[starman2003]

Yes, Hitler and Mussolini were effective at making the rest of the world, and many of their own countrymen, rise up in violent opposition against them.

Racialist ideology alienated most of the world's people, but it's not an inevitable feature of fascism. As for internal opposition, even Mussolini survived over two years of defeats. And it speaks volumes about the degree of devotion to the nazi regime that it easily crushed the only serious domestic opposition, in July '44, despite grave circumstances at the time.
Decky, Mussolini was an effective orator and politician, who gained great power and held it for over 20 years.

[Pants-of-dog]

Racialist ideology alienated most of the world's people, but it's not an inevitable feature of fascism.

Sure, fascism can morph onto something not racist, but that is now what history shows, and to be frank, most self-identified fascists are racist.

As for internal opposition, even Mussolini survived over two years of defeats. And it speaks volumes about the degree of devotion to the nazi regime that it easily crushed the only serious domestic opposition, in July '44, despite grave circumstances at the time.

Such longevity! Two whole years! That is totally far more impressive than, say, a socialist country that is only 90 miles off the coast of a capitalist superpower who has repeatedly defended itself against said superpower for over fifty years, despite a significantly lower amount of economic and military power.

Decky, Mussolini was an effective orator and politician, who gained great power and held it for over 20 years.

Big deal. Canada has had PMs serve that long. The US would probably have too if they did not have term limits.

[starman2003]

Sure, fascism can morph onto something not racist, but that is now what history shows, and to be frank, most self-identified fascists are racist.

Neo-nazis are just fringe groups, and I doubt they're going anywhere. I think democracy is coming under increasing pressure and will ultimately crack, but racists won't be able to capitalize on it. A century ago, racist ideas were virtually standard, now they're anathema to the bulk of educated people. I just can't see any new authoritarian regime in a major western State being racist.

Such longevity! Two whole years! That is totally far more impressive than, say, a socialist country that is only 90 miles off the coast of a capitalist superpower who has repeatedly defended itself against said superpower for over fifty years, despite a significantly lower amount of economic and military power.

It sure helped that Cuba had a superpower backup for much of that time. And of course Cuba isn't just socialist, it's a dictatorship, which can enhance the staying power of a regime because it makes it less dependent on popular support.
But unlike Italy, Cuba had the advantage of not being engaged in a actual war with stronger powers, which flattened its armies. Surviving two years of that is actually not so unimpressive...

Big deal. Canada has had PMs serve that long. The US would probably have too if they did not have term limits.

But fascism is different in that it means gaining virtually absolute power--harder to gain and maintain.

[Pants-of-dog]

Neo-nazis are just fringe groups, and I doubt they're going anywhere. I think democracy is coming under increasing pressure and will ultimately crack, but racists won't be able to capitalize on it. A century ago, racist ideas were virtually standard, now they're anathema to the bulk of educated people. I just can't see any new authoritarian regime in a major western State being racist.

Yes, no one who, for example, said all Mexicans are rapists and all Muslims are terrorists would ever get elected to be POTUS.

On a more serious note, it seems like anti-immigration sentiment is the main vehicle for right wing and far right wing parties to get power. This contradicts your idea that new fascism will be somehow not racist.

It sure helped that Cuba had a superpower backup for much of that time. And of course Cuba isn't just socialist, it's a dictatorship, which can enhance the staying power of a regime because it makes it less dependent on popular support.
But unlike Italy, Cuba had the advantage of not being engaged in a actual war with stronger powers, which flattened its armies. Surviving two years of that is actually not so unimpressive...

In my experience, Cuba is not as dictatorial as other dictatorships such as Chile under Pinochet.

More importantly, because of Cuba's proximity to the US, and the Miami Cubans, the US has reason and opportunity to meddle in Cuba's internal politics. The US's usual m.o. is to support right wing groups within the country who then overthrow the local government with US help.

Obviously, the US has tried to do this in Cuba. Unfortunately for the US, they have never found enough Cubans who want to overthrow the current regime. This suggests that most Cubans support the regime. This contradicts the idea that Cuba is a dictatorship.

I think Castro's decision to use exile and violence to remove counter-revolutionaries form the country was far more important to Cuba's longevity than any imagined authoritarian aspect to their government.

But fascism is different in that it means gaining virtually absolute power--harder to gain and maintain.

Why is it harder for a fascist to maintain power?

[starman2003]

Yes, no one who, for example, said all Mexicans are rapists and all Muslims are terrorists would ever get elected to be POTUS.

Trump said all? In any event, while it may be fashionable to slam muslims, a politician can hardly say the same about blacks anymore, if he wants to get anywhere.

On a more serious note, it seems like anti-immigration sentiment is the main vehicle for right wing and far right wing parties to get power. This contradicts your idea that new fascism will be somehow not racist.

Yeah we've all heard about Le Pen etc, but these people are not really going anywhere. There was once nativist opposition to immigrants here too but it faded away. While it's tempting for some politicians to try to capitalize on anti-immigration feeling, I don't think that's the issue that'll someday break the system or put a new system in power. IMO only a failure of democracy itself can do that.

Obviously, the US has tried to do this in Cuba. Unfortunately for the US, they have never found enough Cubans who want to overthrow the current regime. This suggests that most Cubans support the regime. This contradicts the idea that Cuba is a dictatorship.

Oh I don't doubt the regime has substantial support or it wouldn't have lasted. Notice though, there aren't free elections in Cuba, which there would be if the regime was confident it had enough support.
The Cuban regime enforces policies which are contrary to the wishes of the average jose. If the latter really had his way, there wouldn't be a sacrificial system but more individual wealth and amenities as in the US--where of course many Cubans have fled.

Why is it harder for a fascist to maintain power?

I meant it is usually harder to gain and maintain absolute power as under fascism. Not every politician has the political skill, ruthlessness, charisma or other attributes conducive to it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Trump said all? In any event, while it may be fashionable to slam muslims, a politician can hardly say the same about blacks anymore, if he wants to get anywhere.

Trump said that the situation of blacks today is the worst it has ever been. Such a studied ignorance of the situation of blacks is akin to racism in its ignorance.

The point is that Trump was elected because he said things that appealed to the racist side of the US. A fascist trying to come to power in the US could easily channel that same racism.

Yeah we've all heard about Le Pen etc, but these people are not really going anywhere. There was once nativist opposition to immigrants here too but it faded away. While it's tempting for some politicians to try to capitalize on anti-immigration feeling, I don't think that's the issue that'll someday break the system or put a new system in power. IMO only a failure of democracy itself can do that.

I think you are incorrect to claim that anti-immigration sentiment is a thing of the past.

Oh I don't doubt the regime has substantial support or it wouldn't have lasted. Notice though, there aren't free elections in Cuba, which there would be if the regime was confident it had enough support.
The Cuban regime enforces policies which are contrary to the wishes of the average jose. If the latter really had his way, there wouldn't be a sacrificial system but more individual wealth and amenities as in the US--where of course many Cubans have fled.

Your understanding of Cuba is wrong. More importantly, you have ignored my point that it s not some imaginary authoritarian aspect that keeps the government in power.

I meant it is usually harder to gain and maintain absolute power as under fascism. Not every politician has the political skill, ruthlessness, charisma or other attributes conducive to it.

In fascism, they do not need all of that. They just need control of the military and the economy.

[deepthinker]

It depends on what is meant by a 'fascist state'.

[Frollein]

Yes, totally. I dig the boots.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Would I live in a fascist state? **** No! A couple of quotes from the founder and second in command of Fascism -- Mussolini -- to show why:

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it

First so fascism is hyper-militarism? As a pacifist, I vehemently oppose the notion of a militaristic national identity. Moreover, war is not a "noble act" nor is it productive -- it is legalized murder and chaos at the hands of the state.

Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism

Holiness and heroism? Really? Most of the time people have a motive.

