Fair enough.

Sorry for getting snotty. Out drinking. Shouldn't even be on internet.

Night all.

No worries, enjoy your beer!

Looks like Bolsonaro is going full-bore Pinochet from day one:

Bolsonaro hands indigenous tribal land on a plate to his rich agribusiness cronies, and plans to piss all over LGBT rights

Oh, he's also planning to rip up environmental legislation, privatise everything that isn't bolted to the floor (and much that is), and he's already met up with members of the Trump administration to discuss "dealing" with left-wing neighbours such as Cuba, Venezeula and Nicaragua.

Looks like my previous remarks about this guy treating Amor e Revolução as an instruction manual, underestimated the problem ...

Of course Trump will support him. He will be envious.

Of course, the part that worries me, is Bolsonaro's willingness to sign the death warrant for Planet Earth, by authorising the Amazon to be turned into a commodity for his rich, corrupt cronies to plunder at will ...

Good by to one of earth's lungs.

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, the part that worries me, is Bolsonaro's willingness to sign the death warrant for Planet Earth, by authorising the Amazon to be turned into a commodity for his rich, corrupt cronies to plunder at will ...

What really worries me is that he will do so with the consent of most of Brazil's population. Which means nothing will stop him.

fisherman wrote:This article is a retort to the increasing use of fascist in political discourse.

Jair Bolsonaro’s victory in Brazil has led to global handwringing about the emergence of ‘actual fascism’ in the fourth largest democracy in the world. In response, we republish Brendan O’Neill’s 2017 essay on what fascism really is.

The stability, or stasis, of the technocratic era, with its hostility both to ideology and to change, has led some to see all political upset, and even politics itself, as terrifying. One consequence of technocracy is that it denuded people, especially influential people, of the means of politics, of the very language of politics, of any ability to read the world politically and to understand that politics is the clash or interplay of competing interests, not, as they had imagined it, a managerial process of ensuring the relatively healthy maintenance of social and bureaucratic life. They are utterly unprepared for politics, and so the return of politics, the very political statements of Brexit and Trump, has convinced them not simply that they face a political challenge, but that their entire class and worldview and even their existence is under threat.

I don't have a lot nice to say about that article. It's way, way too long for what it contains. The first 20 or so paragraphs say nothing more than "[the author] thinks the word fascist is overused". When he finally gets to the vaunted promise of a definition of fascism to which we should return, this is what he says:

Fascism, basically, is when a society in crisis green-lights civil war or class war as a means of stabilising itself in the longer term.

Now, I'll grant you that's not Trump and it's not Brexit. But it is Duterte and it is Bolsonaro. We are genuinely talking about politicians elected on the promise of gunfire in the streets and extrajudicial killing, that is justified by being a "war on ...". It's not figurative, surely?

Ultimately he ignores his own definition by dropping the "civil war or" part, and simply assuming Trotsky said everything that could be said about Fascism. For those of us who aren't Trots there are perhaps other elements to consider, like the very one Brendan O'Neill himself mentions in his definition, but immediately forgets.

Jeezus. Some of the rhetoric in that article borders on fascist itself. The last two paragraphs where he talks up the "primal, unpredictable mass of society" and so forth? And the way he spends the space telling his audience that these faceless 'elites' are the ones doing these bad things, have kept you out of politics, are afraid of you? Am I the only one who got the vibes from those sections? Yikes.

But if O'Neill is all about 'democracy' and this popular will sort of thing, why doesn't his definition of fascism work that way? He defers to one or two writers and says anything else is not the proper definition. He even offers several suggestions of what he takes to be popular understandings of fascism, but he just dismisses them because they don't fit what these few writers have said. Sounds almost elitist. And he appears to be in the 'media' himself.

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, the part that worries me, is Bolsonaro's willingness to sign the death warrant for Planet Earth, by authorising the Amazon to be turned into a commodity for his rich, corrupt cronies to plunder at will ...

Musing....

Would it be ethical to authorise the assassination of said fascist dictator?

This is going to be a bad year for the Amazon indians. If any survive it.

Scot Dutchy wrote:This is going to be a bad year for the Amazon indians. If any survive it.

At your age I’d keep my gob shut if I were you.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:This is going to be a bad year for the Amazon indians. If any survive it.

At your age I’d keep my gob shut if I were you.

Reported little boy. Keep going as your time here will not be long.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:This is going to be a bad year for the Amazon indians. If any survive it.

At your age I’d keep my gob shut if I were you.

Reported little boy. Keep going as your time here will not be long.

No problem relic.

Thommo wrote:

fisherman wrote:This article is a retort to the increasing use of fascist in political discourse.

Jair Bolsonaro’s victory in Brazil has led to global handwringing about the emergence of ‘actual fascism’ in the fourth largest democracy in the world. In response, we republish Brendan O’Neill’s 2017 essay on what fascism really is.

