• index@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    5 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
      3
      ·
      5 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.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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.