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?
Edit: thanks for the responses but unfortunately I don't really understand what you guys are talking about. I needed an ELI5 really. Thanks anyway.
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
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
Liberalism is a big-tent ideology that services Capitalism. Leftists want Socialism, Liberals want Capitalism. This is the divide.
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.
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.
Because the last 400 years of human history basically has been liberals stabbing leftists in the back.
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.
Liberals essentially cover for both capitalists and fascists.
ELI5. What's a liberal? What's a captialist? What's a fascist? Why are liberals covering others?
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.
See: Emmanuel Macron. Liberals would rather ally with nazis than leftists
Didn't Ensemble ally with the left to defeat RN?
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.
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.
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.
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...
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
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.
I'm also voting for Isildur. But heck, I'll vote for whoever's chosen at the entmoot. I am increasingly convinced that Izzie's not up to the job of beating Sauron, but unless someone can convince him of that somehow, I think we're stuck with him. Fills me with dread.
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
Are you really trying to meme in a 3rd party candidate push? Really?
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.
::: spoiler 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 see. I'll keep waiting for that to happen.
I fully expect human nature to continue as it has.
Please make sure you are ready to be the first since this is your ideal. The grinder needs meat to keep going.
History will continue to repeat itself as it has.
I see. I'll keep waiting for that to happen.
I fully expect human nature to continue as it has.
What is "human nature?" More vibes and no facts.
Please make sure you are ready to be the first since this is your ideal. The grinder needs meat to keep going.
I truly wish Revolution could be avoided, but just like the Kings of Feudalism, Capitalists will continue to extract and brutalize the working class until it can sustain itself no longer. I would like to survive, of course, but it doesn't change what will happen.
History will continue to repeat itself as it has.
For better and for worse.
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.
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?
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?
Oh so we're moving on from the topic of a working example of Marxism then.
Why because I posted some links on the topic?
Overall though, the scope of harm committed by China pales in comparison to US and the rest of the West.
You really went to what-about?
I provided sources as to why they aren't examples of working Marxism and you did a what about.
I'm frustrated with trying to have a reasonable debate with people who think that they have the right to tell others what they can or cannot do.
I don't pretend I can tell others what to do. I don't think our system is perfect.
I'm not about to pretend that a revolution will end up better than where it started. Historically, it's rare. Even when it happens, it doesn't last.
Revolutions are as inevitable as the people who are willing to cooperate to make things better allow.
In other words, it's completely evitable.
I think treating folks fairly and not exploiting labor is a good idea.
Marxism hasn't led us there historically.
Oh so we're moving on from the topic of a working example of Marxism then.
Why because I posted some links on the topic?
We aren't moving from it, I don't see what cherry-picking has to do with the subject at hand.
You really went to what-about?
I provided sources as to why they aren't examples of working Marxism and you did a what about.
No, you provided a single example of the CPC doing something bad in the context of a country with citizen approval of the CPC at 95.6%. It is important to compare the US and other non-Marxist states because your point appears to be that Capitalism is better than Marxism.
I'm frustrated enough trying to have a reasonable debate with people who think that they have the right to tell others what they can or cannot do.
I don't pretend I can tell others what to do. I don't think our system is perfect.
I'm not about to pretend that a revolution will end up better than where it started. Historically, it's rare. Even when it happens, it doesn't last.
What do you mean by saying I have the right to "tell others what they can or cannot do?" That doesn't make any sense, are you arguing against the French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, etc.?
Additionally, Revolution absolutely improved Cuba, Russia, Haiti, China, France, etc. You have to be arguing for fascist slavery, Tsarist Monarchy, colonial slavery, colonial nationalism, and monarchism to be better than what came after. I hope you aren't a fascism or slavery supporter.
Revolutions are as inevitable as the people who are willing to cooperate to make things better allow.
In other words, it's completely evitable.
Capitalism itself decays over time, conditions get worse. The Capitalist class will not willingly hand over the reigns and improve society via giving up power.
I think treating folks fairly and not exploiting labor is a good idea.
Marxism hasn't led us there historically.
It has.
We aren’t moving from it, I don’t see what cherry-picking has to do with the subject at hand.
No, you provided a single example of the CPC doing something bad in the context of a country with citizen approval of the CPC at >95.6%. It is important to compare the US and other non-Marxist states because your point appears to be that Capitalism is better >than Marxism.
My argument is that violent revolution doesn't seem to work out as well as advertised, especially with Marxism.
The Chinese revolution killed millions of people, many who were innocent.
All to end up with an oligarchy ruling over them and fabricating statistics.
What do you mean by saying I have the right to “tell others what they can or cannot do?” That doesn’t make any sense, are you >arguing against the French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, etc.?
By Tell others, I mean just that.
Marxism may have started out wonderfully ideal. In reality if you express opinions outside of the acceptable party lines - You are silenced or worse. This is true of all of your examples of Marxism.
China
From the Report: "The government continued to systematically target human rights defenders..."
Cuba
From the Report: "Surveillance and harassment of activists, opponents, journalists and artists continued to be widespread. Arbitrary detention and criminal processes without fair trial guarantees remained common and people deprived of liberty faced harsh prison conditions."
Definitely not telling folks what to do. Definitely Ideals to hold up in arguments.
I'm concerned for America too. I didn't hold them up as an ideal. USA
The American Revolution seems good on paper. It worked for awhile. Citizens United is an issue to me.
Admittedly didn't read everything about the Haitian revolution, though slaves(opressed) rising up against their opressors has a bit of schadenfreude in it for me.
Those didn't end up in regimes that are not (at least temporarily) governed by their people.
Additionally, Revolution absolutely improved Cuba, Russia, Haiti, China, France, etc. You have to be arguing for fascist slavery, Tsarist >Monarchy, colonial slavery, colonial nationalism, and monarchism to be better than what came after. I hope you aren’t a fascism or >slavery supporter.
I disagree that revolution has resulted in the best possible position for Cuba, Russa, China and other Marxist regimes you've held up.
As stated, I'm not for telling people what to do.
Doesn't seem as if you asked, but I'm against slave labor, authoritarianism, patriarchies, colonialism, corporotocracy and feudalism.
Not all revolutions have ended poorly, they have almost all been very bloody.
Capitalism itself decays over time, conditions get worse. The Capitalist class will not willingly hand over the reigns and improve >society via giving up power.
Capitalism never died in the places you think Marxism ruled.
