Where’s italy?
Italy’s taking the picture
Milei, Meloni, and Orban already ran by the cameraman.
right? I was like… these guys are only aspiring to fascism, where’s Orban?
they already are fascist, so no reason for them to run towards it, also they’re included in the EU
also they’re included in the EU
So’s Germany, France, and
LatviaAustria. AKA everyone pictured except the US.tbh I was just too lazy to insert every european flag, so I just put the EU one there and the countries I know some politicsl shit about
That’s fair 😁
Italy should actually be in the front
democratic is a bit of a stretch though
For the USA, yes, but there are other countries too where democracy still kinda works
I think calling everyone a fascist would just water down the impact of the fascist world just like the far right- or far left-wing words which nowadays are just used on more left/right parties but are kinda not close on their agenda like the 20th century parties were where these definitons came from.
But educate me if some of these countries have parties which really apply most general aspects of the fascism movement
the guy running for chancellor in Austria (Herbert Kickl) is calling himself “Volkskanzler”, guess who also called himself that? fucking Hitler. so no, I don’t think I’m over reacting
For people like me, that’s “People’s Chancellor”.
Mein chancellor für her, her is the general public
Wow dayum that definitely seem really sus.
I’m calling myself human - you know who did that too? Fucking Ted.
everyone calls themself human, not everyone calls themself Führer, Reichskanzler, Volkskanzler, etc.
Now what is a Volkskanzler? In itself it should be a Kanzler, so a part of a democratic government, for the Volk, so the people. And I never actually heard about Hitler calling himself that, only that he was the Reichskanzler, Führer etc.
Edit:
After the end of the dictatorship, the original meaning was transferred both directly and indirectly to well-known democratic state politicians such as Ludwig Erhard and Bruno Kreisky.
So those democratic politicians are Hitlers too now?
no, they aren’t, because they were leftists trying to reclaim the word so they obviosly weren’t nazis, the people using it nowdays are far right, so it’s not really obvios wether they are nazis or not.
Wanting to ban mosques, the quran and muslim clothing like niqabs sounds pretty fascist to me (that’s what the biggest political party in The Netherlands wants). Thinking the European far right (that is rapidly gaining grounds) isn’t fascist or fascist leaning is a wild take.
Well it could be a fascist, but nevertheless on which category they are really in, it’s really awful for doing this
Unfortunately most leftist parties in Europe suffer from the paradox of tolerance. And rightists are hypocritical in opposing Islam but supporting Christianity. There’s nobody anti-islamic who’s not a fascist, which is ironic since in some ways they are quite similar, and both are harmful to humanity.
(And to make it clear before you accuse me of being fascist, I oppose the currently dominant version of Islam which is not separable from politics, and which insists on actual belief in god and quran. Once it becomes a weakly held cultural category like Christianity in most of Europe I’ll be fine with it)
“There’s nobody anti-islamic who’s not a fascis”
I’m sorry but you can be violently anti-religion without being a fascist. Considering religions for what they are - a way to dominate the people by fear anddesinformation - does not mean that you are going to prevent people from practicing their religion. You are just making damn sure they don’t advocate them in public schools, hospitals and administrations.
I’m sorry but you can be violently anti-religion without being a fascist.
Yes, that was exactly my point. I’m complaining that in the current political scene there are no parties that separate those ideas.
And yes, banning the public display will only make it go underground and become stronger, this is why it’s so important to separate anti-religion from fascism.Actually, no you can’t. What you are doing is substituting your political beliefs for your religious ones, and that at its core is what separates a facist from any other political belief system
Not if you don’t infringe on people’s right to practice
That’s the problem with both religion and politics. If you think you’re right and everyone else is wrong, you can’t help but to I fringe on other people’s right to practice. That’s why anyone that thinks a leftist government can be a democracy with opposition political parties is at best wrong
Where in Europe do you consider islam to be more than a ‘cultural category like Christianity’? Most European countries have large Christian conservative political parties that are preventing trans people from getting the medical care they need and women from having ownership of their bodies when they’re pregnant.
As a trans person fundamentalist Christians are a much bigger threat to me than fundamentalist muslims. I experience solidarity from muslims who know what it’s like to be marginalised and discriminated against. There are muslim people who would like to restrict my determination over my own body, but there are way more Christians in my country who would like to do the same and they pose and actual threat to me.
A few of the AFD highlights
Member of the Bundestag suggested to shoot every migrant at the border.
Another one claimed not every SS member was a bad person. Which lost them the support of French and Italian fascist.
Leader of the party in Thüringen, a history teacher, used a slogan of the SA.
