You must log in or register to comment.
hmm, does marxist/leninist/stalinist count as fascism ?
Apples and oranges. You can have fascism with any political system. The overuse of tankies is a indicator that the accusing party doesn’t really understand that.
No, you can’t. When a Marxist becomes a red fascist they stop being a Marxist and become a liar.
Either can be both fascists and liars.
Fascists are always liars obsessed with social heirarchy. Marxists are anti-racist and anti-heirarchy. You are not a Marxist if you’re a fascist. Cope.
Ah yes that purity of spirit that a the marxist tries to gaslight with. Grow up. People are people and trying to suggest what you suggest is as bigoted as any maga.
Just like a liberal can support an unrestrained dictatorship, right?
Or a piece of dogshit is a rose if you say it is?
Idiot.
Weak childish argument.
Idiot.
Tankies are fascist in my book.
What’s a tankie? Any Marxist? How is Marxism “fascist?” What is fascism in your view, and how does it match up to Eco’s 14 points:
-
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
-
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
-
The cult of action for action’s sale. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
-
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
-
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
-
Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
-
The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
-
The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
-
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
-
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
-
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
-
Machismo and Weaponry. “This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”
-
Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
-
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
None of that answers the question, I’m well aware of Marxism-Leninism and the term “red-fash,” I don’t see how linking wikipedia articles on both of those terms answers how ML applies to Eco’s 14 points on fascism.
It doesn’t hit all 14, but it’s a good chunk of them. You don’t need to hit all 14 to be considered Fascist.
Those are not Eco’s 14 points, those are a brand new set of points, unsupported and uncited, from an Anarchist’s perspective. Marxism in general would be considered Right-Wing in the eyes of the author, who again just made 9 blanket, unsupported vibes-based claims. The USSR and Marxism-Leninism only really hit one or two points of the espoused 14 from Eco, much fewer than the vast majority of current states.
Additionally, Bernard Henri Lévy, the author cited by the author of your article as the basis for the article, is a Zionist, and is anti-palestine. He’s also pro-American, and pro-liberal, not a leftist.
“Bernard-Henri Lévy has used the term in arguing that some European intellectuals have been infatuated with anti-Enlightenment theories and embraced a new absolutist ideology, one that is anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-imperialist, antisemitic and pro-Islamofascist.”
It seems to me that being anti-anti-imperialism, and being a Zionist yet attacking Marxism might call into question Lévy’s motives.
Did you actually read Ur-fascism from Umberto Eco, or did you just google “Marxism fascism” and grab one of the first results? Neither your previous comment nor this one have answered my question.
Why do I need to write a 20-page thesis on why tankies are fascists? If you’re a Tankie, and it seems like you are because you are being very defensive, what could I write that could convince you that tankies are fascists?
Let’s try this another way.
Do you personally believe that democracies are good? That law should be decided by people?
Or do you believe that authoritarians are the best way to rule?
-
No, no and no*
Marx postulated communism from an economic analysis with the goal to improve the economic and political situation of the working class. This is deeply antifascist.
Lenin abolished the tsarist rule and implemented progressive politics like womens rights and ended the criminalization of homosexuality.
Stalin while ideologically and economically not a fascist was staunchly authoritarian, which is a core theme of fascism and he rolled back many of the progressive social policies of Lenin. However authoritarianism is an universal political theme, whether fascist, stalinist, monarchist or even “democratic”.
hmm if you are condemning these acts from comrade Stalin, I think Marx encouraged dictatorship of proletariat, Karl Marx believed in a transitional period in the road to total communism this being a socialist state under a dictatorship authority of “the people’s party”, even the acts of purge that Stalin carried I think were mentioned by Marx, I personally don’t think that Stalin betrayed Marxism, but if Marxism is a totalitarian system, and we’re here calling totalitarians “fascists” then Marxism is a form of fascism
You don’t actually know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. I would suggest you read up on that first.
how informative -__-. At least I know that it involves one political spectrum and most of the time one governing party,
To be clear I am not a leninist or a marxist anymore. From what I understand something called democratic centralism is used. In democratic centralism there are elections for individual politicians instead of political parties. So while you can argue it’s only one party, you can actually elect whoever you want to your local seat, and presumably whoever you want for the president. That or the elected MPs select a leader as president, I am not really clear on this bit. Either way it’s not that different to how UK elections are run currently with individual MPs, just without that party bit. A bit like if every candidate was an independent.
Democratic Centralism is “diversity of thought, unity in action.” It essentially means that open discussion and election on where to go is key, but that members should not act against the decisions made, ie the results of elections are binding.
Anarchists criticize this because they argue it disregards minority opinions, though this is where the Soviet System came in and had “tiers,” so there were local elections and local decisions allowed, kinda like a local, state, federal split.
MLs argue that it gets far more done and that’s important when combatting something as strong as Imperialism and Capitalism.
The problem in the USSR and China being they restricted party membership and persecuted political enemies well beyond landlords and fascists, so that “anyone can be elected” bit simply did not happen.
I was talking more about the theory than the practice. I imagine that under Stalin in particular the democratic process was not followed properly.
You’re confused on a few fronts, here.
-
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is in contrast to Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The DotP is a Democratic Worker State run by and for workers that suppresses the bourgeoisie in the same manner that Liberal Democracy is run by and for the Bourgeoisie and suppresses workers. It does not refer to a literal totalitarian dictator.
-
Fascism is not simply “when the government is big and does a lot of mean stuff.” It’s focused on Bourgeois class colaboration, entrenchment of Capitalism, and extreme Nationalism and Anticommunism, as a reaction against the rise of Socialism amidst Capitalist decline. The USSR cannot be considered “fascist” even by those who would condemn it, unless you redefine fascism itself.
-
Stalin was a very mixed bag. In some manners, he did continue Marxism-Leninism, but at the same time he did recriminalize homosexuality. He was very socially reactionary, yet did attempt to keep Marxism continuing past Lenin. In some ways, he did betray Marxism, but in other ways, he preserved it.
You might want to read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Fall of the USSR. It talks about the antagonistic relationship between Socialism and Fascism, the weaknesses in the USSR that resulted in collapse, and how fascists plundered the disected state.
Enter the term “red fascist,” which does indeed redefine some core aspects of fascism to acknowledge the differences in breed of authoritarianism.
-
Why would Marxism-Leninism count as fascism? What is fascism, in your eyes?
hmm, fascism is mainly a totalitarian system I think. I heard USSR did actually suppress some religious acts on its’ soil, which an import aspect of individuality
There’s a general category of government oppression, which has existed for as long as governments have existed, and then there’s the political concept of fascism.
I think Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism is the best introduction to fascist philosophy. Here are his 14 points summarized by Wikipedia
- “The cult of tradition”, characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
- “The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
- “The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
- “Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
- “Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
- “Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
- “Obsession with a plot” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
- Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
- “Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
- “Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
- “Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.”
- “Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.
- “Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.
- “Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Fascism, in the views of most leftists, is primarily a Reactionary attempt by the Bourgeoisie to “turn the clock back” to the “good old days.” Core to this is Class Colaborationism between the Bourgeioise and Petite Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat. There is also extreme nationalism and corporatism, it’s a far-right response to the inevitable decline in Capitalism.
Looking at the USSR, it does not fit this general guideline. The USSR practiced Soviet Democracy, which definitely had issues, but was not “totalitarian.” It was also Socialist, via being a Worker State, and there were few bourgeois elements (at least until the Black Markets started taking off later in its lifespan, as it began to liberalize).
As for Religion, the USSR was Atheist as the state “religion,” it allowed Religious freedom when it comes to practice, but harshly limited the influence of Religion. There were individual events of repression against Religion overall, as this overtly Atheist goal did come into conflict with local religions.
umm, as you say you’re giving the marxist definition of fascism which excludes USSR, while capitalists will also give their definition which is BASED on USSR.
I imagine myself standing on the middle of this conversation and judging USSR by the elements that commoners associate with the word fascism, @Kwakigra@beehaw.org offered 14 points in his summarization, there are in particular 3 points that I’m familiar with in the political atmosphere of my country (which received some kind of help from USSR to achieve independence) :
1- Disagreement is treason
2- Appeal to a frustrated middle class
3- “Obsession with a plot”
4- Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”.
as explained by Kwakigra on each line, so it seems to me that ML is just fascism but without the brainwashing and with modernism, which doesn’t differ that much from liberalism (in theory, in practice I see liberalism as an imaginary spectrum)umm, as you say you’re giving the marxist definition of fascism which excludes USSR, while capitalists will also give their definition which is BASED on USSR.
