The risk of fascism in America

[Bbucko]

They are markers of someone who was unhinged.

But it was still populist. His power base was working-class Germans who felt (understandably) that Germany had got screwed at the end of the 1WW and were receptive to the message that Germany was best and that some international conspiracy was out to get "real" Germans. His elite was the mob of his country who were told they were the master-race.

Thanks for this thoughtful reply to Mitchy's question. It's more or less precisely what I'd have written myself (if I hadn't gotten so bogged down in the Cheney thread).

Mitchy: Hitler's propagandistic use of the work "volk", which runs from Mein Kampf all the way to his final message blaming his downfall on "International Jewry" is entirely Populist. Besides, in order for him to actually be an elitist in societies as stratified as early-20th century Europe would have required him to have been part of the elite; he always stressed his humble origins and the simplicity with which he lived his life.

 

[B_RedDude]

Is this because the masses are stupid?

However, the fact remains that his ability to deliver a speech that stirred deep emotional responses and unquestioning loyalty is a well-accepted, tragic truism of history.

 

[B_RedDude]

Kind of like Wall Street traders.

a public that is prone to panic, largely incapable of objective analysis, and hopelessly emotional?

 

[sbat]

Kind of like Wall Street traders.

The average wall street trader is hardly part of the ruling elite. The guys that run Wall Street don't even live in New York.

 

[Bbucko]

Is this because the masses are stupid?

Yeah, poor cunts.

 

[mitchymo]

They are markers of someone who was unhinged.

But it was still populist. His power base was working-class Germans who felt (understandably) that Germany had got screwed at the end of the 1WW and were receptive to the message that Germany was best and that some international conspiracy was out to get "real" Germans. His elite was the mob of his country who were told they were the master-race.

Thanks for this thoughtful reply to Mitchy's question. It's more or less precisely what I'd have written myself (if I hadn't gotten so bogged down in the Cheney thread).

Mitchy: Hitler's propagandistic use of the work "volk", which runs from Mein Kampf all the way to his final message blaming his downfall on "International Jewry" is entirely Populist. Besides, in order for him to actually be an elitist in societies as stratified as early-20th century Europe would have required him to have been part of the elite; he always stressed his humble origins and the simplicity with which he lived his life.

Thanks both. I get it now. But there is a possibility it was pure deception right? I mean, elitism would'nt have to involve the rich or the influential right? If his elite was simply a master race then he could be elitist?

 

[Jason]

Is this because the masses are stupid?

There's also the idea of the "wisdom of crowds" and the new concept of "crowd sourcing". The masses can be incredibly stupid or incredibly intelligent.

Hitler rode to power with support of a working class mass (not necessarily translated into an electoral mandate). The mass were combining both stupidity and brilliance. Hitler's rise cannot be explained as some sort of historical oddity. Rather the 1919 Versailles settlement had decided to punish the German nation for the First World War, ignoring the fact that it had taken a politically defunct European system to create that war. Whatever wrongs the German nation may (or may not) have done, the punishment was against the German people and especially the German poor. Germany between the wars suffered humiliation, hyperinflation, poverty. The mass (reasonably) argued that this was wrong - not that they were this eloquent, just they felt it was wrong. And they externalised the enemy. They saw the enemy without as all those countries that had fought against Germany in the 1WW and inflicted Versailles on them. And there was an enemy within too, the mercantile class, which Hitler manager to portray as the Jews. The mass was in the wrong here, but the way crowds work is that if you can bring to the fore a sense of grievance you can then use that against an enemy, real or applied. Hitler was the rabble rouser who managed to do this. What a pity he didn't use his talent for some good cause.

Crowds have frightening powers. When Brown became PM and considered calling an election, Cameron et al responded with some abstruse change to inheritance tax which benefitted few and has now been dropped. Yet they got a big bounce in the polls and demonstrated their power to manage crowds - and prevented an election which Brown would have won by a mile. When Clegg gave his "plague on both your houses" pre-election leaders' debate he tapped a national mood (and dented the soft majority of the Conservatives). It is also possible to blow it all. Kinnock in 1993 had a pre-election-day rally where he as good as claimed victory - and lost it.

Obama is a master of crowd manipulation. I'm not saying any more than he is a modern politician, but we all need to be aware of this. Every country on earth needs to beware the power of crown manipulation. But fundamentally I believe crowds can get it right. In the end this is why democracy with all its flaws is better than any other system we can dream up.

 

[sbat]

In the end this is why democracy with all its flaws is better than any other system we can dream up.

I agree with most of what you said, but I respectfully disagree with the last line, quoted above.

Democracy at its worst, is worse than a dictatorship at its best. The key feature to remember in many crowdsourcing (or even something like open sourcing) environments is that the talent pool of contributors is exceptional - or above average at least. Ask a crowd of auto mechanics, coal miners, and construction workers how to restructure the financial system and...you'll probably end up with a mess not unlike what we have right now.

Hell, Congress as it stands is a microcosm of the 'crowd' that is the heterogenous melting pot of the US. This Congressional "crowd" time and again fails to come up with sustainable, timely, and equitable solutions to the problems they are tasked to deal with - instead weighing down legislation with pork barrel spending and minority interest concessions that ultimately subvert the bill's ability to accomplish its stated goal (see the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act as well as the Obama's health care plan).

For even worse examples of how a crowd can completely botch things with terrible effects, look at how the crowd that runs the Greek government systematically sold out its own population via kickbacks to bureaucrats and irresponsible allocation of public money for private interests - and how this irresponsibility has the potential to destabilize the economy of an entire continent.

Everyone talks about how great democracy is, and how much better it is than any other system. What they fail to mention is that democracy is only at its best in a culturally homogenous society that places a high premium on education - so basically the Nordic/Scandanavian countries. Every other democracy has huge swaths of the population that are perpetually in the minority, and so are constantly voted down and marginalized, as well as huge patches of uneducated citizens who are used as fodder in political battles.

What we seem to be moving towards anyway is a global system in which the primary conduits for money and resources are multinational corporations, while democracy (and the national agendae) are increasingly co-opted and driven by an increasingly powerful news media that is accountable to no one. Politicians and companies play the PR game, appealing to values like freedom, environmentalism, etc to gain legitimacy (as power by force is no longer acceptable), while actually doing the opposite.

That is the reality of democracy in a capital driven economy

 

[Bbucko]

Thanks both. I get it now. But there is a possibility it was pure deception right? I mean, elitism would'nt have to involve the rich or the influential right? If his elite was simply a master race then he could be elitist?

The deception, and it was a big one, was the now-discredited notion of Social Darwinism and the extent to which his philosophy can be called "elitist" springs from that sorry doctrine, yes.

By applying Social Darwinism to Germany in the wake of its defeat in 1918, he was able to justify genocide as survival of the fittest, whom he saw as the Aryan "master race".

In the years since the end of WW2, even the concept of an Aryan race has been successfully discredited and proven false: it's merely a semi-corrupted variation on the Sanskrit word used to describe the highest caste in Indian society and roughly means "enlightened ones": there never was a racial element to its use, certainly nothing to the extent ascribed to it by scholars to translated Sanskrit in the 19th century, who felt that the Vedas were much too profound to have their origins in India.

FWIW, the name Iran is derived from Aryan, though, again, without any racist overtones or intent.

 

[alx]

Surely though, this must have been just a complete deception of the masses to further his own ideals which must be elitist. All that eugenics stuff he was into and world domination are surely markers of someone with an elitist attitude?

Eugenics must have been a major feature, as still today I am aware of groups that are very pro-eugenic.
The majority of which do seem to support the same 'ideals' as Hitler.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

Eugenics must have been a major feature, as still today I am aware of groups that are very pro-eugenic.
The majority of which do seem to support the same 'ideals' as Hitler.

I read a academic journal entry for an Essay on Eugenics for an essay and the notion is scary.

 

[Jason]

I agree with most of what you said, but I respectfully disagree with the last line, quoted above.

I'm not all that happy with it myself.

At an academic level it is easy to accept the benign dictatorship - Plato's philosopher king. And of course there are a few possible examples. But the reality seems hit and miss. It is also possible to see the Nordic democracies as rare examples of truly good democracies, though even there the caveats start (eg Iceland and their financial woes).

