|
Oh look, a German making classifications of people
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 18:51 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:08 |
|
Rappaport posted:Oh look, a German making classifications of people That's an american classification actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#American_zone
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 18:54 |
|
Bulbo posted:That's an american classification actually. I know, I've read my Neumann, I just can't resist a jab at Jerry. I apologize
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 18:55 |
|
Fiction posted:they would have lined up behind Petain, no doubt. Since they fancy themselves as a minority underdog fighting an hopeless battle against the march of history (trends in demography, immigration, globalization), I dont see why you paint them as collaborators with the powers that be. Sure, right now, most of them would rather live in Vichy France than the EU, but still...
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 18:55 |
|
Ligur posted:I don't actually know what FN stands for F stands for Fascists; N stands for Nazis I hope this was instructive.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:21 |
|
it's fabrique nationale obv
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:28 |
|
pfft, scrubs, it stands for Fake News, obv.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:29 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:Why stop at fascism when you can go back to absolute monarchy? who's the current bourbon pretender?
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:32 |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bourbon#Descent_from_Henry_IV no idea how this works, but Philipe of Spain could probably stake his claim if we're going that route.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:35 |
|
Liberation did an amusing thing http://www.liberation.fr/apps/2017/03/compteur-lacheurs-fillon/
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:35 |
|
double nine posted:pfft, scrubs, it stands for Fake News, obv. lol
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:37 |
|
Iggore posted:Since they fancy themselves as a minority underdog fighting an hopeless battle against the march of history (trends in demography, immigration, globalization), I dont see why you paint them as collaborators with the powers that be. That's because you just described Pétain and his ilk too.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:39 |
|
Fados posted:Don't want to keep making GBS threads up the thread with the fascist-or-not talk, I would just like to leave these two articles which point out some differences between the new right-wing populism with it's 20th century sousin and why it's very important to notice where they part, not to normalize them in some way but precisly how to point out they are can unwittingly be even more dangerous today. The problem is those were written by Americans for the american public, and like you said they're mostly about Trump. It's actively ignoring huge parts of our history and the fact that modern fascist parties enjoy a form of legitimacy that allows them to use democratic tools instead of political violence as a revolutionary means to an end. On that front both articles seem to contradict themselves by the way, one says that it's a means to an end, and the other says that "Fascism emphasizes violence for its own sake" but to be fair both are historically true. They cite Golden Dawn as an example of a true modern fascist party, ignoring the fact that their use of fascist/nazi symbols is the same as the FN (as I've already mentioned) and that their use of openly political violence stems from them being the underdog instead of a well-established party apologized for by the media and parts of the general public. Their going full fascist could also be explained by their drive to openly confront the Greek radical left, with its very active anarchist and communist communities whereas the FN, which is very much in line politically, is active in a very milquetoast liberal democracy in which people could actually be coaxed into voting for the far-right with the right arguments at the right time, without open conflict. In the end their whole point is that right-wing populists can't be fascist as long as they don't openly say that they are and are not in a position of power which would allow them to become totalitarian. You could argue that it's the case about parties like UKIP, which is definitely racist but only arguably fascist in the historical sense of the word, but in the case of the FN you'd have to be ignoring the 20th century and the history of WWII and post-war France to come to the conclusion that they are democratically sound and in no way a throwback to the fascist movements of the 30s. The FN is very much its own thing, it's deeply rooted in French post-war history and the way they romanticize our history and obsess over their roots is what appeals to people, however short-sighted, forgetful or openly fascist they may be. Because there ARE openly fascist and violent people in France, believe it or not. And they all happen to support the FN. I wish I had better resources in English for you, but the Wikipedia pages about the FN and everyone involved in its inception and history are fine and should give you some much-needed context. Much better than two articles about Trump written by Americans anyway, even though Vox is okay and I understand why you would trust them so. Just keep in mind that fascism is a very European thing. Parallels between Trump and the European far-right could hypothetically be established, but they don't share the same history. But if Bannon had had a European upbringing and outlook on politics instead of an American one, he would have definitely deserved to be called a fascist. Not that he doesn't already deserve that, you can't quote Evola and say "nope, not a fascist, look I love Israel and Freedom". In my opinion we're not witnessing the rise of far-right populism but the normalization of an updated European fascism, so we disagree on that point. It's certainly the case in France, in America it's more about the essence of fascism than its superficial characteristics. In Europe they certainly kept the decorum though, ergo why we're not afraid to use the word and we can't believe it when people argue that fascism isn't represented anymore in our respective political spectra. "What is the essence of fascism?" and "How can we stop it?" are much more interesting questions than "Is x a fascist?" even though I spent hours posting in this thread trying to prove x are indeed fascist, I really hope we can move the discussion towards the really interesting points by admitting that yes, fascism is still a thing that's still as dangerous as it's always been and that the word has kept its edge, and its definition.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 19:59 |
|
Fillon's home is being raided by the police http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39146848
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 20:01 |
|
double nine posted:pfft, scrubs, it stands for Fake News, obv. "fausse nouvelle" checks out
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 20:13 |
|
double nine posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bourbon#Descent_from_Henry_IV If I remember my history lessons correctly one of the clauses of the treaty that put an end to the Spanish succession war in 1713 is that the Spanish Bourbon-Anjou dinasty (cousing of the French Bourbon-Orleans, the kings of France at the time) could never ever inherit the French throne. For what's worth.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 20:28 |
|
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 21:07 |
|
Funnily enough there's a right of center party in France called the Radical Party. It's the oldest French party still in activity (founded in 1901), but now it's just under the umbrella of the center right with other minor parties. Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 2, 2017 |
# ? Mar 2, 2017 21:10 |
Lord of the Llamas posted:Fillon's home is being raided by the police http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39146848
|
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 21:13 |
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Fillon's home is being raided by the police http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39146848 Not seeing this anywhere in the French media. EDIT found a source in Le Point, not gonna trust this before it's taken up my more people Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Mar 2, 2017 |
# ? Mar 2, 2017 22:06 |
|
x420ReDdIT_Br0nYx posted:It's actively ignoring huge parts of our history and the fact that modern fascist parties enjoy a form of legitimacy that allows them to use democratic tools instead of political violence as a revolutionary means to an end. Okay dude, I will for a moment ignore my kneejerk gut feeling that leftists love to call poo poo fascist when they feel lazy about thinking when it relates to new right-wing variants and accept that FN and France might have different historical conditions where it indeed might be more like fascism than other anti-immigrant and islamophobic movements. I will take you up on your offer to move right along and start by quoting Benjamin here who says that: "behind every fascism there is a failed left revolution". What this means is that the sudden growth of FN (and I did check the statistics, Marie has had much greater success in all electoral fields that her father), is directly correlated to failure of Holland in homology with the rise of Trump after 8 years of failed promises from Obama (with I'd admit a single notable exception in healthcare). I jumped in to this discussion when the debate on whether the antifa style protest/violence on the FN supporters was a valid and efficient way of stemming the support of this movement. Even though FN might be undercover fascists the fact that they are bidding their time without openly advocating for the violent take over of the state or the abolition of the democratic system (they aren't right?) makes it so that for a large proportion of voters, even those that might still be on the fence, and unfortunately we know how a lot of people make their voting decisions so close to the voting booth, will interpret the prostest as an inherently anti democratic stance. My questions to you is, do you feel that, given France's more specific conditions in relation to fascism, that anti-fascist violence, even against undercover fascists, is beneficial when it comes to the stance of the so called 'silent majority'?
