809
submitted 4 months ago by schizoidman@lemm.ee to c/world@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19046336

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 101 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 25 points 4 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 9 points 4 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 10 points 4 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] index@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 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.

[-] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 17 points 4 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 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 3 points 4 months ago

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

[-] Junkhead@slrpnk.net 7 points 4 months ago

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

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 9 points 4 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 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 12 points 4 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.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

I am not fighting for anything. I am enjoying my life in a capitalist society. Thank you very much.

[-] jorp@lemmy.world 9 points 4 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 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 12 points 4 months ago

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

Your zen bullshit is costing future generations.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You got some point with the climate, we should do more for sure. But seeing communism as some kind of holy grail solution is absurd.

Problem is no one wants to resign from all the goodies and comforts. We could solve it overnight if only people truly were ready for sacrifices but everyone uses maximum excuses to not do anything.

Some wait for communism to solve it. Very comfortable position. We all have our scapegoats.

[-] jorp@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

A socialist economy where workers own the businesses means that the people making the decisions will be sensitive to their impact on the average person, rather than multi billionaires building bunkers to survive the collapse.

It means people will not vote to pollute their own water supply to make a buck.

It's not a holy grail, but it's a solution because it makes the economy democratic rather than dictatorial.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Let me tell you what happened here some time ago.
After the government seized the means of production to people they gave each worker a share in the company.
On that same day the workers sold it or lost it, bought vodka or cigarettes for the few pennies they made. Not much was left in the original hands. Someone bought the majority.

The ideal economic system works perfect under perfect conditions. Capitalism works ok under most of conditions.

Evolution of economic systems is not a history of choosing the perfect one but elimination of these that failed.

[-] jorp@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

That's a poor implementation just like there are myriad poor implementations of capitalism

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] killingspark@feddit.org 5 points 4 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?

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Life ain’t no Disneyland sweetheart. Some are on the losing side and some are the winners.

I will win no matter the system. It’s merely a different set of rules to bend and leverage

[-] killingspark@feddit.org 6 points 4 months ago

I get that being on the winner side is convenient. I am too. I just see that constantly winning seems to lead the world into a pretty bad state overall where, suddenly, noone is a winner anymore.

And all it would take to not get into the disaster scenario would be some redistribution. Doesn't even mean you can't be a winner anymore. Just means you get to win less hard.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] VerticaGG 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] VerticaGG 4 points 4 months ago

🎵 The price of convenience will be our defeat 🎵

I'd also reccomend Skyline Blvd, John's Song and Times New Roman. Oh and Sleepwalker, from the Destroy What Destroys you album

load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
809 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39347 readers
2418 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS