You must log in or register to comment.
Liberalism has been a weird one to try and tackle in the US today, at least in my friends circle. I’m a leftist through and through, but have friends that still fall into the liberal bucket. But they have absolutely no desire to compromise with fascism, and they have the same criticisms of capitalism and the current market as myself. Despite this, they still sometimes take offense to my criticisms of liberals and still feel some sort of ownership over it. So I think as times progress onward, it’s going to get harder and harder to define it, especially with how the US has clouded all of these terms.
That said, there’s still a shitload of liberals in the US that think we can simply vote these problems away and basically do nothing else. They aren’t willing to get their hands dirty if it comes down to it and will instead do whatever they can to fly under the radar and put on blinders. They fail to realize that the Democratic Party is the other side of the same fascist coin.
they sometimes take offense
They do nothing but vote for the same fascists
Yeah gee a mystery how they get offended
I’m gonna start recommending Combat Liberalism to them.
No I think you should continue telling them they’re hollow frauds with impure hearts. But also that it’s okay, if they agree with you completely they are redeemable.
But they have absolutely no desire to compromise with fascism, and they have the same criticisms of capitalism and the current market as myself.
This is pretty much the default stance for most people, I believe. The issue, is that without deprogramming the Anticommunist Red Scare Propaganda, and without reading Leftist Theory, this is the endpoint of this position, essentially doomerism.
That said, there’s still a shitload of liberals in the US that think we can simply vote these problems away and basically do nothing else. They aren’t willing to get their hands dirty if it comes down to it and will instead do whatever they can to fly under the radar and put on blinders. They fail to realize that the Democratic Party is the other side of the same fascist coin.
This is why it’s important for Leftists to constantly agitate, organize, and spread theory. Electoralism is a doomed game, organizing is what’s important.
That said, there’s still a shitload of liberals in the US that think we can simply vote these problems away and basically do nothing else. They aren’t willing to get their hands dirty if it comes down to it and will instead do whatever they can to fly under the radar and put on blinders. They fail to realize that the Democratic Party is the other side of the same fascist coin.
If you are from US, then thank you. For me (observing from another side of the pond) it seemed that everyone saying “kill the other side” is not healthy. Thanks for another confirmation that not everyone thinks so.
A unified working class helps everyone.
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?
Ain’t that the truth!
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?
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.
Pfft, the sameeftists complaining about Sanders and AOC not being progressive enough?
Get outta heeeeere
Yeah, ok, but I’m still voting for Isildur in November. He may not be perfect, but he’s better than Sauron. Besides, who else am I going to put my faith in? A bunch of stupid hobbits? Get real.
Are you really trying to meme in a 3rd party candidate push? Really?
deleted by creator
But heck, I’ll vote for whoever’s chosen at the entmoot.
Settle in. We won’t be finished reading all the names until at least December.
The rumor mill is saying he’ll announce his bowing out this weekend, and if that source is true he’s also not just pushing for Kamela (which I think is big, I expected he would but I don’t think she stands a chance in hell)
She certainly has a chance to distance herself from Biden and actually regain disaffected voters.
I definitely think Kamala is gonna be a big lose if she runs, but I 100% think she’ll be who they run.
They keep Biden and the loss is likely bigger, haha
Since they already did that once this time it means we destroy it for good (in the end)!
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Liberalism is a big-tent ideology that services Capitalism. Leftists want Socialism, Liberals want Capitalism. This is the divide.
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
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.
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
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
This instance is just full of delusional people with opinions that should be taken with a quarry of salt.
Some of them, sure, but this post is 100% accurate historically.
And yet you feel the need to comment on it?
That seems healthy.
I browse all?
I’m guessing you browse twitter too.
I’m so fucked up by all of this. I don’t know what anything means anymore and depending on who I’m talking to, I’m either a faithless child-diddling monster, or I’m a genocide-supporting class traitor.
And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded. I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.Here comes the ramble:
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Will the disengaged people even know if it gets bad enough that they should start engaging? Congress is already working on banning TikTok because of Gaza. A congress that doesn’t need to pretend to abide by the law would have already done that 8-10 months ago. The media, owned by a few corporations, already mostly shapes the U.S. worldview. What happens when the outliers - PBS starts parroting Fox News talking points by government mandate, and independent news sites are suddenly no longer reachable?
