undefined

points

by MrBuddyCasino7 hours ago |

comments

by vkou7 hours ago|

[-]

> for the first time since the post-WWII order, they are threatened by a real regime change.

It's only new if you are blind to post-WWII history.

In the western world alone, there was no shortage of incredibly vicious fights with communist/socialist groups in in post-war Europe (Most prominently in Italy and Greece), to say nothing of the various domestic decolonisation movements (The British and French governments were scared shitless of them), secessionist movements in Quebec, Spain, that entire thing in North Ireland (the understatement of the century), the Civil Rights and universal suffrage movement in the US, collapse of prominent dictatorships in Portugal and Spain...

State-threatening social upheaval is nothing new, we just have a particularly shitty flavour of it right now, as fascism and fascist-adjacent movements are currently waxing.

by pocksuppet12 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Fascism is, and always has been, how capitalism defends itself from socialism. When the population starts getting the idea that the people who rules us (billionaires) are bad people or have too much power, the rulers defend themselves by redirecting it at one or more scapegoat groups instead (like Skaia in Homestuck, to make a particularly silly analogy). Often, this works. This is what happened in Germany.

The word "fasces" as in "bundle of sticks" refers to to the elites putting aside their individual differences and banding together to protect their class. They have no problem doing class consciousness.

by MrBuddyCasino3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

You are mixing every western conflict you've heard of in one big bucket, stir vigorously and call it an argument. What do wars of religion (which happen under most forms of government, except perhaps communism) have to do with democracy?

What is "the Civil Rights and universal suffrage movement in the US" if not a continuation of the leftist politics that Roosevelt started? What has the authoritarian Franco regime got to do with "democracy"?

None of this makes any sense.

by vkou2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Most of the events I've listed cannot be described as 'one side wins and makes the other illegal'. Many of them ended with compromises, or partial success, or complete success, but the losers were not banished from public life. (They just held on to coalitions of waning influence. Some of them are resurging.)

> What is "the Civil Rights and universal suffrage movement in the US" if not a continuation of the leftist politics that Roosevelt started

The CRM was bottom-up, with personalities like Malcolm X and MLK both scaring the shit out of the government, due to their ability to mobilize millions of people.

Did they win and make the other side illegal? No.

Did the dipshits they fought win and make them illegal? I'd say no to that, as well.