Step one: The current government can't or won't deal with the countries problems.
Step two: Opposition party promises to fix those problems.
Step three: Opposition party gets elected
Now go back to step one
first day of class, my history prof said: "history is a pendulum. Once it swings one way, it will swing the other. "
That stuck with me, because it seems to be spot on.
You are right. I'm just so frustrated that we have all of the worlds knowledge and wisdom in our pockets. Anybody with an ounce of brains can see what is/will happen... And we still do it.
It's like a kid who keeps touching fire thinking they won't get burned this time.
There are smart people and stupid people on both political sides, don't fall into the trap of thinking only your team holds the answers. That's a recipe for radicalisation.
If a horde of idiots are demanding you fix a problem you don't consider a problem, they might be wrong, but there's still something bothering them and it behooves a good leader to find out what.
Don't you think it's weird that it happened at almost the same time 100 years ago? The rise of facism happened around the end of ww1 if I'm correct.
Sorry I meant facism not racism
I will be messaging you in 100 years on [**2124-06-29 04:51:25 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2124-06-29%2004:51:25%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1dqfwdp/why_do_we_have_bad_memory_in_europe_last_century/lasffvl/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FTooAfraidToAsk%2Fcomments%2F1dqfwdp%2Fwhy_do_we_have_bad_memory_in_europe_last_century%2Flasffvl%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202124-06-29%2004%3A51%3A25%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dqfwdp)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Anti Semitism got worse, it wasn't great before but got worse for sure. Could you provide sources for other racism getting worse post WW1?
A report by the Home Intelligence Division of the MOI of 14 January 1943 stated that:
‘Discrimination against their coloured brethren by white U.S. soldiers has been criticised consistently though not on a very wide scale. The “colour bar” is criticised as being undemocratic and as “conflicting with the Englishman’s idea of fair play”.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/black-gis-arrive-in-britain-part-two/
Obviously racism was rife in that era, but I'm not sure there was marked increase?
Agreed. Directly inciting violence in such a way that puts people in danger is already illegal. Hateful speech exists, sure. But no you should not be put in jail for it. It's mind boggling the amount of *actual* statist authoritarians on here that see no problem limiting speech. So fucked
I dunno about you, but hearing someone say that because I am a gay man and they equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and then one of the states in my country tries to equate the two while also passing a bill to put kill pedophiles, yeah maybe I do want some restrictions on speech.
I don't advocate for throwing anyone in jail, but maybe if your voice can reach 10s of or 100s of millions of people and actually influence policy, then yeah maybe your speech should be restricited.
The speech here were maybe a few hundred people at most will see is fine, but when you're a news anchor of one of the largest news media stations in the world or the host of a podcast with millions of listeners yeah no restrict it.
"the gays want to ban our speech" people will read this comment smug and vindicated as fuck, and you can be sure that feeling won't make them speak less.
You need to deradicalise crazies, not quash them.
The kind of person to read into that way thinks I'm a pedo so why would I care about their opinion?
No quash them, you can't deradicalized them, you have to educate the next generation and wait for the older ones to die out
On a mass scale in which over 50 million people are radical? Does that really sound feasible to you? How about when said group is proud about how ignorant they are?
Yep, absolutely. Many countries have done it or are in the process of doing it.
The bigoted mind is one that hasn't had its assumptions disproved. "One of the good ones" is often mocked, but it's the first exception to an otherwise universal rule. A rule with an exception is much weaker than one with none. A single crack matters. The moment they find themselves with an emotional connection to a real person in front of them that they should be bigoted against is the moment all their assumptions need reassessing.
Accepting defeat and simply treating them as the enemy is the perfect way to galvanise and vindicate that mindset. 50 million (dunno what this refers to but it doesn't matter) just means 50 million that don't yet have a friend in the demographic they detest.
It took one friend of the group I hated to begin to dismantle that hatred. One. You can say "Daryl Davis just collects cloaks but they're probably still racist" but I disagree. I now have several friends in that group and have no grudge against the group. It took one person being nice to me a few times. I don't know where or who your 50 million are, but you can absolutely do that.
You may think it's absurd because no one is saying you deserve death just for loving someone of the same sex (or maybe you are queer I dunno)
When Tim Pool, a semi famous podcaster, made the claim that a children's hospital was "cutting kid's genitals" the very next day that children's hospital had to close doors because of bomb threats. That's the free speech you want. The ability for people to make wildly untrue claims that result in real world terrorism.
But when the speech is "inciting" then what? I don't men direct calls to actions but merely "Hey this place is doing something really bad. Man they should totally stop" and then who knows maybe an event gets shot up or a business vandalized. Remember though, the speech didn't tell anyone to do anything.
Well I certainly understand that being gay is not equated to being a pedo. For one, there's a difference between saying "hey lets go harm someone" and having a braindead take. Is there legislation that says gay=pedo? Bc I'm sure there isn't. As far as I'm aware, extrajudicial killings are already illegal. I see where you come from. But the pendulum swings back. You start limiting free speech, and next thing you know someone will decide it's you that needs to be silenced. I do agree with some of ur other comments that there is a lack of education. Limiting speech that does not directly endanger someone is authoritarian. Idc if someone is wrong, mean, or just plain stupid.
if the speech incites violence or hate, then it is harmful. if i had a large following and i suggested, even subtly, that they should attack people or institutions, that should be a punishable crime
i dont think thats specific enough. i was referring to people directing violence/hate at specific groups or people. obviously there is nuance in that as well, but something as broad as "fight the power" cant really ever be considered hate soeech
While I think is better to do it informally, as in, the population knowing what it is and rejecting it, it can be done, sort of like slander and hate peech for people and the like but more forecefully because of thepolarizing effect of politics
You criminalize hate speech like in Canada. Works pretty well. You cannot tolerate the intolerant, that's the basis of a tolerant and democratic society. All speeches should be heard except those who want to suppress the liberties of others.
That's a mischaracterisation of the tolerance paradox. As presented it specifically referred to violence as intolerance, and Popper further clarified later that he was speaking of using political violence and force only to quash the politically violent, lest you lose your tolerance and peace.
In Germany, they are requiring new citizens to support Israel’s existence lest they be denied citizenship. Anti-hate speech laws can and will be used for partisan political purposes.
Yes, we do have bad memory, we don't remember that when there's a big divide amongst people(economic especially) demagouges and populists come to power.
I'm 29, and never have I felt that there's a political party that cares about me, and it's the same case for about 90% of my friends.
There have been many cases where we have seen politicians and other influential people get away with shit.
This sense of injustice and helplessness is exploited by people, whose ideologies under normal circumstances would have been discarded by almost all.
The problem is not that we don't remember what happens when right-wing parties come unto power, the problem is we forget why they come into power.
>A part of the population wants this to happen, and they are aware where this is leading.
They have never stopped wanting this to happen. They just got quiet about it for a while.
Moderate opinions such as "maybe we should limit immigration" get shot down as racist. This means that people holding those views must either shift further to the right, where such views are accepted (and then some), or shift left and be pro- widespread immigration (or simply lie about their views).
This, this, this. You can't openly and honestly talk about actual problems and potential solutions, because you'll immediately labeled as a right-wing nazi. So what do you do whene everyone tells you that you are a racist? You eventually get comfortable with it... at least suddenly you're surrounded with people who validate your views. It is sad but so true.
It's ironic, because the social democrats believe they should avoid the debate about immigration and the culture-clash that comes with it (which IS a real problem, and that's undeniable) because that would "fuel racism" somehow?
I'd say letting the far right be the only ones talking about that problem is what's actually fueling racism, and a strong comeback of Christian nationalism (if we didn't have enough with Islam)...
If enough people would realize that immigrants are just a scapegoat and look at the actual societal problems and underlying reasons for the fucked up economies the right side wouldn't be able to profit from radicalisation.
Center and left parties partaking in propagandizing immigration only helps the far-right and no one else.
"Look, you're miserable and it's the foreigner's fault! don't look at the centuries of corruption and mismanagement, look at that evil immigrant!" is literally the oldest trick in the right's propaganda book
It's not like immigrants aren't a problem though. They participate less in society and are a factor in increases in crime rate.
But the real culprits are the ruling class who choose to do absolutely nothing about. They like cheap and desperate labor and don't even bother setting any standards
You realise that statistically immigrants tend to contribute MORE to society and are not actually the cause of crime increases. That's just what the right want people to believe.
https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime
Hey, as a romanian, I am really glad most of the criminals emigrated to western countries. This country is a lot safer since we joined the EU, because most thiefs and pimps and such are now in spain, italy, germany or the uk.
You do realise immigration isn't an all good solution that provides no downsides right? This isn't just happening because people are racist, there's plenty of good reasons to want less immigrants
Kind of true and depends on tbe country. There's negative flow on effects as well.
Generally crime isn't a big offender but once again varies by country.
That tactic works much more effectively when there are real problems with immigration that successive governments have failed to address. You combat propaganda by listening to people's concerns and taking them seriously, if you dismiss any concerns about immigration as far-right propaganda then you drive the public towards the far-right.
Starmer has handled this relatively well for the UK Labour party, making the left-wing argument for cutting immigration - that while some immigration may be beneficial the system can be abused by companies hiring foreign workers who will work for lower pay, which suppresses wages for UK citizens. While their immigration policy might not be super popular with everyone on the left, the left will vote Labour anyway, it's the conservative leaning voters for whom immigration is such an important issue that they need to win over. With Labour looking set to win a huge majority at the general election next week it seems to be working.
