- cross-posted to:
- mop@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- mop@quokk.au
Viewers may find this context helpful:
I’m an anarchist - if you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
Anarchists are vehemently opposed to states such as the USSR and China. We consider them to be as great a danger as fascism.
I personally believe that anarchism is the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
Liberalism is a right-wing ideology which adopts the language of progressiveness, but actually prioritizes the freedom of movement of wealth, e.g. free markets, over the freedom of individuals. Some individual liberties are espoused under liberalism, insofar as those liberties do not interfere with the freedom of capitalists to exploit the working class. I believe fully in the freedom of individuals, as long as those freedoms do not allow for the exploitation or oppression of others.
How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?
Basically, the issue with capitalism is that the more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to make more money. And since money can be used to buy goods, services and influence, there is always a way to use money to gain more political and social power. With that political and social power, you can push society and the legal system in the direction you want to go. So you can use your wealth to gain power, and then you can use your power to change laws and society so that you can make even more wealth and power. It’s a positive feedback loop.
Obviously, though, if the billionaires and ruling class are accumulating more and more of our society’s wealth, that inevitably means that there’s less for everyone else to go around - therefore, working class people feel poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, the economy is going absolutely great for rich people, so inflation continues to go up - everything gets more expensive, but wages don’t increase. The wealthy just keep more and more of the wealth for themselves. To accumulate more and more wealth, they change the laws so that they can avoid paying taxes, so public services collapse. Politicians are lobbied to ensure that public funds are diverted away from where it is most needed - housing, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure - and instead into industries where their class interests most benefit from it, such as weapons manufacturing and extractive industries such as fossil fuels and mining.
The working class are bound to notice that their lives are getting shittier and shittier, and if that situation is left unchecked, the working class would realize that the ruling class are fucking them over, rise up, and overthrow their rulers. Obviously, the ruling class need to do something about this, but there’s no solution that the ruling class can offer. They’re causing all of the problems, to fix them they’d have to give up some of their wealth and power - and that’s not something they’re going to do. So they need to find someone else to blame the problems we have in society on. Unfortunately, though, no matter who they blame the problems on, and no matter what they do to “fix” it, the issue will continue to persist, because the material conditions underlying the issues are, very intentionally, never addressed.
So, the conundrum returns: The ruling class said that minority A caused all of the problems, minority A is persecuted and oppressed, but society doesn’t actually get any better. Either the problem wasn’t minority A, or minority A just hasn’t been oppressed enough yet. So the ruling class can either escalate the oppression, or they can shift the focus to another minority group. The division continues to escalate in terms of how vitriolic and extreme it is, and it also continues to divide the working class into smaller and smaller groups.
To get the working class to buy into this hateful message, they need to take advantage of our worst instincts, and one of those instincts is the in-group bias. The majority are manipulated into being suspicious, then intolerant, then hateful, then violent, then genocidal, towards whatever the targeted minority of the day is. Anything that can be used to divide the working class - sexuality, nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, age, all of these will be used as wedges to keep the working class split apart and not working together, because they know that if the working class actually unite against them, they are completely and truly fucked.
That’s exactly how fascism manifests. It’s because it’s possible for people to accumulate power through wealth. This is why capitalism must be abolished. If we do not abolish capitalism, fascism will always return. It’s just a matter of time.
But can't capitalism can be reformed?
While, of course, some laws to reform capitalism can be passed, and would definitely alleviate the worst harm caused, over the long term, capitalism cannot be reformed.
Any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism.
The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century America.
But the Soviet Union was really oppressive!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
You must log in or register to comment.
Itt people don’t understand liberalism vs socialism
The trick is to understand that left and right both lead to authoritarianism, and anarchism is to step off the spectrum and understand that the people must be free. The only authority you recognise should be one you consent to.
I get what you’re saying, and as we both advocate for anarchism I’m sure we agree on a lot of things - but anarchism actually is far left, not outside of the political spectrum. Left vs. Right is incomplete, though, without consideration to authoritarianism. Authoritarian Leftism, such as that of the USSR, inevitably leads to oppression and centralization of power.
god I miss smoking
Lock this crap. It’s supposed to be shitposts. Move this to political circlejerk or something
How would you improve it to meet the standards of the community?
If it’s crap - a synonym for shit - then it’s exactly where it’s supposed to be, no?
Liberalism is all about personal freedoms, but if you dare criticise liberalism, they will do everything in their power to suppress and censor your voice. It’s all lies, always has been.
