• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle

  • Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities

    Well that’s blatantly not the argument at all. The question isn’t whether to react, but what do you do about it?

    The vast majority of fascist movements are destroyed through nonviolence rather than violence, which itself is typically inseparable from fascism. To refer to the post below, what ended Jim Crow? Was it a bunch of black people going around punching suspected Klan members? On the contrary it was the reverse. The Klan “lynching people and getting away with it” included key rallying points like the murders of Emmett Till, or the Mississippi Burning murders, along with state violence like the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Sure, maybe the fascists themselves got away with it, but fascism didn’t. The things the Klan and other segregationists fought for were dismantled, in large part thanks to their own violent efforts.

    Nazis don’t need a justification for their violence, but their enablers - Von Papen, or the would-be modern equivalent Mike Pence - do. And these enablers need to tell themselves, their family, and their neighbors, that they have good reasons for their decisions. Exposing fascism as the senseless violence it is robs them of that justification, while giving the fascists a threat to refer to provides it.


  • I’m just gonna focus entirely on the common misunderstanding of the use of violence against Nazis in WWII because that’s such a common argument for punching nazis and it’s really quite wrong on so many levels.

    “But Nazis were stopped by violence in WWII.” That’s a meaningless statement without the missing last word. Violence stopped Nazis militarily, after they had already seized power in Germany and were invading other countries. Today we’re not in a military battle with Nazis, we’re in an ideological battle.

    So why did the Nazis seize power in Germany? Because they weren’t punched enough? Well the exact mechanism behind how the nazis seized power is a complex web of illegal political maneuvers, political violence, and yes, some degree of ideological success by the nazis. But a key part of that ideological success was the fear of political violence by their opponents - most notably the Reichstag fire - to justify the power that they were illegally taking. It was basically “desperate times require desperate measures”. So in the ideological battle, the perceived* use of violence by Nazi opponents was actually a key part of their victory within Germany.

    Meanwhile, over in the US, the contrast between the violence employed by the German American Bund (the US version of the Nazi party) and largely Jewish peaceful protesters ended up being a massive embarrassment to the Bund from which they never recovered. Again, ideologically, non-violence proved quite effective.

    Point being, and this should be obvious - violence is a really bad option for succeeding in an ideological battle. Yes, in a military battle, it’s the only rational option. But in an ideological battle, it’s actually counterproductive.

    *Obligatory caveat that whether the Reichstag fire was actually set by nazi opponents remains debated, but suffice to say the political atmosphere at the time made it plausible.






  • rsuri@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldSide by Side
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Trump gave the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, to Miriam Adelson because she inherited a fortune and gave a bunch of that to Trump’s campaign. In case you don’t believe me, here’s her wikipedia page, there’s no other accomplishments of note to be found there.

    So I dunno what you mean by “shadowy government swamp”. But if trading taxpayer-funded awards for money isn’t part of it…shouldn’t it be?

    And as for Harris, she’s one of the few people in congress to actually invest in index funds to avoid conflicts of interest and insider trading in stock investing. She’s not above criticism, but she’s probably one of least swampy politiicans out there.