BC was a decision between a center-left candidate (who was doing some stupid election shenanigans) and a center-center candidate (who is by all reports the most boring politician they could find) in a province in Canada.
This is not any way comparable to a country of over 200M people potentially falling to fascism.
To feel like it’s relevant in a thread about an election in another country, yes, it should be comparable.
You should probably work on your empathy a little more if over 200 million people facing fascism gives you the same feelings as a province electing a boring centrist.
Dehumanizing people by just thinking of everyone as categories and not as individuals is what lays the groundwork for fascism. Isn’t that what you’re doing right now?
I’m not saying it is always intentional. But the very ideals they believe in will do that eventually it has nothing to do with intent and everything to do with the mechanics of neoliberalism.
Conservative describes a set of beliefs and beliefs can be faulty.
Only the “radicalized” think of politics in religious terms. The radicalized are capable of doing horrible things to people because they have a cult-like zealotry that makes them think any action against the supposed enemy is justified.
The radicalized left and radicalized right are the same kind of people. The enemy is arbitrary. The point of a radicalized movement is to make people stupid enough they will give the demagogue leader all power to defeat the enemy. But in the end it’s all the same, people being oppressed by an authoritarian.
I have less concern about the most boring man in BC politics oppressing people than I have about people like you who think of politics as being similar a holy crusade against the evil other.
This is just not correct. I understand that you shouldn’t stereotype people based on their beliefs. However, this is not that. This is their belief in an economic system and the machinery it puts forth. This is well studied. Look at Reagan and everything he set forth, he seemed downright reasonable at the time, but has unleashed suffering the likes of which the world hadn’t yet seen.
The reality is a boring centrist as you call it, creates the material conditions for inequality and public mistrust of institutions, which fascists eventually exploit.
You have a strange mix of the “great man” theory and the dialectic theory of how things work. The great man does a thing and people will automatically go down that course of action for decades because of dialectical reasons or whatever.
It’s really the opposite. The great man can nudge things, but a lot of other people need to continue to make decisions to continue to push things in that direction. At any time people can decide “nah, I don’t think things should continue to go in this direction.” You should consider the reasons why a continuous push to fascism wasn’t rejected instead of latching on to individual actions as being the one and only thing that made fascism inevitable.
The US has particular cultural issues that make them vulnerable to fascist manipulation. Racism is a big one. The mythology around the past greatness is another big one. There’s also a general paranoia of government, and conspiracy theory culture. Reagan’s little nudges here and there wouldn’t have gone anywhere if there wasn’t an environment for other’s to continue to successfully push towards fascism.
You need to be careful in doing the thing where “Hitler was nice to his dog, so therefore being nice to dogs causes fascism.”
Marxism teaches a religious prophecy where it’s inevitable there will be a great cataclysm overthrowing capitalism which will inevitably become corrupt. It’s not too dissimilar to the Christian revelations prophecies, probably why it’s attractive for atheists that were previously in the Christian church. But the truth is, nothing is pre-determined, there is no such thing as “late stage capitalism”, nobody really knows where things are heading, there are not mystical signs you can read to determine if a person is the anti-christ or fascist or whatever you want to label your ideology’s demons.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes guy that says they want to lower taxes is a guy that just wants to lower taxes. That doesn’t inevitably lead to an oppressive authoritarian state unless people go along with all of the other steps involved in implementing an authoritarian state.
And need I point out the fact that socialism has led to authoritarian states in the past? Does that mean we should reject all socialist policies out of hand?
The Tories are still going to fuck up treaty negotiations, wreck sex education, push old growth logging, and sell off our health system. They’ll probably also repeal the single-family home zoning ban.
BC was a decision between a center-left candidate (who was doing some stupid election shenanigans) and a center-center candidate (who is by all reports the most boring politician they could find) in a province in Canada.
This is not any way comparable to a country of over 200M people potentially falling to fascism.
Do they need to be comparable for me to feel a certain way about their respective outcomes? Both matter to me.
To feel like it’s relevant in a thread about an election in another country, yes, it should be comparable.
You should probably work on your empathy a little more if over 200 million people facing fascism gives you the same feelings as a province electing a boring centrist.
Thank you, I am working on it right now.
Boring centrists, especially conservative ones, lay the groundwork for fascists by eroding the public sector and services.
Dehumanizing people by just thinking of everyone as categories and not as individuals is what lays the groundwork for fascism. Isn’t that what you’re doing right now?
I’m not saying it is always intentional. But the very ideals they believe in will do that eventually it has nothing to do with intent and everything to do with the mechanics of neoliberalism.
Conservative describes a set of beliefs and beliefs can be faulty.
Only the “radicalized” think of politics in religious terms. The radicalized are capable of doing horrible things to people because they have a cult-like zealotry that makes them think any action against the supposed enemy is justified.
The radicalized left and radicalized right are the same kind of people. The enemy is arbitrary. The point of a radicalized movement is to make people stupid enough they will give the demagogue leader all power to defeat the enemy. But in the end it’s all the same, people being oppressed by an authoritarian.
I have less concern about the most boring man in BC politics oppressing people than I have about people like you who think of politics as being similar a holy crusade against the evil other.
This is just not correct. I understand that you shouldn’t stereotype people based on their beliefs. However, this is not that. This is their belief in an economic system and the machinery it puts forth. This is well studied. Look at Reagan and everything he set forth, he seemed downright reasonable at the time, but has unleashed suffering the likes of which the world hadn’t yet seen.
The reality is a boring centrist as you call it, creates the material conditions for inequality and public mistrust of institutions, which fascists eventually exploit.
People have agency.
You have a strange mix of the “great man” theory and the dialectic theory of how things work. The great man does a thing and people will automatically go down that course of action for decades because of dialectical reasons or whatever.
It’s really the opposite. The great man can nudge things, but a lot of other people need to continue to make decisions to continue to push things in that direction. At any time people can decide “nah, I don’t think things should continue to go in this direction.” You should consider the reasons why a continuous push to fascism wasn’t rejected instead of latching on to individual actions as being the one and only thing that made fascism inevitable.
The US has particular cultural issues that make them vulnerable to fascist manipulation. Racism is a big one. The mythology around the past greatness is another big one. There’s also a general paranoia of government, and conspiracy theory culture. Reagan’s little nudges here and there wouldn’t have gone anywhere if there wasn’t an environment for other’s to continue to successfully push towards fascism.
You need to be careful in doing the thing where “Hitler was nice to his dog, so therefore being nice to dogs causes fascism.”
Marxism teaches a religious prophecy where it’s inevitable there will be a great cataclysm overthrowing capitalism which will inevitably become corrupt. It’s not too dissimilar to the Christian revelations prophecies, probably why it’s attractive for atheists that were previously in the Christian church. But the truth is, nothing is pre-determined, there is no such thing as “late stage capitalism”, nobody really knows where things are heading, there are not mystical signs you can read to determine if a person is the anti-christ or fascist or whatever you want to label your ideology’s demons.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes guy that says they want to lower taxes is a guy that just wants to lower taxes. That doesn’t inevitably lead to an oppressive authoritarian state unless people go along with all of the other steps involved in implementing an authoritarian state.
And need I point out the fact that socialism has led to authoritarian states in the past? Does that mean we should reject all socialist policies out of hand?
The Tories are still going to fuck up treaty negotiations, wreck sex education, push old growth logging, and sell off our health system. They’ll probably also repeal the single-family home zoning ban.
Going to be a rough FO cycle.