Would comparisons with the 1930's be absurd regarding the rise of the far right?

ancapailldorcha

So, I happened to be on my home the other night when someone gave me a free ticket to see a talk Yanis Varoufakis was giving here in Brighton. Didn't think I'd bother as I wouldn't get home for it in time so I didn't buy one but as luck would have it, I got to go anyway.

While I would disagree with Yanis on many, many things he made a point that stayed with me. He drew comparisons between today and the 1930's. In 2008, we had a financial crash not unlike the Wall Street crash of 1929 which wrought economic havoc and chaos across the world, especially in Germany. This led to the rise of far right fascism in Europe. Today, far right groups are enjoying high levels of popularity and are often influencing policy even when not in power. For example, UKIP's growing popularity prompted David Cameron to offer a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU in a bid to hamper the UKIP vote. France's two main parties had to conspire to keep out the far right National Front and in Poland the law and justice party (PiS) has risen to power.

The following is from The Economist and might prove informative:



The main differences between today and the 1930's would be technology and the EU which has been exhalted as the world's most successful peace project. It could therefore be asserted that another world war is unlikely on this basis. People are more connected to each other than ever before.

newacc2015

The 1930's was very different. There was no real welfare state. During the financial crisis, the standards of living dropped in Europe. Where as in the 1930's lives were destroyed. People were starving and living on the street. Life savings were gone in a lot of Europe due to hyperinflation. Living in Europe during the financial crisis was excellent compared to the great depression

How has support for the far right risen in the Germany, which has one of the strongest economy in the developed world and unemployment of around 5%? Their Government budget is balanced pretty much and standards of living are high. IMO it is due to the refugee crisis. I imagine if you plotted the support for AfD and migrants entering Europe, there is probably a strong correlation. Le Pen is popular among gay men in France, who no longer feel safe with all the new migrants. There has been an increase in homophobic attacks in France carried out by migrants. Gay men are willing to support Le Pen who promises to reduce migration into France

Europeans dont want to feel marginalised in their own country. Far right parties are promising to stop the flow of uneducated migrants who are causing massive issues in countries like the Netherlands and France.

MadYaker

Interesting but I'm not sure it's comparable. This swing to the right is mostly because of the actions of terrorists and the migrant crisis. These days when a recession hits people lose their jobs and end up on the dole, in extreme cases people end up homeless. In the 1930s people starved to death.

Dohnjoe

The 30's was a very different time, their policies were far more right-wing and severe than their counterparts today, people hadn't experienced the consequences of fascism in power, people were less educated, the rise was in popularity was sharper

Ultimately there are more differences than similarities

Ironically Varoufakis became a poster-boy for the failures of the far-left, another group that feeds off ignorance

I know that Nationalism is synonymous with the Far Right, but is "Anti-Immigration" a right-only issue?

For me, I see a rise in support for parties that espouse this Nationalistic Anti-Immigration mantra (yes, those parties currently are predominantly on the Right) in support for those policies only, with people unaware of contradictions in other views that this opens up to them.

I have met a number of people who would certainly not vote for UKIP's economic policies, as they would move to reduce the Welfare State in the UK, but would be fundamentally behind their stance on Immigration, to the extent that they would support the party as a whole.

511

Definitely not, especially since none of those parties are far-right.

Brian?

The only conclusion I draw is that Europe has moved far enough left politically that these parties are now considered far right.

They are a pale imitation of the 1930s fascist parties. When they start colour coordinating shirts, that's when we're in real trouble.

dinorebel

Most European Far Right groups are to the left of the Republican party you could even argue most are to the left of the Hilary rump of the Democrats.

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The main differences between today and the 1930's would be technology and the EU which has been exhalted as the world's most successful peace project. It could therefore be asserted that another world war is unlikely on this basis. People are more connected to each other than ever before.

Say what, just a minute?

