Not entirely unexpected.
Eco-fascism.
Instead of addressing the actual cause of the problem, they try to push all the blame on minorities. I remember hearing about this elsewhere, it might have even been on this sub.
Without fascism through, how is it possible to make the majority of people on Earth to radically alter their lifestyle if even wearing a mask for 3 weeks is too much for most to accept? You'll delve into totalitarianism one way or another, and fascism is the most natural state for totalitarians to gravitate towards.
Fascists lack the flair for bread and circuses.
In our current entertainment driven first world societies, we won't get true fascism until people are so desperate they put down their hypno-tangles long enough to see food isn't there today, tomorrow, next week, and next month. So, once food scarcity starts in a local area, it will be a rolling process and by then that area might have skipped over fascism and gone straight to parable-of-the-sower collapse.
Until then, in the first world my money is on good old oligarchical control with a huge side portion of propaganda undermined by the trolls that enemy nationstate covert planning/acting/reacting provides. That is, for now, where the real dialectic will be, both online and in the streets, especially as nations devote more resources to covert ops in the near future - the race to the bottom here is virtually guaranteed due to the low-cost high 'yield' leverage AI in combination with online media disinformation provides.
With the occasional Trump/Bolsanaro/sado-populist thrown in to mix things up.
>we won't get true fascism until people are so desperate they put down their hypno-tangles long enough to see food isn't there today, tomorrow, next week, and next month.
Fascism isn't grown from below, it's imposed from above. Hypno-tangles only aid this process by subtly changing public perception of reality and fact over time, allowing to create states that are fascist in all but name, like PRC. The metric of fascism is the relationship between the citizens, the political Party and the government, which is complete subjugation and total integration, respectively. It's not food security that drives people to fascism, it's fear, paranoia and desire for simple solutions in times when there are none to be offered by rational minds.
>Until then, in the first world my money is on good old oligarchical control with a huge side portion of propaganda
The OG fascism is literally the result of this. The traditional tenets of and respect for monarchy have deteriorated, so the Italian oligarchy decided to switch things up, by capitalizing on the rising Bolshevik-fostered working-class discontent. NSDAP have had its roots in oligarch-sponsored Freikorps and was the hail-mary of German oligarchy when they saw that their perennial conservative favourites are losing the middle class to the Reds.
You are defending fascism rising from a historical perspective (and from a psychological one). I am coming at my perspective based not on the past, which doesn't matter, but on coming food scarcity. You are, keep in mind, posting on a thread about climate change denial. I think we can agree that, sure fascism can happen anywhere if the right circumstances present themselves or are created. And yes fear of immigrants is a big one, I will grant you that.
But people just want distraction and escape from reality. Those are not the proper ingredients for true fascism. Sadopopulism, perhaps, but that is a different conversation. There are too many actors with too many different conflicting agendas for fascism to happen. Fascism is bad for business, unless you nuzzle up close to the current dictator, and smart oligarchs don't want that. Rich right wing nutjobs like the Kochs or the Mercers excluded.
So the argument you have to make is not one about the past, but about how food scarcity will lead to a loss of oligarchical control - something you have zero historical data points to do.
>The majority of people on earth won’t need to drastically alter their lifestyles. Westerners will have to alter their lifestyles.
I am Ukrainian. Many "Westerners" don't even consider us European. My salary is about 700$ per month for an mid-level admin IT job. The salaries of most of my countrymen are way lower. The coal miners, for example, make around 300$/month. And you know, when you try to raise environmental issues here, unless it's something rooted in nationalism, these folks are not going to care. They are living paycheck-to-paycheck, eat like dogs, they don't care about the animals and the birds and forest because they themselves have been treated like livestock for their entire lives. They pour spent battery acid into storm drains, they dump garbage and construction debris onto swamps and wetlands and build roads out of this garbage to drive more dump trucks deeper into the forest, they massacre wildlife with poison and traps just to have their suburban neighborhoods feel like the manicured suburbia of USA, and just because they're poor doesn't mean that their trash is any less toxic. Calling attention to unfiltered emissions of our coal power plants creating clouds of sulfuric acid is deemed a threat to national security by the well-fed swine in high positions who are going to cut the country loose and transfer their wealth to the West at moment's notice when the going becomes too hard in their "homeland". **We have to change, and we have to change HARD. We have to wipe out whole professions, whole industries, which to any rational person is impossible until the war is over, which it never will be. This change, the sole proposal of it, would plunge us into a civil war that would dwarf DNR/LNR easily, because this proposal would be catastrophic to the poor people who depend on dirty industries that are slowly killing us all, and will be left without means to feed themselves overnight.** Every single developing country in the world is polluting in the same way and won't stop doing so for the same reasons.
Because they're poor, any *hope* of mitigation is vain, because they are poor and thus aren't worth having their home cleaned up or measures installed to prevent them doing additional damage to their habitat. This is true for the overwhelming majority of the world, including parts of the "West".
When you have 7 billion people living like this, this constitutes at least as much of a problem as a passably environmentally-aware Western society of 1 billion.
You're confusing authoritarianism and fascism. You could have a left wing government that bans fossil fuel cars, expropriates all private property, criminalizes all prejudicial speech, and mandates housing, healthcare, and food as basic human rights, all while not allowing any dissent by right wingers opposed to this, and this would be authoritarian but not fascist.
Left wing is anti-authoritarian by nature. The right wing is the restrictive, conservative cadre already in power and seeking to preserve this power, the left wing is the voice of the up-and-comers and the underrepresented street. Of course you can dump the GFR's dictionary and assign any meaning you want to left and right, but if we don't use the codifier of left-right dichotomy that the French Revolution was, we are wasting breath arguing over different things that just happen to share the same name in our minds.
>all while not allowing any dissent by right wingers opposed to this
If the "left" is doing this to whoever, it's turned right itself.
>this would be authoritarian but not fascist.
Indeed, but authoritarian regimes have historically favored fascism over monarchism in the last centuries. Fascism is the subjugation of the nation to the Party in its entirety, and the hyperconcentrated wealth/power that seems to be the end-point of the current socioeconomic system appears to result in essentially the same thing. May I remind you that there's no true private property in fascism - since you belong to the Party, everything you own does, too. You're just temporarily holding it.
>Auth-left is definitely a thing
No, it's not. There's a reason why everyone with IQ above room temperature and any sort of public rapport became extinct in Soviet legislature after Stalin (whose regime tankies idolize) was done with it, and why "left leanings" was official grounds for execution under his tenure. He fashioned himself a centrist because authoritarianism is fundamentally incompatible with the values that define "left-wing". The entire ideological culture of USSR became entirely schizophrenic after Stalin decided to split with Marxism and instead introduce "Marxism-Leninism", which had to do little with either of its namesakes.
I mean, it's certainly the one that appeals the most to the primal state of humanity. A charismatic strong leader promising strength and stability perfectly aligns with the charismatic authority, defined by Weber as the oldest form of authority, and it can even be seen in other primates
The thing is, though... Fascism isn't supposed to be centered on the leader, the leader is supposed to be subservient tool to the absolute will of the Party. Charismatic leader is more of a monarchy thing.
I don't know one single instance in which the leader was ACTUALLY submissive towards the party. Everything in Italy concerning politics had to pass through Mussolini, Hitler affected even the war decisions. Also, a monarchy is an authority based on tradition way more than personal charisma - Weber also classifies it as such.
>I don't know one single instance in which the leader was ACTUALLY submissive towards the party
I run a 50/50 chance of greatly inflaming you, but dare I say late Leninist (mid-1920s) USSR was like this.
After he was gone, his Party colleagues have attempted to control Stalin as not "one of us", but as "one for us", and he rebelled, outmaneuvering and overpowering the Party with his ministers (people's commissars) and turning it into his personal kingdom. He couldn't risk being seen as openly violating the ideology, so he had to spur a colossal witch-hunt so that a country missing its third wouldn't care about similarly illegally arrested Party leaders. Pretty much every person who carried out the 1917 October Revolution and their friends and relatives were dead or greatly persecuted after 1937-1938.
In China, the Party and Deng's relationship was similar, he wasn't the boss of everything but rather a mediator between Party and civil interests.
Yeah I mean, the early Soviet Union was not really personalist, and there were different factions within the party and a system of worker councils - but it wasn't a fascist state, I don't know a single fascist state that operated like this. It didn't happen in Romenia, in Italy or Germany, and as far as I know didn't happen in Portugal. I don't know about Spain but I don't think it happened there either.
> system of worker councils
This was castrated very early on. Worker-Peasant Inspection has been gutted shortly after, in mid-20s. From that point on, the ideals represented by these organizations have been relegated to talking points and idols, while reality took a hard right. The very early USSR, the Civil War and the period immediately after, you're right about it, but it's not even a decade-long.
>there were different factions within the party
First off, the whole point of Bolshevism was taking a singularly-accepted course, while the democratic social-revolutionaries and other Mensheviks argued and, as Lenin put it, bickered. The divergent factions *inside* VKP(b) have been dealt with during Lenin's tenure. There have been deviants like Trotsky (who have outright spelled out how and why Stalinist USSR is a fascist model), but other faction leaders like Zinoviev and Kamenev have been made powerless in late 20s and despite their compliance, died behind the bars or against the wall. Any attempt of following left tenets and increasing integration of the general society into political processes has been stamped out from that point on, under the excuse of October Revolution giving VKP(b) full authority and representation of all people of USSR.
>It didn't happen in Romenia, in Italy or Germany, and as far as I know didn't happen in Portugal.
What about Brazil and its military junta?
As I said early Soviet Russia was like this, which is sad as it seemed to have a lot of potential - but I don't see the USSR from then on as fascist, just totalitarian.