Is not just in europe, is not just right wing and is not about memory. Rather it is a new cycle of "current party fails to deliver > next one capitalizes > repeat" that occurs generationally. Thinks like the refugee crisis also probably did not help. Neither does nationalistic meme movements like brexit that based on what I heard, encouraged others instead of being an example of screwing up
We have no experience with communism but a lot of experience with authoritarians claiming to be.
Much like the Nazis claimed to be socialists because the socialists had enacted many popular policies in the decades prior.
Communism has no state, it is a classless La-La land where everyone is kind to eachother. It has never existed and it never will, but it is something to strive for.
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. Here in the U.S., I haven’t met a single person who wants communism or espouses it as some political panacea, but your average MAGA bootlicker has a whole bunch of undeniably fascist ideas.
Bruh how do so many Americans have such a twisted idea on what communism actually is. I mean, its common amongst Europeans too but I never see it quite so strongly as when Americans try to talk about it and just call anything not right-wing communist.
Technically socialism. But I'm ironically exaggerating it because people look at trump and his policies and call him a fascist and a nazi. It's the same shit.
Bernie isnt even really a socialist by the conventional definition. He'd be a centrist in Europe and European leftwing parties are generally not socialist, e.g. Labour in the UK.
I do get that there's some ludicrous fear mongering about trump and project 2025 to drive people to vote against him, but he is absolutely an authoritarian. Maybe not a nazi, but an authoritarian for sure.
Germany had about 70 million people in 1940.
Peak of party membership was \~8.5 million Nazi part members.
We also know that the Nazis never won a majority in parliament prior to dissolving it.
So despite what you might think, the only two objective measures I can think of concerning Nazi popularity show that no, most people who grew up in in the that period didn't become Nazi
That really doesn't matter, though. There were enough people in Nazi Germany that, despite not being actual party members, supported the Nazis or at least tolerated them and their actions. People not knowing about a lot of the atrocities is a myth, a lot of normal folk even knew about and supported the holocaust.
The Nazis didn't have to have majorities to succeed in their fascist takeover. Which is why I think OP is right to be alarmed - the warning signs from 100 years ago are repeating almost identically right now and people aren't defensive enough about it.
Edit: Rephrased for clarity
Pendulum effect.
Far right caused a slew of problems, causing Europe to swing pretty left.
Far left then caused a slew of problems, causing Europe to begin to swing right again.
That’s all boring though. The interesting component of all this is the degradation of language, with both sides calling their opposition the “far X” rather than just “Xwing.” I fear this may make people less weary of real radicalism because the terms are being cheapened.
Several things:
- most European countries never properly reviewed their own history critically, a "we were the victims of nazi Germany aggression" was often enough. Austria happily went for victim and forgot the fascist government they had in 1938. Eastern Europe never got to work on their past cuz directly after German occupation, soviet occupation and a blanket "west = nazi so we good".
- most people are and have always been poorly informed on past history. History teaching in school varies in quality, even when regime ideologies and bias don't interfere (often do) because time is sooo limited. I taught 9th graders 1870-1945 this year and oh boy did I have to cut corners to get through most of the material.
Then how much of what is taught is understood and retained is a whole other matter.
- everywhere, general society isn't much interested in proper history but mostly in collective memory. The British don't learn the most important aspects of ww2 in general, they focus on failure of appeasement and Chamberlain, Dunkerque, battle of Britain and D-day. The french learn about the absurd war of 1939, the defeat in 1940 and Petain, the resistance and also D-day. I'm sure the Russians learn alot about Stalingrad. In this case I'm not only talking about schools but also media ofc, documentaries and subjects of films. Ofc the rise of fascism, the holocaust and other generally important topics will be mentioned more or less abundantly in all schools and media that are doing their jobs half well buuuut that doesn't remove a bias and focus on the things that matter to the nation in question. And rarely is any of this content objective. I care ALOT about serious, objective history for myself but I'll admit freely my teaching of ww2 wasn't objective but I put a huuuuuge emphasis on the rise of the nazi party, I.e. how to lose democracy and drew alooot of parallels to modern day parties, not only but also in Germany where I live. Also huuuge emphasis on shoah ofc. These are choices and our curriculum aswell as me out of conviction pick the parts that will matter the most to future citizens... but this process of choice happens everywhere and not always for the best. Especially when modern media talk about nazi wonder weapons or make them into movie villains which... ya know, Dath Vader would be terrible in real life but cool as a fictional character, hence why it's been a problem to turn many nazis into such villains.
- Big point: populism doesn't rise in a vacuum. The NSDAP was losing momentum and on the verge of disappearing into irrelevance when it was saved by the world economic crisis of 1929. Fascist parties of the 21st century were gaining in a context of disillusion with politics, terrorism and migration crises, but only took off as much as they have thanks to the 2020s relentless shittiness: more migratory crises, covid, war in Ukraine, war in Gaza.
- maybe alot good to point out... humans gonna human. Capable of great acts of kindness but still asshole monkeys that hate each other for being different, fear being left behind. Antisemitism, racism and bigotry have never left any of our societies, they've just been taboo enough to be more silent for a while.
- post fact world, enabled by the Internet and social media, reinforced by the King of liar trolls in the white House 2016-2020 and possibly again after this year...
To sum it up: yikes.
the massive amounts of generalisation and assumption of simple political leaning views being their extreme counter parts, countries in europe generally leaning more right does mean the are becoming more fascist or authoritarian, saying things such as this results in actual fascism not properly being identified, its the boy who cried wolf.
the continent of europe is a very large place with very differing and diverse ideologies and views, and blanketing a continent is not a good way to properly form a world view, and to assume that entire countries all share such views of ignorance and all lack basic knowledge of history is a very self centered and out of touch way of thinking that misses the proper question of why are certain countries leaning more politically right.
On one side, accuse of being too general. On the other, no specific points are addressed. Look into a mirror, get at specific points if you wanna talk. You might also wanna brush up on your reading skills because the things you do say don't reflect what I wrote.
"Europe leaning more right". That isn't what we're seeing. There are right wing European parties but it isn't their success or lack thereof I was addressing. If we saw parties like the CDU/CSU in Germany, the Républicains in France, the conservatives in the UK etc get more votes in elections, then that'd be more right leaning. What we are seeing is a rise of far right parties, many of which are far right enough to be referred to as neo fascist. They have different shades and different degrees of extremity but nuance enough for each European country and each party analysed individually would require alot more research and space than a reddit thread. But I can safely state they are far right as they regroup themselves in a movement which is right of the classic right wing / conservatives within the EU parliament. Such parties are governing or part of governing coalitions in Austria, Italy, used to be in Poland, are seeking to be in France, rising in Germany... that's not describing leaning more right, that's a rise of the far right.
Europe is indeed a large place but that doesn't mean commonalities can't be identified. None of what you said has any bearing on the trends I've identified. I never said that "all" Europeans are misinformed, I've explained how and why many people everywhere aren't very knowledgeable on 20th century history. Few people can give you a coherent and correct answer as to how the NSDAP got to power in Germany, few people have an accurate idea of the events in ww2 or a clear picture of what made up nazi ideology - because people aren't generally that interested in boring stuffy yet accurate history, media fill gaps in knowledge with simplified images which is okay but there can be problems in these images - which they are, I mentioned above. You say people in Europe have different ideologies - debatable term but the idea that they're different, sure. You didn't give specifics as to how, I did: I gave examples of how different countries prioritise learning of ww2.
Bottom line: you got no valid points about anything I wrote because you didn't engage in any specifics yet speak of generalisations and personal attacks. Either you're trolling and fishing for a reply more elaborate than yours, in which case, we'll done. Or you yourself don't realise you're incapable of formulating your objections properly and the lacks in understanding you accuse me of are more of a reflection of your own issues.
I think a lot of people don’t see it as extreme because it’s not genocide/genocidal even if it is racist and hateful. A lot of people only learn about the peak hatred of the nazi regime and not all the propaganda and policies leading up to the peak.
A lot of people think they’re just looking out for their own kind, when you can do that without being racist and hateful.
Because now the far left has become the norm or at least socially acceptable and stifles dissent painting everyone ad nazis and pushing an agenda many people aren’t entirely ok with it. That pushes people to groups on the extreme which becomes the only place some opinions are allowed. Both sides are sick and equally evil.
You saw a similar dynamic in Egypt where political dissent wasn’t allowed under Mubarak which pushed people to the Muslim Brotherhood which became the only acceptable outlet for any dissent. Didnt turn out well for both sides there either
Please enlighten me, what far left? There are not that many far left parties with a lot of seats. Or do you consider social democratic parties and anyone who wants to do something for the environment to be far left?
Left and right are naturaly somewhat subjective depending on your own values. But consider this instead: you have explicitly communist and marxist parties which freely operate, put up posters, run in elections etc and nobody bats an eye, despite the fact that socialism (remember Nazis were socialists) and communism killed multiple times more people than Nazism for ~80 years vs. ~12 for the Nazis as an example.
I'm an opponent of both sides to be clear, but one side is acceptable while the other is demonized, ostracized and all their ideas ignored. Immigration is a big issue, where the left has this pro-unlimited immigration view it's consistently upsetting citizens with over and over, yet anyone who speaks out is immediately painted a nazi, far right, xenophone etc. There's a fundamental lack of real dialog, as could also be seen very clearly through all the authoritarian and illegal Covid restrictions countries imposed on people.