There is many more…
Yeah. Scary stuff. I live in central Berlin, and it’s pretty relaxed here. Did the Mauerlauf last weekend and immediately when you cross the Brandenburg border to some of these villages, they’re full of AfD advertisement. Berlin is definitely the Portland of Germany :D
You’ve won. Certified fascistmaxxers there.
Germany definitely counts. The AfD is above 20%, in some states they might even govern alone. They probably will be part of the next government after the next election and they definitely are fascist.
It’s mind boggling how a suspiciously nazi friendly party can get so many votes. Doesn’t Germany have some serious anti-nazi laws written into it’s constitution, or is that treated like a joke too like in Hungary?
Nazi symbolism is forbidden and some slogans. One of the leaders of AfD was recently fined for using one such slogan. The secret service tasked with protecting the constitution (Verfassungsschutz) is watching the AfD and a mechanism to outlaw the party is currently worked on. We need to wait for the repost of this secret service to really start the mechanism. Once started it is estimated to need at least 4 years to get a result. So even if successfull the AfD will be in the government in a lot of states till then and possibly be in the federal government.
Germany is slow when it comes to prosecuting the far right. Usually when there are big protests against the far right the police distracts from them by arresting former member of the far left terror organization RAF which has been inactice for decades.
Germany sold everyone the myth of denazification, while in some cases it was even more nazification, look at the articles liked in this comment for example.
Pretty sure the first order of business is going to be to remove those laws.
Many are populist parties, with the feeling that fascism is just waiting behind a hidden corner.
Not even slightly hidden
An example, a Dutch minister for the biggest party (PVV, in my opinion (very close to being) a facist party) was an active member on an internet forum called Stormfront which is known to be a forum for neo-nazis
Lol is that nazi character “stormfront” in the boys named after this forum?
Could be? Idk
Jesus Christ, didn’t he resign from his role after the backlash?
Nope, it became public news somewhere in June iirc and she (Fleur Agema) is now Deputy Prime Minister.
Fucking awesome 👍
Even the Netherlands is affected by non-consequence scenarios. Please west EU, don’t turn into Hungary, I need to escape to a decent country please.
We are allowed by court to call members of the FPÖ Kellernazis (people who are secretly Nazis when drinking with their buddies under the cellar) the FPÖ will most likely be the strongest party after the next Nationalrats election on September 29th. They will have something between 30 to 35% which is pretty strong. They have actual plans in their program to overthrow governments via referendum of the public and other things. So yes, it fits.
They are expected to have between 25 and 30 percent*
And usually prognosises tend to value them higher than they end up, so I guess we can expect them to get around 25%. Plenty of space for other parties to form a coalition.
Let’s say ist a tie in our expectations?
if calling it what it is waters it down so be it
“if using a word improperly muddies it’s definition, so be it”
Are you anti dictionary or something?
the fact you are in denial doesnt make the latest fascist wave any less fascist.
There is no careful use of language that can stop people from preferring hatred. Humans are machines for making the world worse, and they will continue to do so, and while they do it they will rationalise doing it, and while people get hurt (including themselves) they will blame the victims.
“It’s not fascism!” they complain as minorities are scapegoated and children die. Just get used to the fact that anything that is pointed entirely towards harming people for fun and profit is going to attract a range of derogatory words, and maybe think about how to stop humans from hurting humans instead.
Humans are machines for making the world worse
This sounds like fatalistic capitalist/imperialist realism.
I will wait for humans to decide to feed hungry children.
Secretary General of the United Nations, 2019: Helping 800 Million People Escape Poverty Was Greatest Such Effort in History, Says Secretary-General, on Seventieth Anniversary of China’s Founding
Agreed, actions to save the weak and oppressed should be more important, I just worry that such words like fascist could lose it’s punching weight whenever someone could be truly a fascist. It wouldn’t have as such a backlash for that certain target.
This started with “the war on terror.” And then any time there was anything someone didn’t like, it was “terrorism.”
“Bolsonarismo” in Brazil has an uncanny resemblance to fascism
Most fascist movements die out before they can hold onto power long enough to transform society.
We tend to focus on the fascist movements that have obtained power on held onto it long enough to transform a country into a fascist state. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler etc.
But the danger is there so it’s important to be vigilant.
That being said… yeah, on lemmy.ml, anyone that fails the leftist purity test is a liberal and all liberals are fascists. Everyone is a fascist that isn’t an authoritarian with a red and yellow flag.
on lemmy.ml, anyone that fails the leftist purity test is a liberal and all liberals are fascists
Liberals: “You can’t just call everyone a fascist every time you disagree with a policy, it isn’t civil.”
Also Liberals: “My political opponents are fascist and any third party vote is a vote for fascism and if you don’t vote you’re supporting fascism and if you argue with me on foreign policy or debt relief or you hurt my election chances in any way, then you’re going to let a fascist back into the White House.”
The politcal system means that voting for a third party means you’re not actually opposing fascism. It has the exact same effect as not voting at all. While it’s not supporting fascism, it’s also not opposing fascism. So it’s just being fascism neutral.
It would be nice if you had a system where a third party vote wasn’t the same as not voting but that kind of system will never happen if you continue to waste your vote.
I live in a blue state. Using that same logic, my vote for a Democrat is a wasted vote, because my state is going to go blue whether I vote for them or not.
If you actually want a potential President Kamala Harris to have some good legislation to sign, you might want to consider voting for congressional candidates that will write the kind of legislation you want. And if you want to end the Electorial College bullshit, you might consider voting for state reps. And while you’re there, you may as well vote for Harris if for no other reason than you might someday say to your grandkids that you voted for the first woman President. That’s a better story to tell than explaining about how you were too angsty about “the system” to bother going out to vote.
Where did I say that I wasn’t going to vote? I’m voting Green. If there’s a good Democrat running for Congress, I’ll vote for them, too. This isn’t complicated.
Voting Green has the exact same effect as not voting. Yeah, it shouldn’t be that way, but it’s the way it is. There’s wanting the ideal system where third party votes matter and there’s pretending it already is an ideal system
You don’t get to an ideal system by voting for people that won’t have any power to change things. You make a difference by writing to and calling the people who do have power and ensure the people you call are at least sympathetic to what you want.
It is indeed not that complicated.
that kind of system will never happen if you continue to waste your vote.
Why would the winning party change the system that compels you to vote for them?
A ranked choice type system would mean a third party wouldn’t be just something that screws up elections. In fact it would probably really benefit Democrats as people who might not go to vote otherwise might go vote green as their top pick and then vote Democrat as their second pick. If the Green candidate won, that’s someone they could make some compromises with to get legislation passed. If the green candidate loses, then many of their votes would go to the Dem candidate making it more likely they would win.
Twice in this century a GOP candidate has won the EC without winning the popular vote. So it’s obvious why the Democrats would want to get rid of that.
But as it stands voting third party (or not voting) is just letting everyone else decide how things should be. The way it works now is you vote for the candidate most likely to care about your concerns (and who could feasibly win) and write to them and tell them what you want. Yeah it’s a pain in the ass to write to a representative, but it’s more likely to have an effect than anything you write on the internet. Be polite, tell them the things you want that can be reasonably be implemented. Also you’re probably going to have to vote in many elections to get what you want. But if it’s something you really care about you’re willing to vote in as many elections and write to your rep as many times as needed to get it done.
It takes time, but it’s more effective than doing nothing.
In fact it would probably really benefit Democrats as people who might not go to vote otherwise might go vote green as their top pick and then vote Democrat as their second pick. If the Green candidate won, that’s someone they could make some compromises with
This is a naive understand of how the Democratic Party wants to function.
I need to make a bot to post this any time fascism gets mentioned.
The western left’s use of the term fascism, is borderline white-supremacist at this point. Fascism was a form of colonialism that died by the 1940s, and is only allowed to be demonized in public discourse, because it was a form of colonialism directed also against white europeans. It was defeated, and Germany / Italy / Japan reverted to the more stable form of government for colonialism (practiced by the US, UK, France, the Netherlands, Australia, etc): bourgeois parliamentarism.
British, european, and now US colonizers were doing the exact same thing, and killing far more people for hundreds of years in the global south, yet you don’t hear ppl scared of their countries potentially "adopting parliamentary democracy”. They haven’t changed, and their wealth is still propped up by surplus value theft from the super-exploitation of hundreds of millions of low-paid global south proletarians.
This is why you have new leftists terrified that the UK or US or europe “might turn fascist!!”, betraying that the atrocities propagated by those empires against the global south was and is completely acceptable.
Make no mistake about it: parliamentary / bourgeois democracy is not only a more stable form of government, it’s also far more effective at carrying out colonialism, and killing millions of innocent people.
Fascism is a pretty specific ideology. If you want to learn more, Umberto Eco made a list.
I get where you’re getting at: the role of past and ongoing colonialism is still being downplayed. But you’re wrong. There are very good reasons why we should fear fascism in particular.
The USA genocided an entire continent under it’s current form of government, and committed and is still committing countless other atrocities. Look at what Europe did to Africa and Asia under that same form.