My argument is that violent revolution doesn't seem to work out as well as advertised, especially with Marxism.
The Chinese revolution killed millions of people, many who were innocent.
All to end up with an oligarchy ruling over them and fabricating statistics.
This is false. The Chinese Revolution against the Nationalists was bloody, yes, but was caused by Nationalist oppression. What they have now is a functional state with high approval ratings (and no evidence shown of fabricated approval ratings or oligarchy on your part). They aren't perfect, but they are much better off.
Articles from Salon and Cambridge, both of which include vast and thorough references like English Bankers saying "I don't believe the numbers." Lmao
By Tell others, I mean just that.
Marxism may have started out wonderfully ideal. In reality if you express opinions outside of the acceptable party lines - You are silenced or worse. This is true of all of your examples of Marxism.
This happens under Capitalism, to a worse degree.
Definitely not telling folks what to do. Definitely Ideals to hold up in arguments.
You're using Amnesty.org as a resource, a far-right think-tank. This doesn't look better for you.
I disagree that revolution has resulted in the best possible position for Cuba, Russa, China and other Marxist regimes you've held up.
With nothing to support your claims, of course, just your latent chauvanism, where you think you have an "enlightened western brain" rather than letting countries govern themselves.
As stated, I'm not for telling people what to do.
Doesn't seem as if you asked, but I'm against slave labor, authoritarianism, patriarchies, colonialism, corporotocracy and feudalism.
Except you did defend them against improvements like Marxism.
Capitalism never died in the places you think Marxism ruled
It was drastically reduced or outright eliminated, and these countries are better for it.
More Amnesty.org links, more western chauvanism, it's clear you'll continue batting for fascists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry to hear you have a neurotransmitter deficiency. I hope you're able to get some help for the symptoms.
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.
lol as if you're qualified to say they don't exist without knowing the lore. Educate yourself.
I notice you didn't actually address the core point of your automatic dismissiveness. How about put your big boy pants on and stop trying to meme your way out of this.
My brother in Furry Xenu, you're in a meme community advertising something awfully silly.
My mistake for thinking there could be meaningful discourse on the internet these days.
I can't add a whole lot to what's already being said. But I have to ask. Did no one read the LoTR? Tolkien was a believer of benevolent Monarchy, and rejected political plurality. Closer to authoritarian really, with a lot of sugar added.
So the meme bugs me in one more way. Isildur was in fact a better choice, whether he could or could not defeat sauron. There was no other choice middle earth would rally under the banner of. And because people supported him despite imperfections, Aragon got the chance with his allies to fight another day and win.
🎶
I don't want to live in Middle Earth no more
I don't want to die in this One Ring war
I want to sail off to Valinor
And make like an Elf Man
🎶
It's a meme. It does not necessarily have to live up to the original point of the scene or the author.
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.
One of many. And we do it for free, too.
Pfft, the same leftists complaining about Sanders and AOC not being progressive enough?
Get outta heeeeere
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.
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?
Aren't liberals leftists though?
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.
Edit: I’m tired of everyone's "that’s not socialism." You have to get people behind it. That requires taking steps. You aren’t going to bitch at reasonable people online to wake up one day and we’ve made the full conversion.
"More balanced" I.E. "we can compromise with it"
"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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.
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.
maybe in the purest sense of the word. Personally I find the label "left" to be pretty pointless anyway.
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.
Meanwhile leftists: "Make sure you don't vote in a way that might keep actual fascists from power. Better the fascists win than people who will make things only mildly better!"
Exterminating Gazans makes things better?
Maybe read the meme again.
You're right. Trump will help the gazans 100%. Or maybe some third party candidate who could get a max of 1% of votes, just enough to hand the reigns to trump, the champion of the gazans.
Ah, so rather than go against Trump's bad policy and do something actually GOOD for our fellow human beings, we need to stick to this compromise position where we do something almost as bad as him? Because we are more worried about losing pro genocide voters than we are about an actual genocide, or something?
I hope that you can see how the "liberal" position on this is fucking disgusting
Hello to fascism and Trump's final solution to the Palestine question, it is! Got it!
Vote Biden, obviously. His Gaza policy is still absolute dog shit. It is not complicated and pretending that anyone criticising him for it is voting for trump is dumb as fuck
Me:
Meanwhile leftists: “Make sure you don’t vote in a way that might keep actual fascists from power. Better the fascists win than people who will make things only mildly better
You: Reasons to not vote for the candidate opposing the fascists. Arguing with anyone suggesting voting against the fascists. Swerve completely the point about how much WORSE for Gaza and the rest of the Palestinians Trump would be.
Me: Thanks leftists. /s
You claim to want to make things better for Gaza, but not if it involves putting a mark in a box, because in your view that would be going TOO FAR and going against EVERY principle you ever held dear.
You talk such a big game about Gaza and fascism, but you wouldn't stoop so low as to actually fucking vote on this issue. No, it's much more important to take up the crusade against the centrists. Thanks leftists. Great help you were in preventing the fascists from taking over the most powerful country in the world.
Grow up and live in the real world. It sucks. Please try much harder to not make it worse.
The first two words in my last response were "Vote Biden" sooooooooo.....
Sorry, yes, but it winds me up when people who claim to care about Gaza only criticise Biden and ignore Trump's vocal support for Israel's actions.
Biden is literally sending bombs to Israel and is the current president, leader of the free world, yada yada. Trump's support right now is just that, vocal. Although of course he was shitty when he was president. But that is why for me personally Biden is the one to criticise right now.
I understand why it's annoying though if it seems very one sided. But "claim to care" - I think with an ongoing genocide it's a very easy thing to care about. Why would you doubt that they care?
There's a law that says he has to. 2. He's at least trying to convince Israel to agree to a ceasefire and peace deal. 3. Trump is going to be much worse. 4. Republicans openly advocate for total genocide for example Nikki Hayley writing "finish them" on a bomb. 5. Trump is going to be much worse. 6. I don't see any moral equivalence AT ALL between trying to convince Israel to stop and supporting the total obliteration of the Palestinian people. 7. I doubt that they care because they advocate letting the actual dictator win. Yeah, they talk a big game about Gaza, and their support is really strong, except they wouldn't be prepared to even put a mark in a box? Forgive me for my scepticism.
But there's the Leahy law, which is basically never applied to Israel but clearly makes it illegal to do so. Why does he ignore that?
Great! But firstly, it isn't working and clearly he isn't using all available leverage (e.g. Leahy). And how is veto-ing UNSC resolutions for a cease fire (and Palestinian statehood, lol) helping this, exactly? Seems like the opposite.
3 to 6 is whataboutism. It's not relevant
7 - The issue here is that you're again assuming they won't vote for Biden when actually many of us will. If such a person will vote Biden, do you believe that they care?
You talk such a big game about Gaza and fascism, but you wouldn't stoop so low as to actually fucking vote on this issue.
Cool, so you'll vote for Claudia De La Cruz of the Party for Socialism and Liberation? She's antifascist and anti-genocide, unlike Biden and Trump.
No because then I would have helped trump lead america in to fascism. If you don't think through the consequences of your actions, you get bad outcomes. Not voting for the person opposing trump leads to the worst possible outcome. It's not rocket science.
But then you're voting for genocide and eventual fascism.
No, you're voting for the one literally trying to stop the war against Gaza and voting against fascism. What did you think the republicans mean when they write "finish them" on a bomb in front of the Israelis?
Biden is committing and supplying genocide, and is fascism is already taking hold under Biden. Do you genuinely think voting for a genocidal right-winger will stop fascism? Why do you think fascism appears in the first place?
This coming November. So you pretend that stopping fascists is important to you, but you're not prepared to even put a mark in a box to stop it.
When has voting ever stopped fascism?
This coming November. If you cared even a tiny little bit, you would make a mark in a box. But you don't really care, you just pretend to care.
Historically, when has voting ever stopped fascism? Do you have any historical knowledge of fascism, where you think you can stop it simply through the electoral process?
Your question is actually misleading. What you mean is "when did voting cause a fascist regime to hand over power peacefully", but what's not documented well in the history books is how many times a far right party lost an election, didn't get their hands on real power and didn't become a regime. The answer to the two questions is
Not very often. One they're in power is usually too late and an awful lot of lives, usually those of people in marginalised groups, are lost unnecessarily. Fascists rarely give way to popular opinion once they're in power.
EVERY time a far right party with plans to dismantle opposition loses an election, you prevent a fascist regime from getting started.
What's better? Wait till it happens and it gets so bad that people take up arms and even more death occurs to start the long road back to peaceful transfer of power or vote it away before it starts?
You can help to prevent this, but no, you're claiming to care and hinting that you might be prepared to do something drastic, but if it comes down to putting a mark in a box, oh no, that's asking too much. You're completely deceiving yourself if you believe what you're saying.
Your question is actually misleading. What you mean is "when did voting cause a fascist regime to hand over power peacefully", but what's not documented well in the history books is how many times a far right party lost an election, didn't get their hands on real power and didn't become a regime.
No, that's not what I mean. America has a fascist problem, even if Biden wins fascism is still coming. I am directly asking you when fascism was stopped by voting against a fascist threat.
EVERY time a far right party with plans to dismantle opposition loses an election, you prevent a fascist regime from getting started.
No, this is historically inaaccurate, hilariously so. The Nazis took power without being elected.
What's better? Wait till it happens and it gets so bad that people take up arms and even more death occurs to start the long road back to peaceful transfer of power or vote it away before it starts?
You can't "vote it away," fascists don't care about electoral results. They sieze power. Voting for Biden slows the descent into fascism but does nothing to the core reasons why it exists, ie decaying Capitalism and dying Imperialism.
You can help to prevent this, but no, you're claiming to care and hinting that you might be prepared to do something drastic, but if it comes down to putting a mark in a box, oh no, that's asking too much. You're completely deceiving yourself if you believe what you're saying.
I'm actually suggesting organizing, touching grass, and building dual power. I do plan on voting, I myself am undecided. If the Democrats manage to completely reverse their genocidal tendencies and take a firm Anticapitalist stance, I would probably vote for them, but as it stands that just kicks the problem down the road while conditions continue to worsen.
Even if your points were correct, it's an absurd conclusion to draw: voting mighn't keep them out of power in the long so don't try now? How stupid is that advice? Very.
No, this is historically inaaccurate, hilariously so. The Nazis took power without being elected.
The Nazi party came to hold the reigns of government by winning the largest number of seats in a parliamentary election. (In Europe coalition government is more common than in the USA.) No power, no regime.
that just kicks the problem down the road
For four years. Better than allowing it to happen this year!
Maybe we can kick the can down the road long enough for the Republican party to realise that cristofascism isn't popular and if they want power ever again they'd better drop it.
What do the fascists want? People who care to stay home on election day or vote for everyone except the one that beat trump last time. What are you advocating? The same course of action. Literally the same.
Blah blah blah, but putting a mark in the box that matters is too much for you. Got it. Very sincere antifascist. /s
Even if your points were correct, it's an absurd conclusion to draw: voting mighn't keep them out of power in the long so don't try now? How stupid is that advice? Very.
I am correct, historically. Either way, you're voting for fascism slowly, rather than fascism rapidly. Why does that keep them out of power if it happens regardless?
The Nazi party came to hold the reigns of government by winning the largest number of seats in a parliamentary election. (In Europe coalition government is more common than in the USA.) No power, no regime.
Yes, the people voted against the Nazis and the liberals sided with the Nazis against the Leftists with electoral shenanigans, regardless of what the people wanted. You're proving my point.
For four years. Better than allowing it to happen this year!
Nope, fascism is gaining in power under Biden, the rate of increase slows. There isn't a binary Not Fascist/Fascist switch with Biden/Trump, fascism is gaining regardless. America isn't determined solely by the President.
Maybe we can kick the can down the road long enough for the Republican party to realise that cristofascism isn't popular and if they want power ever again they'd better drop it.
It is popular, and continues to get more popular. This is why Liberals like yourself never manage to beat out fascists, you don't understand why it's appealing to desparate petite-bourgeoisie.
What do the fascists want? People who care to stay home on election day or vote for everyone except the one that beat trump last time. What are you advocating? The same course of action. Literally the same.
Fascists literally do not care what you or I do, they will continue to win locally unless leftists organize against them while Liberals cry for "civility."
Blah blah blah, but putting a mark in the box that matters is too much for you. Got it. Very sincere antifascist. /s
You should read a book, any book. I think reading things might help you think more clearly.
Voting for slow fascism or fast fascism still results in fascism. How do you stop fascism from being on the ballot? Strongly worded letters?
Fascists literally do not care what you or I do, they will continue to win locally unless leftists organize against them while Liberals cry for “civility.”