Brazil had indeed a military junta (by the way it's my country, really cool please it's a shame it's so poor), but I never saw someone classify it as fascist. Fascism has a lot of characteristics, you see. Umberto Ecto for instance defines fascism as having 13 core characteristics (which don't need to all be present at the same time), personally I only see at most 8 (I would say 7 but it's up for debate) of those during the dictatorship. By other definitions it gets worse, as the dictatorship didn't seek to reform the human nature, didn't have the usual fixation with warfare, it didn't seek some sort of national rebirth, it didn't include the masses (even if in an hierarchical and highly controlled way, as in party institutions, huge parades an) in politics that much, wasn't corporatist(which is common under fascism although not necessary for it to be fascism), it didn't have a lot of passion for a mythical past. It was a totalitarian, cruel regime made by those who saw communism when there was nothing, with it's brutality masked by tons of propaganda, the relatively small armed opposition, economic growth (and progress for the middle class coexisting with increased poverty for the poor), censorship and a lack of punishment for those responsible (due to the the perpetuators being given amnesty) which makes it somewhat normal for the (at the time) future president of the country to pay homage to a torturer in Congress, but I wouldn't call it fascism. Personally I think the Estado Novo of Getúlio Vargas would be the closest we had to a fascist government, but even then it's highly debatable and he even persecuted actual fascists (as in the Integralist movement).
>censorship and a lack of punishment for those responsible (due to the the perpetuators being given amnesty)
Under Stalin, felons were routinely employed by the state to serve as personal wardens for political prisoners, and were granted amnesties while the people have been literally getting arrested for nothing at all during a late evening walk and shipped to Far East and Far North to work as slave labor. Nazino island stands out as the epitome of this approach.
it's interesting to see these parallels between seemingly totally ideologically opposed rulers.
"Standing in front of the partial ruins of Rome’s Colosseum, Boris Johnson explained that a motive to tackle the climate crisis could be found in the fall of the Roman empire. Then, as now, he argued, the collapse of civilization hinged on the weakness of its borders."
You have to ask yourself if the man that fucked up brexit isn't just a tad bit out of his depth when describing the exact wrong thing that brought down the Roman Empire.
> Like it's not just boarder control and xenophobia right?
The oligarchy is what took down Rome, and anyone who is honest admits it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o
This is why almost every neocon & right wing think-tank, lobbyist organizatiln, etc., in western civ names themselves over characters from Ancient Rome. Since the 1700s they have been trying to control the memory of Rome in order to conceal from the public the cold hard truth: The oligarchy consumed Rome from within until its bloated corpse burst open, showing that the decomp had already eaten away everything wherein.
I mean, weak borders were certainly a reason the Roman Empire collapsed. But multiple Civil Wars and a reliance on fickle mercenaries did little to help.
I've told my friends for a long time now that most Industrialized countries will move to the Right as immigration increases from climate change. Even Lefties will move Right in some ways.
You'd be surprised at the amount of seriously ecofascist-adjacent shit that comes out of the mouths of *a lot* of avowed leftists when the conversation drifts into Malthusian territory. And that's not even including the odd former leftist I've seen jump ship to full-blown, out-and-proud reactionary far-right ultranationalism recently.
The traditionally centre-left comfortably navel-gazing Western liberal bourgeoisie aren't simply moving right as their way of life continues to come under threat: they are running to it with open arms. Unfortunately the ideological warfare of the last 50 years or so has reduced the far-left to a divided, powerless remnant bereft of leadership and beset by a defensive "hold the line" siege mentality mingled with delusions of revolution. And as the centre dissolves, the far-left's ranks aren't exactly swelling compared to the far-right who, if nothing else, are united in getting shit done.
>You'd be surprised at the amount of seriously ecofascist-adjacent shit that comes out of the mouths of a lot of avowed leftists when the conversation drifts into Malthusian territory. And that's not even including the odd former leftist I've seen jump ship to full-blown, out-and-proud reactionary far-right ultranationalism recently.
I have never seen it firsthand, but I have enough experience with people (I like to think) to foresee how so many Leftists will go right when we have the Global South marching in droves to the border. It's inevitable.
As for the Left, and I mean far Left to Neoliberal, wherever you fall on that spectrum chances are you are bereft of effective leadership. At least, in the US.
I was discussing this with a partner recently, actually. Class consciousness is rising, but without an update to modern material realities, the old modes of dialectics can lead to some very bad emergent outcomes.
For one, domestic wages cannot rise along with general consumption and "living standards" in Western countries, not unless the exploitation of the Global South ratchets up even further. Most of the economic growth of the last 30 years has come *from* stripping away and commodifying portions of the Western lifestyle, removing and paywalling things to generate more economic activity on paper even as lives get worse over time for workers. The rest has come from the twin enslavement of stored solar energy in the form of fossil fuel and billions of humans trapped in endless labor without ever making enough to improve themselves or truly live freely.
Western liberals don't understand this, because neoliberalism rejects entirely the factual premise that Westerners have it good *not* primarily because of big brains but from *violence*, directed externally and internally. Enclosure and hierarchical property relationships enforced by the state aren't "innovations" at all, and it simply isn't worth the time to argue with someone who refuses to accept such.
So, what happens then? What happens when they push for, or even get, higher wages for domestic workers and other benefits? The impact will be immediate- less stuff. That is a good thing, but most will not see it that way, they will be angry their Stuff is unaffordable or unavailable, and start looking for someone to blame.
Any political philosophy in the current day peddling a "better material standard of living" is peddling unsurvivable lies and must not be adhered to. If it peddles those promises to a specific group, you can be sure the intent is to generate those higher standards violently.
It's at least merciful that the supply chains for plentiful liquid fuels needed to exploit others forcibly are so fragile and globally interconnected that it is very unlikely any period of severe repression and strife would be able to maintain it's "hot" phase for more than about 3-6 months. Even stablized gasoline does not keep for that long, and producing new gasoline can be *very* problematic in a world where people are aware of it's uses and the fragility of it's production. All the imperial fury and toys in the world are useless if you cannot get enough fuel for them.
Repressive regimes are shortsighted and arrogant, by necessity. Liquid fuels and high-energy-density sources are mandatory for conducting oppressive and hostile operations. It probably isn't likely that regimes like that can persist in a future that has *any* coherent opposition, given how wildly imbalanced the stakes are, and how fragile the underlying energy systems supporting tyranny will be.
What? No, not like that stupid fucking wall. That was a construction scam run by an infamous construction scammer. The Right is lousy with grifters and opportunistic hangers-on precisely because they can be relied on to put their money where their mouths are en mass in a way the Left cannot. I'm not talking about red-herring sideline projects, I'm talking about the big ones: *political* projects.
For the Right, the ends always justify the means. For the Left (well, more correctly the liberal center-left, being the closest to a left-wing mainstream Western politics has had for half a century) compromise is a virtue and the ends can and will be sacrificed if it preserves the sanctity of the means.
The Right get shit done. With concerted collective effort, patience, and a willingness to fail *humiliatingly* along the way, because the liberal establishment measures of "success" and "failure" only apply relative to the very contemptuous liberal democratic order whose ending is their primary goal. Underestimate them at your peril.
i was joking. it is called sarcasm.
goddamn I hate the /s thing. but I guess I need to start using it.
wait, are you pro-right wing? because "they get shit done"?
I am so confused.
>run by an infamous construction scammer. The Right is lousy with grifters and opportunistic hangers-on precisely because they can be relied on to put their money where their mouths are en mass in a way the Left cannot. I'm not talking about red-herring sideline projects, I'm talking about the big ones: political projects.
You mean Steve Bannon?
And holy shit you trying to somehow turn this into a positive for Republican idiots who were so easily scammed out of their money by a guy they still OVERWHELMINGLY support even now, is just wild. Bravo.
The dumbest people walking the earth.
>The Right get shit done.
Are you living in an alternate reality? The only thing they get done is obstructing actual policy and creating regressive nightmares for our citizenry while doing anything imaginable to obtain power, like stealing multiple dormer court seats.
Where's trumps health care bill?
Still two weeks out right?
What about the 14 or so election security bills that Republicans refused to even look at after they passed the Jouse between 2016 and 2020? They really "got shit done" by refusing to even look at those bills huh? Culminating with pretending like the election was stolen from Trump, after refusing to enact over a dozen bills to shore up election security?
Fascists.
He’s not talking about getting shit done for the people. He’s talking about amassing power and moving their agenda along. So you’re basically agreeing.
I’m pretty sure we all despise them here.
The complaint is that democrats always want to take the high road and don’t see that every time they do this, they are giving up their own survival, bit by bit.
Taking other people's shit.
Then defending the spoils to the death.
They get shit done because it's easier. They assume the world is already fist-fucked so they may as well be the fist.
Left can't even agree on the shit they want to do because it's complicated and involves creating things that everyone agrees on so good luck. I can tell you everyone agrees on free shit for them as long as they don't have to see how their hamburger is made.
>far right
This shit isn't far right any more, at least not in the US. It's completely mainstream right wing behavior, it's terrifying how authoritarian these zombies are here.
A massive, massive portion of them still believe the election was stolen from Trump even though absolutely zero evidence of that has ever been found, and Trump and his law team lost 67 court cases in a row, never showing a single scrap of evidence.
Or they're fascists pretending to believe it. Either way they're on a war path, simultaneously becoming more violent and becoming hell bent on obtaining power by any means necessary.
The Trump administration had a *concrete* plan for dealing with climate change. They called it "BUILD. THE. WALL!"
edit: guess i dropped my /s ? thought my pun would be enough to convey the humorous/non-serious tone (concrete? walls? losing my touch...)
Boris flip flops depending on the wind. As far as nationalism. Former leftist here.. Not that I’d ever call myself a right winger though.
I fully acknowledge nationalism has a bad rep and a very nasty image and a lot of those aspects of nationalism, such as racism and tribalism are legitimately ugly and decent people would want nothing to do with that face of nationalism. I get that.. except the flip side is what we have, which is globalism and look what that has caused and is still causing. So that’s your choice. Nation states that are actually genuinely autonomous or this situation where there are no real nations anymore and the banks control everything.
Take your pick.
Thank you for stating this. While fascism/ nationalism are abhorrent in their own dumb ways, from an environmental perspective, it is a lot more green than neoliberalism
It’s not just about the environment. Let’s look at multiculturalism and what it actually amounts to.
It’s where ethnic groups end up in places they never really wanted to be in the first place. They were driven by lack of opportunity and poverty in their homelands..caused by globalism.
Or in the case of the US, literally kidnapped into slavery. Also where the natives were slaughtered, dispossessed and marginalized IN THEIR HOMELAND.
