Why does fascism always begin with talk about the greatness of the nation?

[ольга]

Например, фашизм в гитлеровской Германии. Тогда всё началось с того, что "великие" поделили между собой Польшу. Возможно ли повторение в наше время?

 

[C C]

TITLE: Why does fascism always begin with talk of the greatness of the nation?

For the same reason that classic Marxism begins with outcries about socioeconomic oppression. An ideology needs a galvanizing cause for recruiting, and for the final stage of rallying its crusaders toward a successful revolution (or whatever manner of takeover). Patriotic sentiment toward a State, or ethnic and cultural chauvinism, are among the alternative options.

George Bernard Shaw: "Thus you may see that when a [...freethinker...] throws off all the bonds of convention, and stands free from all allegiance to established religion, law, order, patriotism, and learning, he promptly uses his freedom to put on a headier set of chains..."
_

 

[ольга]

TITLE: Why does fascism always begin with talk of the greatness of the nation?

For the same reason that classic Marxism begins with outcries about socioeconomic oppression. An ideology needs a galvanizing cause for recruiting, and for the final stage of rallying its crusaders toward a successful revolution (or whatever manner of takeover). Patriotic sentiment toward a State, or ethnic and cultural chauvinism, are among the alternative options.

George Bernard Shaw: "Thus you may see that when a [...freethinker...] throws off all the bonds of convention, and stands free from all allegiance to established religion, law, order, patriotism, and learning, he promptly uses his freedom to put on a headier set of chains..."
_

Должна быть какая то болезнь в обществе, чтобы такие вещи как марксизм или фашизм могли в нём прижиться, укорениться и найти себе достаточное количество сторонников. В школе на уроках истории нас учили, что после проигрыша в 1 мировой войне немцы чувствовали себя униженными, и это побудило их сплотиться вокруг Гитлера, чтобы взять реванш. Ну и ещё как обычно - деньги. Земли, захваченные у других народов. Ничего не меняется в мире с тех времён, когда одни племена нападали на другие, чтобы захватить их ресурсы и заставить платить дань. Но чего сейчас не хватает американцам, что у них возникли эти идеи о величии? Величие, я так понимаю, состоит в представлении о некоем превосходстве над другими народами и государствами? Право сильного. Лидер чувствует, что начинает дряхлеть, и кто-нибудь вот-вот скажет: Акела промахнулся?

 

[C C]

There must be some kind of disease in society so that such things as Marxism or fascism can take root in it, take root and find a sufficient number of supporters. In school, we were taught in history classes that after losing World War I, the Germans felt humiliated, and this prompted them to rally around Hitler to take revenge. Well, and as usual - money. Lands seized from other peoples. Nothing has changed in the world since the days when some tribes attacked others to seize their resources and force them to pay tribute. But what do Americans lack now that they have these ideas of greatness? Greatness, as I understand it, consists in the idea of some kind of superiority over other peoples and states? The right of the strong. The leader feels that he is beginning to become decrepit, and someone is about to say: Akela missed?

Well, the recent waves of populism (of nationalist ilk) in European and North American elections partly stem from a traditionalist reaction to the West's cosmopolitan rehabilitation of itself in recent decades. (Partly, because there are surely other factors.)

In the West, the humanities have more or less become the moral, secular replacement for the Church. And akin to Christianity imploring its members to grovel and repent over past and current sins, literary scholars are preoccupied with much hand-wringing over the historic misdeeds of the Western world. The various forms of invasive theft and economic and social oppression committed against other peoples via colonialism, capitalist exploitation, racism, sexism, persecution of LGBT+, etc. As well as the contemporary lingerings of those injustices.

Literary intellectuals have invented various critical theory offshoots that petition the West to amend its ways and implement policies of positive discrimination, and recompensing (in one sense or another) those abused population groups around the world. This might contingently include even decolonization of knowledge and science. Of either enhancing or diminishing Western epistemological standards (depending on one's political POV) by incorporating traditional indigenous slash regional practices and their cultural wisdom and beliefs traditions.

So on one hand, this may look like a reversal: The West becoming more compassionate, humble, reparative, and rehabilitative of itself in terms of social justice. But from other perspectives it might be considered the same arrogance merely adopting a new facade. Just as the old Church was haughty about its moral superiority and altruism -- missionaries serving as a vanguard of the colonial West -- the late 20th and 21st century "academic church" that has replaced it has likewise exported its values across the world. And similarly maligning any governments that do not seem to align themselves with the West or conform to the West's ethical benchmarks.

Albeit the situation has obviously changed with the election of Trump. Not only are the literary intellectual values being dismantled, but there's the irony now of the US possibly beginning to shift from its traditional allegiance to the West to that of the East (or at very least a superficial appearance, or trendy interpretation, of such an alarming transition incrementally occurring, for the time being).
_

 

[ольга]

Well, the recent waves of populism (of nationalist ilk) in European and North American elections partly stem from a traditionalist reaction to the West's cosmopolitan rehabilitation of itself in recent decades. (Partly, because there are surely other factors.)

In the West, the humanities have more or less become the moral, secular replacement for the Church. And akin to Christianity imploring its members to grovel and repent over past and current sins, literary scholars are preoccupied with much hand-wringing over the historic misdeeds of the Western world. The various forms of invasive theft and economic and social oppression committed against other peoples via colonialism, capitalist exploitation, racism, sexism, persecution of LGBT+, etc. As well as the contemporary lingerings of those injustices.

Literary intellectuals have invented various critical theory offshoots that petition the West to amend its ways and implement policies of positive discrimination, and recompensing (in one sense or another) those abused population groups around the world. This might contingently include even decolonization of knowledge and science. Of either enhancing or diminishing Western epistemological standards (depending on one's political POV) by incorporating traditional indigenous slash regional practices and their cultural wisdom and beliefs traditions.

So on one hand, this may look like a reversal: The West becoming more compassionate, humble, reparative, and rehabilitative of itself in terms of social justice. But from other perspectives it might be considered the same arrogance merely adopting a new facade. Just as the old Church was haughty about its moral superiority and altruism -- missionaries serving as a vanguard of the colonial West -- the late 20th and 21st century "academic church" that has replaced it has likewise exported its values across the world. And similarly maligning any governments that do not seem to align themselves with the West or conform to the West's ethical benchmarks.

Albeit the situation has obviously changed with the election of Trump. Not only are the literary intellectual values being dismantled, but there's the irony now of the US possibly beginning to shift from its traditional allegiance to the West to that of the East (or at very least a superficial appearance, or trendy interpretation, of such an alarming transition incrementally occurring, for the time being).
_

Восток - это что именно? Только Россия, или имеется ввиду и Ближний Восток, Китай, Индия, и пр.?

 

[C C]

Восток - это что именно? Только Россия, или имеется ввиду и Ближний Восток, Китай, Индия, и пр.?

"East" is just a quick label for indicating "not of the West". To avoid having to shuffle waveringly through various lengthy East Europe, Euraisa, Northern Asia, East Asia, and so-forth combinations.

The article below may not be accessible to you or will require the whole thing to be translated:

Trump could make China great again
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/18/trump-us-china-hawks-pivot-asia-pacific-europe-russia-nato/
_