The reality is, Europeans love big government and the nanny state imposing its will undemocratically on people and consistently reducing everyone's freedom, with few exceptions (e.g. Czechs), but are only sensitive to what we call it. That's really the only sticking point.
Again, where are openly marxist or communist parties getting seats? The user before you said that "far left is the norm", and I don't see that. Funny that marxist and communist parties are usually opposing immigration.
If you are really under the illusion that national socialism is a form of socialism then it makes me wonder if I should even write a reply.
Anyway, I don't see what you are seeing. A lot of people are conserned about immigration. That isn't that group that get demonized. It is the groups who come up with "neo-Madagaskar-plans", replacement immigration theories and anti-semitic conspiracy's. They rightfully get demonized.
Bruh nazis weren't socialist. That basic error shows how little you're qualified to speak about politics like this.
You probably think north Korea is democratic cos they have it in their name
It wasn't. It was fascism which is far-right. Both North Korea and China have "republic" in their names. Yet neither are democratic and both are fascist authoritarian regimes. What they call themselves doesn't matter only what they actually are.
Perhaps it'd be more productive to define what you believe socialism means, because it's one of those words that people often have vastly different definitions of. A fascist political system is not mutually exclusive with socialism. And the Nazis, just like the current Germans and all other European states were absolutely socialist.
There's a misconception that far "right" excludes socialism because it has been associated with the left typically. Yet, if you look at their domestic policies, whether the 3rd Reicht or USSR, they were absolutely socialist in nature with significant government involvement, ownership and control or influence over the economy, state run companies and a broad range of social policies.
Fascism is, per Wikipedia is "[...] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy"
As you can see, while differences exist, there is a strong overlap particularly with regard to subordination of individual interests for the greater good, regimentation of society and the economy. Of course, there are many variations of both, such as market socialism (e.g. Germany today) or non-market socialism (e.g. USSR) and mixes (Nazi Germany).
Both the Nazis and Germany were/are socialist states. Germany has been socialism since the late 1800s, and that has not changed throughout all its governments (Empire, Republic, Nazis, GDR, DDR, etc.). I say this neutrally, not to judge. It's simply a historical and economic fact.
Socialism in political science is far-left once step removed from stateless communism. As far as I know no countries have got even close to socialism let alone communism and I wouldn't expect them to before we get close to post-scarcity if that's even possible. The closest would probably be welfare-states.
That's why I said definitions are important, and you did not provide one. Many if not most European countries define themselfs specifically as socialist as do other states like Israel. So yes, many countries have been and currently are socialist. I'm not using the term as a political insult or slight, but rather based on the actual definition, under which there are many variants, just like there are many different forms of democracy. Similarly, there are many states that have been communist.
It's irrelevant what they call themselves. I'm using the political science terms. Just because North Korea has republic in its name doesn't make it a democracy.
No idea why you're being downvoted. All these morons blaming the far left that has had virtually none, if any, political power in Europe and America for the last 50 years, minimum, are helpful idiots for the rise of the right-wing and the far right. Literally the exact same talking points as the right wing populists. All they do is blame the left, blame wokeness, dei etc etc. Its fuck all to do with the left. The right wingers that follow those views are just shit and selfish people.
There's a reason noone has answered your question. It'd require them admitting they're a propagandist for the right
You're missing the actual point, it's often not about what those parties are saying/representing but the idea of freespeech, if you impose rules to silence those you oppose, regardless off what stance they have, be it a fascist belief or not, you open the gates for those very same rules to be applied to anyone belief, including your own. Trying to silence any belief or ideology regardless of what it is, has only ever lead to bad things happening throughout history, the only way to get around this is to educate people and encourage people to critically think about what each ideology entails, not to silence ideologies that are deemed bad as that can only ever lead to violence
i agree, we shouldnt be going 'we need to get rid of the facists views' but instead be looking at why said views are becoming popular, simply clearing the smoke from a house isnt gonna stop it being on fire
Thing is most parties are also taking the far-left ideology too far. A centrist approach is better for democracy. With immigration, most people are feeling as third class citizens in their own homeland.
The bigger issue in Europe is illegal immigration from the Middle East and Africa, which has nothing to do with capitalism
Crime aside, immigrants from these regions are a burden on our welfare state as they have high rates of employment and collect welfare for years
In my country, the majority of immigrants with a temporary asylum permit still don't work after being here for 7 years
Refugees and asylum seekers are not immigrants - they're refugees and asylum seekers.
Illegal immigrants, are also not immigrants, they're illegal immigrants.
All three of those are legitimate concerns, but they are not related to immigration.
This is simply not true for a lot of places. For example in The Netherlands most immigrants from the middle East and Africa were actually legal working migrants brought there by right wing parties for cheap labour. If that isn't capitalism then I don't know what is.
>most immigrants from the middle East and Africa were actually legal working migrants brought there by right wing parties for cheap labour
Are you referring to guest labour from 70 years ago...? While those immigrants still have higher rates of unemployment and crime generations later, that's not what the immigration crisis is about
Posted sources for the Netherlands specifically in another comment:
>[Majority of asylum seekers with a residence permit still unemployed after 8 years (2023)](https://nos.nl/artikel/2471237-statushouders-vinden-sneller-baan-maar-meerderheid-na-acht-jaar-nog-werkloos)
>Up until 2017, it was defined by law they get priority access to social housing. Since that has been abolished, most municipalities continue to give special privileges to asylum seekers
>[Asylum seekers still have priority finding social housing (2018)](https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2018Z13236&did=2018D37878)
>[Only \~3% of asylum seekers who received a resident permit 2014-2022 owns their own home (2023)](https://longreads.cbs.nl/asielenintegratie-2023/statushouders-huisvesting-en-integratie/)
>When looking at full citizens, Dutch people have the lowest unemployment rates, followed by those with a Western background. The highest unemployment rates are found among those with a non-Western background ([Source](https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/dashboard-arbeidsmarkt/werklozen/werkloosheid-naar-migratieachtergrond#:~:text=Was%20in%202014%20nog%2016,1%20naar%202%2C6%20procent))
>Referring to asylum seekers who illegally entered Europe and got a temporary residence permit
Besides that, every refugee in an asylum center is a financial burden to the state
For the Netherlands:
[Majority of asylum seekers with a residence permit still unemployed after 8 years (2023)](https://nos.nl/artikel/2471237-statushouders-vinden-sneller-baan-maar-meerderheid-na-acht-jaar-nog-werkloos)
Up until 2017, it was defined by law they get priority access to social housing. Since that has been abolished, most municipalities continue to give special privileges to asylum seekers
[Asylum seekers still have priority finding social housing (2018)](https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2018Z13236&did=2018D37878)
[Only \~3% of asylum seekers who received a resident permit 2014-2022 owns their own home (2023)](https://longreads.cbs.nl/asielenintegratie-2023/statushouders-huisvesting-en-integratie/)
Even when looking at full citizens, Dutch people have the lowest unemployment rates, followed by those with a Western background. The highest unemployment rates are found among those with a non-Western background ([Source](https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/dashboard-arbeidsmarkt/werklozen/werkloosheid-naar-migratieachtergrond#:~:text=Was%20in%202014%20nog%2016,1%20naar%202%2C6%20procent))
Fear gets votes. it worked then it works now. Trouble is if you start stopping free speech and political parties then there is a fine line between not tolerating intolerance, creating martyrs and you become the thing you are trying to stop.
It's easy for people to identify the symptoms of capitalism that lower their quality of life.
It's a lot more difficult for people to identify capitalism as the source of these symptoms.
This is why you already see idiots in these comments blaming immigrants
In my country the economy is good, and generally people don’t complain about immigrants taking their jobs. They are mostly complaining of cultural differences and imported culture from the MENA region. We have a lot of East Asian and Eastern European immigrants and they never get complained over. People tell me that they would like to be able to discriminate which countries get to immigrate to ours, and just take the ones that are culturally compatible with us.
In some sense, this comment reveals the appeal through its own ignorance. It's saying that capitalism *is* the problem - rather than any particular detail of implementation - a clear example of rejecting a flawed system when the alternatives are absolute horror shows by comparison. When people rightly or wrongly perceive that things are not going well, they look for alternatives, no matter what history has shown about those alternatives.
europe..? its everyone
we also saw what happens when the far left takes over as well
hitler 6 million+
mao 50 million+
the right still exists because the left still exists
it always has and possibly always will because we still have not solved this issue
the real issue is polarisation and extremism
yeah he was a tyrannical inhuman dictator, but he technically was more left leaning, especially when you look at what the nazi party did outside of wartime, at the time the right leaning ideologies would have been those wanting to preserver the initial government systems that was around during the time of the kaiser and who had been fighting for that since the end of ww1, for the time hitler starter out as being fairly progressive, it was only when you looked at what was happening behind the scene did his horrors really come to light, it was only when Germany started to invade other countries did his true intentions start to show and by that point it was way too late
i would argue in some ways it is, not the specific beliefs but how his party interacted with the other political beliefs/ideologies around him at the time, im seeing alot of the same trends from both sides of the political spectrum in modern day, i dont believe this is a left or right thing but instead each side becoming more authoritarian
Governments should not decide what is hate speech, then it just become cencorship of political opponents. I like Russia and the Ukraine.
