Far-Right Ideology in the 21st Century

[Ferocitus]

Main point was the Tsar wasn't that bad compared to what followed.

My main point was just floccinaucinihilipilification.
W00t! I used all my letters, and on three triple word scores.

 

[Lexicus]

Far-right ideology in the 21st century appears to be various forms of monarchism? OP evidently believes that the Shah of Iran did nothing wrong and we've got someone here arguing the Tsar was okay?

 

[Broken_Erika]

My main point was just floccinaucinihilipilification.
W00t! I used all my letters, and on three triple word scores.

You sunk my scrabbleship!

 

[Peuri]

GDP is a ridiculous measure when it's applied to countries that have a virtual slave caste.
It doesn't account for how "wealth" (inter alia: social, health, and financial) are distributed between all of the citizens of a country.

That is obviously true and I agree 100% that GDP is a bad measure of the overall well being and health of a society, as does anyone who knows anything about economics. I don't know how the Gini index developed from tsarist Russia to the Soviet union, but presumably things went into a better direction on that singular point of income distribution. Before the revolution, many of the descendants of the freed serfs still lived in what could be called dept slavery, but also thanks to agrarian reforms done under the tsars, many were also becoming self sufficient farmers. This was the kulak class that the bolsheviks decided to rob of their hard labour, them being petty bourgeoisie after all, and wanting to hold on to the wealth they and their parents had slowly been gaining. But all this is besides the point.

The claim I was answering to was, that(1) the transition from tsarist Russia to Soviet union transformed Russia into a superpower. My claim was simply that Russia was already on it's way to become an eminent superpower even without the revolution, and to prove that point I used GDP growth as one point to argue that the country was already developing at a good rate. In fact one could turn your argument about the use of slave labour against the Soviet union too, because that country also used literal slave labour to build infrastructural works for example.

I am not defending the tsarist regime as some model to be emulated, just pointing out that tsarist Russia was no backwater, and the Soviet union was not necessarily any improvement in the field of economic growth either.

(1)

Spoiler :

Overthrowing the Tsars brought a 25% literate feudal backwater that still practiced serfdom to global superpower status within 30 years

 

[Traitorfish]

Well Lenin was bad as well. The main point being that anti communism was a perfectly rational choice in the 1920's. The Soviet execution of the Tsar did not play well internationally.

We're not talking about being opposed to the Soviet government. We're talking about support for the use of far-right paramilitaries to suppress real and imagine Communist subversion in late 1918 and early 1919. What had the Bolsheviks done between November of 1917 and October of 1918 that would have lead an otherwise liberal-minded person to think that giving far-right paramilitaries permission to operate beyond legal or constitutional constraints was a reasonable price for preventing its imitation in Germany?

Before the holocaust and WW2 supporting fascists makes perfectly rational sense based on what the communists were up to.

What do you think the NSDAP was getting up to between 1933 and 1939, exactly? Why is 1939 the turning point?

The problem with this line of thinking, in the broadest, most general sense, is that the state violence is inherent to the system and isn't counted; it's 'factored in'. it's 'just how things are'. Egg a fascist politician and you'll hear all kinds of horseradish about "that's assault, that's political violence" but give a speech about how the country needs to genocide people and it's "just politics".

I think it's also worth adding that, in this context, it's also a question of what sorts of non-state violence is and is not counted. The Weimar government, even in "socialist" hands, took a far more lax attitude towards right-wing violence, even against government officials, applying light punishments if not simply looking the other way. Fascism comes to power partly because it successfully establishes itself as an informal extension of the security forces. By the time the Glorious Leader gets anyway near the president's palace, the harassment and murder of leftists is already an accepted part of daily life.

 

[Patine]

I don't think far right economics are take from poor give to rich. That's neo liberal and I think that economic pressure is driving that hence the blowback against immigrants

The cure I think broadly speaking is left wing economics but without the left wing social agendas. This means tough luck to mass immigrants, taxes on rich go up and a less focus on minories etc. When you focus on minorities the majority basically hears you don't care about us. White privilege exists but not so much for poor whites etc.

Increased social spending on the poor via taxes on rich puts more money into the economy and makes the spending neutral even if poor minorities benefit disproportionally as they are poorer. It also helps out poor whites. You also need to help the middle class so they don't get to annoyed and vote for the right. That's probably things like working for families which we have here where you get money from the government for having kids even if you are not as poor as others.

So, whose social agendas are you suggesting get focused on?

Main point was the Tsar wasn't that bad compared to what followed.

