LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Liriena]

Yay, Skull Daddy is back

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How so? If you can meaningfully vote, then you can change the system, albeit gradually, without revolution.

Gradual changes don't mean shit when we're facing down an ecological apocalypse. Not to mention the fact that the individuals vote really doesn't mean anything at all.

Individuals don't, but if Socialism is popular enough, and we live in a true democracy, I don't see why it wouldn't eventually be voted in.

[Bojikami]

Gradual changes don't mean shit when we're facing down an ecological apocalypse. Not to mention the fact that the individuals vote really doesn't mean anything at all.

Individuals don't, but if Socialism is popular enough, and we live in a true democracy, I don't see why it wouldn't eventually be voted in.

Because before socialism can gain the necessary momentum to overtake the state apparatus, Fascism happens. The military will step in. Do you really think the billionaires are going to just let themselves be voted out of power?

[Grenartia]

Sounds like ethnic bigotry to me. Why do Russians not deserve democracy and liberty? What fucking bullshit about their culture allegedly proves they're unfit to enjoy the fruits of democracy and liberty like Americans? That's the biggest fucking copout to justify tyranny that I've ever heard.

You deliberately put words into my mouth. I did not justify tyranny, nor did I say that Russians don't "deserve" liberty. Their current culture is very Authoritarian. I mean, the dictator Putin is overwhelmingly popular, and many Russians have a positive view of Joseph Stalin. Democracy probably is not going to rise from that, so don't get triggered.

Democracy can, does, and has arisen from authoritarian cultures. Otherwise, it would not exist as a concept.

The tankies will purge us libertarians as soon as we're not convenient to them anymore. Left unity would be very difficult.

Tankies would purge anyone, even some of themselves.

The quickest way to save yourself from the tankie firing squads is to convince the members of each squad that the others are revisionists. That's why its important to know your tankies. Accuse Stalinists of being Trots, etc.

The tankies will purge us libertarians as soon as we're not convenient to them anymore. Left unity would be very difficult.

The left seems broader than the right when it comes to politics. Left-unity will be incredibly hard to garner between all the votes.

Judicious shifting of the Overton Window should help with that.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How so? If you can meaningfully vote, then you can change the system, albeit gradually, without revolution.

That you can vote is no guarantee that you can actually change the system.

Hence why I said meaningfully vote.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Individuals don't, but if Socialism is popular enough, and we live in a true democracy, I don't see why it wouldn't eventually be voted in.

Because before socialism can gain the necessary momentum to overtake the state apparatus, Fascism happens. The military will step in. Do you really think the billionaires are going to just let themselves be voted out of power?

How will Fascism happen? Fascism is even more unpopular than Socialism. Why would the military step in? This is first world liberal democracy, not ancient China.

[Grenartia]

Because before socialism can gain the necessary momentum to overtake the state apparatus, Fascism happens. The military will step in. Do you really think the billionaires are going to just let themselves be voted out of power?

How will Fascism happen? Fascism is even more unpopular than Socialism. Why would the military step in? This is first world liberal democracy, not ancient China.

The idea is that the elites only allow liberal democracy as long as it isn't a serious threat to their power (which the military protects and serves the interests of), and that fascism is their last-ditch attempt to preserve said power, at the expense of liberal democracy.

[Bojikami]

Because before socialism can gain the necessary momentum to overtake the state apparatus, Fascism happens. The military will step in. Do you really think the billionaires are going to just let themselves be voted out of power?

How will Fascism happen? Fascism is even more unpopular than Socialism. Why would the military step in? This is first world liberal democracy, not ancient China.

Weimar Germany was a first world liberal democracy. Italy, while a parliamentary monarchy, had the trappings of a liberal democracy. And as in these cases, when the left grew to threaten the entrenched elites, fascism was brought in to destroy the power of the working class.

Fascism of the modern day will not call itself fascism, overtly. In addition, when it comes down to it, the popularity of it doesn't mean shit to the rich. They'll readily drop the pretenses of liberal democracy as soon as it becomes nonviable for them. All the while we've been caught up in channeling our energy into incremental electoral change, they'll be polishing their guns, readying the propaganda, and getting their lists together.

[Pasong Tirad]

Because before socialism can gain the necessary momentum to overtake the state apparatus, Fascism happens. The military will step in. Do you really think the billionaires are going to just let themselves be voted out of power?

How will Fascism happen? Fascism is even more unpopular than Socialism. Why would the military step in? This is first world liberal democracy, not ancient China.

