A return of Fascism in Europe?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A return of Fascism in Europe?

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Berke Negri posted:

It's romantic to think of fascism as some sort of Ur-Disease in the body politic but authoritarianism is authoritarianism left or right. I wouldn't be surprised if in a hundred years people didn't distinguish between the two as we do with our Cold War/Post-WW2 sensibilities.

Fascism as a sort of turbo-nationalist violence-fetish does stand out from other authoritarian groupings though, just in that its notable for being so devoid of genuine ideology.

Liberal capitalism is authoritarian. The only that isn't authoritarian is pacifism, every other political ideology requires the imposition of legitimate force in order to guarantee the hegemony of that ideology in society (otherwise, it will fall to those that do).

rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Aug 15, 2013

# ¿ Aug 15, 2013 05:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 09:09

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Those quotes by lenin only further reinforce the point about what makes fascism different: lenin explicitly couches the violence in it's necessity to achieve a real, tangible goal (a new political system) directed by at a group of people that oppose that transition because they control the current one.

There's a tendency to say that fascism is violence, but that's not true. Rather, it positions violence as a device to transform/change/mutate people or society. The society is analogized to a biological organism that is 'cleaned' through the use of force - who it is directed at doesn't really matter, nor why. People who look different or behave different, a minority ethnicity or weak group is then a favorite target, and that's what makes anti-immigration groups fascist. They position themselves as restoring the REAL COUNTRY (which in this case has a racialized component) through pointless violence against those that don't fit that conception. Immigrants and recent immigrants are not in a position of power or control, they don't really pose a threat to the current social order. This makes them an easy target for an ideology based on transformative violence. Same with roma, homosexuals, etc.

Marxism and its derivatives aren't based on notions of biopower or concepts of people as needing (or ever able) to transform themselves. It is based on historical materialism and the ultimate power of material conditions. The transition from capitalism to socialism to communism isn't then dependent on expecting people to act in a different character, merely that acting communally will be easier than not. Liberalism and it's derivatives actually has somewhat similar assumptions, but it's focus is purely on the state and balancing the power of the state versus the groups it must govern (the monolithic 'public').

That's why you can end up with widely accepted authors on what constitutes a 'liberal' or 'socialist' vision, but you can't do the same with fascism. It's not for a lack of trying, Fascists imitate ideologies to give themselves legitimacy, but there's not one vision that you can point to and say "That is The Fascism". It's particular to the area and time it emerges from. It TRIES to keep up an appearance of being intellectual and analytic, but it can't do that because it has no rigorous conception of what a human being is and what society is. It takes 'common-sense' inherited cultural notions to their terrifying conclusion. It attempts to create an answer without first examining what exactly the question is, as a real scholar would do. It has all the trappings and and pretense of modern thinking, without any of the responsibilities or obligations.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Sep 8, 2013

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 05:53

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Liberals are more than capable of excusing or denying crimes committed by their regimes or allies (Iran-Contra, pinochet, any of the african famines, etc). If you stand there, cross your arms and say "they don't count" then you're denying them - if you talk about how times have changed, then you're just distancing yourself from them!

What makes fascism exceptional isn't that what is does is criminal from any arbitrary point of view, but that what it does is pointless. It's not after a tangible goal but an perceptual attainment of an immaterial goal - the metaphorical transformation of society - whose definition can be changed and moved because it never really had one in the first place.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Sep 8, 2013

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 07:19

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

quote:

And whether fascism has material or immaterial goals: they're quite material:

I can't agree with this. The fact that fascism has no endpoint, no stable node, to me means that the transformation that fascists are after only exists in metaphor, it does not and cannot exist in reality. The fascists transformation has no basis in materialism. The fact that they kill/exile/oppress for the sake of it is what makes it tragic and pointless. I cannot call it a modern way of thinking, but pseudo-modern. If you read people like plato, you'll notice that they tend to fixate on ideas of 'virtue' when talking about politics. The liberal revolution is understanding that a 'virtuous' view of history and society tells you jack-poo poo, you have to talk about a human subject and the environment they are in. Socialism inherited that as well, it's why historical materialism is one of the factors behind Marxism. Fascism inherited the old virtue-based perspective on history and society and combined with the products of modern thinking (technology and bureaucracy). Copying the results without doing the working, as it were.