No. Go away
No, shitposting is making shitty posts about topics that are normally taken seriously. It’s not a place to dump things that one doesn’t like.
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Literally no one is going to read your one hundred thousand word FAQ.
Did you read any of it? I skimmed around for fifteen minutes and definitely learned some things. I like how it’s hyperlinked—could be even moreso (wiki-style) imho
People rarely read every question and every answer on an FAQ, the idea is that they can look up the answers to their specific questions, and it also serves as a useful resource for anarchists like myself to reference specific answers when someone else asks us a question. I prefer to answer them directly, then back up my answer with a link to where they can read more, and a quote from an anarchist FAQ to back up my position:
Some may object to the length of many of the answers and that is a valid point. However, some questions and issues cannot be dealt with quickly and be considered as remotely convincing. For example, simply stating that anarchists think that capitalism is exploitative and that claims otherwise are wrong may be both correct and short but it hardly a convincing reply to someone aware of the various defences of profit, interest and rent invented by capitalist economists.
ITT: leftists fighting leftists, including the OP
Which is super-ironic considering what the posted meme is
leftists fighting leftists
That’s basically most of what this platform is, I’m realizing. It is always expected to some degree, but there are a lot of users on here who seem to live for starting that up. They act like they’re on a mission from God and are required to do it. OP is 100% like that and I’m blocking him momentarily. I suggest everyone do the same.
ITT: leftists fighting leftists, including the OP
I’m pretty sure OP is just a MAGAT troll that’s successfully stirring shit up with the help of other trolls. like a troll circle jerk.
Blaming the liberals is an auto red flag for me. Whether it’s coming from MAGA or anarchist dips.
Honestly, I am kind of surprised at how invested and single-minded a lot of people are in protecting capitalist propaganda. I doubt any of these commenters are ruling class, but they’re relentlessly berating and smearing me for advocating for the interests of the working class and providing basic political education. It’s really something.
Well, you are misusing established naming conventions and giving off the vibe that you think your definition is the only correct one ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Perfectly summed up.
The closest I have come to a definition is to explain that the political ideology of liberalism is one which puts the greed of the ruling class before the freedoms of the working class. I don’t need to argue about definitions to make that point. We live in a neoliberal world. Look around you - you are forced to work for a living, because of free market economics. If you didn’t work for a living, you would die from lack of food or shelter. Is that freedom?
Thanks for proving my point :)
Okay, if you say so! Have a great day, much love, solidarity forever!
So many now believe the propaganda that liberalism, especially neo-liberalism, is “left.”
I genuinely think a lot of the defensiveness in these comments is actually understandable - people here probably were active online back in the Gamergate era around 2016ish, where “liberals pwned” compilations were popular. I think that people internalized the idea that anti-liberal means anti-progressive.
It was probably partly intentional from the far-right, to secure progressive politics from shifting further left, by making progressives identify with the label “liberal”, even when most of them actually are not.
Let me ask you something - does your definition of liberals essentialy make them socdems?
No
Then what it is? I can’t recall any other commonly used definition that would discard the OP’s
The issue is that “liberal” in itself doesn’t say anything about where you fall on the left/right spectrum. It just says you want less regulation of some sort, which can apply to a lot of things. To rail on “liberals” on the internet without using more precise language is naive at best, deliberately inflammatory at worst.
Look, I get it - “liberal” may just be one of the most bastardized terms you get to work with in the political context. It might just meam anything, depending who you are speaking with.
That said, OP is being explicit in the description and his definition is as academic as it gets. So I still really don’t get all the fuss.
Readers may need context to understand this meme.
You see, OP believes that Leftism is when people become more like the CCP or USSR, an elite classist autocracy in which all are equal below an iron fist. That’s why he thinks Leftism is opposed to Liberalism; the advocacy of Human Rights and Freedoms so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
Basically, OP is a Red Fascist.
Anarchists are vehemently opposed to states such as the USSR and China. We consider them to be as great a danger as fascism.
Yes, apparently reading is hard
Are the DNC members that said yes to AIPAC and dark corporate money these leftists you speak of?
If the DNC had their way, money from AIPAC would have been outlawed 29 years ago. They literally wrote and introduced policy to do that, and passed it later in 2002 only for it to get struck down by the conservative SCOTUS in 2007-2010.
Apologies for my being vague. I wasn’t talking about the DNC 29 years ago but literally the DNC that just voted yes to AIPAC money a few days ago. That DNC.
