• Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Some of the comments in this thread really tell you why it takes a novel laureate to say this. Some of y’all do not have a basic understanding of history, economic systems, or what the term reactionary actually means.

    The correct response to “neo liberal capitalism has contributed to the rise of fascism” should be “no shit, Sherlock”

    It’s truly sad that that isn’t 100% of the comments here.

    Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleed, y’all. That doesn’t mean all liberals are fascist, that means that fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism.

    And just in case y’all also don’t know what that means, “liberalism” in that context isn’t “Obama liberal, Bush conservative,” it means the political ideology of liberalism, of which both Bush and Obama were proponents of.

    ETA: I’m not engaging anymore… it’s not my job to teach y’all the difference between an economic system and authoritarian states. Also, your magic has no power here, I am an anarchist, not a stalinist. Please educate yourselves. If for no other reason, do it to make it easier to pwn the tankies or whatever the fuck

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleed, y’all.

      I really, really hate that expression. It’s like it’s purposely designed to alienate people with mostly good intentions telling them they’re no different from horrible people they hate with a fiery passion.

      That doesn’t mean all liberals are fascist, that means that fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism.

      Saying it means something other than what it plainly does mean doesn’t make it any better. Maybe it means that to you, but any slogan you have to explain is a shit slogan. All it does is signal membership in your in-group while telling everyone else who hears it that you’re part of their out-group.

      • jorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is a problem with slogans and not just this slogan. Another one is “ACAB” which people get upset about because they know someone who is a cop and they don’t think that cop is a bastard… But “policing has systemic issues that hurt marginalized people disproportionately, primarily exists at the intersection between haves and have nots in a way that mostly serves the capitalist ruling class rather than creating justice” doesn’t fit in a sign.

        • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          okay but all cops, conclusively, ARE bastards, and we should say it so no idiot idealistic kids think they can join and be the good one.

          because its true, and they are. all of them.

          if one ever stopped being a bastard, they would stop being a cop pretty quick. usually via training accident.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’m not so sure training to be a cop has any impact on whether your parents were married 18+ years before.

            The police aren’t going anywhere. The path you described means no one who wants to better the system should join… so it will always just be people who want to abuse power. Am I reading your proposal wrong? We should workshop this.

            Edit: re-read what I wrote and realized it sounded dickish instead of constructive. Sorry about that, my dumb lump of a brain thought it sounded a lot different when I was writing it.

            • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              the system cannot be improved ‘from the inside’, ‘reform from within’ has not worked in the past four hundred years of constant trying, when institutional culture was far less entrenched.

              what has changed, that it would magically work now? that the fucking mythical good-cop king under the mountain will return and save us all by making the often literal neo nazi death squads whose soul reason for existing is the maintenance of hierarchal violence and wealth/class disparity be nice and cool and prosocial?

              • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Last 400 years what has changed? A lot. I’m not saying the police are going to change anytime soon, but women have only had the ability to vote for 25% of that. That was a big change. The end of legalized slavery outside of incarceration hasn’t been around that long either… Kinda big one might say. Before I die I hope to see large improvements in rehabilitation during incarceration as efforts are growing world wide.

                We can live with hope and keep pushing towards a better life for people, or we can cower in fear and think nothing will ever change. Hell, 20 years ago a universal healthcare system in the U.S. would have been thought impossible to ever occur, now I think that it could happen in the next 20 years if people get out and vote for it.

                For every inch we take there is always backlash and sometimes we lose ground. We just need to hope we don’t lose decades, if not a 250 years come this election.

                • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  okay but, like, specifically, this specific question:

                  what has changed, that it would magically work now? that the fucking mythical good-cop king under the mountain will return and save us all by making the often literal neo nazi death squads whose soul reason for existing is the maintenance of hierarchal violence and wealth/class disparity be nice and cool and prosocial?

                  what specific changes have happened? what did the police ‘reforms’ after 2020 fix? have the rates of innocent people gunned down in the streets in the woods in their homes gone down in the past four years? what about the time before that? or before that? or before that? your proposal has failed, constantly, invariable, without one exception, since before the invention of the steam engine. it’s not even stupidity anymore; it’s insanity.

                  stop cowering. stop restricting your horizon of action to the things your oppressors tell you you’re allowed to do. look for the gaps. look the the real solutions. try playing a non-pacifist run of ‘wolfenstein’, see if you do any better.

      • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        good aesthetics and good vibes ≠ good intentions

        and its the vibes that liberals really care about. its the obsession with feelings and aesthetics over truth. which is also why it’s such fertile soil for fascism to grow in. scratch a liberal, break the good vibes, snap them out of it, make them look at a homeless person, and they go fasch real quick. they certainly do a lot of shit fascists would approve of, they just kick some sand over it after. for example: the homeless purges about to sweep through california were ordered by a liberal, with the broad approval of liberals.

        the concentration camps for migrants were built as much under liberals and fascists. as long as they dont have to see it, any amount of horror is fine. if it helps them not see suffering, any amount of horror is encouraged. they’re nice, they’re pleasant, but they are not friends, and the assumption that we’re natural allies, that they can behave as badly as they want and still count on left support is how american politics got as fucked as they are.