People support the extreme right for a variety of reasons. In the 20s it was because of communism. A reaction against the extreme left these days is also a reason. To a lot of people Trump didn't look bad compared to Hilary in 2016. Buyers remorse in the 2018 mid terms.

Same idea in 2020, any Democratic candidate is going to look good. There's 23 standing as they sense weakness and there's a good chance Trump is annihilated. Compare with 2016 and only Sanders really stood against Hilary.

It came across as one of those smoke filled room type deals. Personally I would have voted for Hilary in 2016 if I was American but voting for Trump was entirely rational, Hilary was crap candidate.

You have a VERY distorted view of social reaction and the "logic" and "relative good" behind them. Saying that the Tsar "wasn't that bad' shows you've been reading too many Anastasia renditions and Cossack romances. I mean, REALLY? Also, I would have voted for Rocky De La Fuante if I had been American in 2016, even knowing he'd be a protest vote, because every GE candidate, major or minor, was so monstrous and/or incompetent. But perhaps I just have more perspective here?

 

[Lexicus]

Tfw when squinting too hard at avowedly centrist liberals they start to look like monarchists and fascists

 

[Patine]

Tfw when squinting too hard at avowedly centrist liberals they start to look like monarchists and fascists

This is why I refuse to give myself a political label. Everyone would ALWAYS be trying prove me wrong. And my complex and idiosyncratic socio-political viewpoints would make it very hard for me to defend membership in a staunch, well-defined ideological camp with a set name.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is why I refuse to give myself a political label. Everyone would ALWAYS be trying prove me wrong.

I'm not sure that people would let "Kristallnacht was actually fine" pass without comment simply because you didn't attach a label to it.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean you can go back to 1923 and the Beer Hall Putsch and wonder why the hell...you know what, nevermind, I don't want to go down this rathole because like always it's just gonna end with me telling someone they belong in a gulag

 

[Zardnaar]

So, whose social agendas are you suggesting get focused on?



You have a VERY distorted view of social reaction and the "logic" and "relative good" behind them. Saying that the Tsar "wasn't that bad' shows you've been reading too many Anastasia renditions and Cossack romances. I mean, REALLY? Also, I would have voted for Rocky De La Fuante if I had been American in 2016, even knowing he'd be a protest vote, because every GE candidate, major or minor, was so monstrous and/or incompetent. But perhaps I just have more perspective here?

Just don't focus on social agendas. Put economic stuff front and center. Voters should be smart enough to figure it out.

People will go extreme due to economic conditions. That's the driver. There's no quick fix solution it's taken the neo liberal right 40 years to get here. Might take 40 years to fix it using Keynesian type economics.

Any change you make also has to be bipartisan failing that make it so it's to hard to repeal without electoral suicide as eventually the right will win an election.

For example here the neo liberal party won and governed for 9 years. They didn't even try to dismantle the health sector, they maybe kept social spending increases low and borrowed for tax cuts.

Social agenda type campaigning doesn't really cost money so letting gays get married doesn't cost anything. Thats why the right and left in America like using it. Gets the voters fired up doesn't really cost much money if elected.

 

[Patine]

Just don't focus on social agendas. Put economic stuff front and center. Voters should be smart enough to figure it out.

People will go extreme due to economic conditions. That's the driver. There's no quick fix solution it's taken the neo liberal right 40 years to get here. Might take 40 years to fix it using Keynesian type economics.

Any change you make also has to be bipartisan failing that make it so it's to hard to repeal without electoral suicide as eventually the right will win an election.

For example here the neo liberal party won and governed for 9 years. They didn't even try to dismantle the health sector, they maybe kept social spending increases low and borrowed for tax cuts.

Social agenda type campaigning doesn't really cost money so letting gays get married doesn't cost anything. Thats why the right and left in America like using it. Gets the voters fired up doesn't really cost much money if elected.

You must forgive me, but I expect more from a government than just to balance the books. I don't want to live in a Randian Hellscape where all social responsibility is abdicated and consequences only exist on an economic and high-level interpersonal crime level, and the nation is just not expected to advance as a nation, society, and civilization beyond a rote "socio-political subsistence" level.

 

[Zardnaar]

You must forgive me, but I expect more from a government than just to balance the books. I don't want to live in a Randian Hellscape where all social responsibility is abdicated and consequences only exist on an economic and high-level interpersonal crime level, and the nation is just not expected to advance as a nation, society, and civilization beyond a rote "socio-political subsistence" level.

That's fine but the left is losing elections over it. Socially USA is 20 to 30 years behind NZ for example. If you can't get the presidency, Senate etc you can't do anything.

Your choices are really win and get something or don't win and have someone who goes out of there way to actively hurt what you care about. I expect things to be different in 2028 or 32.

