>

Very happy some of the best and brightest from around the world are letting this brilliant man speak out against fascism.  Thank you to everyone at the World Economic Forum, from anti fascists everywhere.
Extremism rises when the system in place is failing citizens and is corrupted. Bad living conditions are in contrast with riches of few, people stop seeing it for its glamour and lean towards seeing it as a class injustice. Tensions rise, desperation turns into blame, reason to violence. Rise of extremism is natural reaction to something. >

A breakdown of 70+ years of continuous global progress, due to a string of crises that affect every continent simultaneously, and no clear way out is a very dangerous time for our species. There have been dark periods in the past, but there generally was widespread belief that they would be resolved (either via religious dogma or via an escape from the mundane life cycle via nirvana/enlightenment). The 2020s are fertile ground for con men and doomsday cults of all varieties, even if the prior problems had begun to emerge in individual countries like the USA and Brazil in the 2010s. >


no clear way out is a very dangerous time for our species

Eh, i don't think humans are going away anytime soon, we're a tenacious lot, sure the vast majority of us will die off in the coming climate crisis and we'll be propelled back into a pre-industrial society, but unless something extreme happens like an asteroid strike or a gamma-ray burst cooks us alive i don't see us going anywhere.
In the words of George Carlin "The planet is fine, the people are fucked." >

The planet, as in the rock we live on might be fine. Fucking sucks for all the species we’re taking to the grave with us though. >


Fucking sucks for all the species we’re taking to the grave with us though.

Again, eh, this is not the first mass extinction on this planet, nor will it be the last, hundreds of species go extinct every year with or without our intervention, we just happen to be one of the ones most able to adapt to our environment. >

Small comfort for those species we’re exterminating though. I don’t think we should be quite so blasé about the Holocene Mass Extinction personally >

Well there's lots of people that aren't blasé about it, they're mostly busy being beaten to a pulp by police in climate protests or carried away and locked up because they were blocking a pipeline or a coal mine.
This, all of this, is entirely self inflicted, it is a natural consequence of our actions, if you want to try doing something about it i commend you, not a lot of people are willing to sacrifice their lives for random strangers and animals. >

Right but I’m talking about your comment being blasé, not other people. >

That's because i have already entered the "acceptance" stage of this whole circus, kinda like this guy. >

Isn’t “speed” part of the appeal of tyranny though? Being able to make whatever decision you want without consideration for the wants or needs of others? >

A ~~decent tyrant~~ benevolent dictatorship is probably better than most democracies.
But power seems to corrupt. >

I assume you mean benevolent dictatorship or similar.  No such thing as a decent tyrant.
There actually have a been a couple of those throughout the ages. >


There actually have a been a couple of those throughout the ages. 

What are some to read about? >

lee kwan yew - singapore
ataturk - turkey/turkiye
kagame - rwanda (jury is out) >

It started by allowing corporations to buy politicians. >

Politicians should only be able to buy a extremely broad index funds.
Or invest their money in the countries equivalent of a future fund. >

They’re called government bonds, and there are a few varieties. But if we’re going to allow investing by politicians, that should be the only place they’re allowed to invest
Something something peanut farm >

Nah, bonds are guaranteed returns right? That gives them no incentive to to grow the economy.
Bonds become more attractive in bear markets in fact.
It is also unfair to put them out of stock investment entirely. >

It’s not unfair to put them out of stock investment. Politics is a choice. Choosing to go into it should come with necessary sacrifices.
And as I said, there are a variety of different bonds, but the general idea is they reflect the health of the US government and country as a whole, not just of Wall Street >

What about spouses, children, parents, friends? >

Except parents, it is a choice to have any of those, yes. >

Cute. You know I meant restrictions on investment trading. >

I unironically have no issue with strict prohibitions on investments by politicians and their families. I think that's a justified and proportionate sacrifice for these people to have to make in order for the powers of office to be wielded safely.
Similarly, politicians should also be forbidden from working for or being paid by private organisations for a long time after they leave office. Ten years minimum might be appropriate. I know that's extreme, but I think it's justified by how dangerous corruption of the political class is. It is absolutely imperative that legislators and senior bureaucrats have no allegiance to any power and no interest in any goal other than the well-being of the citizens they serve. >

I suppose we would need to define who is restricted and require signed agreements from the impact radius to run for office. >

