human condition. We've just been trained to do it by profit seeking rich people desperate to skim the last few cents out of the system. Reform is possible, we can all just vaguely get along with each other! We used to do just that. In Virginia of all places.
Racism is a construct. We can pull that construct down.
i'm awesoming that for the information not the... you know... all the racism.
The Slate Article is really informative, I just always forget to check into the book it's drawing from for the article.
But it's also just like... depressingly horrifying.
I mean, there's a certain amount of hope buried at the bottom of that mountain of garbage. It makes it pretty clear that being horribly racist based on skin color isn't some fundamental human condition. We've just been trained to do it by profit seeking rich people desperate to skim the last few cents out of the system. Reform is possible, we can all just vaguely get along with each other! We used to do just that. In Virginia of all places.
Racism is a construct. We can pull that construct down.
PBS's The Mine Wars gets to a bit of this as well; in one of the mines, I forget which at the moment, the company owners segregated the workers by race and nationality, believing this would help avoid them joining together to unionize against them.
Except for the fact that they all then worked together in the dark mines, covered in dirt, dust, etc. from working in the mines to the point that no one could make out those features anymore, so you started having the workers bonding together anyhow despite the owners intentionally trying to segregate them.
"Hitler did nothing wrong within the borders of Germany" sure is a take
Even if it was accurate (it is not) we can’t act like ethics end at our own country’s borders. I mean, I see it all the time here in America, but it doesn’t mean it’s good or right or even acceptable.
joshofalltrades on
+3
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited February 2019
this is a fantastic video about Steve Bannon and how Fascist thought when recognizing issues with the world kind of gets the first part right but then veers into the in-group vs out-group logic fascists have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO6uD3c2qMo
Fascism doesn't require racism per se, but it makes it a lot easier.
Also, what the fuck?
There were pre-racism flavors of fascism. The whole modern concept of racism was something that people only really came up with properly in the 1800's. People were racist before that, but, there was so little contact between what modern racists would view as 'the races' that building a government based on it wouldn't really work. Racism was more a national policy (lets invade China! Because Chinese people aren't people!) than a local political influence. Your pre-racism flavors tended to rely on exploiting religious schisms between people and countries and brewing up hate between different local groups based on historical slights.
I guess Fascism just requires an "other" that the fascist can use as a nebulous enemy
Then I would assume she was using as a defense of what Hitler did which, you know, makes her a monster.
Speaking of hateful, perfectly legal things.
Available from the official White House gift shop.
Is the Strong Man/Supreme Leader thing intrinsic to fascism (Idi Amin, Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Putin) or is it more the degradation of faith in institutions? Because I may not have agreed with previous Presidents but I still had a tremendous amount of respect for the office and the White House itself and that is gradually going away because of things like this.
Then I would assume she was using as a defense of what Hitler did which, you know, makes her a monster.
Speaking of hateful, perfectly legal things.
Available from the official White House gift shop.
Is the Strong Man/Supreme Leader thing intrinsic to fascism (Idi Amin, Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Putin) or is it more the degradation of faith in institutions? Because I may not have agreed with previous Presidents but I still had a tremendous amount of respect for the office and the White House itself and that is gradually going away because of things like this.
It's intrinsic to authoritarianism, of which fascism is a subset; so yeah, probably.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
# 7 Coin
Historic Moments Coin Collection as Seen in Worldwide News
Symbolizing the Genius Level Thinking Skills & Proven Successes of
President Donald J. Trump
The Historic Moments in History Collection,
Will Chronicle in Coin Art
The "Entire" Presidency of President Donald J. Trump
This Collection Will Become the World's Largest Collection of Its Kind
Chronicling in Bold Coin Art the Progression of What is Likely the Most Unique and Talented President in United States and World History
But the fact that we can call it out kind of separates us from other despotic institutions
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The Cult of Personality is one of the things that distinguishes Fascism from Authoritarian conservatism etc. It's one of the core and vital parts of Fascism.
Posts
We're not saying they are fascists, only that they will back them in the face of leftist policies that undercut their class power
Yet there they are with "gee i sure hope he does something about those pensions "
I feel like that's a really sweeping generalization of the magazine. They recently just published a number of articles on anti-trust regulation against large tech companies and the need for unions (or some reinvention of unions in the face of new technologies) in order to solve issues like income inequality. Or what about the fact that the Economist supports free immigration and open borders?