So the EU is no more successful than the concert of Europe at stopping wars. Stopping wars between your own members is not a particularly amazing achievement. Moreover the EU did not stop its members from getting into war with other powers: nuclear weapons did. Well okay, the members of the EU have got into plenty of wars with outside powers: it was rather the threat of global nuclear warfare ensured that EU members were never invaded, within Europe, by outside powers.

Right, I digress.

So technology in the 1930s was pretty advanced. News and media were abundant. The internet, clearly, wasn't in existence, but the proliferation of information within western countries was pretty good. After Italy, Spain, Germany, etc. lurched into totalitarianism this clearly changed, but the same would be true today (I mean even in places like Turkey, twitter and Youtube are typically banned). So it is by no means apparent that technology, or lack of it, had any particular bearing on the direction that politics took in the 1930s.

The next question is whether it is accurate in any way to equate the Sweden Democrats or PVV with the Falangists, Black-shirts, or NKVD. Some wet excuse for an argument along the lines of "well they're all right wing" would be as sloppy as looking at the election successes of the Socialist party in France or SYRIZA in Greece as very similar to the rise of Communism in the 1920s.

Seeing that the single defining characteristic of contemporary "far right" parties mentioned is being anti-immigration, and an anti-immigration stance was not important (or to my mind even mentioned) by any of the nationalist-socailist parties in the 1930s pretty much makes this comparison a still-birth. Alternatively one could define the contemporary far-right as being anti-EU (which is typically shared with far-left, but nevermind)... this equally has no basis for comparison with the 1930s.

Sam Russell

If you go back to the time of the Treaty of Rome (1960) and compare the states that are within the EU currently, you will find Greece, Spain, and Portugal were all run by military juntas, and Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany, Croatia, Hungary, and Slovenia were all under communist regimes. That is 50% of the current EU are now happy democracies within the EU, when previously they were under the jackboot of dictators of one kind or another.

How many EU countries are under threat from the extreme right? Or extreme left? There were two world wars fought between founding members of the EEC. How many wars of any kind have been fought between (then) members of the EEC/EU in the 56 years since the Treaty of Rome?

The EU talks conflicts to death before any action is taken.

AbusesToilets

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you go back to the time of the Treaty of Rome (1960) and compare the states that are within the EU currently, you will find Greece, Spain, and Portugal were all run by military juntas, and Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany, Croatia, Hungary, and Slovenia were all under communist regimes. That is 50% of the current EU are now happy democracies within the EU, when previously they were under the jackboot of dictators of one kind or another.

How many EU countries are under threat from the extreme right? Or extreme left? There were two world wars fought between founding members of the EEC. How many wars of any kind have been fought between (then) members of the EEC/EU in the 56 years since the Treaty of Rome?

The EU talks conflicts to death before any action is taken.

It also doesn't hurt that the majority of European nations have foregone the effort to maintain militaries capable of executing conflict on a meaningful scale. The presence of the US military in western Europe allowed them to invest funds into their social programs that might otherwise have been obligated to defense spending.

Realt Dearg Sec

Brian? wrote: »

The only conclusion I draw is that Europe has moved far enough left politically that these parties are now considered far right.

They are a pale imitation of the 1930s fascist parties. When they start colour coordinating shirts, that's when we're in real trouble.

In Hungary the Jobbik party organised weekly marches in Hero Square in Budapest, where they all wear a uniform. It's incredibly creepy. The Jobbik party has been the canary in the European coalmine of European fascism for some time now.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It also doesn't hurt that the majority of European nations have foregone the effort to maintain militaries capable of executing conflict on a meaningful scale. The presence of the US military in western Europe allowed them to invest funds into their social programs that might otherwise have been obligated to defense spending.

Most armed buildup in Europe , as just that , a buildup , when policy decisions dictated that it should be so.

The same could be done today , there is no need to have a large standing army in advance of militarisation.