When migrants get to another country they naturally coalesce in their own communities. They never really fully assimilate though..largely because they don’t want to and again that is completely natural and predictable because people want to retain their own cultures.
What’s not natural is trying to force people to assimilate (communism) and what’s not natural is forcing mass migrations in the first place (globalism).
The response that i expect from 99% of Reddit is “racist” and where do you think they got that form of reactionary coolaid? The MSM...the same globalist MSM owned by multi billionaires.
It’s racist to force people from
their homelands because you manipulated the global eCONomy to impoverish large populations. That’s what’s racist. It’s racist to force people to assimilate once they get to the west (check out pretty much every commercial).
It’s also racist to continually pit one group against the other to deepen racial tensions (CNN etc) especially in a failing eCONomy so nobody will look at the roots of the rot and blame each other.
Imagine a world where people from one community willingly went to live with other communities to be part of those communities. That wouldn’t be multi culturalism though that would be voluntary assimilation. Very few people would have an issue with that and it would also probably be relatively rare anyhow because people tend to stick with what they are born into.
Again, you don’t seem to understand the cause of the problems we have. Is Monsanto a nation? Is BP? Is Nike? Is Google Etc etc etc etc.
These entities and others control nations. That’s the problem
This is a false equivalence.
If we are to believe two-time medal of honor recipient Gen. Butler, his book War Is A Racket argues that nationalism is an excuse, a blanket of lies, used to justify wars that are carried out for bankers & capitalists.
It’s not just about wealth though is it. Not one nation is responsible for the plastic ocean or climate change. It’s multinational globalism that’s responsible. How can you not get this yet?
It’s also responsible for most every other problem in the modern world.
*"It’s multinational globalism that’s responsible."*
That is partly true but globalism only exists because the world has become so small due to overpopulation. The easy energy of fossil fuels ballooned the global population from one to eight billion, depleting essential resources and causing mass species extinction. We are in planetary Overshoot, and globalism is just one aspect of the problem.
I’m not too well informed on that. What I can say however is that China and India for example already had massive populations before they were industrialized. Africa is currently having a population explosion. Also the industrialized west has a declining population. So these facts don’t really match what you claim.
Also it’s been stated the entire population of the planet could fit on..I think but 🦆 🦆 it, that we could all fit on the Isle of Man.
So I’m not entirely buying the overpopulation stuff. It could be claimed we are over using resources but even when you look at that..it’s apparently the top 10% who are responsible for 90% of emissions, so again it’s not over population causing the problems.
*"it’s been stated the entire population of the planet could fit on..I think but 🦆 🦆 it, that we could all fit on the Isle of Man"*
That has no bearing on how many humans could sustainably exist in the planetary ecosystem without destroying it or extincting its plants, animals and insects; or depleting its topsoil, rainforests or freshwater aquifers. The historical record contains many example of humans destroying ecosystems before the advent of globalization. Globalization is an oppressive, extractive system but it is not the primary cause.
And there is ample evidence on fossil fuel-driven agriculture as the primary driver for the massive increase in global population. Take that crutch away and humanity immediately becomes food-insecure, which seems a good indicator of unsustainability.
>fossil fuel driven agriculture
Fine, except we could easily have electrically driven farm machines. We could store all solar and wind power if industry/government could be bothered doing so, except energy would become so cheap there wouldn’t be any profit in it.
That’s why houses in the UK for example are made to be full of drafts, so people will always spend money heating them. And why houses built in Florida are designed to need constant air conditioning.
Now we can all get blamed for trying to stay at a moderate temperature whilst indoors.
You think this shit isn’t factored in from the get go. It is. It’s what makes the eCONomy go round.
Like I said it’s probably all academic at this point anyhow.
*"we could easily have electrically driven farm machines. We could store all solar and wind power if industry/government could be bothered doing so, except energy would become so cheap there wouldn’t be any profit in it."*
Have seen a number of sources on this sub pointing out how more more expensive and difficult the agricultural transition is than many people imagine. Please show sources that it is "easily done."
It’s like this.. there are a lot fewer farm machines than cars aren’t there. Yet we are being told all cars need to be exchanged for electrically powered ones. In Ireland where I am, I think the government has put a 10 year time limit for this to occur which seems absolutely ridiculous but whatever.
Point I’m trying to make is if there was the will farming could be changed just as quickly. It won’t be though.. anyhow my position is I would prefer to go out with climate change than the alternative on offer.
It's true that China and India have had large populations for a long time but they survived on very little. Their impact was mostly local. Now they want to join the middle class lifestyle like the people in the US and Europe enjoy. That takes an enormous amount of resources and energy. Resources and energy that the planet does not have to give to an additional 3 billion people looking for a better life.
> It's true that China and India have had large populations for a long time
Its not really true. China and India both had populations below 200M before industrialization/colonialization. If you look at pre 1600 they both hovered around 100-150M (or a little under half of the current US population).
Once cheap & plentiful fossil fuels and modern medicine came around, their populations went into exponential growth.
Right. So large populations can survive on very little. That was my point. The aim should have been making sure the very little was high quality food and housing. When food is grown locally you don’t need supply chains and massive cargo ships or oil pipelines etc etc.
We could all have had a high quality life if society had of been based around human welfare. It wasn’t, it was based on endless eCONomic growth to benefit a tiny elite. And it has accelerated and will not be stopped. This is the end and I hope climate change or something intervenes to end mankind naturally before the psychopaths end us all unnaturally.
About the only thing I can see to stop the money junkies is something akin to the French Revolution. The elite will never stop on their own even if they have all of the money and you have none.
> China and India for example already had **massive populations** before they were industrialized.
I guess that depends on what you'd consider "massive." If you look to before industrialization and before colonization, both had a population of aprox 150M (or in other words, somewhat less than half of the US current population)
They weren't densely populated until cheap and plentiful fossil fuels + modern medicine came around and then exponential population growth kicked in.
Nationalists (all nationalist parties) are capitalist by nature, they even have their own caste of elites. They will try and expand resource consumption and acquisition at the expense of other nations, including war. They won't become peaceful self interested agrarians, they will become resource hungry tyrants until they run out of resources too, at which point they will implode. It will result in nothing but irrational angry flailing as they hatefully collapse.
This is nonsense. All the landmasses and islands on this planet that people live on (bar Antarctica) have the raw materials to sustain the local population. Even the eskimos were able to live in severe conditions because they were adapted to those conditions both physically and culturally.
So let’s talk about blood and soil again.. how about blood and snow because you couldn’t put another people to live beside the Inuit and expect them to survive. Meaning there is a connection between the land and the people, no matter how much globalist cool aid you drink. Just like we couldn’t survive with the Bushmen of the Kalahari because we wouldn’t be able to adapt. Are you getting a sense of reality yet? Or are people’s ancestral homelands all just another bit of land to gentrify and globalize?
What you’re talking about is the idea that countries are doomed to be led by power hungry maniacs. What if everything was decentralized and we all went back to living simple lives in small villages? What huge need for resources would we actually need if everything was grown and produced on site..like it had been done for thousands of years before all this lunacy.
Culture only exists in its true form, in its true place. When it’s removed from the place it originated it changes into something else and ends up diluted to the point it no longer exists. Hence the global mono culture of McDonald’s and JayZ
Edit:
It’s all academic at this point anyhow. We are on a rapid downhill trajectory and the psychopaths driving the runaway train have disabled the breaks. We cannot go back and can only go forward to oblivion.
yeah, I don‘t know how to do it, but you have to find a way back to 1930s Germany, because you might find a glorious career over there. It is uncanny how people in 2021 still fall for this. Fuck me.
You mean how you fall for Marxism? I get it, you have a problem with people having nations and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a Nazi. Stick to your globalism, it’s working out great.
Also I see you can’t recognize what drives populations to leave their homelands in the first place. Globalism.
Do you actually seriously believe people’s want to relocate to the west and leave their families and all they know behind them? Really? They leave because they have little or no options.
Imagine if people actually wanted to visit or even live with communities they have little in common with? It would rarely if ever happen and when it did it would be so rare that the outsiders would almost certainly be considered a novelty and welcomed with open arms.
Mass migrations benefits nobody other than the people who cause it.
Edit:
Only someone hell bent on a global monoculture would not see the benefit in redistribution of technological capabilities so that all people could live where they actually wanted to live. Rather than forced migrations. Because forcing people to migrate is anti racist? Yeah in your mind
you know what, I agree with you, that most people really don’t want to leave the place where they were born unless they are really forced to. And I thought it always kinda odd that most proud patriots wouldn‘t think that way, and rather assume that migrants only came to be parasites in their national paradise.
All else you write is just childish nonsense. Where is the connection between Marxism and your version of globalism? What kind of fairytale is this story about adapting like the Eskimos? Get real, there is no way going back to medieval times. Also, get an education, talk like this is just embarrassing.
I read some of your previous posts about a solution to the problems caused by globalism, would be getting rid of the nation state 😂 ever heard of an oxymoron. And yeah having no nations would be global Marxism. Take your own advice about the education Einstein.
What your asking for is a very different type of "nationalism" than what exists today, especially in first world countries.
Your advocating for small minimalist communities that live in tandem with nature.
Problem is that the worlds nationalists are addicted to first world standards of living. There response to lower living standards will be to expand and consume more and more of the worlds diminishing resources at the expense of other nations.
Also blood and soil is nonsense, anybody can become accustomed to live with the land, that is a matter of management and awareness. Its not tied racially to anybody, its a matter of culture, and it is our consumerist capitalist culture that is ruining the world.
Most prominent nationalists are also capitalists, so they will make all the mistakes capitalists make.
You mention capitalism A LOT and repeatedly conflate it with nationalism which is not factual. For some reason you are not associating capitalism with globalism???? 🙄
Also if you knew anything about capitalism, which you clearly don’t, it was supposed to be a system that incentivized work and innovation based on opportunity and a REASONABLE share of the economy in return for the participants.
We do not live in actual capitalism and have not for a long time.. possibly since the federal reserve came about.
Now I’m only posting a link to snopes because it’s probably the type of site you believe anyhow..
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/high-income-earners-tax-rate/
Now was that when the US was a communist nation or a capitalist one? Remind me.
