|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 11 2019 01:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 01:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 01:29 IgnE wrote:On May 10 2019 21:33 Velr wrote:
I got a feeling that many people just learned that Facism = Bad, whiteout ever being told what actually makes it bad in principle.
Facism is obviously horrible, but this is not as obvious as you would might think, else it would never have gotten as big as it was.
If you believe in a strong leader, want to put your nation first, have a strong belief in order (not necessarily law, just order), that your culture has to be protected from outside forces and so on...
Well, chances are very high that you are actually pretty open to Facism. Are monarchies fascist? I think that's a good question, I've been asking myself similar questions lately. I find a lot of similarities between the two, with the exception of feudalism vs capitalism. Absolutism tends to focus on the leader as a person rather than on the nation, but I would argue that you don't really need to focus on the nation in these days because basically everyone is already a massive "nationalist" (that's a bit anachronistic but I trust you get the idea?). Sort of in the same way that the founding fathers didn't need to say that black people weren't humans when they said all humans have unalienable rights. If you're saying this because there's a glaring difference that I'm overlooking I would very much like to see you make that argument, cause I find this interesting. Maybe when I have more time I’ll circle back to monarchies, but to put perhaps a finer point on it, is xenophobia fascist?
Not necessarily, no.
|
On May 11 2019 02:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 01:48 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2019 01:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 01:29 IgnE wrote:On May 10 2019 21:33 Velr wrote:
I got a feeling that many people just learned that Facism = Bad, whiteout ever being told what actually makes it bad in principle.
Facism is obviously horrible, but this is not as obvious as you would might think, else it would never have gotten as big as it was.
If you believe in a strong leader, want to put your nation first, have a strong belief in order (not necessarily law, just order), that your culture has to be protected from outside forces and so on...
Well, chances are very high that you are actually pretty open to Facism. Are monarchies fascist? I think that's a good question, I've been asking myself similar questions lately. I find a lot of similarities between the two, with the exception of feudalism vs capitalism. Absolutism tends to focus on the leader as a person rather than on the nation, but I would argue that you don't really need to focus on the nation in these days because basically everyone is already a massive "nationalist" (that's a bit anachronistic but I trust you get the idea?). Sort of in the same way that the founding fathers didn't need to say that black people weren't humans when they said all humans have unalienable rights. If you're saying this because there's a glaring difference that I'm overlooking I would very much like to see you make that argument, cause I find this interesting. Maybe when I have more time I’ll circle back to monarchies, but to put perhaps a finer point on it, is xenophobia fascist? Not necessarily, no.
How about: not all xenophobes are fascists but all fascists are xenophobes?
|
I think a discussion of government systems that doesn't anchor itself in a time and place is bound to arrive at unhelpfully generic and potentially misleading conclusions. Monarchism and fascism and their emergence, establishment, and maintenance, to frame the issues one way, cannot be understood without reference to their material conditions, with the former being rooted in land/rent-centric, highly religious societies that, for the most part, came into existence long before the Enlightenment. Fascism (or shall we say first-wave fascism), on the other hand, is closely tied to the collective instabilities wrought on populations that were entirely unprepared for (or extremely susceptible to) the "long-term" consequences of imperialism, industrialization, and progress-oriented (capitalistic) national ethos.
The two may have some commonalities, but I don't think those commonalities serve as a useful basis for fleshing out how fascism works today without heavy recontextualization such that we might as well figure out a better angle. Conceiving of a contemporary revitalization of monarchism sure sounds like fun though 
|
On May 11 2019 02:00 Plansix wrote:
Monarchies and fascism share similarities, for sure. One could argue that fascism is a rebranding of ideology of monarchies for an era where nations and nationalism dominate political thought. During the evolution of democracy throughout Europe, you see lurches forward to democratic institutions and then the nations reverting to the "stability" of monarchy.
But one of the key differences of fascism is how it is designed to subvert democratic ideals and institutions to gain power with the express intent of destroying those institutions. The fascist will shamelessly lie that they respect democratic ideals to be treated as a good faith actor. Monarchies, though centered around a central rule and unjustly empowering a class of people over the rest of the population, does not share the subversive underpinning of fascism. Instead it relies on theological reasoning, like divine rule, to justify its existence.
