Overly well-fed, in many cases! However, I’m not convinced that mass hunger or poverty is necessarily a prerequisite to revolution. Every May Day, it seems, average Germans in the largest cities have to hunker down for a day or two of rioting and other chaos, including the torching of parked cars whose owners would prefer to stay out of things. On that day and many other occasions, problems begin when members of the NPD, a tiny party of far-right extremists, mount their own marches or demonstrations, which understandably enrages many, many others. To put it in an American perspective, I’d say that a march by the NPD would be akin to a KKK march in this country, and despite the ongoing struggle to achieve a truly non-racist society, at least we don’t have to witness the Klan marching and demonstrating openly.
Granted, an overly vigorous demonstration or even a riot does not a revolution make, but such incidents do suggest that it’s not always a question of how hungry or poor you are, but rather how angry.
(DISCLAIMER: I don’t live in Germany, as most longtime members here know, and it’s possible that my news sources (mostly Der Spiegel) exaggerate the intensity of these events.)
He’s referring to Germany. I’m a bit puzzled by his claims because I should say when I went to Europe in the 90s Muslim students were told to be very careful regarding taking the subways or some cities if they were alone because of skinhead and racist gangs that didn’t much like us.
I could be wrong but I don’t think black people in Chicago worry about riding the subway at night for fear of getting attacked by racist skinheads.
With all due respect to him I think Germany has far more of a “race problem” than the US does at least in part because racists don’t have free speech over their though bigoted laws which don’t automatically grant the children of legal residents certainly don’t help, but sadly such racist laws are fairly commonplace in Europe and are supported by even many “progressives.”
The only uprising I’ve seen is the Goldman Sachs takeover of US economic policy in 2008. Worked like a dream; banking and investment industry indemnified, owners of wealth fully protected, the public pocket and mortgagers fully exposed.
Hitler and the Nazi Party campaigned on what we would consider leftist economic principles for the most part.
That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
The CW seems to be that one reason why Ernst Rohm bit it in the Night of the Long Knives was that he and his SA cohorts wanted to take Germany in a more socialist direction.
That said, yes, a lot of what the Nazis did was socialist in nature.
I don’t think the defining characteristic of fascism is an economic system, however (pace Jonah Goldberg). It’s the authoritarianism, nationalism, using war and scapegoats as means of social control. The Republicans are all up in that.
Given that they were funded by industrialists, quoting that position paper is sort of misleading, ya? Not to mention the Nazi’s enthusiasm for privatization of public industry.
Linking Reps to fascism is about as accurate as linking Dems to communism. And some on the left use scapegoating as a means of economic control. Those evil 1%ers, you know. Manipulation is common to all political persuasions because its what we humans like to do.
I think fascism is more of a mindset than a political philosophy. The Republicans exemplify that mindset today. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “fascistic mindset.” I think that mindset is quite old, ancient even, and I think research is making it clearer and clearer that some people are authoritarian by nature, and authoritarianism meshes well with the nationalism and other negative qualities of the fascistic mindset.
I said “social control.” Scary Muslims and terrorists, better give the state more control over things! We protect you good!
I agree that rhetoric about the 1-percenters had mostly been pretty low-grade. Mainly because it makes it sound as though we could solve our problems if the 1-percenters had a change of heart and weren’t so bad. And that presumes that the 1-percenters are really in some sort of personal control of things, when in fact most don’t. (Doctors are typically 1-percenters but don’t have any particular influence on the political process.)
The Nazis distinguished National Socialism from Bolshevism by saying that Communism was an explicitly international system (which was true: Comintern, etc.), whereas National Socialism was for Germany alone.
I think it’s possible to have authoritarianism without nationalism, but the two seem to go hand in hand pretty well.
I agree that right/left is a much less a distinguishing political characteristic than the presence or absence of authoritarianism. Republicans are for the most part authoritarians these days and attract people who want that type of government.
Republicans are opposed to what fascism desires: The collective economy of the state put to use for the sole good of the state. Reps prefer less government control of our economic assets.
Dems want more control over things too…like Healthcare, for example. And did the Dems do anything to loosen government control when they had control of both branches of government?? Noooooo…
Not directed at you personally, but stereotyping people and projecting evil onto them is “quite old, ancient even” and in extreme circumstances leads to lots of people being murdered. Remember those Bourgeoisie In the USSR, China and Cambodia??
Oh, sure. And, as it happens, I’m the first to admit that it troubles me when I see Republicans out to ban medical procedures I have no interest in getting, or marriages I have no interest in entering – and so, when given a referendum, I vote accordingly. And it likewise troubles me when I see Democrats out to have the government stomp all over stuff I’d like to do – and, given the chance, I vote against those too.
I wish both sides would desist. Heck, I wish one would desist, so I could unhesitatingly vote for them instead of only ever making the right call one referendum at a time.
But so long as they’re both reprehensible, I often have to choose between the side that wants the government to stomp on me and the side that wants the government to leave me alone while stomping on other people.
Tragic, really. But, oh, how I love single-issue anti-stomp referenda.
The thing we need to understand is that large corporations are also governments. And they have control over the economic assets these days. Although it happened more or less organically and not as a conspiracy (other than such deals as happen when large corporations and wealthy individuals act in their own interests) , our economic system directs wealth to corporations and a small number of people. And Republicans are like, “Cool! This is working. Let’s keep things this way.” Small federal government equates to large corporate government. Meanwhile the Pubs do want to control the masses through the Drug War, suppressing reproductive freedom, etc. And wars.
A national health service has been found to be by virtually every country in the world the best way to deliver health care. I was talking to a guy who works at an insurance company recently, and he said that there are only three countries in the world that do things our way, and we’re the only big one. The fact that there is even a debate here about whether such a national health service would be “socialism” (the horror!) shows how far behind the times we are.
The Republican party has been hijacked by loonies, the religious right. They have no ideas for moving the country forward and in fact, just want to obstruct so that the status quo is maintained so that large corporations and the rich are served. Again, they don’t even need to have such a plan consciously in their heads. They can call it “freedom from large government” or whatever.
As for the USSR, China, and Cambodia, those were evil, authoritarian governments. I am not an authoritarian or a Communist, and I don’t advocate the use of violence to achieve political goals.
