Fascism V Fascism.

[ks.234]

All of which is consistent with neoliberalism, which has always been about state support of corporations (the unbridled capitalism part applies to individual's, not big business).

TBF I think @Kirk is referring to an argument that Ive read elsewhere, that neoliberalism is on the wane because it’s central drive towards small government and increased spending is undone by the increasing size of the state and increased spending.

But while increased spending is a sign of neoliberalism’s failure on it’s own terms that does not mean that neoliberalism itself is on the wane. While the continued popularity of neoliberalism in spite of it’s failure does require explanation, what is clear is that the defining features of neoliberalism is still the driving force behind government policy.

It should also be remembered that Neoliberalism is a process, it has a starting ideology and a defining set of feature, but it is always evolving and one way it has evolved is that it has increased it’s direct influence on government through, for example, Tufton St in the UK and the Kock Brothers in the US who fund political parties and movements like Brexit and The Tea Party. So while government might be spending more we still need to be asking who the main beneficiaries of that spending are.

Neoliberalism is alive and well and adapting to it’s own internal contradictions, it has not withered away

 

[Kirk]

That seems to me to be a lot of relatively small shifts. The fundamental objectives remain and are still pursued enthusiastically by large elements of the right.
Truss is simply an idiot and a mouthpiece for Tufton Street.
I see more problems with Tory failure to regulate, say Water, Transport etc. Deliberately perverse decisions clearly influenced by lobbying.
Who is neolib unpopular with? Those who know what is are still at it, those who don't aren't joining the dots.

Yes, politicians are almost always the issue. Bidenomics, to pick one example, is not a small shift. We are now living in a post-neoliberal era. Who knows where it will lead but it doesn't seem to be much of an upgrade on the past. Anyway, this thread is about fascism, a far bigger problem, so I will leave it there.

 

[ks.234]

Seeing neoliberalism in left v right terms is not useful, Bidenomics, what ever that is, still rests on neoliberal assumptions about tax and spending, privatisation and social provision and arguments about regulation, as did Blair and Clinton and even more so for today’s Labour Party.

Neoliberalism has very obviously failed to deliver on it’s own objectives, but that does not mean it has gone away.

The central principles of privatisation, deregulation, austerity, spending cuts, sound money, balancing the books, and trickle down economics are alive and well.

These are the things that have combined to cause growing inequality which is the bedrock of support for the rise of the far right.

Neoliberalism is still here, it is here to stay for the foreseeable future and it is absolutely central to the rise of fascism

 

[Peter Dyer]

Neoliberalism is a symptom, the root cause is human greed and there's no solution for that one.

 

[Mullardman]

Indeed.

 

[ks.234]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803213594747908487

 

[ks.234]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803048431830650969

 

[ks.234]

 

[gez]

Fascism does seem a popular thing these days, but thats because the fascist's control most media outlets

Or more realistically that peole are free and easy with their use of the word as an accusation against people of a ideology that they don't personally align with.

Facism (along with a host of other isms) as a word has lost it's objective meaning in todays world. It's become a purely subjective statement, and thus 90% of the times it's used it's meaningless (and very definitely incorrectly applied). I see it happen a lot on this very forum. People throw the word around who clearly have no clue what true Facism is (and certainly have never had any experience of living in a Facist state).

Oh and yes, left wing ideologies can very definitely be very authoritarian. That's why Authoritarian does not equal Facism. There's a lot more to Facism than just being Authoritarian.

 

[PaulMB]

Constant, inappropriate use of the word makes it difficult to describe what, exactly, one is talking about. But maybe that is what it is, in fact used for. I too have noticed a lot of authoritarian behaviour from the so-called Left on this forum. The adoption of a "true" narrative from which any divergence is forbidden.

 

[matthewr]

Facism (along with a host of other isms) as a word has lost it's objective meaning in todays world. It's become a purely subjective statement, and thus 90% of the times it's used it's meaningless (and very definitely incorrectly applied). I see it happen a lot on this very forum. People throw the word around who clearly have no clue what true Facism is (and certainly have never had any experience of living in a Facist state).

I agree the definition of the word has changed although I disagree that this matters as the meanings of words does indeed change. So in popular usage (i.e. out side of political science) it now just means authoritarian and anti-democratic movements and politics rather than anything specifically to do with 1930s German and Italian governments.

It also seems to me that people implicitly acknowledge this shift when context demands it so you often see mention of fascists as distinct from "actual fascists" or "literal fascists" to distinguish between, say, Orban and the Charlottesville marchers.

 

[Finnegan]

I agree the definition of the word has changed although I disagree that this matters as the meanings of words does indeed change. So in popular usage (i.e. out side of political science) it now just means authoritarian and anti-democratic movements and politics rather than anything specifically to do with 1930s German and Italian governments.

The problem is that fascism is a highly specific (and singularly dangerous) political formation. The tendency to label everyone and everything to the right of Starmer as ‘fascist,’ and to use the term to muddle the important distinction between hard-right populism (Farage, Trump, Wilders, Braverman et al) can act to blunt the emergence of true fascism (Meloni, Le Pen, Yaxley Lennon).

Yaxley-Lennon hitching his fascist bandwagon to Farage’s hard right populism represents a highly dangerous development. Yaxley-Lennon is threatening to flood the streets of London next month with the biggest fascist demo the U.K. has witnessed in many years. He needs to be stomped on- hard!