Some of the democracies that work seem to make it work by limitations. on democracy The UK has a monarchy and a House of Lords - no-one would invent such a system today, yet broadly it works. The US has an aristocracy - whether a Bush dynasty or business interests.

Democracy works best when societies are homogenous, which tends to mean small. So yes the Nordic democracies work - or Australia, NZ By contrast the EU has a democratic deficit. I don't see how China could ever function as a democracy. India - a troubled haf century.

Maybe small is best for democracy. But define small as you wish. Is the USA small in terms of population? Is the UK small?

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Thanks both. I get it now. But there is a possibility it was pure deception right? I mean, elitism would'nt have to involve the rich or the influential right? If his elite was simply a master race then he could be elitist?

Well, I would briefly add in context is necessary to understand the German mindset during this era. When you had to carry a wheel barrow full of money, during the Weimar Republic, to buy a loaf of bread, any alternative that you could believe in surely looked to be a better option. Hitler gave Germans a reason to believe in themselves again - they were the master race. Once you buy into a belief system, it's very hard to get out without being branded a traitor, radical, etc.

As to democracy being good or bad, it's both. At it's best it can be a republic based upon principle, at worst mob rule with a ballot box attached for legitimacy. It's no panacea, but that's why all modern democracies have strong constitutions, which are only as good as the court system. Ask any Russian, including Medvedev, about living in legal nihilism. It's only when all three aspects are working with one another that democracy works - sort of.

 

[midlifebear]

I dunno. I'm in agreement with sbat with the exception that I'm still optimistic and hang onto the hope that democracy can also be at its best in a heterogenous society; the key being that the society still embraces education as a high premium.

It wasn't that long ago when there was an affirmative cultural consensus in the USA that a well-educated society was the key to a successful democracy. However, I'm now convinced (and you can blame this on my training in linguistics rather than being just paranoid) that since at least 1980 there has been a "behind the curtains" social engineering experiment to revivew friction between/among the myriad of factions in the USA. This has, in my humble opinion, purposefully created what sbat calls "huge swaths of populations" being propagandized not to value the benefits of education, and therefore taking solace in allowing themselves to become marginalized. The intended result being sbat's swaths perpetually remaining* in the minority. And sadly, I'm in complete agreement that the subsequent "swaths" of uneducated citizens are reduced to merely serve as fodder in political battles. Me included.

You see, despite being the object of my own life experiences of never-ending marginalization and discrimination as a gay man, I suspect I was born with positive-leaning genes. In comparison, my older brother finds comfort hiding in his basement surrounding himself with guns and packages of nonperishable food.

* Sorry about the blatant redundancy.

 

[sbat]

I dunno. I'm in agreement with sbat with the exception that I'm still optimistic and hang onto the hope that democracy can also be at its best in a heterogenous society; the key being that the society still embraces education as a high premium.

It wasn't that long ago when there was an affirmative cultural consensus in the USA that a well-educated society was the key to a successful democracy. However, I'm now convinced (and you can blame this on my training in linguistics rather than being just paranoid) that since at least 1980 there has been a "behind the curtains" social engineering experiment to revivew friction between/among the myriad of factions in the USA. This has, in my humble opinion, purposefully created what sbat calls "huge swaths of populations" being propagandized not to value the benefits of education, and therefore taking solace in allowing themselves to become marginalized. The intended result being sbat's swaths perpetually remaining* in the minority. And sadly, I'm in complete agreement that the subsequent "swaths" of uneducated citizens are reduced to merely serve as fodder in political battles. Me included.

You see, despite being the object of my own life experiences of never-ending marginalization and discrimination as a gay man, I suspect I was born with positive-leaning genes. In comparison, my older brother finds comfort hiding in his basement surrounding himself with guns and packages of nonperishable food.

* Sorry about the blatant redundancy.

I'm not so much bothered by the untenable state of democracy in a heterogenous society - or in the very narrow conditions in which a genuine democracy can thrive. I'm not saying that there is eternally a superior solution, or that one ideology is superior to any other.

