Apathy is the environment that allows fascism to take root
That’s simply not true. Liberalism thrives under apathy. But when locals become active and begin to resist liberal rules, the fascists operate as a political counter to popular leftism.
Whether it’s Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile or Park’s Korea, fascism is a social tool to mobilize a population against itself at the height of unrest.
Hitler’s rise in power happened after years of apathy
Hitler came to power amidst decades of riots, strikes, and mass migrations.
Nothing about Germany in the 1920s was apathetic except the failing Hindenburg government. The people were in the streets - for good or ill - nearly constantly.
That’s simply not true. Liberalism thrives under apathy. But when locals become active and begin to resist liberal rules, the fascists operate as a political counter to popular leftism.
I would say liberalism creates the apathy that leads to populism on both the left and the right.
Whether it’s Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile or Park’s Korea, fascism is a social tool to mobilize a population against itself at the height of unrest.
I think that’s a bit of a reductive way to view how fascism develops. Calling it a social tool implies that there is some kind of puppet master wielding it. In reality most of the time fascism is just aided by liberals who think they can control or ally with them because they often share cultural similarities. However there are also examples of liberals, and leftist of all types creating popular fronts against aspiring fascist regimes.
Hitler came to power amidst decades of riots, strikes, and mass migrations.
Again, you are referencing a tiny portion of the population. You are also misconstruing the time in which these events occured. The origins of the Nazi party developed from the DAP, which was started in 1919 as an ultra nationalist, antisemitism, and anti communist party. In 1928 they only had less than 3 percent of the vote. It wasn’t until after the great depression began that they started to actually become more popular with regular German people.
From their origins to their popularization there were oppositional riots and strikes from the left, but from a relatively small portion of the public, mostly in Berlin. However the majority of the public were still mostly center left and center right parties who were uninterested in confronting the rise of political violence from the right. From 1918-1933 there were over 350 political assassination committed by the right compared to around 20 from the left, and the left were generally prosecuted to a much higher degree.
liberalism creates the apathy that leads to populism
Populism isn’t apathetic. Again, just the opposite. Populists are activists, practically by their nature.
Whether you’re rallying to block deportations or throwing a riot over vaccines, the accusation that you’re apathetic flies in the face of your views and actions.
I think that’s a bit of a reductive way to view how fascism develops. Calling it a social tool implies that there is some kind of puppet master wielding it.
Call it a technique then. But national media and the political elite blaming migrants, religious minorities, and social progressives for economic woes is nothing new.
Again, you are referencing a tiny portion of the population.
You’re thinking of what you see on the nightly news as the sum total of all activity.
For every BLM protest reported on there were dozens that never got mention. For every MAGA rally or Tea Party event, dozens flew under the radar.
I’ve been to events with thousands of people that never got a peep of coverage. And I’ve watched riots in real time that barely earned a minute of footage on the local channels.
is more than just a quip.
The origins of the Nazi party developed from the DAP, which was started in 1919
The same year Rosa Luxembourg was assassinated after leading the Sparticus Uprising. Two years after the Russian Revolution kicked off next door.
Hardly a dull era for German politics
It wasn’t until after the great depression began that they started to actually become more popular with regular German people.
They were jockeying for position among half a dozen different radical and reactionary movements. Hitler had gone to prison attempting a coup - Germany’s own J6 style event - years earlier. Meanwhile, Communists, Anarchists, Liberals, and Conservatives were engaged in foreign sponsored street fights across the country.
What the Nazis achieved was an effective paramilitary that could operate with impunity in a country that was in the grip of a low key civil war.
but from a relatively small portion of the public, mostly in Berlin
Again, that’s simply not true. The Beer Hall Putsch of '23 was in Munich, not Berlin. The Hamburg Uprising happened that same year, in an event known as German October (intended to be a parallel to the Russian October Revolution six years earlier). Blutmai, in '29, was in Berlin, but it was far from the only event leading up to the '33 dictatorship.
You had lower key actions and oppositions happening across the country. The Cuno Strikes, for instance, were nationwide.
From 1918-1933 there were over 350 political assassination committed by the right compared to around 20 from the left
There were over 3000 strike actions in 1918. How many of those were organized by right leaning parties?
That’s simply not true. Liberalism thrives under apathy. But when locals become active and begin to resist liberal rules, the fascists operate as a political counter to popular leftism.
Whether it’s Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile or Park’s Korea, fascism is a social tool to mobilize a population against itself at the height of unrest.
Hitler came to power amidst decades of riots, strikes, and mass migrations.
Nothing about Germany in the 1920s was apathetic except the failing Hindenburg government. The people were in the streets - for good or ill - nearly constantly.
I would say liberalism creates the apathy that leads to populism on both the left and the right.
I think that’s a bit of a reductive way to view how fascism develops. Calling it a social tool implies that there is some kind of puppet master wielding it. In reality most of the time fascism is just aided by liberals who think they can control or ally with them because they often share cultural similarities. However there are also examples of liberals, and leftist of all types creating popular fronts against aspiring fascist regimes.
Again, you are referencing a tiny portion of the population. You are also misconstruing the time in which these events occured. The origins of the Nazi party developed from the DAP, which was started in 1919 as an ultra nationalist, antisemitism, and anti communist party. In 1928 they only had less than 3 percent of the vote. It wasn’t until after the great depression began that they started to actually become more popular with regular German people.
From their origins to their popularization there were oppositional riots and strikes from the left, but from a relatively small portion of the public, mostly in Berlin. However the majority of the public were still mostly center left and center right parties who were uninterested in confronting the rise of political violence from the right. From 1918-1933 there were over 350 political assassination committed by the right compared to around 20 from the left, and the left were generally prosecuted to a much higher degree.
Populism isn’t apathetic. Again, just the opposite. Populists are activists, practically by their nature.
Whether you’re rallying to block deportations or throwing a riot over vaccines, the accusation that you’re apathetic flies in the face of your views and actions.
Call it a technique then. But national media and the political elite blaming migrants, religious minorities, and social progressives for economic woes is nothing new.
You’re thinking of what you see on the nightly news as the sum total of all activity.
For every BLM protest reported on there were dozens that never got mention. For every MAGA rally or Tea Party event, dozens flew under the radar.
I’ve been to events with thousands of people that never got a peep of coverage. And I’ve watched riots in real time that barely earned a minute of footage on the local channels.
is more than just a quip.
The same year Rosa Luxembourg was assassinated after leading the Sparticus Uprising. Two years after the Russian Revolution kicked off next door.
Hardly a dull era for German politics
They were jockeying for position among half a dozen different radical and reactionary movements. Hitler had gone to prison attempting a coup - Germany’s own J6 style event - years earlier. Meanwhile, Communists, Anarchists, Liberals, and Conservatives were engaged in foreign sponsored street fights across the country.
What the Nazis achieved was an effective paramilitary that could operate with impunity in a country that was in the grip of a low key civil war.
Again, that’s simply not true. The Beer Hall Putsch of '23 was in Munich, not Berlin. The Hamburg Uprising happened that same year, in an event known as German October (intended to be a parallel to the Russian October Revolution six years earlier). Blutmai, in '29, was in Berlin, but it was far from the only event leading up to the '33 dictatorship.
You had lower key actions and oppositions happening across the country. The Cuno Strikes, for instance, were nationwide.
There were over 3000 strike actions in 1918. How many of those were organized by right leaning parties?