Yes, you’re not going to vote to have less money for an election cycle while your opponents have full access to all the dark money they desire, that’s why they need to reverse Citizens United and in order to do that we need to give them enough senators for constitutional amendments.
in order to do that we need to give them enough senators for constitutional amendments.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Senators only affect 1/4th of the process.
To propose amendments, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.
To ratify those amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.
I have disproven FiniteBanjo’s argument fully and completely, but rather than remove this outrageous smear, they’ve left it up - probably because they’re a liberal, and liberals can’t help but punch left.
Original reply:
You are completely incorrect.
I’m an anarchist - if you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
Anarchists are vehemently opposed to states such as the USSR and China. We consider them to be as great a danger as fascism.
I personally believe that anarchism is the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
Liberalism is a right-wing ideology which adopts the language of progressiveness, but actually prioritizes the freedom of movement of wealth, e.g. free markets, over the freedom of individuals. Some individual liberties are espoused under liberalism, insofar as those liberties do not interfere with the freedom of capitalists to exploit the working class. I believe fully in the freedom of individuals, as long as those freedoms do not allow for the exploitation or oppression of others.
How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?
Basically, the issue with capitalism is that the more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to make more money. And since money can be used to buy goods, services and influence, there is always a way to use money to gain more political and social power. With that political and social power, you can push society and the legal system in the direction you want to go. So you can use your wealth to gain power, and then you can use your power to change laws and society so that you can make even more wealth and power. It’s a positive feedback loop.
Obviously, though, if the billionaires and ruling class are accumulating more and more of our society’s wealth, that inevitably means that there’s less for everyone else to go around - therefore, working class people feel poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, the economy is going absolutely great for rich people, so inflation continues to go up - everything gets more expensive, but wages don’t increase. The wealthy just keep more and more of the wealth for themselves. To accumulate more and more wealth, they change the laws so that they can avoid paying taxes, so public services collapse. Politicians are lobbied to ensure that public funds are diverted away from where it is most needed - housing, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure - and instead into industries where their class interests most benefit from it, such as weapons manufacturing and extractive industries such as fossil fuels and mining.
The working class are bound to notice that their lives are getting shittier and shittier, and if that situation is left unchecked, the working class would realize that the ruling class are fucking them over, rise up, and overthrow their rulers. Obviously, the ruling class need to do something about this, but there’s no solution that the ruling class can offer. They’re causing all of the problems, to fix them they’d have to give up some of their wealth and power - and that’s not something they’re going to do. So they need to find someone else to blame the problems we have in society on. Unfortunately, though, no matter who they blame the problems on, and no matter what they do to “fix” it, the issue will continue to persist, because the material conditions underlying the issues are, very intentionally, never addressed.
So, the conundrum returns: The ruling class said that minority A caused all of the problems, minority A is persecuted and oppressed, but society doesn’t actually get any better. Either the problem wasn’t minority A, or minority A just hasn’t been oppressed enough yet. So the ruling class can either escalate the oppression, or they can shift the focus to another minority group. The division continues to escalate in terms of how vitriolic and extreme it is, and it also continues to divide the working class into smaller and smaller groups.
To get the working class to buy into this hateful message, they need to take advantage of our worst instincts, and one of those instincts is the in-group bias. The majority are manipulated into being suspicious, then intolerant, then hateful, then violent, then genocidal, towards whatever the targeted minority of the day is. Anything that can be used to divide the working class - sexuality, nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, age, all of these will be used as wedges to keep the working class split apart and not working together, because they know that if the working class actually unite against them, they are completely and truly fucked.
That’s exactly how fascism manifests. It’s because it’s possible for people to accumulate power through wealth. This is why capitalism must be abolished. If we do not abolish capitalism, fascism will always return. It’s just a matter of time.
But can't capitalism can be reformed?
While, of course, some laws to reform capitalism can be passed, and would definitely alleviate the worst harm caused, over the long term, capitalism cannot be reformed.
Any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism.
The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century America.
But the Soviet Union was really oppressive!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
Why the hell do you have such a deep need for clinging to these labels and definitions of them?
There is only one reason that would ever make sense: to degrade those who don’t fully align with your tankie views.
I believe that words are the means to meaning, the building blocks of our ability to communicate ideas. It is important to understand them, and to have shared reality of what words mean.