The stability, or stasis, of the technocratic era, with its hostility both to ideology and to change, has led some to see all political upset, and even politics itself, as terrifying. One consequence of technocracy is that it denuded people, especially influential people, of the means of politics, of the very language of politics, of any ability to read the world politically and to understand that politics is the clash or interplay of competing interests, not, as they had imagined it, a managerial process of ensuring the relatively healthy maintenance of social and bureaucratic life. They are utterly unprepared for politics, and so the return of politics, the very political statements of Brexit and Trump, has convinced them not simply that they face a political challenge, but that their entire class and worldview and even their existence is under threat.

I don't have a lot nice to say about that article. It's way, way too long for what it contains. The first 20 or so paragraphs say nothing more than "[the author] thinks the word fascist is overused". When he finally gets to the vaunted promise of a definition of fascism to which we should return, this is what he says:

Fascism, basically, is when a society in crisis green-lights civil war or class war as a means of stabilising itself in the longer term.

Now, I'll grant you that's not Trump and it's not Brexit. But it is Duterte and it is Bolsonaro. We are genuinely talking about politicians elected on the promise of gunfire in the streets and extrajudicial killing, that is justified by being a "war on ...". It's not figurative, surely?

Ultimately he ignores his own definition by dropping the "civil war or" part, and simply assuming Trotsky said everything that could be said about Fascism. For those of us who aren't Trots there are perhaps other elements to consider, like the very one Brendan O'Neill himself mentions in his definition, but immediately forgets.

Thanks.

My discomfort with the thread title, which prompted me to post the article, should have been a trigger to recognise my ignorance of the subject matter. Had I delved a little into the subject before posting, I may have been better able to parse that article and think better of it, though, even I would not hold my breath on that.

fisherman wrote:Thanks.

My discomfort with the thread title, which prompted me to post the article, should have been a trigger to recognise my ignorance of the subject matter. Had I delved a little into the subject before posting, I may have been better able to parse that article and think better of it, though, even I would not hold my breath on that.

That's probably too self-effacing!

I think there's a fair discussion to have over the thread title and exactly what is going on in Brazil, it may be a little hyperbolic, but compared to a lot of hyperbole it's uncomfortably defensible.

Reading around about Brendan O'Neill he seems to be a bit of an odd character, with some potentially nasty views himself. I'm not sure that should prejudice how we read the article, but I only found that out after I finished it and hadn't found it well written and so found myself asking "who is this guy?".

PS: I too know very little about Brazil's politics.

Maybe a little

I was, however, meaning fascism. A little more groundwork on that subject could have served me better, how can I judge what it is if I don't know what it looks like?

If there was something worthwhile from the original O'neill article, it was the fascism definition you quoted, which is a superbly succinct thumbnail.

Fascism, basically, is when a society in crisis green-lights civil war or class war as a means of stabilising itself in the longer term.

Passed me by.

This article perhaps is more balanced in its analysis and circumspect in its conclusions but lays it out there none the less. That his rhetoric is fascist, which others and threatens violence. But then it also makes a fair point, that for 27 years a legislator, Bolsonaro has operated within democratic and constitutional norms, with apparently no fascist tendencies. Ultimately though it concludes that the warning signs are there.

Therefore, it seems safe to consider Mr. Bolsonaro as a fascist in-waiting, a proto-fascist, if you will. He is not there yet – but does profess the core ideological predecessor that, historically, has led to institutional fascism. We can't know for sure whether, if he gets elected, he will instill a fascist administration. Maybe his wishes will be tamed by the state's checks and balances, or by other spheres of society. Perhaps he'll change his mind altogether.

This guy is more authoritative on the subject of fascism, and while the article is more challenging for me to read as it jumps around a bit while claiming that modern far-right populism is returning to its fascist roots. He does state early in the article;

In these and other statements, Bolsonaro’s vocabulary recalls the rhetoric behind Nazi policies of persecution and victimization. But does sounding like a Nazi make him a Nazi? Insomuch as he believes in holding elections, he is not there yet. However, things could change quickly if he gains power.

.
The article then does not explicitly call him out as fascist but it is a pretty clearly implied.

Hopefully, worst fears for Brazilian politics are never realised and this thread can have a good death.

I found both of those articles much, much better. Interesting read.

Think Bolsonaro isn't a fascist? Think again.

The Guardian notes that Bolsonaro “has expressed open disdain for the indigenous peoples of Brazil, and it is no exaggeration to say that some of the world’s most unique and diverse tribes are facing annihilation.”

In addition, The Guardian explains that Bolsonaro himself has declared:

It’s a shame that the Brazilian cavalry wasn’t as efficient as the Americans, who exterminated the Indians.

Later on, we have this:

More important, in a campaign speech delivered last year, Bolsonaro signaled his intention to promote Christian theocracy for Brazil, declaring:

God above everything. There is no such thing as this secular state. The state is Christian and the minority will have to change, if they can. The minorities will have to adapt to the position of the majority.

So he's not only going to turn over swathes of the Amazon to rapacious corporate exploitation, he's going to treat anyone who doesn't conform to his vision of a white, Christian Brazil as enemies to be crushed. He's openly espoused violence against members of the LGBT community, gleefully talked about "exterminating" indigenous peoples, and has also tossed a fair amount of disgusting misogyny into the mix of his incendiary public outpourings.

That 14 point checklist of how to spot a fascist? He's already into double figures.