3 ms·

One of the main characteristics of fascism is forcible supression of opposition so I think a government that doesn't tolerate peaceful protest is in some sense

One of the main characteristics of fascism is forcible supression of opposition so I think a government that doesn't tolerate peaceful protest is in some sense fascist

runsWphotons 3y ago
Doing one thing that fascist government's sometimes do does not make you a fascist government. The UK might be tending toward fascism, but not allowing disruptive protests of the coronation is not really an indicator one way or the other. The king is certainly not a dictator, having little power at all.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  So like: sure the attacker stabbed someone, beat them with a baseball bat, punched and kicked them, but the attacker didn't use a gun so it wasn't violent. The king has no power, that's why he's able to easily bend the national broadcaster and the police force to his will with ease ... that's why we have to get his consent to pass any laws ... that's why the armed services pledge allegiance to him (as monarch) and not to the UK ... that's why we pay him 100s of £millions from taxes ... that's why we organise a hugely costly parade for him in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis ... these are all signs he has no power /s
  - rayiner 3y ago
    This is basic vocabulary. “Violence” is a word that encompasses a range of actions. “Fascism” is a word that refers to a specific political ideology combining various elements.
- trasz4 3y ago
  In UK the king has absolute power, its just that they don't exercise it because in a civilised country they would need to be guillotined afterwards.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    Then it means he doesn't have that power. What kind of power is that which you can't exercise? If you can't exercise it, it means you don't have it.
    - trasz4 3y ago
      He can, he just doesn't want to. And if he did we'd probably have no insight into what even happened. The society doesn't even know kings' finances.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > He can, he just doesn't want to. And if he did we'd probably have no insight into what even happened Of course we do, the order would be ignored. (To whom would he even give the order?) English history is written in constitutional crises.
        trasz4 3y ago
        [citation needed]
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > [citation needed] Well, the death penalty was abolished in the U.K. in the 1990s, so there's that. More significant: habeus corpus, which goes back to somewhere between the Magna Carta and Interregnum. Even at its height, the Crown's power to unilaterally command executions was intentionally curtailed for centuries.
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    by this reasoning, I also have absolute power. I just choose not to exercise it because I would be ignored/arrested/guillotined afterwards.
edgyquant 3y ago
That’s a characteristic of literally every authoritarian regime.
rayiner 3y ago
That’s like saying that having four limbs is a major characteristic of mammals so anything with four limbs is kind of a mammal. Many governments of different forms don’t generate protest. For example, in both theory and in practice, suppression of protest is entirely compatible with democracy. In a democratic country with high social cohesion, like Singapore, protest is often a disgruntled minority trying to undermine the democratic will.
- stracer 3y ago
  "Democracy" is more general term than "liberal democracy", the latter includes protecting political freedoms. Suppressing protests because majority wants to is democratic, but it is not liberal democratic. Liberal democracy is a check on the possible dangerous consequences of full naive democracy. Hitler's regime came to power democratically.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Only if you think protesting is a “political freedom” and I think that’s debatable even in the context of liberal democracy. A minoritarian veto is anti-democratic, no matter what prefix you put on that term.
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      Protest is not a veto. Even if your definition of democracy is unchecked majority rule.
    - stracer 3y ago
      What would "political freedom" be if it did not include the right of political expression?

One of the main characteristics of fascism is forcible supression of opposition so I think a government that doesn't tolerate peaceful protest is in some sense fascist

runsWphotons 3y ago

Doing one thing that fascist government's sometimes do does not make you a fascist government. The UK might be tending toward fascism, but not allowing disruptive protests of the coronation is not really an indicator one way or the other. The king is certainly not a dictator, having little power at all.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
So like: sure the attacker stabbed someone, beat them with a baseball bat, punched and kicked them, but the attacker didn't use a gun so it wasn't violent. The king has no power, that's why he's able to easily bend the national broadcaster and the police force to his will with ease ... that's why we have to get his consent to pass any laws ... that's why the armed services pledge allegiance to him (as monarch) and not to the UK ... that's why we pay him 100s of £millions from taxes ... that's why we organise a hugely costly parade for him in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis ... these are all signs he has no power /s
- rayiner 3y ago
  This is basic vocabulary. “Violence” is a word that encompasses a range of actions. “Fascism” is a word that refers to a specific political ideology combining various elements.
trasz4 3y ago
In UK the king has absolute power, its just that they don't exercise it because in a civilised country they would need to be guillotined afterwards.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  Then it means he doesn't have that power. What kind of power is that which you can't exercise? If you can't exercise it, it means you don't have it.
  - trasz4 3y ago
    He can, he just doesn't want to. And if he did we'd probably have no insight into what even happened. The society doesn't even know kings' finances.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > He can, he just doesn't want to. And if he did we'd probably have no insight into what even happened Of course we do, the order would be ignored. (To whom would he even give the order?) English history is written in constitutional crises.
      - trasz4 3y ago
        [citation needed]
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > [citation needed] Well, the death penalty was abolished in the U.K. in the 1990s, so there's that. More significant: habeus corpus, which goes back to somewhere between the Magna Carta and Interregnum. Even at its height, the Crown's power to unilaterally command executions was intentionally curtailed for centuries.
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  by this reasoning, I also have absolute power. I just choose not to exercise it because I would be ignored/arrested/guillotined afterwards.

edgyquant 3y ago

That’s a characteristic of literally every authoritarian regime.

rayiner 3y ago

That’s like saying that having four limbs is a major characteristic of mammals so anything with four limbs is kind of a mammal. Many governments of different forms don’t generate protest. For example, in both theory and in practice, suppression of protest is entirely compatible with democracy. In a democratic country with high social cohesion, like Singapore, protest is often a disgruntled minority trying to undermine the democratic will.

stracer 3y ago
"Democracy" is more general term than "liberal democracy", the latter includes protecting political freedoms. Suppressing protests because majority wants to is democratic, but it is not liberal democratic. Liberal democracy is a check on the possible dangerous consequences of full naive democracy. Hitler's regime came to power democratically.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Only if you think protesting is a “political freedom” and I think that’s debatable even in the context of liberal democracy. A minoritarian veto is anti-democratic, no matter what prefix you put on that term.
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    Protest is not a veto. Even if your definition of democracy is unchecked majority rule.
  - stracer 3y ago
    What would "political freedom" be if it did not include the right of political expression?