No, this is false. Capitalists also understand fascism to be based on Benito Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany, reinventing fascism to be based on Communism is silly.
Secondly, your analysis of the 14 points is almost laughably incorrect.
1- Disagreement is treason
Sort of. Those attempting to overthrow the state and bring back the Tsars, known as the White Army, were fought violently. Those collaborating with Nazi Germany were also violently suppressed. I don’t think this quite counts as oppressing “wrongthink.” Overall, partially true, we can leave it, why not.
2- Appeal to a frustrated middle class
This is woefully false. The USSR appealed to the lower classes! The entire point of the USSR was Liberation of the proletariat! It was not focused on the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small shop owners and the like, but the working men and women in factories. This is the furthest from the truth.
3- “Obsession with a plot”
Don’t know what you mean by this, at all, really. Let’s leave it as true and tally it up at the end.
4- Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”.
They did not, really. The USSR always portrated themselves as rising underdogs, and Capitalists and Fascists as their fearsome opponents. We can leave it as true, for tallying.
This means of the 14 points, we generously gave them 3. In reality, it would be 1-2, of a list designed to nail the main aspects of fascism. This is ridiculous, the US scores far higher and is still Liberal (for now).
so it seems to me that ML is just fascism but without the brainwashing and with modernism, which doesn’t differ that much from liberalism (in theory, in practice I see liberalism as an imaginary spectrum)
Completely false. You can disagree with Marxism-Leninism with facts and logic, not by contorting it into something it isn’t. That’s a textbook strawman.
hmm, for the 3rd point I meant that communist authority will condemn any other party, ideology or political spectrum as part of the capitalist/imperialist masterplan, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one to criticize Marxists with this
I mean, that was happening, though. The White Army, Nazi collaborators, and surrounding Capitalist nations during WWI all tried to overthrow the USSR.
The Orthodox church comemorates the thousands of clergy and laity who were killed or suffered gravely at the hands of the atheist revolutionaries. The commemoration is titled New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia.
Ain’t that the truth!
Aren’t liberals leftists though?
Draw an equal triangle. Label each point ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘liberal’.
The concepts are in perfect tension over: public policy, private interest, and state authority.
Liberals are not leftists if we define the status quo as capitalism and leftism as the progressive opposition to the status quo (and those are the definitions I and probably any honest socialist uphold)
No. Leftism is primarily defined by support for a socialist economy. There is not a single liberal on the planet that would support socialism.
That lack of nuance is not helpful. There are plenty of liberals that would like a more balanced economy.
“More balanced” I.E. “we can compromise with it”
A balanced economy is not socialism. Socialism means the democratic control over the economy by the workers. To have democratic control over the economy, workers must control the means of production. You cannot “balance” that with capitalism.
“More balanced” means Capitalism with safety nets, right? That’s not Socialism.
Sure but I don’t think we are just going to flip a switch tomorrow and the country will be socialist. You have to start somewhere and get support. When we show people how good it is for the working class, they will push with us.
You’re partially correct. You can’t get there via the existing Capitalist system, you have to build up dual power via organizing. The Capitalist system will dangle treats like Carrots but never allow the system itself to change from within.
Cannot tell if this is meant sarcastically? Probably?
Just in case you are serious:
Often debated because neither is well defined and liberal is used by different people to mean totally different things. As I would use the term, liberals are in favor of liberating markets and nothing else. Leftists are people who are in favor of progressive and emancipatory politics. So for me, liberals are definitely no leftists.
It was serious, in my head both were just terms for left wing further left than central left but not like extremist left wing.
Ah OK, really depends where you live. In Germany, for example, the liberal party is notoriously anti-left and usually allies with the main conservative, right-wing party. When it was founded after WW2 many Nazis joined it.
And it also depends what you mean by left vs right wing. In the US, the democrat party may be considered left leaning? But in comparison to many European left wing parties, it might be more of a centrist or even right-wing party. None of these terms can be really pin pointed down to an exact meaning and they are usually relative to other positions surrounding them. For me, defining liberal as market liberal seems like the most sensible definition, but then you might consider the US american Republican party to be liberal as well? Confusing!
