10 minutes ago, MigL said:

I do hope it doesn't take a civil war to get the US back on track.

UK reform is getting high numbers in polls, main drive is immigration/immigrants, it worked with Trump.

Worrying.

While I do agree Immigration should be legal, I, and most people don't agree with rounding them up as they look for work at Home Depot while waiting for their paperwork to be be completed, by masked armed men, and shipping them off to El Salvador.
I don't think the UK will ever get to that point; Then again, I didn't think the US would either.

11 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Absolutely. The road to Stalingrad was a slaughter house. You have probably already seen it but I recommend "the world at war" 1973, Narrated by Lawrence Olivier.

I don't remember the sketch but I remember the series. Harry Corbett died quite young from memory.

I have World at War on DVD. Comprehensive and excellent, marred only by the irritating quibble of Olivier continually mispronouncing Stalin as Shtalin. No idea why. S and sh sounds have separate letters in the Russian alphabet.

Has anyone noticed Russian war strategy hasn't changed in 90 years ?
Keep on throwing people against fortified armaments so as to make 'bridges of dead bodies' in order to reach their objective, and shoot them if they try to retreat.

Always a recipe for millions of war dead.

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Comprehensive and excellent,

It later came to light that the "good" Nazi, Albert Speer who featured in the series, did have knowledge of the final solution.

Involvement with which he denied and received a 20 year prison sentence at the Nuremberg trials, instead of the death penalty.

24 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

It later came to light that the "good" Nazi, Albert Speer who featured in the series, did have knowledge of the final solution.

Involvement with which he denied and received a 20 year prison sentence at the Nuremberg trials, instead of the death penalty.

I think history shows a lot of Germans knew, or could very easily have known by asking a few questions, but they chose not to lift that particular stone for fear of what was crawling beneath. Once you know a thing like that you feel impelling to take some kind of action, whereas in fact they were powerless. So they chose not to know for sure. I think this happens quite a lot, actually.

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Couldn't agree more, but let's not forget that it's not the Fascism but the extent of Fascism that is the problem.
Same with Communism/Socialism; if taken to extremes, as was done by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who between them killed more people than WW2 did, it is just as dangerous.

There is truth in that, but also I think some confusion between distinctions in economic policy (the left-right axis) and those of social policy (the liberal authoritarian axis).

Fascism is not defined by its economic policy, but by a social policy that demonises minority outgroups based on eg perceived race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, language etc. It is authoritarian by its very nature whatever freedoms it may bestow on its preferred ingroup(s) due to its implicit persecution of those who do not conform to its ideals. In a nutshell, this is the form of society that the OP claims to be superior to any other.

On the other hand, Communism and Socialism are fundamentally economic policies to the left side of the spectrum. If coupled in mixed economy form with a liberal social policy you have the archtype European social democracy which consistently poll highest for overall quality of life for all citizens - the Scandiwegians, Switzerland, Canada etc. You know, those countries condemned by the OP as failures.

Of course you're right about those examples of the authoritarian left. Right wing vested interests have persistently asserted that this is an inescapable outcome of left wing economic policy. But that's demonstrably untrue. The social democracies previously mentioned prove otherwise.

Edited October 12Oct 12 by sethoflagos
missing word

Yeah, the authoritarian versions of various ideologies seem dependent on the mythos of the protective "strongman," with all its rhetoric of dangerous enemies and attendant personality cult forming around someone who knows how to flex their biceps and promise quick action. I always thought the potential for this was high in the USA, where there's a culturally ingrained impatience and distrust with solutions that take time and nuance and complex structures. Sinclair Lewis saw this back in the 1930s, with his now eerily prescient novel "It Can't Happen Here."

And then you have our apathy (half of Americans don't vote, and don't trust or value our political process), which means the Turnip being elected by slightly over one quarter of the adult population. Combine the cultist tendency with the voting deficit, and you can easily fall into minority rule. And then there's the truly rancid electoral college system for a presidential election... don't even get me started.

