American political and economic support, financial backing from bourgeois interests, support from the church and deep state, etc.And tell me what kind of unfair advantages had the DC? Just curious about the history of my country
American political and economic support, financial backing from bourgeois interests, support from the church and deep state, etc.
There is no need to have a whole discussion again. We had one last year about Togliatti and the PCI, and we’re on completely different wave lengths on the politics of the First Republic.
If the political system only allows the governing coalition a realistic chance to gather the (political, financial, social) resources necessary to mount a viable campaign capable of capturing a majority in the legislature, then it's not a fair political system even if the actual process of the election is "free". Voter suppression, rigged constituencies and seat distribution systems, financing laws, qualification thresholds, ballot access rules, disenfranchisement, etc. And even if the initial elections are free, if the dominancee of one party becomes so entrenched that voters are increasingly apathetic (i.e. schooled into learned helplessness), then clearly something has happened to make popular participation seem unattainable.A single party government is undemocratic when the voters' only options are those approved by the party. It's not undemocratic if the same party consistently wins free and fair elections.
Nixon, MacArthur, a surviving Huey Long (although I feel like anticommunist fearmongering about him may instead be one of the causes of the US's authoritarian turn, despite his own anticommunism?), LBJ (???), George Wallace (???). For some reason, I feel like the most likely authoritarian leader of the US during the Cold War era is a suit rather than a demogogue, though I did put Long and Wallace up there as well.My idea of an authoritarian America is a much more severe crisis damaging America, radicalizing the population, and making Americans tolerant of a gradual reduction in civil liberties. So if this climate of fear were to exist, what OTL figure could stand the most to profit from it through electoral victory.
Nixon, MacArthur, a surviving Huey Long (although I feel like anticommunist fearmongering about him may instead be one of the causes of the US's authoritarian turn, despite his own anticommunism?), LBJ (???), George Wallace (???). For some reason, I feel like the most likely authoritarian leader of the US during the Cold War era is a suit rather than a demogogue, though I did put Long and Wallace up there as well.
He was enough of a political chameleon to adapt. He would probably try to reverse the legislation, but would probably give up once finding it "untenable".The question is this: if George Wallace became President through 1968 election, would he actually reverse civil rights legislation? Or would he be more like a Dixie-Nixon, with more increased surveillance of left-leaning and anti-war groups?
He was enough of a political chameleon to adapt. He would probably try to reverse the legislation, but would probably give up once finding it "untenable".
Honestly is a little rude and convenient lamenting and talking how unfair were that election and immediately after say that the discussion need to be closed because you basically don't like my argumentAmerican political and economic support, financial backing from bourgeois interests, support from the church and deep state, etc.
There is no need to have a whole discussion again. We had one last year about Togliatti and the PCI, and we’re on completely different wave lengths on the politics of the First Republic.
I rarely intervene to state this case, but this is the second instance of it here, and as I agree with the non-historical point and its the second instance I've spotted, it is kinder to make it here with someone I agree with outside of historiography:If the political system only allows the governing coalition a realistic chance to gather the (political, financial, social) resources necessary to mount a viable campaign capable of capturing a majority in the legislature, then it's not a fair political system even if the actual process of the election is "free". Voter suppression, rigged constituencies and seat distribution systems, financing laws, qualification thresholds, ballot access rules, disenfranchisement, etc. And even if the initial elections are free, if the dominancee of one party becomes so entrenched that voters are increasingly apathetic (i.e. schooled into learned helplessness), then clearly something has happened to make popular participation seem unattainable.
I think it is arguable whether the evenness or unevenness of funding is relevant to the system being "locked" depends in part on whether the PCI used its even position to attempt to take (in coalition) the System as it was, or sought a system as they would have. Even with a PCI interior minister, the PSI cabinet would not necessarily be pursuing the broad aims of the PCI—such would be a matter for the PCI's own internal politics, one that I'd strongly suggest was divided on the matter 45-89. The presence of a legalist tendency in the PCI adds incredibly to the argument that the Italian political system represented the interests of the brokers of power by their active participation. Kind of like being a Tory under ununelectable Whig governments. You may never achieve a government position, but Lordship is ensured, right after the next Fiat plant is established to placate your constituents. (And if not obvious, I'm arguing here for a power-dynamics analysis of history that incorporates self-interest at different organisational scales, with a concept of "buy-off" brokerage politics, and the idea that participants own theory needs to be read in the light of their actions, or their theory read rather through their actions.)While the DC had american political support and the financial backing of a lot of interest and the support of the church at the same time the PCI had the support of the URSS (they have took money till the collapse of the URSS) and the financial backing of the various cooperative (that in the italian context are basically medium to big industry and communist or socialist like the actual Chinese communist party) and the support of the various union so they were hardly at an uneven level.
All good points! This is not something I can claim any real sort of expertise with, so thank you for sharing your thoughts. Obviously "authoritarian" is quite a subjective term, besides the liberal conception there is also the anarchist conception as well as the "Engelsian" conception (if we are to call it that). In my case, I the reason I brought up voter apathy was not to say that it directly proved that the state was authoritarian but moreso that people did not see the political system as offering the kind of democratic participation that it claimed to offer--otherwise, being dissatisfied with the status quo and given an opportunity to vote, why did they not?Some PSI and PCI members on the ground did not consider the Italian state to be a terrain of struggle (using Gramsci, someone known to them culturally), as evidenced by their toleration of an illegal periphery whether Anarchists, Operaismo, Maoists, or Guns Locked Under (or without) Party Key. This seems to indicate that the debate arising within Italy was not over whether Italy was a legitimate state or not, but rather than control over the state (or its abolition) was a more central argument than what the composition of the next cabinet would be from a body of parties considered by a significant membership of the voting public to be ununelectable was.
Now sadly in terms of the original question, the opposition of a large body of the population of a state to that state isn't necessarily an indication of the "authoritarian" category, one which I think I've previously raised the historiography of arising from American institutions funded directly by government: to say it is a political category of theory.
Where did the support for the MSI come from? Nostalgic Monarchists, or technocrats?Honestly is a little rude and convenient lamenting and talking how unfair were that election and immediately after say that the discussion need to be closed because you basically don't like my argument
While the DC had american political support and the financial backing of a lot of interest and the support of the church at the same time the PCI had the support of the URSS (they have took money till the collapse of the URSS) and the financial backing of the various cooperative (that in the italian context are basically medium to big industry and communist or socialist like the actual Chinese communist party) and the support of the various union so they were hardly at an uneven level.
I
Nostalgic of the ventennio (and there were a lot), remnants of the monarchists parties that imploded in early 60's, some technocrats and a lot people that really felt odd with the entire political spectrumWhere did the support for the MSI come from? Nostalgic Monarchists, or technocrats?
Definitely. Honestly I think if the Red Scare of the 50's had a better leader than drunken, lying McCarthy, it might have been easier to move against the communists and such and the timing would be right as I think Goldwater in 64 would be too late, even if Kennedy still lived. I honestly think if it would happen in the US it'd happen in the early 50's. I'm not as familiar with the UK, but strangely enough the Thatcher era could have been but that still seems a bit off. It would more or less just have a few more draconian laws and might look like A Clockwork Orange, but I doubt it would get even that far.
Yeah, maybe if somehow McCarthy didn't crash and burn and Bobby Kennedy more or less becomes a kind of disciple of his and RFK would know how to do such things without being as much of a buffoon. Heck, it would be ASB, but maybe there's a bizarre timeline where the Kennedy's take up the McCarthyist position and are much more intelligent than McCarthy ever was but the US is more or less just a Kennedy family dictatorship that's anticommunist, but also still somewhat socially liberal. Plus part of me would just want to see a power struggle between JFK jr and RFK jr in such a timeline, and basically they'd be trying to take over the country. Way too ASB though.It's important to note that McCarthy wasn't just a cruel bastard. Still, his actions UNDERMINED US intelligence operations since they made legitimate accusations of espionage seem hyperbolic and severely damaged the reputation of the committees he worked on. It got to a point where a Republican Senator openly asked if McCarthy had been in the Russian's pocket.
While "smart McCarthy" is a possibility, such a person would inevitably bite off more than they can chew, attack the wrong people, and ruin the credibility of the government.
Yeah, maybe if somehow McCarthy didn't crash and burn and Bobby Kennedy more or less becomes a kind of disciple of his and RFK would know how to do such things without being as much of a buffoon. Heck, it would be ASB, but maybe there's a bizarre timeline where the Kennedy's take up the McCarthyist position and are much more intelligent than McCarthy ever was but the US is more or less just a Kennedy family dictatorship that's anticommunist, but also still somewhat socially liberal. Plus part of me would just want to see a power struggle between JFK jr and RFK jr in such a timeline, and basically they'd be trying to take over the country. Way too ASB though.