Real or imagined threats

[Tristan_C]

Most Trump voters probably don't know what corporatism is, nor do they care about brutalism.

Corporatism is a real world phenomenon. Corporatism is the joke the real world plays on socialists and government-run enterprises. While corporations are driven by profit, the government is driven by solicitude for your well-being, right? You vote for Obama and think you're about to get a program that delivers you something for nothing, designed and run by intelligent people who really care. And they all just happen to be Goldman Sachs alumni.

...
lmao



Genuine brutalist architecture (not the artsy stuff touted as brutalist) are some of the most beautiful buildings in the world, simply because of what their existence means, the things that went in those buildings, and the things that now go on in them. It literally stirs my soul.

Abandoned soviet base outside of Prag

Abandoned soviet nuclear silo in Poland

Bin Laden's compound

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Are you sure you're really aware of American politics?

Republicans are all of these things. They love authoritarianism, and the state using law to control peoples' lives. They're very much militarism, and their "war on terror" is essentially your "perpetual war." Protectionism? Haven't you heard about Trump's attempted trade wars? And absolutely corporatism lol, they've completely sold out that way (see Citizen's United)

I disagree with Lexicus that your average conservative voter is individually a fascist, but I'd say the Republican party most certainly is (and they're actively trying to eliminate democracy and create a single party state), and then by proxy anyone voting Republican is essentially supporting a fascist regime, right?

It's a common mistake to conflate corporatism with love for corporations. They're completely different. Corporatism in the fascist sense is for strong government and a guild-like (yes, we are talking about the medieval guild system here!) organization of workers.

I would also argue that the average republican voter is not militant nor martial. He/she is probably as passive in real life as most of us are. Very few are of the "Unite the Right!" rally type, those are just prominently featured in media. They're probably patriotic and support American wars, but that's a huge difference. The average republican voter probably believes in the right to carry and self-defense, not in fascist militarism in any relevant way.

Just because things seem similiar on the surface doesn't mean they're the same at their core. Actually, your point about "perpetual war" is one I would have liked to make myself, so I do agree wholly on that one. I would also raise you another example: The "war on drugs" is another perpetual war that America has fielded for more than half a century now! Also, same for protectionism. As I also said in my post, these are some clear fascist tendencies in the Trump administration.

You open a whole new can of worms, which is whether or not the Trump admin is fascist. That's a different question from what we discussed. But in essence, I think I agree with you, and I would say that the Trump admin is to a very meaningful degree fascist. And that, as you correctly point out, also means that a majority of Trump supporters also support a fascist state by virtue of voting. I vehemently disagree that this makes them fascists, I think they're mostly just ignorant of these tendencies, seeing as how most of our average Joe's aren't that much into political theory. They probably don't see any authoritarian tendencies in Trump (or don't want to admit it) and see him as a regular conservative, I also heavily doubt that they're aware of the erosion of democracy in America.

And for Nazi, I don't think people are literally saying they're like historical transplants from WW2 Germany, but rather they're Nazi-like, if I'm making sense? They're pretty much the same as them, using the same tactics and the same end goals (especially related to ethnic superiority), but instead of targetting Jews (and Nazis also went after Slavs, Romani, Jehovah's Witness, etc), they're going after Hispanics and Arabs.

Why not just say racist then? The Nazis didn't invent any of those tactics, they were already very popular around the 1800s when scientific racism really popped off. All racists believe in their own ethnic/racial/völkisch superiority, engage in dogwhistling and doublespeak, use propaganda tactics and so forth, that's not really something specific to Nazi germany.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Genuine brutalist architecture (not the artsy stuff touted as brutalist) are some of the most beautiful buildings in the world, simply because of what their existence means, the things that went in those buildings, and the things that now go on in them. It literally stirs my soul.

I have an appreciation for brutalism, too. Actually, concrete itself (where the word comes from. "brute" is just french for concrete) is absolutely fascinating, especially considering its long history, from the romans to the GDR

I'm saying that conservatism morphs into fascism when the established order is under threat or perceived to be under threat. I'm not talking about the realm of ideological conviction but rather the practical effect of the conservatives' political activity.

When the system is actually in crisis even liberals and social democrats can in be fascists-in-effect. E.g. when the German Social Democrats allied with the far-right paramilitaries that would eventually form the core of the Nazi SA in order to crush the German revolution.

Ah, I understand better now. Kudos for knowing that little fact (I think I've brought it up at some point, too). Most people simply think that the NSDAP won the majority election democratically, few people know about the dark sides of leftist and centrist parties splitting up and getting into bed with the fascists.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I get two long articles is a big ask to read but if you just want to repeat the same meaningless nonsense that contributes nothing why bother?

You act like either of your links or his has particularly more value than something any of us could pull from our backsides. That's strange.

Still, calling SJWs a threat in particular is ironically pretty SJW-esque.

You're inadvertently hitting on the point, here. If less than one in one thousand Americans are Nazis, but they carry out one in one thousand murders, then they have a much higher propensity for murder than the general population- and we can reasonably infer from that, a higher propensity towards other forms of violence.

So what happens when the number of Nazis goes up?

You...do realize the implications you can get when you replace "Nazis" with other things? You're going for a ~far right talking point with a flipped target of the reasoning for irony or something...right?

 

[Berzerker]

I severely doubt that most of Trump's supporter are anti-semites in any meaningful way, if anything they support Israel and want to hellfire bomb the living **** out of the middle east (or any brown people in general). They're racist. Most definitely authoritarian. But rarely fascist. And almost never nazis. Proper nazis are a real thing, and it really doesn't help to mislabel people.

Bombing the hell out of the Middle East appears bi-partisan. If anything, the Democrats gave Trump the peace vote by nominating Clinton.

Fascism has certain tenets. Most important of all, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism (!), the necessity for an out-group, "perpetual" war, certain aesthetics, protectionism and so forth. Most Trump voters probably don't know what corporatism is, nor do they care about brutalism.

Mussolini said fascism was "the merging of state and corporate power". He coined fascism, more or less. I would go as far and say that a majority of Trump voters are strictly against the idea of government interfering with business, they are anti-corporatist and therefore also anti-fascist in a way. Some of Trumps policies were definitely fascist, like his protectionist policies for example.

Protectionism was/is so widespread calling it fascism may not say much about fascism. I dont know Trump's 'heart' on protectionism, his trade war is ostensibly an attempt to balance the playing field and slow the theft of intellectual property. A protectionist wants tariffs to promote domestic industries. Trump may want that too and maybe most people have a protectionist streak, how do you look your tribe member in the eye after buying 'an import' instead of his product.

good post

You're kinda tripping if you don't think the 60+ million Americans who voted for Trump are basically Nazis. Haven't they demonstrated they have no limits yet? If Trump started shipping Democrats off to the gas chamber they'd stand up and cheer.

I didn't vote for him but my limit is defined by how many people we kill, he has a long way to go before he gets into Obama/Clinton territory.

 

[MaryKB]

Here we're pretty much getting government run by corporations, because politicians are more concerned with keeping corporate donors than what is in voters' best interests (especially Republicans, who've even admitted this!) I mean technically we're still democracy and people are voting, but Congress does what big industry wants, and that seems very corporatist to me?

Republicans here practically worship the military. I feel it goes way beyond patriotism, it's not even about American values but instead simply about glorifying military just because it's military, if I'm making sense? They even wanted Donald to have a Soviet-style military parade in Washington (fortunately that didn't happen, but mostly for logistical reasons)

Why not just say racist then? The Nazis didn't invent any of those tactics, they were already very popular around the 1800s when scientific racism really popped off. All racists believe in their own ethnic/racial/völkisch superiority, engage in dogwhistling and doublespeak, use propaganda tactics and so forth, that's not really something specific to Nazi germany.

