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.
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.
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.
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Aren’t liberals leftists though?
Cannot tell if this is meant sarcastically? Probably?
Just in case you are serious:
Often debated because neither is well defined and liberal is used by different people to mean totally different things. As I would use the term, liberals are in favor of liberating markets and nothing else. Leftists are people who are in favor of progressive and emancipatory politics. So for me, liberals are definitely no leftists.
It was serious, in my head both were just terms for left wing further left than central left but not like extremist left wing.
Ah OK, really depends where you live. In Germany, for example, the liberal party is notoriously anti-left and usually allies with the main conservative, right-wing party. When it was founded after WW2 many Nazis joined it.
And it also depends what you mean by left vs right wing. In the US, the democrat party may be considered left leaning? But in comparison to many European left wing parties, it might be more of a centrist or even right-wing party. None of these terms can be really pin pointed down to an exact meaning and they are usually relative to other positions surrounding them. For me, defining liberal as market liberal seems like the most sensible definition, but then you might consider the US american Republican party to be liberal as well? Confusing!
And what is extremist left wing? Some people even consider human rights and medical care for everyone to be extremist left. Again, these terms always go in relation to other position like described via the overton window.
Liberals are not leftists if we define the status quo as capitalism and leftism as the progressive opposition to the status quo
(and those are the definitions I and probably any honest socialist uphold)
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.
Ah thanks I think that clears it up for me.
This isn’t really true, even with being extremely vague.
Liberalism, as described by Locke, was primarily concerned with individual liberty (as mentioned), but included in those liberties was the right to private property. In fact, he was among the first to describe it as a ‘natural law’.
US liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the social liberties, and neo-liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the personal property.
Leftist politics, being primarily oriented along a materialist axis, is concerned with both social and economic liberation and identifies systems of oppression in both governance and capital owners. Referring to ‘liberals’ as ‘leftist’ ignores the central ideological focus of leftist politics to begin with.
Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.
maybe in the purest sense of the word. Personally I find the label “left” to be pretty pointless anyway.
I’m so fucked up by all of this. I don’t know what anything means anymore and depending on who I’m talking to, I’m either a faithless child-diddling monster, or I’m a genocide-supporting class traitor.
And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded. I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.Here comes the ramble:
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Will the disengaged people even know if it gets bad enough that they should start engaging? Congress is already working on banning TikTok because of Gaza. A congress that doesn’t need to pretend to abide by the law would have already done that 8-10 months ago. The media, owned by a few corporations, already mostly shapes the U.S. worldview. What happens when the outliers - PBS starts parroting Fox News talking points by government mandate, and independent news sites are suddenly no longer reachable?
If folks do know things are bad, and they do band together to try to do something about it - how do they manage? Any number of reasons can be dreamed up to disenfranchise. In my state, weed is legal. A quick cross-reference of the state weed registry with the voter registry and possibly a quick demographics check (because we know they’d do that), and the federal government can throw whoever they want in jail, prevent us from ever voting, or remove our ability to earn a living for any dreamed up reason. Revolution? A country that’s geographically unassailable will continue to be unassailable. Plus you have the propaganda/information control and the general docility of the U.S. population.I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.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.
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.
Fellow ADHDer here, I’m an anarchist so it might not be the kind of thing you’re looking for but I’ve found the Audible Anarchist podcast to be really good. Relatively short (10-20 minute) essay readings, I like them when I’m doing chores and need the stimulation.
Not who you replied to, but I’ve spoken with them before. They haven’t read much theory at all, if any, hence the recommendations last time. I’m sure they will appreciate your recs as well, they aren’t a committed Marxist or anything.
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
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.
-
As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I’d be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don’t want it back either.
Cuba, I’d say they had equality for citizens which they don’t, not a good example either.
China… Really?? Marxism? Really?? We’re glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.
“The truths of Marxism are myriad, but it all comes down to one line: ‘Rebellion is justified!’” When the CCP was waging revolution and still trying to gain national power, this statement was a powerful shot in the arm. Once it became the ruling party, to bring this up again was to invite revolt against itself. That was exactly what happened in the Cultural Revolution. Its result was catastrophic, because Mao as a revolutionary was unable to make the transition from “breaking” to “making”. He once claimed: “There is no making without breaking. The making is in the breaking.” But that was just revolutionary romanticism misaligned with reality. In truth, it is much harder to “make” than to “break”. Source - https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/new-paradigm-needed-china-cannot-achieve-common-prosperity-marxism-and-class-struggle
You’re expressing wonderful ideals.
They don’t seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.
My argument is that it won’t and hasn’t ever.
When a developer writes a program that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it’ll work.
As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I’d be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don’t want it back either.
This is nothing but anecdotal evidence and a blanket claim that the USSR was bad just because it was illegally dissolved. Although it varies from State to State, the majority of residents polled in former-Soviet countries approved of the USSR and wished for it to remain.
Cuba, I’d say they had equality for citizens which they don’t, not a good example either.
Genuinely, what do you mean by this? They have far better quality of life metrics like life expectancy, and more democratic means to sway things than they did under Batista and fascist slavery. It has a more progressive LGBT legal code than America does these days.
China… Really?? Marxism? Really?? We’re glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.
China is currently Dengist, ie practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. If you want to read about it, consider reading China has Billionaires. The PRC shifted away from Maoism, an evolution on Marxism-Leninism, after the Cultural Revolution. Despite the myriad failures of the Cultural Revolution, Life Expectancy still doubled under Mao, and there was a nearly totally equal redistribution of land from the landowners to the peasants.
You’re expressing wonderful ideals.
They don’t seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.
My argument is that it won’t and hasn’t ever.
You haven’t really made an argument yet, you’ve made blanket statements like “I don’t think so” and whatnot. You haven’t analyzed anything, and some of your points are directly disprovable with a quick google search, such as the bit on Cuba and the USSR.
When a developer writes a program that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it’ll work.
Again, false and vibes-based. Marxism has evolved over time, Marxist thinkers have introduced new analysis with existing theory. That’s why there’s even such a thing as Marxism-Leninism or Maoism.
Additionally, you make it seem like Marxism is when you murder people, which outside of Revolution is historically false again.
Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?
Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?
Yeah, I’m not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don’t think I need to write a book to make a point.
You aren’t arguing in good faith. You’re ignoring facts and history.
Murders don’t end in those countries because the revolution is ‘finished’. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.
Is China such a success that they’re using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?
https://rsf.org/en/beaten-death-state-security-rsf-shocked-gruesome-murder-independent-journalist-china https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_August https://www.cato.org/blog/death-cuban-dissidents https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-disregard-for-human-rights/
Do you have any argument that doesn’t involve a bloodletting of society?
Yeah, I’m not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don’t think I need to write a book to make a point.
But you have been, as I proved.
You aren’t arguing in good faith. You’re ignoring facts and history.
Enlighten me. I have posted sources for my claims.
Murders don’t end in those countries because the revolution is ‘finished’. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.
Do they? Is that historically accurate? If by “disagreement” you mean collaboration with the Nazis or the fascist White Army, you’re deliberately obfuscating the facts.
Is China such a success that they’re using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?
China certainly isn’t perfect, not by any stretch. Don’t confuse support for Marxism for saying every single AES country is perfect in every way. That would be idealism, not Materialism. Overall though, the scope of harm committed by China pales in comparison to US and the rest of the West.
Do you have any argument that doesn’t involve a bloodletting of society?
Revolution will happen regardless of how we feel about it. Blaming the oppressed for turning against their oppressors instead of blaming the oppressors for creating the conditions for Revolution in the first place is victim blaming.
Do you condemn Dessalines for the blood in history’s most successful Slave Revolt in Haiti?
I think the big thing is to not demean the people who are calling for bigger measures. Plenty of us appreciate that gradual sustainable reform where life goes on and everyone keeps going to work then going home would be super cool, but dont think its possible. I don’t really see people get confronted for wanting to try reform, its when reform types tell more revolutionary folk that they’re “just as bad” for not wanting to roll over for something thats increasingly imminent.
You seem like a fine, thoughtful person. Thats great, we need that. Just understand we also need people who are preparing for and discussing what comes next if reform doesn’t work.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?).
You are mixing desire of change(conservative vs reformist) with relations of policy and economy(socialism vs capitalism).
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
You call them centrist, I call them center-right at best. It looks more right-wing than LDPR(former LDPSS, first right-wing party in USSR) or Russia of the Future(Navalny’s party, center-right).
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible.
Yeah, it’s 21st century. I don’t see it happening.
I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
Smart society needs members of that society to be smart. Which means they need to attend school regardless of having a farm.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems. Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options,
Welcome to political apathy.
and I think broadcasting moral superiority,
If only legism was moral superiority. Then legists of Third Reich would be “morally superior”. Well, they did claim to be superior everywhere. Didn’t help in Nuremberg.
Meanwhile people who built universal education, universal healthcare, public transit and welfare systems in my country weren’t legists.
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.
Seriously couldn’t be more well put.
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.
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
- “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.
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.
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.
Tankies are fascist in my book.
What’s a tankie? Any Marxist? How is Marxism “fascist?” What is fascism in your view, and how does it match up to Eco’s 14 points:
-
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
-
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
-
The cult of action for action’s sale. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
-
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
-
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
-
Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
-
The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
-
The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
-
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
-
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
-
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
-
Machismo and Weaponry. “This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”
-
Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
-
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
None of that answers the question, I’m well aware of Marxism-Leninism and the term “red-fash,” I don’t see how linking wikipedia articles on both of those terms answers how ML applies to Eco’s 14 points on fascism.
It doesn’t hit all 14, but it’s a good chunk of them. You don’t need to hit all 14 to be considered Fascist.
Those are not Eco’s 14 points, those are a brand new set of points, unsupported and uncited, from an Anarchist’s perspective. Marxism in general would be considered Right-Wing in the eyes of the author, who again just made 9 blanket, unsupported vibes-based claims. The USSR and Marxism-Leninism only really hit one or two points of the espoused 14 from Eco, much fewer than the vast majority of current states.
Additionally, Bernard Henri Lévy, the author cited by the author of your article as the basis for the article, is a Zionist, and is anti-palestine. He’s also pro-American, and pro-liberal, not a leftist.
“Bernard-Henri Lévy has used the term in arguing that some European intellectuals have been infatuated with anti-Enlightenment theories and embraced a new absolutist ideology, one that is anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-imperialist, antisemitic and pro-Islamofascist.”
It seems to me that being anti-anti-imperialism, and being a Zionist yet attacking Marxism might call into question Lévy’s motives.
Did you actually read Ur-fascism from Umberto Eco, or did you just google “Marxism fascism” and grab one of the first results? Neither your previous comment nor this one have answered my question.
Why do I need to write a 20-page thesis on why tankies are fascists? If you’re a Tankie, and it seems like you are because you are being very defensive, what could I write that could convince you that tankies are fascists?
Let’s try this another way.
Do you personally believe that democracies are good? That law should be decided by people?
Or do you believe that authoritarians are the best way to rule?
-
When asked about Fascism, Liberals are Obi Wan. If course I know him… He is me
Ain’t that the truth!
Since they already did that once this time it means we destroy it for good (in the end)!