Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[2Stonedbirds]

Umberto's benchmark for fascism is almost exclusively social issues and standpoint, and completely glosses over the strength and power given to corporate interests to dictate policy and direction of a country. Which IMO, is the trademark of fascism and certainly its strength and largest contributor to his points anyways.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not going to get into it too, too much, but I think we also have to understand that Fascism today ain't your Grand-Pappy's Fascism.

I know everyone loves their beloved little 'Political Line' but life isn't that easily defined. Things change.

Modern Fascism does not necessarily have to conform to 1930s standards or what was learned in a Jr. High Textbook.

Politics, on all ends of the spectrum, are fluid and change according to the times and we as the Electorate have to change with them.

France, Italy and Sweden are staring at pretty 'out there' Governments and most of Eastern Europe is almost a complete write-off already.

We have to expand our understanding.

"Know thine Enemy."

Yeah, I mean it’s great to post a list of classical fascist movements and say “see! there’s been no fascism for 50 years!” but when you look up neo-fascism and see they have references for governments that are in power now… well, it’s not quite as comforting.

And, call me crazy, but I think most people would agree that one of the key approaches to avoiding putting fascists in power would be to recognize when people (who may or may not be fascists) use fascist rhetoric and… you know… not put them in power?

There’s that whole saying about those who don’t learn from history being doomed to repeat it. Perhaps modern conservatives and classical liberal thumb suckers could stop self-soothing and sticking their fingers in their ears whenever someone says the “f” word. Tough to say what the world is going to look like in 50 years, but I doubt very much anyone is going to look back and view our refusal to acknowledge the similarities between the history of fascism and modern right-wing populism (and their overlapping rhetoric) more favourably than some people that used the “f” word a little too liberally for their taste.

I guess it’s better to just forget history and ignore everything going on. Wouldn’t want anyone to feel bad for us for having read a book.

[rubecube]

This is an absolutely hilarious sequence of posts. Cliff claims fascism has a concrete and specific definition, but refuses to post what it is.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Fascism has a concrete and specific definition,

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You’re the one making the claims of fascism (or neo-fascism, or pre-fascism, or however you want to couch it), so how about you go first?

Originally Posted by timun

Copied from another thread:

Timum provides a list of fascist traits from one of the most highly-regarded and renowned experts on fascism.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most of those are right-wing populism.

Here’s a list of actual fascist regimes in history. It’s not a long list, and none of them are more recent than 50 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements

Cliff "Nope, that expert is wrong. Here's a wikipedia list of fascist movements from nearly a century ago."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Umberto's benchmark for fascism is almost exclusively social issues and standpoint, and completely glosses over the strength and power given to corporate interests to dictate policy and direction of a country. Which IMO, is the trademark of fascism and certainly its strength and largest contributor to his points anyways.

Right, but that only really strengthens the argument that PP and the CPC have fascist tendencies. The history of Canadian conservativism over the last 2.5 decades has been a preference for privatization and deference to corporate interests (see: Harper's government trying to deregulate the banking industry). The Liberals are also guilty of this.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is an absolutely hilarious sequence of posts. Cliff claims fascism has a concrete and specific definition, but refuses to post what it is.

Honestly after wasting way too much time of my day reading about Fascism, the only thing I feel I truly understand is that there is nothing even close to one specific definition of it.

[2Stonedbirds]

Rubecube, if PPs language is an observable metric of fascism, the state of corporate interference in NA politics has been front and center and directing for 70 years.
May as well have Mussolini hitting people with a stick.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Honestly after wasting way too much time of my day reading about Fascism, the only thing I feel I truly understand is that there is nothing even close to one specific definition of it.

Well yeah. Cliff made an absolutely ridiculous statement and then couldn't be bothered to back it up when pressed.

[2Stonedbirds]

BTW I think we agree on the point we are both making, my assertion is that Umberto, while diagnosing symptoms, missed the disease.

[Doctorfever]

Opinion column, speaks to Sajjan remaining in the cabinet. Not sure why the Liberals can never admit a mistake made by this guy and turf him. It would be better for their party as a whole.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...%20he%20failed

For Mr. Sajjan, this report comes at the tail end of a ministerial tenure imbued with scandal: he exaggerated his role in a key battle during his tour in Afghanistan; his office hired a reserve officer from his old unit (who had been suspended for having a relationship with a subordinate) to work as an aide; he failed to act on recommendations to root out sexism in the military in a 2015 report by a former Supreme Court justice, and instead the government commissioned a new report by another former Supreme Court justice; he said he chose not to look at an allegation of sexual misconduct against then-chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance when it was brought to his attention; he said he wasn’t reading e-mails during the Kabul evacuation.

But this accusation eclipses all the others, for how deeply Mr. Sajjan appears to have both perverted his power and betrayed his oath. The Canadians left behind in Afghanistan and the Afghans who bravely assisted our troops deserve answers. But in this government, there is no scandal too serious to merit actual introspection. No reporting that can’t be flipped around to malign the character of the reporters. Mr. Sajjan will continue to remain in cabinet. And shame on you for asking about it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Rubecube, if PPs language is an observable metric of fascism, the state of corporate interference in NA politics has been front and center and directing for 70 years.
May as well have Mussolini hitting people with a stick.