Fascists want trump elected and they care passionately that anyone that doesn't share their ideals doesn't vote so they can win.
I'm not even a liberal. I just live in the real world that you theoretically care about, but absolutely not as far as putting a mark in a box.
Fascists want trump elected and they care passionately that anyone that doesn't share their ideals doesn't vote so they can win.
Fascists are also okay with Biden getting elected. Fascists support Biden as well, even if they prefer Trump.
I'm not even a liberal. I just live in the real world that you theoretically care about, but absolutely not as far as putting a mark in a box.
You aren't a liberal, you just support liberals and liberalism, and condemn leftism and leftists for opposing it and fascism. Got it.
Secondly, I already said I will vote, but as it stands both the Democrats and Republicans service fascism and fascists, ergo I have to go outside that binary to hope to stop fascism.
hmm, does marxist/leninist/stalinist count as fascism ?
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.
Sure, any political system is only as good as the society enforcing its rules.
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 Communism in 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 is an important 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.
"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.
hmm, in the same way I can say that "jews" served the purposes of the imperialist agenda inside and outside Germany, does that give the Nazis right to oppress an ethnicity and use that vulgar language against them? This is called political failure imo
Are you arguing that Jewish People and Fascists are equivalent? Dangerous terrorists that actively were murdering people and attempting to return the state to Tsarist Rule should have been opposed.
Jewish People are an ethnicity, this isn't a tie to power but an intrinsic genetic characteristic.
This is an absurd comparison.
I wanted to say that foreign conspiracies aren't an excuse for authoritarianism and oppressing the other ideologies and antagonizing them. You justified USSR acts by saying their fears were true.
Now Nazis fears also about Jewish element came true, and I think I've seen that actually the Jewish population was actually being manipulated by foreign entities, in fact this is something every country has, minorities being manipulated by U.S.A, U.K ...etc (even in U.S.A and U.K lool)
The Nazis solution to "the jewish problem" is similar to the marxist solution to ideological/political discrepancy which is to antagonize and oppress every other. That's what I think
I wanted to say that foreign conspiracies aren't an excuse for authoritarianism and oppressing the other ideologies and antagonizing them. You justified USSR acts by saying their fears were true.
The ideology of fascism was against the USSR, and armies moved against it. Calling antifascism "authoritarianism" is the paradox of tolerance, you cannot tolerate the intolerant.
Now Nazis fears also about Jewish element came true, and I think I've seen that actually the Jewish population was actually being manipulated by foreign entities, in fact this is something every country has, minorities being manipulated by U.S.A, U.K ...etc (even in U.S.A and U.K lool)
No. The fears of a Jewish "cabal" were false, and focused on ethnicity. This is wild and borders on Holocaust justification.
The Nazis solution to "the jewish problem" is similar to the marxist solution to ideological/political discrepancy which is to antagonize and oppress every other. That's what I think
Throwing Jewish People into concentration camps and exterminating 9 million people is not the same as rooting out and militarily combatting fascist organization, the goals of which are genocide of the slavic peoples and reinstatement of the brutal Tsarist monarchy the people overthrew. The fact that you think this is in any way comparable speaks volumes about your positions, as you're quite literally sympathizing with fascists.
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.
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 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?
I'm a Marxist, and you've called Marxist-Leninists fascists. By your definition, I am both a Tankie and a Fascist for wanting a democratically run Worker State. If you want to convince me of Marxism being fascist, answer the question I originally asked: how does Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or the USSR, satisfy Umberto Eco's 14 points on fascism? You linked an article referencing a Zionist and Imperialist as a good authority on why Marxism is fascist, I wonder why you consider Zionists good company, but Marxists to be evil fascists?
Let's try this another way.
Do you personally believe that democracies are good? That law should be decided by people?
Every Marxist believes democracy is good and that law should be decided by the people. Since you like Wikipedia, you might want to read about how Democracy was structured in the USSR.
Or do you believe that authoritarians are the best way to rule?
Genuinely, what does this sentence even mean? Are you asking if I believe all important decisions should be made by unaccountable strong leaders? No, of course not, no Marxist does. If you mean I believe in having a government, then yes, I am a Marxist, not an Anarchist.
I’m a Marxist,
Great I was wrong, you are not a Marxist-Leninist.
By your definition, I am both a Tankie and a Fascist.
No, a Marxist-Leninist is not the same thing as a Marxist. A Marxist is critical of capitalism. They don't say anything specific other than a socialist society is good. Which I generally agree with. A Marxist-Leninist goes into detail on top of that witch results in Fascist outcomes.
This whole "Marxist-Leninist are Marxists" thing is a fascist talking point. Of course fascists are going to co-opt the word "Marxist", especially when it gets popular, it's happened before and it will happen again. What is important is the outcomes of the ideology not the names.
Every Marxist believes democracy is good
I Agree. Glad you are pro-democracy. I don't think you are a fascist or a tankie anymore.
Genuinely, what does this sentence even mean?
Sorry, trusted voice to text too much. You guessed the correct interpretation. I agree with your answer.
Great I was wrong, you are not a Marxist-Leninist.
I accept Lenin's contributions to Marxism, so labels don't really matter.
No, a Marxist-Leninist is not the same thing as a Marxist. A Marxist is critical of capitalism. They don't say anything specific other than a socialist society is good. Which I generally agree with. A Marxist-Leninist goes into detail on top of that witch results in Fascist outcomes.
Incorrect. Marxism is categorized by critique of Capitalism, an adherence to Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and advocacy for the establishment of a Socialist Worker-government via Revolutionary Methods. This came from Marx, not Lenin. Marx was a fascist according to you, even if you try to white-wash him.
This whole "Marxist-Leninist are Marxists" thing is a fascist talking point. Of course fascists are going to co-opt the word "Marxist", especially when it gets popular, it's happened before and it will happen again. What is important is the outcomes of the ideology not the names.
No, it's a Marxist talking-point. Explain exactly where we jump from Marxism to fascism with respect to what Lenin added, like his analysis of Imperialism.
I Agree. Glad you are pro-democracy. I don't think you are a fascist or a tankie anymore.
Great, then Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and the USSR were not fascist, glad you could come around to sense, instead of relying on Zionist fascists for your information.
Sorry, trusted voice to text too much. You guessed the correct interpretation. I agree with your answer.
Marxist-Leninists want a worker-government surrounding worker Soviets, or whole-process People's Democracy. They do not want "authoritarianism." Please read Marx, and Lenin. You can see where Lenin drew from, Lenin was a Marxist.
Please, just go through Eco's points, you've been restating the same talking points espoused by Zionist fascists without engaging with Eco's well-establisbed criterion.
Holy shit, what happed? You went full wacky.
I accept Lenin’s contributions to Marxism, so labels don’t really matter.
Ok, if labels don't matter, then why are you mad about me calling you a fascist? What can we possibly gain from this conversation at all? Also, I have changed my mind. This is totally Marxist-Leninist behavior, you're a tankie and tankies are fascists.
In a mocking voice: "I am not a Marxist-Leninist I'm just a Marxist who loves to throat Lenin's sausage." Common man.
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.
"Objective definitions mean things." -Me
"Reee weak argument no u"- Some shitlib that can't even define liberal.
You know what this is very much a real sentiment that people have. Yep. In no way incendiary fucking horseshit that no one thinks. No definitely not that. /s
Edit: feel extra superior when you downvote. Because progress is the last priority. First? Constantly, constantly hating lIbErAlS to the extent people wonder if you're pro Trump
See France. Instead of forming a government with the leftists, who won a plurality of seats, Macron formed a government with the Nationalist party instead. Also, not everything is about the US.
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?
Ahh, yes, a pointlessly divisive meme that only seeks to stir up shit. Peddle your bad faith trolling elsewhere.
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.
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.
The fact that you call my profile picture racist explains so much about your position. I'm done here.
Yep, it explains that I don't like racism, and it explains that you're outwardly and proudly racist.
Is it funny to you to depict Chinese people as yellow bears? This is boomer level racism. You can be against the CPC and Xi without making racist caricatures of him your personal profile picture.
Would you like to explain why depicting a Chinese person as a yellow bear isn't racist, and is totally okay? Is racism okay for you if its against people you politically disagree with?
Wait, that's what the Pooh thing was about this whole time? Embarrassing I didn't catch on; thought it was just another vapid meme. Not a surprise to find yet another sprouted out of bigotry and took root in people who refuse to think about what they say.
Yes, that's legitimately it. Many people who are generally anti-CPC latch onto the Pooh meme without realizing it's just racism. They see that it's not generally liked, so they go super hard into it even if it's just bigotry and nothing else.
It gets even worse when they pull the "he just looks like that" card. Like, pick a non-yellow bear, at the bare (heh) minimum.
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?
Edit: thanks for the responses but unfortunately I don't really understand what you guys are talking about. I needed an ELI5 really. Thanks anyway.
I will always point to mlk as a response to this question:
New to me, very good quote thanks
To quote Malcolm X:
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
Liberalism is a big-tent ideology that services Capitalism. Leftists want Socialism, Liberals want Capitalism. This is the divide.
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.
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.
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.
Because the last 400 years of human history basically has been liberals stabbing leftists in the back.
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.
ELI5. What's a liberal? What's a captialist? What's a fascist? Why are liberals covering others?
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.
See: Emmanuel Macron. Liberals would rather ally with nazis than leftists
Didn't Ensemble ally with the left to defeat RN?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah gee a mystery how they get offended
I’m gonna start recommending Combat Liberalism to them.
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...
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
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.
I'm also voting for Isildur. But heck, I'll vote for whoever's chosen at the entmoot. I am increasingly convinced that Izzie's not up to the job of beating Sauron, but unless someone can convince him of that somehow, I think we're stuck with him. Fills me with dread.
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
Are you really trying to meme in a 3rd party candidate push? Really?
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.
::: spoiler 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.
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.
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.
The Democrats are Neoliberal, there's no set dressing. Liberalism is just right-wing. Conservatives are far-right populists, ie fascists in some cases.
On the contrary, the US was designed by wealthy Capitalists to benefit themselves. The system is working as intended, protecting Capitalists.
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.
Correct. Join an org!
Reform cannot work, Revolution is the only way. Build up dual power, organize, and try to build up parallel structures. Organize!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
What do you mean by this? There are AES states like Cuba today.
There's no "entropy" in society, society is not made up of "energy." Revolution is a consequence of unsustainable conditions, like previously shown.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 see. I'll keep waiting for that to happen. I fully expect human nature to continue as it has.
Please make sure you are ready to be the first since this is your ideal. The grinder needs meat to keep going.
History will continue to repeat itself as it has.
What is "human nature?" More vibes and no facts.
I truly wish Revolution could be avoided, but just like the Kings of Feudalism, Capitalists will continue to extract and brutalize the working class until it can sustain itself no longer. I would like to survive, of course, but it doesn't change what will happen.
For better and for worse.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
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://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/05/china-overseas-students-face-harassment-and-surveillance-in-campaign-of-transnational-repression/
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?
But you have been, as I proved.
Enlighten me. I have posted sources for my claims.
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.
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.
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?
Oh so we're moving on from the topic of a working example of Marxism then. Why because I posted some links on the topic?
You really went to what-about? I provided sources as to why they aren't examples of working Marxism and you did a what about.
I'm frustrated with trying to have a reasonable debate with people who think that they have the right to tell others what they can or cannot do. I don't pretend I can tell others what to do. I don't think our system is perfect. I'm not about to pretend that a revolution will end up better than where it started. Historically, it's rare. Even when it happens, it doesn't last.
Revolutions are as inevitable as the people who are willing to cooperate to make things better allow. In other words, it's completely evitable.
I think treating folks fairly and not exploiting labor is a good idea. Marxism hasn't led us there historically.
We aren't moving from it, I don't see what cherry-picking has to do with the subject at hand.
No, you provided a single example of the CPC doing something bad in the context of a country with citizen approval of the CPC at 95.6%. It is important to compare the US and other non-Marxist states because your point appears to be that Capitalism is better than Marxism.
What do you mean by saying I have the right to "tell others what they can or cannot do?" That doesn't make any sense, are you arguing against the French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, etc.?
Additionally, Revolution absolutely improved Cuba, Russia, Haiti, China, France, etc. You have to be arguing for fascist slavery, Tsarist Monarchy, colonial slavery, colonial nationalism, and monarchism to be better than what came after. I hope you aren't a fascism or slavery supporter.
Capitalism itself decays over time, conditions get worse. The Capitalist class will not willingly hand over the reigns and improve society via giving up power.
It has.
My argument is that violent revolution doesn't seem to work out as well as advertised, especially with Marxism. The Chinese revolution killed millions of people, many who were innocent. All to end up with an oligarchy ruling over them and fabricating statistics.
