Fascism is the New Black

[Lord of Elves]

My experience with CivFanatics has been the website maintains a contingent of prolific posters who describe themselves as "reactionaries," and I address this thread primarily to them. What - in your opinion - accounts for the resurgence of "hard" right wing ideologies throughout the developed world? How can people, especially the young in regions that consume American mass media, embrace reactionary principles that have become actively taboo in many circles? Is this the culture war? Who is winning the culture war?

To posters with more mainstream views, I posit that Western democracy's greatest threat is the resurgence of authoritarian, right wing beliefs in the Anglo-European middle and working classes. I point to the emergence of the Tea Party in the United States, the rise of the UKIP in Britain, and the overall amazing performance of hard right political parties throughout Europe for evidence of this assertion. This is especially dispiriting news in light of the resurgence of the far right in Scandinavia, which is usually considered to be the success story of social democracy. If Scandinavia represents the neoliberal ideal, why are voters actively rejecting the best possible government? Many people will trot out arguments along the line that voters who are disillusioned with centrist, neoliberal politics are simply throwing in their lot with the most convenient alternative in a cycle where the incumbent always loses. I believe that this is untrue, and that the resurgence of the far right is a salient movement that should be recognized as a fundamental change in what the voting public throughout the "free world" thinks. Why?

I believe that if current trends continue, we will live to witness the return of fascism, or various and sundry forms of tyranny that masquerade under prettier names. Many model democracies, the United States included, are riven with social and cultural strife that demagogues like this man exploit to accumulate further wealth and power. These snake oil salesmen of authoritarianism have for many decades convinced the people of at least one powerful democracy to act against their own economic interests and contend to use mass media to convince millions of people to willingly surrender their freedom.

As same-sex marriage and recreational drug use is legalized across the United States, what are we supposed to make of people like this?

Spoiler :

I dig his style though, Docs every day

Are they simply loonies who are left behind in the past, or do they represent the iceberg's tip of a segment of society that rejects the freedoms of individualism and multiculturalism?

 

[Syno]

These people never went away, they just have a far more effective platform to spread their particular gospel in today's world. You have more groups that represent these authoritarian views but each of these groups have less people supporting them than they would a century ago.

The risk is always there, but let's not pretend like radical right-wingers are a new emergence.

 

[Kozmos]

I don't think hard right-wingers are going anywhere, their manifesto always shrinks as they try to capture more of the popular vote and they end up the same spineless middle mass as everyone else in charge.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think it is pretty simple.
There is IMO a natural urge within us to identify with our communities, to feel as a part of them and feel like the respective communities also see us as a part of them.
In modern societies, this mental image of a community is brought to live on different levels in different ways. The highest level - whereas hight means scope - is the national one.
The thing is, that liberal democracies do often a rather poor job in making us feel like we belong to the national community they represent. Which is not surprising, since what dictates most or at least a significant share of our lives - economics - are extremely individualistic in nature and hence basically the opposite of what one looks for in a community.
The kind of right-wing-politics the OP refers to won't or can't do much about that, but it can offers in ways a sense of community liberal democracies shun away from, these days anyway. Which is by anatagonism. By "exposing" a common enemy, they offer a sense of community liberal democracy does not.

And that means, that the fundamental psychological cause for such right-wing-antagonism to take fruition never went away nor is it in any kind of sight that it will, so it is not surprising that they resurface after a while, IMO.

I don't think hard right-wingers are going anywhere, their manifesto always shrinks as they try to capture more of the popular vote and they end up the same spineless middle mass as everyone else in charge.

Not the most insane and truly fascist kind (they are "just" a minor coalition partner) - but they did more or less succeed in Hungary, already. Okay, it is Hungary, I suppose. Who cares about Hungary? But there is that.

On the other hand, in case of the USA I am inclined to agree. They poision your politics, but your rather special style of democracy seems to at least truly work in its official propagated goal of keeping the more extreme political forces out of actual full control.

 

[Kozmos]

Nations where the population does not see great benefits from the money diseased political process of democracy are likely to become disillusioned and turn to the alternatives. Greece is also a relevant example. When the money and good times stop rolling people get...bored.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This does explain the searh for alternatives, but not the choice. Often there are less extreme under-dogs to choose from (like, there is a huge varierty of parties which attend federal elections in Germany, which by a long shot do not only consist of established parties and "extreme" parties)

 

[Tahuti]

My experience with CivFanatics has been the website maintains a contingent of prolific posters who describe themselves as "reactionaries," and I address this thread primarily to them. What - in your opinion - accounts for the resurgence of "hard" right wing ideologies throughout the developed world? How can people, especially the young in regions that consume American mass media, embrace reactionary principles that have become actively taboo in many circles? Is this the culture war? Who is winning the culture war?

To posters with more mainstream views, I posit that Western democracy's greatest threat is the resurgence of authoritarian, right wing beliefs in the Anglo-European middle and working classes. I point to the emergence of the Tea Party in the United States, the rise of the UKIP in Britain, and the overall amazing performance of hard right political parties throughout Europe for evidence of this assertion.

First of all, world politics is undergoing an international shift: Corporations and lobbying organisations have become more powerful, Libertarianism the norm in economics. Raising taxes to 72% is no longer done. So the left cannot compete on economics. The themes of politics are changing towards identity issues. But here is a problem: The Left's traditionally supported Multiculturalism as well as Feminism and LGBT rights and it turned out the latter two are incompatible with the former: Arab culture is highly misogynist and homophobic and different ethnic cultures are feminist and gay-friendly in varying degrees. At one point, the Left shall have to decide: Is cultural diversity worth bashing gays and mistreating women, or shall we have to force unassimilated minorities to choice between leaving the country or leave their barbaric ways and be accepting of gays and women as equals?

The European right have no comparable intellectual dilemmas. Nationalism doesn't necessarily clash religious conservatism, and often support each other. It would be interesting to see the nationalists would come to the aid of the progressive left-wingers.

I believe that if current trends continue, we will live to witness the return of fascism, or various and sundry forms of tyranny that masquerade under prettier names.

What is more likely is that traditional political dichotomies are to break down. In Europe, the Right is divided between Conservative Christians and Secular Nationalists. The Left and Right divided is less pronounced on economic issues and more about ethnic and gender issues. The Left, in due course will split between those who think women and LGBT rights are more important than minority rights and those who think vice versa. Conservative Christians will ally with Multiculturalists, Secular Nationalists with Social Progressives.

In the final analysis, the Right has been intellectually sucked dry, the Left is intellectually incosistent. A great thaw will fix this.

 

[Kozmos]

This does explain the searh for alternatives, but not the choice. Often there are less extreme under-dogs to choose from (like, there is a huge varierty of parties which attend federal elections in Germany, which by a long shot do not only consist of established parties and "extreme" parties)

Sure it does, people who are rather sickened by the process and wrangling with huge bureaucratic machines and making policy concessions to purse holders won't find much appeal in making slow and steady reforms via a watered down party of their choice, but rather in a completely radical movement, engaged in the process of completely sweeping everything away and starting anew because this time...it's different. They have a plan and a vision. What could be better than that!?

 

[Lord of Elves]

@Synsensa, I'm left to wonder how carefully you looked at my post since the entire premise of my argument lies in the resurgence - not reappearance - of the far right. I'm under no illusion that reactionary movements, far less the reactionary impulse, disappeared in our society for some period of time. If anything, the right has been gathering strength since the end of the Second World War.

@Kozmos, I think there is no reason at all to believe that the far right should be susceptible to such an ideological "thinning" process. The problem of our political discourse at present is that under international capitalism, social liberalism has no where to go. Confronted with the problems of modernity, leftists who eschew Revolution have no coherent alternative to propose and are rightly ignored in comparison to the very loud and very articulate crypto-fascists of our time. In a sociocultural climate of malaise, supposed radicals look very foolish when they advocate fearlessly staying the course. The far right, which can point to the present conditions of our society and say, "We should institutionalize this at every level of our culture," while couching it in a defense of our way of life, looks very persuasive in comparison. They don't have to compromise because their beliefs are just as extreme as their methods, and their message is consistent: return to an idealized status quo.

In comparison, as many have pointed out, the left has a very hard time articulating a compelling ideological narrative of the world we live in now and how their beliefs relate to it. This is because as I've implied, we can go no further as liberals without embracing Revolution and the abolition of international capitalism.

@Tovergieter, I agree. I believe that if the left wants to achieve a fully equal society it needs to admit that "intersectional" tolerance is impossible when it is so easy for international capitalism to foment social unrest for its own ends. The only way to create a society where all peoples can have free self-expression and pursue happiness is to abolish the conditions of material scarcity created by an unregulated free market and guarantee all human beings a basic standard of living.