If you can't plan long term that's on you. The far right have been focused on the Supreme Court since 1980 or so.
Short term dump the Trump should be the goal.

 

[Patine]

That's fine but the left is losing elections over it. Socially USA is 20 to 30 years behind NZ for example. If you can't get the presidency, Senate etc you can't do anything.

Your choices are really win and get something or don't win and have someone who goes out of there way to actively hurt what you care about. I expect things to be different in 2028 or 32.

If you can't plan long term that's on you. The far right have been focused on the Supreme Court since 1980 or so.
Short term dump the Trump should be the goal.

Perhaps the two-party system, the sharp social divide it encourages, the Jacksonian spoils system of elections (an outdated electoral system which also features the outmoded, common-voter-hating Electoral College, the power of State governments to freely gerrymander House of Representatives districts in their State borders, the two main party primaries being publicly funded and a big media circus while other parties fund and promote theirs on their own dime, the ONLY electoral commission in the First World that is legally mandated to be outside partisan control, and the high courts, who interpret the Constitution, being partisan patronage appointments) needs to change entirely. That would be a good thing for everyone - except the powerful members of the two major parties and the plutocratic oligarchs who fund them to screw over the common people, even ignoring, blatantly, their own constituents. EVERY Presidential election in the U.S. for decades has cheated and screwed the American people, ultimately. An election needs to happen where NEITHER a Democrat NOR a Republican win, and a viable, multi-party system breaks up the corrupt, Mafia-like Duopoly of power,

 

[Patine]

That's fine but the left is losing elections over it. Socially USA is 20 to 30 years behind NZ for example. If you can't get the presidency, Senate etc you can't do anything.

Your choices are really win and get something or don't win and have someone who goes out of there way to actively hurt what you care about. I expect things to be different in 2028 or 32.

If you can't plan long term that's on you. The far right have been focused on the Supreme Court since 1980 or so.
Short term dump the Trump should be the goal.

Also, people need to stop thinking in terms of "left vs. right," like it's a sports game, and think of what policies and solutions are best, at any time, for a given problem or issue, regardless of which "side" any given ideas are traditionally drawn from.

 

[Zardnaar]

We reformed our electoral system in the 90s.

That's not an option in the USA, you need 75% of states to sign off on it.

No point complaining about the rules if you can't change them. Try winning short term, and 20 or 30 years down the line you might be able to change it.

That's the reality.
Short term dump Trump, go further left 2028/32, electoral reform after that. You can't get it done while the economic pain is still there.

 

[Patine]

We reformed our electoral system in the 90s.

That's not an option in the USA, you need 75% of states to sign off on it.

No point complaining about the rules if you can't change them. Try winning short term, and 20 or 30 years down the line you might be able to change it.

That's the reality.

Actually, I'm referring to the U.S., only because it seems to be a focal point of your discussion (that and early 20th Century Germany and Russia). But I actually live in Canada. You seem to have assumed though, incorrectly, what country I live in, and, also incorrectly, my socio-political ideology and stance to some degree. I've made no assumptions about you that were not overtly stated in your posts, myself, in return.

 

[Zardnaar]

Actually, I'm referring to the U.S., only because it seems to be a focal point of your discussion (that and early 20th Century Germany and Russia). But I actually live in Canada. You seem to have assumed though, incorrectly, what country I live in, and, also incorrectly, my socio-political ideology and stance to some degree. I've made no assumptions about you that were not overtly stated in your posts, myself, in return.

Canada is a reasonably sane country yes? I assume you have some form of Labour party and a neo liberal party?

 

[Patine]

Canada is a reasonably sane country yes? I assume you have some form of Labour party and a neo liberal party?

We have the New Democratic Party (which is social democratic), but they have only ever held government at Provincial levels and were only the Official Opposition Federally once. Our long-standing centre-right party, the Progressive Conservative Party, used to be a moderate conservative sensible party until it melted down in the 1993 Federal Election, going from a big majority to two seats in one election, and then a much more radical, further-right-wing, U.S. Republican-influenced party called the Reform Party, who jumped from one to 52 seats in that same election, negotiated a "unite-the-right" merger, creating the "U.S.-Republican-Light - but with the flavour intact" Conservative Party of Canada of today. The Liberal Party of Canada, the oldest party in the country with a PM who is the son of a globally-well-known former Canadian PM is more sane, but both the NDP and Conservatives are playing that sanity as a liability like many moderate parties and politicians elsewhere in the world are suffering under more ideological extreme parties.

 

[Zardnaar]

Canada is first past the post?