Being liberal, by definition, is not opposite fascism. That is in no way the definition of the political ideology known as liberalism. If you are going to speak on politics then educate yourself. Liberalism is an ideology that values free markets and the right to private property, that’s it. That’s the base of liberalism, that’s all it is about.
Due to liberalism valuing private property and the right to fuck over other countries with imperialist wealth extraction - sorry, “free markets”, this leads to the interests of the liberal bourgeoise converging with the interests of fascists - Destroying left-wing movements. Liberals have historically supported fascist movements both abroad as a means of destabilising other countries in order to easier extract wealth from said countries markets and at home as a means of ensuring the pillaged wealth does not get taken away from them by filthy unions or other nasty leftist idiosyncracies.
Your idea of fascism is one that is limited to “do they think gay people are allowed to breathe and do they put burning crosses in their yards? If they do, then they’re fascists. So since liberals don’t care about gay people as long as they can take their shit and extract surplus value from them, then they can’t be fascist!” This is a childish, naive and completely incorrect understanding of fascism and liberalism. The nazi SA were led by a gay man, does this mean the SA aren’t fascist?
Liberalism will often find itself nominally in support of personal liberties such as the right to abortion or the right to own slaves or the right to be gay or the right to molest children or the right to increase rents on the hot single mom until she agrees to sleep with you. Liberalism will abandon any such support as soon as any group becomes a threat to their property or wealth. This is because political ideologies do not appear cleanly in the real world, they are shaped by the circumstances in which they exist, and so you will find all sorts of things that might confuse a half-wit like you. Socialists that don’t support queer rights for example - or “socialists” if we’re being pedantic, since socialists seek to work towards communism and so any persecution of minorities is inherently at odds with the core of the socialist project, but that’s for another time.
I guess what they mean is that liberals and fascist share a same imperialist ideal, even if they disagree on how to reach it. A bit as anarchism and communism share the same aim but with different means.
If you are favorable to the aim, the means may also matter to you. But if you are strongly opposed to the aim itself, you could get irritated if you were asked to choose the lesser evil way to reach it.
Librealism uses finance while fascism uses police and army ; of course most real regimes tend to use both at different level…
Also, liberalism value free market, while fascism don’t. Liberalism let other ideas exist (and corrupt them) while fascism doesn’t let them exist. One buy and abuse, the other one destroy ; it is not the same means (just the same aim reached).
I cannot imagine speaking on a subject like you do, while knowing fuck all about it like you do. Every ideology makes use of force (like military and police) and every ideology relates somehow to the mode of production and the resulting economy. Both liberalism and fascism allows for “other ideas” to exist - every ideology allows for such a vague vibes-based statement, please shut the fuck up when you don’t know what you are talking about.
And if you do insist on continuing this discussion then at least read what the person you are responding to wrote. Liberalism is about the right to private property and free markets, it uses force to uphold these things. It makes use of the same means as fascism, the actual thing that differs is the utopic end, but because the real material world does not care about why you do slavery, mass incarceration, bust unions, kill labor organisers, invade foreign countries in order to extract natural resources, create monopolies and all the other stuff that results from capitalism - which is the base of both ideologies - then that leads to the same end result.
Next time you’re going to talk over me about something you don’t understand, quote the part you’re responding to - and make sure there isn’t already a part directly adressing the thing you’re saying - so I can know you have actually read what I wrote. That’s basic courtesy.
I read you, but you seem very confused to me. Also, you may try to believe that Tony Blair is just a copy of Mussolini, I see clear differences in how they managed their respective country.
Also, as my aim is to resist both, I prefer try to identify each well. May it helps you more to mix them?
You pretty clearly do not read me. You talk over me and make up positions I do not hold. You write statements on subjects that I have already addressed, yet you do not acknowledge this, making this interaction far more difficult than it has to be.
Also, you may try to believe that Tony Blair is just a copy of Mussolini, I see clear differences in how they man aged their respective country.
Quote the part where I write anything that justifies this statement. Explain why the part you are quoting justifies such a reductive statement. Go through the reasoning and provide your counterargument, as a civil person does when engaged in discussion.
Since it is in your interest to oppose these ideologies, then it is likewise in your interest to understand them. That you cannot hold more than a reductive view of ideologies boiled down to “liberalism is when finance, fascism is when force” is sadly not an issue I can do anything about. I would appreciate it that you do not put your lacking understanding upon me.
I was claiming liberals and fascists use different ways. You denied it and claim they are toe same and use the same way.
So I toou a typically liberal leader (Blair) and a typical fascist leader (Mussolini) so you can show me how they have handled their country the same.
If you find differences, it may help you at fighting them both. If you want to make me believe they are the same, you will need to erase my history knowledges first. Or may you can point at historical things that support your views?