What I still want to see is defenses of the alternative to dignity and freedom to all humanity, that being the regression to antediluvian tyranny and massacre.

 

[Ajidica]

The European right have no comparable intellectual dilemmas. Nationalism doesn't necessarily clash religious conservatism, and often support each other.

Could you explain? I'm really only familiar with contemporary British politics but I was under the impressing the Conservatives -despite recent electoral successes- were desperately trying to hold together a party that is increasingly split between the 'Establishment Conservatives' and the UKIP-style anti-immigration crowd. That UKIP has done poorly in elections is more due to how the UK election system is structured rather than a lack of support.
Or is that a UK only thing?

It would be interesting to see the nationalists would come to the aid of the progressive left-wingers.

Happened before, notably during post-war reconstruction with Gaullism and the SocDem-Christian Democrat coalitions.

 

[mrt144]

There's a difference between tolerance and support - that small minded right wingers can only view tolerance as a hypocritical dichotomy while not even attempting to feign a magnanimous attitude towards people even slightly different than themselves isn't my problem.

That foreign cultures and societies don't like the secularism of America isn't something American liberals need to wring their hands about. What is there to do with people who have literal beliefs in unprovable things and would kill you for pointing that out? You just have to endure that those people exist, they have a right to exist but they don't get to bite the other children at day care.

 

[classical_hero]

It's the hard left that we have to worry about.

 

[Ajidica]

It's the hard left that we have to worry about.

In that case, you can rest easily without a worry.
The hard left is dead in the developed world and on life support or existing in name only in the rest of the world.

 

[Lord of Elves]

It's the hard left that we have to worry about.

Flattering, but as Ajidica points out, this lamentation isn't rooted in the reality of actual politics. Legitimate leftism capable of offering real solutions to our society's problems is treading water throughout the world.

In that case, you can rest easily without a worry.
The hard left is dead in the developed world and on life support or existing in name only in the rest of the world.

This needn't be the case. It's a testament to the repressive forces at work in our society that it is, being that the world proposed by radical leftists of the new school would - if realized - bring about freedom of expression on a scale unseen in human history. Free of the socioeconomic constraints of market capitalism, the creativity and ingenuity of millions of people could be unleashed through egalitarian, liberalizing globalization.

We have the resources to build a freer civilization right now if we throw off the skeleton hand of plutocracy.

 

[Marla_Singer]

During most of the 20th century, there was the idea that any country could pick his own political system and live in his little autarcy with his ideological friends. This has only caused misery and quickly convinced most people that it was wiser to open up to the rest of the world. The most striking example is probably Deng's reforms during the 1980's in China.

Since then, the world never ceased to open itself even more. The booming in financial activities as well as the new technologies have accelerated even more the move. And the outcome is a world which is amazingly interdependent, where basically the decisions of any country affects all other countries. This means that we cannot really go radical in a specific country because the counter-effect towards the surrounding environment would be disastrous. The best example for that is probably Greece.

This, somehow, limits the freedom of a government within its own country. We don't have any real alternatives to pick really, especially regarding economics. I think the fact our fate is more dependent on the international context than on the actions of our politicians is considered by some people as a loss of control which they find a bit scary.

The general feeling is often that governments are too soft, too lenient, letting things happening to them rather than taking the fate of the country in their hand. And if right-wing politicians are getting popular, it's because they give the feeling they are tough, that others won't play with them the way it's done to the current leaders. They are strong and they will show them who we are.

I personally think that's just play acting and that it's not in being "more tough" in your attitude that Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen could bring anything good to the UK or France, but I think those supporting them actually believe it.

 

[Berzerker]

corporatism will prevail until the world dies from consumerism

 

[Lord of Elves]

corporatism will prevail until the world dies from consumerism

It's your optimism that inspires me

 

[Hygro]

When money is tighter, reactionaries gain power. When money gets looser, reactionaries lose power—unless the reactionaries loosened the money.

The cause of the current volume of the hard right in Europe, the USA, and Japan tracks with the demand-depressed economies, aka where money is tighter. This has particularly been true since the Great Recession, but existed in the trickle down environments of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.

I think it comes in part from a victim-blaming mentality. People get angry when they aren't seeing the success they want to see from their neighbors.

 

[Kyriakos]

Going by the Netherlands, fascism is the new Orange

 

[gay_Aleks]

I dunno, merely hating immigrants doesn't count as "fascism". Sure, they're asses, but they still haven't slaughtered any minority in the middle of the night with bats and knives.