I think it's for impact, because really there's so much in common, you know? And people are trying to use history to educate: that if things keep going like this, we're going to end up just like Nazi Germany. Trump's campaign was based on fear-mongering, specifically targeting Hispanics and Muslims, and their propaganda machine's in full swing. Trump is trying to undermine the media, and create a state where we get all our "news" from him directly, and peoples' rights are under threat. I don't feel just calling them "racists" is enough, we need a word that really hits home at how much of a threat they represent.

 

[Lexicus]

Also general note on corporatism, it is useful to think of corporatism in opposition to liberal individualism, where people are conceived of and relate to the state as individual citizens, under a corporatist system people will relate to others and the state via a corporate body in which they are a member.

I mean technically we're still democracy and people are voting, but Congress does what big industry wants, and that seems very corporatist to me?

That's not corporatism, that's just capitalism with a bourgeois democracy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Here we're pretty much getting government run by corporations, because politicians are more concerned with keeping corporate donors than what is in voters' best interests (especially Republicans, who've even admitted this!) I mean technically we're still democracy and people are voting, but Congress does what big industry wants, and that seems very corporatist to me?

USA and EU both have heavy corporatist streaks, and yes it's a serious problem, because these same corporations also push (directly or indirectly) legislature that allows them to control the information available to voters...all while claiming this is okay because they're allegedly private organizations! If we want to talk about "real threats" in the context of this thread, this tendency towards more and more corporatism in the west has to be up there.

That's not corporatism, that's just capitalism with a bourgeois democracy.

When de facto control shifts enough, I'm not convinced the distinction remains meaningful.

 

[rah]

A lot of people are supporting the republicans because while they have been in charge (executive, senate, Judicial) their investment have flourished, not because they're fascists. My investments have gained almost a quarter Mil since Trump took office. While that hasn't convinced my to support this pig, a lot of people only see this and would like to see it continue. To assume they're doing it because they support fascism is just plain silly. Most don't give a crap about anything else.
Yes, indirectly they're giving a fascist regime the OK, but that's not why they're doing it.
Inferring they're fascists because they vote thinking they'll make more money is just another way to make sure they win next time. Wise up.

 

[MaryKB]

A lot of people are supporting the republicans because while they have been in charge (executive, senate, Judicial) their investment have flourished, not because they're fascists. My investments have gained almost a quarter Mil since Trump took office. While that hasn't convinced my to support this pig, a lot of people only see this and would like to see it continue. To assume they're doing it because they support fascism is just plain silly. Most don't give a crap about anything else.
Yes, indirectly they're giving a fascist regime the OK, but that's not why they're doing it.
Inferring they're fascists because they vote thinking they'll make more money is just another way to make sure they win next time. Wise up.

I think that's what you call "selling your soul." If you're willing to ignore their evils because they help you personally profit, I don't think that's an admirable trait at all. It doesn't matter why they're doing it, what matters is they care less about other peoples' well being than they do their own selfish gains.

I agree I don't call them fascists, but I'll tell them they're supporting a fascist regime and causing harm to others.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think that's what you call "selling your soul." If you're willing to ignore their evils because they help you personally profit, I don't think that's an admirable trait at all. It doesn't matter why they're doing it, what matters is they care less about other peoples' well being than they do their own selfish gains.

It does matter why they do it, because that knowledge informs policy choices one might enact or advertise as an alternative.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Protectionism was/is so widespread calling it fascism may not say much about fascism.

Protectionism isn't necessarily fascist, it is just one of the main tenets of fascism. Even a communist planned economy, like North Korea, can have protectionist policies.

Bombing the hell out of the Middle East appears bi-partisan. If anything, the Democrats gave Trump the peace vote by nominating Clinton.

You know what, fair enough. Seems insincere to only blame repubs for bombing the middle east, that was not a solo but rather a collab.

