This is just silly and way too presumptuous. Fascism doesn’t arise from liberalism, it arises from desperation. Both Italy and Germany were in less than desirable positions after WW1, Italy being fractured and dissatisfied with the hand it was dealt after being on the winning side, and Germany being crippled with debt and teeming with government incompetency. Both Mussolini and Hitler were opportunists who would have in no way got as far as they did had either country been in a more stable condition with no need to find a solution. Liberalism really had nothing to do with it, like, at all.
liberalism literally created the necessary preconditions - economic hardship, disparity between rich and poor, etc. - and fought to stop the solution that would have prevented the rise of fascism, namely socialism
this is exactly the same pattern as we are seeing again in the 21st century. rich growing richer, poor growing poorer and more desperate. the rich tell the poor, “hey it’s not our fault, it’s actually the fault of minority groups”. then a charismatic leader appears and says “hey i have a solution”
liberalism causes fascism, it has done so 100% of the time
Okay so you’re just being disingenuous then. You think poor material conditions (particularly from wide-scale conflict independent of liberalism) have absolutely no influence on the path a country takes?
Hey, you do know that buddy is referring to what liberalism actually is, right? Liberalism leads to poor material conditions, the entire thing is built to frolick along with capitalism.
Sure, but let’s not play ignorant to the role WW1 played in setting the stage for fascism to arise. Things are always more complicated then just “liberalism leads to fascism”, especially since theory only exists abstractly as opposed to the smorgasbord of circumstances in reality. I’m in no way denying the existence of that pipeline though.
This is just silly and way too presumptuous. Fascism doesn’t arise from liberalism, it arises from desperation. Both Italy and Germany were in less than desirable positions after WW1, Italy being fractured and dissatisfied with the hand it was dealt after being on the winning side, and Germany being crippled with debt and teeming with government incompetency. Both Mussolini and Hitler were opportunists who would have in no way got as far as they did had either country been in a more stable condition with no need to find a solution. Liberalism really had nothing to do with it, like, at all.
liberalism literally created the necessary preconditions - economic hardship, disparity between rich and poor, etc. - and fought to stop the solution that would have prevented the rise of fascism, namely socialism
this is exactly the same pattern as we are seeing again in the 21st century. rich growing richer, poor growing poorer and more desperate. the rich tell the poor, “hey it’s not our fault, it’s actually the fault of minority groups”. then a charismatic leader appears and says “hey i have a solution”
liberalism causes fascism, it has done so 100% of the time
Okay so you’re just being disingenuous then. You think poor material conditions (particularly from wide-scale conflict independent of liberalism) have absolutely no influence on the path a country takes?
i’m saying that if liberalism didn’t crush socialist movements post-war then fascism never would have succeeded
Hey, you do know that buddy is referring to what liberalism actually is, right? Liberalism leads to poor material conditions, the entire thing is built to frolick along with capitalism.
Sure, but let’s not play ignorant to the role WW1 played in setting the stage for fascism to arise. Things are always more complicated then just “liberalism leads to fascism”, especially since theory only exists abstractly as opposed to the smorgasbord of circumstances in reality. I’m in no way denying the existence of that pipeline though.