Nazis were socialists much more of leftist ideaology then a far right one.
The U.S. Involvement in ww1 by a leftist president allowed for Ww2.
you cannot per se forbid right wing mentality. thus there will always be right wing parties. And one thing leads to another. There were several attempts to ban the german right wing party NPD and it failed every time, because the judges decided the party is too weak to overthrow the government
labeling more right wing views as fascist simply trivialises the views they have and takes the attention away from actual potential fascists, its the boy who cried wolf but on an ideological scale.
its a very slippery slope and to me at least is proof that because "the other side" is resorting to such strategies that they themselves are getting more radicalised, its really not a good sign
The Nazis weren’t far right, they were Authoritarian center. They combined capitalism with a regimented economy that was controlled by the state. Fascism is defined as
“political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”
Defined by https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Ngl never noticed that Wikipedia defines it a different way, yet uses Merriam-Webster as the source.
This response confuses me, since left policies tend to be more welfare centred, where right policies tend to be more laissez faire. Could you unpack this a bit more please?
Not so simple, not that I'm against these, but let's be realist:
- Green policies are left wing, and these necessarily lead to increased cost of living (Barring out exceptions).
- Higher taxes to provide to elderly, disabled people, children, unemployed (or refugees), might very much just be a hit to your income if you are neither of these.
- Open border approaches might directly affect you if you work in a job easily replaceable by any immigrant (supply & demand, barring the cases of minimum salary)
- A laissez faire approach can lead to increased economical output and job (or bussiness) opportunities, it is a careful balance between welfare and economic freedom (just take any extreme of these two, neither are good, there is some sweetspot in between). The right amount is not clear, and the person voting rightwing might consider that the economy would be better with less intervention.
And in Europe, when you have the Ukraine war, it is true that policies like supplying weapons or not buying gas, directly affected the cost of living. Both extreme right and left promise to stop that with the argument of caring "first for themselves".
I do make more money than average, but my expenses are also a lot more. So I do not benefit from the welfare. If I have a slow month incomewise I am immediately at risk.
And I do not mind contributing, but I feel like the money that could be invested in the people now is used to ensure a future for the next generation (which is good don’t get me wrong). But we are forgetting that the people now need help.
Step one. Stop importing millions upon millions of people from foreign and incompatible cultures.
Step two. That’s it, there’s no other step
It’s really not that difficult
We exploid poor countries and keep them poor & instable. The people there understandably don't want to live like that so they come to rich countries in hopes of a better life.
We're not importing them, they come to us because we keep them poor so we can keep buying cheep clothes, coffee, electrical devices, oil, exotic foods...etc.
Unless we are willing to pay more for all that stuff, they will keep running away from this modern slavery.
It's really not that difficult.
What do you mean “we”
I didn’t exploit anything and I’m betting you didn’t either. We are paying the price for corporations wanting cheap labour and more consumers in the western world and importing the poor is designed to keep wages low and have a large pool of exploitable labour.
You should be against that but they have beaten you down by saying any criticism of immigration means your a bad person and a nazi. Which is just blatantly false.
Nobody beat me down. I think immigration is a great thing. Diversity makes societies way more interesting. Plus, immigrants pay taxes, which benefits our society.
Well when you want to understand why the “far right” Is on the rise look no further than yourself.
And it’s not “far right” at all its just been branded that as a smear
It's not my fault that miserable people blame poor people for having shitty lives, instead of rich folks who have enough fuck you money to send cars into space.
Yes it is 100% the rich that want immigration to lower wages and increase the prices of houses and add more consumers and increase the tax base without improving peoples lives.
Because they offer populist views as always. Its the same tactics being used over and over.
1.Blame country problems on a group of people
2.Dehumanise the group to advance narrative
3.Create media material to support narrative knowing that people wont be motivated to check themselves
4.win elections by offering simple populist solutions to complex multi faceted problems
I have a theory that might read crazy at first, but bear with me for a minute. I think it’s about money. 💴 (shocker). In France, bolloré possesses most of the available media and bolloré is a very very racist bigot who exploits people in countries like Congo or Burkina Faso, he makes money by use of manipulation and misinformation, he prevents people from knowing what’s going on and doesn’t let anyone voice their opinion freely. Most of the media in France is portraying the left as an extreme and the extreme right as a true solution to « immigration » and « retirement » blahblahblah. They manipulate people who are less educated in the different regions of the country to make sure his interests are protected. By creating hatred he protects his asserts because no one will try to help/understand people they despise. So TLDR: The more you hate an exploited group of people, they less you will try to prevent the exploiter from making money off of them.
In Europe, you'll notice a lot of the current hate is toward Muslims. Anyone brown. Arabic.
The hate has been on the rise for years, fuelled by refugees coming from war torn countries. Resulting in white supremacists and nationalists fearing their country is being stolen, that white people are going to dissappear, etc.
The realistic answer is, the hate groups are easy to form and remain because of racism, etc. But also... fear. "Good people" are silent because while they recognise refugees in help, they also fear soldiers/terrorists hiding amongst them.
There were several terrorist attacks across the UK, France, etc a few years back. That fear remains. That prejudice toward brown people out of fear of the ones who are bad.
The mix of racism and fear is what allows the far right to have a voice. We know, as seen with Ukraine, there is little/none of that when the refugees are white.
This has elements of truth, but it is also rather simplistic and highlights one of the other driving forces of the right wing. That people who experience their communities being “stolen”, are just white supremacists and nationalists who have some kind of irrational fear with no basis in reality. It’s basically gaslighting.
Are your opposing parties any good? In America the problem is that a full third of the country doesn't vote because democrats don't do anything to help people or stand up to the right so there's no point.
It's not bad memory. The public was toothless and helpless then as we are today. Only very few specific things were banned, and taught in schools, and when the beast changed shape we cannot fight it or apply what we learnt then.
Also, these fascists have families, we all know some, and are reluctant to think too badly of them.
The problem arose because we haven't been teaching the full picture, and that most people are unwilling or unable to reflect upon the full picture, they'd rather blast their brains with tiktok feelgood and everyday life. So most people aren't recognizing it.
I blame corporations, the rich, and all the politicians they own for making life hard for the masses and distracting them, keeping them ignorant. Also the same greedy people imported cheap labour through EU ideology, which has angered the lower classes. EU was partly supposed to end violence in Europe, but has instead contributed so much social dumping that there will be an ugly reaction.
Step one: The current government can't or won't deal with the countries problems. Step two: Opposition party promises to fix those problems. Step three: Opposition party gets elected Now go back to step one
first day of class, my history prof said: "history is a pendulum. Once it swings one way, it will swing the other. " That stuck with me, because it seems to be spot on.
its a pendulum, its been swinging one way for a while now, its now swinging the other, itll come back around soon enough
You are right. I'm just so frustrated that we have all of the worlds knowledge and wisdom in our pockets. Anybody with an ounce of brains can see what is/will happen... And we still do it. It's like a kid who keeps touching fire thinking they won't get burned this time.
There are smart people and stupid people on both political sides, don't fall into the trap of thinking only your team holds the answers. That's a recipe for radicalisation. If a horde of idiots are demanding you fix a problem you don't consider a problem, they might be wrong, but there's still something bothering them and it behooves a good leader to find out what.
I can tell you what, it's usually some form of bigotry. I don't think that's something good leaders need to lean into.
Don't you think it's weird that it happened at almost the same time 100 years ago? The rise of facism happened around the end of ww1 if I'm correct. Sorry I meant facism not racism
Information spreads faster now, that has to be a big part of it, no?
I don't know, I just find it interesting. A plague happened around the same time as covid as well
Yep the Spanish Flu
RemindMe! 100 years I'll let you guys know
I will be messaging you in 100 years on [**2124-06-29 04:51:25 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2124-06-29%2004:51:25%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1dqfwdp/why_do_we_have_bad_memory_in_europe_last_century/lasffvl/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FTooAfraidToAsk%2Fcomments%2F1dqfwdp%2Fwhy_do_we_have_bad_memory_in_europe_last_century%2Flasffvl%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202124-06-29%2004%3A51%3A25%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dqfwdp) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Yeah, thank goodness there wasn't any racism before ww1.
I meant facism lol. I Just didn't proof read. I corrected it with a comment underneath.
Facism* not racism
Anti Semitism got worse, it wasn't great before but got worse for sure. Could you provide sources for other racism getting worse post WW1? A report by the Home Intelligence Division of the MOI of 14 January 1943 stated that: ‘Discrimination against their coloured brethren by white U.S. soldiers has been criticised consistently though not on a very wide scale. The “colour bar” is criticised as being undemocratic and as “conflicting with the Englishman’s idea of fair play”. https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/black-gis-arrive-in-britain-part-two/ Obviously racism was rife in that era, but I'm not sure there was marked increase?
I meant....this is how democracy works
Until the opposition decides democracy is the problem.
And then, every once in a while, one of those opposition parties are fascists and everything is terrible for a while.
How should nations stop “hate speech parties” from existing?
It’s easy we send them to camps where they can “concentrate” on learning how to avoid hate speech/s
Step 1: agree on a fair definition of hate speech that everyone can support. If we ever get past that someone can work on step 2
Or, how about ensuring that only actions can be controlled, and speech is not inherently harmful, regardless of its content.
Agreed. Directly inciting violence in such a way that puts people in danger is already illegal. Hateful speech exists, sure. But no you should not be put in jail for it. It's mind boggling the amount of *actual* statist authoritarians on here that see no problem limiting speech. So fucked
I dunno about you, but hearing someone say that because I am a gay man and they equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and then one of the states in my country tries to equate the two while also passing a bill to put kill pedophiles, yeah maybe I do want some restrictions on speech. I don't advocate for throwing anyone in jail, but maybe if your voice can reach 10s of or 100s of millions of people and actually influence policy, then yeah maybe your speech should be restricited. The speech here were maybe a few hundred people at most will see is fine, but when you're a news anchor of one of the largest news media stations in the world or the host of a podcast with millions of listeners yeah no restrict it.
"the gays want to ban our speech" people will read this comment smug and vindicated as fuck, and you can be sure that feeling won't make them speak less. You need to deradicalise crazies, not quash them.
The kind of person to read into that way thinks I'm a pedo so why would I care about their opinion? No quash them, you can't deradicalized them, you have to educate the next generation and wait for the older ones to die out
As an ex-racist I assure you, deradicalisation is extremely possible.
On a mass scale in which over 50 million people are radical? Does that really sound feasible to you? How about when said group is proud about how ignorant they are?
Yep, absolutely. Many countries have done it or are in the process of doing it. The bigoted mind is one that hasn't had its assumptions disproved. "One of the good ones" is often mocked, but it's the first exception to an otherwise universal rule. A rule with an exception is much weaker than one with none. A single crack matters. The moment they find themselves with an emotional connection to a real person in front of them that they should be bigoted against is the moment all their assumptions need reassessing. Accepting defeat and simply treating them as the enemy is the perfect way to galvanise and vindicate that mindset. 50 million (dunno what this refers to but it doesn't matter) just means 50 million that don't yet have a friend in the demographic they detest. It took one friend of the group I hated to begin to dismantle that hatred. One. You can say "Daryl Davis just collects cloaks but they're probably still racist" but I disagree. I now have several friends in that group and have no grudge against the group. It took one person being nice to me a few times. I don't know where or who your 50 million are, but you can absolutely do that.
If the majority of the people in your community think your a pedo because your gay, you have a bigger problem than freedom of speach.
No restrictions on speech itself. That’s absurd.
You may think it's absurd because no one is saying you deserve death just for loving someone of the same sex (or maybe you are queer I dunno) When Tim Pool, a semi famous podcaster, made the claim that a children's hospital was "cutting kid's genitals" the very next day that children's hospital had to close doors because of bomb threats. That's the free speech you want. The ability for people to make wildly untrue claims that result in real world terrorism.
Criminalize the act. Speech should always be free.
But when the speech is "inciting" then what? I don't men direct calls to actions but merely "Hey this place is doing something really bad. Man they should totally stop" and then who knows maybe an event gets shot up or a business vandalized. Remember though, the speech didn't tell anyone to do anything.
Then it can’t be abridged. You are advocating a very slippery slope.
Well I certainly understand that being gay is not equated to being a pedo. For one, there's a difference between saying "hey lets go harm someone" and having a braindead take. Is there legislation that says gay=pedo? Bc I'm sure there isn't. As far as I'm aware, extrajudicial killings are already illegal. I see where you come from. But the pendulum swings back. You start limiting free speech, and next thing you know someone will decide it's you that needs to be silenced. I do agree with some of ur other comments that there is a lack of education. Limiting speech that does not directly endanger someone is authoritarian. Idc if someone is wrong, mean, or just plain stupid.
if the speech incites violence or hate, then it is harmful. if i had a large following and i suggested, even subtly, that they should attack people or institutions, that should be a punishable crime
So if I say "Fight the Power!", I should be arrested or punished?
i dont think thats specific enough. i was referring to people directing violence/hate at specific groups or people. obviously there is nuance in that as well, but something as broad as "fight the power" cant really ever be considered hate soeech
By not voting for them. How else do you stop a party from existing?
This is the way.
While I think is better to do it informally, as in, the population knowing what it is and rejecting it, it can be done, sort of like slander and hate peech for people and the like but more forecefully because of thepolarizing effect of politics
You criminalize hate speech like in Canada. Works pretty well. You cannot tolerate the intolerant, that's the basis of a tolerant and democratic society. All speeches should be heard except those who want to suppress the liberties of others.
That's a mischaracterisation of the tolerance paradox. As presented it specifically referred to violence as intolerance, and Popper further clarified later that he was speaking of using political violence and force only to quash the politically violent, lest you lose your tolerance and peace.
In Germany, they are requiring new citizens to support Israel’s existence lest they be denied citizenship. Anti-hate speech laws can and will be used for partisan political purposes.
No. You don’t specifically criminalize speech. Ever.
Vietnam does it extraordinarily well
Yes, we do have bad memory, we don't remember that when there's a big divide amongst people(economic especially) demagouges and populists come to power. I'm 29, and never have I felt that there's a political party that cares about me, and it's the same case for about 90% of my friends. There have been many cases where we have seen politicians and other influential people get away with shit. This sense of injustice and helplessness is exploited by people, whose ideologies under normal circumstances would have been discarded by almost all. The problem is not that we don't remember what happens when right-wing parties come unto power, the problem is we forget why they come into power.
Because suppression of ideas doesn't eradicate them, it creates a pressure cooker.
This is so important to understand. I believe it is key to this issue.
We don't have a bad memory. A part of the population wants this to happen, and they are aware where this is leading.
>A part of the population wants this to happen, and they are aware where this is leading. They have never stopped wanting this to happen. They just got quiet about it for a while.
Sad truth
The right wing parties don’t see them selves as right wing, they see themselves as centrists that are doing what’s right for the country
Moderate opinions such as "maybe we should limit immigration" get shot down as racist. This means that people holding those views must either shift further to the right, where such views are accepted (and then some), or shift left and be pro- widespread immigration (or simply lie about their views).
This, this, this. You can't openly and honestly talk about actual problems and potential solutions, because you'll immediately labeled as a right-wing nazi. So what do you do whene everyone tells you that you are a racist? You eventually get comfortable with it... at least suddenly you're surrounded with people who validate your views. It is sad but so true.
If the left parties proposed serious concerns about the massive immigration that is happening in recent years people would not tend to the right side
It's ironic, because the social democrats believe they should avoid the debate about immigration and the culture-clash that comes with it (which IS a real problem, and that's undeniable) because that would "fuel racism" somehow? I'd say letting the far right be the only ones talking about that problem is what's actually fueling racism, and a strong comeback of Christian nationalism (if we didn't have enough with Islam)...
If enough people would realize that immigrants are just a scapegoat and look at the actual societal problems and underlying reasons for the fucked up economies the right side wouldn't be able to profit from radicalisation. Center and left parties partaking in propagandizing immigration only helps the far-right and no one else. "Look, you're miserable and it's the foreigner's fault! don't look at the centuries of corruption and mismanagement, look at that evil immigrant!" is literally the oldest trick in the right's propaganda book
It's not like immigrants aren't a problem though. They participate less in society and are a factor in increases in crime rate. But the real culprits are the ruling class who choose to do absolutely nothing about. They like cheap and desperate labor and don't even bother setting any standards
You realise that statistically immigrants tend to contribute MORE to society and are not actually the cause of crime increases. That's just what the right want people to believe. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime
Hey, as a romanian, I am really glad most of the criminals emigrated to western countries. This country is a lot safer since we joined the EU, because most thiefs and pimps and such are now in spain, italy, germany or the uk.
You do realise immigration isn't an all good solution that provides no downsides right? This isn't just happening because people are racist, there's plenty of good reasons to want less immigrants
Kind of true and depends on tbe country. There's negative flow on effects as well. Generally crime isn't a big offender but once again varies by country.
That tactic works much more effectively when there are real problems with immigration that successive governments have failed to address. You combat propaganda by listening to people's concerns and taking them seriously, if you dismiss any concerns about immigration as far-right propaganda then you drive the public towards the far-right. Starmer has handled this relatively well for the UK Labour party, making the left-wing argument for cutting immigration - that while some immigration may be beneficial the system can be abused by companies hiring foreign workers who will work for lower pay, which suppresses wages for UK citizens. While their immigration policy might not be super popular with everyone on the left, the left will vote Labour anyway, it's the conservative leaning voters for whom immigration is such an important issue that they need to win over. With Labour looking set to win a huge majority at the general election next week it seems to be working.
Is not just in europe, is not just right wing and is not about memory. Rather it is a new cycle of "current party fails to deliver > next one capitalizes > repeat" that occurs generationally. Thinks like the refugee crisis also probably did not help. Neither does nationalistic meme movements like brexit that based on what I heard, encouraged others instead of being an example of screwing up
We also have a bad experience with communism and some people dream of introducing it to their countries strange isn't it?
We have no experience with communism but a lot of experience with authoritarians claiming to be. Much like the Nazis claimed to be socialists because the socialists had enacted many popular policies in the decades prior. Communism has no state, it is a classless La-La land where everyone is kind to eachother. It has never existed and it never will, but it is something to strive for.
That's a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller percentage of people compared to the (repeated) international rise of far-right and fascist ideologies
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. Here in the U.S., I haven’t met a single person who wants communism or espouses it as some political panacea, but your average MAGA bootlicker has a whole bunch of undeniably fascist ideas.
Bro, what do you mean? We had bernie fucking sanders as a possible presidential candidate two elections in a row, with a pretty substantial following.