The buildup to ww2 arguably started in Germany , 10 years before the outbreak , if it really desired , any wealthy European country could assemble a large enough military apartus sufficiently large enough for a serious military " adventure "

BoatMad

It could of course be argued that many historical fascist political movements were not right wing at all. It was not called national socialism for nothing

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

Most armed buildup in Europe , as just that , a buildup , when policy decisions dictated that it should be so.

The same could be done today , there is no need to have a large standing army in advance of militarisation.

The buildup to ww2 arguably started in Germany , 10 years before the outbreak , if it really desired , any wealthy European country could assemble a large enough military apartus sufficiently large enough for a serious military " adventure "

Modern military infrastructure doesn't grow on trees, nor does the industrial base to supply and support it. It also requires a huge amount of capital, which would be a difficult sell politically in Europe, given it would require taking funds from those beloved social programs.

Realt Dearg Sec

BoatMad wrote: »

It could of course be argued that many historical fascist political movements were not right wing at all. It was not called national socialism for nothing

Any examples you can think of? Are you seriously trying to argue that the Nazis weren't right wing?

511

BoatMad wrote: »

It could of course be argued that many historical fascist political movements were not right wing at all. It was not called national socialism for nothing

The Nazis were only socialists in name, not by nature. They were ultra-nationals and fascists. Hitler's economic policies were inspired by Mussolini, where private ownership was allowed but the state controlled major corporations - this is known as corporatism.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Modern military infrastructure doesn't grow on trees, nor does the industrial base to supply and support it. It also requires a huge amount of capital, which would be a difficult sell politically in Europe, given it would require taking funds from those beloved social programs.

You forgot that economic identities like for example the EU are incredibly wealthy , as wealthy or more then the US for example. Should money be required, money will be found, past wars have shown that finance is never a barrier

Europe has an enormous military industrial complex, easily capable of " re-arming" the continent if the executive will was there

as a final comment, leaving defense spending aside , the EU in general spends about the same as the US ( or vice versa) on its social programs !!!. ( the blocks raise and spend very similar amounts of tax ) A fact that is often lost on americans

BoatMad

511 wrote: »

The Nazis were only socialists in name, not by nature. They were ultra-nationals and fascists. Hitler's economic policies were inspired by Mussolini, where private ownership was allowed but the state controlled major corporations - this is known as corporatism.

National Socialism was " statist " in nature , totalitarian , but the underlying principles of socialism are still present , the primacy of the state above all else etc


Mussolini in fact was a member of the Italian socialist party and only denounced it when it adopted a policy of neutrality

its a common moniker to apply " right-wing" to fascism, and it was moistly applied as their opponents were originally Bolsheviks and lattery communism .

where private ownership was allowed but the state controlled major corporations - this is known as corporatism

its more commonly called communism

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

National Socialism was " statist " in nature , totalitarian , but the underlying principles of socialism are still present , the primacy of the state above all else etc

Did not Volkswagon start as 'the people car' designed by Porsche for Hitler. It was a design 'that every German could afford' although none ever did get one (at least not from Hitler).

Realt Dearg Sec

BoatMad wrote: »

National Socialism was " statist " in nature , totalitarian , but the underlying principles of socialism are still present , the primacy of the state above all else etc


Mussolini in fact was a member of the Italian socialist party and only denounced it when it adopted a policy of neutrality

its a common moniker to apply " right-wing" to fascism, and it was moistly applied as their opponents were originally Bolsheviks and lattery communism .



its more commonly called communism

A system where private ownership is allowed is commonly called communism? What?

BoatMad

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

A system where private ownership is allowed is commonly called communism? What?

see china for details

Realt Dearg Sec

BoatMad wrote: »

see china for details

I think whether you're sympathetic to communism or not, most people would agree that the direction China have taken in the last thirty years has been away from the ideology of communism. What we "commonly refer to" as communism, historically, if the word has any meaning at all, is a totalitarian system in which private ownership of the means of production is forbidden. That's what it is. And certainly in the 1930s, there wasn't any wriggle room on that definition. Hence Hitler's denunciations of communism as a Jewish plot.