In practice fascism has been accompanied by run-away capitalism (Don't tell me that Hitler was a National Socialist, he dropped most of the socialist elements from his party in the years before his election and he vowed to fight communism). Not something I want.

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage

So you just ignore the will of the people just because democracy is inefficient and not always the most ineffective. Sure, democracy has had its problems, especially in representative democracy, but it has been one of the most successful and fairest political systems, especially when the government is relatively small.

This more than anything, is what I have a problem with. As an American, I have to live under near-runaway capitalism, but I manage. But no democracy? This guy is nearly as bad as Stalin.

[Frollein]

You really call that pass-the-hot-potatoe two-party oligarchy a democracy?

[MememyselfandIJK]

You really call that pass-the-hot-potatoe two-party oligarchy a democracy?

Since when did I say it was?

BTW its a two party dictatorship, not oligarchy. One person has most of the power

[starman2003]

Trump said that the situation of blacks today is the worst it has ever been. Such a studied ignorance of the situation of blacks is akin to racism in its ignorance.

It was ignorant, certainly, but I suspect he was trying to capitalize on black dissatisfaction, to get them to stop supporting the democrats and vote for him instead, not put down blacks.

The point is that Trump was elected because he said things that appealed to the racist side of the US. A fascist trying to come to power in the US could easily channel that same racism.

A fascist or authoritarian could target certain groups if it seemed timely or popular. But there's no way there'd be a regime based on racial theories like the reich.

I think you are incorrect to claim that anti-immigration sentiment is a thing of the past.

I did not say it was a thing of the past. I just said it was insufficient to win power, even now, and is likely to be far less important than the failings of democracy itself, in the eventual rise of a new regime.

Your understanding of Cuba is wrong. More importantly, you have ignored my point that it s not some imaginary authoritarian aspect that keeps the government in power.

Again I don't deny the regime has substantial support. I'm just saying it doesn't have enough backing to stay in power via elections--or it would've had them.

Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and heroism.

Mussolini was an atheist who just paid lip service to holy crap.

[Pants-of-dog]

It was ignorant, certainly, but I suspect he was trying to capitalize on black dissatisfaction, to get them to stop supporting the democrats and vote for him instead, not put down blacks.

Yes, he did not know he was being racist. That does not change the fact that the was rewarded for his racism by getting elected.

A fascist or authoritarian could target certain groups if it seemed timely or popular. But there's no way there'd be a regime based on racial theories like the reich.

Why not?

I did not say it was a thing of the past. I just said it was insufficient to win power, even now, and is likely to be far less important than the failings of democracy itself, in the eventual rise of a new regime.

Why not?

Again I don't deny the regime has substantial support. I'm just saying it doesn't have enough backing to stay in power via elections--or it would've had them.

And I will repeat that if there were such dissatisfaction, the US would have capitalised on it. Since the US has been unable to, this suggest that there is no significant dissatisfaction.

[starman2003]

Yes, he did not know he was being racist. That does not change the fact that the was rewarded for his racism by getting elected.

I don't think he was being racist in the sense of being against blacks or putting them down. He was seeking their support. It may have sounded ignorant to say their condition never has been worse. But I'd assume he was exaggerating to prey on the dissatisfaction of a lot of them, hence wean them away from the democrats and toward him.

Why not?

Well for one thing in coming decades nonwhites will make up a greater percentage of the population than they currently do.

Why not?

Did a Le Pen ever come to power in France? Did the National Front come to power in Britain? They've sure had plenty of time. Even where immigration has incurred the most problems, the far right hasn't been able to come to power based on just that. I've always maintained that breaking democracy would require a very severe crisis for which democracy itself is at fault--and the potential for that is very great.

And I will repeat that if there were such dissatisfaction, the US would have capitalised on it. Since the US has been unable to, this suggest that there is no significant dissatisfaction.