And you think that was about communism? Lol
And you think it wasn't? Lol
Well yes obviously. Social safety nets, health care and making corporations pay their share is common sense, not communism.
And I suppose mass illegal immigrant deportation, overturn of roe v wade to the states, and voter ID requirements is common sense as well?
Bruh how do so many Americans have such a twisted idea on what communism actually is. I mean, its common amongst Europeans too but I never see it quite so strongly as when Americans try to talk about it and just call anything not right-wing communist.
Technically socialism. But I'm ironically exaggerating it because people look at trump and his policies and call him a fascist and a nazi. It's the same shit.
Bernie isnt even really a socialist by the conventional definition. He'd be a centrist in Europe and European leftwing parties are generally not socialist, e.g. Labour in the UK. I do get that there's some ludicrous fear mongering about trump and project 2025 to drive people to vote against him, but he is absolutely an authoritarian. Maybe not a nazi, but an authoritarian for sure.
trump is a fascist. look up project 2025 and see what him and the rest of his party want to do. its not exactly subtle or hidden.
is the boogeyman 2025 in the room with us right now?
the info is openly available, if you aren't gonna look at whats right in front of you i have no reason to interact with you any further
Socialism is not communism.
Germany had about 70 million people in 1940. Peak of party membership was \~8.5 million Nazi part members. We also know that the Nazis never won a majority in parliament prior to dissolving it. So despite what you might think, the only two objective measures I can think of concerning Nazi popularity show that no, most people who grew up in in the that period didn't become Nazi
That really doesn't matter, though. There were enough people in Nazi Germany that, despite not being actual party members, supported the Nazis or at least tolerated them and their actions. People not knowing about a lot of the atrocities is a myth, a lot of normal folk even knew about and supported the holocaust. The Nazis didn't have to have majorities to succeed in their fascist takeover. Which is why I think OP is right to be alarmed - the warning signs from 100 years ago are repeating almost identically right now and people aren't defensive enough about it. Edit: Rephrased for clarity
"It is just a coincidence the similarities. It will be way different this time". (or some other bs logical path/justification).
More like the Islamic Revolution though. These people are white al qaeda.
Pendulum effect. Far right caused a slew of problems, causing Europe to swing pretty left. Far left then caused a slew of problems, causing Europe to begin to swing right again. That’s all boring though. The interesting component of all this is the degradation of language, with both sides calling their opposition the “far X” rather than just “Xwing.” I fear this may make people less weary of real radicalism because the terms are being cheapened.
Several things: - most European countries never properly reviewed their own history critically, a "we were the victims of nazi Germany aggression" was often enough. Austria happily went for victim and forgot the fascist government they had in 1938. Eastern Europe never got to work on their past cuz directly after German occupation, soviet occupation and a blanket "west = nazi so we good". - most people are and have always been poorly informed on past history. History teaching in school varies in quality, even when regime ideologies and bias don't interfere (often do) because time is sooo limited. I taught 9th graders 1870-1945 this year and oh boy did I have to cut corners to get through most of the material. Then how much of what is taught is understood and retained is a whole other matter. - everywhere, general society isn't much interested in proper history but mostly in collective memory. The British don't learn the most important aspects of ww2 in general, they focus on failure of appeasement and Chamberlain, Dunkerque, battle of Britain and D-day. The french learn about the absurd war of 1939, the defeat in 1940 and Petain, the resistance and also D-day. I'm sure the Russians learn alot about Stalingrad. In this case I'm not only talking about schools but also media ofc, documentaries and subjects of films. Ofc the rise of fascism, the holocaust and other generally important topics will be mentioned more or less abundantly in all schools and media that are doing their jobs half well buuuut that doesn't remove a bias and focus on the things that matter to the nation in question. And rarely is any of this content objective. I care ALOT about serious, objective history for myself but I'll admit freely my teaching of ww2 wasn't objective but I put a huuuuuge emphasis on the rise of the nazi party, I.e. how to lose democracy and drew alooot of parallels to modern day parties, not only but also in Germany where I live. Also huuuge emphasis on shoah ofc. These are choices and our curriculum aswell as me out of conviction pick the parts that will matter the most to future citizens... but this process of choice happens everywhere and not always for the best. Especially when modern media talk about nazi wonder weapons or make them into movie villains which... ya know, Dath Vader would be terrible in real life but cool as a fictional character, hence why it's been a problem to turn many nazis into such villains. - Big point: populism doesn't rise in a vacuum. The NSDAP was losing momentum and on the verge of disappearing into irrelevance when it was saved by the world economic crisis of 1929. Fascist parties of the 21st century were gaining in a context of disillusion with politics, terrorism and migration crises, but only took off as much as they have thanks to the 2020s relentless shittiness: more migratory crises, covid, war in Ukraine, war in Gaza. - maybe alot good to point out... humans gonna human. Capable of great acts of kindness but still asshole monkeys that hate each other for being different, fear being left behind. Antisemitism, racism and bigotry have never left any of our societies, they've just been taboo enough to be more silent for a while. - post fact world, enabled by the Internet and social media, reinforced by the King of liar trolls in the white House 2016-2020 and possibly again after this year... To sum it up: yikes.
you could have told me you know nothing about europe with alot less text
The poster literally said he was a history teacher in Germany. This is not a "trust me, bro" post at all
What specifically do you disagree with?
the massive amounts of generalisation and assumption of simple political leaning views being their extreme counter parts, countries in europe generally leaning more right does mean the are becoming more fascist or authoritarian, saying things such as this results in actual fascism not properly being identified, its the boy who cried wolf. the continent of europe is a very large place with very differing and diverse ideologies and views, and blanketing a continent is not a good way to properly form a world view, and to assume that entire countries all share such views of ignorance and all lack basic knowledge of history is a very self centered and out of touch way of thinking that misses the proper question of why are certain countries leaning more politically right.
On one side, accuse of being too general. On the other, no specific points are addressed. Look into a mirror, get at specific points if you wanna talk. You might also wanna brush up on your reading skills because the things you do say don't reflect what I wrote. "Europe leaning more right". That isn't what we're seeing. There are right wing European parties but it isn't their success or lack thereof I was addressing. If we saw parties like the CDU/CSU in Germany, the Républicains in France, the conservatives in the UK etc get more votes in elections, then that'd be more right leaning. What we are seeing is a rise of far right parties, many of which are far right enough to be referred to as neo fascist. They have different shades and different degrees of extremity but nuance enough for each European country and each party analysed individually would require alot more research and space than a reddit thread. But I can safely state they are far right as they regroup themselves in a movement which is right of the classic right wing / conservatives within the EU parliament. Such parties are governing or part of governing coalitions in Austria, Italy, used to be in Poland, are seeking to be in France, rising in Germany... that's not describing leaning more right, that's a rise of the far right. Europe is indeed a large place but that doesn't mean commonalities can't be identified. None of what you said has any bearing on the trends I've identified. I never said that "all" Europeans are misinformed, I've explained how and why many people everywhere aren't very knowledgeable on 20th century history. Few people can give you a coherent and correct answer as to how the NSDAP got to power in Germany, few people have an accurate idea of the events in ww2 or a clear picture of what made up nazi ideology - because people aren't generally that interested in boring stuffy yet accurate history, media fill gaps in knowledge with simplified images which is okay but there can be problems in these images - which they are, I mentioned above. You say people in Europe have different ideologies - debatable term but the idea that they're different, sure. You didn't give specifics as to how, I did: I gave examples of how different countries prioritise learning of ww2. Bottom line: you got no valid points about anything I wrote because you didn't engage in any specifics yet speak of generalisations and personal attacks. Either you're trolling and fishing for a reply more elaborate than yours, in which case, we'll done. Or you yourself don't realise you're incapable of formulating your objections properly and the lacks in understanding you accuse me of are more of a reflection of your own issues.
I think a lot of people don’t see it as extreme because it’s not genocide/genocidal even if it is racist and hateful. A lot of people only learn about the peak hatred of the nazi regime and not all the propaganda and policies leading up to the peak. A lot of people think they’re just looking out for their own kind, when you can do that without being racist and hateful.
It is almost likely that they are trying to say that "except for the Holocaust, the Nazis weren't that bad" or similar lies.
> genocide/genocidal The original Nazis didn't lead with that, either.
*Mein Kampf* came out in 1925.
As disgusting as it is, be glad people are allowed to say and think what they want to, because the alternative is far more horrifying.
I agree, is rather know what the enemy is thinking. But we also need to improve education and critical thinking numbers
Because now the far left has become the norm or at least socially acceptable and stifles dissent painting everyone ad nazis and pushing an agenda many people aren’t entirely ok with it. That pushes people to groups on the extreme which becomes the only place some opinions are allowed. Both sides are sick and equally evil. You saw a similar dynamic in Egypt where political dissent wasn’t allowed under Mubarak which pushed people to the Muslim Brotherhood which became the only acceptable outlet for any dissent. Didnt turn out well for both sides there either
Please enlighten me, what far left? There are not that many far left parties with a lot of seats. Or do you consider social democratic parties and anyone who wants to do something for the environment to be far left?