Fascists like democracy when the right person is elected. When the stakes are high enough, almost everyone only believes in democracy when the right person/group is chosen. Are not liberal democracies only stable when a liberal is elected?
|
On May 11 2019 01:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 21:33 Velr wrote:
I got a feeling that many people just learned that Facism = Bad, whiteout ever being told what actually makes it bad in principle.
Facism is obviously horrible, but this is not as obvious as you would might think, else it would never have gotten as big as it was.
If you believe in a strong leader, want to put your nation first, have a strong belief in order (not necessarily law, just order), that your culture has to be protected from outside forces and so on...
Well, chances are very high that you are actually pretty open to Facism. Are monarchies fascist?
Fascism and Totalitarianism are not the same. If the monarch has absolute power (lets say Liechtenstein) and believes that his populace is subservient to the nation and should function as good cogs in the machine that is the nation (and cogs of the wrong "type" should be discarded for the good of the nation), then yes, that monarch would be the fascist's wet dream. Liechtenstein, despite being an absolute monarchy, is not fascist because Prince Hans-Adam II does not believe these things and doesn't enact anything to move the nation of Liechtenstein toward such a state.
|
Plansix do you really believe that Trump supporters don’t believe in elections?
|
On May 11 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:
Plansix do you really believe that Trump supporters don’t believe in elections?
Not sure about his supporters, but I don't think Trump believes in elections. At least not any election in which he loses. Any in which he wins must be fair. Any in which he loses must be rigged.
|
First wave fascism is a good term that I will be using more. Because fascism was a response to a given time period and its re-emergence will change due to fascism existing previously. But at its core fascism's goal is to unjustly empower a specific class/group of people by through the oppression and demonetization of another classes/groups of people. That is the core goal of fascism and all other rules or ideology bend around that.
For example, the Nazis are well known for championing the idea of the "master race", but none of the features of said "master race" can be seen in the leadership of the Nazi party. The ideology was meaningless and simply a tool. Anyone could be labeled part of the inferior class and marginalized. And anyone with the features of the "less human" class could be elevated as part of the "master race".It was a way to create justification to oppress any group of people they wanted. This is why fascism is so hard to pin down, because its is lies pile upon lies for the simple purpose of obtaining and maintaining power.
|
On May 11 2019 02:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 02:00 Plansix wrote:
Monarchies and fascism share similarities, for sure. One could argue that fascism is a rebranding of ideology of monarchies for an era where nations and nationalism dominate political thought. During the evolution of democracy throughout Europe, you see lurches forward to democratic institutions and then the nations reverting to the "stability" of monarchy.
But one of the key differences of fascism is how it is designed to subvert democratic ideals and institutions to gain power with the express intent of destroying those institutions. The fascist will shamelessly lie that they respect democratic ideals to be treated as a good faith actor. Monarchies, though centered around a central rule and unjustly empowering a class of people over the rest of the population, does not share the subversive underpinning of fascism. Instead it relies on theological reasoning, like divine rule, to justify its existence. Fascists like democracy when the right person is elected. When the stakes are high enough, almost everyone only believes in democracy when the right person/group is chosen. Are not liberal democracies only stable when a liberal is elected?
This is true but it's also easily explained by the fact that there's a tension between capitalism and democracy.
|
On May 11 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:
Plansix do you really believe that Trump supporters don’t believe in elections?
I believe there is a set of them that would accept the justification provided by the government for suspending elections due to an emergency. And there is another, larger group of them that would be uncomfortable with the idea of the President being removed because he was trying to suspend elections.
On May 11 2019 02:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 02:00 Plansix wrote:
Monarchies and fascism share similarities, for sure. One could argue that fascism is a rebranding of ideology of monarchies for an era where nations and nationalism dominate political thought. During the evolution of democracy throughout Europe, you see lurches forward to democratic institutions and then the nations reverting to the "stability" of monarchy.