Who is cherry picking? Everyone knows that China's economic data is much worse than the official numbers. Just how big are the lies?
Abstract: China's statistics are widely viewed as unreliable...
By Tell others, I mean just that. Marxism may have started out wonderfully ideal. In reality if you express opinions outside of the acceptable party lines - You are silenced or worse. This is true of all of your examples of Marxism.
China From the Report: "The government continued to systematically target human rights defenders..."
Cuba From the Report: "Surveillance and harassment of activists, opponents, journalists and artists continued to be widespread. Arbitrary detention and criminal processes without fair trial guarantees remained common and people deprived of liberty faced harsh prison conditions."
Definitely not telling folks what to do. Definitely Ideals to hold up in arguments.
I'm concerned for America too. I didn't hold them up as an ideal. USA
The French Revolution didn't kill its intended targets. Except for that whole mishap, totally worked out. They punished the wrong people and led to a decent system for a while. (https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/01/why-is-france-so-corrupt-fillon-macron-le-pen/)
The American Revolution seems good on paper. It worked for awhile. Citizens United is an issue to me. Admittedly didn't read everything about the Haitian revolution, though slaves(opressed) rising up against their opressors has a bit of schadenfreude in it for me.
Those didn't end up in regimes that are not (at least temporarily) governed by their people.
I disagree that revolution has resulted in the best possible position for Cuba, Russa, China and other Marxist regimes you've held up.
As stated, I'm not for telling people what to do. Doesn't seem as if you asked, but I'm against slave labor, authoritarianism, patriarchies, colonialism, corporotocracy and feudalism. Not all revolutions have ended poorly, they have almost all been very bloody.
Capitalism never died in the places you think Marxism ruled.
Thanks for providing the wonderful shining examples of: Russia(what remains of the USSR), China, & Cuba.
This is false. The Chinese Revolution against the Nationalists was bloody, yes, but was caused by Nationalist oppression. What they have now is a functional state with high approval ratings (and no evidence shown of fabricated approval ratings or oligarchy on your part). They aren't perfect, but they are much better off.
Articles from Salon and Cambridge, both of which include vast and thorough references like English Bankers saying "I don't believe the numbers." Lmao
This happens under Capitalism, to a worse degree.
You're using Amnesty.org as a resource, a far-right think-tank. This doesn't look better for you.
With nothing to support your claims, of course, just your latent chauvanism, where you think you have an "enlightened western brain" rather than letting countries govern themselves.
Except you did defend them against improvements like Marxism.
It was drastically reduced or outright eliminated, and these countries are better for it.
More Amnesty.org links, more western chauvanism, it's clear you'll continue batting for fascists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Leftism is a group of ideologies surrounding collective ownership of the Means of Production, and opposition to Capitalism. It is a general through line.
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.
You are mixing desire of change(conservative vs reformist) with relations of policy and economy(socialism vs capitalism).
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).
Yeah, it's 21st century. I don't see it happening.
Smart society needs members of that society to be smart. Which means they need to attend school regardless of having a farm.
Welcome to political apathy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry to hear you have a neurotransmitter deficiency. I hope you're able to get some help for the symptoms.
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.
lol as if you're qualified to say they don't exist without knowing the lore. Educate yourself.
I notice you didn't actually address the core point of your automatic dismissiveness. How about put your big boy pants on and stop trying to meme your way out of this.
My brother in Furry Xenu, you're in a meme community advertising something awfully silly.
My mistake for thinking there could be meaningful discourse on the internet these days.
Come to my sub where I can shout at you properly.
Man... Angry autist is angry
Seriously couldn't be more well put.
Since they already did that once this time it means we destroy it for good (in the end)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bRPYDVgCws
Ain't that the truth!
I can't add a whole lot to what's already being said. But I have to ask. Did no one read the LoTR? Tolkien was a believer of benevolent Monarchy, and rejected political plurality. Closer to authoritarian really, with a lot of sugar added.
So the meme bugs me in one more way. Isildur was in fact a better choice, whether he could or could not defeat sauron. There was no other choice middle earth would rally under the banner of. And because people supported him despite imperfections, Aragon got the chance with his allies to fight another day and win.
🎶 I don't want to live in Middle Earth no more
I don't want to die in this One Ring war
I want to sail off to Valinor
And make like an Elf Man 🎶
It's a meme. It does not necessarily have to live up to the original point of the scene or the author.
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.
One of many. And we do it for free, too.
Pfft, the same leftists complaining about Sanders and AOC not being progressive enough?
Get outta heeeeere
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.
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?
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.
came from the front page, will block the cess pool.
Yep, Leftists are the only ones. Liberals fight to keep them, Liberalism defends the status quo.
You could join an org and actually try to stop fascism, rather than letting it happen.
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.
keep huffing paint bud.
What do you think Liberalism is?
Aren't liberals leftists though?
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.
Edit: I’m tired of everyone's "that’s not socialism." You have to get people behind it. That requires taking steps. You aren’t going to bitch at reasonable people online to wake up one day and we’ve made the full conversion.
"More balanced" I.E. "we can compromise with it"
"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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.
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.
maybe in the purest sense of the word. Personally I find the label "left" to be pretty pointless anyway.
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.
Meanwhile leftists: "Make sure you don't vote in a way that might keep actual fascists from power. Better the fascists win than people who will make things only mildly better!"
Exterminating Gazans makes things better?
Maybe read the meme again.
You're right. Trump will help the gazans 100%. Or maybe some third party candidate who could get a max of 1% of votes, just enough to hand the reigns to trump, the champion of the gazans.
Ah, so rather than go against Trump's bad policy and do something actually GOOD for our fellow human beings, we need to stick to this compromise position where we do something almost as bad as him? Because we are more worried about losing pro genocide voters than we are about an actual genocide, or something?
I hope that you can see how the "liberal" position on this is fucking disgusting
Hello to fascism and Trump's final solution to the Palestine question, it is! Got it!
Vote Biden, obviously. His Gaza policy is still absolute dog shit. It is not complicated and pretending that anyone criticising him for it is voting for trump is dumb as fuck
Me:
You: Reasons to not vote for the candidate opposing the fascists. Arguing with anyone suggesting voting against the fascists. Swerve completely the point about how much WORSE for Gaza and the rest of the Palestinians Trump would be.
Me: Thanks leftists. /s
You claim to want to make things better for Gaza, but not if it involves putting a mark in a box, because in your view that would be going TOO FAR and going against EVERY principle you ever held dear.
