Yes. And?

... what else, ? ;)

I merely wondered whether there was something you intended to discuss.

A century or so ago saw idiotic authoritarianism emerge in several places.

Mussolini, to be called Il Duce by his followers, kick-started his fascist thing in Italy, 1919, with Bianchi. In 1921 he turned it into his National Fascist Party, and from 1922 he turned Italy authoritarian, one step at a time. In a typical strong-man gesture, Italy rolled into Ethiopia in 1935.

Not much says ruthless authoritarian like Stalin, who held the Soviet Union (+ Russia) in a murderous iron grip from 1924 to 1953. Some of the European fascists declared themselves anti-communist and acquired followers that way, authoritarianism against authoritarianism.

Hitler, Der Führer, learned from Mussolini's fascism, and went on to do his Nazi thing. He took over Germany in 1933 and initiated the 2nd world war in 1939. Some methods that were systematized (+ "industrialized") by the Nazis have found employ to this day (state-governed directed indoctrination and propaganda, what-have-you).

Dollfuss took on power in Austria in 1932. A milder authoritarianism that didn't get along with the Nazis, who murdered him in 1934 and took over Austria in 1938.

Salazar ruled Portugal from 1932 to 1968. A relatively mild authoritarianism.

General Franco, Caudillo, dictator'ed Spain from 1939 to 1975 after The Spanish Civil War. A good buddy of Hitler's and Mussolini's.

In South America, Argentina had a string of authoritarian rule during the period, Uriburu (1930), Justo (1932), Ortiz (1938), Castillo (1942).

France and the UK also had idiotic movements around the time (just took some political disillusion), that fortunately didn't quite catch on (some other European nations were less infected). Similarly, North America saw The German American Bund (Nazism) and The Black Legion.

The influence of some of these fizzled down with the end of the 2nd world war, though quite not all.

Roughly a century later, the creepshow seems to be rearing its head again, as if there was no history to learn from. Anything familiar? Other parallels, anyone? Can't accept ongoing democracy, responsible freedom, transparency, humanitarian values, separation of religion and politics, whatever? Disillusioned? Just leave the ruling to me.

Those who don't learn from our errors in history are doomed to repeat them.

As long as societies enrich and privilege some segments at the expense of others, there will be discontent, jealousy and resentment. These mental states are easy to exploit and direct against whichever scapegoat the demagogue chooses. People are volatile and impressionable - it doesn't take much to rile them up.

:up: :up:

, toss the occasional envy in there for good measure. ;) But there are political and cultural problems, lots in need of improvements and attention. Fascista-Nazista creep just ain't the answer. (unless you want to leave it to me of course)

Anyway, problem-identification is one thing, I'm less optimistic about avoiding the known pitfalls. Pointing them out doesn't seem to have done much. :shrug:

Anyway, problem-identification is one thing, I'm less optimistic about avoiding the known pitfalls. Pointing them out doesn't seem to have done much. — jorndoe

It got a lot of finger-pointers beaten, jailed and killed. History will rotate its big, crushing wheel when it's ready.

Pointing them out doesn't seem to have done much. — jorndoe

It got a lot of finger-pointers beaten, jailed and killed. — Vera Mont

Arguably, it was fin de siècle political culture in late 1800s Europe that gave rise to fascism/nazism, marxism, psychoanalysis, modernist art etc. A terrible tangle of ideologies, trends, new sciences, crumbling institutions, and power mad strongmen whose radicalised adherers fought each other as well as those who dared to point a finger or refer to reasoned argument.

Perhaps not as extreme yet in our current postmodern culture (?), but the recurring disregard for reason and objectivity in times of political unrest won't help us resolve disputes, errors, or injustices in civilised ways. Hence the strongmen and increasing acceptance for radical or violent solutions.