I'd actually go out on a limb and claim that libertarianism is a kind of Market Fascism (everything within the market, nothing outside the market, nothing against the market) because of it's focus on specific entrepreneurs and 'captains of industry' as part of it's perspective on economics. Everyone does best in never-ending competition, the free market is best because it allows virtuous people to impose their will on everyone else, etc, etc.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Sep 9, 2013

# ¿ Sep 9, 2013 09:45

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

I�d say liberals allowing socialists to speak has changed plenty of things in liberal society. But you�re missing the point. The fact that there are socialists to be found in academia, media and politics in liberal societies, while there are far fewer Fascists (if any at all, in certain fields and countries) is indicative of the fact that socialism is tolerated to a far greater extent than Fascism.

What country are you in? This isn't true of any country I can think of. The general trend is that fascists today vastly outnumber socialists in politics and media, academia I wouldn't have a clue about. Worse, you have center parties that have ended up adopting the policies of fascist groups, because they are 'addressing the concerns of the community' etc. etc.

edit:

Omi-Polari posted:

Interestingly, the DIA considers "aggressive authoritarian capitalism" a greater threat to the U.S. today. Socialism doesn't even make the list. We should show this to right-wingers and freak them out.

Read that as code for 'China' rather than as any self-conscious economic policy.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Sep 9, 2013

# ¿ Sep 9, 2013 13:38

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Fascists don't thrive on sympathy, they thrive on bullshit machismo. Because that's what fascism is. Emasculating fascists through intimidation is actually a really good way of dealing with them.

The issue of course is that police will prefer to smack down leftists than fascists, that's the only reason you'd hold back.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 02:06

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Install Windows posted:

Didn't work in Germany.

Are you suggesting that an alternate strategy of 'don't let fascists get sympathy' would have worked? Honestly, it just seems like the nazis weren't beaten up enough.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 2, 2013

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 03:46

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

TJO posted:

Two Golden Dawn members got killed.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/01/two-golden-dawn-members-killed-in-drive-by-shooting/

Without knowing much more I can only say stamp the dirt down.

We don't know who did it and why. If it was politically motivated, wouldn't someone have taken responsibility? I'd hope leftists in greece are willing and able to do these kinds of acts, but we don't know that as a matter of fact.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 05:33

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Strudel Man posted:

I don't think attempting the systematic murder of all golden dawn members would be a good move for the stability of the Greek state.

No you're right, it wouldn't be useful right now. But if you aren't willing to do it when it is useful, you'll end up in a fascist state.

Omi-Polari posted:

Oh there are definitely leftists in Greece who are willing and capable. These are not your U.S. or Western Europe leftists but armed Greek left-wing extremists who have done things like fire an RPG-7 round at the U.S. embassy a couple years ago and are suspected in the assassination of a journalist.

They also took responsibility, because that's the point of these kind of attacks. If no one has taken responsibility soon-ish, we can probably assume is organized crime. We know Golden Dawn runs protection rackets, it's possible that they intruded on existing criminal relations or whatever, and this would be a response from them.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 09:18

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Strudel Man posted:

To be frank, I don't really think there's anyone's judgement I would trust as to the determination of when mass murder is "useful." Not even my own. That's the kind of thing that I'd want there to be very little uncertainty on, and I'm just not convinced that we have the theoretical understanding to make that kind of judgement with confidence.

I guess ultimately one of my life philosophies is, "when in doubt, don't murder a bunch of people."

Except in the second one he linked, where they apparently didn't, and the perpetrators were identified by ballistic testing.

I would quite honestly seriously doubt the connection on the second one based on only ballistics identification. I don't believe it is reliable enough.

Like, let me put it this way: I don't see why you would, if you were the enemies of political enemies of GD, attack GD and then not politicize that attack. I say wait and see for a bit, before we assume who did it.

Sakarja posted:

How is it possible to determine when it�s useful? And can you really not see the problem with suspending the rule of law and murdering your political opponents en masse? I find it really surprising that people actually think that it�s possible to have just a teensy bit of mass murder and then have things go right back to normal again.

Rule of law is contingent on one political ideology having hegemony over the others. When that hegemony no longer exists, a power struggle will necessarily break out. That is one example of when political violence is absolutely necessary. If you're not willing to use it then you will be strung up by fascists. That's how civil wars work.

Sometimes, it is impossible for things to go back to the way they were, however much you'd like them to. That is called history.

It's not useful right now, because such a situation doesn't yet exist, and trying to bring about its existence would be incredibly cruel and idiotic. A lot of people would die for no real good reason. An internal blanket ban on any kind of leftist future political violence for the purposes of keeping a 'moral highground' (of dubious value) is, however, misguided.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Nov 2, 2013

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 10:41

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

You didn't like that 'anti-fascists were resembling fascists' because they are willing to use violence to achieve their objectives. You dehumanized them as 'being driven by primordial hatred'. My point was that it's a strategic decision and, while I may disagree with it, I disagree with it on the terms of practicality - you disagree with it based on some misguided ideas about how law and order operates, and you essentialize radicals as fundamentally different from ordinary people (which is not the case).