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 22:17 |
|
x420ReDdIT_Br0nYx posted:The problem is those were written by Americans for the american public, and like you said they're mostly about Trump. It's actively ignoring huge parts of our history and the fact that modern fascist parties enjoy a form of legitimacy that allows them to use democratic tools instead of political violence as a revolutionary means to an end. On that front both articles seem to contradict themselves by the way, one says that it's a means to an end, and the other says that "Fascism emphasizes violence for its own sake" but to be fair both are historically true. They cite Golden Dawn as an example of a true modern fascist party, ignoring the fact that their use of fascist/nazi symbols is the same as the FN (as I've already mentioned) and that their use of openly political violence stems from them being the underdog instead of a well-established party apologized for by the media and parts of the general public. Their going full fascist could also be explained by their drive to openly confront the Greek radical left, with its very active anarchist and communist communities whereas the FN, which is very much in line politically, is active in a very milquetoast liberal democracy in which people could actually be coaxed into voting for the far-right with the right arguments at the right time, without open conflict. Thanks for the effort post, it was an interesting read.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2017 22:25 |
|
Liberals passivelly standing by while these movements have grown in the past 15 years have done wonders at stoping them gaining relevance ill tell you what.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:07 |
|
Kassad posted:That's because you just described Pétain and his ilk too. Fascism was very much ŕ la mode and perceived as the strongest political ideology during the thirties all the way until its military reversal of fortune during WWII. Nazism had more supporter in the West, in relative and real terms, than Islamism currently does in the Muslim world today. Right-wing extremists understood themselves as reactionaries, yes, but never on the losing end of history like today.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:19 |
|
Fados posted:My questions to you is, do you feel that, given France's more specific conditions in relation to fascism, that anti-fascist violence, even against undercover fascists, is beneficial when it comes to the stance of the so called 'silent majority'? Anti-fascism violence and action in France, like the recent action to shut down of a conference by jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, operate in a space of public indifference carved out by years of derogating discourse. So it is not really a deciding factor on the stance of the majority. What is decisive is the fact that, in France like in the rest of Europe, issues of national identity and immigration have been ignored or mismanaged by ruling parties, so much that far-right parties have been able to base their entire political growth over the past two decades on those issues alone. Which is problematic because, without being old-school fascists, those parties are, at a bare minimum, administratively incompetent (much like the Trump Administration) and are advocating counter-productive miracle solutions.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:35 |
|
I agree completely. I would say that this type of violence being accepted and defended as a sort productive action in a kinda of preventive antifascist terror act, as some poster framed it a few pages ago, feels to me like a gaping symptom of the left's failure to deal with the current change and it's inability as to the grappling with the problems you mentioned. It's a form of subjective violence as Zizek would put it, a lashing out that signals the inability of changing the objective (systemic) violence that keeps the system goign on. I accept as a given that the right-wing are morally, scientifically and tactically wrong, they are wrong on every level you can imagine and still obviously they grow, not because liberals aren't throwing enough paint cans, burning enough cars or punching enough nazies, but precisely they keep insisting in the same non-solution of ironically demanding more empathy and understanding towards the other as another sort of miracle solution.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 01:24 |
|
I think the root cause is demographic change and all its derivative issues, which are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being ignored or improperly addressed by rulings mainstream parties. It is perceived as being inflicted instead of desired or, at the very least, improperly managed. Hence why the majority white population is turning to far-right populism. Samuel Huntington said that, regarding the relative demographic decline of western Whites, that the odds of White people reacting like the Serbs is close to zero. But the odds of Westerners not reacting at all was also zero. Hence, they elected Trump. The only thing preventing the election of the FN in France is the two-round electoral system. The Alternative for Germany is on the rise, as other like-minded parties in almost every other European countries. Coupled with the radical leftist discourse over identity, its tearing down of gender norms and racial privileges, and the radical left's knee-jerk reaction against anything that's not left enough, those that are disillusioned within the majority don't really know where to turn to. Iggore fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Mar 3, 2017 |