If folks do know things are bad, and they do band together to try to do something about it - how do they manage? Any number of reasons can be dreamed up to disenfranchise. In my state, weed is legal. A quick cross-reference of the state weed registry with the voter registry and possibly a quick demographics check (because we know they’d do that), and the federal government can throw whoever they want in jail, prevent us from ever voting, or remove our ability to earn a living for any dreamed up reason. Revolution? A country that’s geographically unassailable will continue to be unassailable. Plus you have the propaganda/information control and the general docility of the U.S. population.I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.In 2019 I realized America was going fascist and there was nothing to stop it. So, I’m with you. I don’t give up hope though, because I don’t want to be bitter.
And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
The funny thing is, the US defined liberal is the codified set of ideas, liberalism is just to the left of the median in America. America is that far-right.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
The problem is that you jump straight from Liberal to Revolutionary, there’s a spectrum of thought among leftists. Revolution may be correct, but there are schools of reformist thought as well. Additionally, liberals and all those to the right of them are Reactionary, just in varying degrees. A “centrist” would be left of liberalism, ie a Social Democrat or Market Socialist.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
The Democrats are Neoliberal, there’s no set dressing. Liberalism is just right-wing. Conservatives are far-right populists, ie fascists in some cases.
I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded.
On the contrary, the US was designed by wealthy Capitalists to benefit themselves. The system is working as intended, protecting Capitalists.
I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
Fascism is a class-colaborative alliance between the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the proletariat and lumpenproletariat along nationalist lines to attempt to forcibly return to a less-decayed state of Capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
Correct. Join an org!
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.Reform cannot work, Revolution is the only way. Build up dual power, organize, and try to build up parallel structures. Organize!
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Beating Trump won’t stop the conditions for fascism, only Leftism can. Fascism can only be kicked down the road, until the ratchet effect takes us there anyways, unless Leftists organize.
I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.You’ve got the core of it, but not the theory. Try reading Leftist theory! Whether it be Marxist or Anarchist, leftists have been attempting to fix the system and are growing in power.
Because every proletariat revolution has resulted in equality and not a speed run to mass poverty… Why would it work this time? When has it ever worked in reality? Where’s the beautiful shining example of Marxist success?
Let’s copy that now. (I can’t find an example of it).
When do you realize revolution is an acceleration of entropy in society.
You’re proposing to bloodlet society and end up with less for the people, and more for the rich.
Because every proletariat revolution has resulted in equality and not a speed run to mass poverty… Why would it work this time? When has it ever worked in reality? Where’s the beautiful shining example of Marxist success?
Cuba, the USSR, PRC, etc. All resulted in vastly improved conditions with respect to their previous conditions. Cuba was a fascist slave society, Russia was under the underdeveloped tyranny of the Tsar, and China was run by Nationalists and had been colonized for a century. In the USSR and PRC, life expectancy doubled.
If your current understanding is that society was fine and dandy, and then became worse after implementing Socialism, then you really need to open a history book. Life certainly didn’t become amazing and perfect, but life did get better gradually after overthrowing their brutal previous conditions.
Let’s copy that now. (I can’t find an example of it).
What do you mean by this? There are AES states like Cuba today.
When do you realize revolution is an acceleration of entropy in society.
There’s no “entropy” in society, society is not made up of “energy.” Revolution is a consequence of unsustainable conditions, like previously shown.
You’re proposing to bloodlet society and end up with less for the people, and more for the rich.
How? Please explain what this means. I am advocating for democratically controlling production so that it can service the needs and wants of the people, rather than wealthy Capitalists as it does in curreny society.
As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I’d be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don’t want it back either.
Cuba, I’d say they had equality for citizens which they don’t, not a good example either.
China… Really?? Marxism? Really?? We’re glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.