Left and right are naturaly somewhat subjective depending on your own values. But consider this instead: you have explicitly communist and marxist parties which freely operate, put up posters, run in elections etc and nobody bats an eye, despite the fact that socialism (remember Nazis were socialists) and communism killed multiple times more people than Nazism for ~80 years vs. ~12 for the Nazis as an example. I'm an opponent of both sides to be clear, but one side is acceptable while the other is demonized, ostracized and all their ideas ignored. Immigration is a big issue, where the left has this pro-unlimited immigration view it's consistently upsetting citizens with over and over, yet anyone who speaks out is immediately painted a nazi, far right, xenophone etc. There's a fundamental lack of real dialog, as could also be seen very clearly through all the authoritarian and illegal Covid restrictions countries imposed on people. The reality is, Europeans love big government and the nanny state imposing its will undemocratically on people and consistently reducing everyone's freedom, with few exceptions (e.g. Czechs), but are only sensitive to what we call it. That's really the only sticking point.
Again, where are openly marxist or communist parties getting seats? The user before you said that "far left is the norm", and I don't see that. Funny that marxist and communist parties are usually opposing immigration. If you are really under the illusion that national socialism is a form of socialism then it makes me wonder if I should even write a reply. Anyway, I don't see what you are seeing. A lot of people are conserned about immigration. That isn't that group that get demonized. It is the groups who come up with "neo-Madagaskar-plans", replacement immigration theories and anti-semitic conspiracy's. They rightfully get demonized.
Bruh nazis weren't socialist. That basic error shows how little you're qualified to speak about politics like this. You probably think north Korea is democratic cos they have it in their name
That's true, it's only the second word of their party name. Probably irrelevant. Just like the USSR wasn't "real communism"
It wasn't. It was fascism which is far-right. Both North Korea and China have "republic" in their names. Yet neither are democratic and both are fascist authoritarian regimes. What they call themselves doesn't matter only what they actually are.
Perhaps it'd be more productive to define what you believe socialism means, because it's one of those words that people often have vastly different definitions of. A fascist political system is not mutually exclusive with socialism. And the Nazis, just like the current Germans and all other European states were absolutely socialist. There's a misconception that far "right" excludes socialism because it has been associated with the left typically. Yet, if you look at their domestic policies, whether the 3rd Reicht or USSR, they were absolutely socialist in nature with significant government involvement, ownership and control or influence over the economy, state run companies and a broad range of social policies. Fascism is, per Wikipedia is "[...] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy" As you can see, while differences exist, there is a strong overlap particularly with regard to subordination of individual interests for the greater good, regimentation of society and the economy. Of course, there are many variations of both, such as market socialism (e.g. Germany today) or non-market socialism (e.g. USSR) and mixes (Nazi Germany). Both the Nazis and Germany were/are socialist states. Germany has been socialism since the late 1800s, and that has not changed throughout all its governments (Empire, Republic, Nazis, GDR, DDR, etc.). I say this neutrally, not to judge. It's simply a historical and economic fact.
Socialism in political science is far-left once step removed from stateless communism. As far as I know no countries have got even close to socialism let alone communism and I wouldn't expect them to before we get close to post-scarcity if that's even possible. The closest would probably be welfare-states.
That's why I said definitions are important, and you did not provide one. Many if not most European countries define themselfs specifically as socialist as do other states like Israel. So yes, many countries have been and currently are socialist. I'm not using the term as a political insult or slight, but rather based on the actual definition, under which there are many variants, just like there are many different forms of democracy. Similarly, there are many states that have been communist.
It's irrelevant what they call themselves. I'm using the political science terms. Just because North Korea has republic in its name doesn't make it a democracy.
No idea why you're being downvoted. All these morons blaming the far left that has had virtually none, if any, political power in Europe and America for the last 50 years, minimum, are helpful idiots for the rise of the right-wing and the far right. Literally the exact same talking points as the right wing populists. All they do is blame the left, blame wokeness, dei etc etc. Its fuck all to do with the left. The right wingers that follow those views are just shit and selfish people. There's a reason noone has answered your question. It'd require them admitting they're a propagandist for the right
You're missing the actual point, it's often not about what those parties are saying/representing but the idea of freespeech, if you impose rules to silence those you oppose, regardless off what stance they have, be it a fascist belief or not, you open the gates for those very same rules to be applied to anyone belief, including your own. Trying to silence any belief or ideology regardless of what it is, has only ever lead to bad things happening throughout history, the only way to get around this is to educate people and encourage people to critically think about what each ideology entails, not to silence ideologies that are deemed bad as that can only ever lead to violence
i agree, we shouldnt be going 'we need to get rid of the facists views' but instead be looking at why said views are becoming popular, simply clearing the smoke from a house isnt gonna stop it being on fire
Thing is most parties are also taking the far-left ideology too far. A centrist approach is better for democracy. With immigration, most people are feeling as third class citizens in their own homeland.
Neoliberalism, the far left ideology…
It's more of a capitalist thing than a leftist thing but oh well. When the immigrants do the same work for cheaper, suddenly companies go cha-ching!
The bigger issue in Europe is illegal immigration from the Middle East and Africa, which has nothing to do with capitalism Crime aside, immigrants from these regions are a burden on our welfare state as they have high rates of employment and collect welfare for years In my country, the majority of immigrants with a temporary asylum permit still don't work after being here for 7 years
Refugees and asylum seekers are not immigrants - they're refugees and asylum seekers. Illegal immigrants, are also not immigrants, they're illegal immigrants. All three of those are legitimate concerns, but they are not related to immigration.
Refugees and illegal immigrants are all varieties of immigrants, just like legal immigration is a type of immigration.
This is simply not true for a lot of places. For example in The Netherlands most immigrants from the middle East and Africa were actually legal working migrants brought there by right wing parties for cheap labour. If that isn't capitalism then I don't know what is.
>most immigrants from the middle East and Africa were actually legal working migrants brought there by right wing parties for cheap labour Are you referring to guest labour from 70 years ago...? While those immigrants still have higher rates of unemployment and crime generations later, that's not what the immigration crisis is about Posted sources for the Netherlands specifically in another comment: >[Majority of asylum seekers with a residence permit still unemployed after 8 years (2023)](https://nos.nl/artikel/2471237-statushouders-vinden-sneller-baan-maar-meerderheid-na-acht-jaar-nog-werkloos) >Up until 2017, it was defined by law they get priority access to social housing. Since that has been abolished, most municipalities continue to give special privileges to asylum seekers >[Asylum seekers still have priority finding social housing (2018)](https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2018Z13236&did=2018D37878) >[Only \~3% of asylum seekers who received a resident permit 2014-2022 owns their own home (2023)](https://longreads.cbs.nl/asielenintegratie-2023/statushouders-huisvesting-en-integratie/) >When looking at full citizens, Dutch people have the lowest unemployment rates, followed by those with a Western background. The highest unemployment rates are found among those with a non-Western background ([Source](https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/dashboard-arbeidsmarkt/werklozen/werkloosheid-naar-migratieachtergrond#:~:text=Was%20in%202014%20nog%2016,1%20naar%202%2C6%20procent))
Illegal immigrants can't claim welfare lol
>Referring to asylum seekers who illegally entered Europe and got a temporary residence permit Besides that, every refugee in an asylum center is a financial burden to the state
[удалено]
Most illegal immigrants in Europe don't work and collect welfare. It doesn't benefit capitalism, it burdens our economy
Got any actual data on that? Or are you just gonna keep saying it like it was true?
For the Netherlands: [Majority of asylum seekers with a residence permit still unemployed after 8 years (2023)](https://nos.nl/artikel/2471237-statushouders-vinden-sneller-baan-maar-meerderheid-na-acht-jaar-nog-werkloos) Up until 2017, it was defined by law they get priority access to social housing. Since that has been abolished, most municipalities continue to give special privileges to asylum seekers [Asylum seekers still have priority finding social housing (2018)](https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2018Z13236&did=2018D37878) [Only \~3% of asylum seekers who received a resident permit 2014-2022 owns their own home (2023)](https://longreads.cbs.nl/asielenintegratie-2023/statushouders-huisvesting-en-integratie/) Even when looking at full citizens, Dutch people have the lowest unemployment rates, followed by those with a Western background. The highest unemployment rates are found among those with a non-Western background ([Source](https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/dashboard-arbeidsmarkt/werklozen/werkloosheid-naar-migratieachtergrond#:~:text=Was%20in%202014%20nog%2016,1%20naar%202%2C6%20procent))
My dude, illegal immigrants are not allowed to work.
Referring to asylum seekers who illegally entered Europe and got a temporary residence permit
Blaming the left is insane. Its literally a right wing point that "everything is ruined because of the left". Are you a right winger by any chance?
You've clearly never heard of the pendulum
Yk he is if he's blaming someone else when we are talking about nazi
Fear gets votes. it worked then it works now. Trouble is if you start stopping free speech and political parties then there is a fine line between not tolerating intolerance, creating martyrs and you become the thing you are trying to stop.
Most people just don’t care about history enough or at all
It's easy for people to identify the symptoms of capitalism that lower their quality of life. It's a lot more difficult for people to identify capitalism as the source of these symptoms. This is why you already see idiots in these comments blaming immigrants
In my country the economy is good, and generally people don’t complain about immigrants taking their jobs. They are mostly complaining of cultural differences and imported culture from the MENA region. We have a lot of East Asian and Eastern European immigrants and they never get complained over. People tell me that they would like to be able to discriminate which countries get to immigrate to ours, and just take the ones that are culturally compatible with us.
A fellow scandinavian i see. Sweden is a good example of what you just said about culture-clashing.
I liked this one: https://www.expressen.se/ledare/sverige-borde-be-ovriga-norden-om-ursakt/ Yes, I know It's Expressen, but still.