Of course the US has tried to capitalize on it. The problem is, the regime has adequate support. If the people really had their way, about 50-60% would probably vote for a different government. But a regime can stay in power with support from just a sizeable minority--20-40% or so--especially if they have a monopoly on arms.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't think he was being racist in the sense of being against blacks or putting them down. He was seeking their support. It may have sounded ignorant to say their condition never has been worse. But I'd assume he was exaggerating to prey on the dissatisfaction of a lot of them, hence wean them away from the democrats and toward him.

Who cares what his intent was? The point was that he seemed (and was) incredibly racist on the campaign trail, and people loved him for it.

The tactic of being racist to get people to support you is a tried and true method and it would make sense for fascists to use this method, especially since so many fascists are already racist.

Well for one thing in coming decades nonwhites will make up a greater percentage of the population than they currently do.

That does not mean that a fascist government will not be racist. In fact, this demographic "peril" is one of the reasons why Trump and other racists are being elected.

Did a Le Pen ever come to power in France? Did the National Front come to power in Britain? They've sure had plenty of time. Even where immigration has incurred the most problems, the far right hasn't been able to come to power based on just that. I've always maintained that breaking democracy would require a very severe crisis for which democracy itself is at fault--and the potential for that is very great.

Yes, racism all by itself will not win power, but that does not mean that racism will not be part of the fascist plan to get power. The Golden Dawn were not egalitarian when they were running things.

Of course the US has tried to capitalize on it. The problem is, the regime has adequate support. If the people really had their way, about 50-60% would probably vote for a different government. But a regime can stay in power with support from just a sizeable minority--20-40% or so--especially if they have a monopoly on arms.

Since they do not have a monopoly on arms, and since the US has worked with smaller percentages of dissatisfaction in the past, your argument is not very strong.

Again, the fact that Cuba exiled and killed counter-revolutionaries en masse was probably far more important than this imaginary authoritarian aspect.

[starman2003]

Who cares what his intent was? The point was that he seemed (and was) incredibly racist on the campaign trail, and people loved him for it.

Railing against mexican immigrants and muslims reflected not racism primarily but economic concerns and fear of terror respectively. If Trump had slammed blacks and latinos due to a stated preference that America be all white, he would've been slaughtered at the polls.

The tactic of being racist to get people to support you is a tried and true method and it would make sense for fascists to use this method, especially since so many fascists are already racist.

Racist fascists never got anywhere in the half century they've tried. Others like George Wallace got some support, but never enough (not even Wallace's attempt to look "mainstream" could overcome the stigma of his past racism). This is just not the late 19th century or the early 20th, when ideas of racial superiority/inferiority were in vogue. You just can't get enough support that way. Those who would be future authoritarian leaders would be well advised to find some other method.

That does not mean that a fascist government will not be racist. In fact, this demographic "peril" is one of the reasons why Trump and other racists are being elected.

I doubt a true authoritarianism will get its chance for decades, and by then it won't be practical to be racist (too inimical to national unity). It was one thing to be racist when blacks and/or others made up 10% of the population, but 50% plus is another matter. A political movement might prey on racist attitudes to some extent, but a government will have to adapt its policy to reality.
By and large our society isn't becoming more racist but less. The election of Obama is one of the clearest indications of that.

Yes, racism all by itself will not win power, but that does not mean that racism will not be part of the fascist plan to get power.

I doubt it'll be a significant part, if one at all.

Again, the fact that Cuba exiled and killed counter-revolutionaries en masse was probably far more important than this imaginary authoritarian aspect.

How strange that a nonauthoritarian system could kill and exile opponents en masse. Castro showed he meant business resulting in a cowed populace, even if the dissatisfied are 50% or more.

[Pants-of-dog]

Railing against mexican immigrants and muslims reflected not racism primarily but economic concerns and fear of terror respectively. If Trump had slammed blacks and latinos due to a stated preference that America be all white, he would've been slaughtered at the polls.

This is what we call an unverifiable claim.

You are pretending to know the mind of Trump and what he really meant, as well as pretedning to know the minds of US voters and how theynwould have theoretically reacted.

Since we are not mind readers, this is unverifiable.