# ? Mar 3, 2017 02:00 |
|
Fados posted:Okay dude, I will for a moment ignore my kneejerk gut feeling that leftists love to call poo poo fascist when they feel lazy about thinking when it relates to new right-wing variants and accept that FN and France might have different historical conditions where it indeed might be more like fascism than other anti-immigrant and islamophobic movements. I will take you up on your offer to move right along and start by quoting Benjamin here who says that: "behind every fascism there is a failed left revolution". What this means is that the sudden growth of FN (and I did check the statistics, Marie has had much greater success in all electoral fields that her father), is directly correlated to failure of Holland in homology with the rise of Trump after 8 years of failed promises from Obama (with I'd admit a single notable exception in healthcare). I personally use the word "fascist" very sparingly. Fillon for example is a corrupt piece of poo poo and liberal swine but not a fascist. The FN is. When it comes to FN victories, the most notable one was certainly in 2002 and it had nothing to do with the failures of the left since they hadn't been in power for a long time, but it went a long way toward legitimizing the party in the eyes of the public. Since then they have been gaining traction, mainly because they present themselves as the voice of the "silent majority" and as an anti-system party in the midst of corruption scandals, liberal policies and humanitarian crises across the globe (including the recent refugee crisis) even though they themselves are part of the elite (especially the Le Pen family) and are as corrupt as the others. Hollande's presidency may have played a role but the FN would have found a way to spin facts in their favor with any president, and I say that as someone who hated Hollande with a passion. The thing is there are many options for people who feel disenfranchised, including a non-racist anticapitalist party. We could spend hours debating what specifically makes them so attractive to so many voters and if there is a succinct answer, it certainly won't be a satisfying one. If there is one thing though, the FN is really good when it comes to public relations and managing their brand. Fados posted:My questions to you is, do you feel that, given France's more specific conditions in relation to fascism, that anti-fascist violence, even against undercover fascists, is beneficial when it comes to the stance of the so called 'silent majority'? There is absolutely no way to know if these acts are beneficial or not to the "silent majority". I thought a lot about your question, but it simply is impossible to quantify and verify the effects of those acts, especially since they happened so recently. And in the end, even corruption scandals don't matter when it comes to vote intentions apparently, so I'd be surprised if protests and violence did anything to prevent people from voting FN or push them to vote FN out of spite. Their voters certainly don't care that Le Pen siphoned money off of the EU even though she's running a platform supposedly against corruption and the EU. I just think that the use of violence hasn't been proven to be more or less effective than any other means of resistance, so I don't oppose it. If there was a surefire way to get rid of this nauseating party pacifically we probably wouldn't be having this debate. Doctor Malaver posted:Thanks for the effort post, it was an interesting read. Thank you for reading it, I wasn't sure if it was worth the effort but I'm glad it was.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 03:37 |
|
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 08:59 |
|
Imagine if it happened during a second round against lepen.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 09:12 |
|
Syriza to World Bank: "Hello, friends! Can we interest you in a glorious opportunity to stick your dicks in an active blender?" http://www.politico.eu/article/gree...campaign=buffer quote:Greece’s €86 billion bailout package could soon become even more complicated, after the country’s government decided to seek an unknown amount of “financial assistance” from the World Bank, according to people familiar with the situation.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 09:31 |
|
Iggore posted:I think the root cause is demographic change and all its derivative issues, which are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being ignored or improperly addressed by rulings mainstream parties. It is perceived as being inflicted instead of desired or, at the very least, improperly managed. Hence why the majority white population is turning to far-right populism. It's a very simplistic explanation for what's going on and there are a lot of examples that contradict it. For example, countries like Poland that don't have any significant immigration or existing immigration population, have had some of the hardest authoritarian-xenophobic reactions on the continent. Germany, on the other hand, a country that has been below replacement rate since the 60s and has been taking in multiple multi-million people immigration waves over the decades, has had one of the weakest right-wing shifts. quote:Coupled with the radical leftist discourse over identity, its tearing down of gender norms and racial privileges, and the radical left's knee-jerk reaction against anything that's not left enough, those that are disillusioned within the majority don't really know where to turn to. Except for the inconvenient truth that the right shift of social democratic parties all across Europe has been driven by the electorate. Real social democratic parties still exist in most of European countries, but their electoral results are, for the most part, extremely poor. As has been pointed out itt, the issue of minority rights is completely inconsequential to economic issues and a political party can have more than one of these issues in their program. The supposed focus on "identity politics" has been completely overblown by right-wing propaganda for their own purposes. I'm not saying that demographics have no effect at all, but I think there are much more important factors at play. Like the fact that the right wing has been creating their own media echo chambers and has been blasting these chambers with a completely manufactured reality for the last decade or so. Democratic/pluralistic mentality is doing much better in countries where serious public discourse still exists, immigrants or not. In countries where public discourse turned into incoherent grunting and howling, like in the US or Poland, its decline is much more severe.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 09:45 |
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:It's a very simplistic explanation for what's going on and there are a lot of examples that contradict it. For example, countries like Poland that don't have any significant immigration or existing immigration population, have had some of the hardest authoritarian-xenophobic reactions on the continent. Germany, on the other hand, a country that has been below replacement rate since the 60s and has been taking in multiple multi-million people immigration waves over the decades, has had one of the weakest right-wing shifts. Without wanting to get all I'm not sure if it's productive to compare the relative electoral success, or lack thereof, of SocDem parties in Poland to those in western Europe. To my admittedly western European sensibilities their relationship with "left of center" is very coloured by their experiences under the yoke of Moscow for a bigly chunk of the 20th century, and the relative decline of the left of center will always be more exaggerated if you're coming out of a half century of communism and suddenly you get to experiment with things like capitalism and income inequality. Additionally, if what you say is correct, and the right shift of the Social Democratic parties of Europe was driven by the electorate. How would that then translate to *lower* electoral gains for them? If the base sees them shift rightward and that's something that they want, why punish the party? I don't see that as making much sense. Was there some terminal decline in people who hold social democrat convictions that (attempting to) represent these voters is no longer politically feasible?
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 10:18 |
|
The shift to the right in Social Democratic parties in western Europe was in almost every case a top-down affair that happened when various Third Way types managed to take over the party leaderships or when the party leadership itself adopted Third Way ideology in the late eighties and early nineties. It had very little to do with electoral trends.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 10:24 |
|
Hey Greece just default already, let it happen.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 10:36 |
|
I'm glad that thanks to the Internet I can still read half-arsed, dodgy clash of the civilisations arguments based on rubbish like Finkielkraut and Huntington, just like when I was a philosophy TA.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 10:37 |
|
Hambilderberglar posted:Without wanting to get all I'm not sure if it's productive to compare the relative electoral success, or lack thereof, of SocDem parties in Poland to those in western Europe. To my admittedly western European sensibilities their relationship with "left of center" is very coloured by their experiences under the yoke of Moscow for a bigly chunk of the 20th century, and the relative decline of the left of center will always be more exaggerated if you're coming out of a half century of communism and suddenly you get to experiment with things like capitalism and income inequality. The left became economically centrist or right to appeal to the middle class. First It alienated their lower class base, then the middle class stopped voting for social democrats once they figured out the right will pander to them even more.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 10:38 |
|
At this rate I expect Fillon to drop out before his rally on Sunday. Will be interesting to see the updated list of sponsorships today.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 10:42 |
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Hey Greece just default already, let it happen. They are literally not allowed to. Welcome to Europe, where the only option is infinite austerity, right until your welfare is back in neolithic periods or you elect the Golden Dawn. Enjoy your stay. LemonDrizzle posted:Syriza to World Bank: "Hello, friends! Can we interest you in a glorious opportunity to stick your dicks in an active blender?" I giggled quite a bit at this, thank you
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 10:53 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:08 |
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:At this rate I expect Fillon to drop out before his rally on Sunday. Will be interesting to see the updated list of sponsorships today. I hope he doesn't and it causes more LR meltdowns
|
# ? Mar 3, 2017 10:54 |