4 ms·

To be fair, I have seen the word "neo-fascist" or "post-fascist" applied to some of the various recent Western nativist movements due to some of the philosophic

To be fair, I have seen the word "neo-fascist" or "post-fascist" applied to some of the various recent Western nativist movements due to some of the philosophical similarities (the nativism, nationalism, and populism, along with xenophobia / racism in some sectors of the movements, and the desire for strongmen leadership). The big difference typically being that most of today's nativist right wing parties tend to work within the democratic systems instead of advocating takeover of government; they typically don't advocate authoritarian states and economies; and most are typically less interested in expansion via military conquest. Even this is a contested word at best; while some sources advocate this definition (eg, Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/neofascism https://www.britannica.com/topic/neofascism) other sources do not like to apply the label unless there is an explicit strong state element. (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3768/5685c703892b8f734d34ac958aa09afec4e9.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3768/5685c703892b8f734d34ac...)

InitialLastName 9y ago
>The big difference typically being that most of today's nativist right wing parties tend to work within the democratic systems instead of advocating takeover of government Both the Nazis and the Italian fascists worked within their respective democratic systems in the beginning.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  This is true. I think it's also true that a fair bit of modern "neo-fascism" does have various degrees of authoritarian streaks. For that reason, falling from "neo-fascism" into something with similarities to 1930s fascism is a potential issue to watch in some cases. Although the worst case scenario probably is not 100% the "fascism" system per se. It would probably be best described as authoritarian nationalism. One current example I'm thinking of that's unfortunately heading this direction is Turkey, eg Erdogan's authoritarian creep combined with strongman nationalist-religious populism. (Erdogan also started out working within the democratic system.) For that reason, although the term "fascism" was somewhat misguided, I didn't have as much problem with FranzFerdiNaN's post a few posts back as far as intent goes. It is fair to say that concerns about immigration is one of the big reasons behind the rise of nationalism-fueled populist parties in Europe (as well as the Bannon wing of the Republican party in the US), some of which have been called "neo-fascist". And although not a big immediate threat that I know of, I can imagine additional immigrant concerns could possibly fuel drifts more towards the authoritarian side. Fascism, perhaps not, but the possibility of ill effects is very credible, in my opinion. As far as the original post by tosser0004 goes, though, I think that the increase in population isn't a big deal in increasing migrant pressure itself. What might really be a potential big deal here, in my opinion, is climate change, which from what I've seen (eg: https://www.unenvironment.org/regions/africa/regional-initiatives/responding-climate-change https://www.unenvironment.org/regions/africa/regional-initia...) is going to hit Africa as a whole pretty hard.

InitialLastName 9y ago

>The big difference typically being that most of today's nativist right wing parties tend to work within the democratic systems instead of advocating takeover of government Both the Nazis and the Italian fascists worked within their respective democratic systems in the beginning.

soundwave106 9y ago
This is true. I think it's also true that a fair bit of modern "neo-fascism" does have various degrees of authoritarian streaks. For that reason, falling from "neo-fascism" into something with similarities to 1930s fascism is a potential issue to watch in some cases. Although the worst case scenario probably is not 100% the "fascism" system per se. It would probably be best described as authoritarian nationalism. One current example I'm thinking of that's unfortunately heading this direction is Turkey, eg Erdogan's authoritarian creep combined with strongman nationalist-religious populism. (Erdogan also started out working within the democratic system.) For that reason, although the term "fascism" was somewhat misguided, I didn't have as much problem with FranzFerdiNaN's post a few posts back as far as intent goes. It is fair to say that concerns about immigration is one of the big reasons behind the rise of nationalism-fueled populist parties in Europe (as well as the Bannon wing of the Republican party in the US), some of which have been called "neo-fascist". And although not a big immediate threat that I know of, I can imagine additional immigrant concerns could possibly fuel drifts more towards the authoritarian side. Fascism, perhaps not, but the possibility of ill effects is very credible, in my opinion. As far as the original post by tosser0004 goes, though, I think that the increase in population isn't a big deal in increasing migrant pressure itself. What might really be a potential big deal here, in my opinion, is climate change, which from what I've seen (eg: https://www.unenvironment.org/regions/africa/regional-initiatives/responding-climate-change https://www.unenvironment.org/regions/africa/regional-initia...) is going to hit Africa as a whole pretty hard.