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Scandiwegians

The technical nomenclature is Swedinavians, iirc.

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Fascism is not defined by its economic policy, but by a social policy that demonises minority outgroups based on eg perceived race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, language etc. It is authoritarian by its very nature whatever freedoms it may bestow on its preferred ingroup(s) due to its implicit persecution of those who do not conform to its ideals. In a nutshell, this is the form of society that the OP claims to be superior to any other.

One could make the argument that Fascism, in its original definition, meant putting the rights of the nation ahead of the rights of the population, while Socialism/Communism meant the rights of the people are more important than the rights of the nation.

Over time, these definitions have changed, and Fascism is now defined by its usual implementation ...

"Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."

Notice that if you define Communism by its usual implementation, you get

"Communism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."
( Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia, but I could add others )

1 hour ago, MigL said:

One could make the argument that Fascism, in its original definition, meant putting the rights of the nation ahead of the rights of the population, while Socialism/Communism meant the rights of the people are more important than the rights of the nation.

Thesis could equally well characterise a feudal monarchy for example, while the antithesis sounds to me more like some flavour of anarchism. But it's witty and not too wide of the mark.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Over time, these definitions have changed, and Fascism is now defined by its usual implementation ...

Who's implementation? A reputable political analyst or Fox News?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

"Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Okay, Wikipedia's synopsis. The scapegoating of vulnerable minorities comes a little further down the page, but it does come. Always.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

"Communism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."
( Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia, but I could add others )

The same quote substituting 'Communism' for 'Fascism'? Really?

Ditch the guff about natural social hierarchy and race and it might pass as a bar-room critique of Leninism but not much else.

Communism in it's broader sense is simply the transfer of the means of production into common ownership. No dictator necessary, decentralised options (syndicalism etc), opposition subject only to the tyranny of a democratic vote.

Not a communist as such myself but some of the ones I've met over the years seemed to be thoroughly decent people. Characterising them all as Stalin worshippers is a bit crass. Even if it is the 'usual implementation' in some benighted parts of the globe.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

7 hours ago, MigL said:

One could make the argument that Fascism, in its original definition, meant putting the rights of the nation ahead of the rights of the population, while Socialism/Communism meant the rights of the people are more important than the rights of the nation.

[...]

Over time, these definitions have changed, and Fascism is now defined by its usual implementation ...

I am not sure that I follow that logic. Fascism, is usually defined by the movement arising around WW1 in Italy and from its inception both ideologies are anti-individualist. Fascism declares that national unity and community is prioritized above the rights of individuals and also claims that to reach this goal an authoritarian system of elites is necessary to ensure that. Meanwhile in socialism the collective is more important (but we also know that this didn't end well, either, though moderate versions such as the SPD were vying for power with the more extreme versions). I.e. the ideology, which is largely built around disjointed populist beliefs with little substance gad at its core authoritarian rule as one of its core principles and wasn't simply a failed implementation of some ideology.

It really only starts to look similar if one applies extreme reductionist approaches, at which point virtually all political models would start to loo the same. As a matter of fact, it seems that a worrying number of folks nowadays think that national socialism is in fact a far left socialist movement. This kind of poor understanding of history is extremely worrying to me, but seems to explain a lot of current events.

10 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Fascism is not defined by its economic policy, but by a social policy that demonises minority outgroups based on eg perceived race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, language etc. It is authoritarian by its very nature whatever freedoms it may bestow on its preferred ingroup(s) due to its implicit persecution of those who do not conform to its ideals. In a nutshell, this is the form of society that the OP claims to be superior to any other.

The thing about the US situation is that Trump is alienating almost everybody to some degree. The ones not directly affected by the fascism are or will be affected by the repercussions of it (farming labor shortfalls, and possibly construction) which will drive up costs. His tariffs and gutting food-based aid programs are angering the farmers who supported him but now can’t sell their crops. The tax cuts for the rich are at the expense of healthcare, which are poised to skyrocket. The attorney general even managed to piss off the gun rights people. And the Epstein files loom large.

