|
DongsMcMurphy posted:It always strikes me as sickening and ironic that some of the inhabitants of countries that fought tooth-and-nail against the Axis are now saying "hey this fascism thing has always worked historically hyuk hyuk" and deliberately using imagery that evokes the Nazis in their iconography. Case in point, Golden Dawn: Hell, it's not like they've ever made any real effort to disguise their devotion to and alignment with the Nazis. This is the official Golden Dawn newsletter from back in the 80s:  Obdicut posted:What's your source for this? What I have has 'only' 300,000 of 700,000 Roma and Sinti being killed in the war, while 2/3rd of Jews were. Digging through my notes from the last time I taught a course on the Holocaust, I've got down about 1M Romani in Europe at the start of the Nazi period, of which conservatively at least 130k - 290k died (though of course that number could have been considerably higher). The per capita extermination of Romani varied a lot depending on country and region. The Czech lands (Bohemia-Moravia in Nazi-speak), being directly under Heydrich's heel until his death, was probably the worst as of the prewar population of 13k virtually all died either by police actions or in Birkenau.
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Is the Battle of Cable Street really that good of an example? I mean, it's not like Germany and Italy were lacking in violent conflicts between rightist and leftist paramilitary groups. Was the left simply not bashing hard enough? In Weimar Germany, to be active in politics was quite literally to take your life into your own hands. All the parties pretty much hated each other and had attendant political combat leagues which turned elections into running street brawls more often than not. Even your bog standard political meeting stood a good chance of turning eventful as uniformed goons from some other party frequently would try to break them up via rubber truncheons and brass knuckles. Two main differences in the street fighting-stage were as follows: The Nazi combat league, the SA, was much more directly (though not completely) under the control of the party whereas, say, the Reichbaner or Rotesfrontkampferbund were more independent of their parent parties (the SPD and KPD, respectively). Second, and more importantly, the Stahlhelm, Germany's official veteran's organization and unofficial reserve for its tiny allowed army, also moonlighted as right-wing thugs a lot of the time, and was by far the largest and best equipped of the political leagues. While not actually aligned with the Nazi SA, and on occasion mixing it up with them, it did help to pen in the smaller combat leagues of the sorta-left and hard-left. Two good reads on the subject are James Diehl's Paramilitary Politics in Weimar Germany and Dirk Schumann's Political Violence in the Weimar Republic, 1918-1933.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I'm sorry, I'm clearly not as knowledgeable on the subject as I should be. I'm just gonna bow out here and resume lurking, hopefully I'll learn a thing or two. Please forgive me for muddying up the discussion. Don't feel too bad about it. While there is a ton of work out there exploring fascism generally and this or that variant of it in particular, at root fascism as ideology is incoherent once you move beyond a few core principles that all strains seem to have (is violent, exclusionary, lovely, etc). I may have missed it in the last several pages, but (oddly) I don't think anyone's linked Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism which, though dealing with classical forms, is still largely relevant to modern fascist movements.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:It's because the Tea Baggers are a bunch of stupid old pieces of poo poo that typically abide by the letter of the law and don't really scare anyone by challenging the accepted power structure. If we had a fascist party the size of the Tea Party that would be a loving nightmare, but as it is the average member is in their 50s and in bad physical shape. Basically, movements full of dumb old people just aren't as scary as movements full of angry young people, and for good reason. Cynic that I am, I'm tempted to reply that given the power/wealth dynamic of this country, they pretty much are doing their job.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
iCe-CuBe. posted:That's not fascism. Heads up: an ideology that has "bad opinions" is not automatically fascist, no matter how repugnant those opinions might be. Fascism is a very specific set of beliefs tied to an ideology. Job Truniht already answered this in part, but fascism as an ideology is essentially incoherent. While certain core elements (violence, reaction, anti-intellectualism, etc) tend to appear in most/all flavors, they can vary wildly depending on who you're talking about and when. Hell, the Nazis themselves had a reasonably strong anti-capitalist wing under the Strasser brothers before Hitler made his peace with German industry upon taking office, and then Georg got killed and Otto fled following the Night of the Long Knives. I mean yeah, I agree it's lazy thinking to just slap the fascist label on any right wing or anti-modern movement out there that we don't like, but there's substantial wiggle room around the edges for groups that have fascist tendencies but aren't overtly so. This is exacerbated by there being no core manifesto one can use as a measuring stick for this group or that. The Integralists, whom I presume is who Mans is referring to, I'd slot as quasi-fascist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:I disagree. Yes, it's a heterogeneous ideology, but I still think it's an ideology that we can define and then discuss--and that makes