There are 2 types of people who hate on Democrats
There are 2 types of people who hate on Democrats
43 comments
-
The fun thing about being a liberal is the lefties thing you're a fascist and the righties think you're a communist.
-
the number of times i've seen a scratched lib turn fash surprised me... at first.
-
On the political compass subreddit they called them watermelons - green on the outside (libertarian left), red on the inside (authoritarian left). I realize they're not really left at all, but the authoritarianism is baked in.
-
To be clear, the Political Compass is a measurement of what the Heritage Foundation believes, not to mention the numerous flaws within the testing mechanisms themselves.
-
Do you have a source for that? The Wikipedia page about it doesn't mention it and mentions other sources, which I guess could be tied to the heritage foundation but even clicking through links I couldn't find any connection.
I'm not saying there isn't plenty to criticize about the concept and where they place particular individuals. That's just the first time I've heard this claim, and I'm curious about it.
-
It isn't a heritage foundation outlet, the creator of the Political Compass based the ideas of "libertatian-authoritarian" and "left-right" on how the Heritage Foundation sees those aspects.
-
The video Everything wrong with the Political Compass by revolutionaryth0t is great if you want to inform yourself on why it is a bad measurement tool. It's been a while since I watched it, but iirc they mention how it is based on the Heritage Foundation's ideas at some point in the video.
-
-
-
-
Well actually it is impossible for a liberal to turn into a fascist as they are two completely different ideologies.
-
Liberalism and fascism are the same ideology in different economic and social circumstances. That's why the saying goes "scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds," the underlying system supported by both is heavily based on the private ownership of the means of production.
-
the underlying system supported by both is heavily based on the private ownership of the means of production.
This might be true but there are some significant differences between the two as well.
-
Such as?
-
Well one is a liberal and the other is a fascist to start.
-
Liberalism and fascism are descriptors for superstructural ideology sprouting from the same base in different circumstances. The liberal Weimar Republic quickly became the fascist Nazi Germany not out of a pivot in underlying ideas, necessarily, but due to the natural changing material conditions the same Mode of Production found itself in.
Liberalism and fascism are tied.
-
The liberal Weimar Republic quickly became the fascist Nazi Germany…
But there’s a reason why you called it the liberal Weimar Republic and the fascist Nazi Germany and not the fascist Weimar Republic and the liberal Nazi Germany and that’s because they are different.
-
Your original comment is that it's impossible for a liberal to turn into a fascist. The reality of fascism and liberalism is that they are ideological justifications for the same system in different circumstances, they aren't competing schools of thought or anything.
-
I concede to your point here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fascism is liberalism's plan B, as confirmed by History and by liberal theory itself.
Historically, look at Latin America (I am Brazilian). All over Latin America, when people elected leftist (not even communist) governments within the institutions of liberal democracy, the elite (with US support) staged a coup and installed a military dictatorship, effectively saying: no, the people are not allowed to choose socialism. So we hereby abolish democracy.
And Jacobin covers the justification for this under liberal theory itself:
So, important liberal thinkers insisted as early as John Locke, you can’t tax the rich without their consent. If you do so, you give the victims of these policies a good reason to rebel and use violence against the usurpers. Liberal politics thus had a dictatorial option inscribed in it from the very beginning. And so it became a dogma to assume that the main task of politics is to protect property, and its principal sin to inveigh against it. But of course, that is a very narrow definition of what politics can or should do. And we suffer from that confinement to this day. In a typical Western democracy, you can do many things — as long as you refrain from infringing on private property. [1]
In short: liberal theory itself gives absolute priority to private property (over the means of production). If it conflicts with democracy, democracy is tossed out the window.
I always clarify "over the means of production" when attacking private property. There is this widespread confusion that communist thugs are going to invade your house and confiscate your bike. AFAIK, communists don't do that.
Fun fact: in 1989 Brazilian elections, neoliberal Collor terrorized the people saying that Lula would confiscate everyone's savings. With infamous support from Rede Globo (massive right-wing biased media corporation), Collor won, then quickly moved to confiscate everyone's savings. Lula was elected in 2002, 2006 and 2022, and did nothing of the sort. Sadly, Lula is not communist, but social democrat.
-
-
-
The thing about pissing your pants is that those cleaner will think you shouldn't piss yourself, and those dirtier will think you should shit yourself.
-
Oh man I should understand this but I failed philosophy.
-
Yeah, we can tell
-
-
-
43 comments