He is not wrong. We are too blasé about democracy, as if it is some inevitable hands off natural end state. The opposite is true. Complacent, alienated or otherwise disengaged societies have almost always slid towards some form of tyranny. 
Democracy is a fragile, volatile thing that can only exist as a constant, conscious, careful balance between competing forces in order to maintain a state of acceptable equilibrium in the face perpetual instability. An eternal experiment of sorts. Fair and prosperous democracies are some of the most difficult things humans have attempted. 
Vigilance, always. Indifference is a slippery slope towards peril. >

What could happen now is those in power employ a little thing called “Necessity Over Freedom” where they can justify anything they do for the good of the nation, even if it’s destroying anything that does not share their stance. That’s the fascist thing they want. Freedom to destroy anything that isn’t them.
What is as the public should have done and we could still do (if we got our heads together) is to as a collective society, enforce our laws on those that believe themselves above it and make sure they know who is the majority here. Yes, it’s a little extreme and a bunch of people might die. But what’s the other option? Lay down and give up? 
TLDR: Instead of exposure and shame, you apply swift action and justice. >

that audience knows, they've got the receipts >

Yeah Davos a joke. >

It's because of the power social media gives propaganda. 
There's a lot of money and power to be had in propaganda. So dictators and aspiring dictators alike are putting a lot of resources into it, and there are enough idiots in the world, that allows them to be very successful at it. >

Tyranny is the norm for us backwards species.
Democracy requires earnest efforts and vigilance at all times. 
Humans should remind politicians daily that tyranny can run in both directions. (Though fancy people have a different word for when peasants employ tyrannical behaviors towards their enemies.) >

Tyranny is not the norm, it just feels that way because the way society is currently organized works towards that model of control. >

Wouldn’t you argue that most of history is tyranny? 
Nothing is natural in this sense, society is what you convince people it is. >

Most human history happened before cities existed. We're about 200,000 years old and tyrants are around 7k years old at best. There simply wasn't the ability to concentrated large enough slave/thrall populations until recently. 
To prop up tyranny you need might, to have might you need weapons and soldiers, to maintain soldiers you need to appropriate wealth, to appropriate wealth you have to police many with few, to do that you need to geographically concentrate them, to do that you need irrigation and agriculture.
Even after the rise of tyrants it's only the last few generations that independent subaltern peoples have truly been brought under the thumb of centralised states. Look how easily state building efforts fell apart and how little control governments had over people far from the capital. >

Agriculture has existed since 10,000 BC and nobody cares about what happened before that cause that's before civilization even began.  Can't go back to a hunter-gatherer egalitarian society anymore.  Tyranny began since sargon took his first city and unfortunately we can't go back to a time before that. >

But that's different to saying that tyranny is the norm for our species, isn't it? >

'No do not waist more of our tax money on wars created by the US We don't stand by this war at all it could have ended but the US is the main course not Russie'
​
- A Facebook comment I found >

That's because democracies aren't taking tyranny seriously.  There are extreme right wing movements in nearly every democracy now, and they're all working together like globalists (coordinated by Steve Bannon and his ilk and sponsored by Russia) to overthrow democracies.  Most of them continue to operate unimpeded despite having committed numerous crimes for which they haven't been held accountable.  It's time to hold them accountable.  The fascists who are trying to overthrow democracy belong in prison for life.  The turning point in this war against fascism will be when democracies decide to take the problem seriously and start going after fascists and arresting them for their crimes. >

Democracies will never take the problem seriously as long as they are run by neoliberals >

Further dividing the opposition to fascism only makes the problem worse. The socialist party in the Weimar Republic said similar stuff to what you’re saying now, and refused to work with any of the other political movements. This is one of the big reasons the Nazis came to power. 
Let’s learn from history. We should be unifying the opposition to fascism. >

I can’t tell from your comment whether you know what a neoliberal is. It sounds to me like you think it just means liberal that isnt far left enough
US Neoliberals have fomented coups and supported autocratic murderous dictatorships throughout the Americas for the past 70 years or so. See: Pinochet, the Duvaliers. The only difference now is they are applying similar policies in the US, Canada, and Europe. >

What in tarnation, a lot of people on Reddit have this bizarre idea of what neoliberal means. I think it comes from the 2016 primary... I don't know.
Neoliberal is a right wing economic philosophy. Yes free trade is part of it, but so is massive deregulation and reduced government spending especially on social welfare.
That's not center left. I know a lot of center left people in this country and they all want increased government spending on social welfare and an increase of regulations on the environment, labor, etc.
Where progressives and the center left disagree is on how far to go and which areas to prioritize. And process/electability/partisanship issues. But on policy aside from immigration, they have nothing in common with neoliberals.
If you're actually a neoliberal, like textbook neoliberal not weird reddit bastardization, then you're pretty right wing on economics. Far outside the mainstream of even the democratic party, maybe Manchin/Senema/Gottheimer kind of a Dem but not the center and certainly not center left. >

Dude was so wrong and strong. Neoliberalism is a really old political concept. It definitely does not mean “MoDeRaTeLy LeFt PoLiTiCaL PeRsON”. Read a book, ya goof.  - an actually left of centre political person >

Speaking to a room who buys tyrants >

Tyranny from greed >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)


"The time the Free World uses to think is used by the terrorist state to kill," Zelensky said ahead of a meeting of Ukraine's Western arms suppliers in Germany on Friday.
Polish President Andrzej Duda, whose country has offered to send its Leopards, called it a "Very, very, very good idea" on Tuesday.
"I hope it will be very positive for Ukraine. Unofficially, I have very good and positive signals," Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko told AFP on Wednesday.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Very^#1 Ukraine^#2 World^#3 country^#4 Leopard^#5 >

He’s talking to the very people who are bankrolling the anti democratic movements. >

This comments section. Guys, he’s not talking about Bernie Sanders or corporate greed or whatever gripe you have about who was elected in the US, UK, France, whatever. He’s talking about actual authoritarians, like the one invading his country. Zelensky isn’t some anti-neoliberal millennial socialist. >

He says after he passes laws restricting free speech, free press and dissolving political opponent parties >

Tyranny is easier to make a dollar off of. >

It seems like no one in this thread knew what Ukraine was like before he took office. >

Listen to the money >

He's not wrong. It feels very much like accounts of the 1930's and the rise of fascism I've read about. Then too it was a world wide problem. Mussolini's granddaughter and Steve Bannon moving to Italy after admitting his intent to create a multinational movement seems pretty clear among many other things. >

Fascists are easy to spot. They always have an enemy and it’s normally a neighbor or vulnerable group they punch at. They never punch up. They will champion freedom while simultaneously trying to deny to groups they don’t care for. Laws that insulate them and that punish others. 
I used to read history books in high school and ask myself “how? How did normal people allow such atrocities to happen.” Now I know. Fascists play on fear, fear of their neighbors, outright easily provable lies, conspiracy theories, fear of information(luggenpresse) fear of minorities, and promises of a “past time of greatness”. All to protect the business class at all costs and punish said enemies in some sadistic way. Fascism is the inevitable outcome of capitalism in decay. 
I never thought I’d see it unfolding in real time in my lifetime…but yet here we are. Buckle up and strap in. I don’t know how much more of this nonsense we can take. 
The important thing above all else: call people liars when you catch them lying. Call them the liars that they are. It can’t be said enough. These people lie when they open their mouths. >

Lol. He thinks Davos cares. >

Davos is full of aspiring tyrants. >

It's true the west has to stop dealing with/tariff countries that don't meet our expectations of basic human rights.  
Let's start with countries that allow slavery. >

Time to stop dealing with the US, they explicitly allow slavery in the constitution!
Here's proof for those downvoting me, from the 13th amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Emphasis mine >

This is an impressive piece of whataboutism >

I'm just responding to the comment who said we should stop dealing with countries that permite slavery.
I wasn't the one to bring slavery up, I was just showing that the OP really does not agree with what they themselves said. >

says the guy that outlawed opposition political parties >

Well, why don’t you explain your comment in full now.
When did that happen?
What was the reason?
Why do you disagree? >

Not taking a side but if you google the first link is to NPR (many other links) where you can find that last year the Government of Ukraine banned and dissolved 12 political parties, including the largest opposition party, using power granted under Martial Law.
Some radio and TV stations have also been banned and dissolved, including many leftwing independent organizations. >

Your not wrong in that. No one is taking a side opposite of that. Fact is fact. 
Still missing the overall point of the situation. >

the point is that banning opposition parties is anti-democratic by definition. so we have a guy trying to sound an alarm about tyranny destroying democracy while he tyrannically destroys his own country's democracy. >

As someone with relatives currently and actively fighting in Ukraine, I can at least say on behalf of them and my knowledge of Russian influence in their (and many countries) politics as well as all the other bullshit going on, no one is upset at this time limited situation. No one expects Zelensky to become some dictator and hater of democracy when this war is over. 
Ukraine needs a sole focus during wartime. Fighting a massive sadistic giant while following western ideal rules ain’t a walk in the park. I’ve lost two relatives thus far and of all the real shit going on, no one is worried about Ukraine turning it’s back on democracy. That shit is only for out of touch Redditors. 
In this era of media power and influence, in the largest European war since the world wars… what are you possibly comparing his choice too? Wartime measures are not peace time measures. Ukraine is fighting for survival here. >


no one is upset at this time limited situation.

if that were true then there would be no need for a ban. I don't think Russia is the good guy here....but perhaps Ukraine isn't as solidly anti-russia as you think.

Fighting a massive sadistic giant while following western ideal rules ain’t a walk in the park.

and yet it is required, otherwise why not just be ruled by Russia?

no one is worried about Ukraine turning it’s back on democracy.

and yet it already did literally just that.

what are you possibly comparing his choice too?

being worthy of winning. let me give you an exercise: what if aliens(or whatever) came down and said they'd force the russians out forever but in exchange the ukrainians had to kill all their first born children. would it be worth it to you? >

Dude, I lost a first cousin already in this stupid war, one that was living with me for two years before this shit started. 
You can take your alien politics and shove it as far as I really care. 
Cheers >

your personal loss is sad but it doesn't change the premise of the question. >

If you had skin in this, you wouldn’t be saying such bull crap friend. Dirty dirty. 
Good luck to you >

What an utterly insane thing for him to say. He talks like he hasn't been systematically destroying the existing "democracy" in his own country. >

It's perfectly democratic as long as you vote for his party >

The guy who bans opposition parties is speaking from experience >

Both Britain and America banned Fascist parties at the outbreak of WW2, Zelenskyy banned the Pro-Russian Party at the outbreak of the invasion. >

No it didn't that is just a straight up lie, the majority of the upper ministers in the party were poenly pro Russia.
"On 5 November 2018, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest associates and chief of staff to former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Medvedchuk was elected chairman of the party For Life political party's council.[27][28][29] Medvedchuk was also leader of the Ukrainian Choice NGO, a socially conservative pro-Russian political group and partially prohibited in Ukraine as openly anti-Ukrainian."
" On 24 February 2022 Russia launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine.[57] On this day party member Illia Kyva expressed support for the invasion and blamed the war on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and urged him to resign."
Regional offices supported Ukraine and the fractured from the main party and formed their own, THESE ONES ARE STILL ALLOWED 
" On 26 March 2022 the faction Opposition Platform – For Life in the Odessa Oblast Council ceased to exist.[65] 18 deputies joined the newly formed deputy group Our Home is Ukraine.[65]" 

They told people to join volunteer militias 

Again the main party did not, the only ones that did were regional offices that formed their own parties, THAT STILL OPERATE. 

Do us both a favor and read the thread before commenting plz

Do us both a favour and stop spreading easily debunked russian propaganda. >

Sure fascists race to grab what they can, like a thief would.  Democracy moves forward and gathers its strength like a river its tributaries. >

About that… the river is dry. Turns out Nestle has a bottling plant up river. >

I'm sure the opposition political party in Ukraine would agree. >

Shhh Ukraine man good democracy man. Go to sleep now. Forget that the major parties of Ukraine are just two rival oligarchs. >

It’s funny that he says that to the very same cabal of people, who fund, support and back the same tyrants he bemoans in the world. >

And as the world gets more and more crowded, things are only going to get worse. 
As people get more desperate and less educated, they become easy pickings for authoritarians. >

Actually, complacency has tyranny outnumbered. >

Kind of ironic coming from a guy who banned opposition parties, consolidated all tv news under government control, and is attempting to ban all non government news sources. >

Oh the ironyyyyy!
Anyways... >

I’d wager we’re in the midst of a global business plot. It seems fascism is on the menu, this time they own the technology to be able to get it done. >

It's always easy to spot which Reddit links were shared to places where Russian bots/trolls congregate and coordinate their propagandizing. They flood the comment section spewing the same talking point like the good little mindless parrots they are.
See: this comment section. >


They flood the comment section spewing the same talking point like the good little mindless parrots they are.

See also: the comment above mine. >

Didn't zelensky remove and or imprisoned a bunch of people when he got into office? >

He baned the opposition party, most members of Parliament, freedom of press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Zelensky is so full of shit and he has balls to talk about tyranny when he is literally one to his own citizens and country. >

Source? >

Bought and paid for. >

Zelensky is one to talk, banning political parties, religions and media stations. >

He banned the fascist ones.  Democracies don’t need to tolerate political parties that don’t believe in democracy. >

so your argument here is that the party banning the others is not the  fascist one.... >

I'm arguing Poppers Paradox, that tolerating the intolerant ultimately lead to intolerant societies.  Or tolerant societies can only remain tolerant by not tolerating the intolerant elements within them.  Zelensky was absolutely right to to ban nazi parties within Ukraine, they have no role to play within a democracy. >

I mean they do if the people want them to. that's how democracy works. >

Democracy actually doesn't work when it tolerates elements who's goal is to destroy it. >

well then it doesn't work ever I guess because that's always the case. >

I understand that assassination is unpopular because it creates power vacuums that only get filled up with new tyrants. But there can't be an infinite number of tyrants, and there's got to be some sort of tipping point where it becomes the highest priority option. >

Like the tyranny of this unelected, world government that's usurping the authority of nation states against the will of their populace. >

Free market capitalism, specifically the neoliberal economic model, is to blame for so much. The destruction of our social fabric, welfare states, public services and living standards. Most people, that is the working classes and even large parts of the middle class have been abandoned and see little reason to support this system and rightly so. The wealth inequality is ridiculous and the corruption is rife. Corporations reign supreme in what's become a kind of neo-feudalism. Dangerously, this turns people towards the perceived "safety" of authoritarianism.
Democracy isn't intrinsic to capitalism. What we need now is democratic socialism, and as soon as possible. Public ownership, workplace democracy, electoral reforms, welfare and basic needs met unconditionally, wealth equity and a major rebalancing of power back towards the people. We need democratic renewal away from the failure of this current economic system. >

Says the guy that jails his political opponents. He’s no better than the rest >

I am curious, what is the democracy? Most people believe it's the rule of the majority. Where everyone can become a ruler, and gets to decide their future. 
In reality, it's the rule of the oligarchy. For example here, in Ukraine, you must pay 650 minimal month incomes just to become presidential candidate. Considering that most people here earn bellow minimal wage, or exactly it, and with prices like ours it's almost impossible to save any money - only corrupted oligarchs would be able to save enough money to even become part of the race. 
Maybe i would be a good president? I could introduce a plan not only how to end the war fast, but also how to make country fair and equal for everyone. But i would not even earn that kind of money in thousand of lifetimes. 
And then candidates would need much more to pay for the propaganda, because in the end wins the person who has the most control over media and can tell the populace how good they are and how bad are other candidates are winning the race. So even millionaries who have money for initial deposit will most likely need powerful friends and connections in the oligarchy... and those friends never do anything for free. That's why we are one of the most corrupted countries in the world, and now, because war granted even more opportunities - corruption goes rampant. 
That's how we don't have a good candidates. At all. The democracy is a lamb chosing between two wolves who  are about to eat it. Yeah, the lamb has a choice, it's collective opinion will decide what wolf will be eating today. But they are going to be eated regardless of that choice. With current system, there are ZERO good people in politics, because good people rarely happen to be millinaries with powerful oligarchy connections. 
But getting back to the democracy. Let's imagine it really works, and people not just follow the best propaganda campaign. And then... the elected person does nothing of what he promised to do. He isn't elected next time, of coruse, but does he care? He already earned enough money from that and can retire, giving place to the next oligarchy puppet from his circle. Or it can even be different - president wants to implement change, but the rada refuses to accept them. And it's like "i tried, guys, but they don't let me", when in reality the processes are made like this on purpose, so only things that oligarchy wants will be accepted, and not the things people want. Look how fast we accepted all the anti-humane laws during wartime - it was a matter of days! And when it comes to any law that will benefit people instead of hurting them - they will "review, prepare, discuss" and whatever else for years and not do anything. 
So, what makes this different from the tyranny? A facade of fake choice, when in reality it does not exist? >

Capitalism is just Feudal Lordship with extra steps. Rebel against the tyranny of rent-seekers who inherited their wealth and contribute nothing.