sense from the point of view of the people who hold it. "Different people have different opinions" is not the same thing as "incoherent." I call fascism incoherent not solely because it's got a lot of different, at times contradictory flavors that have existed here or there, but rather that I've never come across any form of fascism that was internally coherent. This is one of the great strengths, I think, of the Eco essay I linked a few pages back, where he lists those things he thinks (and I agree) are common to all forms of fascism, and especially points out how several contradict one another. The anti-intellectualism and rural nostalgia coupled with a fetish for technology, particular of a military. The shifting nature of the Enemy, however defined, as simultaneously both menacingly fierce and laughably incompetent. Defining life as lived for struggle while at the same time promising an eventual utopia one the Enemy is defeated, in which no further struggle will be needed (this point in particular reminds me of O'Brien upbraiding Winton Smith in the Ministry of Love in 1984 about how the fascists, as The Party's ancestors, came close but got things wrong). Privileging acts of will over reasoned thought. The worship of heroism coupled with the sublimation, bordering at times on obliteration, of the individual. None of this of course is to say that we can't talk about and even classify and define fascist movements and fascism generally, but rather that we should keep in mind there are going to be bits that just don't make sense, and at times contradict themselves. As such, we should be aware of this and careful about defining things too rigidly, as edge cases are bound to arise which defy easy classification as fascist or not. quote:Moreover, I don't think fascists are simply reactionaries, given that they have a concept of what the world should look like which is very different from the ideal society of traditional conservatives. Remember, Nazis hated German conservatives too--they wanted to create a world which would share the best elements of the distant past and the technocratic future, not bring back the Kaiser or whatever. I'd agree, and suspect we've read the same primary material from Nazis complaining about how the old Romantic Nationalists are weights holding the Nazis back, particularly during the early days of Hitler's Chancellorship when he had briefly to deal with a coalition government. It is in that hoped for new world, though, that I see contradiction and incoherent (and in many other places too, as I think I've made clear above), and why when dealing with the Nazis even compared to other fascists I hold we need to make allowance for the at-times arbitrary nature of their ideology. iCe-CuBe. posted:Whoever he was referring to in the thing I quoted (and I'm not well versed in Portuguese history) sounds pretty much like an average, everyday conservative party. Does Mans think that the Republicans are fascists too? Does he think that the tsars were fascists in Russia? The reason I brought the Integralists up is there the closest thing Portugal, and by extension Brazil incidentally, have/had to a major fascist party. They differ from the full-on fascists in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere in hewing much closer to traditional monarchistic/clerical conservatism, but also contain elements normally seen in more fascist groups (political paramilitarism, nationalistic exclusionism, etc). As such, I find they lend weight to the concept of quasi-fascist groups bridging the gap between traditional conservatives and out-and-out blackshirts. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Can I ask a tangentially-related question? I was just reading the several posts on trying to quantify and qualify what fascism exactly is and it got me thinking about this. In very, very simplified form, which admittedly leaves a ton of details out: Fascism is an ideology of violence, whereas Communism (in most though not all of its varied forms) is an ideology which has used violence. It is possible to conceive, though perhaps not enact, a pacifist or at least no-more-violent-than-Liberal-democracy form of Socialism/Communism. The same is impossible with any form of Fascism. For the former violence is structural, the latter functional. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
A Sloth posted:Where as in this thread I have seen people claim their is no violence inherent in Marxism-Leninism specifically, which is just not true. I fail to see how that refutes my main point about how, historically, Communists have used violence as a means to an end (however misguided this or that bunch may well be), whereas Fascists view violence as the end to be achieved. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
What's a greater mystery to me is why, in a thread on neo-Fascism in Europe, we've again derailed into 20h century socialism and equivalence seeking. Fojar38, we get it: Many of the prominent states which are or have at least called themselves some flavor of Marxist have at times been pretty lovely and had their piles of skulls much like everyone else then or now. What you seem determined to avoid, however, is a fundamental difference in the essential nature of Facism from most* forms of Socialism: One can at least conceive of a Marxist system, however laughable and utopian, that in its end state would be a pretty decent place to live and non-violent. Contrarily, one cannot do the same for any Fascist state as struggle and violence is an inherent, irremovable part of Fascism. There is no peaceful end state where things are great, only an endless series of bloody triumphs over whomever the enemy of the Herrenvolk is. *I qualify most here due to some of the more nightmarish edge cases such