In my eyes, at least, the recognition that there is no one-size-fits-all "ideal" political system leaves us room for agency and efficacy. As cynical as I may come across, I am fairly optimistic that if there is enough will and strategy behind an idea, any system can be altered. The essential components are understanding who controls the means of production, and how they think.

We are only helpless peons if we believe ourselves to be - although I am well aware that governments try to perpetuate this thought process by expanding what they do for people (welfare statism) - the more a government does, the more responsibility people give up, as people seem to be willing to sacrifice wealth up to a certain point if it means not having to work as hard.

 

[dandelion]

Some of the democracies that work seem to make it work by limitations. on democracy The UK has a monarchy and a House of Lords - no-one would invent such a system today, yet broadly it works.

It may work, but the trappings are mere window dressing. The crown long since ceased to exercise power, all of which is exercised by the prime minister. We have an electoral college, the house of commons, which chooses the prime minister, who rules as dictator for 5 years. The house of lords merely advises on details of legislation. Members of the house of commons are nominated by two main private members clubs, and in particular by a central elite of a few thousand people.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

I dunno. I'm in agreement with sbat with the exception that I'm still optimistic and hang onto the hope that democracy can also be at its best in a heterogenous society; the key being that the society still embraces education as a high premium.

I think this will ultimately prove to be true, but it won't and has not been a easy path to seeing the individual values of the nation over the individual. I see glimmers of it in people of all colors, shapes, and genders when someone talks about freedom and fairness based upon the standards we are supposed to uphold rather then the NIMBYisms which pervade modern US politics. Education is part of the solution, but even educated people can believe in some pretty far fetched notions. Ultimately there is no substitute for shared experience, something which class/gender/preference, and language divisions still keep the body politic from doing on a regular basis.

 

[sbat]

I think this will ultimately prove to be true, but it won't and has not been a easy path to seeing the individual values of the nation over the individual. I see glimmers of it in people of all colors, shapes, and genders when someone talks about freedom and fairness based upon the standards we are supposed to uphold rather then the NIMBYisms which pervade modern US politics. Education is part of the solution, but even educated people can believe in some pretty far fetched notions. Ultimately there is no substitute for shared experience, something which class/gender/preference, and language divisions still keep the body politic from doing on a regular basis.

Would I be wrong in taking what you're saying to mean that over time, people of diverse backgrounds (ie the US) can become homogenized through shared "forced" social/cultural experiences such as the "Great Recession", Hurricane Katrina, the BP Oil spill, or even a World Cup victory?

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Would I be wrong in taking what you're saying to mean that over time, people of diverse backgrounds (ie the US) can become homogenized through shared "forced" social/cultural experiences such as the "Great Recession", Hurricane Katrina, the BP Oil spill, or even a World Cup victory?

Not at all, but I think that would sort of the absolutist version of the statement. Shared experience does not make us the same, but can bring us closer. It increases our ability to know, trust (or not), the other person.

What I was really referring to was my experience of hearing recent immigrants talk about the Bill of Rights/Constitution like my father or grandfather used to. When I hear homage to those principles come from individuals from different backgrounds, and experiences, I find the message moving as it reaffirms that principles (i.e life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) transcend culture, creed, etc. and apply to all peoples equally.

MLK said it much better than I.

 

[sbat]

Not at all, but I think that would sort of the absolutist version of the statement. Shared experience does not make us the same, but can bring us closer. It increases our ability to know, trust (or not), the other person.

What I was really referring to was my experience of hearing recent immigrants talk about the Bill of Rights/Constitution like my father or grandfather used to. When I hear homage to those principles come from individuals from different backgrounds, and experiences, I find the message moving as it reaffirms that principles (i.e life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) transcend culture, creed, etc. and apply to all peoples equally.

MLK said it much better than I.

I think those things you talk about are elements of homogeneity. I guess the most obvious is shared family lines, but in today's globalized world, the very concept of "ethnicity" is beginning to break down anyway - probably to be replaced by some mix of cultural knowledge, social ideals, and shared/unifying group experience

As it is, we're in the midst of a tectonic shift, and the first folks to identify the outer boundaries of the new plates will be the ones to identify those lines. Samuel Huntington and his clash of civilizations may have some import now