4 ms·

> surprising coincidence of political situation Empty stomachs breed political unrest. A human constant. Even in middle school history class we were taught th

by Swizec 4y ago

> surprising coincidence of political situation Empty stomachs breed political unrest. A human constant. Even in middle school history class we were taught that the 1930's rise of fascism wouldn't be possible without the economic downturn that preceded it. And that the French Revolution never would've happened without huge inequalities. Now this may have been socialist propaganda (middle school was ~6 years after Yugoslavia), but a lot of it rings true.

irthomasthomas 4y ago
Most famines of the post industrial era have been man-made. Sure, droughts are natural, but allowing people to starve is a choice.
- Swizec 4y ago
  I'm using empty stomachs figuratively here. You don't need an actual famine to enable the rise of fascism. And it isn't always fascist authoritarianism either. 1910's Russia and 1930's China got the communist kind. 1940's Balkans got both kinds, but communists won the civil war.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > 1910’s Russia and 1930’s China got the communist kind Other than superficial rhetoric, there is not a lot of substantive difference between Lenin/Stalin/Maoism and the common factors set of things that are more commonly referred to as fascism (Italian Fascism, German Naziism, etc.)
    - Swizec 4y ago
      The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. At least that’s my lay understanding.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Not as much as the rhetoric makes it seems. > Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. Fascists usually integrate the rich that the leadership doesn’t have some other reason to hate into the system, while liquidating those–and not always just their holdings–that don’t fit that description, even if wealthy, so long as they are willing to cooperate, retaining their nominal property but with their actual power and influence more determined by their degree of attachment to the regime, not their nominal ownership of property (that’s a consequence of the authoritarian corporatist–viewing all institutions of society as necessary subordinate to a single vision–aspect of fascism.) Leninists (et al.)…do pretty much the same thing, except that they are more likely to not allow even nominal ownership of property. But since Leninism is (and its derivates are) also an authoritarian corporatist system, it is not ownership of property but position (formal or informal) in the ruling heirarchy that really allows you direct the use of property, just as in fascism.
        srean 4y ago
        Do you mind breaking up the sentences for ease of comprehension. Reading it made me feel a little out of breath and I lost the plot mid sentence. I know there is an interesting thought here, but the prose is a tad to turgid.
  - bigbillheck 4y ago
    In my timeline, Russia spent most of the 1910s under Tsarist rule and China spent the entirety of the 1930s under either warlords or the Japanese.
    - Swizec 4y ago
      Didn’t Russia bail out of WW1 in 1917 to do its revolution away from Tsarist rule? That’s the 1910’s. You’re right that the Chinese communist revolution happened in 1948. For some reason I thought it was 10 years earlier.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  This famine will also be man-made.
trhway 4y ago
>Even in middle school history class we were taught that the 1930's rise of fascism wouldn't be possible without the economic downturn that preceded it. The rise of the today's Russian fascism has followed exactly the same path as in Germany back then - a lost war (Afghanistan and Cold War) resulting in the crash of empire followed by a decade of economic hardship resulting in the rise of a "strong man" regime with all the same trappings of revanchism, "master nation" ideology, total suppression of basic liberties and democratic institutions, etc. (even the triggers used by the regime to grab the total governmental power are very similar - Reichstag fire in Germany and the FSB bombing of apartment buildings in 1999.) And so far we've had annexation of Crimea being extremely similar to the annexation of Sudetenlend back then, and the current stage - Ukraine invasion - is the start of the actual implementation of Lebensraum (Polish invasion back then) - last time it led directly to WWII, and i don't see how we can cheat the historic logic this time.
- vkou 4y ago
  So, if Russia's 90% of the way there, are we in the US ~75% of the way there? The main thing we're missing from that list is the false flag attacks, the other boxes check off.
  - trhway 4y ago
    not really. The key foundation for fascism is totalitarianism which in particular includes that total suppression of liberties and democratic institutions. The US is far from it.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      One of our biggest problems is our extremely weak state.
    - vkou 4y ago
      Russia didn't suppress liberties and burn down its democratic institutions overnight, either. That would boil the frog.
- 4y ago
nemo44x 4y ago
> Empty stomachs breed political unrest. A human constant. Every society is 3 meals away from chaos. - Lenin
watwut 4y ago
The economic downturn definitely helped fascism in its last steps to power. But, it was far from the only factor in play. Great depression started in 1929, at that time Hitler had already putch attempt behind him and had considerable radial party. There was a lot of unrest already. And similar goes with french revolution. The old regime was getting weak every day and unsustainable.
- Swizec 4y ago
  Yes the Great Depression started in 1929, but Germany is not America. Their deep economic troubles started at least as early as the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic between 1921 and 1923[1]. Note also that Germany lost WW1 and the peace treaty of 1918 was extremely punitive[2]. > In the four years following the First World War, the situation for German civilians remained dire. The severe food shortages improved little to none up until 1923. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Burden_from_the_First_World_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Burden_from_th...
  - watwut 4y ago
    Germany loosing WWI did contributed, but is in the "other then economical factors contributing to issues". The treaty of 1918 was punitive, but not extremely for that time. What germany planned in case they win was quite similar. Hitler took power in 1933. And the stab in the back myth was more motivating thing for these groups then purely economic issues. The yet other factors was Germany being heavily militaristic state, both ideologically and practically. Government employing primary military man on all levels, democracy not really functioning and being a mess. The whole country was violent mess.

by Swizec 4y ago

irthomasthomas 4y ago

Most famines of the post industrial era have been man-made. Sure, droughts are natural, but allowing people to starve is a choice.