as the Khmer Rouge, or Maoist China during the GLF/Cultural Revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Wouldn't the desired end-state for the fascist to have accomplished their goals? Via a Final Solution or something? Others have already answered this adequately, but I would like to lend my weight as well to the idea that this is one of what I've argued previously in this thread are the many internal contradictions of fascist "thought." I'd go further and extend the idea of endless martial struggle to the neo-Fascist groups, albeit in different language and forms that lend more to street violence and what we'd term domestic terrorism against whatever hated out-group is in their crosshairs at the moment, then to more classic armed struggle by men in uniform. Despite this difference in form, the function remains the same; you see the same sort of "we must preserve the strength of our blood and toughen it up against the weakening effects of decadent/effeminate modernism" sentiments laced with violent implications in modern fascist groups as you do the classical ones, they just have somewhat different avenues for their violent struggles than did their fore-bearers (and some do retain the same, especially with regards to Israel and what they'd very much like to do to it). That's not to say that your average brownshirt didn't/doesn't think "well after this war/struggle/campaign against (whomever) is over, then the Master race will rule in glory forever!", but that he's deluded to think that the Party will ever cease beating the wardrums. Then again, if he's a fascist it's unlikely introspection's really his thing to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, a large part of the heterodoxy of Fascist thought is that it is based largely on imagined culture, and is there those particularist. Hungarian neo-fascists have their own native brand of fascism to harken back to, and their own historical and cultural motives for example their own brand of revanchism. There will be of course many similarities with other fascist movements, but it is more difficult to great a ideological basis for certain individual cultural elements of those movements. Oh I don't disagree, and furthermore we shouldn't also ignore that fascists tend to be collosal assholes which makes intergroup solidarity that much more unlikely on top of the problem of identity chauvinism. For recent examples of both problems, we need look no further than the clownshow that was the 2012 Alliance for European National Movements conference.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:When has this ever happened? Yeah. If anything, liberal democracies tend to be (initially) more sympathetic towards fascists as they act as bullyboys and curbstompers towards the hated and feared Reds, see also how post-Weimar German society, still fairly liberal and not yet heavily Nazified, by and large breathed a sigh of relief after Hitler came to power and "cleaned up the streets" ie: arrested and/or deported the communists and socialists. It wasn't until after everything went south and the Red Army had steamrolled into Berlin that German moderates suddenly remembered they'd always hated fascism and were really its first victims when you stop to think about it. Similarly, the liberal West, here defined at the US and its allies during the Cold War, had no problem with quasi-fascist/reactionary nationalists all over Central and South America rounding up and disappearing inconvenient socialists. I mean, I get that popularly, at least in America, "fascist" is still a harsher accusation to toss around than "socialist" (though not by much, due to right-wing talking heads having muddied those waters as furiously as they can for the last several decades), but historically liberal states tend to be much more afraid of native socialists than fascist encroachment. Often as they incorrectly presume the latter can be kept on a leash, whereas the former is the stalking horse of the International Communist Conspiracy or ZOG or whatever. Ardennes posted:The cultural primacy that makes up the better part of Fascism can make cooperation more difficult simply because there can only be some many dominate cultures at one time. Not everyone is can be on top. That isn't to say there aren't divisions between Marxists but that is almost always on a ideological level rather than the natural result of cultural emphasis. Sure, I just don't think we should ignore just how personally unpleasant and repellant most of these people tend to be, and how that contributes to there not being a successful Fieldgrey Internationale or anything. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
iCe-CuBe. posted:Do you have any evidence for a concerted push on the part of American conservatives to equate fascism with communism or is this an opinion you've formed from reading Conservapedia? He's exaggerating a bit, but there have been more prominent (though still not particularly credible) sources on the American far right that have for some time now gone out of their way to play up the S in NSDAP. In particular, I recall back when Glenn Beck still had a show on FOX he interviewed the chairman of the CPUSA (if I remember the party right). Throughout the interview, Beck repeated referred to that party's platforms as "nationalized socialism" in like every other sentence to dribble from his mouth. Also, you might consider the unfortunate popularity of prodigal cretin Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism another indication of this move to equate fascism with the left. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:What a lot of people forget about Joseph Mccarthy is that he was actually right Oh boy, this should be good 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Do you deny that the USSR had a long history of espionage in the US, including in the Manhattan Project and the US's postwar jet fighter program, amongst other things? Declassified Soviet records have conclusively proven this to be the case, this isn't even arguable. Awe, you disappoint me. I was hoping for some real revaunchist crazy stuff about how the second Red Scare was wholly justified and whatnot, not this weakass bullshit. As DynamicSloth has already said, that the superpowers spied on one another in no ways justifies or validates that alcoholic dipshit's witchhunt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Emden posted:He was an effective leader and actually, y'know, built socialism in the real world instead of some imaginary land where bad things never happen. This alone means Western "radicals" hate him because they prefer ideals to ever, EVER having any power. See also: actually existing fascism. So is it totalitarianism in general that lures you in like a little brownshirted moth to the crematoria's flame, or just those totalitarian states that can wrack up six digit body piles? I'm confused. Berke Negri posted:Is there a reason to...not hate Stalin's guts? There's plenty of reasons to find him a fascinating historical figure to study, both as a person and as a leader, and frankly I'd even go so far as to say you don't have to hate him per se (though if you're decended from Holodomor survivors I'd not blame you if you did), but anyone who displays unqualified enthusiasm about him, or his political ideology, isn't anyone with whom I'd want to spend time stuck in an elevator.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Can we maybe discuss modern fascist movements instead of having this thread colonized by the Marxism thread? That we've had a hard time doing so this far seems to lend credence to the idea that many moderates find the thought of red banners more threatening than the reality of blackshirts. But to do my part to get away from the endless communism derail: one aspect I've brought up previously is the problem of solidarity among fascist groups, past and present, both due to the identity (racial, national, or some mix of the two) chauvinism inherent in fascism ideologies (ie: we, and only we, are the master race!) and also the much more mundane issue of fascists tending to be unpleasant shitheads. Classical fascist parties just before and during the war got around this to a degree by most of the others latching onto the brief dynamism of Hitler's personality cult and (later) early military triumphs. One thing I take as a positive sign, since I flatter myself I'm not the sort of shithead you'd need to be to see the resurgence of fascism as a good thing, is that modern fascist and quasi-fascist groups don't have an equivalent mechanism to forge larger intergroup unity, and at times cannot seem to agree who the Other is they should all be striving to exterminate ("it's the Jews! No, wait, it's the Muslims/Pakis/Wogs! Wrong, it's those drat Gyppos!"). Watching them flop all over the place about whether or not Israel existing in particular can lead to some richly enjoyable comedy, albeit not of the highest brow. So I'm curious what others have to think about this issue within modern fascism, and whether or not it's as large a contributory factor towards keeping these groups from reaching any larger consensus amongst themselves. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well I don't consider myself part of any political persuasion but I guess I'm closer to Fascism than Communism. I think the problem is division over what fascism really is. When I first started looking into it, I had all sorts of people online telling me that "no, Fascism is NOT Nazism! There is nothing in Fascist doctrine that says you have to hate the Jews or be a racist." And a lot of fascist group websites I looked into also had the disclaimer "we are not affiliated with Neo-Nazis." Whatever your views on National Socialism, nobody wants to be rubbing elbows with skinheads. I'd argue those sentiments have less to do with sincerely-held beliefs and more to admitting that "Nazi" is a stink that don't come off, and is a label that reasonable people quite rightly abhor. Additionally, I've never once encountered a fascist group that didn't have some Other (almost always a racial or national minority, occasionally a political one) they contrasted themselves against, whom they blamed for their nation's/race's problems, and who's expulsion/extermination they generally called for more or less directly. This latter is occasionally couched in marginally less-horrible language about how people are happiest among their own kinds and wouldn't everyone be better off if quote:Speaking of disunity, fascism is such a nation-dependent movement that it came in all forms back in its heyday. For example, the Romanian Iron Guard was fiercely Orthodox. Now I don't really keep up with modern politics but I glanced at this Golden Dawn grou's website and after a cursory glance I couldn't find their religious position, or if they even have one. I'm not really sure where you're going with the religion angle here, can you clarify? Also, much like Barry Foster I'm curious about what attracts you to fascism in particular? This I ask as, not (yet) willing to prejudge you or your positions, I have a hard time squaring "admires fascism" with "not a shitheel" given, well, what fascism is and how fascists historically have been.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
