Put enough of them to work there and many will radicalize and unionize. Having an education and little investment in the existing social order makes them a dangerous political wildcard.
I doubt the Economist is fretting about incels shooting up shopping malls when they use this term. Theyre probably more worried about a wave of Gabriel Borics taking the reins of power across the world and screwing over investors.
The problem back then was the latter. Many of them were not interested in productive work of any kind, simply because their pre-modern worldview would've equated this with a loss of station. Hence the sense of "elite" entitlement and ensuing "radicalization".
Yep, sounds like the disaffected white males who kill others or themselves in droves, despite often having better conditions than (less aspirant/entitled) non-white males.
When I read it, I got very angry at what I perceive to be pointed racism.
But I'd like to try to step away from that and instead of lashing out, to understand your perspective more.
Would you mind explaining your thinking a bit more?
p.s. I am aware that suicide is not a function solely of material circumstance (and material circumstance relative to other people's)
Wielding power - owed power - is certainly not a byproduct of fascism. Its the core promise of the ideology to its "chosen" people.
If a job can be done by a starship robot then it's not much of a job then is it? In the short term it's more productive and admirable than being unemployed but in the long run it won't be much different.
I find the GP argument less the convincing, but I believe that women haven’t been the face of genocide and war because of lack of opportunity - But all such are historical outliers - regardless of sex.
The only way people can lie to themselves that women rulers have less blood on their hands is by not studying history.
Tansu Çiller in Turkey, continued state policy of suppressing the Kurds
Khertek Anchimaa, Sükhbaataryn Yanjmaa, both chairwomen in Soviet satellites in Asia. I'm not aware of atrocities, just leading authoritarian regimes.
Isabel Perón in Argentina was democratically elected, but acted as a strongwoman in a time of political convolution. She was often eclipsed by her far more volatile, openly fascist Minister of Social Welfare, José López Rega, so you can contend how much repression came from each.
Sheikh Hasina, currently active, an electoral autocrat of modern times, violently suppresses opposition in Bangladesh.
Right now Jeanine Añez is serving jail time in Bolivia, following a show trial, the likes of which she was arranging for political opposition, that she also suppressed with the military. She stomped into the Bolivian Government palace with Bible in hand and her goons tearing down indigenous banners, promising to bring God back into the country.
And well, more, but none leading the great empires, no.
Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead. The moral of the story is don't lose a world war if you've committed genocide.
There's considerable evidence he was, actually.
> Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead.
It's almost like a head of state and a combined executive head of government and head of state are different things.
If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung.
This simply isn't true. There's plenty of evidence of that. (There's one specific kind of evidence—an documented order—that doesn't exist, but there is plenty of other evidence, including a series of public statements stating intent to exterminate the Jews stretching back to 1922, and a statement in 1942 referring back to those anticipatory statements and claiming to have silenced those who would have laughed at them, among other anticipatory and inculpatory statements.)
> If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung.
There might be an interesting argument for that, but the assertion is not the argument, and since no person similarly situated to the British Monarch was tried at Nuremberg, such an argument would require something much more specific behavioral analogy to make.
A quick search online yields many reliable publications on the topic.
The fact that your comment is being downvoted worries me.
How do you explain that 45% of votes for Nazis came from Women?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany#Nazi_fem...
So, as a matter of fact, the only German women that ever voted for the SdP / Henlein were part of the German minority. And even there, women voted less for SdP than the overall German community did.
That a German minority would be largely in favor joining Germany is propably not a big surprise, is it? And as said, even then women voted less for the SdP.
So please stop posting unsubstantiated claims.
> And even there, women voted less for SdP than the overall German community did.
80% minimum is "less than overall German community"?
> That a German minority would be largely in favor joining Germany is propably not a big surprise, is it?
"Of course they voted for Nazis" is the exact opposite of "but they didn't vote for Nazis".
> And as said, even then women voted less for the SdP. So please stop posting unsubstantiated claims.
You yourself admit it's not unsubstantiated.
The communal ebelctions in Sudetenland of 1938? Kind of free, but people bot supporting the Nazi allied SdP were already harassed and presured to vote SdP.
That under these circumstances women voted less for Nazis then men is kind of note-worthy.
But since I do not expect you to argue in good faith or to provide some facts, I'll stop it here. The Anschluss and the Munich Agreement, along with the history of the Sudetenland, is too conolex a topic to discuss in such a manner.
The absolutely laughable claim above was that women were not to be blamed for the electoral victories of Nazis. The fact that at least 80% of German women in Czechoslovakia voted for Nazis in free elections demolishes that absurdity.
Source to the claim that elections in 1938, those we are talking about were not free:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111110054101/http://www.uni-du...
And yes, a difference of 20% is quite significant.
Also, German citizens enabled the Nazi, no doubt about that. The situation in Czechoslovakia in 1938 is different:
- the Sudetenland was dominated by a German minority, that German candidates fare better among German voters is not a big surprise
- joining Germany wasn't an unpopular policy, not in Austria nor in the Sudetenland, that a party favouring that policy does well during elections isn't a big surprise neither
- those elections envolved a lot of intimidation to vote for the SdP, that means better results for the SdP
Just one question, what is it with you trying to pin those Henlein election results on women?
> the Sudetenland was dominated by a German minority, that German candidates fare better among German voters is not a big surprise
Ah, so they had to vote for the Nazi.
> joining Germany wasn't an unpopular policy, not in Austria nor in the Sudetenland, that a party favouring that policy does well during elections isn't a big surprise neither
Ah, I see. "That doesn't count because it was popular." I assume you must also be an apologist for illegal Russian annexation of parts of Ukraine as well?
> those elections envolved a lot of intimidation to vote for the SdP, that means better results for the SdP
Yes, so many years after comparably free German elections, Nazis got even more votes in a country with less previous Nazi influence, and that means that these vastly higher results (2x or so?) were due to "intimidation".
> Just one question, what is it with you trying to pin those Henlein election results on women?
I'm not "pinning the results on women". I'm pinning them on all Germans who voted that way, which does not exclude German women as some kind of a group repressed by some "male loserdom", as claimed above. They were complicit in it to pretty much same degree as the male part of the population.
And despite this climate of fear, women voted, again using your numbers, 20% less for the SdP than men.
Nitpick so, those Sudetendeutsche enabled the local Nazi allies to win a communal election and get to "go home to the Reich". They did not enable the Nazi's rise to power in Germany.
As far as losers go: The German minority was economically desperate in the 30s, unemployment was rampant, industry loosing contracts, self determination was deteriorating. So yes, in a sense those were losers. Men, apparently, felt more like losers than women. Or they lacked the courage to not fall in line. The election results clearly show that.
I say that as being a direct decendant from those losers, and I have no idea how my grandparents voted back then, or would have if they were old enough to vote in 1938 that is. I assume so, that they would have clearly favored Henlein, both of them.
In elections that involved quite a lot of harassment of non SdP voters, communal elections in a region in Chekoslovakia dominated by a German minority.
Well, I have to brake it to you so: women are by no means easier to come by in radical political movements than elesewhere.