Labarbapostiza

newacc2015 wrote: »

The 1930's was very different. There was no real welfare state. During the financial crisis, the standards of living dropped in Europe. Where as in the 1930's lives were destroyed. People were starving and living on the street. Life savings were gone in a lot of Europe due to hyperinflation. Living in Europe during the financial crisis was excellent compared to the great depression

First, that the welfare state is some kind of modern initiative is simply not true. It's ancient. Most of the church tithing was used for social welfare, that's 10% of earnings, which was quite considerable. It's no longer administered by churches, and the right want to get rid of it completely, because let's face they're evil and greedy.

Is what Yanis Varoufakis says, that we're headed for a post modern 1930s true. In Ireland you don't feel it, but in countries where their is a habit of blaming others for misfortune and being paranoid and inward looking, fascism can gain a purchase. In Ireland we know we are completely responsible for every catastrophe we've brought down on our heads. And have no one else to blame but ourselves.,

Fascist parties are on the rise in Europe and it's is precisely because of economic policies.

Can things take a sudden and unexpected turn for the worse. Hitler did not get elected on a campaign promise of wild escapades across Europe. Had he spelled out exactly what he was going to do, he would have never been elected.

Labarbapostiza

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

A system where private ownership is allowed is commonly called communism? What?

Read the communist manifesto. He's very clear in stating what is and isn't being referred to as private ownership. It's not your bits and bobs, it's more referring to things like steel mills, mines, etc.

Realt Dearg Sec

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Read the communist manifesto. He's very clear in stating what is and isn't being referred to as private ownership. It's not your bits and bobs, it's more referring to things like steel mills, mines, etc.

Well if we're using the CM as the model for what we commonly refer to as communism, OK. But that would hardly bolster the argument that Hitler's policies were akin to communism, given his opinion of that document.

BalcombeSt4

BoatMad wrote: »

National Socialism was " statist " in nature , totalitarian , but the underlying principles of socialism are still present , the primacy of the state above all else etc


Mussolini in fact was a member of the Italian socialist party and only denounced it when it adopted a policy of neutrality

its a common moniker to apply " right-wing" to fascism, and it was moistly applied as their opponents were originally Bolsheviks and lattery communism .



its more commonly called communism

One of the main reasons Hitler mas an anti-Semite was he believed that Bolshevism was some sort of Jewish conspiracy and had all well known socialists, communists and social democrats thrown in camps.

BoatMad

Can things take a sudden and unexpected turn for the worse. Hitler did not get elected on a campaign promise of wild escapades across Europe. Had he spelled out exactly what he was going to do, he would have never been elected.

Hitler espoused a political strategy to put Germans and Germany first. After the upheavals of the Weimar Republic , the hyper inflation , and the rise of militants Bolshevikism , the middle class flocked to his message.

Trump demonstrates many of the same characteristics and policy position.

BoatMad

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

One of the main reasons Hitler mas an anti-Semite was he believed that Bolshevism was some sort of Jewish conspiracy and had all well known socialists, communists and social democrats thrown in camps.

Hitler was influenced heavily by his Austrian upbringing and his exposure to anti-semitism there , he blamed the Jews for conspiring against Germany in the first war and profiting from its ruinination , a very popular opinion in Germany at the time. The main issue the fascists had was the belief that the Jews put their religious dentidy before their national one. This led to widespread distrust.

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

Hitler was influenced heavily by his Austrian upbringing and his exposure to anti-semitism there , he blamed the Jews for conspiring against Germany in the first war and profiting from its ruinination , a very popular opinion in Germany at the time. The main issue the fascists had was the belief that the Jews put their religious dentidy before their national one. This led to widespread distrust.

And the reason behind the anti-Jewish pogroms in Limerick of 1904? Was that him as well?