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 11:33

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

YF-23 posted:

In the very post you quote me from, I also say this:

quote:

It's not useful right now, because such a situation doesn't yet exist, and trying to bring about its existence would be incredibly cruel and idiotic. A lot of people would die for no real good reason. An internal blanket ban on any kind of leftist future political violence for the purposes of keeping a 'moral highground' (of dubious value) is, however, misguided.

Hope that clears things up.

The point I'm trying to make is that practicality trumps romantics in these kind of terrible situations. There's way to much of the latter flying around in this thread right now, which I think is counter-productive.

Obviously I'd much prefer it if the fascists just gave up and drunk beer instead of intimidating minorities, but reality isn't that simple unfortunately.

Stay safe friend.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Nov 2, 2013

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 11:40

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

You treated 'rule of law' as something external to a power struggle, as something that is a result of every person being 'good'. That its status is something that leftists have control over, through their righteousness - that they would hasten it's breakdown through the use of violence. That is a lie. Rule of law is a contingent on systemic hegemony and its ability to legitimize itself. That hegemony is already under threat, and no action on the part of leftists will 'repair' that.

The government's hegemony remains for now, but it is under threat from GD. It's support among the police and it's continued growth and flexing of it's muscle against minorities is a symptom of that, but that growth wouldn't have happened if the central greek government had kept its legitimacy, or was as legitimate as any other state right now.

There is no such thing as a 'neutral state', and there never will be. There is no such thing as a 'rational subject' and there never will be. Abandon the platonic idealism of 'law' and 'freedom' as separate from human beings and their societies, and instead recognize that these concepts have always been contingent.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Nov 2, 2013

# ¿ Nov 2, 2013 14:05

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

It feels as if you�re conflating Vernii�s argument about political mass murder by the state and the recent killings of GD members.

Ah, actually yeah, I got lazy :sweatdrop:

Small Frozen Thing posted:

gently caress's sake, you should only kill Fash in self-defense. Don't let your bloodlust compromise your ideals!

If you only kill fash in 'self-defense', you'll do nothing while the fascists take control. Then you'll end up on the gallows. gently caress off with the 'bloodlust' bullshit and realize that not participating in a conflict like this is just losing by default. It's starry eyed optimism without any historical perspective.

I feel you man, I'm actually the opposite of a violent person. I'm certainly not a 'tough guy', internet or otherwise. But this is the world you live in right now.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Nov 3, 2013

# ¿ Nov 3, 2013 01:14

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Jedit posted:

Give Europe a thousand Breiviks in every country and more than two million innocent people will die. The idea is to prevent the next Holocaust, not to loving enact it.

Fascism can be defeated without pre-emptive violence. Woody Guthrie's guitar had "This Machine Kills Fascists" written on it, and it wasn't because he beaned them over the head with it.

Music and art doesn't mean jack poo poo, sorry. History is driven by political struggle between classes and ideologies, not by nice songs and empty platitudes.

Maybe the world would be a better place if this were true (though that is debatable), but to honestly believe it in the face of actually-existing reality is delusional.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2013 02:02

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

The great irony of what you say, is that liberalism would have been impossible without the political violence of the French Revolution. Open a history book and acknowledge that art and culture is contingent on the dominant hegemonic ideology, or stick with your 'drum circles' when jackbooted thugs are fighting in the streets and achieve nothing.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2013 02:11

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Strudel Man posted:

Definitely. Underneath it all, violence is what drives the beating heart of society. Politics, like life in general, is about struggle and conflict. Pacifism like these liberals espouse is nothing but surrender to the enemies lurking at the door. Only by truly embracing violence, by understanding that politics is a game of endless war, can we truly defeat the ever-present spectre of fascism.

No, life is about living. Eating. Partying. Socializing. Learning. Working. Politics is the means to achieving that end, for who and for what. Fascists seek to enrich along ethnic lines to sustain the system, liberal seek to enrich along class lines, socialists seek to abolish all distinction and thereby abolish politics. You've been doing this disingenuous game for a bunch of posts, and exactly 0 of them have been in any way insightful, funny or useful to anyone. Fascism, Liberalism and Socialism are distinct political ideologies with a different social perspectives and ideals, conflating them is nothing but pure propaganda. You aren't fooling anyone.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Nov 3, 2013

# ¿ Nov 3, 2013 02:24

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Strudel Man posted:

I'm sorry that you weren't amused by my attempts to fit the points you're making into standard fascist rhetoric. You have to realize, though, that it wasn't really intended for your benefit. Once someone is openly advocating the murder of their political enemies, I basically give up on engagement with them directly in favor of the general audience and my own sense of humor.