    • Junkhead@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      exactly this just the natural end result of capitalism, the end goal has always been complete control by the ruling class.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Some of y’all do not have a basic understanding of history, economic systems, or what the term reactionary actually means.

      Do you?

      The correct response to “neo liberal capitalism has contributed to the rise of fascism” should be “no shit, Sherlock”

      That’s pretty much most of the comments in this thread

      And just in case y’all also don’t know what that means, “liberalism” in that context isn’t “Obama liberal, Bush conservative,” it means the political ideology of liberalism, of which both Bush and Obama were proponents of.

      I don’t think these two were ever liberal about anything. The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.

      • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        In order, but not quoting because mobile app and lazy:

        Yes.

        I said some.

        They were both liberal, in that they were both proponents of liberalism, as in “liberal democracy.” Not liberalism as left of center. Liberalism as in market economies and private property.

        I’m also not necessarily associating liberalism as a whole to fascism. All zits are zots, but not all zots are zits, you dig? Fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism and capitalism, but it doesn’t mean liberalism is fascistic or that it is inevitable. It means that when liberalism is threatened, in decline, backed into a corner by its own contradictions, fascism is one way that it defends itself so that the status quo can be maintained. It just depends on which part of the status society/the ruling class/those in charge value more. The personal freedom bit, the private property bit, the lifestyle of the rich bit? Social democracy is another way that liberalism defends itself, favored by those who value the other end of the spectrum. Fascism is a reaction to growing tensions around those contradictions and growing support for things like social democracy and actual socialism.

        Also, this article specifically cites neo liberalism, an ideology of its own, and an outgrowth of liberalism, but liberalism itself. The shittiest form liberalism takes without going full fash IMHO, but it’s hard to define “shitty” in any sort of academic sense. But fuck Reagan and Thatcher.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.

        What specifically got called out was neoliberalism. While ordoliberalism was briefly called neoliberalism the general understanding of the term is “Whatever nefarious shit the Atlas network is currently up to”. Things like conflating the free market with unregulated markets (which are anything but free), trickle-down economics, ludicrously excessive rent seeking behaviour, like say privatised pension funds, publishing ratings calling countries “nanny states” for having warnings on cigarettes because yes the tobacco lobby is very much part of that ilk, really the list is pretty endless: It’s pure class war. War creates victims, those victims need handling, and misdirection of ire is a very convenient strategy, “It’s not the billionaires who own everything who are at fault that you can’t make rent, it’s the immigrants”.

        It’s not just Marx who is rotating in his grave, Adam Smith is very much spinning with at least the same RPM. It’s after all his own work which gets abused by those people.

        As to the more sensible liberalisms – they largely got captured. The EU has a strong ordoliberal bent actually regulating markets ((it’s in fact constitutionally a social market economy), but that neolib shit is still eating away at it and many people, even policy makers, can’t really tell the difference.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.

        Socialists seem rather illiberal about the definition and allowed use of the word and concept of liberal. They hear “a liberal?” and think “a fascist!”. I suspect that this greatly plays into the polarization between tankies and limbrols here on lemmy.

        For example a newer definition of fascism is 1. belief in inequality based on 2. a mythological identity (e.g. race which isn’t real). That is useful to talk about trumpism vs the neoliberal democrats. But socialists completely refute that and insist it’s both the same fascism because capitalism. And that is where any discussion ends in my experience. It’s like we’re dividing and conquering ourselves for the benefit of the fascists…

        Of course they are right in terms of foreign policy, which is absolutely fascist towards “shithole countries” no matter who rules in the white house. Neoliberalism is: 1. belief in inequality based on 2. economic or class status 3. personal freedom to die in whatever way seems best to you.

        And once the prosperity is distributed away with rising wealth inequality that does lead to plutocracy and then fascism. And I suspect the socialists are right that without an explicit socialist component in your ideology this outcome is inevitable.

        But unfortunately their definitions are stuck based on outdated theories written before 1950.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          They hear “a liberal?” and think “a fascist!”.

          Nope. The primary reasoning is “a liberal?” “They’re going to create conditions conducive of fascism”. That specifically applies to neoliberalism which really is modern-day feudalism, to each billionaire their fiefdom. Fascist politics allow them to distract the proletariat from the actual source of their plight, it allows them to bribe a couple of people to get the laws they want instead of orchestrating complicated astroturf campaigns. It affords them legal privileges impossible in proper democracies.

          The secondary reasoning is a hard to avoid slippery slope: Belief in inequality is a very neoliberal thing, you have “the valiant productive people” and “the lazy masses”. Illusions of false merit, people born into money legitimately believing they’re self-made, considering anyone who doesn’t want to hustle or exploit others meritless, therefore it’s “just natural and just” if they end up homeless and without health insurance. Have you listened to The Wall lately. The Pink Floyd album.

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You seem to be throwing around the term “socialist” in a similar naive way

    • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      All right then… somehow in all of the history people wanted to get out of socialist/communist countries to the liberal ones so bad, that they had to build walls and shoot the trespassers.
      Idk about you but I am gonna stick to the liberalism with solid amount of welfare and public services. However, you are free to move to Cuba or any other plethora of socialist countries to live however you want.
      Papers please

      • jorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah yes the vuvuzela argument. Much easier than analyzing what the ideologies actually incentivize and lead to or using your eyes to take a look at the state of the world.

        Complete brain rot. If LLMs reacted this way to every mention of socialism we’d think they needed more training. Chat GPT would express more a more nuanced and understanding-demonstrating answer than this. You should consider feeling ashamed.

        • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I understand your frustration but you are misguided and ignorant. Education is truly a blessing to not repeat same mistakes from the past.

          I am sure however that you are in extreme minority and pose zero danger to society. My sympathy remains. One has to believe in something. God, ufos or communism.

          • jorp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            In a world dominated by capitalist realism I find that an ironic stance.

            Socialism isn’t only implementable as an authoritarian state, but any attempt to implement it will be met with fierce resistance from “liberal” countries whose ruling class is not threatened by fascism but is threatened by socialism.

            You’re fighting for the oppressor.

              • jorp@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Enjoy it while you can, capitalism is actively destroying our climate and causing never before seen levels of wealth inequality. Fascism is the inevitable next step and is rapidly approaching. It will not perpetuate much longer whether by self-destruction, or hopefully, by replacement so that we can continue to thrive as a species.

                • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  That’s doomer speak from too much scrolling. I once too believed these things for a time but the world hasn’t ended, improved even. I am no longer as depressed and regained clarity of mind.
                  I hope you too can find peace and see the reason before all the time dwindles out like a sand from between your fingers.

                  I am typing it lying on my huge bed, with cat at my side, full fridge, iPhone, iPad, car with full tank in the garage, 100 sqm apartment I own in the comfy part of the city. Steady, mostly passive income. Free healthcare working ok, education.

                  Why would I want communism? I would have to be not okay in the head

                  • jorp@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Ignoring climate change and its root causes will surely make it go away.

                    Your zen bullshit is costing future generations.

                  • killingspark@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    If you have mostly passive income to pay for all that you are actively taking the gains produced by the labour of others that are most likely not as comfortable as you. Are you ok with that, or do you at least get why people get frustrated at that?

                  • VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    As someone who’s not a doomer, with her Rage fueled Hope, and Hope fueled Rage:

                    Deep down, I know you cant believe this status quo can stand for much longer than it has.

                    If someone earns a dollar they didnt work for, someone else worked for a dollar they didnt earn.

                    As someone who’s transitioned out of economic privilege, I know how hollow all that iPicketFence really is.

                    You cant really expect others to aspire to that plastic existence.

                    You can’t really believe that endless colonization, that your comfort depending on someone of lower economic class existing, wont eventually result in fascism.

                    So that’s why the “Scratch a lib and a fash bleeds” phrase rings true. Thank you for airing out all your laundry for all to screencap, demonstrating just how that when we discuss what neoliberalism pushes, we can see it for thr prefiguration of a right wing authoritarian regime waiting to cannibalize it’s own nation.

                    Austerity Kills. Food Not Bombs. Housing is a human right. No Human is Illegal. Threats to the bodily autonomy of any Non-Man or Non-White are a threat for all. These are not utopia or naive, these are the bare basic conditions of humanity that have been stolen from the people, and causes for which local organizing today can tangibly improve lives being lived now AND prefigure a society that we can maybe even, someday have good reason to be proud of. Screw the fear, screw the dread, go build some connections with folks who are also putting in the work for these things, it reinvigorates the soul. (And sure helps reduce time spent with your pocket amulet)

                • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Cool but you are even more guilty than me if you just wait for some idealistic, mythical system to solve all problems instead of acting with what is here. Now.

                  You were sold some horseshit ma’am/sir

                  • VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Ive got much better things to do and a painful awareness of how much time gets sucked into these apps. As such, I engage on my terms:

                    Dont wait or engage too much with bait like the poster im replying to comrades. Organize, be out with your local community and build that dual power. Dont let the threat of state violence or surveillance cow you into policing your own beliefs. Fight for your rights bc you need them, because Only We Keep Us Safe.