Why is that? — Vaskane

Innit obvious?
In a horizontal society - where everyone has much the same wealth, political influence, opportunities, support and access to the law - problems can readily be seen and issues dealt-with before they become intractable. In a vertical, stratified society, pressure from above keeps building up until it has nowhere to vent but in an explosion. Hence the French and Russian revolutions.
Even a three-year-old can spot when he's treated unfairly, and generally throws a tantrum. Trump - or some equivalent in other countries - gives them permission to cut loose, give in to their most primitive impulses. He doesn't need to be strong in fact; he can be a lardass of zero accomplishment: all he needs is the [borrowed] rhetoric of grievance. He is the human manifestation, the spark, of a collective tantrum. Once expressed, the madness does not subside until the mob has had its fill of lynching, looting and burning.

So you proposed to limit everyone's access to wealth? — Vaskane

That's an obvious start. Share the decision-making, share the labour and resources equitably; give everyone in the society respect and a chance to earn the esteem of others. It can't be that hard - primitive tribes do it all the time. But civilized societies can't seem even to conceive of such an arrangement: they're always organized in stacked order.

There's a reason Im wealthier than my parents and it sure as shit has to do with the energy I spent to obtain that wealth. My house cost me 18x what my parents house cost them. Imagine locking in a house at 20k, then while you're paying it off the economy is paying you instead of 4000 a year, now it's paying 50k. And it still took my parents 30 fucking years to pay that off... What ever were they doing? Wasting away in nihilism. — Vaskane

You're living in a dysfunctional economy and don't seem to know it. That's not surprising, when we're subjected to capitalist propaganda from the maternity ward onward.

Any socialist uprising is directly caused by the abuse of wealth. — Vaskane

Spontaneous uprisings are usually not about wealth at all, but about oppression. Once the society is stratified, fewer and fewer people exert more and more influence, wield more and more power. In order to maintain and expand their privilege, these 'upper classes' own and control more and more of the nation's wealth, demand more and more exertion, time and sacrifice from those below them, and when the exploited classes protest, more and more force is required to keep them in line: the pressure keeps building until the lowest classes erupt in violence.

No I certainly know it, don't get me wrong, it's not even true capitalism, but a pale reflection of an ideal that's heavily perverted and twisted towards those who regulate and produce. — Vaskane

Twisted toward those who own and control, against those who produce.
But this not unique to capitalist societies: it is the same in oligarchies, military dictatorships, so-called 'communist' dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies. All vertical societies are divided into bosses and servers, with several layers of facilitators in between.

I'm curious. What is 'true' capitalism and what is its 'ideal'?

The whole idea of a free market with a glorious trickle down that elevates society. — Vaskane

Yes, I've heard that one - it's a corker!
Elevates society over what?

Anyone can do it, they're just too complacent and timid to learn how. — Vaskane

Sure, we've all heard that one, too. Not quite so funny. If only some of them could find a red paper clip.... and enough suckers who own things they don't want.

Imagine how much more that's grown in the 10 years prior to that three years of 870% growth, total value is somewhere near the 5000% total lifetime growth. Unfortunately etrade only shows last 3 years max. — Vaskane

Investment is lending; the other side of lending is debt. Most of it at compound interest, so the smallest borrowers have to 'produce more surplus' (which in reality means sell their time and labour cheaply, just to stay afloat, so that the lending classes don't have to work at all) Over the rise of a cycle, as more wealth accumulates at the top of the economic pyramid, individual citizens, business enterprises and nations all sink deeper and deeper into debt, until the crash - or "recession" or "readjustment"; depression or a war; more often a depression followed by a war, often on bogus grounds, wherein enough of a nation's assets are destroyed that rebuilding creates a whole new economy.
Which is great, if you don't count all the people - mostly poor ones; the rich seem to come out of wars rather the better off than they go in - who suffer, sacrifice and die in the process.

All that marvellous growth has brought us to the brink of global nuclear war, plague, economic, then political, then environmental collapse, and imminent extinction.

Not an ideal I can admire.