“The truths of Marxism are myriad, but it all comes down to one line: ‘Rebellion is justified!’” When the CCP was waging revolution and still trying to gain national power, this statement was a powerful shot in the arm. Once it became the ruling party, to bring this up again was to invite revolt against itself. That was exactly what happened in the Cultural Revolution. Its result was catastrophic, because Mao as a revolutionary was unable to make the transition from “breaking” to “making”. He once claimed: “There is no making without breaking. The making is in the breaking.” But that was just revolutionary romanticism misaligned with reality. In truth, it is much harder to “make” than to “break”. Source - https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/new-paradigm-needed-china-cannot-achieve-common-prosperity-marxism-and-class-struggle
You’re expressing wonderful ideals.
They don’t seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.
My argument is that it won’t and hasn’t ever.
When a developer writes a program that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it’ll work.
As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I’d be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don’t want it back either.
This is nothing but anecdotal evidence and a blanket claim that the USSR was bad just because it was illegally dissolved. Although it varies from State to State, the majority of residents polled in former-Soviet countries approved of the USSR and wished for it to remain.
Cuba, I’d say they had equality for citizens which they don’t, not a good example either.
Genuinely, what do you mean by this? They have far better quality of life metrics like life expectancy, and more democratic means to sway things than they did under Batista and fascist slavery. It has a more progressive LGBT legal code than America does these days.
China… Really?? Marxism? Really?? We’re glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.
China is currently Dengist, ie practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. If you want to read about it, consider reading China has Billionaires. The PRC shifted away from Maoism, an evolution on Marxism-Leninism, after the Cultural Revolution. Despite the myriad failures of the Cultural Revolution, Life Expectancy still doubled under Mao, and there was a nearly totally equal redistribution of land from the landowners to the peasants.
You’re expressing wonderful ideals.
They don’t seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.
My argument is that it won’t and hasn’t ever.
You haven’t really made an argument yet, you’ve made blanket statements like “I don’t think so” and whatnot. You haven’t analyzed anything, and some of your points are directly disprovable with a quick google search, such as the bit on Cuba and the USSR.
When a developer writes a program that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it’ll work.
Again, false and vibes-based. Marxism has evolved over time, Marxist thinkers have introduced new analysis with existing theory. That’s why there’s even such a thing as Marxism-Leninism or Maoism.
Additionally, you make it seem like Marxism is when you murder people, which outside of Revolution is historically false again.
Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?
Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?
Yeah, I’m not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don’t think I need to write a book to make a point.
You aren’t arguing in good faith. You’re ignoring facts and history.
Murders don’t end in those countries because the revolution is ‘finished’. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.
Is China such a success that they’re using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?
https://rsf.org/en/beaten-death-state-security-rsf-shocked-gruesome-murder-independent-journalist-china https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_August https://www.cato.org/blog/death-cuban-dissidents https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-disregard-for-human-rights/
Do you have any argument that doesn’t involve a bloodletting of society?
Yeah, I’m not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don’t think I need to write a book to make a point.
But you have been, as I proved.
You aren’t arguing in good faith. You’re ignoring facts and history.
Enlighten me. I have posted sources for my claims.
Murders don’t end in those countries because the revolution is ‘finished’. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.
Do they? Is that historically accurate? If by “disagreement” you mean collaboration with the Nazis or the fascist White Army, you’re deliberately obfuscating the facts.
Is China such a success that they’re using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?
China certainly isn’t perfect, not by any stretch. Don’t confuse support for Marxism for saying every single AES country is perfect in every way. That would be idealism, not Materialism. Overall though, the scope of harm committed by China pales in comparison to US and the rest of the West.
Do you have any argument that doesn’t involve a bloodletting of society?
Revolution will happen regardless of how we feel about it. Blaming the oppressed for turning against their oppressors instead of blaming the oppressors for creating the conditions for Revolution in the first place is victim blaming.
Do you condemn Dessalines for the blood in history’s most successful Slave Revolt in Haiti?
How? Please explain what this means. I am advocating for democratically controlling production so that it can service the needs and wants of the people, rather than wealthy Capitalists as it does in curreny society.
You’re advocating revolution, if I’m reading your words correctly.
That involves a radical restructuring of society. You’re advocating violently modifying the roles of individuals to fit your new goals. That has historically and always involved a bloodletting.
As I understand it Marxism is about being authoritarian in government (telling people what to do, and punishing those who don’t comply) and ensuring via government that resources are equally distributed. This concentrates power among the ruling elite. Historically, this continues the corruption it claims to end. So, what I’m saying essentially - that Marxism is a neat philosophy - It doesn’t line up with reality or achieve its stated goals.
It does kill all the dissenting opinions and create the echo chamber that has consistently been corrupted and hasn’t stood the test of time.
So if there’s to be a bloodletting. Let it begin with those asking for it, first.
You’re advocating revolution, if I’m reading your words correctly.
That involves a radical restructuring of society. You’re advocating violently modifying the roles of individuals to fit your new goals. That has historically and always involved a bloodletting.
I’m advocating for Marxism. Revolution will happen regardless, Capitalism continues to decay and conditions for the Proletariat continue to crumble. Marxists should do their best to make sure this revolution is equitable for the people and democratic in nature, rather than be co-opted by fascists.
As I understand it Marxism is about being authoritarian in government (telling people what to do, and punishing those who don’t comply) and ensuring via government that resources are equally distributed. This concentrates power among the ruling elite. Historically, this continues the corruption it claims to end. So, what I’m saying essentially - that Marxism is a neat philosophy - It doesn’t line up with reality or achieve its stated goals.
You’re wrong on quite a few things here.
-
Marxism is about having a Democratic Worker-State. All governments “tell people what to do and punish those who don’t comply,” even Anarchists. There were forced labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
-
Marxism is not about even or equal distribution of resources. Marxism is about meeting everyones needs with what is produced as best as possible. People have unequal needs and unequal contributions.
-
This does not “concentrate power around the ruling elite.” It’s a shift from power in the hands of Capitalists to power in the hands of the Workers.
-
There is corruption in AES states, yes, but this is not “the same corruption,” not even close. Capitalist states function via corruption, and anti-corruption policies are extremely popular in AES countries.
Marxism does line up with reality and does meet its goals, you have been wrong at every line and supported it with your feelings, not supporting evidence.
It does kill all the dissenting opinions and create the echo chamber that has consistently been corrupted and hasn’t stood the test of time.
It allows dissenting opinions, just not the resurgence of Capitalism, just like now we do not allow Monarchists to retake power. Marxism has also withstood the test of time.
So if there’s to be a bloodletting. Let it begin with those asking for it, first.
More vibes and unclear positions.
More vibes and unclear positions.
A person doesn’t have to have a clear position or solution to know that something isn’t right. This revolution you’re expecting, when does it start?
The Revolution starts when the Material Conditions call for it. Imperialism is weakening, and more countries in the Global South are turning their backs on the US and trying to develop themselves.
-
I’ve said this to you previously, but - I appreciate you.
When I find the ability to tame my ADHD and time constraints a bit more than current, I’ll work on digging into The State and Revolution - because you are kind, and you are thoughtful.
Fellow ADHDer here, I’m an anarchist so it might not be the kind of thing you’re looking for but I’ve found the Audible Anarchist podcast to be really good. Relatively short (10-20 minute) essay readings, I like them when I’m doing chores and need the stimulation.
Not who you replied to, but I’ve spoken with them before. They haven’t read much theory at all, if any, hence the recommendations last time. I’m sure they will appreciate your recs as well, they aren’t a committed Marxist or anything.
Hell yeah a fellow adhd anarchist
🥳
Audible Anarchist is great. Anarchist Library is another great resource depending on what you can hyperfocus on.
Hell yeah, I’ve had a bunch of recommendations for things on the library. Currently I’ve got a physical copy of Dolgoff’s Anarchist Collectives I’m trying to finish
Oh, it’s you! I remember! Thanks for the kind words.
For what it’s worth, eReaders make reading theory much easier for me, and I also have ADHD. Audiobooks also work for people too, but I like to reread sections sometimes.
Funny how you say people voicing support for revolution have given up hope. That’s literally the most hopeful wish I can think of. Liberals resigned to a system that … systemically … rejects any real structural change may have hope, but with very limited scope of imagination, and disregarding a lot of the structural harm.
I have no idea what any of these terms mean anymore. For a long time, I thought Liberal was just everything left of center and leftist was just synonymous with Liberal. It’s too fucking confusing.
Right wingers are way better about ignoring their differences and I suspect much of the granular nature of left wingers right now may be a “divide and conquer” tactic by bad actors.
Liberal only means “left of center” in places where Liberalism, the ideology, is left of that location’s median. Ie, in America, Liberalism can be considered left, despite Liberalism as an ideology being right-wing, in favor of Capitalism.
Leftism refers to Socialism, ie Anarchism or Marxism. Liberals are not in that spectrum, it isn’t “divide and conquer,” liberals have historically sided with fascists against leftists, because liberalism and fascism are uncomfortably close.
That’s a stupid as hell naming scheme. I routinely criticize criticize American’s left of being too comfortable with consumerism and baby steps, but I stay away from using buzz words.
And fascist leaders are working hard as hell to divide any opposition they have. We spend too much energy on infighting. Want me to vote for a Socialist? I already do in primaries. I wont give Trump an edge by throwing away my vote on a third party in the general election.
That’s a stupid as hell naming scheme. I routinely criticize criticize American’s left of being too comfortable with consumerism and baby steps, but I stay away from using buzz words.
Genuinely don’t know what you’re getting at, here. America is so far right that right-wing Capitalism is considered Left. In reality, the Left/Right divide is Socialism/Capitalism. It’s not aboht buzzwords, nor is it about consumerism.
And fascist leaders are working hard as hell to divide any opposition they have. We spend too much energy on infighting. Want me to vote for a Socialist? I already do in primaries. I wont give Trump an edge by throwing away my vote on a third party in the general election.
It would be nice if Liberals ever sided with Leftists, but historically they have sided with fascists to maintain their own positions. If by voting for a Socialist you mean Bernie, the Social Democrat center-right politician, he would certainly be an improvement. Still not a Socialist.
The reason I hate “leftist” being the name for a specific ideology is because it’s such a nonspecific name. Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism are much more specific names for specific ideas. “Leftist” just sounds like casual description for a general idea.
If you want to know why I consider this to be a right wing psyops Divide and Conquer tactic, ask yourself, who benefits by convincing left leaning people to not vote for the left leaning politician? I know a card carrying Communist who vote for fringe Green Party candidate in every presidential election.
The reason I hate “leftist” being the name for a specific ideology is because it’s such a nonspecific name. Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism are much more specific names for specific ideas. “Leftist” just sounds like casual description for a general idea.
Leftism is a group of ideologies surrounding collective ownership of the Means of Production, and opposition to Capitalism. It is a general through line.
If you want to know why I consider this to be a right wing psyops Divide and Conquer tactic, ask yourself, who benefits by convincing left leaning people to not vote for the left leaning politician? I know a card carrying Communist who vote for fringe Green Party candidate in every presidential election.
Biden is a right wing politician, Trump is far-right. The only way to get left-wing change electorally is to vote for Greens or PSL.
I think the big thing is to not demean the people who are calling for bigger measures. Plenty of us appreciate that gradual sustainable reform where life goes on and everyone keeps going to work then going home would be super cool, but dont think its possible. I don’t really see people get confronted for wanting to try reform, its when reform types tell more revolutionary folk that they’re “just as bad” for not wanting to roll over for something thats increasingly imminent.
You seem like a fine, thoughtful person. Thats great, we need that. Just understand we also need people who are preparing for and discussing what comes next if reform doesn’t work.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?).
You are mixing desire of change(conservative vs reformist) with relations of policy and economy(socialism vs capitalism).
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
You call them centrist, I call them center-right at best. It looks more right-wing than LDPR(former LDPSS, first right-wing party in USSR) or Russia of the Future(Navalny’s party, center-right).
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible.
Yeah, it’s 21st century. I don’t see it happening.
I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
Smart society needs members of that society to be smart. Which means they need to attend school regardless of having a farm.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems. Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options,
Welcome to political apathy.
and I think broadcasting moral superiority,
If only legism was moral superiority. Then legists of Third Reich would be “morally superior”. Well, they did claim to be superior everywhere. Didn’t help in Nuremberg.
Meanwhile people who built universal education, universal healthcare, public transit and welfare systems in my country weren’t legists.
How can the world become more altruistic and smarter when the hard right is actively destroying our public education system and right wing media causes stochastic terrorism with zero accountability?
Humanity isn’t getting better. We are seeing the final results of secularization, the end goal of a godless world where all that was once sacred are now open season for mockery and destruction. And even worse is that so much of the left is actively to blame for this.
None of you will get it, you will just blanket downvote because you cannot grasp that religion has a necessary place in human culture and the social chaos we have now is partially caused by the mockery of an institution that has literally held together human society for more than two and a half thousand years of human history.
The stuff in your first paragraph is being done by religious people. Hard right=religious… Religion hasn’t “held together human society”, it stopped human progress in is tracks for more than 2 thousand years, and continues to fight to destroy any progress we’ve been able to achieve.
Yes I know and I can guaran-fucking-tee you that as a progressive Christian myself, whatever dislike you have for conservative evangelicals I bear times five because OUR BOOK LITERALLY TEACHES NOT TO DO THESE THINGS.
I’m not arguing with butthurt atheists today, my positioned is far more nuanced than your ilk can respond to but I want to point out:
I didn’t say MY religion, I said religion in general. Every cohort study reports people with strong religious convictions consistently report higher life satisafaction. Your claims of 'holding us back for 2k years is not only ridiculously incorrect, it is based on memes you have consumed and not historical fact. Nearly every prestigious university in the U.S. was founded as a Jesuit school and that order has LONG been proponents of education and technological advancement.
Lastly, your opinion of religion is formed from the memes and news articles you see about angry conservative evangelicals, because that’s what feeds the ratings beast. You really have no fucking clue what it looks like from the inside otherwise you wouldn’t be blanked bombing all theists for the rancid and unbliblical acts of the extremists.
Enjoy your block because I certainly enjoyed blocking you.
But the Bible is very inconsistent on its messages, which is exactly why it can be used in ways you don’t agree with. Christianity in particular has often been used by those in power to keep their power and subjugate others. It’s certainly not the only religion that has done it, but it is one of the most prominent.
You believe what you want to, but when Christofascists are able to use the same book to push their regressive, violent policies, then maybe you should take a look at why that is.
Oh look, another clueless disaffected child traumatized by your mother not letting you bring your 3ds to church. Look, if you don’t have an actual scholarly interest in theology, you really aren’t prepared for any discussion involving it.
All your opinions are formed by memes and the news, which I’ll remind you isn’t there to educate you.
Fascism overtakes the trappings of religion and it isn’t picky what religion, so laying this solely on Christian shoulders is actively intellectually dishonest to the point that I am grinding my teeth.
Lastly, Christianity isn’t regressive. We are told to care for the sick, the poor, and the foreigners in our lands. It gave women the right to inherit property and the right for a divorce long before any of its contemporaries.
ANY ideology can be co-opted by bad actors, look at what 3rd wave feminism did to Atheism when they co-opted it and tried to push Atheism+. Both of those ideologies you would call progressive and I’m probably going to get a lot of flak for shitting on them here because demographics of course and not even lemmy allows for dissenting ideology. That said, I watched as established and progressive college groups get co-opted, administrations gutted, and turned into active misandry factories. So this is something hardly exclusive to American Christianity.
But you will never acknowledge that because you are so invested in your bigotry that to admit you are wrong is too much of a sunk cost cliff.
So you actively misunderstand and conflate, and thereby diminish human discussion just the tiniest bit for all history.
You disgust me.
It doesn’t seem like religion has made you very happy. Or very nice. I get that your username includes angry, and you seem to take that very seriously.
It also seems like you’re not very different from the people you claim are co-opting religion. You are cherry-picking the parts of Christianity that work well for you, while ignoring or downplaying the rest.
I know you’re not going to change your mind, but this approach certainly isn’t doing much to try and convert anyone.
- I have IED and am medically unhappy, it’s a neurotransmitter deficiency and no amount of happy thoughts will fix it. So fuck you I don’t care if you think I should be nice. Go tell a paraplegic to walk and see how many upvotes you get.
And DOUBLE fuck you for lumping me in with the christofascists, You know what I was going to write a long comment like the others in this thread but you just set off my fucking tilt meter and you did it deliberately.
I never once said I was here to evangelize, I don’t care what you believe in or if you believe in anything at all. The point I am making is by believing in nothing you are actively reducing the total happiness in the world yet you and your kind all pretend to be the most enlightened, humanist culture.
Fucking makes me sick how you cannot see the damage you and your ilk do and are actively doing in this thread.
If you don’t have any actual scholarly interest in Operating Thetans, then you aren’t prepared for any discussion involving Scientology.
You know there are a ton of atheist theological scholars, right? Bart Ehrman was one of your golden boys for so long because he lied about the evidence of Yeshua’s existence. But I doubt an edgelad like yourself can even grasp that.
I bet you have a fucking PHD in furry lore and are completely unconcerned that human animal hybrids do not in fact exist, for a parallel.
I think you limit your understanding to western Christianism, which infamously decided to establish a direct connection between political and religious authority as well as deeply institutionalized religion. These concepts already struggle when looking at the original, orthodox Christians like they survived in Palestine, the Levant and Turkey.
If you look at diaspora Judaism in large parts it has been a beacon of scientific and social progress in many areas. Which is why these groups strongly oppose Zionism as a religiously themed imperial project, which directly contradicts their religious values and bastardizes the understanding of Judaism into a barbaric version.
If you look at Islam it brought great scientific and social progress, in particular allowing for Christian and Jewish communities to thrive, building social infrastructure and implementing rule of law. Look at the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Iberian Jews, after the Christians won against the “Moors”. Extremist Islamism is a product of hundreds of years of genocidal Western Christian occupation, largely absent in places where people could life and practice in peace.
If you look at the Western “war on terror”, Chinas subjugation of the Uighur, the Serbian genocide in Bosnia and Putins supression of Muslims, you should wonder, what brings all these powers together? It is their fear of a reemergence of religion, not as a cheap trope, like with the evangelicals in the US, but as something people take serious. In particular Islam is dangerous to established powers and capitalist rule, as it provides a balanced approach to life, where the relationship to god is a priority but sustained by thriving for a good and just life for oneself and their community.
Meanwhile both capitalism and communism reflect on humans as purely economic beings, whose struggle should always be materialistic rather than holistic.
I guess I can agree that there’s a type of religion that isn’t evil, and minds it’s own business, and just tries to live a wholesome life and be good to people. I don’t think people necessarily NEED religion to live like that, but for those that do, I’m all for it.
Fascism is like the rising ocean. Imagine all the “brown people” near the shores and the white people at The high ground. You know out group versus in group.
The rise in fascism is causing the ocean level to rise drowning the people who are closest to the shore. This is analogous to people dying to political nonsense that otherwise wouldn’t.
If Trump gets elected. The ocean rises faster. In the next 4 years we’ll see a lot more people. Drowned.
If Biden gets elected the ocean still rises but it rises slower than with Trump. People still die, but less people die.
From a defeating fascist perspective. A slower rising ocean means more time to organize and spread information.
Also, politics is both the hardest thing and the easiest thing to understand. I consider myself a pretty intelligent person and it still took me awhile to really understand what was going on and I needed help. It’s crazy! It’s like everyone is playing chess on the same board. Some people are making basic moves. Some people are just pawns. Only a few people are playing 5D chess and mopping up the field.
hmm, does marxist/leninist/stalinist count as fascism ?
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?
-
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
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, @[email protected] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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…
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.
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.
Ah thanks I think that clears it up for me.
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.
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.
maybe in the purest sense of the word. Personally I find the label “left” to be pretty pointless anyway.
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.
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.
“More balanced” I.E. “we can compromise with it”
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.
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)
Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.