You talk such a big game about Gaza and fascism, but you wouldn't stoop so low as to actually fucking vote on this issue. No, it's much more important to take up the crusade against the centrists. Thanks leftists. Great help you were in preventing the fascists from taking over the most powerful country in the world.
Grow up and live in the real world. It sucks. Please try much harder to not make it worse.
The first two words in my last response were "Vote Biden" sooooooooo.....
Sorry, yes, but it winds me up when people who claim to care about Gaza only criticise Biden and ignore Trump's vocal support for Israel's actions.
Biden is literally sending bombs to Israel and is the current president, leader of the free world, yada yada. Trump's support right now is just that, vocal. Although of course he was shitty when he was president. But that is why for me personally Biden is the one to criticise right now.
I understand why it's annoying though if it seems very one sided. But "claim to care" - I think with an ongoing genocide it's a very easy thing to care about. Why would you doubt that they care?
But there's the Leahy law, which is basically never applied to Israel but clearly makes it illegal to do so. Why does he ignore that?
Great! But firstly, it isn't working and clearly he isn't using all available leverage (e.g. Leahy). And how is veto-ing UNSC resolutions for a cease fire (and Palestinian statehood, lol) helping this, exactly? Seems like the opposite.
3 to 6 is whataboutism. It's not relevant
7 - The issue here is that you're again assuming they won't vote for Biden when actually many of us will. If such a person will vote Biden, do you believe that they care?
Cool, so you'll vote for Claudia De La Cruz of the Party for Socialism and Liberation? She's antifascist and anti-genocide, unlike Biden and Trump.
No because then I would have helped trump lead america in to fascism. If you don't think through the consequences of your actions, you get bad outcomes. Not voting for the person opposing trump leads to the worst possible outcome. It's not rocket science.
But then you're voting for genocide and eventual fascism.
No, you're voting for the one literally trying to stop the war against Gaza and voting against fascism. What did you think the republicans mean when they write "finish them" on a bomb in front of the Israelis?
Biden is committing and supplying genocide, and is fascism is already taking hold under Biden. Do you genuinely think voting for a genocidal right-winger will stop fascism? Why do you think fascism appears in the first place?
When has voting kept fascists from power?
This coming November. So you pretend that stopping fascists is important to you, but you're not prepared to even put a mark in a box to stop it.
When has voting ever stopped fascism?
This coming November. If you cared even a tiny little bit, you would make a mark in a box. But you don't really care, you just pretend to care.
Historically, when has voting ever stopped fascism? Do you have any historical knowledge of fascism, where you think you can stop it simply through the electoral process?
Your question is actually misleading. What you mean is "when did voting cause a fascist regime to hand over power peacefully", but what's not documented well in the history books is how many times a far right party lost an election, didn't get their hands on real power and didn't become a regime. The answer to the two questions is
What's better? Wait till it happens and it gets so bad that people take up arms and even more death occurs to start the long road back to peaceful transfer of power or vote it away before it starts?
You can help to prevent this, but no, you're claiming to care and hinting that you might be prepared to do something drastic, but if it comes down to putting a mark in a box, oh no, that's asking too much. You're completely deceiving yourself if you believe what you're saying.
No, that's not what I mean. America has a fascist problem, even if Biden wins fascism is still coming. I am directly asking you when fascism was stopped by voting against a fascist threat.
No, this is historically inaaccurate, hilariously so. The Nazis took power without being elected.
You can't "vote it away," fascists don't care about electoral results. They sieze power. Voting for Biden slows the descent into fascism but does nothing to the core reasons why it exists, ie decaying Capitalism and dying Imperialism.
I'm actually suggesting organizing, touching grass, and building dual power. I do plan on voting, I myself am undecided. If the Democrats manage to completely reverse their genocidal tendencies and take a firm Anticapitalist stance, I would probably vote for them, but as it stands that just kicks the problem down the road while conditions continue to worsen.
Even if your points were correct, it's an absurd conclusion to draw: voting mighn't keep them out of power in the long so don't try now? How stupid is that advice? Very.
The Nazi party came to hold the reigns of government by winning the largest number of seats in a parliamentary election. (In Europe coalition government is more common than in the USA.) No power, no regime.
For four years. Better than allowing it to happen this year!
Maybe we can kick the can down the road long enough for the Republican party to realise that cristofascism isn't popular and if they want power ever again they'd better drop it.
What do the fascists want? People who care to stay home on election day or vote for everyone except the one that beat trump last time. What are you advocating? The same course of action. Literally the same.
Blah blah blah, but putting a mark in the box that matters is too much for you. Got it. Very sincere antifascist. /s
I am correct, historically. Either way, you're voting for fascism slowly, rather than fascism rapidly. Why does that keep them out of power if it happens regardless?
Yes, the people voted against the Nazis and the liberals sided with the Nazis against the Leftists with electoral shenanigans, regardless of what the people wanted. You're proving my point.
Nope, fascism is gaining in power under Biden, the rate of increase slows. There isn't a binary Not Fascist/Fascist switch with Biden/Trump, fascism is gaining regardless. America isn't determined solely by the President.
It is popular, and continues to get more popular. This is why Liberals like yourself never manage to beat out fascists, you don't understand why it's appealing to desparate petite-bourgeoisie.
Fascists literally do not care what you or I do, they will continue to win locally unless leftists organize against them while Liberals cry for "civility."
You should read a book, any book. I think reading things might help you think more clearly.
Voting for slow fascism or fast fascism still results in fascism. How do you stop fascism from being on the ballot? Strongly worded letters?
Fascists want trump elected and they care passionately that anyone that doesn't share their ideals doesn't vote so they can win.
I'm not even a liberal. I just live in the real world that you theoretically care about, but absolutely not as far as putting a mark in a box.
Fascists are also okay with Biden getting elected. Fascists support Biden as well, even if they prefer Trump.
You aren't a liberal, you just support liberals and liberalism, and condemn leftism and leftists for opposing it and fascism. Got it.
Secondly, I already said I will vote, but as it stands both the Democrats and Republicans service fascism and fascists, ergo I have to go outside that binary to hope to stop fascism.
hmm, does marxist/leninist/stalinist count as fascism ?
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.
Sure, any political system is only as good as the society enforcing its rules.
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 Communism in 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 is an important 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
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)
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.
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.
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.
Don't know what you mean by this, at all, really. Let's leave it as true and tally it up at the end.
