7 ms·

Elect fascists, get fascism. Indian governments are always flirting with complete authoritarianism and are always eager to randomly ban things (e.g., any mentio

by dmode 8y ago

Elect fascists, get fascism. Indian governments are always flirting with complete authoritarianism and are always eager to randomly ban things (e.g., any mention of Gandhi in a negative light, smoking in movies and tvs). Not a surprise that the nationalistic fervor whipped up my Modi's government provides a perfect moment to push these desires further. Watch how the public lines up behind this and unwittingly censor themselves in the name of religious protections and nationalistic sentiment. Also fascinating how Mukesh Ambani is shilling for this law to convert Reliance Jio to an Indian Tencent. Amazing how fascists and monopolists are always in bed.

mc32 8y ago
I see what you're saying, but there is a disconnect here: elect fascists [a strong claim] get fascism but then you say the public lines up behind it. So, it appears to be democratic? This is a bit odd: >Under the proposed rules, Indian officials could demand[removal of content due to being] invasive of privacy... but also: "Another provision would weaken the privacy protections of messaging services" Is this ambivalence towards your claimed authoritarianism a relic of the republic's more socialist days when it was non-aligned-aligned with the USSR?
- Throwawayzoink 8y ago
  The public lined up behind Adolf Hitler as well. So I don't think there is a disconnect there.
  - sbmthakur 8y ago
    There is sure one. People also lined up behind leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther Jr. Populists come in all forms. It would greatly help if we don't use Goodwin's law everywhere and use terms like Nazism, Fascism, Hitler etc. where they are actually due.
    - Throwawayzoink 8y ago
      Yes, but not all populist leaders work on killing freedom. Or diluting Right to Information. Or making political funding opaque through anonymous bonds. This is not even close to Godwin's law. The government is curtailing freedom. The government is letting criminal/lynchers/gaurakshaks loose. Even people who kill policemen are on the loose for months now. Recently Amol Palekar was brazenly stopped from talking against the government, and this whole thing happened infront of media.
- captainbland 8y ago
  There's a sort of paradox of democracy which analogous to the paradox of tolerance. The problem is that you can elect people who destroy democratic institutions. i.e. you can democratically destroy democracy. If you tolerate those who would destroy democratic institutions, eventually those who would destroy democracy will get voted in and democracy will be destroyed - you therefore do have to limit democratic freedoms slightly to exclude those people if you wish to preserve democracy itself.
  - sbmthakur 8y ago
    I think that's where the concept of the Republic and the Constitution come into play. For example, if the Constitution places a limit on the number of terms of a rogue Government then it is not possible to elect them again. Of course this assumes that amending Constitution is either impossible or quite difficult.
- wtmt 8y ago
  > I see what you're saying, but there is a disconnect here: elect fascists [a strong claim] get fascism but then you say the public lines up behind it. So, it appears to be democratic? In the era of fake news and propaganda that would put "1984" to shame, people supporting something doesn't mean it's favorable to others and to themselves. There so called "IT cells" of some political parties that spread misinformation and bring out nationalistic pride. There is a dualism that's commonly seen in India: any foreigner who has visited would've encountered random people wanting to take photos with them (even if those people would never see the photos, but that's not as much an issue nowadays since many people have camera phones), and this is because they consider white skinned people as superior, richer, exotic, and fast and loose (this last one is about women), etc.; at the same time, many people are also made to believe (through fake news and propaganda created by the government and its ministers) that India had a rich history of cultural and scientific advancement unlike any other country in this planet's existence and that foreigners have stolen all these as well as constantly suppress the "facts". This latter point brings about a wellspring of support on various policies, even without understanding how these may be bad for the citizens supporting them.
  - sbmthakur 8y ago
    > In the era of fake news and propaganda that would put "1984" to shame, people supporting something doesn't mean it's favorable to others and to themselves. There so called "IT cells" of some political parties that spread misinformation and bring out nationalistic pride. While some have IT Cells, others have outsourced their propoganda campaign to firms like Cambridge Analytica. So I guess almost all major parties are in the mix. Fake news is a global problem and even US based institutions are having a difficult time dealing with it. Not sure how it can be used as an argument to point India as "fascist". > There is a dualism that's commonly seen in India: any foreigner who has visited would've encountered random people wanting to take photos with them (even if those people would never see the photos, but that's not as much an issue nowadays since many people have camera phones), and this is because they consider white skinned people as superior, richer, exotic, and fast and loose (this last one is about women), etc.; at the same time, many people are also made to believe (through fake news and propaganda created by the government and its ministers) that India had a rich history of cultural and scientific advancement unlike any other country in this planet's existence and that foreigners have stolen all these as well as constantly suppress the "facts". This latter point brings about a wellspring of support on various policies, even without understanding how these may be bad for the citizens supporting them. I've been made to believe that India had a rich history and culture since I was like five. Statements like India was a golden bird and what not were not rare to hear. From what I remember there was no current government or ministers at that time. Again I am not sure how this relates to fascism.
sbmthakur 8y ago
You don't really have an idea what fascism means. The current Indian government is anything but fascist.
- Zarath 8y ago
  I don't follow foreign politics much, but the last I heard of the Modi govt, they were confiscating people's gold and cash? Sounds pretty close to me.
  - quantummkv 8y ago
    What? No. The only thing the Indian government did in this regard is demonetization, a rare act but something that has been carried out across the world.
- pkphilip 8y ago
  The current Indian government meets all the criteria for a fascist state. To quote Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism What are characteristics of fascism? There are several fundamental characteristics of fascism, among them are: Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). From Umberto Eco's criteria for fascism: In his 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[20] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows: 1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement. 2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system. 3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science. 4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith. 5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants. 6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups. 7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will. 8. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war. 9. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force. 10. "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." 11. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality." 12. "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People." 13. "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

