The thing that’s killing us is the idea that people’s politics just mechanically reflect their material conditions, rather than their social environment and information diet, which leads to liberals desperately searching for some economic lever they can use to switch off the far right.
It’s darkly ironic because for all their talk about a marketplace of ideas liberals, in practice, act like this marketplace doesn’t actually matter, leading to them getting absolutely stomped by people who actually put effort into spreading their ideas and bullying others into adopting them.
We are the richest large society in human history but we’re going to go full authoritarian because some subcategory of costs is up relative to other costs? Does this actually make sense? It does not
The world makes far more sense if you reject the nonsensical idea that people’s specific politics are primarily a reflection of their material circumstances (I mean, how does this even work?) but we’ve trained ourselves to analyze any political trend by looking for the economic trend that caused it
Not to pick on this guy but this is what I’m talking about. Any theory that relies on some kind of economic commonality between Bolsheviks, Catholics in Northern Ireland, and Trump voters collapses instantly. There just is no economic comparison here and attempts to make one are absurd and strained
These theories have absolutely zero predictive power because literally any set of economic conditions can give rise to radicalism or fascism, but most do not. The only explanatory variable is the presence of the social and informational element, the economic component is useless and vestigial
it is not a guarantee, but every historian of fascism I've read argues the Depression and incapacity of the Weimar government to deal with it was necessary to give Hitler his opening. here's Robert Paxton for instance
of course things are very different now, but it's not exactly crazy to think that years of severe unemployment would discredit establishment parties and fuel extremist ones
I'm seeing theory starting to change on that, since Nazi emergence in 1930s Germany depended a LOT on self generated crises, especially street violence. The party then pledged to solve if given enough power. I think social unrest and violence are more important predictors of fascism.
biggest issue is that in the USA "not being able to own a home" and "not being able to boss around service industry workers" are both Depression-like for a big chunk of population
I'm sorry but this is a really out-of-context page from Anatomy. Paxton does not argue that depression causes fascism. His major theme, in fact, is national humiliation (of which economic depression is a factor!) but in Nazi Germany's case, the loss of the Great War and the collapse of the Kaiser.
As with most of history there are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for anything. But there are conditions that make it more or less likely. Nazism exploited dire economic conditions but clearly also activated a deep racism and anti Semitism that went along w those conditions.
Our current autocrat-friendly moment is also about a decade downstream from a very large global economic crisis, also not a coincidence. Political science has documented a very strong correlation between autocratic regression and economic instability. Milan Svolik in 2008 is a good start.
This is not me saying that it is wrong to focus on information channels as a primary driver, but those channels are drastically weirder and more opaque than was true even 20 years ago. Historically, econ real conditions and info stream accounting of them probably tracked fairly well
I think where this founders is you can ask the same rhetorical question about FDR... Of course Germans went to the polls with the terrible economy front and center—but Hitler didn't win the election, a back room deal replaced the Weimar Republic.
I mean he got the most votes in July 1932, 37 percent as against 2.6 percent in 1928 before the economic collapse. without that absolutely no chance he is appointed
Certainly, but nothing close to a majority. Compare with other '32 elections—aren't they really examples of "throw the bums out" in times of obvious governmental failure than "Hitler's rise was caused by the Great Depression"? It was an opportunity for every party not in power to change the info env
Looking at what happened (I finished Evans' The Coming of the Third Reich 2 mos ago): support for the governing coalition in Germany collapsed during the Depression, swelling the voting rolls of many alternative parties, and the one led by Hitler was the best on the Right at the info war.
his rise was not entirely caused by the Depression, his own organizational and especially oratorical gifts were central as well. but it was a necessary precondition
The Depression did usher in huge political change in the US though, and there was major upheaval and unrest. The difference with Germany is due to a different political structure (Parliamentary system with negotiated coalitions) and a very different experience of WWI.
amusing to imagine how this "economics has no effect whatsoever" arg might explain a 40-point swing towards a guy that the media of the day, by and large, fucking despised
Yes. It created the opportunity for challengers to the system and permission try new things—but it didn't prescribe anything about the outcomes. Which is to say, it offered political challengers a fecund environment for selling their narrative. Will's thesis.
that isn't his thesis. he's arguing the Depression was not necessary for Hitler to succeed, a frankly preposterous notion that no historian I have ever read supports
the economic factor that lead to the rise of nazism was the fact that the middle class in germany was comprised of small capitalists, and as such they were more interested in aligning with capitalist interests than opposing it, ie "i want my status back at any cost" vs "this system has got to go"
absolutely. the way i see it is that the economic insecurity is the catalyst, the social structure (like social classes) are the foundation, and the ideology is the guiding force. like if you could go back in time and vaporize every nazi propagandist, you'd stop the movement in its tracks.
because like, if we say sure, economic insecurity causes fascism, well it could also just as easily cause socialism. i think the only thing you can really say 100% is that the insecurity causes radicalism/extremism, but it (or it alone) can't decide the variety.
One, yes, because von Papen made him chancellor well beyond the mandates the Nazis won in the coalition government and two they blamed unemployment on the "judeified Versailles acknowledging bureaucrats who sold Germany out to American Jews"
material conditions determine the social education and consequently the economy
you'll not do yourself any favors with an "either/or" here
not even talking shit, just something to consider if you're gonna throw the words around
that IS what makes one highly predictable, however you feel about it
there's knowledge and those who acknowledge
people who stonewall the truth can afford to
that is very much a liberal privilege
how one treats the facts determines patrician from plebeian easy enough
2024 anni of hints it's always been simple class warfare
