starman2003 wrote:Railing against mexican immigrants and muslims reflected not racism primarily but economic concerns and fear of terror respectively. If Trump had slammed blacks and latinos due to a stated preference that America be all white, he would've been slaughtered at the polls.
This is what we call an unverifiable claim.
You are pretending to know the mind of Trump and what he really meant, as well as pretedning to know the minds of US voters and how theynwould have theoretically reacted.
Since we are not mind readers, this is unverifiable.
What is verifiable is the following: Trump made insulting generalisations about Mexicans and Muslims, and not only did Trump become more popualr as a result, but hate crimes against minorities also in reased after this.
Racist fascists never got anywhere in the half century they've tried. Others like George Wallace got some support, but never enough (not even Wallace's attempt to look "mainstream" could overcome the stigma of his past racism). This is just not the late 19th century or the early 20th, when ideas of racial superiority/inferiority were in vogue. You just can't get enough support that way. Those who would be future authoritarian leaders would be well advised to find some other method.
Since I never argued that racism all by itself is the inly thing necessary for fascism to succeed, I have no problem with the above.
Please note that this does not mean that fascism is now totally separate from racism. Nor does it disprove the claims that most fascists are racist, and that if fascism comes it will be supported by racism.
I doubt a true authoritarianism will get its chance for decades, and by then it won't be practical to be racist (too inimical to national unity). It was one thing to be racist when blacks and/or others made up 10% of the population, but 50% plus is another matter. A political movement might prey on racist attitudes to some extent, but a government will have to adapt its policy to reality.
By and large our society isn't becoming more racist but less. The election of Obama is one of the clearest indications of that.
This is another unverifiable claim, as you are basing your 'evidence' on what will happen in the future. Since we cannot see the future, this is pointless speculation.
In our observable lifetime, we have seen far right parties become more popular and boost voting by complaining about immigrants.
I doubt it'll be a significant part, if one at all.
I understand that you doubt this. I do not understand why. It seems like you want to believe that fascists are not racist authoritarians who will wear state uniforms and kill minorities with impunity. Since is happens even in our modern democracies, it is not a huge leap to assume it will happen in fascism, which is even more suited to this racist state violence.
The Golden Dawn is a good example of what I mean. You seem to have ignored it.
How strange that a nonauthoritarian system could kill and exile opponents en masse. Castro showed he meant business resulting in a cowed populace, even if the dissatisfied are 50% or more.
Yes, they did this as part of the revolution. Once it was done, there was no reason to continue.
Mind you, I do not know why you are describing Cuba as fascist, since they hate fascists as much as they hate imperialists.
Also, you seem to have ignored my point about how the Cuban government does not have a monopoly on guns. Is Cuba some sort of special form of authoritarian where they hand out guns to the people they are supposedly oppressing?