To add, NikkolasKing, you might give Dorothy Thompson's Who Goes Nazi? a read. It's from 1941 and not a perfect article to be certain (at times it gets downright sentimental, particularly in class references) but I think broadly it is useful as a commentary from the time about who in society tend to find fascism appealing, and why. I second what Persmerga and Barry Foster have to say as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also "helped murdered" is a bit much, you can't really apply knowledge or motive in this case. The final solution was planned much later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference. You can say it was an unintended consequence though. If you're going to bring up Wannsee then we're going to derail into the Intentionalist vs Functionalist debate with regards to the Holocaust. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely a valid thing to do, but I'm not sure it'd exactly be a fit for a thread at least ostensibly about modern fascism. I take it you fall into the latter category, or were you speaking solely of when the terminology of "final solution" came into regular usage? Omi-Polari posted:That might make you feel good but I don't think that's going to convince him. It's Emden, dude. There comes a point where it's acceptable to stop bothering with polite attempts at convincing and move towards scorched earth. That way at least he serves as an object lesson to other posters who haven't shown themselves horrid. Speaking of which... Emden posted:But enough about that. Do you really think the entire point of fascism is hierarchy and authority? It's simply a means to an end like it is with Marxism. And people in fascism, both in theory and in practice, aren't separated from the State. They ARE the State. It exists by their will alone. So when they fight they do it willingly: for themselves, their families, their nation. And because they were directly connected with the State they were undoubtedly happier and lead much more fulfilling lives than people in liberal societies. Yes, yes, I too believe that fascist states were the selfless servants of the popular will. Indeed, I will now list every prominent examples of this: Seriously, the fascist states which have existed were complex entities which used the carrot to secure the cooperation of fellow-travellers and those deemed to be part of the volksgemeinschaft, and the hard stick of coercion for those who wouldn't play along, or were of undesirable racial/national background. For that last bit alone we ought understand that fascism is fundamentally not some weird variation on populism, and the reason those who did play ball lived "undoubtably happier" and "more fulfilling lives," as you say, was due more to their of social space and real physical wealth from the dispropriated and/or murdered Others who, under the best of circumstances, certainly allowed to have any say or be part of the State This is also to say nothing about how the organs of the State are controlled by the Party in as explicitly undemocratic a fashion as possible, though I imagine you've got some reason why anti-democratic control of government is somehow compatible with the popular will. Given that you, yourself, in other threads have gone off on how race trumps class and no white worker ought feel any form of solidarity with workers of any other race, one would think you'd understand this. Or are you conceding that expulsion and/or extermination of the Other is a necessary and vital component of a properly ordered fascist state? I suspect not, as I rank it highly unlikely you're arguing in any better faith than usual, but odder things have happened. quote:Fascism, and other socialist movements on the other hand, can give meaning and this is where the human good comes from. Fascism isn't socialist you twit, it's third-positionist. Strasser would have been purged even if Hitler hadn't thought he was threat personally.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If you are functionalist to the point where every action that helped the Nazis was going to promote the Holocaust it gets very cloudy. Stalin obviously wanted the territory he thought rightfully belong to the Soviet Union, those desires actually had little impact on the Holocaust itself especially the timeline worked out that the Nazis were far into the Soviet Union by the time it was actually decided. I tend to fall more on the Intentionalist side of the debate honestly, as from all I've read it seems more likely to me that Hitler had extermination on his mind long before he was in a position to effect it (though I'm certainly not a nut like Goldhagen, claiming that all of Germany lusted after Jewish blood due to national character defects). I think the Functionalists have a point about how competing power hierarchies accelerated matters as this or that branch of government tried to out anti-Semite the others to win Hitler's favor, but that doesn't negate what seems to me to be clear intentions towards genocide among the Party elites well before the war itself. It's an interesting debate, and I've swung back and forth more than once. My thoughts on Wannsee, though, was not that it was a kicking-off point for some new thing but rather a consolidation and rationalization of those "direct actions" already being carried out by the SS-Einsatzgruppen, Order Police, and others, which were themselves the heirs of T-4 and all the other horrid poo poo that had been going down for years by the time we get to January of 1942. As such, while yes that's where the SS starts talking about a unified camp system and ropes the other organs of government into the plan, and yes that's where the words "final solution" first start popping up regularly, I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Wannsee the point where the final solution was planned. Rationalized, perhaps, but the actual killing had already been going on for a while. Or were you using "final solution" in the narrower sense to only mean the construction of the camp system?