So, just to be clear, you admit that you yourself don't believe what you were saying, that you were being disingenuous for the sake of trolling (arguably very poorly)? You know that's shitposting, right?

rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Nov 3, 2013

# ¿ Nov 3, 2013 03:01

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Hey emden, what do you think about the return of fascism in europe? Seems to be a pretty crazy world out there.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2013 07:10

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Emden, you have to prove your worth by consuming things weaker than you.

Emden eat the eggs.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2013 09:53

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Are you morons seriously debating with emden, the literal nazi? Really? You didn't get the memo? I mean his custom title is right there, and it's not an exaggeration.

You think people would learn.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2013 00:35

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Raskolnikov38 posted:

It's more interesting than debating when and where is exactly the right moment to bash the fash.

Nope, giving some long winded speech or acting with outrage to emden is talking to a wall. You're not going to reveal anything that's not already obvious.

"Wait, fascists don't have a material basis for their ideology? It's just rooted in vague concepts that are ultimately meaningless, such as 'decadence' and 'stagnation'? :wth:

rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Nov 26, 2013

# ¿ Nov 26, 2013 01:21

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Shibawanko posted:

If fascism has a philosophical core it's the resolution to the question of the meaning of life, which it must answer with 'conflict/competition' in comparison with the more utilitarian answers of liberalism and socialism ('pursuit of happiness', etc.). But that's only the, uh, elitist backing of fascism. What makes it broadly appealing whenever it does have broad appeal is more interesting than your social-mind metaphor. It cannot simply resolve anxieties, because the anxieties that fascism resolve are fabricated (dangerous immigrants! race war! etc.). It's the reassertion of old ideas (in particular nationalism) to resolve the social question of capitalism. To bring society forward it is necessary to bring it back, etc.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2013 10:32

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

The archduke was killed by serbian nationalists, because he was attempting to grant serbs greater autonomy in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and that would undermine serb nationalism. How the gently caress is anarchism in there at all.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jan 3, 2014

# ¿ Jan 2, 2014 23:51

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

There is a stated intention in racist ideologues, but that is not the same as their function: the distinctions between races are arbitrary and fluid, but the functionally racism acts just as a damper on class consciousness. The social question is resolved by paying off one section of the working class with some of the surplus labour of the minority. The words written by racists here are worthless and irrelevant: they themselves are specific and contingent to the society around them, yet the net effect of racist ideology across societies is invariant.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2014 14:42

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

blowfish posted:

Golden Dawn politicians get arrested

Nice to see them getting some of their deserved comeuppance

Golden Dawn intends to challenge the government's crackdown in the European Court of Human Rights [EPA]

loving lol.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2014 14:52

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

A capitalist system is not as a whole a conscious thing with 'intention' or 'drive'. It is a system that will react to stimulus. The stimulus is the threat of labour unrest, the reaction is the exploitation of already existing divisions among labor as a basis of a power hierarchy. This is not an inefficiency, it's a necessary expense to maintain the power structures that further the class interests of capital. It's not a kind of cynical conspiracy-level game, of a secret cabal that 'created' racism or whatever, that's a gross misunderstanding. It's simply the easiest way to resolve the social question that doesn't infringe on capital's interests, or infringes on it the least.

Obdicut posted:

Anyway, as I said, the examples of anti-semitism and anti-Muslims sentiment, which are independent of class, demonstrate pretty clearly that a simple analysis of racism as mainly functioning to divide classes is insufficient. Going back to those ol' original Fascists in Italy and Germany, their racial ideology was clearly not either expressed as a support for capitalism nor did it have any practical effect of supporting capitalism.

Are you insane?

# ¿ Jan 12, 2014 15:51

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

You didn't think Marxism could be used to approach/used as a justification against racism, and you based it on the lack of 'intentionality' in Marxist thought, which you felt racist ideology had. Political economy is obviously not a comprehensive guide to all human behaviour ever, however intention is not something that is necessary to study systemic racism as a social phenomena because their rhetoric/intentions are irrelevant to their mechanical function in a political-economic system. The 'genesis' of race and racism is irrelevant, racism as it function in 2014 is still an anti-Marxist force.