Your heart's in the right place, but no business class would ever willingly hand over the means of production. Not through any kind of meaningful vote or law. The best liberal democracies can do is make lives a bit better for the working class here and there, and I'm personally still holding out hope that democratic socialism can actually vote to, at the very least, limit the power and influence of the rich. But, realistically, no. No kind of vote is ever going to even be held that has an option for the elites to hand over the means of production.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I'm skeptical that the "rich" will support fascism as we know it, even as a last-ditch attempt against violent revolution, mainly because I'm not convinced that the contemporary "rich" share similar values to conservative and reactionary industrialists that backed Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. I wish the political affiliations of the "rich" could be studied, because I think that more of them are somewhat more liberal and globalist than the business class that backed fascism in the past.

[Grenartia]

I'm skeptical that the "rich" will support fascism as we know it, even as a last-ditch attempt against violent revolution, mainly because I'm not convinced that the contemporary "rich" share similar values to conservative and reactionary industrialists that backed Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. I wish the political affiliations of the "rich" could be studied, because I think that more of them are somewhat more liberal and globalist than the business class that backed fascism in the past.

The Koch brothers, and pretty much every millionaire and billionaire that backs Trump and Putin beg to differ.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Probably today the elites are more likely to go for a Pinochet-type free market character than a Hitler-type who'll more directly interfere with and steer their production to meet the needs of total war.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

The Koch brothers, and pretty much every millionaire and billionaire that backs Trump and Putin beg to differ.

Several examples out of many. That's the issue, there isn't any study of political affiliations of the "rich". We can all agree that they're against reforms and revolution that threaten their wealth and power, but I don't think that the collective "rich" are avowed conservatives who'll put the army on top as soon as a general strike starts. At least, not anymore.

[Pasong Tirad]

The Koch brothers, and pretty much every millionaire and billionaire that backs Trump and Putin beg to differ.

Several examples out of many. That's the issue, there isn't any study of political affiliations of the "rich". We can all agree that they're against reforms and revolution that threaten their wealth and power, but I don't think that the collective "rich" are avowed conservatives who'll put the army on top as soon as a general strike starts. At least, not anymore.

Umberto Eco agrees: “It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple.” Ur-Fascism, June 22, 1995.

Not every fascist is going to look like a blackshirt. Which is why it's important for us to be knowledgeable about the identifying characteristics that more often than not are similar among a lot of fascists.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Umberto Eco agrees: “It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple.” Ur-Fascism, June 22, 1995.

Not every fascist is going to look like a blackshirt. Which is why it's important for us to be knowledgeable about the identifying characteristics that more often than not are similar among a lot of fascists.

I don't think they'll be fascists at all, is what I'm saying. What are the identifying characteristics in the first place? For one, I don't see the contemporary "rich" supporting ultra-nationalism, expansionism (at least not in a traditional sense) and complete state control over society characteristic of fascist states.

[Nakena]

Probably today the elites are more likely to go for a Pinochet-type free market character than a Hitler-type who'll more directly interfere with and steer their production to meet the needs of total war.

The elites today have drunk their own kool-aid and will stick with "liberal democracy" until the end.

I don't think they'll be fascists at all, is what I'm saying. What are the identifying characteristics in the first place? For one, I don't see the contemporary "rich" supporting ultra-nationalism, expansionism (at least not in a traditional sense) and complete state control over society characteristic of fascist states.

Classical fascism is not relevant anywhere but some obscure reddit and facebook groups.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How will Fascism happen? Fascism is even more unpopular than Socialism. Why would the military step in? This is first world liberal democracy, not ancient China.

Weimar Germany was a first world liberal democracy. Italy, while a parliamentary monarchy, had the trappings of a liberal democracy. And as in these cases, when the left grew to threaten the entrenched elites, fascism was brought in to destroy the power of the working class.

Fascism of the modern day will not call itself fascism, overtly. In addition, when it comes down to it, the popularity of it doesn't mean shit to the rich. They'll readily drop the pretenses of liberal democracy as soon as it becomes nonviable for them. All the while we've been caught up in channeling our energy into incremental electoral change, they'll be polishing their guns, readying the propaganda, and getting their lists together.

Germany and Italy weren't first world liberal democracies. Weimar Germany was a crippled authoritarian state that had liberal democracy forced upon it, creating resentment. Italy was a monarchy.

Even if it doesn't call itself Fascism, it's gonna be hard to miss, and hard for many people to get into a totalitarian, ultranationalist, racist ideology whatever name it bears. The popularity of it will have to mean a fair bit to the rich, they can't just stage a coup, especially a Fascist coup.

"All the while we've been caught up in channeling our energy into incremental electoral change, they'll be polishing their guns, readying the propaganda, and getting their lists together." Fam, I know it's foolish to assume the rich are wonderful people with our best interests at heart, but they're not pure evil either.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I'm skeptical that the "rich" will support fascism as we know it, even as a last-ditch attempt against violent revolution, mainly because I'm not convinced that the contemporary "rich" share similar values to conservative and reactionary industrialists that backed Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. I wish the political affiliations of the "rich" could be studied, because I think that more of them are somewhat more liberal and globalist than the business class that backed fascism in the past.

