Did I say that all authoritarians are enabled by liberals? What agenda are you trying to push by misconstruing my words? Like seriously what point are you trying to reach here?
But that =/= “every fascist is and always has been enabled by liberals.”
They’re saying that it’s very common for liberals to side with a rising fascist over the left in a misguided attempt to maintain the status quo. They’d typically rather move to the right instead of giving any quarter to the left, because the left wants to upend the structures of oppression, while the right wants to bolster them—while scapegoating an out-group.
Look at what macron is doing in France right now. Moving to the right to build a coalition with them to go against the majority left coalition that won the election.
Eh, that doesn’t change much. “The liberals who enable them” specifically targets at liberals who enable fascism. If you removed ‘the’, it would be liberals in general
You seem to be under the impression that liberals have a logically and ethically consistent belief structure.
The realization that liberals are unscratched fascists is a tough one, but you are one of the few intelligent folks able to recognize it… it’s a curse.
Your use of tankie is exactly like the conservative use of woke. You’re not even close to superior to those you mock. Hopefully one day you realize that and actually apply that human brain of yours.
Just to be clear, you don’t think I should be against liberals enabling fascism? You don’t see anything wrong with the slow march to the far right that’s happening in so many parts of the world recently?
I’m just really annoyed by “liberal” constantly being equated with “fascist enabler” round here. If anyone calls themselves a liberal while supporting fascists, they’re just fascists in disguise. While there are people like that, that’s not what liberalism means, in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
It’s a language issue. You’re likely from the United States, where liberal is used to suggest an adherent to classical liberalism or progressivism. Most of the rest of the English speaking world means neoliberal, as in an advocate or supporter of free-market capitalism, deregulation, and the reduction of government spending.
Please, enlighten me about what you think liberalism means. In my view (as an anarchist) liberalism is at best ineffective at preventing fascism from taking over. It enables colonialism and imperialism, and offers no solution to the horrors of capitalism. Liberal ideology is one of state violence and compromise with literal fascists.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Did… Did you really just copy Wikipedia’s page on liberalism here? You think that’s conductive of a meaningful conversation? Try reading a book and maybe you’ll be able to imagine a better world than what the ruling class has decided for us. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey might be a good place to start. It’s often taught in university but is well written and accessible compared to some of the more lofty rhetoric you might find.
Liberal hence Libertarianism is definitialy a shortening of Economic Liberal. What you’re quoting is the colloquial/slang/propaganda definition. Modern “liberals” are absolutely better than classic liberals. Simply by virtue of their tepid support for social safety nets. That isn’t their failing. Their failing is that despite being “liberals” they’re still, and more importantly more committed to economic liberalism than they are social investment. And as such, eager to reach across the aisle to normalize and work with bigots, proto fascists, and full fledged fascists. Just to appear bipartisan.
Yeah. That’s pretty spot on. Personally I’d also put more emphasis on social and economic justice, but to achieve these I consider the human rights, representative democracy, free and fair elections and the rule of law absolutely indispensable preconditions.
imperialism is the subjugation of one country for the benefit of the first. DPRK is not imperialist (how could it be under UN sanctions), PRC is not imperialist, USSR was not imperialist.
Communists critically support the DPRK, the USSR, and the PCR, progressive liberals uncritically support Obama, Biden, conservative liberals uncritically support Trump, Bush, etc
Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
Look dude I’ve worked with many MLs and MLMs. I’ve read some of both Lenin and Mao’s works. I think the recent rhetoric of calling communists fascist is wholely harmful to the left and I don’t participate in it. I never called the DPRK imperialist for obvious reasons. I didn’t even call the PRC imperialist because I do recognize that western media is not a reliable source on the matter. I recognize my own ignorance in these matters and don’t take part in uncritically decrying post-revolution communist states.
We disagree on the way a just society should be structured, or the methods of achieving that end. I consider authoritarianism and unjust hierarchies as a problem of both capitalism and state communism, but as long as my viewpoints can be heard and addressed, I personally don’t have issue with MLs and MLMs. The atrocities of capitalism far outweigh the failures of established communist states.
Communism is neither left nor right. It is just a construct of governance. While it was originally promoted by leftists, it can be either left or right. Some communists are conservative and/or fascist (ex. China).
The Left/Right divide is about property. Should it be collectivized, or individually owned and traded, ie Socialism vs Capitalism. Communism, therefore, must be left-wing.
It is just a construct of governance.
Yes and no. Communism is also economic in nature.
While it was originally promoted by leftists, it can be either left or right.
You cannot have Right-Wing Communists.
Some communists are conservative and/or fascist (ex. China).
The PRC is socially conservative, yes. Economically, it is Socialist, though certainly not yet Lower-Stage Communist. This does not make China “fascist” or right-wing. It is a socially reactionary, economicaly progressive state.
Fuck all imperialist and hierarchical power structures. Fuck colonialism and fuck the police. Fuck fascists and the libs that enable them.
Xi Jinping is a fascist, and I don’t think it was liberals that enabled him
Xi’s also an imperialist and implemented a hierarchical government. Nothing I said was paradoxical. Fuck 'em all.
What liberals enabled Xi??
Did I say that all authoritarians are enabled by liberals? What agenda are you trying to push by misconstruing my words? Like seriously what point are you trying to reach here?
I think it was this part where you link fascists to liberal enablers.
But that =/= “every fascist is and always has been enabled by liberals.”
They’re saying that it’s very common for liberals to side with a rising fascist over the left in a misguided attempt to maintain the status quo. They’d typically rather move to the right instead of giving any quarter to the left, because the left wants to upend the structures of oppression, while the right wants to bolster them—while scapegoating an out-group.
Look at what macron is doing in France right now. Moving to the right to build a coalition with them to go against the majority left coalition that won the election.
I didn’t stutter. Fuck every liberal enabling the rise of fascism.
Ah I see. Your point would have been clearer if it was “ fuck the fascists and
theany liberals who enable them”Eh, that doesn’t change much. “The liberals who enable them” specifically targets at liberals who enable fascism. If you removed ‘the’, it would be liberals in general
Nixon
The only country actually running over people with tanks is Israel and does it with the unconditional support of the US
Liberals as always don’t see Arabs as people. Don’t you dare come asking for our votes.
Do Arabs get to vote in the US?
Or if you mean Arabs that chose to go live in the US, I don’t think they care too much about a country that, well, murdered all the natives
Yes, Arab Americans do and are enough to swing elections in Michigan and a few other states
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/29/arab-american-voter-defections-biden-2024
Hear fuckin hear!
How many billionaires before a country is a liberal shit-hole?
600?
675?
Idk man, one seems like too many to me.
China’s around 695, guessing the threshold is 700. That’s when the tankies will turn on it for sure.
Punk is not dead
Here here
‘The Libs,’ LOL!!!
From a anon American, it’s hilarious seeing the hick come out. ‘the Libs hur durrr.’
Hahaha that shits always funny
You’re replying to a leftist, not a conservative “hick.”
And by “liberal” you mean anyone who dares criticise Daddy Putin and Supreme Leader Xi, amirite?
Dude my very first sentence was “Fuck all imperialist and hierarchical power structures.” How can you think that I support China or Russia?
Uh oh, you’ve activated the libs. Now they’ll make wild assumptions and other fabrications instead of actually addressing anything you’ve said.
FTFY, lib
You seem to be under the impression that liberals have a logically and ethically consistent belief structure.
The realization that liberals are unscratched fascists is a tough one, but you are one of the few intelligent folks able to recognize it… it’s a curse.
you’re such an online edgelord that you’re fighting straw men of your own creation. sign off, your family probably misses you.
Oops. Posted on tankie news again. Always forget to check.
Edit: actually, i retract that. I got mixed up with another thread.
Your use of tankie is exactly like the conservative use of woke. You’re not even close to superior to those you mock. Hopefully one day you realize that and actually apply that human brain of yours.
Just to be clear, you don’t think I should be against liberals enabling fascism? You don’t see anything wrong with the slow march to the far right that’s happening in so many parts of the world recently?
The irony of a liberal calling an anarchist authoritarian… Liberals are simps for an authoritarian economic system
I’m just really annoyed by “liberal” constantly being equated with “fascist enabler” round here. If anyone calls themselves a liberal while supporting fascists, they’re just fascists in disguise. While there are people like that, that’s not what liberalism means, in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
It’s a language issue. You’re likely from the United States, where liberal is used to suggest an adherent to classical liberalism or progressivism. Most of the rest of the English speaking world means neoliberal, as in an advocate or supporter of free-market capitalism, deregulation, and the reduction of government spending.
I’m fortunately not from the US. But you’re right. A lot of people equate liberal with neoliberal or libertarian. Which is a real bummer.
Please, enlighten me about what you think liberalism means. In my view (as an anarchist) liberalism is at best ineffective at preventing fascism from taking over. It enables colonialism and imperialism, and offers no solution to the horrors of capitalism. Liberal ideology is one of state violence and compromise with literal fascists.
Did… Did you really just copy Wikipedia’s page on liberalism here? You think that’s conductive of a meaningful conversation? Try reading a book and maybe you’ll be able to imagine a better world than what the ruling class has decided for us. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey might be a good place to start. It’s often taught in university but is well written and accessible compared to some of the more lofty rhetoric you might find.
Edit: its->it’s
Liberal hence Libertarianism is definitialy a shortening of Economic Liberal. What you’re quoting is the colloquial/slang/propaganda definition. Modern “liberals” are absolutely better than classic liberals. Simply by virtue of their tepid support for social safety nets. That isn’t their failing. Their failing is that despite being “liberals” they’re still, and more importantly more committed to economic liberalism than they are social investment. And as such, eager to reach across the aisle to normalize and work with bigots, proto fascists, and full fledged fascists. Just to appear bipartisan.
Yeah. That’s pretty spot on. Personally I’d also put more emphasis on social and economic justice, but to achieve these I consider the human rights, representative democracy, free and fair elections and the rule of law absolutely indispensable preconditions.
focusing on voting as the only allowed political action, supporting capitalism, valuing order over justice…
Dude, liberals literally helped Hitler become Reichskanzler.
For anyone not familiar, that was in no small part thanks to Paul von Hindenburg. If only he had instead gone the way of the zeppelin named after him.
So many of them on Lemmy lol
They clearly wrote fuck hierarchical powers. Fuck any supreme leader.
They think liberal is the same as neoliberal
imperialism is the subjugation of one country for the benefit of the first. DPRK is not imperialist (how could it be under UN sanctions), PRC is not imperialist, USSR was not imperialist.
Communists critically support the DPRK, the USSR, and the PCR, progressive liberals uncritically support Obama, Biden, conservative liberals uncritically support Trump, Bush, etc
read lenin.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm
The instance you use is named after an Ikea plush. I will not debate you.
The South China Sea, Poland and most of eastern Europe would like a word…
Edit: Oh, and Tibet, Taiwan, etc…
Look dude I’ve worked with many MLs and MLMs. I’ve read some of both Lenin and Mao’s works. I think the recent rhetoric of calling communists fascist is wholely harmful to the left and I don’t participate in it. I never called the DPRK imperialist for obvious reasons. I didn’t even call the PRC imperialist because I do recognize that western media is not a reliable source on the matter. I recognize my own ignorance in these matters and don’t take part in uncritically decrying post-revolution communist states.
We disagree on the way a just society should be structured, or the methods of achieving that end. I consider authoritarianism and unjust hierarchies as a problem of both capitalism and state communism, but as long as my viewpoints can be heard and addressed, I personally don’t have issue with MLs and MLMs. The atrocities of capitalism far outweigh the failures of established communist states.
Communism is neither left nor right. It is just a construct of governance. While it was originally promoted by leftists, it can be either left or right. Some communists are conservative and/or fascist (ex. China).
The Left/Right divide is about property. Should it be collectivized, or individually owned and traded, ie Socialism vs Capitalism. Communism, therefore, must be left-wing.
Yes and no. Communism is also economic in nature.
You cannot have Right-Wing Communists.
The PRC is socially conservative, yes. Economically, it is Socialist, though certainly not yet Lower-Stage Communist. This does not make China “fascist” or right-wing. It is a socially reactionary, economicaly progressive state.
Countries like Estonia might disagree with you there, buddy.
‘The instance you use is named after an Ikea plush. I will not debate you.’
This JK Rowling?
I think you proved their point. Also, your ad hominem attack (or ad urbem attack) could be construed as transphobic.
Lmao