And what is extremist left wing? Some people even consider human rights and medical care for everyone to be extremist left. Again, these terms always go in relation to other position like described via the overton window.
Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.
maybe in the purest sense of the word. Personally I find the label “left” to be pretty pointless anyway.
They are, or rather were. For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing - based on personal freedom from imposition of others’ values on their personal and social lives. However, in America liberal has (relatively recently, as in 2000’s) become synonymous with neoliberal ideology, which is absolutely not left wing in any traditional sense, focusing on ‘small government’ and freedom of the markets—I guess because pronouncing two extra syllables is too much effort? Idk.
With the internet this peculiar usage has recently (as in the last 5-10 years) started leaking out of America and is being used in this confusing and ambiguous manner.
To be fair though, the Overton window has shifted so far right now that liberal (i.e. left of the nominal centre) shares much of the same space as neoliberal. See New Labour, and the current Labour government.
Edit: Deleted a paragraph that in retrospect was unnecessarily negative.
This isn’t really true, even with being extremely vague.
Liberalism, as described by Locke, was primarily concerned with individual liberty (as mentioned), but included in those liberties was the right to private property. In fact, he was among the first to describe it as a ‘natural law’.
US liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the social liberties, and neo-liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the personal property.
Leftist politics, being primarily oriented along a materialist axis, is concerned with both social and economic liberation and identifies systems of oppression in both governance and capital owners. Referring to ‘liberals’ as ‘leftist’ ignores the central ideological focus of leftist politics to begin with.
Ah thanks I think that clears it up for me.
For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing
Wuh? In most of continental Europe, liberalism typically means classical liberalism, a right-wing ideology about laissez faire economy. The US has always been the odd one out in using it to mean socially liberal (see also the last paragraph here).
Huh! My perception has always been the opposite, but that Wikipedia article appears soundly sourced. Don’t I feel silly?!
It appears I have been shown who is the boss.
Anyhow, I hope it’s agreed that the general point I had that there’s historically two different uses of that term and it’s not unreasonable to be confused about them still stands.
I’ll leave my comment up as-is for context.
The very last line is redundant. If you don’t know by now what the critical role fascism plays in the liberal order is, I don’t know what to tell you.
you must be fun at parties
No, I’m not. And yet people still invite me to theirs.
You might just be the resident clown.
Ahh, yes, a pointlessly divisive meme that only seeks to stir up shit. Peddle your bad faith trolling elsewhere.
Why is this “pointlessly divisive?” Liberals always attack leftists and side with fascists, it’s agitprop. It’s divisive with a purpose.
Is all Agitprop bad-faith? Lemmy.world’s proud tradition of left-punching seems more bad-faith.
I’m shocked, honestly, at the response to my comment.
I don’t understand how everyone can be missing this so badly. This meme, this attitude of left vs. far left, is the EXACT same thing that the right did to themselves before the last election (and are currently still doing). This whole idea that the liberals aren’t left enough, or that, as you say, the liberals are attacking the far left, is a lie. It’s agitprop all right, but it’s agitprop designed to agitate the entirety of the left, and divide them before an election. It’s turning blue voters into non-voters or third party voters. It’s doing exactly what the right wants. It’s giving them the election on a fucking silver platter. It’s just horseshoe theory mixed with a little, “The call is coming from inside the house.”
But, no. Go ahead. Keep believing yourself to be the victim of crimes you have no evidence of. Keep telling yourself that it’s you against the world. And when Trump takes office after the election in 4 months you can have so many other people to blame it on other than yourself.
Great work. Keep it up. You are a true free-thinker.
Something left of the far right is not necessarily “left”.
Maybe on USA that’s true but I don’t know.
I’m shocked, honestly, at the response to my comment.
Why? Liberals have left-punched for their entire existence.
I don’t understand how everyone can be missing this so badly. This meme, this attitude of left vs. far left, is the EXACT same thing that the right did to themselves before the last election (and are currently still doing). This whole idea that the liberals aren’t left enough, or that, as you say, the liberals are attacking the far left, is a lie.
Liberals are not left. Liberalism supports Capitalism, Leftists support Socialism. Historically, such as in Nazi Germany, Liberals aligned with the fascists against the Leftists. It isn’t left vs far left, it’s left vs right.