My real dispute with you here is your claim that 'intentions' are a cause and not an effect, and that to meaningfully study something like this you must place these intentions as a premise and derive the results form them.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jan 12, 2014

# ¿ Jan 12, 2014 16:20

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Mussolini did not get on with any of the other socialists groups he joined, and it's not clear whether he was genuinely a socialist, or simply opportunist. But fascist do try and ape leftist rhetoric to surprising degrees, and I'm not really certain why. Is it because of the whole radical chic that exists? You couldn't create from thin air two more diametrically opposed ways of viewing the world and societies.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2014 09:33

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

They were opposed to internationalism rather than capitalism. That they would be opposed to concepts of international capitalism is not surprising, but that doesn't make them 'anti-capitalist'.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Feb 2, 2014

# ¿ Feb 2, 2014 15:12

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

The more obvious (and less bold) statement is that you, HighClassSwankyTime, are wrong.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2014 15:21

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

The fact that outsourcing is so ever-present in the developed world, makes me suspect that that the nationalist resolution to the social question is going to gain traction over a marxist/socialist resolution. So we could see a future where the fascists make a comeback and gain traction, but the radical leftists don't.

HighClassSwankyTime posted:

More citations and less accusations please.

You first.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Feb 2, 2014

# ¿ Feb 2, 2014 15:55

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

We kind of already have seen some real fall in living conditions in terms of the GFC, but the troubling part is that only the fascists have really seemed to benefit in popular support from the GFC. Suppose another crisis occurs, will this pattern continue?

# ¿ Feb 2, 2014 19:15

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I think it's more because they're not even trying to advocate a socialist economy. Kind of a cornerstone of, uh, socialism..

# ¿ Feb 3, 2014 05:12

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Got bashed, by the fash.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2014 07:39

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Gantolandon posted:

he left is hosed precisely because it frequently doesn't bother to do anything together, preferring to pursue their own pet projects. You could think that the threat of an authoritarian, right-wing government violently cracking down on peaceful opposition would be enough to at least work out at least a common stance. What happened instead, you could see in that article.

It's hosed because of numbers, so the people remaining scale down their ambitions and try and achieve small goals. The left in the Ukraine isn't strong enough to do jack poo poo, unlike the far right which is overthworing the government right now.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2014 01:38

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Brannock posted:

"Real" democracies (that is, populism) frequently see the majority trampling upon the rights and needs of a minority. As a minority myself, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that we should prostate ourselves before the altar of populism. If not for minority rights being protected at the cost of "real" democracy I would be uneducated and doing the lowest of manual labor.

Does your analysis of libertarianism re: fascism take this in account? I'm having difficulty seeing where leaving situations up to majority-rule benefits disadvantaged or numerically minority groups. Isn't much of fascism specifically predicated upon appealing to populist sentiments? Wouldn't a democratic approach still allow room for fascist elements to rise up? I'm slightly fuzzy on my WWII era history but both Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected, right?

Elitist rule is not more likely to protect minorities than popular rule, history has shown that. The liberal hatred of 'mob rule' basically comes down to dis-empowering the poor at every opportunity.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2014 04:10

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I love how someone can be so stupid as to blame the side of politics that has been aggressively downsized, thanks to globalization and union busting.

Yeah man, that political force that is weaker than it has been in decades is running everything. The aggressive spying that police do against leftists holding tea-and-biscuit meetings while fascists get a free pass: that's, like, just a show.

# ¿ May 28, 2014 02:19

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Neoliberalism is the hegemonic ideology of our times and it obtained that hegemony through force. The left didn't commit suicide, it was killed.

That's why we get people in year 2014 unironically talk about how we need to get rid of these 'crime, welfare obligation, culture disrupting' elements of society, which are of course a result of the ~foreign elements~ in the body politics, ie- psuedo-scientific bullshit that ignores systemic causes and scapegoats minorities.

# ¿ May 28, 2014 02:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 09:09

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

Neoliberals support open immigration. Open immigration is leftist policy. Nationalists treat nations as independent and sovereign, having unique characters and identities and languages that are worth preserving, instead of as arbitrary economic territories with some regrettable quirks here and there.

Wrong: Neoliberals support migrant labor. The purpose of the migrant to a neoliberal is to exploit them and use them as a weapon to undercut local labor. Leftists support actual immigration and citizenship, with the rights and protections that entails. The purpose and result of those policies are quite different, but to someone such as yourself they may seem similar.

Also nationalists don't give a poo poo about 'preservation' or any of that clap-trap; it's about using minorities or those without power as an internal enemy, upon which to place blame for systemic failure and exploit for profit. Nations themselves are unscientific concepts that cannot exist in reality, so they cannot be preserved.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:05 on May 28, 2014

# ¿ May 28, 2014 03:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A return of Fascism in Europe?

«‹›2 »