IMO this the most apt comparison with the US. Unfortunately we don't have a robust leftwing alternative. We had our Lula in the form of Sanders but we saw the DNC's response. I think if we fail to prevent fascism in this case it is most likely to be the democrats' fault.
I’d rather describe blaming “the Democrats“ as adopting the framing of this administration. They blame all “Democrats”, name a wide range of strawmen using the former president’s name like an adjective.
It’s quite destructive running around screaming rape, murder, fire. The president is willing to do it, the current congressional majority is all in, and the Supreme Court is YOLO. All branches are captured by the propaganda of this corrupt administration. This boat don’t turn around on the drop of a dime.
OP said failure to prevent fascism is the Democrats' fault. The reply said fascism is fascists' fault. Two different things. Where exactly is the insight in 'fascism is the fascists' fault'?
The Democrat party's primaries aren't very democratic. The party elites selected (Hillary) Clinton, Biden, and Harris. Obama was the last candidate chosen by the people.
"I researched every attempt to stop fascism by democratic means. The success rate is 0%"
Also see:
"I tried to talk the neighborhood bully out of punching me in the face. The success rate is 0%"
I get that it poses an alarming precedent for our future in the US, but we haven't fully failed yet. Teetering, maybe. And if we fail, no election is going to save us, nor save the world from us.
> We already have two incompatible visions of what America should be. One side wants a multi-ethnic democracy with a social safety net. The other wants a white Christian ethnostate with unlimited corporate power.
Isn't JD Vance married to an Indian lady?
The article is very interesting and smart and well written with some really great ideas, but I think there may be a little bit of hyperbole which Im still ok with.
OP was referring to regulations rather than debt or entitlements. Thus far we haven't done much to social security (other than firing the help desks, which doesn't really cut into the actual cost.)
Walking away from it would be, uh, problematic. Especially for the demographic who voted most enthusiastically for this administration. Which might make for some poetic justice, but a lot of others would also find themselves in dire straits.
> OP was referring to regulations rather than debt or entitlements.
One can clearly offer these differentiations, but it's all so much Utopian Progressivism that has simply not withstood the test of time, if we're being honest about the debt.
But honesty scales like Utopian Progressivism, so expect continued ignoring of the problem until the economy 'splodes and the "experts" stand around looking aghast.
Perhaps it's time to fork the united states and see how each half goes. One half will have food. One half will have money. There's probably enough guns and enough disorder to keep things messy. Very messy.
I guess we can take Irish solution and employ work-to-rule, passive resistance and the like. Prevent the cash from leaving the state, prevent the Guard from mobilizing or leaving the state. Rely on ejecting non-whites and women from the services doing a number on effectiveness.
Who gets to invoke Nato? The nukes are in red states I think, will they nuke themselves? Is there enough of an edge to teeter on to get people to wake up and turn on other branches of government? The Civil War was bloody. The French Revolution was bloody, perhaps the lack-of-bloodthirstiness will help people say "ah, f*ck it" and let things part?
Never, ever thought this sh*t possible. And so quickly... Puts China in a very odd position, trying to determine which result is optimal for China. Strong, well-armed rogue states aren't good for business.
Definitely red. But I think in northern and central california the whole blue city / red outside cities thing is kind of like the European Coal and Steel Community. So much shared infrastructure and interdependence, and water and electricity is not evenly distributed.
Could it be a case of "unwanted fallacy"? (bear with me)
I mean:
At almost any point in time, when fascists are NOT in power, it's because they were, one way or another, stopped.
The logic would be: fascism is a systematic/automatic force that wants to seize power, usually by basing its ideology on anti-intellectualism, glorified past, enemies of the nation that must be eliminated/deported, imperialist motives (conquest, war, etc.).
This systematic force always exists. It always exists because there are always people who wants to dominate, oppress, express violence against this or that group of people.
Therefore, the few times fascists reached power in any country around the world it's because of a combination of factors and that's what we KNOW about.
For instance, this movement https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulangisme never reached power. BUT it for sure planted the seeds of future hatred, extreme nationalism, etc. and they were VERY determined to take the power, and they didn't. But we don't 'count' it as "fascism that was stopped" because there was no clear, obvious, big event that we can pinpoint as fascists being stopped.
He mentions Finland and Lapua movement as an example and it's correct, but there are others.
United Sates:
There was Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the south.
In the 1930s fascism became very popular in the US. 25% of Americans listened regularly fascist radio program from father Charles Coughlin. "It is fascism or communism. We are at the crossroads. I take the road to fascism.” Large number of "shirts" organizations (fascists with different shirt colors, silver, black, green, .. ). In the Congress America First Committee, while not a fascist organization itself, included several core members with antisemitic and pro-fascist sympathies.
Southern California is vulnerable to that, but not Northern California. California is the largest food producer to the US, including about 1/3 of our fresh vegetables and 3/4 of fruits and nuts. The country wouldn't starve without California, but I sure wouldn't want to experience a situation where California stops exporting to red states.
The agricultural parts of California are largely red. In this hypothetical scenario, why wouldn't they pull a West Virginia and secede from Southern California to be with their ideological brethren?
If you look at an electoral map by county of the United States, you'll see that the major cities are blue and almost everything else is red. The everything else is the part of America that produces food and manufactured goods.
Yes, just a thought experiment. I grew up on a farm in Northern California (mostly rice and tomatoes), lived in the bay area for 20 years for college and working in tech, and now live in a red state. I tell people the same thing you do about blue cities and red everything else. It's bizarre how many people in red states and blue states don't know that (and don't want to believe it).
very thoughtful. Obviously many conscientious Israelis are leaving their country (it's a real thing). Likewise with the US.
I am in the US, but my approach to the oligarchy/AIPAC takeover is real simple, though maybe not effective: just cut spending to a bare minimum. The billionaires need to make more more more, well not if I can help it. Politcally, everyone should switch to Independent status! Don't let them takw your vote for granted. Never ever vote straight party choices. It's more work to research each candidate but hey, enjoy learning sometimes unsavory details. Check opensecrets.org about who is bankrolling each candidate. Read responsible alternative news sources that don't push ads, and donate to the best ones.
The claim is false, as long as they are unable to change the form of the government they tend to flame out and lose support quickly, because there's not that much substance behind their populism. They tend to have no real plan that's why different from a typical warlord, just on a slightly bigger scale.
Unless they go to war...
The real issue is that nobody with any degree of power really cares.
Ok, so the states fall, but not before existing for at least a generation and in some cases effectively an entire working life:
- Francoist Spain: 40 years.
- Pinochet Chile: 17 years.
- Salazar Portugal: 36 years.
If you were 22 when Pinochet took power for example you didn't see the end until 39. Your best years lost. And that's the "lite" version. (I ignored Italy because of WW2)
If the US MAGA contingent gloms on to this fascism malarkey by anointing a true believer after Trumps inevitable death (he is pushing 80, after all) we would be looking at decades of loss.
On the other hand, Pinochet in Chile held an election in 1988. The choices were to keep him as president or replace him with a constitutional government. He lost (55% to 45%) and he stepped down, allowing a democratic government to replace him. This negates the main thesis, of a 0% success rate in stopping fascism.
