• Kuori [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    the correct answer (which germany will never land on) is to shoot the nazis. it has always been the only solution to a nazi infestation but germany has always found that difficult to swallow.

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Shoot the nazis, establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, establish capital controls and develop the productive forces so the material conditions that lead to fascism don’t come back.

  • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    In reality, far from stopping the far right, Germany is implementing a far right agenda. Increase police authority? Check. Scapegoat immigrants and other marginalized groups? Check. Build up the military? Check. Suppress protests and dissenters? Check. Impose austerity, providing the fertile ground for fascists? Check.

    By the time the AfD comes to power, they won’t have to do anything. The liberals (including socdems and greens) will already have created a fascist society.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      The same is happening to France. As you said, they’ll have a field day when (at this point it’s not if, it’s when) they get to power.
      Gotta love neoliberalism…

      • Gloomy@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The Netherlands will very likely have a right wing government and will be heading down the same path. Same with Italy, Sweden, Denmark.

        With the next European election this year the right wing parties in the European Parliament will gain a lot of traction.

        We could be heading down the American path and lose a lot or the progress we made over the last 2 decades.

        I will be a father in a couple or hours. Between the right taking to power and accelerating climate change i am just so fucking worried in what kind of world my kids will grow up.

        • Crampon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          The rise of right wing parties might be a consequence of the left wings failure to govern.

          In Norway the Labour Party was the biggest party for decades. Now the party is infested with politicians using it for career paths to NGO’s or international organisations like UN and EU. The same party made for the labourers implements tax policies making it really hard to start industries.

          Money are being spent on the most incredible projects bearing no fruit for future generations.

          At a point people get fed up, and in desperation they have to vote further to the right. If you want less government spending on stupid projects you also have to get some fascism.

          The problem is not the right wing parties or stupid people. The problem is worthless left wing politicians not contributing positive to the nation.

          It saddens me.

          • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The problem is worthless left wing politicians not contributing positive to the nation.

            The problem isn’t a person. It’s class society itself and the capitalist mode of production.

            Both Fascism and Socialism solve the problem of capitalism being in crisis; it always eventually will be, and it currently is in Europe. Fascism “solves” it by fully cementing capitalist rule and removing the veil of bourgeois “democracy”, while Socialism solves it by overthrowing capitalism entirely and establishing proletarian rule.

            The far-right rising again in Europe was always the inevitable consequence of capitalists winning the Cold War and ruthlessly suppressing the Left since. The only other “solution” to the crisis is Fascism.

            • Crampon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              A great example of how this class operates. Our foreign minister from the Labour party had to step down due to suspicions of providing her husband with inside information on government contracts to public traded companies. The husband bought stocks and they made some cash.

              The reward for this corruption is a new position as our ambassador to the US. She officially got the job two days ago.

              We have seen this upper class of politicians never having to stand responsible for their actions for some years now. On both sides.

              There’s no wonder people get desperate. The only solution they get provided is using their vote. And when they do use it they get called out for using it the “wrong” way.

              Either the current politicians fix their shit, or the people will topple them. It’s fairly predictable.

          • Gloomy@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Fahsism is not a very well defined term. Can you expand why you see America (whom I assume you are reversing to?) as a fashist regime?

            • Aquilae [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Would be more accurate to say capitalists I suppose, who inevitably give way to fascism.

              The US is a bourgeois/capitalist dictatorship built on the genocide of millions of native Americans. I think most socialists would say it’s not quite a fascist regime just yet, but it has a history of supporting such regimes and is currently supporting a fascist colony committing a genocide in Palestine.

    • rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Build up the military?

      Any source on that? We do not have a military right now. Wouldn’t be bad if we wanted to defend ourselves against Putin.

      • reaper_cushions [he/him,comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        My guy, have you heard phrases like “100 Mrd. € Sondervermögen für die Bundeswehr”, “Wiedereinführung der Wehrpflicht” , shit like this? Or have you heard anything people like Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann have said in the past two years? Also, hasn’t the Russian army been struggling to overpower Ukraine for the past two years now? The poorest country in Europe with basically no functioning infrastructure to begin with that also is decidedly not a member of NATO? Wouldn’t the Russian Army have to cross the Baltic states and Poland to even reach Germany, triggering a response from all of NATO? Could it be they all the rhetoric about the Russkys expanding westwards is full of shit and nothing more but a fig leaf to sell austerity and a military buildup to the German populace?

        • rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Those are not sources, those are only talks and rumors. I’ve not seen any result of the 100Mrd. yet. And yes, the NATO would be triggered if they invaded Poland, but shouldn’t Germany as a member of NATO be able to help then?

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s tough to be critical of “liberalism” when everyone has a different idea of what it means. It might help to specify “economic liberalism”.

      Along with it’s deep flaws, Liberalism is also associated with things like the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, LGBT+ rights, etc. Conservatives also muddy the waters by blaming these things for economic hardship.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Liberalism has a definition, which Marxists have never forgotten, though thanks to two red scares and a cold war, others have forgotten. Now in Orwellian fashion, “liberalism” and “socialism” are floating signifiers, so we have liberals like Sanders calling themselves socialists despite never calling for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.

        Slavery did end under liberalism, but then again liberalism started it.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          So that’s the change you want to see in the world. Technical linguistic grammar takes precedence over political outreach.

          I fully support your desire to spread vocabular competence. My impression from your first post was that you had other priorities.

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Despite the erasure of the words’ meanings in the public consciousness, the concepts still exist.

            If you have new, sexier names for the concepts which will accelerate their reintroduction into the public consciousness, I’m all ears.

            • Tinidril@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              It doesn’t have to be sexier terminology, or even different terminology. Just don’t drop the word “liberalism” into a conversation and expect the average person to understand what your talking about.

              You could use “corporatism” which has kind of taken over that definition in common language. I know it’s technically incorrect, but language also isn’t static outside of academic disciplines. But ultimately you can use whatever language you want, just don’t assume a particular definition will be understood without explanation.

              • LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                The only people I know of who don’t know what the word “liberal” means, especially in the context the person above was using it, are very ignorant Americans. To be clear, even though I don’t like most Americans, I’m not blaming them for being ignorant in this particular case because they have been subjected to decades of mostly uncontested propaganda deliberately obfuscating the term. But most of the rest of the world knows what everyone is talking about when saying “liberal” and knows it’s a right wing ideology. And everyone shouldn’t have to hold up the conversation to preemptively explain what the word means to those who don’t already know. People are generally expected to pick up the gist of a sentence or point via the context of what’s being said. The context was perfectly clear and it just sounds like concern trolling to go on about needing to hand-hold and dumb down the terminology being used for “the average person.”