But one of the key differences of fascism is how it is designed to subvert democratic ideals and institutions to gain power with the express intent of destroying those institutions. The fascist will shamelessly lie that they respect democratic ideals to be treated as a good faith actor. Monarchies, though centered around a central rule and unjustly empowering a class of people over the rest of the population, does not share the subversive underpinning of fascism. Instead it relies on theological reasoning, like divine rule, to justify its existence. Fascists like democracy when the right person is elected. When the stakes are high enough, almost everyone only believes in democracy when the right person/group is chosen. Are not liberal democracies only stable when a liberal is elected?
Fascist like democracy right up until they are in power. Then they remove the option of democracy going forward because it is to dangerous for the nation.
To your question: Democracy only functions when the people involved are committed to the preservation of democracy over all other things, including their own power.
|
Well some elections are legitimate and some are not. How are to decide which are and which are not?
|
On May 11 2019 02:47 IgnE wrote:
Well some elections are legitimate and some are not. How are to decide which are and which are not?
All elections are legitimate and must be treated as such for democracy to function. If fraud is committed, it is up to the legislature and political figures to use the mechanism of goverment to remove person elected through fraud from power. This is why we certify elections and officials are 'accepted" into the legislative body in the US. If that doesn't happen, then the people have the option to push for a fraud free election next time.
|
In this discussion about fascism people seem to use their own definition of it. Reading the wiki page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism), most of what was said on this subject over the last few pages was pointless and misguided. Comparing fascism to monarchies, really?
This is a well studied topic guys. Please do some research first. I know I only lurk here, but I expect better .
|
I really can't believe all this motte and bailey argumentation. The first assertion of fascistic Trump is usually his criticism of the media, operation of border patrol and ICE, and criticism of investigations. The basic assumption there is that only fascists would insult so frequently and repeatedly and it shows devaluation of our institutions (counterargument, generally: these institutions are very corrupt and deserve the criticism in a democracy).
Then, somebody seriously thinks the next logical step is suspending elections? God the left has gotten so wacko in this country. Unrealistic statement of paranoia sustains justification of anti-democratic and corrupt action, and the reaction is then used as the basis for the hysteria.
Proof is usually ignored, but I'll link it anyways. We've had Terry Gillum and Stacey Abrams complaining that the election was rigged against them and they are the real governors of their states. If people had a shred of dignity for assuming Trump would claim a rigged election if he loses, then they'd be the first ones here saying that these two failed Democratic candidates are fascists and need to be censured. In fact, Democratic Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris is supporting their side of the story. So which is it? You're allowed to question the results of the election, or it's a betrayal of democracy?
Let's just say I think some on the left here are at least tolerant of election deniers because they hate Trump so much, while many outright support and defend their own hypocrisy towards the issue.
|
On May 11 2019 03:05 Sr18 wrote:In this discussion about fascism people seem to use their own definition of it. Reading the wiki page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism), most of what was said on this subject over the last few pages was pointless and misguided. Comparing fascism to monarchies, really? This is a well studied topic guys. Please do some research first. I know I only lurk here, but I expect better .
Again, I'd like to see the argument. I've been starting to do this research and so far the main difference that I can see between the two system is the ultranationalism part, which I've mentioned in my post to IgnE. If there's a glaring difference that I'm missing I would very much like to be educated. This wiki page doesn't really do that tho.
|
Well you see “fascism” has its etymological origin in “fasces” meaning a bundle of sticks, which symbolized a Roman lictor’s power, entrusted to him by the community. Absolute monarchy during the Enlightenment preferred to draw on the Hobbesian symbolism of a monarch as the head of a body (politic). So it’s really a question of metaphor, an aesthetic preference. Don’t let people tell you that aesthetics are apolitical.