Plus, everybody can see that Portland and Chicago aren’t war zones. The frogs and chickens, et. al, are making sure of that.

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Fascism is not defined by its economic policy, but by a social policy that demonises minority outgroups based on eg perceived race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, language etc. It is authoritarian by its very nature whatever freedoms it may bestow on its preferred ingroup(s) due to its implicit persecution of those who do not conform to its ideals. In a nutshell, this is the form of society that the OP claims to be superior to any other

I think an important element is that fascism is not a coherent ideology, but in many ways is just a way to appeal to the worst in a population to enable authoritarian rule. Unfortunately, this is why the method is quite effective and is pretty much part of any modern illiberal democracy.

The nature of the outgroup is formed is pretty much arbitrary except they need minorities as they are either powerless or easily made powerless and they also have to be mistrusted. Another inconsistency in fascism is that they always are simultaneously very strong in a comical masculine way (see Hegseth's speech in front of military leadership), yet they are also the underdogs and oppressed by said minorities (which, at any given time are also part of some nebulous elites). Defining fascism, as the saying goes, is like nailing a pudding to the wall. But key elements are always authoritarianism (the strong man is central in all manifestations since inception), playing on grievances and other populist ideas and and generally also a strong element of nationalism, though some modern forms are less so and focus a bit more on race (at least implicitly, often disguised as historic culturalism).

8 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Ditch the guff about natural social hierarchy and race and it might pass as a bar-room critique of Leninism but not much else.

I did say 'implementation'.

8 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Communism in it's broader sense is simply the transfer of the means of production into common ownership. No dictator necessary, decentralised options (syndicalism etc), opposition subject only to the tyranny of a democratic vote.

So give me just one example where it has been implemented as per your description.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

So give me just one example where it has been implemented as per your description.

The Kibbutzim.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The thing about the US situation is that Trump is alienating almost everybody to some degree. The ones not directly affected by the fascism are or will be affected by the repercussions of it (farming labor shortfalls, and possibly construction) which will drive up costs. His tariffs and gutting food-based aid programs are angering the farmers who supported him but now can’t sell their crops. The tax cuts for the rich are at the expense of healthcare, which are poised to skyrocket. The attorney general even managed to piss off the gun rights people. And the Epstein files loom large.

Plus, everybody can see that Portland and Chicago aren’t war zones. The frogs and chickens, et. al, are making sure of that.

Let us hope that his political incompetence leads to his disempowerment before his backers manage to fully dedemomocratise the electoral system.

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think an important element is that fascism is not a coherent ideology, but in many ways is just a way to appeal to the worst in a population to enable authoritarian rule. Unfortunately, this is why the method is quite effective and is pretty much part of any modern illiberal democracy.

The nature of the outgroup is formed is pretty much arbitrary except they need minorities as they are either powerless or easily made powerless and they also have to be mistrusted. Another inconsistency in fascism is that they always are simultaneously very strong in a comical masculine way (see Hegseth's speech in front of military leadership), yet they are also the underdogs and oppressed by said minorities (which, at any given time are also part of some nebulous elites). Defining fascism, as the saying goes, is like nailing a pudding to the wall. But key elements are always authoritarianism (the strong man is central in all manifestations since inception), playing on grievances and other populist ideas and and generally also a strong element of nationalism, though some modern forms are less so and focus a bit more on race (at least implicitly, often disguised as historic culturalism).

Perhaps Europeans of a certain age are more familiar with this imagery. but I can't see Trump speak without being immediately reminded of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmnxcjRk37Q

Edited October 13Oct 13 by sethoflagos

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

The Kibbutzim.

Let us hope that his political incompetence leads to his disempowerment before his backers manage to fully dedemomocratise the electoral system.

