you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 month ago (32 children)

idk if i'd call liberals antifascists; not credible as that. they specialize in losing to fascists while blaming everyone but themselves

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (26 children)

    The funny thing is there's a comment from just a few minutes ago saying the auth-left definitely doesn't oppose fascists either.

    So if we want to play games with terms and further the exact infighting I'm criticizing, I guess nobody apart from anarchists is against fascism? Doesn't make any sense, but I guess you don't have to make sense if you're just here to bicker.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    you simultaneously accuse me of bickering and try to get me to defend a caricature of a position... that you constructed for me

    i said liberals are not credible opponents of fascism. my reasoning being they are not really opposed to fascism as much as upholding capitalism.

    MLs oppose both, i can work with them on those things at least. with liberals i have to worry that they're going to turn me into the police.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    The ridiculous part of this that you don't seem to see is that liberals oppose fascism mildly and you refuse to ally with them to get rid of fascism.

    Fascism is just over there in the corner smirking, glad you hate liberals too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    my issue is that liberals aren't going to resolve fascism because they create the material conditions for fascism.

    fascism doesn't appear from nowhere, it emerges from the immiseration and instability that capitalism produces, something liberals are content to 'manage' without resolving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Okay, imagine someone is blasting your house with a high-pressure hose, breaking all its windows, flooding it, etc.

    Your argument is to target the people who make plastic because that hose nozzle has plastic, rather than either convincing them to stop selling hoses to psychopaths or targeting the psychopath with the hose.

    Again, the guy with the hose is just glad you're focusing your efforts elsewhere while he destroys everything you have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    that metaphor is incoherent and doesn't really engage anything i said, so i'll pass

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Nah, you just weren't able to comprehend it, either because you couldn't no matter what you did or because you refused to try.

    I do find that lemmy.ml tankies tend to refuse to think. They're intelligent when they bother, including when they're not busy propagandizing themselves or others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Even if the person "wasn't able to comprehend" your analogy made from your supreme intellect, that means it failed as an analogy. The point of the analogy is to put an argument into a more understandable perspective. If it doesn't do that, it is, by the nature of it's purpose, a bad analogy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Even if the person “wasn’t able to comprehend” your analogy made from your supreme intellect

    A significant exaggeration to malign me as arrogant/elitist. It's like you ignored the entire last sentence of my comment. Classic tankie BS.

    Enjoy the block.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    oppose fascism mildly

    What does this mean?

    Because their opposition does not work.

    Let's look at Germany, their favorite example. The liberal position was to compromise with the fascists, and attempt to put in Hindenberg as the stop gap. The problem was that Hindenberg was unwilling to EVER accept liberal or social democratic (SPD) government. And so when he couldn't find conservatives to keep power, he put the Nazis in power.

    The "mild" opposition of liberals is only for fascism - they're very good at holding down the left while they let the fascists take power, and that's exactly the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    liberals oppose fascism mildly

    mildly

    I feel like the argument here makes itself. The point of post is that liberals don't actually do anything significant to oppose fascism, or as you put it, only "mildly" opposing fascism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The issue is you're implying Both Sides Are The Same, which is simply BS.

    Active, open fascism is clearly worse than tepid inability to oppose it effectively. Pretending that's not the case is just propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Which of these people was leader of Germany 2 years later? Inability to oppose fascism still permits it to take power. The only way to stop fascism is taking an actual firm stand against it, which liberals don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    By my understanding, the left seeks to diffuse political power as widely and evenly as possible, while the right seeks to consolidate it.

    Communism works only if there's a mechanism to assure that the command economy actually serves the public and not the political class. So when we look at USSR, it was authoritarian since Stalin.

    Similarly the Democratic Republic of the Congo was a Leninist Democracy until France came in and installed a puppet dictator. It's still called the Democratic Republic, I think.

    Reagan did the same thing to Grenada in 1983. That was especially conspicuous since there weren't any major resources or strategic points involved. It was about black folks making a public-serving government work.

    This is why I don't understand what Tankies are, unless they're to the left what Christian Nationalists are to Christianity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    So when we look at USSR, it was authoritarian since Stalin.

    That's a popular view, promoted most by Troskyists and Orwell.

    That said, the original bullshit of dissolving the Soviets by the claim the Party was the voice of the people was actually done by . . . Trotsky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Makes sense actually.

    Similarly, the seeds of the dissolution of democracy are built into the Constitution of the United States, in the preservation of institutionalized slavery and safeguards against mob rule is est, the loss of white male landowner power to poors, blacks and women as they respectively gain suffrage. It was meant all along to be democracy but not really.