Again, I am very clearly not a tankie. I am an anarchist. Anarchists have historically been viciously oppressed by tankies. We are enemies.
Sure. You’re an anarchist spreading the word that we have to form a government.
and where am I doing that?
Your definition of Liberalism is directly opposed to modern and classical definitions of the word. Your whole argument now hangs on the ability to change the meanings of words to be whatever you want them to be. Perhaps you’re not a Tankie, although you could be a Tankie trying to mask your disgusting scent, instead you might have simply been mislead by the countless Tankies who came here before you to preach the exact same messages.
Also:
Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
Sounds a lot like a state and not very anarchist. It also presents no real evidence of the atrocities being committed from back then up to today, almost like you’re not allowed to.
The problem with arguing about liberalism is that they talk a good game about freedom and liberty, and it all sounds very wonderful, but we live under a neoliberal system, and everyone can see that the profits of the wealthy are prioritized over the needs of the majority of the working class. Like I said, the freedom of the markets are more important under liberalism than the freedom of people.
I am absolutely opposed to any kind of state, including a “communist” state. I am completely against any and all atrocities committed by any communist regime, including but not limited to the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward. Hope this helps clear it up for you.
Of course, you’re free to disagree, but I hope you can accept that at the very least I am not any kind of fascist or tankie.
We’re not arguing about Liberalism. There is no debate about this. Anybody with a keyboard could type into a search engine and find out you’re just wrong.
That’s okay, we can disagree on that! Would you please kindly retract your statement accusing me of “[believing] that Leftism is when people become more like the CCP or USSR”, and accusing me of being a “red fascist”?
Your political takes are always wrong, Mr. Banjo.
Elaborate
I can’t remember the previous ones, just remember that I’ve disagreed with them and just rolled my eyes at them… but this one is obvious: “liberals” are just diet Western imperialists, who stand for nothing but the status quo and care for nothing but the bag (at least being a racist white supremacist POS has a veneer of ideology behind it, the dumbest of their group truly believe they’re “standing for something”). Idk what was confusing about it or how that ended up in you calling OP a “red fascist”, lol.
You (and many other lemmings) subscribe to a couple of toxic ideas which need to burn in hell:
- Political labels are super useful as long as you get to define them and no one else has any say in what they mean to them personally. Even though clearly people are more complicated than that.
- You get to freely apply these labels as you see fit. If someone disagrees with you, boom, they’re a liberal. Which really just means bad.
That’s not true, you can fit many labels which I disagree with ideologically and morally (so, yeah, “bad”), not just “liberal”. You could be/call yourself a “Zionist” or otherwise “Western imperialist”, or just imperialistic, or you could be a “nationalist”, a “Christian right-winger”, or a Republican/Democrat, or even a “realpolitik pragmatist”.
And out of curiosity, do you believe in Hell or is that just an expression? Liberals are known to stand for nothing, so it would shock me if you did.
I am correct. You allow for no other interpretation of what a liberal is besides what you say it is.
Hell is used metaphorically, as it even was in religious texts. But if I believed a metaphor were concrete and real, it’s beyond obvious we’re living in it now. Please do not try to turn this into a weird religious debate because I used an incredibly common expression, about which I’ve no doubt whatsoever which you knew the meaning of.
I won’t, it’s a waste of both of our times and I’m not that much of a maniac, lol. But we hardly live in Hell (unless you’re in Gaza or Lebanon, idk, in that case I understand your perception of things). Again, I have defined liberal very narrowly: Western imperialists who deny it (to themselves and others), and with better PR and “softer approaches” that aren’t as obviously morally disgusting. It’s not just a catch-all term for everyone who’s a danger to the global community.
But assuming I’m wrong, could you provide me with at least two examples of self-proclaimed “liberals” who are representative of the ideology today and tell me which things they did that you approve of and did not support the status quo of Western global oppression ?
So sick of this shit
Liberalism? Same. It’s an absolute plague on society. We need to get rid of the ability of the ruling class to exert their “freedom” to exploit the working class.
I’m so sick of trumped up infighting and blame being cast on people (victims, you’re blaming the victims) you imagine you can fully define even though you wouldn’t possibly even have a clue what they believe.
I am also sick of infighting among the working class, and the working class being victimized by the ruling class. We need to recognize that the ruling class are our shared enemy, and that they use capitalism to oppress and exploit us, and they hide capitalism behind the shield of liberalism.
Fuck off, you love this shit.
