Rise of fascism... what, if anything, can decent people do?

[MrsBennetsPoorNerves]

Trump's victory is obviously alarming for many of us, but we've seen the rise of the far right in lots of places across Europe to a greater or lesser extent as well. History teaches us that bad things happen when decent people stand by and do nothing . So what, if anything, should those of us who are concerned about the rise of fascism be doing now?

Please note: if you're a Trump fan and don't agree that he is a fascist, this is not the thread to debate that. There are plenty of other threads where we can discuss that point, but this one is aimed at those who already accept that premise. Obviously, I can't stop you posting here, as it's an open forum and I don't get to police it, but I won't be engaging with any posts from Trump apologists on this thread because I don't want irrelevant debate to derail the main discussion.

Yes, I agree values in Britain are not the norm in the U.S, I don't think it is the same problem, e.g. very right wing people here don't have a strong religious conviction. Equally, issues in Britain are not quite the same as in Denmark or France.

I don't think Marxism is that relevant, it's more about what people are actually experiencing,

I mean sure I learnt about various facets of it and Hegel etc although it was a long time ago.

What is relevant is how autocratic the state can be and how it controls people

That's everyday lives and it exists on the far left too

We are in agreement

Marxism is relevant if you're talking about the far left just as fascism is relevant if you're talking about the far right.

People are talking about far left fascism which is nonsensical.

My understanding is very basic, but “Fascism” is the meant to be the extreme Authoritarian Right politically, “Communism” is meant to be the extreme Authoritarian Left politically. They share the Authoritarianism, but they are not really meant to share the same nationalistic one.
The fundamental principle of pure Marxism is the opposite of nationalism because one of its main principles is to destroy the very concept of a nation state.

So you cannot be a true Communist unless you wish to convert all of the world to Communism and destroy the very concept of a Nation State. At least in theory. In practice….

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism - red fascism is somewhat of a controversial concept.

@Ghouella

"Abandoning them all because you've decided "well some on the left say gender critical beliefs are far right, so I guess I'll go all in!" is bonkers to me, personally."

I completely agree which is why I prefer to separate topics such as transgender issues or abortion rights from left or right wing definitions.

I prefer to keep it simple:
Greater state control on the economy = left
Less state control on the economy = right

Everything else is a separate issue.

I believe that the only thing that can halt far right views is less inequality, the rise of most dictators is off the back of populism, why do we get that? because people have shitty lives, look at post WW1 Germany? an economic basket case.

Why did people support Trump, in even greater numbers than in 2016? inequality, less money, rising prices.

S&P going up 200% is of little concern to the vast majority of Americans.

In the UK, more and more people are blaming cross channel migration for their ills, crime, lack of GPs, Schools, long NHS waiting lists etc etc.

But the real reason is 14 years and still on going, of Austerity and relying on the market to solve societies problems, which it will never do, it just causes greater inequality....

The trouble is that the lack of equality is a global issue although we keep trying to make it a national one. A lot of economic growth is dependent on the super powers and the international elite. So if we over control our own nation, we actually end up poorer. Where the balance lies is the key question.
I still think education is more important than equality once the basics are meant. In theory, the basics are met in this country because we have a benefits system, health care and free education. Where we are lacking now is secure housing and that needs to be sorted urgently. We also have a lot of disincentives in the system itself that stop people from reaching their full economic potential and their full happiness. In theory, with tech we should all now be having better lives.

Another issue is energy security. The CEO of Octopus Energy was on LBC last night explaining carefully how carbon capture and hydrogen does not really make sense to invest in. We should be investing in small scale cheap green energy for all via house building. If the Government actually bothers listening to businesses and the experts in their fields, we can get there. We are a nation full of educated and talented people.

@Alexandra2001

The question then is whether it is inequality or growth in overall economic wealth that is the objective.

So in an unbridled capitalist society where there is strong economic growth then although the poorer are better off, the owners of this economic disproportionately benefit.

Or in a more left wing society it is maybe that the economy shrinks so that the poorer are worse off but the wealthy are disproportionately worse off so that there is less inequality.

Of course everyone says we should have strong economic growth and less inequality but this is exceptionally hard to achieve because you need private investors to generate that economic growth which they will only do in return for high returns . Take away the high rewards then there is no incentive for them to make the investment.

So in an unbridled capitalist society where there is strong economic growth then although the poorer are better off,

I would say that the States is pretty unbridled when it comes to capitalism. How are the poor better off?

She probably means the poor able and willing to work their socks off. It is both easy to find and lose a job somewhere like the US.

Global growth is one thing and you re right, its hard to influence.

However, we spend billions on housing benefit, paid to private landlords, few council properties built.... thats a political choice, we could easily change that & not add to govt expense, by doing so, we'd give people secure housing, have a state asset, with more money in peoples pockets and less welfare.

We choose to import HCP's, we've disincentivized UK students by making them pay tuition fees.....

We cut the Police budget but then increase the justice systems budget... how mad is that?

Solar and collective heating systems should be the norm for new dev's.... i do think though that despite earlier promises, the small scale nuclear power stations aren't even past the design stage.

On energy, unless we change how it is charged for & subsidised, we will always pay far more.... we already produce around 1/2 our electricity needs via renewables but still pay for it as if it were produced with coal....

I think it is also wrong to assume that in a very capitalist society like the US all employers are equally uncaring. It is simply not the case. The state does not have to regulate and interfere in everything. Sometimes it is more efficient not to do so. Certainly economically.

@username7891

"I would say that the States is pretty unbridled when it comes to capitalism. How are the poor better off?"

Because even in an unbridled capitalist society where there is economic growth then there is increased demand for labour which in a free market employees can negotiate higher wages.

The only way around this is slavery where the companies legally own the labour but this is somewhat frowned upon!

@Alexandra2001 - yes I agree - we do a lot of things that illustrate no joined up thinking whatsoever and as a result, we squander a lot of money on pointless projects that never work out, however well intended.

I am not an energy expert. However, I do know we have an issue with instability due to the national grid being outdated. Like we have outdated housing stock. They have been saying this for years and that is also why we needed a large nuclear plants to stabilise it so someone has to be brave enough to come and sort it out. But spending billions on carbon capture when we should be aiming to avoid burning carbon long term does not make any sense to me.

Of course everyone says we should have strong economic growth and less inequality but this is exceptionally hard to achieve because you need private investors to generate that economic growth which they will only do in return for high returns . Take away the high rewards then there is no incentive for them to make the investment

I think economists generally agree that growth comes from the state providing the seed money/initial capital and the private sector taking it forward.... nothing wrong with private companies making money, as they will also/should pay amounts of tax.

e.g state builds a motorway to an area, private companies move and set up business as people move to the area..... Exeter vs Plymouth is an example.... Exeter on the M5 is seen as attractive place to invest in, helped by Met Office moving there in the 90s.
Plymouth viewed as being stuck out on a limp with just an A road to it & poor rail, but despite a large dockyard, cannot get companies to move there, they are 38 miles apart..... might as well be 380 miles....

Globalisation means that much blue collar work has gone overseas - hence the rust belt. Deregulation means longer hours, less money and fewer rights including bargaining rights.

A tiny elite have scooped up all the profits that's why Musk and Trump's other billionaire chums were kissing the sky when he won. Don't worry, they'll not only make more, they'll have a say on policy.

Meanwhile Americans are expected to pay more for less quality and less product while fighting like rats in a sack for the crumbs.

We won't mention the pharmaceutical industry and how the poor you care so much about, can't afford medical treatment and are dying from opioids.

The alternative to that is not slavery - try again.

Interesting article on the subject:

https://truthout.org/articles/to-defeat-fascism-we-must-recognize-its-a-failed-response-to-capitalist-crisis

Why did people support Trump, in even greater numbers than in 2016?
They didn’t, @Alexandra2001
Just more didn’t vote for the Democrats than didn’t vote for Trump. His vote total was lower. Apathy/inability to decide was the problem.

Edit: I think I’m talking about 2020 not 2016. Sorry.

The far left still need a descriptor that reflects extreme state control and autocracy

It's called a dictatorship or authoritarianism. You can call it Stalinism or Maoism etc. You can call it far left extremism or terrorism.

Out of those I'd go with dictatorship but I feel it needs a type in front.

I get where the term comes from, studied it etc, but language evolves.

State control and autocracy to that level needs a strong set of words, left or right

I recall an historian asked if the term fascist was used correctly in the recent US election race, and his answer was no its pretty much divorced from its origin.

You can use whatever language you like, however you like. Being factually correct is unimportant.

What is Putin in people’s minds? Simple autocrat?

Because Putin is a prime concrete living example of the left and the right ideology colliding into something, what is it?