Recent elections in Slovakia, activation Konvičkovců and similar ones pointed to one paradox:
How is it possible that after the war failure of fascist regimes, after bloodshed and the dead there are still people who turn to ideas and principles fascism still reporting? How is it possible that in the event of any crisis, a large group of people with the same views and practices that have led to Holocaust and also world wars?
Hitler built highways
The problem is that the mainstream has never dealt with the principles and foundations of fascism and the ideas derived from it (collectively as "fascism").
Imagine that - fascism is evil, yes?
- Hitler built expresswaywhich are good, right?
- World War II helped end the economic crisis, did it?
- Hitler succeeded in Germany in the 30s break the economic crisis, yes?
- Mussolini introduced minimum wage, health insurance, paid vacation, yes?
So if we don't kill and change our rhetoric, fascism was actually quite fine, progressive, and today we would say that constructive and more or less central movement, that?
Do you find this assessment absurd? But this is how fascism and others are commonly evaluated. We do not evaluate ideologies on the basis of mechanics and the way power is used, but on the basis of content and the intention of their government. On this basis, we present various ideologies, we teach about them in schools, we write about them in books.
Then we can not be surprised that liberals are the ones who want to cancel health insurance, abolish the minimum wage, they do not want to build motorways, they do not want to "defend" economic crises, they do not want to abolish state-paid paid leave. This is the real content of liberal politics, and that is what it sounds like terribly!
The mechanism of combat
This is the real core of why many people today do not see the connection between popular movements Kotleba, Konvicka, Okamura, Bartos aspol. and former fascists. However, no one kills, there is no genocide, there is no war. So what's the point, right?
On the other hand, it is not only fascists and authoritarians who benefit from this view of ideology. In fact, today's political scene benefits from this view. The basis of the political practice of socialists or conservatives is struggle. Take one (money, privileges, rights) and give to the other.
Base is conflict, finding the enemy while highlighting the importance of others. And it doesn't matter if they are entrepreneurs, "socially needy", homosexuals, nation, race, doctors - It doesn't matter what we choose a privileged group and a group of those who have to give up something.
The principle on which fascist ideologies are built is the same for everyone redistributors - take one, give the other. Make one parents, privileged, from other children. The principle is the belief that a certain group or part of society has a greater right to impose its outlook on life than others. That a certain group has a greater right to own others.
And he is his own.
Except for libertarians.
And until we are willing to see this, more and more will appear, saying:
"It simply came to our notice then. The right ones people take the good and they will do it right. We will avoid mistakes. "
And they won't want to see or hear that the mechanics of redistribution always ultimately leads to the same end, the only question is how fast. They will not want to hear that they are the fascists of the day who are paving the way for new authoritarians - and we will ask ourselves again:
How is it possible that after the war failure of fascist regimes, after the bloodshed and the dead, there are still people who are still committed to the ideas and principles of fascism? How is it possible that if any crisis comes, a large group of people will activate with the same views and practices that led to the Holocaust and also the world war?