The Koch brothers, and pretty much every millionaire and billionaire that backs Trump and Putin beg to differ.

Aren't the Koch brothers libertarian?

[Nakena]

The Koch brothers, and pretty much every millionaire and billionaire that backs Trump and Putin beg to differ.

Aren't the Koch brothers libertarian?

Actually yes. They're even subtly supporting Marijuana legalization.

[Pasong Tirad]

Umberto Eco agrees: “It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple.” Ur-Fascism, June 22, 1995.

Not every fascist is going to look like a blackshirt. Which is why it's important for us to be knowledgeable about the identifying characteristics that more often than not are similar among a lot of fascists.

I don't think they'll be fascists at all, is what I'm saying. What are the identifying characteristics in the first place? For one, I don't see the contemporary "rich" supporting ultra-nationalism, expansionism (at least not in a traditional sense) and complete state control over society characteristic of fascist states.

Ehhhh. I'm not entirely sure myself. But, if it keeps their place in the social and economic hierarchy, a country's elites are pretty likely to support whichever government can give them that guarantee. If the choices are between fascism and giving the proletariat more than the usual incremental reforms, there is no doubt what the majority of "the rich" will choose.

[Nakena]

I don't think they'll be fascists at all, is what I'm saying. What are the identifying characteristics in the first place? For one, I don't see the contemporary "rich" supporting ultra-nationalism, expansionism (at least not in a traditional sense) and complete state control over society characteristic of fascist states.

Ehhhh. I'm not entirely sure myself. But, if it keeps their place in the social and economic hierarchy, a country's elites are pretty likely to support whichever government can give them that guarantee. If the choices are between fascism and giving the proletariat more than the usual incremental reforms, there is no doubt what the majority of "the rich" will choose.

The tropes are is way too much interwar and weimar centric. We're not living in 1922 Italy or Germany where this may have been true. Things run differently now.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Ehhhh. I'm not entirely sure myself. But, if it keeps their place in the social and economic hierarchy, a country's elites are pretty likely to support whichever government can give them that guarantee. If the choices are between fascism and giving the proletariat more than the usual incremental reforms, there is no doubt what the majority of "the rich" will choose.

If we get into such a situation where it's a binary 'Revolution or Fascism', sure they'll choose fascism. But I have my doubts such a situation will arise in the West under contemporary conditions. In the conflict between socialist reformers vs moderate centre, the "rich" will back the establishment but probably won't go as far as military coups or fascistic governments.

As Nakena said, the world is different now.

[Nakena]

Ehhhh. I'm not entirely sure myself. But, if it keeps their place in the social and economic hierarchy, a country's elites are pretty likely to support whichever government can give them that guarantee. If the choices are between fascism and giving the proletariat more than the usual incremental reforms, there is no doubt what the majority of "the rich" will choose.

If we get into such a situation where it's a binary 'Revolution or Fascism', sure they'll choose fascism. But I have my doubts such a situation will arise in the West under contemporary conditions. In the conflict between socialist reformers vs moderate centre, the "rich" will back the establishment.

The Fascism v.s Socialism is a interwar thing that is not horribly relevant to today's world despite this era is an political and historical reference point for radical right and left-wing group.

Today the liberal elites are functionally on the same side of the front as the left-wing and liberals. They stand with the established order as it is. At least in many places.

[Painisia]

The Great Leap Forward in a nutshell:

https://youtu.be/kqCisi6HehM?t=213

Seriously, what went through the minds of the officials from the CCP when they decided to send peasants to large-scale steel factories?!

[Grenartia]

The Koch brothers, and pretty much every millionaire and billionaire that backs Trump and Putin beg to differ.

Aren't the Koch brothers libertarian?

And yet, they've been bankrolling conservative causes and media outlets for decades.

Ehhhh. I'm not entirely sure myself. But, if it keeps their place in the social and economic hierarchy, a country's elites are pretty likely to support whichever government can give them that guarantee. If the choices are between fascism and giving the proletariat more than the usual incremental reforms, there is no doubt what the majority of "the rich" will choose.

The tropes are is way too much interwar and weimar centric. We're not living in 1922 Italy or Germany where this may have been true. Things run differently now.

Do they? Do they really?

The Great Leap Forward in a nutshell:

https://youtu.be/kqCisi6HehM?t=213

Seriously, what went through the minds of the officials from the CCP when they decided to send peasants to large-scale steel factories?!

I thought it was hilarious that Mao actually thought it was possible to make steel in significant quantities from a peasant's back yard.