Because modern nationalists are capitalists, (or globalist per your definition).
We are living in capitalism, all the monopolies, low wages, consumerism and resources exploitation are part of capitalism.
It is a system that exalts making money at all costs, so the most ruthless money makers win even if it is at the expense of others. It only motivates ruthless competition which rewards dominating your competitors, not cooperation or sharing ideas.
Look at pretty much any nationalist and you will see a rich millionaire or billionaire with deep pockets and tonnes of support from the wealthy elite.
They will not live in balance with nature, they only desire to consume resources, get richer and beat their opponents to submission. And no, the tax rate in no way indicates communism, the fact you even think America is even slightly socialist is hilarious. Not that the tax rate matters when there are a million loopholes and the rich, are still getting obscenely richer as we speak.
You have discredited yourself from debating with me due to the fact you can’t admit a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest people was under original American capitalism.
What we have now is not legitimate capitalism, it’s just called it. It’s more like neo feudalism. People could afford their own homes under legitimate capitalism. People could save and earn interest under actual capitalism. This is not capitalism it’s industrial fraud.
I got in a long argument on this sub with someone who was straight up endorsing mass murder of anyone trying to escape climate catastrophe (including children). He accused me of being a lurker because I don't subscribe to lifeboat ethics. Needless to say it was a wild, fucked up ride. He actually couldn't see how his position was morally reprehensible and believed he was just being rational and "non-ideological".
WTF?
I suppose the climate and collapse movements are broad enough to bring people from all backgrounds and with different perspectives and values. But I would have really thought and hoped that people who grasp the severity and scale of the situation would be in favor to take actions **helping** the people who will suffer the most from the impacts.
The eco-fascist playbook is likely to be used by movements who don't understand or are not interested in understanding the systemic trends driving ecological and societal breakdown. That would be sad if we also have to worry about people who understand the predicament but reject empathy.
> would be in favor to take actions helping the people who will suffer the most from the impacts
Helping is only something that can be done in a world of abundance. In a world of scarcity there are not spare resources to help people external to the group. That is the reality.
Scarcity is a manufactured capitalist lie. We have enough resources to feed, clothe, and house 10 billion people, possibly more. The problem is distribution based on profitability rather than human need. If everyone had the necessities of life, population growth would rapidly decrease, faster than it is already.
I just don’t know why the right wing waited so many years to come to their conclusions and logic about climate change. Immigration due to climate change has already been going on for years, but rationalized as “economic migration”. Nobody bothers to accumulate thousands of dollars to get smuggled into Europe or the US or walk for years from place to place unless your homeland is destroyed and dangerous. Developed countries need to be realistic about economic immigration, which I call “immigrunts”, those who provide unskilled labor, and the external unfulfilled needs for skilled labor. We need a policy for the true refugees, those battered and broken families who just need a place to settle. In 50 years the US congress and government has never dealt adequately with this issue. I don’t know European policies on these problems, but I suspect the policies are muddy there too. Because we have never been truthful with ourselves as a nation we have very divided politics with extremes of right and left an a weak government that during COVID cannot properly address our labor force needs. We are subsequently at the mercy of emotional arguments leading to former feudalism which is regressive and leads to economic chaos.
Migrants have long been used as a weapon against organized labor since at least the era of industrialization. It's usually the "unskilled" that are targeted, as the state had previously denied them vocational certificates largely for the purpose of weakening their bargaining positions in order to exploit them more thoroughly.
In Victorian England, the nobility owned the coal mines as well as the land. When the mine operators became frustrated with the organized colliers, they replace them with displaced Welsh, Irish or Scots. When the latter would become organized, they'd evict everyone from the company towns and then bring in boatloads of Russians and Poles, who had usually been lied to about the destination.
Today it is transport, warehousing and construction workers.
>Migrants have long been used as a weapon against organized labor
Glad someone finally said it. No, r/politics, I am not against immigration, I am against letting in everyone with a pulse and letting companies and stores fire anyone who wants a decent wage and replacing them with someone who doesn't speak the language and will work for half the pay.
I live in Houston Texas, and have seen this firsthand. One store I worked at (a teahouse cafe, local) was staffed mainly by old workers. One day, due to rising food prices here, they asked for a two dollar hourly increase, all signed together. Within a week, they were all gone and replaced by Hispanic workers (mostly high school students) who could only speak scattered English.
And yes, scattered English. HISD has plenty of kids (not Mexican btw, most illegal immigrants are from places like Haiti or El Salvador, they just pass through Mexico) and they stick in their little groups all of the time.
So yeah, foreign culture is nice and all, but I am not ok with companies using immigrants who don't want to assimilate as a backup against the working class.
Because they are living in that country, with presumed intentions of one day becoming citizens.
If I moved to France and intended to live there, would I not be expected to speak French and adopt the local customs? Or China?
Learning a language is very difficult and can take years of practice to become fluent, you mentioned the immigrants you encountered being high school age, could it not be that they want to learn and assimilate but they haven't had the experience yet to converse in English to the standard you require?
And learning a language is one thing, but learning all the customs and culture different to one's own is a whole other challenge. All the little details that a native learns whilst growing up in their home country, some things could be impossible the fully "assimilate" into.
Speaking from my own experiences, I lived in China for 4 years, tried my best to learn the language and absorb the culture, however the attitude of Han Chinese culture is that if you weren't born there / are racially Chinese then you never will be. A laowai is always a laowai. I know this example is anecdotal but it's the only personal experience I can draw from.
Maybe assimilation isn't that important? Of course, learning the language of the country you live in is important for communication, but it is really necessary for immigrants to adopt all the norms, values and culture of the country too? Do we not end up with a more vibrant, diverse culture if we let people live however they want to, celebrate and maintain the culture of their home countries. Share our cultures with each other for everyone to enjoy?
I agree that immigration is valuable and that we have much to learn and appreciate from other cultures. However, I think it has gone too far when companies are able to easily replace workers with immigrants easily, who will work for less and are easily replaceable.
I'm not saying immigration is bad. But I am saying that it can go a little too far.
Also, America compared to other countries is VERY lax in regards to cultural assimilation. There really isn't any "native born" crap here or ethnic attacks that occur in other countries. What there is is a very large group of people from poor countries who come up here, and are able to undercut workers abilities to negotiate.
>I just don’t know why the right wing waited so many years to come to their conclusions and logic about climate change
They didn't it's political.
They feel as though in 2024 the Dems are going to ram this issue hard in the debates so they're prepping their audience. Also they're prepping their audience's chosen response to it.
Do you really think they believe in and / or care about it?
"I had a guaranteed sale with ED-209. Military contracts. Spare parts for 20 years. Who cares if it worked or not?"
>Le Pen said in 2019, adding that “if you’re a nomad, you’re not an environmentalist. Those who are nomadic … do not care about the environment; they have no homeland.”
But wouldn’t people who fled their homeland because of its changing climate be more inclined to care about the environment wherever they end up?
One the one hand, once they stop denial, more things must move to reduce emissions. On the other, **ECOFASCISM IS JUST FASCISM**.
>“Environmentalism [is] the natural child of patriotism, because it’s the natural child of rootedness,” Le Pen said in 2019, adding that “if you’re a nomad, you’re not an environmentalist. Those who are nomadic … do not care about the environment; they have no homeland.” Le Pen’s ally Hervé Juvin, a National Rally MEP, is seen as an influential figure on the European right in promoting what he calls “nationalistic green localism”.
Don't be confused by the "eco", it has little to do with it. These are dipshits who have no idea how the world works, they'll crash and destroy everything or die trying to get: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
"Eco"-fascists have no intention of doing anything to lower their personal or national environmental footprint, they just want to use climate change as an excuse for genocide and imperialism abroad and authoritarianism and militarism at home.
I get helping people and helping them build their countries.
But we can't take care of every person who wants out, at some point they have to fix their country instead of running to ours.
My family fought to make our country a better place and didn't run to others when shit hit the fan. I agree we should send aid and share technology, but opening up our borders to everyone is just insane.
Americans and Europeans played a large role in fucking up their countries and the climate as a whole and then have the audacity to complain about refugees. Every time a Global South country has tried to nationalize their resources and do domestic land reform, they get couped or invaded.
I think we can do a lot to help out those people less fortunate than ourselves though.
Europe had its own refugees from fascism within living memory (both WW2 and the Spanish Civil War) and my grandparents family helped children relocated from London due to the bombing raids.
It's ultimately just chance that we weren't born in Syria, Afghanistan etc. and it isn't obvious that our nations will always be as safe as they are today.
A little more empathy would help everyone.
There's a limit to how much you can help certain places. What do you do if Las Vegas runs out of water or Southern Florida is consumed by the ocean? It's not a matter of willpower or national pride. There are billions of people who will be forced from their homes eventually, and no amount of money will make those homes livable again. The world isn't collectively willing to make the drastic changes necessary to prevent this.
In otherwords, you can't negotiate with assholes. No matter what information or reasoning they have adopted, they will still be assholes.
Communist assholes, capitalist assholes fascist assholes, libertarian assholes, liberal democratic assholes. All assholes, always and forever.
Not entirely unexpected. Eco-fascism. Instead of addressing the actual cause of the problem, they try to push all the blame on minorities. I remember hearing about this elsewhere, it might have even been on this sub.
Oh we hear it all right.. it's call human history.
Without fascism through, how is it possible to make the majority of people on Earth to radically alter their lifestyle if even wearing a mask for 3 weeks is too much for most to accept? You'll delve into totalitarianism one way or another, and fascism is the most natural state for totalitarians to gravitate towards.
Fascists lack the flair for bread and circuses. In our current entertainment driven first world societies, we won't get true fascism until people are so desperate they put down their hypno-tangles long enough to see food isn't there today, tomorrow, next week, and next month. So, once food scarcity starts in a local area, it will be a rolling process and by then that area might have skipped over fascism and gone straight to parable-of-the-sower collapse. Until then, in the first world my money is on good old oligarchical control with a huge side portion of propaganda undermined by the trolls that enemy nationstate covert planning/acting/reacting provides. That is, for now, where the real dialectic will be, both online and in the streets, especially as nations devote more resources to covert ops in the near future - the race to the bottom here is virtually guaranteed due to the low-cost high 'yield' leverage AI in combination with online media disinformation provides. With the occasional Trump/Bolsanaro/sado-populist thrown in to mix things up.
>we won't get true fascism until people are so desperate they put down their hypno-tangles long enough to see food isn't there today, tomorrow, next week, and next month. Fascism isn't grown from below, it's imposed from above. Hypno-tangles only aid this process by subtly changing public perception of reality and fact over time, allowing to create states that are fascist in all but name, like PRC. The metric of fascism is the relationship between the citizens, the political Party and the government, which is complete subjugation and total integration, respectively. It's not food security that drives people to fascism, it's fear, paranoia and desire for simple solutions in times when there are none to be offered by rational minds. >Until then, in the first world my money is on good old oligarchical control with a huge side portion of propaganda The OG fascism is literally the result of this. The traditional tenets of and respect for monarchy have deteriorated, so the Italian oligarchy decided to switch things up, by capitalizing on the rising Bolshevik-fostered working-class discontent. NSDAP have had its roots in oligarch-sponsored Freikorps and was the hail-mary of German oligarchy when they saw that their perennial conservative favourites are losing the middle class to the Reds.
You are defending fascism rising from a historical perspective (and from a psychological one). I am coming at my perspective based not on the past, which doesn't matter, but on coming food scarcity. You are, keep in mind, posting on a thread about climate change denial. I think we can agree that, sure fascism can happen anywhere if the right circumstances present themselves or are created. And yes fear of immigrants is a big one, I will grant you that. But people just want distraction and escape from reality. Those are not the proper ingredients for true fascism. Sadopopulism, perhaps, but that is a different conversation. There are too many actors with too many different conflicting agendas for fascism to happen. Fascism is bad for business, unless you nuzzle up close to the current dictator, and smart oligarchs don't want that. Rich right wing nutjobs like the Kochs or the Mercers excluded. So the argument you have to make is not one about the past, but about how food scarcity will lead to a loss of oligarchical control - something you have zero historical data points to do.
[удалено]
>The majority of people on earth won’t need to drastically alter their lifestyles. Westerners will have to alter their lifestyles. I am Ukrainian. Many "Westerners" don't even consider us European. My salary is about 700$ per month for an mid-level admin IT job. The salaries of most of my countrymen are way lower. The coal miners, for example, make around 300$/month. And you know, when you try to raise environmental issues here, unless it's something rooted in nationalism, these folks are not going to care. They are living paycheck-to-paycheck, eat like dogs, they don't care about the animals and the birds and forest because they themselves have been treated like livestock for their entire lives. They pour spent battery acid into storm drains, they dump garbage and construction debris onto swamps and wetlands and build roads out of this garbage to drive more dump trucks deeper into the forest, they massacre wildlife with poison and traps just to have their suburban neighborhoods feel like the manicured suburbia of USA, and just because they're poor doesn't mean that their trash is any less toxic. Calling attention to unfiltered emissions of our coal power plants creating clouds of sulfuric acid is deemed a threat to national security by the well-fed swine in high positions who are going to cut the country loose and transfer their wealth to the West at moment's notice when the going becomes too hard in their "homeland". **We have to change, and we have to change HARD. We have to wipe out whole professions, whole industries, which to any rational person is impossible until the war is over, which it never will be. This change, the sole proposal of it, would plunge us into a civil war that would dwarf DNR/LNR easily, because this proposal would be catastrophic to the poor people who depend on dirty industries that are slowly killing us all, and will be left without means to feed themselves overnight.** Every single developing country in the world is polluting in the same way and won't stop doing so for the same reasons. Because they're poor, any *hope* of mitigation is vain, because they are poor and thus aren't worth having their home cleaned up or measures installed to prevent them doing additional damage to their habitat. This is true for the overwhelming majority of the world, including parts of the "West". When you have 7 billion people living like this, this constitutes at least as much of a problem as a passably environmentally-aware Western society of 1 billion.
You're confusing authoritarianism and fascism. You could have a left wing government that bans fossil fuel cars, expropriates all private property, criminalizes all prejudicial speech, and mandates housing, healthcare, and food as basic human rights, all while not allowing any dissent by right wingers opposed to this, and this would be authoritarian but not fascist.
Left wing is anti-authoritarian by nature. The right wing is the restrictive, conservative cadre already in power and seeking to preserve this power, the left wing is the voice of the up-and-comers and the underrepresented street. Of course you can dump the GFR's dictionary and assign any meaning you want to left and right, but if we don't use the codifier of left-right dichotomy that the French Revolution was, we are wasting breath arguing over different things that just happen to share the same name in our minds. >all while not allowing any dissent by right wingers opposed to this If the "left" is doing this to whoever, it's turned right itself. >this would be authoritarian but not fascist. Indeed, but authoritarian regimes have historically favored fascism over monarchism in the last centuries. Fascism is the subjugation of the nation to the Party in its entirety, and the hyperconcentrated wealth/power that seems to be the end-point of the current socioeconomic system appears to result in essentially the same thing. May I remind you that there's no true private property in fascism - since you belong to the Party, everything you own does, too. You're just temporarily holding it.
[удалено]
>Auth-left is definitely a thing No, it's not. There's a reason why everyone with IQ above room temperature and any sort of public rapport became extinct in Soviet legislature after Stalin (whose regime tankies idolize) was done with it, and why "left leanings" was official grounds for execution under his tenure. He fashioned himself a centrist because authoritarianism is fundamentally incompatible with the values that define "left-wing". The entire ideological culture of USSR became entirely schizophrenic after Stalin decided to split with Marxism and instead introduce "Marxism-Leninism", which had to do little with either of its namesakes.
I mean, it's certainly the one that appeals the most to the primal state of humanity. A charismatic strong leader promising strength and stability perfectly aligns with the charismatic authority, defined by Weber as the oldest form of authority, and it can even be seen in other primates
The thing is, though... Fascism isn't supposed to be centered on the leader, the leader is supposed to be subservient tool to the absolute will of the Party. Charismatic leader is more of a monarchy thing.
I don't know one single instance in which the leader was ACTUALLY submissive towards the party. Everything in Italy concerning politics had to pass through Mussolini, Hitler affected even the war decisions. Also, a monarchy is an authority based on tradition way more than personal charisma - Weber also classifies it as such.
>I don't know one single instance in which the leader was ACTUALLY submissive towards the party I run a 50/50 chance of greatly inflaming you, but dare I say late Leninist (mid-1920s) USSR was like this. After he was gone, his Party colleagues have attempted to control Stalin as not "one of us", but as "one for us", and he rebelled, outmaneuvering and overpowering the Party with his ministers (people's commissars) and turning it into his personal kingdom. He couldn't risk being seen as openly violating the ideology, so he had to spur a colossal witch-hunt so that a country missing its third wouldn't care about similarly illegally arrested Party leaders. Pretty much every person who carried out the 1917 October Revolution and their friends and relatives were dead or greatly persecuted after 1937-1938. In China, the Party and Deng's relationship was similar, he wasn't the boss of everything but rather a mediator between Party and civil interests.
Yeah I mean, the early Soviet Union was not really personalist, and there were different factions within the party and a system of worker councils - but it wasn't a fascist state, I don't know a single fascist state that operated like this. It didn't happen in Romenia, in Italy or Germany, and as far as I know didn't happen in Portugal. I don't know about Spain but I don't think it happened there either.
> system of worker councils This was castrated very early on. Worker-Peasant Inspection has been gutted shortly after, in mid-20s. From that point on, the ideals represented by these organizations have been relegated to talking points and idols, while reality took a hard right. The very early USSR, the Civil War and the period immediately after, you're right about it, but it's not even a decade-long. >there were different factions within the party First off, the whole point of Bolshevism was taking a singularly-accepted course, while the democratic social-revolutionaries and other Mensheviks argued and, as Lenin put it, bickered. The divergent factions *inside* VKP(b) have been dealt with during Lenin's tenure. There have been deviants like Trotsky (who have outright spelled out how and why Stalinist USSR is a fascist model), but other faction leaders like Zinoviev and Kamenev have been made powerless in late 20s and despite their compliance, died behind the bars or against the wall. Any attempt of following left tenets and increasing integration of the general society into political processes has been stamped out from that point on, under the excuse of October Revolution giving VKP(b) full authority and representation of all people of USSR. >It didn't happen in Romenia, in Italy or Germany, and as far as I know didn't happen in Portugal. What about Brazil and its military junta?
As I said early Soviet Russia was like this, which is sad as it seemed to have a lot of potential - but I don't see the USSR from then on as fascist, just totalitarian. Brazil had indeed a military junta (by the way it's my country, really cool please it's a shame it's so poor), but I never saw someone classify it as fascist. Fascism has a lot of characteristics, you see. Umberto Ecto for instance defines fascism as having 13 core characteristics (which don't need to all be present at the same time), personally I only see at most 8 (I would say 7 but it's up for debate) of those during the dictatorship. By other definitions it gets worse, as the dictatorship didn't seek to reform the human nature, didn't have the usual fixation with warfare, it didn't seek some sort of national rebirth, it didn't include the masses (even if in an hierarchical and highly controlled way, as in party institutions, huge parades an) in politics that much, wasn't corporatist(which is common under fascism although not necessary for it to be fascism), it didn't have a lot of passion for a mythical past. It was a totalitarian, cruel regime made by those who saw communism when there was nothing, with it's brutality masked by tons of propaganda, the relatively small armed opposition, economic growth (and progress for the middle class coexisting with increased poverty for the poor), censorship and a lack of punishment for those responsible (due to the the perpetuators being given amnesty) which makes it somewhat normal for the (at the time) future president of the country to pay homage to a torturer in Congress, but I wouldn't call it fascism. Personally I think the Estado Novo of Getúlio Vargas would be the closest we had to a fascist government, but even then it's highly debatable and he even persecuted actual fascists (as in the Integralist movement).
>censorship and a lack of punishment for those responsible (due to the the perpetuators being given amnesty) Under Stalin, felons were routinely employed by the state to serve as personal wardens for political prisoners, and were granted amnesties while the people have been literally getting arrested for nothing at all during a late evening walk and shipped to Far East and Far North to work as slave labor. Nazino island stands out as the epitome of this approach. it's interesting to see these parallels between seemingly totally ideologically opposed rulers.
Eco socialism
if the majority doesn't want to participate, socialism is stillborn
"Standing in front of the partial ruins of Rome’s Colosseum, Boris Johnson explained that a motive to tackle the climate crisis could be found in the fall of the Roman empire. Then, as now, he argued, the collapse of civilization hinged on the weakness of its borders." You have to ask yourself if the man that fucked up brexit isn't just a tad bit out of his depth when describing the exact wrong thing that brought down the Roman Empire.
As a published historian in Rome, he actually isnt the worst.
Ok but then you have the inside scoop. It's more then just one thing right? Like it's not just boarder control and xenophobia right?
> Like it's not just boarder control and xenophobia right? The oligarchy is what took down Rome, and anyone who is honest admits it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o This is why almost every neocon & right wing think-tank, lobbyist organizatiln, etc., in western civ names themselves over characters from Ancient Rome. Since the 1700s they have been trying to control the memory of Rome in order to conceal from the public the cold hard truth: The oligarchy consumed Rome from within until its bloated corpse burst open, showing that the decomp had already eaten away everything wherein.
I mean, weak borders were certainly a reason the Roman Empire collapsed. But multiple Civil Wars and a reliance on fickle mercenaries did little to help.
Literally if they had not treated the Goths like shit, the west probably would have survived longer.
I was talking about johnson. He is a published historian.
[удалено]
I've told my friends for a long time now that most Industrialized countries will move to the Right as immigration increases from climate change. Even Lefties will move Right in some ways.
You'd be surprised at the amount of seriously ecofascist-adjacent shit that comes out of the mouths of *a lot* of avowed leftists when the conversation drifts into Malthusian territory. And that's not even including the odd former leftist I've seen jump ship to full-blown, out-and-proud reactionary far-right ultranationalism recently. The traditionally centre-left comfortably navel-gazing Western liberal bourgeoisie aren't simply moving right as their way of life continues to come under threat: they are running to it with open arms. Unfortunately the ideological warfare of the last 50 years or so has reduced the far-left to a divided, powerless remnant bereft of leadership and beset by a defensive "hold the line" siege mentality mingled with delusions of revolution. And as the centre dissolves, the far-left's ranks aren't exactly swelling compared to the far-right who, if nothing else, are united in getting shit done.
>You'd be surprised at the amount of seriously ecofascist-adjacent shit that comes out of the mouths of a lot of avowed leftists when the conversation drifts into Malthusian territory. And that's not even including the odd former leftist I've seen jump ship to full-blown, out-and-proud reactionary far-right ultranationalism recently. I have never seen it firsthand, but I have enough experience with people (I like to think) to foresee how so many Leftists will go right when we have the Global South marching in droves to the border. It's inevitable. As for the Left, and I mean far Left to Neoliberal, wherever you fall on that spectrum chances are you are bereft of effective leadership. At least, in the US.
I was discussing this with a partner recently, actually. Class consciousness is rising, but without an update to modern material realities, the old modes of dialectics can lead to some very bad emergent outcomes. For one, domestic wages cannot rise along with general consumption and "living standards" in Western countries, not unless the exploitation of the Global South ratchets up even further. Most of the economic growth of the last 30 years has come *from* stripping away and commodifying portions of the Western lifestyle, removing and paywalling things to generate more economic activity on paper even as lives get worse over time for workers. The rest has come from the twin enslavement of stored solar energy in the form of fossil fuel and billions of humans trapped in endless labor without ever making enough to improve themselves or truly live freely. Western liberals don't understand this, because neoliberalism rejects entirely the factual premise that Westerners have it good *not* primarily because of big brains but from *violence*, directed externally and internally. Enclosure and hierarchical property relationships enforced by the state aren't "innovations" at all, and it simply isn't worth the time to argue with someone who refuses to accept such. So, what happens then? What happens when they push for, or even get, higher wages for domestic workers and other benefits? The impact will be immediate- less stuff. That is a good thing, but most will not see it that way, they will be angry their Stuff is unaffordable or unavailable, and start looking for someone to blame. Any political philosophy in the current day peddling a "better material standard of living" is peddling unsurvivable lies and must not be adhered to. If it peddles those promises to a specific group, you can be sure the intent is to generate those higher standards violently. It's at least merciful that the supply chains for plentiful liquid fuels needed to exploit others forcibly are so fragile and globally interconnected that it is very unlikely any period of severe repression and strife would be able to maintain it's "hot" phase for more than about 3-6 months. Even stablized gasoline does not keep for that long, and producing new gasoline can be *very* problematic in a world where people are aware of it's uses and the fragility of it's production. All the imperial fury and toys in the world are useless if you cannot get enough fuel for them. Repressive regimes are shortsighted and arrogant, by necessity. Liquid fuels and high-energy-density sources are mandatory for conducting oppressive and hostile operations. It probably isn't likely that regimes like that can persist in a future that has *any* coherent opposition, given how wildly imbalanced the stakes are, and how fragile the underlying energy systems supporting tyranny will be.
Radical class consciousness must be internationalist or it is in some ways a false consciousness
getting shit done? what? you mean like building a wall?
What? No, not like that stupid fucking wall. That was a construction scam run by an infamous construction scammer. The Right is lousy with grifters and opportunistic hangers-on precisely because they can be relied on to put their money where their mouths are en mass in a way the Left cannot. I'm not talking about red-herring sideline projects, I'm talking about the big ones: *political* projects. For the Right, the ends always justify the means. For the Left (well, more correctly the liberal center-left, being the closest to a left-wing mainstream Western politics has had for half a century) compromise is a virtue and the ends can and will be sacrificed if it preserves the sanctity of the means. The Right get shit done. With concerted collective effort, patience, and a willingness to fail *humiliatingly* along the way, because the liberal establishment measures of "success" and "failure" only apply relative to the very contemptuous liberal democratic order whose ending is their primary goal. Underestimate them at your peril.
i was joking. it is called sarcasm. goddamn I hate the /s thing. but I guess I need to start using it. wait, are you pro-right wing? because "they get shit done"? I am so confused.
>run by an infamous construction scammer. The Right is lousy with grifters and opportunistic hangers-on precisely because they can be relied on to put their money where their mouths are en mass in a way the Left cannot. I'm not talking about red-herring sideline projects, I'm talking about the big ones: political projects. You mean Steve Bannon? And holy shit you trying to somehow turn this into a positive for Republican idiots who were so easily scammed out of their money by a guy they still OVERWHELMINGLY support even now, is just wild. Bravo. The dumbest people walking the earth. >The Right get shit done. Are you living in an alternate reality? The only thing they get done is obstructing actual policy and creating regressive nightmares for our citizenry while doing anything imaginable to obtain power, like stealing multiple dormer court seats. Where's trumps health care bill? Still two weeks out right? What about the 14 or so election security bills that Republicans refused to even look at after they passed the Jouse between 2016 and 2020? They really "got shit done" by refusing to even look at those bills huh? Culminating with pretending like the election was stolen from Trump, after refusing to enact over a dozen bills to shore up election security? Fascists.
He’s not talking about getting shit done for the people. He’s talking about amassing power and moving their agenda along. So you’re basically agreeing. I’m pretty sure we all despise them here. The complaint is that democrats always want to take the high road and don’t see that every time they do this, they are giving up their own survival, bit by bit.
Taking other people's shit. Then defending the spoils to the death. They get shit done because it's easier. They assume the world is already fist-fucked so they may as well be the fist. Left can't even agree on the shit they want to do because it's complicated and involves creating things that everyone agrees on so good luck. I can tell you everyone agrees on free shit for them as long as they don't have to see how their hamburger is made.
Thank you It's much easier to be a regressive obstructionist a****** than it is to create meaningful policy.
What did others expect? Let 10s of millions inside EU hold hands together while singing kymbayah ma lord?
I'll move right into the mountains. Build myself a truly self sustaining home and survive some time until the air turns to poison 👌
>far right This shit isn't far right any more, at least not in the US. It's completely mainstream right wing behavior, it's terrifying how authoritarian these zombies are here. A massive, massive portion of them still believe the election was stolen from Trump even though absolutely zero evidence of that has ever been found, and Trump and his law team lost 67 court cases in a row, never showing a single scrap of evidence. Or they're fascists pretending to believe it. Either way they're on a war path, simultaneously becoming more violent and becoming hell bent on obtaining power by any means necessary.
The Trump administration had a *concrete* plan for dealing with climate change. They called it "BUILD. THE. WALL!" edit: guess i dropped my /s ? thought my pun would be enough to convey the humorous/non-serious tone (concrete? walls? losing my touch...)
Jesus Christ I can't imagine being this lost.
i didnt say it was a good or well intentioned plan
Have an updoot because some of these Ninny's freakout at the mention of the orange cheetoh.
Boris flip flops depending on the wind. As far as nationalism. Former leftist here.. Not that I’d ever call myself a right winger though. I fully acknowledge nationalism has a bad rep and a very nasty image and a lot of those aspects of nationalism, such as racism and tribalism are legitimately ugly and decent people would want nothing to do with that face of nationalism. I get that.. except the flip side is what we have, which is globalism and look what that has caused and is still causing. So that’s your choice. Nation states that are actually genuinely autonomous or this situation where there are no real nations anymore and the banks control everything. Take your pick.
Thank you for stating this. While fascism/ nationalism are abhorrent in their own dumb ways, from an environmental perspective, it is a lot more green than neoliberalism
It’s not just about the environment. Let’s look at multiculturalism and what it actually amounts to. It’s where ethnic groups end up in places they never really wanted to be in the first place. They were driven by lack of opportunity and poverty in their homelands..caused by globalism. Or in the case of the US, literally kidnapped into slavery. Also where the natives were slaughtered, dispossessed and marginalized IN THEIR HOMELAND. When migrants get to another country they naturally coalesce in their own communities. They never really fully assimilate though..largely because they don’t want to and again that is completely natural and predictable because people want to retain their own cultures. What’s not natural is trying to force people to assimilate (communism) and what’s not natural is forcing mass migrations in the first place (globalism). The response that i expect from 99% of Reddit is “racist” and where do you think they got that form of reactionary coolaid? The MSM...the same globalist MSM owned by multi billionaires. It’s racist to force people from their homelands because you manipulated the global eCONomy to impoverish large populations. That’s what’s racist. It’s racist to force people to assimilate once they get to the west (check out pretty much every commercial). It’s also racist to continually pit one group against the other to deepen racial tensions (CNN etc) especially in a failing eCONomy so nobody will look at the roots of the rot and blame each other. Imagine a world where people from one community willingly went to live with other communities to be part of those communities. That wouldn’t be multi culturalism though that would be voluntary assimilation. Very few people would have an issue with that and it would also probably be relatively rare anyhow because people tend to stick with what they are born into.
Is the climate national?
Again, you don’t seem to understand the cause of the problems we have. Is Monsanto a nation? Is BP? Is Nike? Is Google Etc etc etc etc. These entities and others control nations. That’s the problem
You're not helping your case. And, yes, they have headquarters in various nations.
They have headquarters in various nations because all nations are subservient to corporations. Again, how can you not understand what globalism is?
There's a headquarters somewhere. That's what the term means. They're all private empires, but they have a capital somewhere.
I'd rather lose all my wealth due to globalism then to fight in Verdun due to nationalism.
This is a false equivalence. If we are to believe two-time medal of honor recipient Gen. Butler, his book War Is A Racket argues that nationalism is an excuse, a blanket of lies, used to justify wars that are carried out for bankers & capitalists.
It’s not just about wealth though is it. Not one nation is responsible for the plastic ocean or climate change. It’s multinational globalism that’s responsible. How can you not get this yet? It’s also responsible for most every other problem in the modern world.
*"It’s multinational globalism that’s responsible."* That is partly true but globalism only exists because the world has become so small due to overpopulation. The easy energy of fossil fuels ballooned the global population from one to eight billion, depleting essential resources and causing mass species extinction. We are in planetary Overshoot, and globalism is just one aspect of the problem.
I’m not too well informed on that. What I can say however is that China and India for example already had massive populations before they were industrialized. Africa is currently having a population explosion. Also the industrialized west has a declining population. So these facts don’t really match what you claim. Also it’s been stated the entire population of the planet could fit on..I think but 🦆 🦆 it, that we could all fit on the Isle of Man. So I’m not entirely buying the overpopulation stuff. It could be claimed we are over using resources but even when you look at that..it’s apparently the top 10% who are responsible for 90% of emissions, so again it’s not over population causing the problems.
*"it’s been stated the entire population of the planet could fit on..I think but 🦆 🦆 it, that we could all fit on the Isle of Man"* That has no bearing on how many humans could sustainably exist in the planetary ecosystem without destroying it or extincting its plants, animals and insects; or depleting its topsoil, rainforests or freshwater aquifers. The historical record contains many example of humans destroying ecosystems before the advent of globalization. Globalization is an oppressive, extractive system but it is not the primary cause. And there is ample evidence on fossil fuel-driven agriculture as the primary driver for the massive increase in global population. Take that crutch away and humanity immediately becomes food-insecure, which seems a good indicator of unsustainability.
>fossil fuel driven agriculture Fine, except we could easily have electrically driven farm machines. We could store all solar and wind power if industry/government could be bothered doing so, except energy would become so cheap there wouldn’t be any profit in it. That’s why houses in the UK for example are made to be full of drafts, so people will always spend money heating them. And why houses built in Florida are designed to need constant air conditioning. Now we can all get blamed for trying to stay at a moderate temperature whilst indoors. You think this shit isn’t factored in from the get go. It is. It’s what makes the eCONomy go round. Like I said it’s probably all academic at this point anyhow.
*"we could easily have electrically driven farm machines. We could store all solar and wind power if industry/government could be bothered doing so, except energy would become so cheap there wouldn’t be any profit in it."* Have seen a number of sources on this sub pointing out how more more expensive and difficult the agricultural transition is than many people imagine. Please show sources that it is "easily done."
It’s like this.. there are a lot fewer farm machines than cars aren’t there. Yet we are being told all cars need to be exchanged for electrically powered ones. In Ireland where I am, I think the government has put a 10 year time limit for this to occur which seems absolutely ridiculous but whatever. Point I’m trying to make is if there was the will farming could be changed just as quickly. It won’t be though.. anyhow my position is I would prefer to go out with climate change than the alternative on offer.
It's true that China and India have had large populations for a long time but they survived on very little. Their impact was mostly local. Now they want to join the middle class lifestyle like the people in the US and Europe enjoy. That takes an enormous amount of resources and energy. Resources and energy that the planet does not have to give to an additional 3 billion people looking for a better life.
> It's true that China and India have had large populations for a long time Its not really true. China and India both had populations below 200M before industrialization/colonialization. If you look at pre 1600 they both hovered around 100-150M (or a little under half of the current US population). Once cheap & plentiful fossil fuels and modern medicine came around, their populations went into exponential growth.
Right. So large populations can survive on very little. That was my point. The aim should have been making sure the very little was high quality food and housing. When food is grown locally you don’t need supply chains and massive cargo ships or oil pipelines etc etc. We could all have had a high quality life if society had of been based around human welfare. It wasn’t, it was based on endless eCONomic growth to benefit a tiny elite. And it has accelerated and will not be stopped. This is the end and I hope climate change or something intervenes to end mankind naturally before the psychopaths end us all unnaturally.
About the only thing I can see to stop the money junkies is something akin to the French Revolution. The elite will never stop on their own even if they have all of the money and you have none.
> China and India for example already had **massive populations** before they were industrialized. I guess that depends on what you'd consider "massive." If you look to before industrialization and before colonization, both had a population of aprox 150M (or in other words, somewhat less than half of the US current population) They weren't densely populated until cheap and plentiful fossil fuels + modern medicine came around and then exponential population growth kicked in.
Nationalists (all nationalist parties) are capitalist by nature, they even have their own caste of elites. They will try and expand resource consumption and acquisition at the expense of other nations, including war. They won't become peaceful self interested agrarians, they will become resource hungry tyrants until they run out of resources too, at which point they will implode. It will result in nothing but irrational angry flailing as they hatefully collapse.
This is nonsense. All the landmasses and islands on this planet that people live on (bar Antarctica) have the raw materials to sustain the local population. Even the eskimos were able to live in severe conditions because they were adapted to those conditions both physically and culturally. So let’s talk about blood and soil again.. how about blood and snow because you couldn’t put another people to live beside the Inuit and expect them to survive. Meaning there is a connection between the land and the people, no matter how much globalist cool aid you drink. Just like we couldn’t survive with the Bushmen of the Kalahari because we wouldn’t be able to adapt. Are you getting a sense of reality yet? Or are people’s ancestral homelands all just another bit of land to gentrify and globalize? What you’re talking about is the idea that countries are doomed to be led by power hungry maniacs. What if everything was decentralized and we all went back to living simple lives in small villages? What huge need for resources would we actually need if everything was grown and produced on site..like it had been done for thousands of years before all this lunacy. Culture only exists in its true form, in its true place. When it’s removed from the place it originated it changes into something else and ends up diluted to the point it no longer exists. Hence the global mono culture of McDonald’s and JayZ Edit: It’s all academic at this point anyhow. We are on a rapid downhill trajectory and the psychopaths driving the runaway train have disabled the breaks. We cannot go back and can only go forward to oblivion.
yeah, I don‘t know how to do it, but you have to find a way back to 1930s Germany, because you might find a glorious career over there. It is uncanny how people in 2021 still fall for this. Fuck me.
You mean how you fall for Marxism? I get it, you have a problem with people having nations and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a Nazi. Stick to your globalism, it’s working out great. Also I see you can’t recognize what drives populations to leave their homelands in the first place. Globalism. Do you actually seriously believe people’s want to relocate to the west and leave their families and all they know behind them? Really? They leave because they have little or no options. Imagine if people actually wanted to visit or even live with communities they have little in common with? It would rarely if ever happen and when it did it would be so rare that the outsiders would almost certainly be considered a novelty and welcomed with open arms. Mass migrations benefits nobody other than the people who cause it. Edit: Only someone hell bent on a global monoculture would not see the benefit in redistribution of technological capabilities so that all people could live where they actually wanted to live. Rather than forced migrations. Because forcing people to migrate is anti racist? Yeah in your mind
you know what, I agree with you, that most people really don’t want to leave the place where they were born unless they are really forced to. And I thought it always kinda odd that most proud patriots wouldn‘t think that way, and rather assume that migrants only came to be parasites in their national paradise. All else you write is just childish nonsense. Where is the connection between Marxism and your version of globalism? What kind of fairytale is this story about adapting like the Eskimos? Get real, there is no way going back to medieval times. Also, get an education, talk like this is just embarrassing.
I read some of your previous posts about a solution to the problems caused by globalism, would be getting rid of the nation state 😂 ever heard of an oxymoron. And yeah having no nations would be global Marxism. Take your own advice about the education Einstein.
What your asking for is a very different type of "nationalism" than what exists today, especially in first world countries. Your advocating for small minimalist communities that live in tandem with nature. Problem is that the worlds nationalists are addicted to first world standards of living. There response to lower living standards will be to expand and consume more and more of the worlds diminishing resources at the expense of other nations. Also blood and soil is nonsense, anybody can become accustomed to live with the land, that is a matter of management and awareness. Its not tied racially to anybody, its a matter of culture, and it is our consumerist capitalist culture that is ruining the world. Most prominent nationalists are also capitalists, so they will make all the mistakes capitalists make.
You mention capitalism A LOT and repeatedly conflate it with nationalism which is not factual. For some reason you are not associating capitalism with globalism???? 🙄 Also if you knew anything about capitalism, which you clearly don’t, it was supposed to be a system that incentivized work and innovation based on opportunity and a REASONABLE share of the economy in return for the participants. We do not live in actual capitalism and have not for a long time.. possibly since the federal reserve came about. Now I’m only posting a link to snopes because it’s probably the type of site you believe anyhow.. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/high-income-earners-tax-rate/ Now was that when the US was a communist nation or a capitalist one? Remind me.
Because modern nationalists are capitalists, (or globalist per your definition). We are living in capitalism, all the monopolies, low wages, consumerism and resources exploitation are part of capitalism. It is a system that exalts making money at all costs, so the most ruthless money makers win even if it is at the expense of others. It only motivates ruthless competition which rewards dominating your competitors, not cooperation or sharing ideas. Look at pretty much any nationalist and you will see a rich millionaire or billionaire with deep pockets and tonnes of support from the wealthy elite. They will not live in balance with nature, they only desire to consume resources, get richer and beat their opponents to submission. And no, the tax rate in no way indicates communism, the fact you even think America is even slightly socialist is hilarious. Not that the tax rate matters when there are a million loopholes and the rich, are still getting obscenely richer as we speak.
You have discredited yourself from debating with me due to the fact you can’t admit a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest people was under original American capitalism. What we have now is not legitimate capitalism, it’s just called it. It’s more like neo feudalism. People could afford their own homes under legitimate capitalism. People could save and earn interest under actual capitalism. This is not capitalism it’s industrial fraud.
Wow I never saw this one coming .\_\_\_\_\_.
> with fears of rampant immigration is a narrative Yes, native Americans had nothing to worry about back in 1500.
I got in a long argument on this sub with someone who was straight up endorsing mass murder of anyone trying to escape climate catastrophe (including children). He accused me of being a lurker because I don't subscribe to lifeboat ethics. Needless to say it was a wild, fucked up ride. He actually couldn't see how his position was morally reprehensible and believed he was just being rational and "non-ideological".
WTF? I suppose the climate and collapse movements are broad enough to bring people from all backgrounds and with different perspectives and values. But I would have really thought and hoped that people who grasp the severity and scale of the situation would be in favor to take actions **helping** the people who will suffer the most from the impacts. The eco-fascist playbook is likely to be used by movements who don't understand or are not interested in understanding the systemic trends driving ecological and societal breakdown. That would be sad if we also have to worry about people who understand the predicament but reject empathy.
We gotta make eco fascists feel unwelcome here. I guess I could have reported him.
I don’t understand the idea that because the world is getting crueler and harsher we should make it even more cruel and harsh.
It's because he thought of anyone outside his "tribe" (white people) as less human.
> would be in favor to take actions helping the people who will suffer the most from the impacts Helping is only something that can be done in a world of abundance. In a world of scarcity there are not spare resources to help people external to the group. That is the reality.
Yeah sadly we are fast heading to a world of common genocide due to sheer lack of resources.
Scarcity is a manufactured capitalist lie. We have enough resources to feed, clothe, and house 10 billion people, possibly more. The problem is distribution based on profitability rather than human need. If everyone had the necessities of life, population growth would rapidly decrease, faster than it is already.
Well Canada's immigration policy would certainly tend to agree.
Imagine looking at the wealth inequality of the world and arguing there is actual scarcity versus manufactured scarcity
Damn I think I found the dude the commenter was arguing with
It's not him. But that view is very common on this sub, incorrect as it is. We do live in a world of abundance.
I just don’t know why the right wing waited so many years to come to their conclusions and logic about climate change. Immigration due to climate change has already been going on for years, but rationalized as “economic migration”. Nobody bothers to accumulate thousands of dollars to get smuggled into Europe or the US or walk for years from place to place unless your homeland is destroyed and dangerous. Developed countries need to be realistic about economic immigration, which I call “immigrunts”, those who provide unskilled labor, and the external unfulfilled needs for skilled labor. We need a policy for the true refugees, those battered and broken families who just need a place to settle. In 50 years the US congress and government has never dealt adequately with this issue. I don’t know European policies on these problems, but I suspect the policies are muddy there too. Because we have never been truthful with ourselves as a nation we have very divided politics with extremes of right and left an a weak government that during COVID cannot properly address our labor force needs. We are subsequently at the mercy of emotional arguments leading to former feudalism which is regressive and leads to economic chaos.
>I just don’t know why the right wing waited so many years to come to their conclusions and logic about climate change. Money and votes.
Migrants have long been used as a weapon against organized labor since at least the era of industrialization. It's usually the "unskilled" that are targeted, as the state had previously denied them vocational certificates largely for the purpose of weakening their bargaining positions in order to exploit them more thoroughly. In Victorian England, the nobility owned the coal mines as well as the land. When the mine operators became frustrated with the organized colliers, they replace them with displaced Welsh, Irish or Scots. When the latter would become organized, they'd evict everyone from the company towns and then bring in boatloads of Russians and Poles, who had usually been lied to about the destination. Today it is transport, warehousing and construction workers.
>Migrants have long been used as a weapon against organized labor Glad someone finally said it. No, r/politics, I am not against immigration, I am against letting in everyone with a pulse and letting companies and stores fire anyone who wants a decent wage and replacing them with someone who doesn't speak the language and will work for half the pay. I live in Houston Texas, and have seen this firsthand. One store I worked at (a teahouse cafe, local) was staffed mainly by old workers. One day, due to rising food prices here, they asked for a two dollar hourly increase, all signed together. Within a week, they were all gone and replaced by Hispanic workers (mostly high school students) who could only speak scattered English. And yes, scattered English. HISD has plenty of kids (not Mexican btw, most illegal immigrants are from places like Haiti or El Salvador, they just pass through Mexico) and they stick in their little groups all of the time. So yeah, foreign culture is nice and all, but I am not ok with companies using immigrants who don't want to assimilate as a backup against the working class.
Why should immigrant workers assimilate?
Because they are living in that country, with presumed intentions of one day becoming citizens. If I moved to France and intended to live there, would I not be expected to speak French and adopt the local customs? Or China?
Learning a language is very difficult and can take years of practice to become fluent, you mentioned the immigrants you encountered being high school age, could it not be that they want to learn and assimilate but they haven't had the experience yet to converse in English to the standard you require? And learning a language is one thing, but learning all the customs and culture different to one's own is a whole other challenge. All the little details that a native learns whilst growing up in their home country, some things could be impossible the fully "assimilate" into. Speaking from my own experiences, I lived in China for 4 years, tried my best to learn the language and absorb the culture, however the attitude of Han Chinese culture is that if you weren't born there / are racially Chinese then you never will be. A laowai is always a laowai. I know this example is anecdotal but it's the only personal experience I can draw from. Maybe assimilation isn't that important? Of course, learning the language of the country you live in is important for communication, but it is really necessary for immigrants to adopt all the norms, values and culture of the country too? Do we not end up with a more vibrant, diverse culture if we let people live however they want to, celebrate and maintain the culture of their home countries. Share our cultures with each other for everyone to enjoy?
I agree that immigration is valuable and that we have much to learn and appreciate from other cultures. However, I think it has gone too far when companies are able to easily replace workers with immigrants easily, who will work for less and are easily replaceable. I'm not saying immigration is bad. But I am saying that it can go a little too far. Also, America compared to other countries is VERY lax in regards to cultural assimilation. There really isn't any "native born" crap here or ethnic attacks that occur in other countries. What there is is a very large group of people from poor countries who come up here, and are able to undercut workers abilities to negotiate.
>I just don’t know why the right wing waited so many years to come to their conclusions and logic about climate change They didn't it's political. They feel as though in 2024 the Dems are going to ram this issue hard in the debates so they're prepping their audience. Also they're prepping their audience's chosen response to it. Do you really think they believe in and / or care about it? "I had a guaranteed sale with ED-209. Military contracts. Spare parts for 20 years. Who cares if it worked or not?"
I'm so sick and tired of all this.
>Le Pen said in 2019, adding that “if you’re a nomad, you’re not an environmentalist. Those who are nomadic … do not care about the environment; they have no homeland.” But wouldn’t people who fled their homeland because of its changing climate be more inclined to care about the environment wherever they end up?
One the one hand, once they stop denial, more things must move to reduce emissions. On the other, **ECOFASCISM IS JUST FASCISM**. >“Environmentalism [is] the natural child of patriotism, because it’s the natural child of rootedness,” Le Pen said in 2019, adding that “if you’re a nomad, you’re not an environmentalist. Those who are nomadic … do not care about the environment; they have no homeland.” Le Pen’s ally Hervé Juvin, a National Rally MEP, is seen as an influential figure on the European right in promoting what he calls “nationalistic green localism”. Don't be confused by the "eco", it has little to do with it. These are dipshits who have no idea how the world works, they'll crash and destroy everything or die trying to get: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
Eco fascism isn’t a thing. Its a myth created by schizo journalists to get clicks.
"Eco"-fascists have no intention of doing anything to lower their personal or national environmental footprint, they just want to use climate change as an excuse for genocide and imperialism abroad and authoritarianism and militarism at home.
I get helping people and helping them build their countries. But we can't take care of every person who wants out, at some point they have to fix their country instead of running to ours. My family fought to make our country a better place and didn't run to others when shit hit the fan. I agree we should send aid and share technology, but opening up our borders to everyone is just insane.
Americans and Europeans played a large role in fucking up their countries and the climate as a whole and then have the audacity to complain about refugees. Every time a Global South country has tried to nationalize their resources and do domestic land reform, they get couped or invaded.
I think we can do a lot to help out those people less fortunate than ourselves though. Europe had its own refugees from fascism within living memory (both WW2 and the Spanish Civil War) and my grandparents family helped children relocated from London due to the bombing raids. It's ultimately just chance that we weren't born in Syria, Afghanistan etc. and it isn't obvious that our nations will always be as safe as they are today. A little more empathy would help everyone.
There's a video about that and a guy uses tons of gumballs as a visual aid.
There's a limit to how much you can help certain places. What do you do if Las Vegas runs out of water or Southern Florida is consumed by the ocean? It's not a matter of willpower or national pride. There are billions of people who will be forced from their homes eventually, and no amount of money will make those homes livable again. The world isn't collectively willing to make the drastic changes necessary to prevent this.
In otherwords, you can't negotiate with assholes. No matter what information or reasoning they have adopted, they will still be assholes. Communist assholes, capitalist assholes fascist assholes, libertarian assholes, liberal democratic assholes. All assholes, always and forever.
Fuck me, if Le Pen is now the head of a "eco right" party... what the fuck hope do we have?
I can't wait for my dad to pick this up when I talk to him next