They're saying Bolsonaro has a chance at reform, which is what he was voted into office in Brazil to do? It's the same sort of "he sure seems like a piece of shit but maybe he can do some good" that plenty of people were saying after Trump was elected. It turned out to be false, but there's nothing wrong with putting a little bit of hope in their editorial response to an election. That's not "backing" or supporting a fascist.
"He's a piece of shit but there's hope" is what you say about a moderate who cheats on his wife, not a fascist.
edit: hell, that's one of the reasons why so many folk step aside when one gets into power
"well, maybe it won't be as bad as it looks, smells, and sounds like"
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Support for any GOP candidate would have correlated with racism and sexism, as should be immediately obvious. I am not taking an issue with the research, I am taking an issue with your implication that it is causal or explanatory. It's a ridiculously simplistic view of voter behaviour, and it ignores the complexities of any such research.
I mean, I would argue that America is halfway fascist any way, and Trump isn't really much of a deviation from the norm as people claim. Little kids pledge allegiance to the state every day, displays of militarism and ultranationalism are so common people hardly even notice them.
But the point is that there are many possible explanations for the data we have, and the research you have mentioned does not contradict the point Styro was making.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
per Media Matters.
Well, that sounds bad.
That's disconcerting.
So is racism a pre-req for fascism or are they just best buddies?
Donald Trump is an elected representative of the United States.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Also, what the fuck?
There were pre-racism flavors of fascism. The whole modern concept of racism was something that people only really came up with properly in the 1800's. People were racist before that, but, there was so little contact between what modern racists would view as 'the races' that building a government based on it wouldn't really work. Racism was more a national policy (lets invade China! Because Chinese people aren't people!) than a local political influence. Your pre-racism flavors tended to rely on exploiting religious schisms between people and countries and brewing up hate between different local groups based on historical slights.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Xenophobia has always been a thing. Modern racism as a pseudo rational pursuit was a gift from the Enlightenment.
I'm a very casual student of history though and I'm probably like 100% wrong and if so that's cool cuz that means that someone will tell me and then I can be right
The Slate Article is really informative, I just always forget to check into the book it's drawing from for the article.
But it's also just like... depressingly horrifying.
I mean, there's a certain amount of hope buried at the bottom of that mountain of garbage. It makes it pretty clear that being horribly racist based on skin color isn't some fundamental human condition. We've just been trained to do it by profit seeking rich people desperate to skim the last few cents out of the system. Reform is possible, we can all just vaguely get along with each other! We used to do just that. In Virginia of all places.
Racism is a construct. We can pull that construct down.
PBS's The Mine Wars gets to a bit of this as well; in one of the mines, I forget which at the moment, the company owners segregated the workers by race and nationality, believing this would help avoid them joining together to unionize against them.
Except for the fact that they all then worked together in the dark mines, covered in dirt, dust, etc. from working in the mines to the point that no one could make out those features anymore, so you started having the workers bonding together anyhow despite the owners intentionally trying to segregate them.
Via Media Matters’ News Director
Communications Director of Turning Point USA saying Hitler’s only problem was his annexation of other nations
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Even if it was accurate (it is not) we can’t act like ethics end at our own country’s borders. I mean, I see it all the time here in America, but it doesn’t mean it’s good or right or even acceptable.
I guess Fascism just requires an "other" that the fascist can use as a nebulous enemy
“Everything Hitler did was legal” is both a common defense and indictment of what happened
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Speaking of hateful, perfectly legal things.
Available from the official White House gift shop.
Is the Strong Man/Supreme Leader thing intrinsic to fascism (Idi Amin, Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Putin) or is it more the degradation of faith in institutions? Because I may not have agreed with previous Presidents but I still had a tremendous amount of respect for the office and the White House itself and that is gradually going away because of things like this.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
It's intrinsic to authoritarianism, of which fascism is a subset; so yeah, probably.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I guess I was referring more to the description:
https://www.whitehousegiftshop.com/product-p/coin7-case.htm
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
But the fact that we can call it out kind of separates us from other despotic institutions
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods