I've always thought that saying is pretty weak, not only because of the bias that anyone believes it will tend to characterise themselves as one of the "strong men", but also because what one side characterises as good times, another side will characterise as bad. The end of WW2 was a good time for the allies, pretty devastating for Germany, and yet we don't see Germany in current times as on a completely different trajectory than the rest of us, its actually probably the most average of the former allied countries.
Also the political perspective, what the left would characterise as good times the right would probably characterise as bad, and visa versa. At that point its no longer strong and weak men, but men of one camp and men of another.
It's pretty much the definition of fascism - a delusional paternalistic idiot infecting everyone around him with his own neuroses and narcissism, in the name of "patriotism" and "respect."
Good god, enough with this "fascist and nazi seem to have lost all meaning" nonsense. Let's call it the "No true fascist fallacy". I could bring the corpse of Himmler here and some people would regurgitate the same "Bu-bu-but that's not actually fascist enough!". OP was basically quoting the definition of Ur-fascism by Umberto Eco. Is that historically accurate enough for you? Or should we check beforehand if whoever he was referring to has ever took part in the Salo republic, before we commit the grave sin of not being taxonomically accurate?
The reason people focus on definitions like “oh, it’s really about toxic masculinity!” is because admitting the truth would make them look bad:
Fascism is a collectivist authoritarian system with regulated commerce rather than direct state control, often co-occurring with systemic racism.
The reason people don’t want to be honest about the definition is that it’s the platform of modern Democrats, who are gaslighting by calling everyone else a “fascist”:
Democrats are collectivist authoritarian.
Democrats are pushing for regulated commerce.
Democrats are rebuilding systemic racism, from rationing healthcare [2] and government aid [1] based on race to attempting to repeal civil rights laws in WA [4] and CA [3].
Democrats took to the street in acts of arson, violence, and murder to terrorize the public ahead of an election — the modern Brownshirts. [5]
I couldn't care less what oblique definition of fascism came out from some american think-tank in the 80s, narrow enough to not anger any of their thatcherian or reaganite friends.
I'm italian, my grandfather was drafted in the balilla first at 14 and the fascist army later. And his stories of the time were all about the violence, the machismo, the open contempt for the gay, the jewish, any other minorities. That's fascism, no matter if it doesn't match your clinical idea of what fascism should or shouldn't be.
And yes, they were as silly and ridiculous as the tiki torches guys or the Jan 6 coup guys. Until they were fully in power. Then everybody stopped laughing, or wondering if they were really dangerous or not.
And to be quite honest with you, worry not - I think we'll find very, very soon how close those are compared to US democrats to actual fascists(tm).
I’m paraphrasing what the fascists said their goals were.
If you read about fascism, their proponents viewed it as “Marxism 2.0” — where they could leverage the socialist ideas of collectivist authoritarianism without the problems encountered by the original Marxist revolutionaries with total state control of commerce.
A unified populace where “everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
Well yes, the Goodwin point is now crossed very casually, just like people are using superlatives for the mundane things, such as "I ate the most amazing fries yesterday".
This makes for poor debates, where there is little nuance, fuzzy scales and hardly meaningful communication.
As I said in another post, I'm italian, and my grandparents had some direct experience on the matter. Their families were destroyed by nazists and fascists. My grandmother family was jewish, A have a few pictures of her relatives with a number tattoed on their arms. I never dared to ask where or how they got them.
No idea how fucked up my gramps were, but by their direct account, yes that "strong males" attitude we're talking about was quite a fascist trait.
It's the nationalism, totalitarianism and dictatorial control that make fascism. The obsessions are a means to an end or just quirks by example and do not necessarily fascism make.
When the far left calls Trumpists fascist they are generally referring to the far right's current objective of overruling elections and installing a theocratic theocracy under Trump where white males are in charge across the board.
The definition of fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. Patriotism and respect, while they may be against your ideology, have nothing to do with it.
Though that may be, it is in fact not how the word is used, and likely once the concept was pressed to the fore and came into relevance beyond the pale of the esoteric, never more was used with that definition in mind.
No, "a strong man" makes fascism. This happens when the rest of the men are weak, so they seek a strong leader to make up for their own weakness. Strong men don't follow a fascist leader; strong men can't be led like that. It's weak men who are the fertile ground for fascism, not strong men.
If you find yourself in good times, then the key is to make them harder for yourself. Self sabotage by being an outspoken iconoclast, and be hated by everyone! Whee!
This is utter nonsense. Strong men make bad times, as anyone who's lived under a strongman can tell you, and strongman regimes are extremely weak in terms of human development, technological progress, and military power, as evidenced by the utter failures of North Korea and Nazi Germany and the USSR. Whining about how they did some notable things is missing the point: They couldn't sustain, they had no staying power, they achieved some victories and then either got pounded into nothing or stagnated while the rest of the world moved on.
You can see in modern Russia what decades of strongman rule, first in the USSR and then under Putin, looks like: Idiot conscripts hyped up on moronic propaganda getting blasted by an actual military fielded by a so-called "decadent" Western nation, with their ships being sunk by land-based weapons (and if you don't get why that's pathetic, you're not worth talking to) and their economy being destroyed by those "decadent" nations deciding to not buy from them anymore.
Strongmen create good times? Briefly, maybe, but get out before the piper demands to be paid, if anyone will have you.
I mean, even in your own post, you spell strong man different from strongman. Here’s a definition of the word strong for you: “possessing skills and qualities that create a likelihood of success.” Obviously this meaning is divorced from the definition of strongman you provide, so why be obtuse about it?
There are places that have been great to live for multiple generations, and places that have been troubled for just as long, I don't think this model has much predictive power.
Perhaps the language has evolved to the point that the work needs some translation. Because it strikes me as vague enough to be harmful with folks like Putin aspiring to embody "strong men".
The point is I was trying to be neutral. Because depending on who you ask Putin is the definition of true "strong men" or he's a tyrant desecrating the phrase.
I'm saying that right-wing authoritarians often use it as an attack on people they deem as not traditionally masculine, despite the original intention. It's used frequently enough that some people might mistake association.
Search for this saying on twitter, for example. It's been co-opted as fascist propaganda.
Good point. Wait, no I disagree and I think history probably does as well. If you'd like to engage in some unmitigated pedantry regarding this topic, check out https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-... which refers to this exact cycle.
The post specifically calls out the saying as “the modern version of this idea has deep roots in Romanticism (c. 1800-1850), a reaction against the reason of the Enlightenment – which makes it more than a touch ironic that this brain-dead meme is so frequently presented as clear logic.”
Strange because I've always seen the saurdukhar/fremen as a literary interpretation of a real aspect of human nature - the ability (of some) to perserverve and excel in stressful/difficult situations.
Some real life examples I've pointed too are the ghurkas in WW2 or Russian hackers.
The "Defining a generation" section is fairly short and describes the theory, and the "Timing of generations and turnings" section maps the theory onto the past ~500 years.
(Edit: got the indentation wrong, I thought the comment I was replying to was on the quote, not the "it's BS" reply. I don't think this is BS, at least not completely.)
The quote is similar to "what does not kills you makes you stronger", easily disproven by polio. [For the nitpickers: I know, the statement depends on the context]
But let's move on: what do you mean with "strong men"?
If you mean some sociopath/callous/ruthless emperor or dictator capable of starting massive wars - it hardly constitute creating good times.
If you mean men that are successful in current society... then very very few billionaires came from a childhood of hardship and poverty.
If you mean men that are capable of taking good decisions while facing difficulties and the stakes are high... then you are describing good education and good mental health, which are does in now way comes from "hard times".
All modern pedagogy and psychology sciences indicate that hardships create a lot of broken people and a few hardened narcissists.
If you mean that affluent and decadent societies become self absorbed and weaken as a whole - then I would tend to agree... but the term "strong men" would be profoundly misleading.
> All modern pedagogy and psychology sciences indicate that hardships create a lot of broken people and a few hardened narcissists.
Really depends on who you ask in the field of psychology. There have been several perspectives contrary to what suggest (e.g., humanistic psychology, positive psychology, post traumatic growth, etc) and I don’t agree that “all modern pedagogy and psychology sciences” suggests that hardships yield nothing but broken people and narcissists.
However, I generally agree with the idea that sayings like “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” are a bit silly (they ignore the fact that what doesn’t kill you can severely weaken you for life).
I just don’t think it’s particularly helpful to take things to the other extreme either.
Makes sense. Strength is useless during peace times, so strong men find themselves out of a job with nothing to channel their strength into. "Weakness" which in this case means classically feminine traits are useless during war times but are far preferred during peace times.
We don't need strong men during good times and we don't need weak men during bad times.
Although now we are in neither a good nor bad time. What kind of men do we need?
Virtue is not what survives hard times, it's grit and brutality. Raw strength. Morals and virtues are what arise during good times once we've secured survival.
I'd argue that virtue is a strong survival trait, and vice is a sign of weakness. But we may be considering different things, different aspects of life.
Hard times make strong men
Strong men make good times
Good times make weak men
And weak men make hard times.