|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 27, 2018 17:21:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Dec 27, 2018 18:08:02 GMT
I fear that right wing populism is thriving all over Europe.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Dec 27, 2018 20:06:37 GMT
Not just in Europe: USA, Philippines, Brazil. I'm sure I have missed some.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 27, 2018 21:38:12 GMT
Well, yes we know it's on the rise all over. But this calendar & other fascist gift items are in Italy. That is somehow particularly shocking, considering that the particular ex-leader being celebrated is one that is constantly being cited right now as other populist would-be dictators rise to power. Also, Italy has its nerve, considering its reluctance to color inside the rather reasonable budgetary lines set out for it by the EU.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Dec 28, 2018 15:00:37 GMT
Populism is. The economy doesn't work for the majority any more and it's growing worse daily so populism is inevitable. The rise of right-wing populism is, I'm certain, deemed highly preferable by those in power to the rise of left-wing populism. Right-wing populism doesn't threaten the interests of the elites; left wing populism does, if it is politically effective. Thus I think you will see right-wing populism deliberately (though obviously deniably) enabled/tolerated as necessary as a pressure vent to prevent the rise of left wing populism, which is what haunts the sleep of the ultra-wealthy and their coteries at night. Salvini, Le Pen, and Trump are no threat at all to the ruling classes; Corbyn, Mélenchon, and Sanders, on the other hand, are the stuff of their nightmares. Right-wing populists are unsavory and gauche and deplorable but, although it would never be admitted publicly, a far more attractive alternative to any form of actual effective left-wing political movement. The important thing is to never allow the actual left-wing populists near the levers of power. The right-wingers and their policies are all pretty easily managed by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Dec 28, 2018 15:14:40 GMT
Also, Italy has its nerve, considering its reluctance to color inside the rather reasonable budgetary lines set out for it by the EU. It would be insane for Italy, in its current economic condition, to be rigorously constrained by the ECB's budgetary rules. It's a recipe for never-ending economic decline. In the same way it would be insane to expect Mississippi or Alabama to contribute to the Federal budget like California or Washington State can. The root of the problem is, of course, that the EU instituted monetary union without taking the politically difficult but absolutely economically necessary accompanying step of fiscal union. The wealthier states of a monetary union must do fiscal transfers and subsidize the less wealthy states for such a arrangement to endure -- just as nobody expects Dixie to contribute to the US' budget like the wealthier coastal states do. Italy and the Southern EU states should not be subject to the same budgetary constraints as the Northern states are. Having a common central bank will never work long-term without fiscal transfers from wealthy states to poorer ones. The US wouldn't last twenty years under such misguided policies as the EU is built on.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Dec 28, 2018 15:40:43 GMT
The whole point of the EU is to transfer money from the rich countries to the poor countries. That is the detail that the United Kingdom detested the most. Will the rich countries ever transfer enough money? Of course not. This said, Italy is still one of the rich countries, compared to many others, but it receives more than it pays.
The countries that pay more are : Germany, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Austria. All of the other countries receive more than they pay. I am a bit surprised that Belgium and Luxembourg receive more than they pay.
The countries that receive the most are France, Poland, Germany, Italy and Spain. Just about all of these amounts are for agriculture, since these countries are basically feeding the other ones. Obviously, Germany and France pay more than they receive in the end.
The countries that receive the least (per capita) are Malta, Cyprus, Slovenia and Estonia. The countries that receive the most are Poland, Greece and Romania.
Frankly, it is not surprising that most Europeans do not understand what the hell is going on, since these statistics can be pulled in every direction, depending on one's political agenda.
Are we being robbed? Are lazy countries getting too much? Very few people have a global image of Europe. I would speculate that the Germans are the most stalwart, because they know they are the richest so that makes it normal for them to pay the most. And keeping Europe peaceful is a lot more important to them than some of the other countries. The French don't complain too much either, because even though they contribute more than they receive, it basically calms them to know that they receive the most money.
Going back to the original subject, I thought it was very interesting that in the movie Call Me By Your Name, there is a scene where they stop for a drink of water in one of the villages, and there is a portrait of Mussolini displayed prominently on a wall. While most of us find both Hitler and Mussolini unbearable, there are still people who prefer to recall (or have been told) how they modernised their countries and brought them into the 20th century. And catastrophe.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 28, 2018 17:26:26 GMT
Fumobici, I admire your succinct and logical layout in #4 of why right-wing populism is covertly promoted by the wealthy powerful. However, I do think your reasoning in #5 is flawed because of some basic misconceptions. For one thing, what the various states of the US receive is more often based on what their representatives are able to wrest for them, rather than on a clean rational system for dispersal of federal funds. Because of my rather rabid interest in the whole Brexit debacle, I've tried to educate myself on how the EU system works. I'm not at the point where I could lay it out as clearly as Kerouac does in #6, but from everything I've read it appears that the EU method does everything it can to be fair to its member countries for the good of the whole. While most of us find both Hitler and Mussolini unbearable, there are still people who prefer to recall (or have been told) how they modernised their countries and brought them into the 20th century. And catastrophe. This well illustrates why soundbite propaganda is so effective. If "everyone" says "he made the railroads run on time!", that's plenty enough for many people, nicely letting them off the hook about having to do any research on their own or even just looking around and assessing a present or past situation. Kerouac, I'm sure you well remember the hero-of-the-revolution landlord in Havana and his abiding veneration of Fidel.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Dec 28, 2018 18:31:21 GMT
Why on earth is Luxembourg, one of the richest countries per capita in the world, a "receiver" country?
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Dec 28, 2018 18:38:44 GMT
I would assume because of the disproportionate presence of EU governmental business conducted there. Two of the four richest counties in the US are in the DC suburbs, Fairfax and Loudoun counties in VA, for likely similar reasons.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Dec 28, 2018 19:02:55 GMT
I looked it up. Actually, Luxembourg contributed more that it received until 2016, but now it receives more money for four reasons -- the EU agricultural policy, contributions for regional development (Luxembourg suffered just like the rest of the Saar-Lor-Lux region from the collapse of mining and the steel industry.) and also EU investment in research. The fourth reason is the presence of several of the EU institutions in Luxembourg, employing 12,900 people. It is the home of the European Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Investment Bank, and the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, among other things. With a population of fewer than 600,000, the EU is a big part of the economy.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Dec 28, 2018 19:09:42 GMT
The whole point of the EU is to transfer money from the rich countries to the poor countries. That is the detail that the United Kingdom detested the most. Will the rich countries ever transfer enough money? Of course not. This said, Italy is still one of the rich countries, compared to many others, but it receives more than it pays. The countries that pay more are : Germany, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Austria. All of the other countries receive more than they pay. I am a bit surprised that Belgium and Luxembourg receive more than they pay. The countries that receive the most are France, Poland, Germany, Italy and Spain. Just about all of these amounts are for agriculture, since these countries are basically feeding the other ones. Obviously, Germany and France pay more than they receive in the end. The countries that receive the least (per capita) are Malta, Cyprus, Slovenia and Estonia. The countries that receive the most are Poland, Greece and Romania. Frankly, it is not surprising that most Europeans do not understand what the hell is going on, since these statistics can be pulled in every direction, depending on one's political agenda. Are we being robbed? Are lazy countries getting too much? Very few people have a global image of Europe. I would speculate that the Germans are the most stalwart, because they know they are the richest so that makes it normal for them to pay the most. And keeping Europe peaceful is a lot more important to them than some of the other countries. The French don't complain too much either, because even though they contribute more than they receive, it basically calms them to know that they receive the most money. Going back to the original subject, I thought it was very interesting that in the movie Call Me By Your Name, there is a scene where they stop for a drink of water in one of the villages, and there is a portrait of Mussolini displayed prominently on a wall. While most of us find both Hitler and Mussolini unbearable, there are still people who prefer to recall (or have been told) how they modernised their countries and brought them into the 20th century. And catastrophe. Great post. The economic condition in Italy that is causing the greatest problems in Italy presently is no doubt the UE/unemployment in the South and among under-thirties, both of which are pretty catastrophic. High UE is a classic case where well-supported Keynesian theory fairly screams that doing budgetary austerity is absolutely counter-indicated. Yet, that's exactly what the ECB is currently trying to enforce. Economies are fragile things, Greece wasn't the extreme outlier it is frequently dismissed as. Mussolini still has a small following in Italy. Like all bad leaders he and the Fascists did some good things, and the Fascists did some significant ones: "food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing and old age and disability insurance"*. The Fascists also did a *lot* of infrastructure investment, much of it like roads, railways, dams, public buildings, forestry practice, still in use. And Mussolini was once a teacher and poured a lot of resources into education. He tanked the Lira doing all that, and was a brutal authoritarian and a thug, jailed or killed his opponents, and of course allied with Hitler, so that quite understandably casts a very dark shadow over the positive accomplishments of Fascist Italy. But they still happened. *A. James Gregor, Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship, Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press, 1979, pp. 258-264
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Dec 28, 2018 19:38:40 GMT
Anyway, I didn't look up why Belgium also receives more money than it pays, but my Luxembourg research probably gave me the answer -- Belgium houses so many EU institutions that it obviously receives tons of money for this. And that is perfectly acceptable to me. We need those institutions.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Dec 28, 2018 23:03:24 GMT
I didn't even question it about Belgium, as I've seen impoverished former industrial areas there.
Yes, Mussolini actually adopted much of the programmes of the Italian socialist and communist parties while jailing and murdering their leaders (Matteotti and Gramsci) and crushing the labour movement. He had been a socialist himself, but broke with that on the basis of his strong bellicist outlook. At first the Italian fascists adopted specific left programmes such as maternity and early-childhood support and dopolavoro centres (which had been workers' clubs, and continued their mission without the idea of being oppositional and alternative to the existing society.
The Università per stranieri, where so many of us have studied in Perugia, was also a fascist initiative - the name should be a clue. The fascist régime also built la Casa d'Italia very close to where I live, in a modern deco style.
The fascist régime jailed, roughed up and killed many opponents but the worst evils were perpetrated by the puppet Republic formed after the Nazis poured in after the fall of the fascist rule. I knew someone who fled Venice then as a very young man - and another fellow who was only a teen - managing to make it to Switzerland, which was an obstacle course as remember, Austria no longer existed as a country and had been incorporated into Nazi Germany, so there was a long route through the Italian puppet state, and the Swiss were sick of refugees.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 29, 2018 14:52:14 GMT
Another article, unfortunately from the same publication as that in the OP. I say unfortunately because a more balanced picture often emerges when getting the news from a multiple of outlets. Be that as it may, this is the first newspaper I read every morning and this morning it spotlights fascism in Italy as evidenced in sports fandom. Do note that it's an Opinion piece rather than hard news ~ Fascism is thriving again in Italy – and finding its home on the terraces
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Dec 29, 2018 16:23:22 GMT
This is obviously not news to me because the majority of black footballers who get insulted on Italian teams are French. One of the most striking things for football competitions like the World Cup is how "white" the Italian team always is. www.lenouvelliste.ch/media/image/65/normal_16_9/324441650.jpgIf you compare it to the French, Spanish or German teams, it is flagrant.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Dec 29, 2018 21:03:56 GMT
Indeed. I think there was ONE prominent Black player on the side.
About the darkest they come otherwise are Sicilians and Calabrians...
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Dec 29, 2018 23:56:30 GMT
On a small anecdotique note i am often in northern Italy for work. There is huge industrial activity there. Mostly small companies - usually 50-100 people, family owned. And of course bigger concerns. The guys I meet are fed up of paying for the south.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 30, 2018 1:04:29 GMT
And do you know if the north is actually paying for the south, or is this the same kind of complaint heard from anti-EU people who think they're supporting the rest of the world? I just know bits & pieces of Itallan history, but do know that the southern part of Italy was held down & screwed over for centuries. Some fairly up-to-date information here (article has been updated from publication date) which ties in unemployment and right-wing movements: www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-03/14/c_137036951.htmAnd a short look at Italian history back to unification in 1860: www.thedailybeast.com/davids-book-club-who-ruined-southern-italy
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Dec 30, 2018 2:40:00 GMT
Thanks Bixa. The north plundered the south. Yes, of course the net result is underdevelopment, which is never pretty. Including the development of crime families, especially in Sicily, Catania and Calabria, which have spread far and wide.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Dec 30, 2018 6:00:19 GMT
The guys I meet are fed up of paying for the south. It sounds exactly like the Flemish and the Walloons.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jan 3, 2019 13:55:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 30, 2019 21:44:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 30, 2019 21:51:11 GMT
Les Italiens sont un peu spéciaux.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 30, 2019 22:20:15 GMT
Is that French for "the big dummies are adept at shooting themselves in the foot"?
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Mar 31, 2019 1:19:48 GMT
Fortunately I'm in touch with Italian feminists who are mobilising against this sexist filth. By the way, some of these feminists are men.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 6, 2019 16:06:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Apr 6, 2019 16:58:01 GMT
One problem in Italy is that there have always been lots of people nostalgic for Il Duce, the man who modernised Italy and ran the trains on time. Since he wasn't as murderous as his German ally or the Spanish Caudillo, many Italians still think that he did nothing reprehensible. That will probably continue to be a problem, since generations pass along their admiration to their children, even when the official admirers are dead. Luckily, in France this has been the case with De Gaulle rather than Pétain. But in Eastern Europe and particularly Russia, there is also a resurgence in admiration of Stalin, who reputedly did quite a few good things (although successfully fighting the Nazis is about the only one I can think of at the moment).
Smashing bad people with an iron fist will always appeal to the powerless poor classes, who don't always have nuanced ideas. The great problem is that the definition of what is "bad" is extremely variable and has been applied to anybody who is not considered to be a "vital force" of the nation -- ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, people with opposing politics, different cultures, odd ideas... the list is endless for a lot of these people until only the members of their extended family are exempted.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 6, 2019 17:16:23 GMT
Interesting essay there, Kerouac, although I don't entirely agree with the second paragraph. It isn't only the powerless poor classes who might lack nuanced ideas, but also those from the classes who traditionally hold/held power. They like to hark back to a golden age when their God-given right to rule remained unchallenged. What those two groups have in common is fear of any change which, as you point out, is seen as "bad". And really, even members of their near or extended families are not exempt if they step too far out of what is considered right and good.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Apr 6, 2019 17:42:45 GMT
Oh, of course I remember the brainwashing that I had in elementary school when a lot of opinions are formed. But those rigid ruling classes (who wrote our schoolbooks) are not "populists" -- they know exactly what they are doing and why, but the populists are very often acting in ignorance. I would have helped to stone a communist in a heartbeat when I was 6 or 8 years old. Thank god that adolescence challenges and invalidates a number of early opinions, but it's a difficult process. I think that it might be even more difficult now with social media and fake news, since we have all read (sometimes on paper, sometimes on these screens) that the millenials tend to not watch television news or read newspapers but get most of their news from Facebook or Instagram. Even in Italy, of course. Until the GAFA companies decide to take real action (or are forced to), misinformed populism will continue to spread.
|
|