Realt Dearg Sec

Sam Russell wrote: »

And the reason behind the anti-Jewish pogroms in Limerick of 1904? Was that him as well?

Not sure I follow you there?

meeeeh

Or Dreyfuss affair in France. Antisemitism was not limited just to Austria, it was widespread across Europe.

Anyway I would be careful with declarations that right is on the rise. I think some mainstream parties are in trouble but this things are going in circles too. Le Penn is around for ever, Northern League are also knocking around for ages and they didn't get very far. Freedom party in Austria is still not reaching percentages they did under Haider's leadership. Post communist countries have very unstable party systems. I saw a centrist populist party winning the election (30% or there abouts) leading the coalition and then diving and getting 5% in next election. Some sort of United left/Syriza clone seems to be popular now. I think that couple of electoral cycles will be needed to establish if there really is a trend to the right. Especially considering new left seemed to be emerging a few years ago.

K-9

These things do seem to peak and trough every so often all right.

A bigger problem may be that with the move of eg. the Tories and Labour to the centre on many issues over the last 2 decades or so it leaves a vacuam to the fringes. Corbyn is a reaction to that but there are many new parties springing up throughout Europe in response to that.

Realt Dearg Sec

K-9 wrote: »

These things do seem to peak and trough every so often all right.

A bigger problem may be that with the move of eg. the Tories and Labour to the centre on many issues over the last 2 decades or so it leaves a vacuam to the fringes. Corbyn is a reaction to that but there are many new parties springing up throughout Europe in response to that.

I agree with your general point but I'd have said that the Tories were much closer to the centre under Major than the current cabal including Hague, IDS, and Romancing the Pig.

K-9

There was always a Euroskeptic wing though and even Osborne had to back track on 2 budget cuts recently because they were too unpopular. Differences are still there but nowhere near as pronounced as Major vs. Kinnock.

Again Corbyn is the spanner in the works but I'd be surprised he'll be there come election time.

The main traditional parties need to listen though and not dismiss valid concerns, wages, unemployment particularly among young people, immigration etc.

Labarbapostiza

K-9 wrote: »

The main traditional parties need to listen though and not dismiss valid concerns, wages, unemployment particularly among young people, immigration etc.

Remember the August revolution of 2012? All those kids lacked was a political ideology.

What's happening in England, and it's being copied here, is a politically driven inter-generational gouging.

Over the last few years, more than 2 million middle aged English people have become buy to let landlords. It's no money down, they can use their own home equity as a deposit, buy a house, cram low paid young people in, take as much as three quarters of their wages. And it's a completely rigged system. Like Ireland, the young bailed out the landlords, so the landlords could gouge the young.

BoatMad

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Remember the August revolution of 2012? All those kids lacked was a political ideology.

What's happening in England, and it's being copied here, is a politically driven inter-generational gouging.

Over the last few years, more than 2 million middle aged English people have become buy to let landlords. It's no money down, they can use their own home equity as a deposit, buy a house, cram low paid young people in, take as much as three quarters of their wages. And it's a completely rigged system. Like Ireland, the young bailed out the landlords, so the landlords could gouge the young.

Actually the problem in Ireland is we haven't enough buy to let landlords, the recent recession hit BTL proportionally more then other property sectors.

teddyhead

Populist right wingers , backed by army veterans and industrialists , marginalizing minorities and inciting hatred. Nah , nothing like that has happened before in history , nothing to see here.

BoatMad

teddyhead wrote: »

Populist right wingers , backed by army veterans and industrialists , marginalizing minorities and inciting hatred. Nah , nothing like that has happened before in history , nothing to see here.

Your analysis is flawed , your conclusion is however, largely correct.

The rise of 1930s fascism was a direct result of the rise of Bolshevism and the terror it struck in the voting middle classes.

Today's supposed right wing trend , is really nothing of the sort , it's a single issue , the fear of un controlled immigration and it's notable that often its exploited by the far left as much as the far right.