It’s agitprop all right, but it’s agitprop designed to agitate the entirety of the left, and divide them before an election. It’s turning blue voters into non-voters or third party voters. It’s doing exactly what the right wants. It’s giving them the election on a fucking silver platter. It’s just horseshoe theory mixed with a little, “The call is coming from inside the house.”
No, it’s agitprop meant to get liberals to finally join the left against fascists, instead of liberals crying and handing the reigns to fascists yet again.
But, no. Go ahead. Keep believing yourself to be the victim of crimes you have no evidence of. Keep telling yourself that it’s you against the world. And when Trump takes office after the election in 4 months you can have so many other people to blame it on other than yourself.
When Trump takes office, it will be because liberals continue to “vote blue no matter who” as America tumbles further and further right, a dying empire, rather than for one time joining the left and organizing on the ground. Liberals vote once every 2 years and think themselves warriors against fascism as they fight against leftists at every step.
Great work. Keep it up. You are a true free-thinker.
Thank you! If you want reading recommendations, I have a bunch I think might help clarify some misconceptions you have.
The fact that you can write all of that and not see that you are validating every part of the statement that you quote shows how truly up your own ass you are.
“No you”
Listen, you could try to do something productive and try to read some of the same books on theory most of us have, as well as look into the historical ties between Liberalism and Fascism against Leftism. Instead, you wade in here, drop a very ill-informed comment, then act like a victim because people disagree with you online.
You sound like someone on Facebook that has “done their own research.” Reading propaganda isn’t the same as understanding political theory.
Is reading Marx “Propaganda?” What about Engels, Luxemburg, Politzer, Chomsky, or Parenti?
What makes something “propaganda” and what makes something “political theory?” Is it whatever you personally agree with? Is that why you have a racist profile picture?
“Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds,” looks like you’ve been scratched.
liberals when someone points out they shouldn’t try to compromise with fascism.
We already know what happens when a liberal gets scratched. Apparently for some all we need to do is scratch their ego.
The agitprop seems to be working lol.
goddamn if leftists spent 1/100th of the time they invested on hating liberals into fucking doing anything productive we’d live in a utopia.
never seen a greater example of pissing and moaning instead of doing something about it.
Leftists are building up political parties like the Party for Socialism and Liberation, volunteering for Mutual Aid networks like Food Not Bombs, or resisting ongoing genocide, like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Liberals just have to sit on their thumbs and support the status quo, Leftists have to do the hard work of actually building up dual power and organizing. These people also are allowed to meme on the internet.
pretty much what I expected from a leftist. leftists just piss and moan, while liberals are actually dragging this country into the future. the leftist urge to reframe liberals as neocons is fascinating, y’all got some brain worms in high gear.
pretty much what I expected from a leftist. leftists just piss and moan, while liberals are actually dragging this country into the future.
Is the future genocide, sliding protections for women’s reproductive rights, increased hostility towards trans individuals, decaying Capitalism, and crumbling infrastructure? Great job, I guess?
the leftist urge to reframe liberals as neocons is fascinating, y’all got some brain worms in high gear.
Neocons are far-right, Liberals are center-right to right-wing, there are differences. Just because you aren’t as right wing as others doesn’t mean liberalism is “progressive.”
Also, you’re literally on Leftymemes, there are going to be lefties.
you really think that leftists, alone, are the only ones fighting for your listed causes?
this is what I’m talking about, you’re more concerned about coordinating the circular firing squad than GOTV and project 2025.
Also, you’re literally on Leftymemes, there are going to be lefties.
came from the front page, will block the cess pool.
you really think that leftists, alone, are the only ones fighting for your listed causes?
Yep, Leftists are the only ones. Liberals fight to keep them, Liberalism defends the status quo.
this is what I’m talking about, you’re more concerned about coordinating the circular firing squad than GOTV and project 2025.
You could join an org and actually try to stop fascism, rather than letting it happen.
came from the front page, will block the cess pool.
Lemmy is federated and has different comms, you can do what you want but don’t think it’s suited purely for your right-wing tastes.
Yep, Leftists are the only ones. Liberals fight to keep them, Liberalism defends the status quo.
keep huffing paint bud.
What do you think Liberalism is?
I know of no liberals at all that say that. Unless by “compromise”, you mean us wanting to vote them out by peaceful means.
You hear about what’s going on in Palestine lately?