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).
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.
hmm, in the same way I can say that "jews" served the purposes of the imperialist agenda inside and outside Germany, does that give the Nazis right to oppress an ethnicity and use that vulgar language against them? This is called political failure imo
Are you arguing that Jewish People and Fascists are equivalent? Dangerous terrorists that actively were murdering people and attempting to return the state to Tsarist Rule should have been opposed.
Jewish People are an ethnicity, this isn't a tie to power but an intrinsic genetic characteristic.
This is an absurd comparison.
I wanted to say that foreign conspiracies aren't an excuse for authoritarianism and oppressing the other ideologies and antagonizing them. You justified USSR acts by saying their fears were true.
Now Nazis fears also about Jewish element came true, and I think I've seen that actually the Jewish population was actually being manipulated by foreign entities, in fact this is something every country has, minorities being manipulated by U.S.A, U.K ...etc (even in U.S.A and U.K lool)
The Nazis solution to "the jewish problem" is similar to the marxist solution to ideological/political discrepancy which is to antagonize and oppress every other. That's what I think
The ideology of fascism was against the USSR, and armies moved against it. Calling antifascism "authoritarianism" is the paradox of tolerance, you cannot tolerate the intolerant.
No. The fears of a Jewish "cabal" were false, and focused on ethnicity. This is wild and borders on Holocaust justification.
Throwing Jewish People into concentration camps and exterminating 9 million people is not the same as rooting out and militarily combatting fascist organization, the goals of which are genocide of the slavic peoples and reinstatement of the brutal Tsarist monarchy the people overthrew. The fact that you think this is in any way comparable speaks volumes about your positions, as you're quite literally sympathizing with fascists.
Punching Nazis is good.
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.
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.”
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
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.
https://theslowburningfuse.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/the-struggle-against-fascism-begins-with-the-struggle-against-bolshevism/
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?
I'm a Marxist, and you've called Marxist-Leninists fascists. By your definition, I am both a Tankie and a Fascist for wanting a democratically run Worker State. If you want to convince me of Marxism being fascist, answer the question I originally asked: how does Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or the USSR, satisfy Umberto Eco's 14 points on fascism? You linked an article referencing a Zionist and Imperialist as a good authority on why Marxism is fascist, I wonder why you consider Zionists good company, but Marxists to be evil fascists?
Every Marxist believes democracy is good and that law should be decided by the people. Since you like Wikipedia, you might want to read about how Democracy was structured in the USSR.
Genuinely, what does this sentence even mean? Are you asking if I believe all important decisions should be made by unaccountable strong leaders? No, of course not, no Marxist does. If you mean I believe in having a government, then yes, I am a Marxist, not an Anarchist.
Great I was wrong, you are not a Marxist-Leninist.
No, a Marxist-Leninist is not the same thing as a Marxist. A Marxist is critical of capitalism. They don't say anything specific other than a socialist society is good. Which I generally agree with. A Marxist-Leninist goes into detail on top of that witch results in Fascist outcomes.
This whole "Marxist-Leninist are Marxists" thing is a fascist talking point. Of course fascists are going to co-opt the word "Marxist", especially when it gets popular, it's happened before and it will happen again. What is important is the outcomes of the ideology not the names.
I Agree. Glad you are pro-democracy. I don't think you are a fascist or a tankie anymore.
Sorry, trusted voice to text too much. You guessed the correct interpretation. I agree with your answer.
I accept Lenin's contributions to Marxism, so labels don't really matter.
Incorrect. Marxism is categorized by critique of Capitalism, an adherence to Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and advocacy for the establishment of a Socialist Worker-government via Revolutionary Methods. This came from Marx, not Lenin. Marx was a fascist according to you, even if you try to white-wash him.
No, it's a Marxist talking-point. Explain exactly where we jump from Marxism to fascism with respect to what Lenin added, like his analysis of Imperialism.
Great, then Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and the USSR were not fascist, glad you could come around to sense, instead of relying on Zionist fascists for your information.
Marxist-Leninists want a worker-government surrounding worker Soviets, or whole-process People's Democracy. They do not want "authoritarianism." Please read Marx, and Lenin. You can see where Lenin drew from, Lenin was a Marxist.
Please, just go through Eco's points, you've been restating the same talking points espoused by Zionist fascists without engaging with Eco's well-establisbed criterion.
Holy shit, what happed? You went full wacky.
Ok, if labels don't matter, then why are you mad about me calling you a fascist? What can we possibly gain from this conversation at all? Also, I have changed my mind. This is totally Marxist-Leninist behavior, you're a tankie and tankies are fascists.
In a mocking voice: "I am not a Marxist-Leninist I'm just a Marxist who loves to throat Lenin's sausage." Common man.
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.
"Objective definitions mean things." -Me
"Reee weak argument no u"- Some shitlib that can't even define liberal.
You know what this is very much a real sentiment that people have. Yep. In no way incendiary fucking horseshit that no one thinks. No definitely not that. /s
Edit: feel extra superior when you downvote. Because progress is the last priority. First? Constantly, constantly hating lIbErAlS to the extent people wonder if you're pro Trump
See France. Instead of forming a government with the leftists, who won a plurality of seats, Macron formed a government with the Nationalist party instead. Also, not everything is about the US.
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?
Ahh, yes, a pointlessly divisive meme that only seeks to stir up shit. Peddle your bad faith trolling elsewhere.
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.
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.
Why? Liberals have left-punched for their entire existence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that you call my profile picture racist explains so much about your position. I'm done here.
Yep, it explains that I don't like racism, and it explains that you're outwardly and proudly racist.
Is it funny to you to depict Chinese people as yellow bears? This is boomer level racism. You can be against the CPC and Xi without making racist caricatures of him your personal profile picture.
Would you like to explain why depicting a Chinese person as a yellow bear isn't racist, and is totally okay? Is racism okay for you if its against people you politically disagree with?
Wait, that's what the Pooh thing was about this whole time? Embarrassing I didn't catch on; thought it was just another vapid meme. Not a surprise to find yet another sprouted out of bigotry and took root in people who refuse to think about what they say.
Yes, that's legitimately it. Many people who are generally anti-CPC latch onto the Pooh meme without realizing it's just racism. They see that it's not generally liked, so they go super hard into it even if it's just bigotry and nothing else.
It gets even worse when they pull the "he just looks like that" card. Like, pick a non-yellow bear, at the bare (heh) minimum.