 

[matthewr]

The problem is that fascism is a highly specific (and singularly dangerous) political formation. The tendency to label everyone and everything to the right of Starmer as ‘fascist,’ and to use the term to muddle the important distinction between hard-right populism (Farage, Trump, Wilders, Braverman et al) can act to blunt the emergence of true fascism (Meloni, Le Pen, Yaxley Lennon).

Yaxley-Lennon hitching his fascist bandwagon to Farage’s hard right populism represents a highly dangerous development. Yaxley-Lennon is threatening to flood the streets of London next month with the biggest fascist demo the U.K. has witnessed in many years. He needs to be stomped on- hard!

It is not great -- and I used to rail against it's usage in connection with Trump for exactly those reasons. But, as I said, I do think people still make the distinction which is where we get the awkward "literal fascist Meloni / Le Pen / Yaxley-Lennon" construct.

Which is at least ironic as literally is the other word that has gone through a transformation that has seen it's inaccurate, colloquial meaning become the de facto actual one

 

[Tim Jones]

Seeing neoliberalism in left v right terms is not useful, Bidenomics, what ever that is, still rests on neoliberal assumptions about tax and spending, privatisation and social provision and arguments about regulation, as did Blair and Clinton and even more so for today’s Labour Party.

Neoliberalism has very obviously failed to deliver on it’s own objectives, but that does not mean it has gone away.

The central principles of privatisation, deregulation, austerity, spending cuts, sound money, balancing the books, and trickle down economics are alive and well.

These are the things that have combined to cause growing inequality which is the bedrock of support for the rise of the far right.

Neoliberalism is still here, it is here to stay for the foreseeable future and it is absolutely central to the rise of fascism

I strongly suspect that "neoliberalism" to you means "anything I don't like". At any rate, there is a distinct lack of differentiation and subtlety in your understanding of it.

Historically, its roots lie in a generation of economists who were precisely anti-fascist.

I am not saying it's a good thing (now, at any rate) and it is utterly right to question some of the founding concepts of capitalism relative to where we are (shareholder value especially). But the enormous semantic spans of some of these terms are really getting out of hand.

 

[gez]

The problem is that fascism is a highly specific (and singularly dangerous) political formation. The tendency to label everyone and everything to the right of Starmer as ‘fascist,’ and to use the term to muddle the important distinction between hard-right populism (Farage, Trump, Wilders, Braverman et al) can act to blunt the emergence of true fascism

Exactly, the meaning of words matter, and when you dilute the meaning of a word such as Fascism you risk allowing it's reoccurrance. It's akin to crying wolf if you water down it's true meaning, and we all know the result of that story.

The immediate pointing to Mussolini and Hitler when the topic of the definition of Fascism comes up is also highly problematic. They were far from the first or last Fascists the world has seen.

 

[ks.234]

I strongly suspect that "neoliberalism" to you means "anything I don't like".

Mmmm, this is following a similar theme…

At any rate, there is a distinct lack of differentiation and subtlety in your understanding of it.

Ah, here we go. My intelligence is faulty.

Though your ad hom is only based on an assumption which os itself on based what you “suspect”, rather than a coherent thought process

Historically, its roots lie in a generation of economists who were precisely anti-fascist.

No shit Sherlock. I do believe I might have said as much myself, er, once or twice before.

I am not saying it's a good thing (now, at any rate)

What, this thing that doesn’t exist? Or this thing that is real but I’m too stupid to understand?

and it is utterly right to question some of the founding concepts of capitalism relative to where we are (shareholder value especially).

What? This thing you just dismissed as being the product of ignorence?

And what do you mean by capitalism exactly, I can only suspect what you mean.

But the enormous semantic spans of some of these terms are really getting out of hand.

What term do you suggest to describe what you accept is real thing?

 

[Tim Jones]

Notwithstanding the shallow irony of misspelling "ignorance", I suggest you go for a walk, maybe watch a decent sitcom, perhaps even listen to your hifi.

 

[ks.234]

Notwithstanding the shallow irony of misspelling "ignorance", I suggest you go for a walk, maybe watch a decent sitcom, perhaps even listen to your hifi.

Oh Christ, another troll.

The one’s that think they’re more intelligent than anyone else are the worst.

Or is the worse?

I can never remember being the ignoremus that I am.

 

[Pravda]

Notwithstanding the shallow irony of misspelling "ignorance", I suggest you go for a walk, maybe watch a decent sitcom, perhaps even listen to your hifi.

Yet, your avatar suggests you are prone to being supercilious.

 

[stevec67]

Oh Christ, here you go again, repeating the same thing again and again over and over.

You keep accusing me of “never” having defined neoliberalism. I notice you’ve just added “in the last 6 months” but that is not where you started

Until you evidence your ridiculous accusation, it will remain what it is, ridiculous.

You made the accusation, it is not up to me to prove my innocence, it is up to you, the accuser, to provide evidence to demonstrate my guilt.

It is really that basic.

All we have is your wild accusation that you keep repeating over and over but no evidence, no substance, nothing.

Put up or shut up indeed.

You made the accusation, you substantiate it.

Give over, funny man. You look even more of a fool. We both know bloody well you haven't, if you had you could have proved it in 5 minutes. Instead you are digging away in your hole. You say I'm a troll, I'm upset because I'm a Labour voter, whatever else. It's comical. Go on, pick that scab again.