I know of no liberals at all that say that
Except for the 90%+ of Democrats in Congress and the White House who consider bipartisanship the highest political virtue, even now that the GOP is a literal fascist party.
Those liberals are ALL about compromising with fascists.
No they don’t, they don’t care about getting leftists to agree.
When they say they care about bipartisanship, they mean they want to agree with all the new far right stuff that would probably make them richer.
Well technically it wouldn’t be bipartisanship to compromise with people who belong to no party, having been alienated from their own one by their constant sharp turns right and vehement opposition to anything left of Reagan.
Good point otherwise, though.
“Be the change you want to see”.
Most of them want a Congress that is willing to work together. Congress is literally supposed to work together. Conservatism and progressivism are two hands of the same body. Just because one of those hands has cancer doesn’t mean you remove the whole hand. The Alt-Right needs to disappear, but that doesn’t mean they should sink to the depraved depths that the right is willing to go.
Most of them want a Congress that is willing to work together. Congress is literally supposed to work together.
Not when one of the parties is a fascist party. There’s no acceptable compromise possible with fascists.
Conservatism and progressivism are two hands of the same body.
More like progressivism is the supramarginal gyrus (the part responsible for compassion and empathy), the frontal cortex (logical reasoning), and the hippocampus (creativity) whereas conservatism is the medulla oblongata (fear and distrust) and not much more.
Besides, today’s Republican party isn’t just a conservative party. Fascism is much farther right than that, into “straight white Christian men SHOULD control everything and nobody else should have rights” territory.
Just because one of those hands has cancer doesn’t mean you remove the whole hand.
The entire GOP is controlled by that cancer. There’s no redeeming traits, nobody who goes against it without being ostracized.
The Alt-Right
Is a media term for “modern Fascist but were not allowed to use that word no matter how accurate it is”.
The government exists to make life as good for as many people as possible. That’s simply not possible when giving fascists ANY of the things they want.
Most of them want a Congress that is willing to work together. Congress is literally supposed to work together.
Not when one of the parties is a fascist party.
Not at all, rather. Part of the point is that it’s literally supposed to work against itself to keep change slow, manageable. Moderate.
Also, doctors do sever limbs that can’t be recovered. Idunno where the person you’re responding to gets their ideas but maybe they should let it serve its natural function instead of digging around in it for bad ideas.
Firstly, never in the history of the world has fascism and authoritarianism been defeated through voting.
Second, from a socialist perpective, a liberals are all proponents of capitalism with democratic trappings.
Third lol
As Neil Gaiman once wrote in something entirely unrelated:
“‘Time is fluid here,’ said the demon.”
From an American socialist perspective
No, from every proper/genuine socialist (ie. one that defines socialism by the public ownership of the economy)
Are Labour liberals? We have a Lib Dem party who I consider the liberal party, well I assume they are anyway.
Labour right now is just the Tory party from 12 years ago. So scumbags but only massive scumbags instead of gigantic scumbags.
They’re slightly to the left of US liberals, so I guess that’s close enough for a meme.
Only in the sense that they still exist, and thus have never truly been defeated. Fascists and authoritarians have lost elections, and thus lost or never gained power… but fascism and authoritarianism still exist as concepts. The only real way to change that is to:
A. Completely remove the concept from public consciousness, which is nigh impossible and can always be thought of again
B. Kill anyone you suspect of harboring fascist or authoritarian thoughts. Which is the kind of thing people think when they say “that just makes you a fascist/authoritarian yourself”.
You can not police thought unless you become that which you hate. You can help to foster an environment where those ideas seem silly and not worthwhile… bit not with swords or guns.
If you don’t believe that you can have what you want with democracy, with freedom of choice, with elections and voting. That your only choice is to force others to see things your way with violence… then I have some bad news for you. You are the authoritarian.
You can not force people to be free at the tip of a bayonet. They have to choose it for themselves.
We defeated fascism militarily 80 years ago, and yet it’s slowly it grew back and is poised to take power again. Everything that happened since wasn’t defeating fascism but nurturing it, as it’s been growing in power since. You are positing a false dichotomy. The only way to defeat fascism is to change to a system that doesn’t breed fascism.
We didn’t defeat fascism, we defeated fascists. Fascism didn’t stop existing because we defeated Germany in a war. It just went into hiding. A lot of that hiding in the US.