Removed by mod
Lol. It’s peak reddit shithead pseudo intellectual to think just putting “by definition” randomly in a statement makes it true
Being liberal, by definition, is not opposite fascism. That is in no way the definition of the political ideology known as liberalism. If you are going to speak on politics then educate yourself. Liberalism is an ideology that values free markets and the right to private property, that’s it. That’s the base of liberalism, that’s all it is about.
Due to liberalism valuing private property and the right to fuck over other countries with imperialist wealth extraction - sorry, “free markets”, this leads to the interests of the liberal bourgeoise converging with the interests of fascists - Destroying left-wing movements. Liberals have historically supported fascist movements both abroad as a means of destabilising other countries in order to easier extract wealth from said countries markets and at home as a means of ensuring the pillaged wealth does not get taken away from them by filthy unions or other nasty leftist idiosyncracies.
Your idea of fascism is one that is limited to “do they think gay people are allowed to breathe and do they put burning crosses in their yards? If they do, then they’re fascists. So since liberals don’t care about gay people as long as they can take their shit and extract surplus value from them, then they can’t be fascist!” This is a childish, naive and completely incorrect understanding of fascism and liberalism. The nazi SA were led by a gay man, does this mean the SA aren’t fascist?
Liberalism will often find itself nominally in support of personal liberties such as the right to abortion or the right to own slaves or the right to be gay or the right to molest children or the right to increase rents on the hot single mom until she agrees to sleep with you. Liberalism will abandon any such support as soon as any group becomes a threat to their property or wealth. This is because political ideologies do not appear cleanly in the real world, they are shaped by the circumstances in which they exist, and so you will find all sorts of things that might confuse a half-wit like you. Socialists that don’t support queer rights for example - or “socialists” if we’re being pedantic, since socialists seek to work towards communism and so any persecution of minorities is inherently at odds with the core of the socialist project, but that’s for another time.
I guess what they mean is that liberals and fascist share a same imperialist ideal, even if they disagree on how to reach it. A bit as anarchism and communism share the same aim but with different means.
If you are favorable to the aim, the means may also matter to you. But if you are strongly opposed to the aim itself, you could get irritated if you were asked to choose the lesser evil way to reach it.
Communism and anarchism do not share the same aim. The only thing they have in common is that both are revolutionary.
No, liberalism leads to fascism as I just explained. Liberalism is in no way opposed to “the means” as you put it.
Librealism uses finance while fascism uses police and army ; of course most real regimes tend to use both at different level…
Also, liberalism value free market, while fascism don’t. Liberalism let other ideas exist (and corrupt them) while fascism doesn’t let them exist. One buy and abuse, the other one destroy ; it is not the same means (just the same aim reached).
I cannot imagine speaking on a subject like you do, while knowing fuck all about it like you do. Every ideology makes use of force (like military and police) and every ideology relates somehow to the mode of production and the resulting economy. Both liberalism and fascism allows for “other ideas” to exist - every ideology allows for such a vague vibes-based statement, please shut the fuck up when you don’t know what you are talking about.
And if you do insist on continuing this discussion then at least read what the person you are responding to wrote. Liberalism is about the right to private property and free markets, it uses force to uphold these things. It makes use of the same means as fascism, the actual thing that differs is the utopic end, but because the real material world does not care about why you do slavery, mass incarceration, bust unions, kill labor organisers, invade foreign countries in order to extract natural resources, create monopolies and all the other stuff that results from capitalism - which is the base of both ideologies - then that leads to the same end result.
Next time you’re going to talk over me about something you don’t understand, quote the part you’re responding to - and make sure there isn’t already a part directly adressing the thing you’re saying - so I can know you have actually read what I wrote. That’s basic courtesy.
I read you, but you seem very confused to me. Also, you may try to believe that Tony Blair is just a copy of Mussolini, I see clear differences in how they managed their respective country.
Also, as my aim is to resist both, I prefer try to identify each well. May it helps you more to mix them?
You pretty clearly do not read me. You talk over me and make up positions I do not hold. You write statements on subjects that I have already addressed, yet you do not acknowledge this, making this interaction far more difficult than it has to be.
Quote the part where I write anything that justifies this statement. Explain why the part you are quoting justifies such a reductive statement. Go through the reasoning and provide your counterargument, as a civil person does when engaged in discussion.
Since it is in your interest to oppose these ideologies, then it is likewise in your interest to understand them. That you cannot hold more than a reductive view of ideologies boiled down to “liberalism is when finance, fascism is when force” is sadly not an issue I can do anything about. I would appreciate it that you do not put your lacking understanding upon me.
I was claiming liberals and fascists use different ways. You denied it and claim they are toe same and use the same way.
So I toou a typically liberal leader (Blair) and a typical fascist leader (Mussolini) so you can show me how they have handled their country the same.
If you find differences, it may help you at fighting them both. If you want to make me believe they are the same, you will need to erase my history knowledges first. Or may you can point at historical things that support your views?