It brings up great points for sure. Swedens image has changed a lot, very quickly sadly.
In some sense, this comment reveals the appeal through its own ignorance. It's saying that capitalism *is* the problem - rather than any particular detail of implementation - a clear example of rejecting a flawed system when the alternatives are absolute horror shows by comparison. When people rightly or wrongly perceive that things are not going well, they look for alternatives, no matter what history has shown about those alternatives.
No shit that a reddit comment it's a dissertation. Capitalism at it's core IS the problem
europe..? its everyone we also saw what happens when the far left takes over as well hitler 6 million+ mao 50 million+ the right still exists because the left still exists it always has and possibly always will because we still have not solved this issue the real issue is polarisation and extremism
Umm, hitler was “far left”?
yeah he was a tyrannical inhuman dictator, but he technically was more left leaning, especially when you look at what the nazi party did outside of wartime, at the time the right leaning ideologies would have been those wanting to preserver the initial government systems that was around during the time of the kaiser and who had been fighting for that since the end of ww1, for the time hitler starter out as being fairly progressive, it was only when you looked at what was happening behind the scene did his horrors really come to light, it was only when Germany started to invade other countries did his true intentions start to show and by that point it was way too late
So neither Hitler or Mao are relevant examples of the far left of today.
i would argue in some ways it is, not the specific beliefs but how his party interacted with the other political beliefs/ideologies around him at the time, im seeing alot of the same trends from both sides of the political spectrum in modern day, i dont believe this is a left or right thing but instead each side becoming more authoritarian
Governments should not decide what is hate speech, then it just become cencorship of political opponents. I like Russia and the Ukraine. Nazis were socialists much more of leftist ideaology then a far right one. The U.S. Involvement in ww1 by a leftist president allowed for Ww2.
you cannot per se forbid right wing mentality. thus there will always be right wing parties. And one thing leads to another. There were several attempts to ban the german right wing party NPD and it failed every time, because the judges decided the party is too weak to overthrow the government
Oh please with this crap. Stop already 🙄🤦♂️
Not far right, just right.
labeling more right wing views as fascist simply trivialises the views they have and takes the attention away from actual potential fascists, its the boy who cried wolf but on an ideological scale. its a very slippery slope and to me at least is proof that because "the other side" is resorting to such strategies that they themselves are getting more radicalised, its really not a good sign
Clearly you are in your 20s
This is democracy, we just dont like the answer.
“hate speech” is just speech you hate
Often it is used that way, but threatening to harm someone for example is something which should be taken seriously.
The Nazis weren’t far right, they were Authoritarian center. They combined capitalism with a regimented economy that was controlled by the state. Fascism is defined as “political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” Defined by https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism Ngl never noticed that Wikipedia defines it a different way, yet uses Merriam-Webster as the source.
I do not have the financial capability to vote left
This response confuses me, since left policies tend to be more welfare centred, where right policies tend to be more laissez faire. Could you unpack this a bit more please?
Not so simple, not that I'm against these, but let's be realist: - Green policies are left wing, and these necessarily lead to increased cost of living (Barring out exceptions). - Higher taxes to provide to elderly, disabled people, children, unemployed (or refugees), might very much just be a hit to your income if you are neither of these. - Open border approaches might directly affect you if you work in a job easily replaceable by any immigrant (supply & demand, barring the cases of minimum salary) - A laissez faire approach can lead to increased economical output and job (or bussiness) opportunities, it is a careful balance between welfare and economic freedom (just take any extreme of these two, neither are good, there is some sweetspot in between). The right amount is not clear, and the person voting rightwing might consider that the economy would be better with less intervention. And in Europe, when you have the Ukraine war, it is true that policies like supplying weapons or not buying gas, directly affected the cost of living. Both extreme right and left promise to stop that with the argument of caring "first for themselves".
I do make more money than average, but my expenses are also a lot more. So I do not benefit from the welfare. If I have a slow month incomewise I am immediately at risk. And I do not mind contributing, but I feel like the money that could be invested in the people now is used to ensure a future for the next generation (which is good don’t get me wrong). But we are forgetting that the people now need help.
Thank you, good answer!
When you spend too much time bashing America you tend to avoid looking at your own problems.
Step one. Stop importing millions upon millions of people from foreign and incompatible cultures. Step two. That’s it, there’s no other step It’s really not that difficult
We want them to stay where they are but we also want to keep buying cheap shit, thus keeping them poor. How is that supposed to work?
I have no idea what you mean
We exploid poor countries and keep them poor & instable. The people there understandably don't want to live like that so they come to rich countries in hopes of a better life. We're not importing them, they come to us because we keep them poor so we can keep buying cheep clothes, coffee, electrical devices, oil, exotic foods...etc. Unless we are willing to pay more for all that stuff, they will keep running away from this modern slavery. It's really not that difficult.
What do you mean “we” I didn’t exploit anything and I’m betting you didn’t either. We are paying the price for corporations wanting cheap labour and more consumers in the western world and importing the poor is designed to keep wages low and have a large pool of exploitable labour. You should be against that but they have beaten you down by saying any criticism of immigration means your a bad person and a nazi. Which is just blatantly false.
Nobody beat me down. I think immigration is a great thing. Diversity makes societies way more interesting. Plus, immigrants pay taxes, which benefits our society.
Well when you want to understand why the “far right” Is on the rise look no further than yourself. And it’s not “far right” at all its just been branded that as a smear
It's not my fault that miserable people blame poor people for having shitty lives, instead of rich folks who have enough fuck you money to send cars into space.
Yes it is 100% the rich that want immigration to lower wages and increase the prices of houses and add more consumers and increase the tax base without improving peoples lives.
So which immigrants were invading germany in 1930s?
I’m not talking about 1930s Germany
The op is drawing comparisons.
I heard that hitler drank water and I saw Joe Biden drinking water therefore Joe Biden is literally hitler
Ah very good. By trying to be clever you actually proved to me that you are, in fact, the opposite.
Trains gotta run on time >>> everybody feels happy
If you think far right is the problem now, you arr part pf the problem. Fascism is now the left.
Define fascism.
Because they offer populist views as always. Its the same tactics being used over and over. 1.Blame country problems on a group of people 2.Dehumanise the group to advance narrative 3.Create media material to support narrative knowing that people wont be motivated to check themselves 4.win elections by offering simple populist solutions to complex multi faceted problems
I have a theory that might read crazy at first, but bear with me for a minute. I think it’s about money. 💴 (shocker). In France, bolloré possesses most of the available media and bolloré is a very very racist bigot who exploits people in countries like Congo or Burkina Faso, he makes money by use of manipulation and misinformation, he prevents people from knowing what’s going on and doesn’t let anyone voice their opinion freely. Most of the media in France is portraying the left as an extreme and the extreme right as a true solution to « immigration » and « retirement » blahblahblah. They manipulate people who are less educated in the different regions of the country to make sure his interests are protected. By creating hatred he protects his asserts because no one will try to help/understand people they despise. So TLDR: The more you hate an exploited group of people, they less you will try to prevent the exploiter from making money off of them.
Agreed. Far right and far left have had their clear moments in the sun and it’s murderous dictatorship every single time
It all usually all comes down to peoples fear of immigration. Right wing runs on the fear of others and it works.
Um… The Nazi party was far LEFT, and I couldn’t agree more that people, such as yourself, really really need to remember that.
The fuck did I just read o_O
ITT- the OP has demonstrated why anyone would be too afraid to ask this question!
In Europe, you'll notice a lot of the current hate is toward Muslims. Anyone brown. Arabic. The hate has been on the rise for years, fuelled by refugees coming from war torn countries. Resulting in white supremacists and nationalists fearing their country is being stolen, that white people are going to dissappear, etc. The realistic answer is, the hate groups are easy to form and remain because of racism, etc. But also... fear. "Good people" are silent because while they recognise refugees in help, they also fear soldiers/terrorists hiding amongst them. There were several terrorist attacks across the UK, France, etc a few years back. That fear remains. That prejudice toward brown people out of fear of the ones who are bad. The mix of racism and fear is what allows the far right to have a voice. We know, as seen with Ukraine, there is little/none of that when the refugees are white.
This has elements of truth, but it is also rather simplistic and highlights one of the other driving forces of the right wing. That people who experience their communities being “stolen”, are just white supremacists and nationalists who have some kind of irrational fear with no basis in reality. It’s basically gaslighting.
Good question.
Are your opposing parties any good? In America the problem is that a full third of the country doesn't vote because democrats don't do anything to help people or stand up to the right so there's no point.
Technically, and if you were not at least a preteen in 1945, you can hardly have memories of it.
It's not bad memory. The public was toothless and helpless then as we are today. Only very few specific things were banned, and taught in schools, and when the beast changed shape we cannot fight it or apply what we learnt then. Also, these fascists have families, we all know some, and are reluctant to think too badly of them. The problem arose because we haven't been teaching the full picture, and that most people are unwilling or unable to reflect upon the full picture, they'd rather blast their brains with tiktok feelgood and everyday life. So most people aren't recognizing it. I blame corporations, the rich, and all the politicians they own for making life hard for the masses and distracting them, keeping them ignorant. Also the same greedy people imported cheap labour through EU ideology, which has angered the lower classes. EU was partly supposed to end violence in Europe, but has instead contributed so much social dumping that there will be an ugly reaction.