What is verifiable is the following: Trump made insulting generalisations about Mexicans and Muslims, and not only did Trump become more popualr as a result, but hate crimes against minorities also in reased after this.

Racist fascists never got anywhere in the half century they've tried. Others like George Wallace got some support, but never enough (not even Wallace's attempt to look "mainstream" could overcome the stigma of his past racism). This is just not the late 19th century or the early 20th, when ideas of racial superiority/inferiority were in vogue. You just can't get enough support that way. Those who would be future authoritarian leaders would be well advised to find some other method.

Since I never argued that racism all by itself is the inly thing necessary for fascism to succeed, I have no problem with the above.

Please note that this does not mean that fascism is now totally separate from racism. Nor does it disprove the claims that most fascists are racist, and that if fascism comes it will be supported by racism.

I doubt a true authoritarianism will get its chance for decades, and by then it won't be practical to be racist (too inimical to national unity). It was one thing to be racist when blacks and/or others made up 10% of the population, but 50% plus is another matter. A political movement might prey on racist attitudes to some extent, but a government will have to adapt its policy to reality.
By and large our society isn't becoming more racist but less. The election of Obama is one of the clearest indications of that.

This is another unverifiable claim, as you are basing your 'evidence' on what will happen in the future. Since we cannot see the future, this is pointless speculation.

In our observable lifetime, we have seen far right parties become more popular and boost voting by complaining about immigrants.

I doubt it'll be a significant part, if one at all.

I understand that you doubt this. I do not understand why. It seems like you want to believe that fascists are not racist authoritarians who will wear state uniforms and kill minorities with impunity. Since is happens even in our modern democracies, it is not a huge leap to assume it will happen in fascism, which is even more suited to this racist state violence.

The Golden Dawn is a good example of what I mean. You seem to have ignored it.

How strange that a nonauthoritarian system could kill and exile opponents en masse. Castro showed he meant business resulting in a cowed populace, even if the dissatisfied are 50% or more.

Yes, they did this as part of the revolution. Once it was done, there was no reason to continue.

Mind you, I do not know why you are describing Cuba as fascist, since they hate fascists as much as they hate imperialists.

Also, you seem to have ignored my point about how the Cuban government does not have a monopoly on guns. Is Cuba some sort of special form of authoritarian where they hand out guns to the people they are supposedly oppressing?

[starman2003]

You are pretending to know the mind of Trump and what he really meant, as well as pretedning to know the minds of US voters and how theynwould have theoretically reacted.

If US voters wanted an all white America, it's really surprising the KKK remains a fringe group. Trump obviously wanted to get elected, and while demagoguery sometimes pays, he basically spoke to people's economic concerns, just like candidates always have. Trump may have sounded ignorant when he said the condition of blacks was never worse. But I very much doubt his goal was to drive them all into the arms of his opponent by alienating them. It's reasonable to assume he meant their poor condition was the fault of the party in power, hence they'd do better by supporting him.

What is verifiable is the following: Trump made insulting generalisations about Mexicans and Muslims, and not only did Trump become more popualr as a result, but hate crimes against minorities also in reased after this.

Many people are angry at Mexicans for taking away their jobs and mad at muslims for terrorism. If people really wanted racism--in the sense of being against other groups just for being different--why didn't they support someone like David Duke?

Please note that this does not mean that fascism is now totally separate from racism. Nor does it disprove the claims that most fascists are racist, and that if fascism comes it will be supported by racism.

But I don't think those who call themselves fascists now--people like the neo-nazis, will ever get anywhere. You don't have to be literally fascist to be an authoritarian.

This is another unverifiable claim, as you are basing your 'evidence' on what will happen in the future. Since we cannot see the future, this is pointless speculation.

But this is what demographers have been saying. By c 2050, America will no longer have a white majority. It's hard to imagine racists coming to power if nonwhites were just 40%.

In our observable lifetime, we have seen far right parties become more popular and boost voting by complaining about immigrants.

But not gaining power. In the past nativists here complained about immigrants but never amounted to much nor achieved their goals, certainly not in the longterm.

I understand that you doubt this. I do not understand why. It seems like you want to believe that fascists are not racist authoritarians who will wear state uniforms and kill minorities with impunity. Since is happens even in our modern democracies, it is not a huge leap to assume it will happen in fascism, which is even more suited to this racist state violence.

But I don't think traditional, racist fascism is the future. To most of our society, racism is anathema. There's just not enough support for it. In the future, authoritarianism will probably require black/latino support as well as support from others. Besides increasing numbers, look at all the blacks and latinos in positions of authority.

Mind you, I do not know why you are describing Cuba as fascist, since they hate fascists as much as they hate imperialists.

Of course Cuba isn't fascist, just authoritarian!

Also, you seem to have ignored my point about how the Cuban government does not have a monopoly on guns. Is Cuba some sort of special form of authoritarian where they hand out guns to the people they are supposedly oppressing?

Do they hand out tanks and flamethrowers too? Allowing people to have guns doesn't pgive potential opponents parity with regime forces.

[Pants-of-dog]

If US voters wanted an all white America, it's really surprising the KKK remains a fringe group. Trump obviously wanted to get elected, and while demagoguery sometimes pays, he basically spoke to people's economic concerns, just like candidates always have. Trump may have sounded ignorant when he said the condition of blacks was never worse. But I very much doubt his goal was to drive them all into the arms of his opponent by alienating them. It's reasonable to assume he meant their poor condition was the fault of the party in power, hence they'd do better by supporting him.

Many people are angry at Mexicans for taking away their jobs and mad at muslims for terrorism. If people really wanted racism--in the sense of being against other groups just for being different--why didn't they support someone like David Duke?

Please note that I never claimed that people wanted racism. My claim was that racism would be an integral part of any fascist movements that arise in the foreseeable futire.

But I don't think those who call themselves fascists now--people like the neo-nazis, will ever get anywhere. You don't have to be literally fascist to be an authoritarian.

This does not address my point at all.

But this is what demographers have been saying. By c 2050, America will no longer have a white majority. It's hard to imagine racists coming to power if nonwhites were just 40%.

This also does not address my point about how we cannot support arguments with evidence that may appear in the future.

But not gaining power. In the past nativists here complained about immigrants but never amounted to much nor achieved their goals, certainly not in the longterm.

But I don't think traditional, racist fascism is the future. To most of our society, racism is anathema. There's just not enough support for it. In the future, authoritarianism will probably require black/latino support as well as support from others. Besides increasing numbers, look at all the blacks and latinos in positions of authority.

Sure. That must be why there are never any threads on PoFo about race and racism. Or any speculation on where Obama was born. Or any discussion about how Mexicans and blacks are responsible for all the crime in the US.

Actually, there are all these things. And part of it

Of course Cuba isn't fascist, just authoritarian!

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Do they hand out tanks and flamethrowers too? Allowing people to have guns doesn't give potential opponents parity with regime forces.

Castro and his people defeated Batista without tanks and flamethrowers.

[starman2003]

Please note that I never claimed that people wanted racism. My claim was that racism would be an integral part of any fascist movements that arise in the foreseeable futire.

In the near future, most fascist movements will be racist. Seth Tyrson's wasn't. But I don't think they're relevant. In the long run, authoritarianism should win out but I very much doubt it can do so if it were racist to any significant degree.

This also does not address my point about how we cannot support arguments with evidence that may appear in the future.

Based on an extrapolation of current trends.

Sure. That must be why there are never any threads on PoFo about race and racism. Or any speculation on where Obama was born. Or any discussion about how Mexicans and blacks are responsible for all the crime in the US.

Just because the fringe believes that stuff doesn't mean a government will be based on it. I just can't see out and out racists ever coming to power here.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Don't recall Castro having to run for reelection. Communism is not democracy.

Castro and his people defeated Batista without tanks and flamethrowers.

But neither did they face any or many. The soviets used tanks to crush uprisings and Castro could've done the same had it been necessary.