No you are not. I keep seeing you doing a lot of work to “educate” people by telling them their suffering is their own fault.
How would you react to a MAGA supporter suffering the consequences of Trump’s presidency?
The difference is I’m not pretending my blame is inscrutible and high minded because I know the TRUTH.
You’re a funny guy, I like you a lot. Thanks for participating!
Boo. This sucks
Liberalism is a right-wing ideology which adopts the language of progressiveness, but actually prioritizes the freedom of movement of wealth, e.g. free markets, over the freedom of individuals. Some individual liberties are espoused under liberalism, insofar as those liberties do not interfere with the freedom of capitalists to exploit the working class. I believe fully in the freedom of individuals, as long as those freedoms do not allow for the exploitation or oppression of others.
How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?
Basically, the issue with capitalism is that the more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to make more money. And since money can be used to buy goods, services and influence, there is always a way to use money to gain more political and social power. With that political and social power, you can push society and the legal system in the direction you want to go. So you can use your wealth to gain power, and then you can use your power to change laws and society so that you can make even more wealth and power. It’s a positive feedback loop.
Obviously, though, if the billionaires and ruling class are accumulating more and more of our society’s wealth, that inevitably means that there’s less for everyone else to go around - therefore, working class people feel poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, the economy is going absolutely great for rich people, so inflation continues to go up - everything gets more expensive, but wages don’t increase. The wealthy just keep more and more of the wealth for themselves. To accumulate more and more wealth, they change the laws so that they can avoid paying taxes, so public services collapse. Politicians are lobbied to ensure that public funds are diverted away from where it is most needed - housing, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure - and instead into industries where their class interests most benefit from it, such as weapons manufacturing and extractive industries such as fossil fuels and mining.
The working class are bound to notice that their lives are getting shittier and shittier, and if that situation is left unchecked, the working class would realize that the ruling class are fucking them over, rise up, and overthrow their rulers. Obviously, the ruling class need to do something about this, but there’s no solution that the ruling class can offer. They’re causing all of the problems, to fix them they’d have to give up some of their wealth and power - and that’s not something they’re going to do. So they need to find someone else to blame the problems we have in society on. Unfortunately, though, no matter who they blame the problems on, and no matter what they do to “fix” it, the issue will continue to persist, because the material conditions underlying the issues are, very intentionally, never addressed.
So, the conundrum returns: The ruling class said that minority A caused all of the problems, minority A is persecuted and oppressed, but society doesn’t actually get any better. Either the problem wasn’t minority A, or minority A just hasn’t been oppressed enough yet. So the ruling class can either escalate the oppression, or they can shift the focus to another minority group. The division continues to escalate in terms of how vitriolic and extreme it is, and it also continues to divide the working class into smaller and smaller groups.
To get the working class to buy into this hateful message, they need to take advantage of our worst instincts, and one of those instincts is the in-group bias. The majority are manipulated into being suspicious, then intolerant, then hateful, then violent, then genocidal, towards whatever the targeted minority of the day is. Anything that can be used to divide the working class - sexuality, nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, age, all of these will be used as wedges to keep the working class split apart and not working together, because they know that if the working class actually unite against them, they are completely and truly fucked.
That’s exactly how fascism manifests. It’s because it’s possible for people to accumulate power through wealth. This is why capitalism must be abolished. If we do not abolish capitalism, fascism will always return. It’s just a matter of time.
But can't capitalism can be reformed?
While, of course, some laws to reform capitalism can be passed, and would definitely alleviate the worst harm caused, over the long term, capitalism cannot be reformed.
Any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism.
The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century America.
But the Soviet Union was really oppressive!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
Boo. Your manifesto sucks. Nobody wants to read it. Stop copy/pasting it.
Yeah, when someone can’t debate my ideas on their merits, they have to revert to just proclaiming that it “sucks” and “nobody wants to read it”.
You might have gotten a more positive reaction if you didn’t start by insulting the people you’re trying to recruit. It’s no wonder most people don’t have a positive conception of anarchy, to the extent that they are aware of it at all, when its proponents are so off-putting.
Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it!
All the best, solidarity forever!
The women in the background on the right are not having any of this shit.
Yeah, they know that despite the claims of individual freedoms under liberalism, women have been oppressed by men, because it was and always has been a total propaganda project to ensure the ruling class to have the “freedom” to oppress and exploit the working class, a system under which that we will always be their slaves.
Do you think that the relative impopularity of anarchism in politics is due to poor performance of the anarchists marketing department?