by dmode 8y ago

mc32 8y ago

I see what you're saying, but there is a disconnect here: elect fascists [a strong claim] get fascism but then you say the public lines up behind it. So, it appears to be democratic? This is a bit odd: >Under the proposed rules, Indian officials could demand[removal of content due to being] invasive of privacy... but also: "Another provision would weaken the privacy protections of messaging services" Is this ambivalence towards your claimed authoritarianism a relic of the republic's more socialist days when it was non-aligned-aligned with the USSR?

Throwawayzoink 8y ago
The public lined up behind Adolf Hitler as well. So I don't think there is a disconnect there.
- sbmthakur 8y ago
  There is sure one. People also lined up behind leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther Jr. Populists come in all forms. It would greatly help if we don't use Goodwin's law everywhere and use terms like Nazism, Fascism, Hitler etc. where they are actually due.
  - Throwawayzoink 8y ago
    Yes, but not all populist leaders work on killing freedom. Or diluting Right to Information. Or making political funding opaque through anonymous bonds. This is not even close to Godwin's law. The government is curtailing freedom. The government is letting criminal/lynchers/gaurakshaks loose. Even people who kill policemen are on the loose for months now. Recently Amol Palekar was brazenly stopped from talking against the government, and this whole thing happened infront of media.
captainbland 8y ago
There's a sort of paradox of democracy which analogous to the paradox of tolerance. The problem is that you can elect people who destroy democratic institutions. i.e. you can democratically destroy democracy. If you tolerate those who would destroy democratic institutions, eventually those who would destroy democracy will get voted in and democracy will be destroyed - you therefore do have to limit democratic freedoms slightly to exclude those people if you wish to preserve democracy itself.
- sbmthakur 8y ago
  I think that's where the concept of the Republic and the Constitution come into play. For example, if the Constitution places a limit on the number of terms of a rogue Government then it is not possible to elect them again. Of course this assumes that amending Constitution is either impossible or quite difficult.
wtmt 8y ago
> I see what you're saying, but there is a disconnect here: elect fascists [a strong claim] get fascism but then you say the public lines up behind it. So, it appears to be democratic? In the era of fake news and propaganda that would put "1984" to shame, people supporting something doesn't mean it's favorable to others and to themselves. There so called "IT cells" of some political parties that spread misinformation and bring out nationalistic pride. There is a dualism that's commonly seen in India: any foreigner who has visited would've encountered random people wanting to take photos with them (even if those people would never see the photos, but that's not as much an issue nowadays since many people have camera phones), and this is because they consider white skinned people as superior, richer, exotic, and fast and loose (this last one is about women), etc.; at the same time, many people are also made to believe (through fake news and propaganda created by the government and its ministers) that India had a rich history of cultural and scientific advancement unlike any other country in this planet's existence and that foreigners have stolen all these as well as constantly suppress the "facts". This latter point brings about a wellspring of support on various policies, even without understanding how these may be bad for the citizens supporting them.
- sbmthakur 8y ago
  > In the era of fake news and propaganda that would put "1984" to shame, people supporting something doesn't mean it's favorable to others and to themselves. There so called "IT cells" of some political parties that spread misinformation and bring out nationalistic pride. While some have IT Cells, others have outsourced their propoganda campaign to firms like Cambridge Analytica. So I guess almost all major parties are in the mix. Fake news is a global problem and even US based institutions are having a difficult time dealing with it. Not sure how it can be used as an argument to point India as "fascist". > There is a dualism that's commonly seen in India: any foreigner who has visited would've encountered random people wanting to take photos with them (even if those people would never see the photos, but that's not as much an issue nowadays since many people have camera phones), and this is because they consider white skinned people as superior, richer, exotic, and fast and loose (this last one is about women), etc.; at the same time, many people are also made to believe (through fake news and propaganda created by the government and its ministers) that India had a rich history of cultural and scientific advancement unlike any other country in this planet's existence and that foreigners have stolen all these as well as constantly suppress the "facts". This latter point brings about a wellspring of support on various policies, even without understanding how these may be bad for the citizens supporting them. I've been made to believe that India had a rich history and culture since I was like five. Statements like India was a golden bird and what not were not rare to hear. From what I remember there was no current government or ministers at that time. Again I am not sure how this relates to fascism.

sbmthakur 8y ago

You don't really have an idea what fascism means. The current Indian government is anything but fascist.

Zarath 8y ago
I don't follow foreign politics much, but the last I heard of the Modi govt, they were confiscating people's gold and cash? Sounds pretty close to me.
- quantummkv 8y ago
  What? No. The only thing the Indian government did in this regard is demonetization, a rare act but something that has been carried out across the world.
pkphilip 8y ago
The current Indian government meets all the criteria for a fascist state. To quote Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism What are characteristics of fascism? There are several fundamental characteristics of fascism, among them are: Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). From Umberto Eco's criteria for fascism: In his 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[20] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows: 1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement. 2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system. 3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science. 4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith. 5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants. 6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups. 7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will. 8. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war. 9. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force. 10. "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." 11. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality." 12. "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People." 13. "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.