There are three branches of government. Two said the third was wrong and furthermore the third violated the law and then ignored injunctions to stop what he was doing. So they ordered his arrest.
Seems pretty simple to me. If it happened here I’d want the President arrested too.
Sure, the Hondurans know nothing, only your side knows what is best for those countries.
(Actually it seems that you are still smoking, the truth commission came with that conclusion after getting testimony of the people involved.)
Your bubble of information is indeed the perfect environment for the fascist that lives outside the USA to be lauded and supported by people like you.
THe Truth Commission found most importantly that there was no legal mechanism for dealing with the President’s lawlessness. If there had been, it would have been used, and he’d still be removed from office.
In this country, if the President disregarded a Supreme Court order, I’d want him in Gitmo within 24 hours.
If you read Stanley Payne’s books (and he focuses more on fascism in Spain and Italy than German National Socialism), he argues that fascism doesn’t really fit on the left-right dichotomy, and that it drew from both the left and the right (it’s a mass movement, for example, which is a leftist idea), and is both anti-socialist and anti-conservative.
He’s joined in this by Zeev Sternhell, who who says, basically, the fascism has its roots in 19th century France, in a sort of anti rationalist movement that synthesized socialism and nationalism, which he says leads to “socialism without the proletariat”, and “a synthesis of organic nationalism and anti-Marxist socialism, a revolutionary ideology based on the simultaneous rejection of liberalism, Marxism and democracy”, and that it’s, as he puts it, “neither right nor left”.
I’m not sure what Honduras has to do with any of this, because neither Zelaya nor his opponents were either fascists or Nazis.
Fascism fancied itself a “third way” between capitalism and communism. But their rejection of capitalism was as vehement as their rejection of communism. In the fascist world, all that mattered was the state, which was the manifestation of the nation. Whatever furthered the goals of the state was good, and if that meant leaving property in private hands but having to serve the state, that was fine.
Given that today, even Communist countries mostly support private enterprise, does that mean nations like China are now fascist? Would Putin’s Russia be bordering on fascism?
One key difference between fascism and communism is who they appeal to. Communism, in theory, is open to everyone regardless of nationality or ethnicity. Even class enemies, like the aristocrats and capitalists, are theoretically salvageable by re-education. Fascism, on the other hand, is inherently divisive. Every fascist movement is based on the idea that one group (ein volk) is good and there are other groups that are inherent enemies of the good group. And you were either born into the good group or you were perpetually outside of it; you couldn’t convert and join.
It’s not as huge a difference as it might seem. In reality, Communists have never bothered to reeducate the “enemies of the people”. They just murder them. And that often includes the middle class as well as the wealthy. Actually, they tend to move with even more alacrity to liquidate the unfavored class than the Nazis did.
But in both ideologies, support is won by telling the majority that their problems are the fault of a minority of citizens. This has inherent appeal. Even in Western democracies, no politician will ever admit that the people screwed up. It’s always just a few people that society tries to point the finger at. The middle class is always virtuous in the West, being the majority. The middle class is always simultaneously oppressed by the wealthy and the poor, both of whom are morally inadequate.
I wouldn’t say so. In my opinion, China is a hybrid. It’s a country with a communist government and a capitalist economy. And both halves agree to pretend the other half doesn’t exist.
Russia’s certainly on a path that could end in fascism.
And that is once again nonsense when one looks at what the Nazis did with the German banks.
I’m not sure a government can be either capitalist or communist or in between. If a government presides over a capitalist economy, it’s not a communist government, regardless of how much they preach from the dialectic.
It wouldn’t be the first time a former Communist/socialist turned fascist. Surprisingly, it doesn’t seem to be a very difficult transition.
No, most Communist regimes have made efforts to show they can reform some of their former enemies. It’s good propaganda. The Chinese Communists made a public show of how they had turned Emperor Puyi into a good communist.
100,000,000 others were not so lucky throughout the Communist world. Not all of those were political executions, but Communist countries also became experts at using control over the food supply as a weapon to coerce the people.
The point was related on how people like adaher makes it easy for demagogues to allow fascists to grow, movements that are very conservative that drift into fascism are indeed a blind spot. Reason being that their bubble of information does not allow for the possibility that the extreme right wing in Germany were indeed the Nazis and that the extreme right wing are also innocent when fascists movements appeared in Latin America.
The case of Honduras was not used to show an example of fascists at play, but how the whole world did the right thing and told the coup makers to bug off and to drop their double speak idea that a coup was a democratic move.
That’s because world leaders don’t like the idea that they can be removed by the legislature or the courts when they break the law.
I’m not sure what ideology supports Presidential lawlessness, but it sure sounds suspiciously lefty to me.
And I’m on the record of not supporting that, nor most of the socialists I pointed at, as usual you even deny that we pointed before at the extreme leftists that are doing it wrong, it is also needed to point also that (as it was shown with the previous examples) extreme rightists still are falling for the mistake of believing that the extreme right is both not extreme nor prone to support fascism.
As the truth commission showed you are just deluded, (About not being a coup and you are still dead wrong about Spain and Latin America not being part of “the west”) and you are denying progress too, back in the past century many nations did accept the governments that came as a result of coups. As Demint and many other conservatives in the USA showed, they have a hard time coping with the changing times.
As I explicitly said, it was a matter of differing theories. In the real world, all ideologies bend to convenience (just ask conservatives about cutting the budget). But my point stands: Communists claim that anyone can be a communist and put some effort into that ideal. Fascists put some people out of bounds - no Nazi ever suggested that you could convert a Jew into an Aryan.
There was never that much fascism in Latin America. It hasn’t been a significant movement since the '40s. Peronism in Argentina came closest, but really, I can’t think of Latin American fascist groups that accumulated any real power.
The people of Chile eventually did say no to Pinochet and others like him. What happened was that a lot of the support they got ended when the cold war faded too.
BTW I do take into account what happened in El Salvador to many friends and relatives. I have to say that it is not a small deal when a few fascists do take control of the army and kept it a “small” operation, the suffering was significant nevertheless. And when I looked at America then I remembered that old saying that goes: “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. And then there were the ones from the right in America that back then used their intelligence to deny that anything was amiss over there.