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is just an illustration that its development happen significantly latter than August 1939, and even then there isn't evidence of what was going to happen during that period. If your going to say Stalin helped murder millions of Jews by invading Eastern Poland you can have to back it up. I wasn't talking about Stalin one way or the other, incidentally, I just wanted to comment on Wannsee and that it sits fairly prominently in the Intentionalist and Functionalist debate. Others have been trying to make hay of the role the Red Army/NKVD played in Poland in 1939-40 (some honestly, others in the seemingly-ceaseless campaign to derail this thread into "b-b-but Marxism  " territory), but as horrible as they were, particularly at Katyn, I don't think it's quite right to slot those atrocities in with the larger nightmare of the Holocaust.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Ehh, not quite the same as Greece is now a NATO member and there isn't any Soviet spectre hanging over Eastern Europe. Plus I'm disinclined to call the nationalists "fascists." The only ones who used that term were their far-left enemies. There was not a small number of former Security Battalion men who ended up on the nationalist side in the Civil War, dude. Sure, the nationalists as a whole might not have been fascist, but there sure were a lot of former collaborators within their ranks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
my dad posted:loving finally. I just hope they'll be able to round up Golden Dawn's leaders before they start getting funny ideas about fighting back in an organized manner. I know this is childish of me and wishing for more violence isn't exactly healthy, but there is a part of me that sorta wants those bastards to try to fight it out and (optimally) be the ones crushed under the boot-heel for a change.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
staticman posted:The Greek police are actually taking disciplinary action against a GD officer? Finally some light in the abyss. More likely, they wanted to get him off the streets before he got torn to pieces, and the "interrogation" is them just sitting on him till things cool off a little.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In a thread about combating fascism the discussion is about why communists are utopian idiots and liberals are collaborationist scum. Does the right have this same problem? They've got a similar, though more muted one, wherein traditional conservative parties tend to view fascists as useful idiots to be used and then marginalized/disposed of, and fascists tend to view traditional conservatives as romantic nationalist morons who never get anything done. Among themselves, fascist parties also have a hard time cooperating due to national identity chauvinism being a pretty defining factor for fascist, and also as historically the elite of any given fascist party tend to be cretins with will to power, but little ability to competently and effectively use power once obtained. I don't know that they accuse each other of being traitors to the cause or seek to purge fellow travelers/deviationists as much as the left seems to, though. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Ya but if I recall Greeks were the only society to go from democratic to fascist. ...Seriously? So the Weimar Republic doesn't count? I mean yeah, you can point to any number of flaws with its constitutional foundation and way it actually ran, but I don't think you can claim it wasn't actually a democratic state, however weak.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:Ill look into this but I would think republic instead of democratic just by the name. But you may be right. Unless you're being exceptionally, unreasonably nit-picky about "democracy" versus "republic", then Weimar absolutely was a democratic state before the Nazi takeover. A flawed, badly-run democracy with a very weak constitution (which was a major contributing factor to the rise of the NSDAP after Hitler decided that putsches weren't getting the job done), but a democratic state nevertheless.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
weavernaut posted:I learned about it as the Beerhall Putsch. High school history was a long time ago, but didn't Hitler literally stand up on a table in a loving tavern and announce he was taking over Bavaria? Yes, and then he and other party members stood around giving speeches all night while word got out to the police and local garrison, who had mobilized and blocked off roads by the time the Nazis finally got around to deciding on doing anything. It was an utter clownshow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
weavernaut posted:The Weimar thought it had bigger problems than Hitler. In fairness, in 1923 it sorta did. Germany was in the depths of the hyperinflation crisis and Hitler et all looked to just be the latest pack of Putschists goobers to come along and flame out. That's not to excuse in any way the failure to hold him, and the others, to proper account, but I don't think we can blame the Weimar coalition too much for failing to predict the future of the then-barely significant NSDAP. Plenty of other things we can blame them for during that period, anyway, and certainly more later on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:It's not like they were running out of prisons or something (or a bullet for an execution). It shouldn't be that difficult to predict what's going to happen when right wing violence is condoned by the state even in it's most extreme manifestations. Maybe you couldn't predict which rear end in a top hat was going to come out on top but there was a 100% guarantee of more violence. Well yeah, which is why I said it was no excuse not to try and imprison Hitler properly rather than giving him a nine-month vacation at Landsberg. What I was trying to draw attention to was, at the time, the entire state was tottering on the edge of collapse due to the hyperinflation crisis and in that context it's understandable (though not excusable) that the national government sorta had its attention elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