The idea that we “defeated fascism” is part of the problem with why it still exists. That we were able to shoot it in the face and it just went away.
The only way to defeat fascism is to change to a system that doesn’t breed fascism.
Yes, that is literally the point of my previous comment. The problem is you are advocating a system that fosters it, not one that removes it.
What? Lol the current system breeds it. The one you explicitly endorse through voting. How is what I suggest promoting fascism? Do you even know what I would suggest or are you just making an ass of yourself?
Ah yes, let the fascists win the election rather than voting against them, which would “endorse” them somehow. Great leftist logic there.
Mate, you lot have been “voting the fascists out” for the past 80 years and they’ve only been growing stronger to the point where you’re about to get fascism in multiple northern nations (never mind the looming climate apocalypse) . Surely you must know what they call ones who keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
You’re literally advocating violence to enforce your point of view.
I dont know what you think that is, but it sure as fuck isn’t leftist. You don’t change minds by caving them in.
Where did you see me advocating for violence? Are you making silly assumptions again?
Hitler came into power because the liberal PM appointed him chancellor to avoid creating a coalition with the left party. Liberals would rather work with a fascist over a socialist any day of the week.
Yeah totally accurate analysis of modern day! /s
That’s a lie; Paul Von Hindenburg was an a outspoken Monarchist.
These are mutually exclusive?
If you’re comparing to the modern day? Y E S
Common ml idiot.
SPD has been a liberal center-left party since it’s founding. Hindenburg’s closely held political beliefs had no bearing on the outcome of a liberal party avoiding a coalition with socialists by appointing a fascist to chancellor.
SPD has been a liberal center-left
That’s a contradiction in terms: Liberalism is a right-wing philosophy; it can’t be center-left. JFC you idiots are all the same. Sometimes I wonder if y’all’re capable of having 2 consistent thoughts. Go on, tell me about how anyone who isn’t an ML is a liberal (including Anarchists) and every Liberal is a fascist.
Look, I don’t get to control how people classify political parties. That is how SPD has always been defined. Centrist parties have always had a variety of status quo-esque ideologies. Hindenburg was a monarchist and a member of the SPD, because monarchy was the recently departed political system and he wanted a return to the status quo. Liberals were also a part of SPD, and there are a variety of samey progressive liberal ideologies that seek to entrench capitalism while providing social benefits to the people. That is how a liberal center-left party can exist.
And for the record, I’m an anarcho-syndicalist.
Alright, fair enough.
“Ve can control zem.”
See: The new French government
Macron had the option of forming a coalition with the leftists, who won a plurality of the seats. Instead, he joined forces with the nationalist party on the right.
Swedish liberals do
On Monday, Renew Europe chairman Stéphane Séjourné took distance from the decision of the Swedish Liberals to sign a government agreement that favours the far-right.
“I acknowledge that the Swedish Liberals blocked the far right from entering the government,” he told Politico, adding that he regrets “the agreement and the direction it is taking. “A government with the far right cannot have our blessing”, he said.
Sources within Renew Europe confirmed to EURACTIV that Séjourné personally regretted the decision of the Swedish Liberals on account of the “common values” shared by the Renew Europe members.
It should be noted that “blocked the far right” means “gave far right influence over the government with no accountability instead of collaborating with social democrates”.
Renew later also let the Swedish Liberals stay in their group, so they to some degree agree with the strategy of giving the far right influence over the government as long as it means you never have to work with a socdem.
You should search about Salvador Allende if you think you can beat fascism by “peaceful means”
No they take the ring for themselves and this is how we get center-left authoritarianism.
That’s not how fascism works, in any way. Fascism is a response to dying Capitalism, it’s an attempt to turn the clock back via the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie working together against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat.
Marxists want to turn the clock forward and organize along Socialist lines, with a democratically run worker-state. This is not fascism, nor is it Leftists taking advantage of fascism.
Historically, Liberals prefer to side with fascists, as they wish to maintain current structures, rather than reorganize.
Pfft, the sameeftists complaining about Sanders and AOC not being progressive enough?
Get outta heeeeere
When asked about Fascism, Liberals are Obi Wan. If course I know him… He is me
I think you meant to say “tankies”?
Excellent case in point.