Both can be true. Whether PP is a fascist or not, he is using fascist rhetoric. That's the whole point of this debate. There are three questions we have to ask ourselves:

Why is he doing it?
What are the consequences of it?
Is it acceptable for the PM of this country to use fascist tactics and rhetoric?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Both can be true. Whether PP is a fascist or not, he is using fascist rhetoric. That's the whole point of this debate. There are three questions we have to ask ourselves:

Why is he doing it?
What are the consequences of it?
Is it acceptable for the PM of this country to use fascist tactics and rhetoric?

Getting a little ahead of yourself. He isn’t the PM. Yet.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Getting a little ahead of yourself. He isn’t the PM. Yet.

Which is why it’s a question you ask before they become a PM, not after.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

BTW I think we agree on the point we are both making, my assertion is that Umberto, while diagnosing symptoms, missed the disease.

Totally. He has written more to that effect, and there are other scholars of fascism who have used these guidelines and then expanded on under what conditions they can be successfully employed, which is what you're alluding to.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Both can be true. Whether PP is a fascist or not, he is using fascist rhetoric. That's the whole point of this debate. There are three questions we have to ask ourselves:

Why is he doing it?
What are the consequences of it?
Is it acceptable for the PM of this country to use fascist tactics and rhetoric?

Well. This is a good question, but I think it needs to be rephrased.

Because at the moment, as I said in my prior post, the Global Political Climate is shifting more towards that side.

Eastern Europe, France, Sweden, UK, Italy...America!

Maybe instead of worrying about the leaders and parties we should be more concerned about the underlying cause.

Because if people want to call PP a Fascist, go ahead, fill your boots, but you're not solving any problems.

Why is this now becoming a more prevalent problem? I think thats the more important issue that needs to be addressed.

We as a society fought wars against Fascism and now we're openly welcoming it back with thunderous applause? We'd best figure out why. And in a hurry.

[2Stonedbirds]

Yeah I'm more concerned about machinations rather than rhetoric.... while the argument can be made that machinations are in place, it just needs rhetoric to drive it.
I'm not sure I agree that PP is a fascist. I would agree that while he is using nationalist language, I would counter its a wonderful strategy considering the eagerness for our current govt to finance global policies while people struggle to make ends meet.
It's political strategy. Not ideology.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well. This is a good question, but I think it needs to be rephrased.

Because at the moment, as I said in my prior post, the Global Political Climate is shifting more towards that side.

Eastern Europe, France, Sweden, UK, Italy...America!

Maybe instead of worrying about the leaders and parties we should be more concerned about the underlying cause.

Because if people want to call PP a Fascist, go ahead, fill your boots, but you're not solving any problems.

Why is this now becoming a more prevalent problem? I think thats the more important issue that needs to be addressed.

We as a society fought wars against Fascism and now we're openly welcoming it back with thunderous applause? We'd best figure out why. And in a hurry.

In the UK the Labour Party just won a landslide.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well. This is a good question, but I think it needs to be rephrased.

Because at the moment, as I said in my prior post, the Global Political Climate is shifting more towards that side.

Eastern Europe, France, Sweden, UK, Italy...America!

Maybe instead of worrying about the leaders and parties we should be more concerned about the underlying cause.

Because if people want to call PP a Fascist, go ahead, fill your boots, but you're not solving any problems.

Why is this now becoming a more prevalent problem? I think thats the more important issue that needs to be addressed.

We as a society fought wars against Fascism and now we're openly welcoming it back with thunderous applause? We'd best figure out why. And in a hurry.

You can look at a few posts as to why the current government needs to go, posts 12742 and 12744 in this thread are recent ones.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

In the UK the Labour Party just won a landslide.

I'm aware. I'm also aware that it doesn't much matter.

Brexit is still a pretty strong stand.

[Jason14h]

Almost like every country just hates whoever was in power and wants a change because economic factors (inflation) and pressure of exiting the largest recession in decade / ever (covid) has left people angry , desperate , scared and looking for people to blame and anyone who will offer a “solution” no matter how much logic and reality is behind the promises looks better then the status quo

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Yeah I'm more concerned about machinations rather than rhetoric.... while the argument can be made that machinations are in place, it just needs rhetoric to drive it.
I'm not sure I agree that PP is a fascist. I would agree that while he is using nationalist language, I would counter its a wonderful strategy considering the eagerness for our current govt to finance global policies while people struggle to make ends meet.
It's political strategy. Not ideology.

Except he's not just using nationalist language. Lumping socialism in with fascism, as he did in that quote I posted, is blatant newspeak.

Even if it's political strategy, it's alarming and concerning because once you make overtures to those groups, it's very hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

I agree we have to address the underlying causes of fascism, but you have to meet fascism where it is first and stop it. It's much harder to address those problems once fascists have seized power.