Swizec 4y ago
I'm using empty stomachs figuratively here. You don't need an actual famine to enable the rise of fascism. And it isn't always fascist authoritarianism either. 1910's Russia and 1930's China got the communist kind. 1940's Balkans got both kinds, but communists won the civil war.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > 1910’s Russia and 1930’s China got the communist kind Other than superficial rhetoric, there is not a lot of substantive difference between Lenin/Stalin/Maoism and the common factors set of things that are more commonly referred to as fascism (Italian Fascism, German Naziism, etc.)
  - Swizec 4y ago
    The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. At least that’s my lay understanding.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The difference is in what happens to the rich people isn’t it? Not as much as the rhetoric makes it seems. > Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. Fascists usually integrate the rich that the leadership doesn’t have some other reason to hate into the system, while liquidating those–and not always just their holdings–that don’t fit that description, even if wealthy, so long as they are willing to cooperate, retaining their nominal property but with their actual power and influence more determined by their degree of attachment to the regime, not their nominal ownership of property (that’s a consequence of the authoritarian corporatist–viewing all institutions of society as necessary subordinate to a single vision–aspect of fascism.) Leninists (et al.)…do pretty much the same thing, except that they are more likely to not allow even nominal ownership of property. But since Leninism is (and its derivates are) also an authoritarian corporatist system, it is not ownership of property but position (formal or informal) in the ruling heirarchy that really allows you direct the use of property, just as in fascism.
      - srean 4y ago
        Do you mind breaking up the sentences for ease of comprehension. Reading it made me feel a little out of breath and I lost the plot mid sentence. I know there is an interesting thought here, but the prose is a tad to turgid.
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  In my timeline, Russia spent most of the 1910s under Tsarist rule and China spent the entirety of the 1930s under either warlords or the Japanese.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Didn’t Russia bail out of WW1 in 1917 to do its revolution away from Tsarist rule? That’s the 1910’s. You’re right that the Chinese communist revolution happened in 1948. For some reason I thought it was 10 years earlier.
codefreeordie 4y ago
This famine will also be man-made.

trhway 4y ago

>Even in middle school history class we were taught that the 1930's rise of fascism wouldn't be possible without the economic downturn that preceded it. The rise of the today's Russian fascism has followed exactly the same path as in Germany back then - a lost war (Afghanistan and Cold War) resulting in the crash of empire followed by a decade of economic hardship resulting in the rise of a "strong man" regime with all the same trappings of revanchism, "master nation" ideology, total suppression of basic liberties and democratic institutions, etc. (even the triggers used by the regime to grab the total governmental power are very similar - Reichstag fire in Germany and the FSB bombing of apartment buildings in 1999.) And so far we've had annexation of Crimea being extremely similar to the annexation of Sudetenlend back then, and the current stage - Ukraine invasion - is the start of the actual implementation of Lebensraum (Polish invasion back then) - last time it led directly to WWII, and i don't see how we can cheat the historic logic this time.

vkou 4y ago
So, if Russia's 90% of the way there, are we in the US ~75% of the way there? The main thing we're missing from that list is the false flag attacks, the other boxes check off.
- trhway 4y ago
  not really. The key foundation for fascism is totalitarianism which in particular includes that total suppression of liberties and democratic institutions. The US is far from it.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    One of our biggest problems is our extremely weak state.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Russia didn't suppress liberties and burn down its democratic institutions overnight, either. That would boil the frog.
4y ago

nemo44x 4y ago

> Empty stomachs breed political unrest. A human constant. Every society is 3 meals away from chaos. - Lenin

watwut 4y ago

The economic downturn definitely helped fascism in its last steps to power. But, it was far from the only factor in play. Great depression started in 1929, at that time Hitler had already putch attempt behind him and had considerable radial party. There was a lot of unrest already. And similar goes with french revolution. The old regime was getting weak every day and unsustainable.

Swizec 4y ago
Yes the Great Depression started in 1929, but Germany is not America. Their deep economic troubles started at least as early as the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic between 1921 and 1923[1]. Note also that Germany lost WW1 and the peace treaty of 1918 was extremely punitive[2]. > In the four years following the First World War, the situation for German civilians remained dire. The severe food shortages improved little to none up until 1923. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Burden_from_the_First_World_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Burden_from_th...
- watwut 4y ago
  Germany loosing WWI did contributed, but is in the "other then economical factors contributing to issues". The treaty of 1918 was punitive, but not extremely for that time. What germany planned in case they win was quite similar. Hitler took power in 1933. And the stab in the back myth was more motivating thing for these groups then purely economic issues. The yet other factors was Germany being heavily militaristic state, both ideologically and practically. Government employing primary military man on all levels, democracy not really functioning and being a mess. The whole country was violent mess.