|
On May 11 2019 03:08 Danglars wrote:I really can't believe all this motte and bailey argumentation. The first assertion of fascistic Trump is usually his criticism of the media, operation of border patrol and ICE, and criticism of investigations. The basic assumption there is that only fascists would insult so frequently and repeatedly and it shows devaluation of our institutions (counterargument, generally: these institutions are very corrupt and deserve the criticism in a democracy). Then, somebody seriously thinks the next logical step is suspending elections? God the left has gotten so wacko in this country. Unrealistic statement of paranoia sustains justification of anti-democratic and corrupt action, and the reaction is then used as the basis for the hysteria. https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1125199779481436160Proof is usually ignored, but I'll link it anyways. We've had Terry Gillum and Stacey Abrams complaining that the election was rigged against them and they are the real governors of their states. If people had a shred of dignity for assuming Trump would claim a rigged election if he loses, then they'd be the first ones here saying that these two failed Democratic candidates are fascists and need to be censured. In fact, Democratic Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris is supporting their side of the story. So which is it? You're allowed to question the results of the election, or it's a betrayal of democracy? Let's just say I think some on the left here are at least tolerant of election deniers because they hate Trump so much, while many outright support and defend their own hypocrisy towards the issue. I don't know a whole lot about the specific situations you mention so I'll keep it simple and general.
I have no problem with calling an election rigged, by a Democrat or a Republican if they can point to actual facts as an argument.
Gerrymandering and voters suppression in the US are real things that happen and that have impacts on elections and the closer a margin is, the bigger their effect will have been.
What is unlikely to be real is whatever reason Trump would bring up for having lost an election.
Note for example that no one here called the last Presidential election rigged, despite Hillary losing. Much was said about the bullshit EC but no one at all (that I am aware of) brought up the point that the result was anything other then what it was.
|
On May 11 2019 03:08 Danglars wrote:I really can't believe all this motte and bailey argumentation. The first assertion of fascistic Trump is usually his criticism of the media, operation of border patrol and ICE, and criticism of investigations. The basic assumption there is that only fascists would insult so frequently and repeatedly and it shows devaluation of our institutions (counterargument, generally: these institutions are very corrupt and deserve the criticism in a democracy). Then, somebody seriously thinks the next logical step is suspending elections? God the left has gotten so wacko in this country. Unrealistic statement of paranoia sustains justification of anti-democratic and corrupt action, and the reaction is then used as the basis for the hysteria. https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1125199779481436160Proof is usually ignored, but I'll link it anyways. We've had Terry Gillum and Stacey Abrams complaining that the election was rigged against them and they are the real governors of their states. If people had a shred of dignity for assuming Trump would claim a rigged election if he loses, then they'd be the first ones here saying that these two failed Democratic candidates are fascists and need to be censured. In fact, Democratic Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris is supporting their side of the story. So which is it? You're allowed to question the results of the election, or it's a betrayal of democracy? Let's just say I think some on the left here are at least tolerant of election deniers because they hate Trump so much, while many outright support and defend their own hypocrisy towards the issue.
Your "proof" explicitly refutes your claim, so you might want to try again.
|
On May 11 2019 02:00 Plansix wrote:
Monarchies and fascism share similarities, for sure. One could argue that fascism is a rebranding of ideology of monarchies for an era where nations and nationalism dominate political thought. During the evolution of democracy throughout Europe, you see lurches forward to democratic institutions and then the nations reverting to the "stability" of monarchy.
But one of the key differences of fascism is how it is designed to subvert democratic ideals and institutions to gain power with the express intent of destroying those institutions. The fascist will shamelessly lie that they respect democratic ideals to be treated as a good faith actor. Monarchies, though centered around a central rule and unjustly empowering a class of people over the rest of the population, does not share the subversive underpinning of fascism. Instead it relies on theological reasoning, like divine rule, to justify its existence.
Fascism also relies on theological reasoning. The group that the fascist belongs to should rule society because that's the way things ought to be like; there's an element of destiny in this. This subversion of democratic ideals that you talk about only exists because the system that we have now is democratic, and they aim to change that. It wouldn't be a part of fascism if the system wasn't democratic, and so it doesn't help with the differentiation of the ideologies, it only helps with the differentiation of the contexts.
(I want to answer the other posts too but I'm at work and I don't have a lot of time)
|
Folks will notice that the objections had nothing to do with the substance of the discussion, but to the use of the word “fascism” at all. You seem this same response to any discussion about “racism” or if someone is “racist”, claiming that the word is over used and the left is intolerant for using it. The substance doesn’t matter, it the use of the word caused the aggressive response. The greatest fear of a lot of Trump supporters isn’t supporting racism or fascism, but being called racist or fascists. They fear the label more than the fact that they might be supporting those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