I think it's for impact, because really there's so much in common, you know? And people are trying to use history to educate: that if things keep going like this, we're going to end up just like Nazi Germany. Trump's campaign was based on fear-mongering, specifically targeting Hispanics and Muslims, and their propaganda machine's in full swing. Trump is trying to undermine the media, and create a state where we get all our "news" from him directly, and peoples' rights are under threat. I don't feel just calling them "racists" is enough, we need a word that really hits home at how much of a threat they represent.

You can call the Trump admin fascist and I would agree, I'm not so sure calling them "nazi" is in any way helpful to anyones cause, especially considering the fact that Trump is a huge philosemite and Champion for Israel. Fear-mongering, undermining the media and so forth I would say are all standard fascist tactics that you can see from Mussolini to Franco. Though maybe you do have a point about Trump and nazism, it was a common thing for nazi propagandists to simply say the opposite of what is truthfully happening, and this post-truth sentiment has never been stronger than with the Trump admin.

Honestly, I cherish and echo your sentiment that you do need a strong word for impact, because the erosion of democracy is a very real thing and needs to be put in words for people to actually realize it and fight against it. That has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with authoritanism.

Republicans here practically worship the military. I feel it goes way beyond patriotism, it's not even about American values but instead simply about glorifying military just because it's military, if I'm making sense? They even wanted Donald to have a Soviet-style military parade in Washington (fortunately that didn't happen, but mostly for logistical reasons)

I know about American obsession with their military, I mean we're talking about a nation that literally live-broadcasted the very moment they dropped missiles and made parts of the ME into Sodom and Gomorrha public spectacle. But, against all odds, every single branch of the US military has actually gotten smaller, and with each following year fewer people end up enlisting. I would also argue that it's not actually just war and military that Americans are obsessed with, but guns and "self defense" as well as "security" specifically.

When de facto control shifts enough, I'm not convinced the distinction remains meaningful.

Again, corporatism is a system in which the state has significant power over corporations, who are organized on a guild-style manner. What you are describing is the exact opposite: Corportations exorting power over the state.

So while I completely agree with your assessment that global corporations' influence on politics is one of the biggest problems we as humanity have to face, it's not called "corporatism".

 

[MaryKB]

I don't feel pandering to people who are willing to sell the souls and cause others harm is how you go about it. I'm not interested in getting into a bidding war with the devil for morally bankrupt people.

@yung.carl.jung I feel that Republican demonization of Muslims is the same path as Nazi antisemitism, and their treatment of Hispanics is similar to Nazi treatment of Slavs, etc etc. I feel that basically they're in the same mold as the Nazis, just different colors.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

A lot of people are supporting the republicans because while they have been in charge (executive, senate, Judicial) their investment have flourished, not because they're fascists

I can help. That's simply called "being stupid". Because, y'know, tangible data proves that economic policies don't actually take place the moment they're enacted, but rather much later. It was never Trumps economic policy that caused the stock market to do well. Not because, but in spite.

Also, if you allow a little pet theory, I think the reason why markets were doing well is because all the people that matter are aware that Trump would never raise taxes, attack untouchables like Amazon, punish wild speculation or investment or go for any kind of government intervention that companies wouldn't like. Essentially, when you know that one of the most powerful men in the world is kind of a puppy to you, then of course you go all-in. It only makes sense. Corporations realized he was a push-over and that he only had their best interests in mind, and capitalized.

I don't feel pandering to people who are willing to sell the souls and cause others harm is how you go about it. I'm not interested in getting into a bidding war with the devil for morally bankrupt people.

@yung.carl.jung I feel that Republican demonization of Muslims is the same path as Nazi antisemitism, and their treatment of Hispanics is similar to Nazi treatment of Slavs, etc etc. I feel that basically they're in the same mold as the Nazis, just different colors.

Now that's a theory I can engage with.