weavernaut posted:Well. Never going back to Austria, either, looks like! In all frankness, Austria really got off easy at the end of the war, particularly with the unasked-for and undeserved favor of being treated as Hitler's first victim, rather than as his first collaborator. Austrians in the 30s were by and large thrilled with the Anschluss (they'd have done it in 1918 if Versailles hadn't forbidden it) and Nazification.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:What's that first one supposed to be? Immigrants getting into Austria through Greece and living the high life on government handouts? Something like that. The red text translates to: "Our money for our people!" Emden posted:This owns. As it turns out people don't want to live with others who aren't like them nor do they want cheap labor entering their country. WHO KNEW???? (not the left) gently caress off you goddamn Nazi.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
weavernaut posted:Dude, I just said I was part Tatar. I'm white, but my grandfather and his family aren't. They're also about as Muslim as my other set of grandparents are Orthodox Christian, which is to say kind of, if something is really wrong or there's a funeral/wake. He's a Nazi, he knows poo poo-all about everything dude.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
THC posted:It's not a solution, it's just a way to manage the fundamentally unchangable nature of the human creature. Like keeping lab rats in separate cages so they don't claw and bite each other to death. This presumes cultural/racial differences are a fundamentally unchangeable aspect of human nature, and that people are unthinking, instinct-driven animals like rats in a cage. Both of which are lazy  presumptions at absolute best, and much more frequently thin wallpaper lain over scientific racism. Not that I'm accusing you personally of either, in the instance where you were trying to explain why someone might make that argument.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:I would go probably for Sigmund-Freud-Hof in the 9. because I always liked fheir balconies. Why, do they remind you of your mother?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:It's not only people looking for scapegoats, but also an entire generation of young people (mostly young men) who have no money, no jobs, no power, and no cultural status. Then a fascist group comes around and promises them the chance to have power, guidance, and a meaningful identity. Importantly, the fascists invariably also offer the frustrated a chance to get those fuckers who supposed are to blame for it all. Revenge for slights real or perceived is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Emden posted:That's a laugh, because I'm pretty sure it's only going to end up worse for us. Our political parties don't care about us because we don't have money and are soon to be outnumbered by hispanic immigrants. Go read the GOP thread; white people are a losing bet. Not to mention the economy. Unions have been crushed by neoliberalism so there goes the good paying blue collar jobs. Shitheads like Gates and Jobs (before he died, any way) don't want to train us for white collar jobs but instead want the government to bring over Indians and Chinese with degrees. Education has been cut to ribbons so now you can either spend eight years getting a 4 year degree by working a job and taking classes piece by piece or by taking out huge loans. Of course if you're even slightly brown they will hand you the world for nothing. Hahaha yes, yes, if there's one constituency that isn't consistently shat upon in American society, it's anyone with dark skin. This is a well thought out point that isn't completely pants-on-head stupid, honest. gently caress off you goddamn Nazi.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:Oh hey, that explains a lot. He's also quite a bit stupider than everyone else too, which likely also plays a part in why he has a hard time finding work, and why he blames it on those darn Mexicans.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
DongsMcMurphy posted:So are you having trouble with longterm employment because you're a loving idiot or what? This was what I was driving at, which unsurprisingly everyone except you, Emden, got right away. You colossal Nazi dipshit. You, Emden, are a remarkably stupid person, for reasons unrelated to race, and this likely has contributed to your employment issues, as has likely your racism and generally repellant personality. Moving into the realm of speculation not fully supported by your posting history, I'd suspect lack of personal hygiene plays a role too, but that's neither here nor there since thankfully it's not yet possible to smell through the internet. And you can cram that "empirical" linking of race and intelligence right up your stupid fascist rear end, brownshirt. Scientific racism is hardly new, and your pathetic attempts to distance yourself from your worthless jackbooted forebearers fools no one. Were you not so personally useful an example of the intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy of modern fascism, I'd be upset that you're not banned, though knowing you you'll soon be unable to resist posting this crap in some other thread and get the hammer again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 22:31
|
|