I think the ruling class have suppressed the greatest threat to their positions of power relentlessly, by violent acts, propaganda, and by even making the word “anarchy” itself synonymous with chaos, despite the fact that anarchists have argued that “anarchy is order” since the 1800s. I think the tide is now turning, however, with independent media and the internet, there are more anarchists now than ever, and thanks to all of the liberals in this thread making it very easy to counter all of their arguments while making me look pretty reasonable and comparatively civil, this very post has probably created more of us!
if true, they should get more organized. maybe have some meetups and discus what their plans are forward.
Are you sure you’re not confusing liberals with libertarians?
It’s an American thing, I guess.
Meanwhile in Germany: a coworker thinks neo-liberal must be great because it’s a new form of liberal.
Yes, I’m certain! Liberalism advocates for free markets, free markets cause the accumulation of wealth, because the more money you have the more money you can make, and since money is power, liberalism leads to the concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands, which inevitably leads to fascism.
I had to do my own quick research because liberal vs libertarian distinction in a cultural context, at least on the American side of the internet, is pretty crooked - with the term liberal being used to describe the ideas generally recognized to be socdem.
So yes, you’re very much correct, apologies
No apology necessary, I totally understand it! Liberals have been running this propaganda campain for centuries, so it’s a real uphill battle for leftists. I really appreciate you doing the research and getting back to me. Your comment makes all of my efforts worthwhile. Thank you <3
Aye, good man!
Laissez Faire Capitalists advocate for Free Unregulated Markets, Liberals do not. Also, you’re supposed to be an Anarchist? So you also argue for Free Markets.
Let me explain it in simple terms.
Imagine there is a nice park which is used by the community. The park is owned by a kind, old man, who allows everyone to use it freely.
When the man passes away, the park is inherited by his son. His son exercises his freedom to build an oil rig on the park, and putting fences around it.
His freedom to do what he wants with private property deprives others of their freedom to use the park.
This is how liberalism works in practice. Freedom to own land means the freedom to deprive others from the use of the land.
Freedom of the wealthy to own land and the means of production means that they accumulate wealth and thus power, and they use that power freely to exert influence on politics.
This is gonna blow your fucking mind: Public and Protected Lands exist in the West.
You know what else exists in the west? Starvation, homelessness and medical debt. The freedom to profit from food, shelter and healthcare means that you are forced into laboring, usually for the benefit and profit of wealthy private individuals, who pay you for less than your work is actually worth, because otherwise you die. Is that freedom?
Feel free to try to improve the problems you see, but the track record for either autocracies or anarchists doing better is so far Zilch.
The USA, which is actually a pretty horrible country on many issues, has one of the best records for making sure everyone is food of human history. The closest thing they’ve ever had to a famine was the dustbowl.
I think healthcare should be socialized as it is in many European Nations.
Clearly there are many examples of governments in general and very much so Capitalism addressing all your worries.
Feel free to try to improve the problems you see, but the track record for either autocracies or anarchists doing better is so far Zilch.
Actually, there are current and historical examples of very successful anarchist societies. For a couple of examples, at present, the Zapatistas exist, an anarchist region with at least 300,000 people living under it, and also that Revolutionary Spain existed, an extremely successful example of anarchism in practice which resisted Nazi Germany better than any democratic nation in mainland Europe.
The USA, which is actually a pretty horrible country on many issues, has one of the best records for making sure everyone is food
“Making sure everyone is food” is quite the freudian slip. Seriously, though: someone hasn’t heard of food deserts!
In 2025, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that an estimated 12.8% of the US population were living in low-income and low-access census tracts. Of this number, 19 million people live in “food deserts”, which they define as low-income census tracts that are more than 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles (16 kilometers) from a supermarket in rural areas.
I think healthcare should be socialized as it is in many European Nations.
So do a majority of Americans, and yet it has not happened. Why not? Because the wealthy rule, because of capitalism.
Viewers may find this context helpful:
I’m an anarchist - if you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
Anarchists are vehemently opposed to states such as the USSR and China. We consider them to be as great a danger as fascism.
I personally believe that anarchism is the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
Liberalism is a right-wing ideology which adopts the language of progressiveness, but actually prioritizes the freedom of movement of wealth, e.g. free markets, over the freedom of individuals. Some individual liberties are espoused under liberalism, insofar as those liberties do not interfere with the freedom of capitalists to exploit the working class. I believe fully in the freedom of individuals, as long as those freedoms do not allow for the exploitation or oppression of others.
How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?
Basically, the issue with capitalism is that the more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to make more money. And since money can be used to buy goods, services and influence, there is always a way to use money to gain more political and social power. With that political and social power, you can push society and the legal system in the direction you want to go. So you can use your wealth to gain power, and then you can use your power to change laws and society so that you can make even more wealth and power. It’s a positive feedback loop.
Obviously, though, if the billionaires and ruling class are accumulating more and more of our society’s wealth, that inevitably means that there’s less for everyone else to go around - therefore, working class people feel poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, the economy is going absolutely great for rich people, so inflation continues to go up - everything gets more expensive, but wages don’t increase. The wealthy just keep more and more of the wealth for themselves. To accumulate more and more wealth, they change the laws so that they can avoid paying taxes, so public services collapse. Politicians are lobbied to ensure that public funds are diverted away from where it is most needed - housing, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure - and instead into industries where their class interests most benefit from it, such as weapons manufacturing and extractive industries such as fossil fuels and mining.
The working class are bound to notice that their lives are getting shittier and shittier, and if that situation is left unchecked, the working class would realize that the ruling class are fucking them over, rise up, and overthrow their rulers. Obviously, the ruling class need to do something about this, but there’s no solution that the ruling class can offer. They’re causing all of the problems, to fix them they’d have to give up some of their wealth and power - and that’s not something they’re going to do. So they need to find someone else to blame the problems we have in society on. Unfortunately, though, no matter who they blame the problems on, and no matter what they do to “fix” it, the issue will continue to persist, because the material conditions underlying the issues are, very intentionally, never addressed.
So, the conundrum returns: The ruling class said that minority A caused all of the problems, minority A is persecuted and oppressed, but society doesn’t actually get any better. Either the problem wasn’t minority A, or minority A just hasn’t been oppressed enough yet. So the ruling class can either escalate the oppression, or they can shift the focus to another minority group. The division continues to escalate in terms of how vitriolic and extreme it is, and it also continues to divide the working class into smaller and smaller groups.
To get the working class to buy into this hateful message, they need to take advantage of our worst instincts, and one of those instincts is the in-group bias. The majority are manipulated into being suspicious, then intolerant, then hateful, then violent, then genocidal, towards whatever the targeted minority of the day is. Anything that can be used to divide the working class - sexuality, nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, age, all of these will be used as wedges to keep the working class split apart and not working together, because they know that if the working class actually unite against them, they are completely and truly fucked.
That’s exactly how fascism manifests. It’s because it’s possible for people to accumulate power through wealth. This is why capitalism must be abolished. If we do not abolish capitalism, fascism will always return. It’s just a matter of time.
But can't capitalism can be reformed?
While, of course, some laws to reform capitalism can be passed, and would definitely alleviate the worst harm caused, over the long term, capitalism cannot be reformed.
Any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism.
The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century America.
But the Soviet Union was really oppressive!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
“Viewers” are consumers of visual media, like television. What you mean is “readers” - consumers of text. Is the rest of the manifesto this stupid?
Do you view an image on your screen?
I guess we could technically “view” that wall of text, rather than read it. That’s pretty much what I did. Point taken.
Yes, reading is really hard, isn’t it? Having to learn things, having our ideas challenged? Awful, yuck!
I’m confused. Can you give your PERSONAL definition of Liberal, Conservative, facist, centrist, anarchist, communist, libertarian, democrat and republican? Please give a definition based on your personal beliefs, I can’t click a link or watch a video. Need to understand what and how you think before I decide if you’re a fucking idiot or not. By the way, I fully support you posting dumb shit here. Whether or not its intended as a authentic representation of your beliefs or is completely disingenuous.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
AMERICAN POLITICS GO AWAY!
👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎
Remind me, what are the mainstream political parties in Australia, again?
Liberalism is an international movement. Unfortunately, it is not limited to the US.
The LP of Australia is about as Liberal as the DPRK is a democratic republic and the Nazis were Socialists.
Yes, sure, just like how the USSR aren’t communists, right?
Correct. Unless that was sarcastic.
Not at all, in my experience, liberals often argue that the USSR was communist, so I am pleasantly surprise you acknowledge that it wasn’t. Kudos!
Obviously, though, the liberal party was/is liberal, but liberalism inevitably trends towards fascism. It’s just the way of the world.