Bourgeois parliamentarism is a much more stable shell for colonialism than any other form of government has proven to be. Demonizing a dead form of colonialism (fascism) lets them off the hook, and never forces them to look at what their own governments are currently doing. They get to keep their chauvinist / supremacist myth about “liberal democracy” being the superior form of government, without challenging it.
Yes, that’s why I wrote the part after “I see what you’re getting at”
I’d also like to add that hitler was very specific about his desire to emulate the US model of colonialism: and do to eastern europe, what the US had already done to its native peoples.
The only difference between lebensraum and manifest destiny, is that bourgeois democracy was far more effective at indigenous genocide than fascism was.
Yeah, the Nazis weren’t really subtle. If you instead maintain a civil front inward for public support, you can wreak havoc more effectively.
That’s why fascism is a different kind of danger. It wouldn’t leech off of other places for centuries, it would explosively and directly attack internal and external enemies.
Neither of these things can be risked.
Eco is not a definitive authority and his little checklist is extremely ahistorical.
Source?
Literally just read the list. It’s not ahistorical because it gets history wrong, it’s ahistorical because it has nothing to do with history. It has no ability to explain how and why fascism emerged when it did rather than sooner or later and thereby has very little understanding of what it actually is. It’s like defining a disease by a very loose checklist of symptoms, the fundamental causality is completely absent, so there is very little you can even do with it besides make a shaky diagnosis.
Incidentally, Trump isn’t a fascist. He flirts with being a fascist and in many ways has lit the way [something something tiki torches] for future fascists, but fundamentally, he’s just doing fascist-like rhetoric as a way to sell people on relatively normal neoliberal policy. Probably the most strange thing he did was bomb Qasem Soleimani, something that Democrats didn’t even really oppose on any grounds other than it being rash, despite Soleimani being a leader in the fight against ISIS. If I had to pick a second thing, it was probably lowering military funding to South Korea, which was just him being stupid and accidentally a clearly good thing to do. He’s not harder on immigrants than Democrats, he’s not harder on China or Russia, he’s just a normal rightist wrt to queers, he likes giving tax cuts to rich people, and he’s fussy in diplomatic meetings. He had very few policies that Biden didn’t immediately perpetuate. If you want to call the whole neoliberal edifice fascist, fine, whatever, but he’s not special in anything but aesthetics.
Umberto Eco completely ignores the material basis for fascism, which is usually the downwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie. Fascism takes advantage of superstructural elements, which is why Eco’s list contains the elements it does in a kind of grab bag fashion. But it still has a material basis, itself being a response to a crisis within capitalism. Would highly recommend The Jakarta Method for further reading on what people are discussing in your replies and in this thread.
Umberto Eco completely ignores the material basis for fascism, which is usually the downwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie.
The Nation, 2017: Trumpism: It’s Coming From the Suburbs
But scapegoating poor whites keeps the conversation away from fascism’s real base: the petite bourgeoisie. This is a piece of jargon used mostly by Marxists to denote small-property owners, whose nearest equivalents these days may be the “upper middle class” or “small-business owners.” FiveThirtyEight reported last May that “the median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000,” or roughly 130 percent of the national median. Trump’s real base, the actual backbone of fascism, isn’t poor and working-class voters, but middle-class and affluent whites. Often self-employed, possessed of a retirement account and a home as a nest egg, this is the stratum taken in by Horatio Alger stories. They can envision playing the market well enough to become the next Trump. They haven’t won “big-league,” but they’ve won enough to be invested in the hierarchy they aspire to climb. If only America were made great again, they could become the haute bourgeoisie—the storied “1 percent.”
another good read on the subject https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. Funny how Trump is a fascist no matter what definition you use.
Trump isn’t a fascist. In action he is actually a pretty standard reactionary liberal. You will notice that Biden has continued the salient policies that made liberals call him a fascist, such as extreme and horrible border policies (Dems actually outflanked the GOP on this from the right), anti-China policy, and extending militarism (like maximum pressure on Russia via Ukraine).
He’s mostly just openly racist whereas the political class usually wraps itself in polite jargon bullshit before it fucks with a bunch of brown people.
Almost as if he is one and the definitions agree for a reason.
It’s not perfect, but it’s good introductory material for people who fell for the right-wing propaganda of “everybody’s called a fascist now, there isn’t even a definition”.
Yes, suckers, there are people with an understanding of what fascism is, and they agree for a reason about the dangers of things like calling people vermin, casting doubt on election integrity, and strong man rhetoric.
A much better read on how fascism inevitably arises out of liberal capitalism https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/
What kind of ship?
Hardship most likely
Yeah but ours is “good fascism” 😆