Perhaps Europeans of a certain age are more familiar with this imagery. but I can't see Trump speak without being immediately reminded of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmnxcjRk37Q

Indeed. Though these clips of Musso also put me in mind of P.G. Wodehouse's immortal character, Roderick Spode. He was a large, irascible man, prone to violence, who ran an organisation called the Black Shorts, in which young men wore black shorts, because all the shirts had already gone, and to whom he gave rousing speeches. He also, ahem, ran a ladies' underwear boutique in Bond Street.....

Wodehouse was clearly taking the piss out of Oswald Mosley here. He is quite merciless, having Bertie Wooster observe: "I don't know if you have even seen those pictures in the papers of Dictators with tilted chins and blazing eyes, inflaming the populace with fiery words on the occasion of the opening of a new skittle alley, but that was what he reminded me of."

There is also, contrary to the macho, strutting image, a subtle suggestion of incongruous possible homosexuality here, which makes it funnier.

The stories in which Spode appears were written in the 1930s.

Edited October 13Oct 13 by exchemist

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Indeed. Though these clips of Musso also put me in mind of P.G. Wodehouse's immortal character, Roderick Spode.

O my, yes! I'd forgotten about him, but your absolutely spot on there.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Plus, everybody can see that Portland and Chicago aren’t war zones. The frogs and chickens, et. al, are making sure of that.

The notable act of aggression, so far, is the Portland Frog getting pepper sprayed in the costume's air inlet. Suggesting, for the umpteenth time, that the warfaring is coming from law enforcement.

5 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

The Kibbutzim.

Communities, root word commune, also of Communism, are not nation-states.

It also works quite well within some families ( but certainly not all ), but we weren't discussing those either.

5 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Perhaps Europeans of a certain age are more familiar with this imagery. but I can't see Trump speak without being immediately reminded of this:

This was noticed in Turnip's first term, in the US. A popular video circulated which had a positively eerie juxtaposition, split screen, of Musso and Trump orating.

It's funny that everyone thinks of Mussolini when referencing Fascism, because Dear Benito was an ardent Communist for about half of his life, at least until the syphilis started completely rotting his brain.
I prefer definitions that describe how something acts ( being a Physicist ), and in my opinion, if Fascism and Communism act the same at the state level, and use the same methods to control people, then they can be defined by the same terms.

As for the treatment of minorities, @CharonY , how did Stalin treat the Ukrainians when he sold their wheat to modernize Russia while 8 million of them starved to death ? How did Mao treat 'capitalists and intellectuals during the purges of the Cultural Revolution, when millions were killed ? How is China currently treating the Uyghurs in the prison camps ? Or don't ethnic, ideological and religious minorities count ?

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

How did Mao treat 'capitalists and intellectuals during the purges of the Cultural Revolution, when millions were killed ?

Pol Pot was a communist regime too.

12 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Pol Pot was a communist regime too.

Exactly.

What is the difference if you 'disappear' people in Chilean jails, so that over 3000 leftist opponents are never heard from again ( A Pinochet U ), or your political opponents are pushed out windows/down stairs, or sent to Siberian jails where they conveniently die of poisoning ( V Putin ).

Again, I'm reminded of Moontanman's excellent joke about what happens when you sit on the toilet at 11:59 pm and the clock strikes midnight ...

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Communities, root word commune, also of Communism, are not nation-states.

It is rather difficult to scale-up to nation-state level when the US military and/or their proxies suddenly arrive uninvited. Ask Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua etc

Even if victorious, the necessary full focus on defence and counter-espionage tend to greatly influence the nature of the regime that emerges.

46 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Pol Pot was a communist regime too.

Effectively installed by US destabilisation of the region, removed from office by communist Vietnam. Yes?

23 hours ago, MigL said:

Over time, these definitions have changed, and Fascism is now defined by its usual implementation ..

Eventually... someone's enemy becomes a fascist...after all,the word is proving to be a good Cliché...TikTok era...finally snoring at night will end up someone be labeled a fascist...why over think the AI is here to think for us....🤣.