It's so strange to me that the propaganda is so consistent. They all know the game, but are also so ignorant. You'd think they would fuck something up at some point. But I suppose if all you have to do is"we good, them bad" and putting in any "them" you want, its not hard. Not like Pepsi is accidentally going to say "Coke Good."
You don't need to know shit to do propaganda. I used to think "wow, how can they choose to lie so blatantly and call themselves historians/journalists" but I think a lot of them really believe their lies. Which is worse.
I figure people like my Dad believe it, since he just consumes Fox News all the time. But two levels up, I don't think they believe it. Alex Jones doesn't actually believe demons are in the democratic party. I hope
actually believe demons are in the democratic party. I hope
Reactionaries wouldn't be reactionary if you didn't do any actions for them to react to.
Big brain.
In the sense that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the Religious Right, maybe.
I'd like to see more of the context, or maybe don't know enough Italian history, but if this is listing all the reasons for the rise of fascism (and this is reason #5), that's a fair reading of history IMO. The ruling classes of Italy/Germany/etc. did not really want to give power to a modernist totalitarian movement like fascism, but the threat of leftists/revolutionaries made them turn to it. Fascism preserved many aspects of the status quo, but it also shifted control from old elites to new ones, threatened religious and aristocratic authorities, and had some populist imagery considered unsavory by the elites.
Lumping Anarchists, Communists, and Social Democrats under Socialists is more annoying to me. It's a very lazy generalization for a history textbook - unless it's for 1st graders or something.
Also "Peasants took away the land from landlords" - is very reactionary framing. Why not, "Peasants overthrew the parasites feeding off their labor"? Or more neutrally, "Peasants refused to give a cut off the products of the land they worked to the legal owners of the land/distributed land ownership in a manner they considered more equitable, angering rich landlords." "Communists inflamed the atmosphere" is likewise biased.
I get your point, but even that is victim blaming:
Cop: "I had to break her teeth cuz she was looking at other guys"
"In recent news: an Amazon center was imploded with all the workers inside because they were thinking about unionizing"
It's "victim blaming" when expressed in polemics, but not in history. Explaining that Rome crushed Gauls/Greeks/etc. because the latter were disunited and had attacked Rome in the past is accurate. It's not a justification, but it is an explanation. (Or at least a part of one - it shouldn't be reason #1, but reason #5 is fair.)
Yes, but in this case kids probably need to be taught "the powerful capitalists choose a genocide instead of helping people, the genocides were caused first because of greed and then because of racism".
If you read the tail end of (presumably) point #4 in OP's image, you can tell the socioeconomic causes for the rise of fascism are discussed earlier. (We can't tell more without more context.)
Even in a Marxist history, if you're talking through the rise of Mussolini in detail you still have to mention - 'certain Italians were incensed by the very idea of social equality/redistribution preached by the left.'
All the capitalist right and centrist parties sides with Hitler, but the commies made me do it
In a sense it is correct, as when socialists fail fascists can rise. Or they lost a direct fight with fascists.
But that is not what they mean here
Communism is to blame for all the crimes of capitalism because it should have abolished it 200 years ago.
That is not the same, communism as an ideology could not rose without the advent of capitalism before it
Well whatever "sharing is caring"-like ideology from before the bougies replaced the feudalists
I guess so, but in practice how big is the chance that a country with a rising fascist movement lacks a socialist one?
oh that is what you mean, I misinterpreted it the 1st time. That is totally true, yeah
Peak victim blaming. Hoping OP explains to their sister that fascism rose in response to the same conditions socialism did, i.e. the decay of capitalism and the inter-imperialist conflict necessitated to prop up falling profit rates.
well they are right about the social democrats creating the conditions for the rise of fascism, but it was the communist that ended the fascist threat