Are you calling liberals tankies? Is Lemmy.world turning on itself, now?
Or, because liberals care more about preserving their increasing property and stocks values and thus willing to bed with the devil, than preserve democracy.
Yes, that’s why liberals have historically worked with fascists against Leftists.
Unfortunately you’re correct. We see this happening all over again.
It’s happening in France right now. And ANC in South Africa just started a coalition which includes white supremacist parties…
As an outsider, I’m curious why there is such a focus on liberalism in leftist circles? It seems every other meme here is hate for liberals. What’s the relationship between liberalism and leftism?
To quote Malcolm X:
The white liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire wester hemisphere. He is the most deceitful, he’s like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous in the forest than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he is up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way, that even though you see his teeth, you think he is smiling.
All their supposed progress and opposition to capital only reinforces and propels capitalism, alleviating the need for fascism just for a little longer (which arises for the ruling classes when the majority of the population grows disillusioned with their lies, be they conservative or “progressive”). In the end only legitimizing the underlying framework (capitalism), without ever threatening it.
tl;dr: scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds
Every fascist needs a boogieman. The ones exploiting the right often use communism, the ones exploiting the left often use liberalism.
Lmao, is this vibes-based theory? Nothing you said makes any sense, haha
This instance is just full of delusional people with opinions that should be taken with a quarry of salt.
And yet you feel the need to comment on it?
That seems healthy.
I browse all?
I’m guessing you browse twitter too.
Some of them, sure, but this post is 100% accurate historically.
It’s to make sure Donald Trump wins. This way, they can feel smugly superior about being right about the thing they helped propagandize and realize. Because they damn sure don’t talk all this shit about liberals out of a desire to make any progress.
Found the liberal.
I don’t need labels to jerk myself off. Sorry you do. Actually, I’m not because you self identified as a self righteous do nothing with zero connection to reality
For me it is a frustration over that liberals would rather endanger the liberal democracy by working with the far right than collaborating with anything considered left. It is very obvious in Sweden. The swedish far right has declared that the liberal democratic project is a threat to their nationalist vision – it’s not just me as a leftist saying this, but liberals, as in the Liberal party, said this about them. Then came the last election, the Liberals sided with the far right. Its down to two liberal MPs and they could force a switch from the far right to just center lib politics. But no. They rather want prisons for children than work with a socdem and maybe suffer to have a cap on profits on charter schools.
I will always point to mlk as a response to this question:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
New to me, very good quote thanks
Liberalism is a big-tent ideology that services Capitalism. Leftists want Socialism, Liberals want Capitalism. This is the divide.
I needed an ELI5 really.
Liberals essentially cover for both capitalists and fascists. See, capitalist and fascist ideology are very unpopular on their own, so liberals come up with all kinds of ways to pretend that rich people owning everything is good for everyone (capitalism) or pretending that more police repression means more safety (fascism).
Liberalsm essentially acts as the pretend-friendly “facade” ideology of this unholy trio - so yes, it’s simply coherent for leftists to despise liberalism.
As an outsider, I’m curious why there is such a focus on liberalism in leftist circles?
Liberal politicians in the US tend to be deeply connected with the industrial and media elites. So we get a recurring cast of candidates who are milquetoast on a slew of popular issues, while they’re lauded as “The Most Leftist Politician To Ever Think About Running For Office” in headline after headline.
Leftists who run are regularly denigrated as unrealistic, unelectable, and disastrous for the domestic economy by the same industrial tycoons and media magnets who push unpopular candidates and their dismal policies. So we’re in this constant state of tension during election season, with a candidate like Joe Biden who receives enormous stacks of cash and tons of DNC support fighting against an outsider like Sanders or AOC who divert time from expressing generally popular sentiments to argue over whether they’re well-dressed enough to win over a rust belt used car salesman.
What’s the relationship between liberalism and leftism?
Liberals tend to campaign as leftists and govern as conservatives. So they initially attract a lot of leftist voters, and then end up having to argue that said voters shouldn’t ask for anything from the party once the election is over. Leftists tend to live on the political outskirts, looking for anyone remotely attractive to rally around, only to get taken for a ride by con-men in the liberal party until they finally burn out and stop engaging with electoral politics.
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Since they already did that once this time it means we destroy it for good (in the end)!
Seriously couldn’t be more well put.