Yes, I agree there are similarities as to how nazis treated jews vis a vis repubs and muslims. Particularly jews were presented as "invaders" in Nazi propaganda, who were trying to "dilute the German blood", "replace" the people and make them their slaves. In Trump's America (actually, long before that!) Muslims were also propagandized as two-faced invaders: Leading a normal life on the surface, but being the member of a terrorist sleeper cell. It is a similair motive: The invader appears nice on the surface, but is only there to destroy a society from within, the internalized threat.

A bunch of things are different however: Nazi racism was biological (jews have inferior blood, are literal vermin, are cognitively impaired, are by their very nature cunning and insidious), contemporary racism is cultural (muslims have a culture that is incompatible with ours, they want sharia law, they hate gays and women, they want to replace our culture etc.).

I also see some parallels between the treatment of slavs and latin Americans, though that is a particularly different topic to explore, since many nazi officials had different views on slavs (and what a slav is). It's also not my topic of expertise. The general gist of it was that slavs were inferior people and should have their lands repopulated with Germans, "uplifting" their genetics and offering "Lebensraum" for Germans, classic win-win. Maybe you can draw the parallels for me?

 

[MaryKB]

Trump absolutely hates Amazon (because Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post), and he has tried going after them; he's just too stupid to be at all effective about it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Its 2019 everyone is online

"Online" isn't a single location, and the Boomer- or Silent-generation conservatives who make up Trump's support base do not inhabit a very wide range of online locations. There are few circumstances in which they will encounter "SJWs" in any organic way. They are aware of "SJWs" to the extent that somebody consciously chooses to package and present "SJWism" them as an entertainment product.

I don’t think I’ve found a place in the USA devoid SJWs, every family has at least one.

A weird niece that you see twice a year is not something that people build a world-view around. Most families have a weeb, too, but nobody bursts a blood vessel getting mad about it.

 

[rah]

I can help. That's simply called "being stupid". Because, y'know, tangible data proves that economic policies don't actually take place the moment they're enacted, but rather much later. It was never Trumps economic policy that caused the stock market to do well. Not because, but in spite.

Also, if you allow a little pet theory, I think the reason why markets were doing well is because all the people that matter are aware that Trump would never raise taxes, attack untouchables like Amazon, punish wild speculation or investment or go for any kind of government intervention that companies wouldn't like. Essentially, when you know that one of the most powerful men in the world is kind of a puppy to you, then of course you go all-in. It only makes sense. Corporations realized he was a push-over and that he only had their best interests in mind, and capitalized.

I tend to agree, but it doesn't matter what you call it or how it happens or who the credit actually belongs to. Too many people vote their wallet regardless. While KB may call it selling their soul many just consider it common sense to provide for their families.

 

[MaryKB]

Doubling investments isn't "providing for your family" ... you're in total comfort territory there. While I don't feel there's anything inherently wrong with investing at all, I do feel that such gains at the expense of other people is basically "blood money."

 

[Traitorfish]

I tend to agree, but it doesn't matter what you call it or how it happens or who the credit actually belongs to. Too many people vote their wallet regardless. While KB may call it selling their soul many just consider it common sense to provide for their families.

I think you have to be almost wilful short-sighted to imagine that "providing for your family" consists simply of accruing as much personal wealth as possible, and the rest of the world be damned. As if your family wouldn't be happier with a little less money in a society of healthy, happy, educated people? As if they wouldn't prefer the definite security of a well-developed social safety net and robust public services to a slightly-padded inheritance decades down the line?

It seems to request less dramatic leaps of imagination to accept that most conservative voters are just the selfish, grasping simpletons they seem to be.

 

[rah]

I didn't make that claim. I said I don't support this pig or his party anymore. But telling people that they shouldn't be concerned about supporting their families is an error. It's just one type of bribe. The Democrats are trying a different bribe. Health care, education debt reduction, cheap housing. Once can argue the morality of either, but if a person is struggling to support his family they may not be concerned with other factors.

There are many simpletons on both sides of the fence. Don't kid yourself.