There are few to no similarities with the 1930s fasism movements.

teddyhead

BoatMad wrote: »

There are few to no similarities with the 1930s fasism movements.

There are some. ie , populism (as mentioned), economic uncertainty, violence at political meetings, racial factors, notions of cultural superiority, rich industrialists seeking to maintain power and influence. All these things were factors in the rise of fascism. I take it you didnt do history in school .

Realt Dearg Sec

BoatMad wrote: »

Your analysis is flawed , your conclusion is however, largely correct.

The rise of 1930s fascism was a direct result of the rise of Bolshevism and the terror it struck in the voting middle classes.

Today's supposed right wing trend , is really nothing of the sort , it's a single issue , the fear of un controlled immigration and it's notable that often its exploited by the far left as much as the far right.

There are few to no similarities with the 1930s fasism movements.

Saying that fascism was just about a fear of Communism, and then saying that right now the SINGLE ISSUE of uncontrolled immigration is the only thing fuelling the rise of the right now really (and I would say carefully) elides the similarities.

For one thing, in the 1930s there was also massive disaffection due to economic collapse. Which was not at all to do with Bolshevism. There was also a massive stoking of racial fear, particularly towards Jews and gypsies. I'm also not sure why, if people were only supporting the likes of the Nazis as a bulwark against Bolshevism, that they would be attracted to a group you simultaneously believe to have been socialist. Something doesn't add up there.

Now, it is very convenient for people to believe that the immigration issue today has nothing to do with racism, but I think it is extremely naive, at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, to deny any such link. That link would point to a similarity with the 1930s anyway. But even if it weren't an issue, to point to Jobbik and Hungary again as my canary in the coalmine, they have been directly attacking gypsies and Jews, especially in the east of the country, so even setting aside immigration, there's clearly a parallel. It also, incidentally, refutes the notion that the rise of these people is a "single issue" to do with immigration.

My point here is that it requires some very odd lines in the sand, in terms of both the 1930s and right now, to come up with a way of seeing the two as having nothing in common. It doesn't make any sense, historically. Both emerge as a populist response to economic difficulty, both involve advocating protectionist economic policies, both wrap that protectionism in a rhetoric of racial mistrust (and like I say, the old-fashioned pogroms in Hungary towards long-standing populations there should give pause to people saying there is no racial motivation behind the anti-immigration platforms of these kinds of parties, no matter what your own stance on immigration might be).

We could go further, and note how many of these parties are attempting to undo the democratic structures of their own countries, but we'd be getting into murkier territory there. I think the points I've made earlier are fairly uncontroversial though.

BoatMad

teddyhead wrote: »

There are some. ie , populism (as mentioned), economic uncertainty, violence at political meetings, racial factors, notions of cultural superiority, rich industrialists seeking to maintain power and influence. All these things were factors in the rise of fascism. I take it you didnt do history in school .

The primary enabler of the rise of facism in the 30s , was the rise of Bolshevikism and the treat it represented to the property owning middle classes

Germany had further specific issues many tied to the armistice agreements that generated widespread hatred and contributed in a significant way to Germanies interwar economic meltdown.

None of these influences are at play in today's " right wing " movements ( if they could really be labelled right wing at all ) , most are based around the fear of widespread illegal immigrants , a factor that was not in play in the inter war years.

The cultural superiority was mostly a German peculiarity and not particularly present in the Italian & spainish models, though jingoism played an important role in the rise of interwar facism.

There is little commonality with the 30s , the fall of communism has removed that particular fear, economies are bandied together in Europe and hence far less likely to fail , greece not withstanding and in fact economic uncertainly can lead to the rise of radical left wing parties as much as it does right wing.

Remove the migrant fear and the oxygen would be removed from most pseudo right wing minority parties today.

Your jibe is most unbecoming and doesn't warrant a specific reply