    Isildur should have thrown the damn ring into Mount Doom when he had the chance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Totally. There's a great book called The Founder's Coup, which goes into exhaustive detail about how the Constitution was absolutely designed to stop democracy - most specifically, that which could threaten debt collection. See Shay's Rebellion, a very ignored topic on much US casual history.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    By my understanding, the left seeks to diffuse political power as widely and evenly as possible, while the right seeks to consolidate it.

    No, that discounts the Auth-Left, who consolidates power in the form of a Vanguard Party and/or autocrat.

    Communism works only if there’s a mechanism to assure that the command economy actually serves the public and not the political class. So when we look at USSR, it was authoritarian since Stalin.

    It was authoritarian before that, but Stalin was definitely the cherry on top.

    The rest of your comment is true; capitalists have an extensive history of installing pro-capitalist dictatorships.

    This is why I don’t understand what Tankies are, unless they’re to the left what Christian Nationalists are to Christianity.

    To me, a "tankie" is more or less the Auth-Left, more or less a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist, in the sense that they believe that as long as the goal is ostensibly some form of socialism (or "socialism"), no amount of brutality, cruelty, or immorality can be too far.

    On lemmy.world, they hail from @lemmy.ml 99% of the time, and you'll see them doing mental gymnastics to defend Russia's invasion of Ukraine and denying things like the Holodomor and the Uyghur genocide. You'll also see them making moves to take down the USA rather than reform it for the better, no matter how many people suffer and die in the process. There's a lot of overlap with accelerationism in my opinion, as I suspect a lot of the people in this thread and others are trying to convince people the DNC isn't worth voting for because it will help the GOP win, bringing on a second US civil war and/or a massive and bloody world-wide class-war/revolution, killing millions or even billions but possibly resulting in a socialist government faster.

    Tankies will claim that any non-tankie slaps "tankie" on any socialist or communist, but that's not true for any reasonable person, hopefully myself included.


    Surprising no one, the tankies were very upset by being described here, including one whom I've blocked that replied something below.

    Go ahead, ask them if Russia's invasion of Ukraine is imperialist or if China's oppression of the Uyghurs is a genocide, and watch the definition of "imperialism" and "genocide" change before your very eyes.

    The common theme is "as long as it somehow opposes western capitalism, nothing can be immoral."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Tankies will claim that any non-tankie slaps "tankie" on any socialist or communist

    Except they do. I don't know which of you taught the liberals that word, but it was a very very bad move. Now it means "anyone who criticized Joe Biden while he tried to start WWIII".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Well, the classic definition of right and left is in accordance with or opposition to the king, respectively.

    I think it moved from there to pro- / anti-monarchism when the notion of monarchy was challenged in the 19th century.

    After the French revolution, foreign neighbors demands France select a new king under threat of war. The War of the First Coalition results and Napoleon shows them what's what. Then Napoleon declares himself emperor and declares a bunch of civil rights to get everyone on board. Later, during the Bourbon restoration, Charles X rolls those rights back necessitating a second revolution. It'll take about seventy years or so before France establishes a proper republic, and another thirty-ish years to re-establish rights. And there are some controversies today, such as the right to practice Islam and wear a burqa.

    These days, we see multi-party democracies as the most liberal, but voters can be manipulated, as per the Southern Strategy. Today, a massive far-right propaganda machine runs in the US 24/7 using the same brainwashing techniques used on US soldiers in Korea. So it's possible democracy is already obsolete due to modern communications and... well, they call it messaging.

    One option is sortition, that is, election by lottery. This drastically increases the odds we won't get officials like Ted Cruz or JD Vance (fhat is, shapeshifters who have no principles but can say anything, feigning confidence and sincerity to stay adjacent to power). We'll need redundant checks against corruption and incompetence. We might also need a system that sorts experts from lobbyists, to provide our citizen-officials complete information and a public-serving mandate.

    That said, I can't imagine what else leftism can mean. It certainly doesn't refer to command economics such as socialism or communism, since those, on their own, more authoritarian than a free market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    I cannot discern a point to your comment other than to muddy the waters by eroding the modern definitions of "left" and "right." Maybe you just enjoy pedantry?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Motherfucker we are the og antifats you better get your shit straight

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Holy historical revisionism.

    What shit did you smoke to have you spout such bullshit?

    Historically, liberals enabled and worked with the fascists to disenfranchise the communists and the anarchists, ya know, the actual OG antifascists.

  • source
  • parent