Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
I feel like we have, multiple times. I copied a portion of "The Handbook of Neoliberalism" that seemed very on point for defining what we were critiquing.
It's just everyone ignored it because spatting over "Are you calling me a fascist" was somehow a more interesting conversation than actually delving into the history of fascism's rise and it's parallels today.
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
hippofant on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
I feel like we have, multiple times. I copied a portion of "The Handbook of Neoliberalism" that seemed very on point for defining what we were critiquing.
It's just everyone ignored it because spatting over "Are you calling me a fascist" was somehow a more interesting conversation than actually delving into the history of fascism's rise and it's parallels today.
Someone just posted on this page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Because they weren't neoliberal before that either.
The big problem is that it feels like someone wants to have another fucking stealth discussion of 2016.
Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
I feel like we have, multiple times. I copied a portion of "The Handbook of Neoliberalism" that seemed very on point for defining what we were critiquing.
It's just everyone ignored it because spatting over "Are you calling me a fascist" was somehow a more interesting conversation than actually delving into the history of fascism's rise and it's parallels today.
Someone just posted on this page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Because they weren't neoliberal before that either.
The big problem is that it feels like someone wants to have another fucking stealth discussion of 2016.
Was anybody saying that or are people just having a grand ol' time taking offense to imaginary insults right now?
Who here has said that all Democrats were neoliberals or that the Democratic Party is neoliberal?! Quote them!
Edit: Which isn't even an insult! Being neoliberal isn't an insult! It's just what you are! It's only offensive if you don't want to be neoliberal, in which case... I dunno, don't be neoliberal!
Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
Absolutely.
If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.
But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.
Like it matters.
The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though.
Depends what you mean by deregulation and completed.
Also, the whole Legislative bramch thing we have.
Come on man, Glass-Steagall
That isn't the only part of Wall Street regulations. While it was a fantastically bad idea, you can't put everything on one moment.
It was the culmination of two decades of deregulation under a bipartisan Republican and Democratic effort. You're really dismissing this out of hand.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
In fact I think that the Left in general misunderstands why people support rightist politics and politicians in general.
The prevailing Leftist political opinion since the 90s has been that Right-Wing politics preys on people's selfishness but I don't think that is true. I think that a lot of people just have right-wing values.
So let's place the Fascists in the context of that. How many people have fascist values? Shitloads. We can all see that, clearly. Fascist values are actually extremely common IMO.
You think so? That's certainly the liberal/centrist explanation I've seen. Most leftists view right wing ideology as a cynical appeal to understandable and sympathetic desires and fears.
And I believe they are incorrect. Or rather, I believe that people have more right wing values than leftists want to really admit.
We're talking about two different levels of belief here. For instance I don't disagree if we say right wingers believe some pretty racist stuff about immigrants. But that's a very surface level evaluation of belief. Pressed further you might hear something about learned racism or what have you, but a leftist argument would be that you're often seeing anti-immigrant fervor from people who are under other stressors that right wing leaders take advantage of and make scape goats out of people.
Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
I feel like we have, multiple times. I copied a portion of "The Handbook of Neoliberalism" that seemed very on point for defining what we were critiquing.
It's just everyone ignored it because spatting over "Are you calling me a fascist" was somehow a more interesting conversation than actually delving into the history of fascism's rise and it's parallels today.
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
I keep wondering if this is partly because of the Tirado commentary where she and Paxton use "liberal" frequently in those passages and commentary on Anatomy of Fascism, refering to classical liberalism and everything just goes into this blender as everyone is reading the thread and somehow that turns into a thing where people think they're getting attacked as we're all caught in the maelstrom of a moving thread.
Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
Absolutely.
If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.
But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.
Like it matters.
The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though.
Depends what you mean by deregulation and completed.
Also, the whole Legislative bramch thing we have.
Come on man, Glass-Steagall
That isn't the only part of Wall Street regulations. While it was a fantastically bad idea, you can't put everything on one moment.
Oh come on man. Democrats were hand in hand on cutting regulation that led to a massive economic collapse. Trying to paint it as a pro-regulation party is silly.
Leftists and rightists both hate centrist liberals but centrist liberals have traditionally almost always allied right, because to the right is an unpleasant form of power structures they approve of, and to the left is reform that they don't approve of.
Liberals do not fight fascists they enable it because they compromise with it, historically. It's nothing to do with the "power base of the left," after all, both liberals, conservatives, the far right etc all cooperate in trying to destroy the left when possible. Historically, you have seen this.
This is a strange read on history. It was after all the KPD who were the ones pushing "After Hitler, our turn" and the ideas of "social-fascism". Shit, they even supported the nazis is trying to bring down the Prussian regional government in 1931.
There's a whole idea being pushed here that "the only answer is the far left, all others are fascist allies in waiting" or something, but it's not accurate, historically or otherwise, and basically seems to exist as a bludgeon to attack political positions some people think aren't left-wing enough.
Lumping social fascism in with socialism as a whole is ahistorical. Even contemporary socialists thought they were full of shit. They're a weird footnote in history, nothing more.
Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
I feel like we have, multiple times. I copied a portion of "The Handbook of Neoliberalism" that seemed very on point for defining what we were critiquing.
It's just everyone ignored it because spatting over "Are you calling me a fascist" was somehow a more interesting conversation than actually delving into the history of fascism's rise and it's parallels today.
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
I keep wondering if this is partly because of the Tirado commentary where she and Paxton use "liberal" frequently in those passages and commentary on Anatomy of Fascism, refering to classical liberalism and everything just goes into this blender as everyone is reading the thread and somehow that turns into a thing where people think they're getting attacked as we're all caught in the maelstrom of a moving thread.
I honestly don't think people are even reading posts right now. It just seems like there's this vague process of, "The leftists (of this forum) are saying things are neoliberal. Leftists don't like neoliberals. Therefore neoliberalism is being used as a slander against everything that leftists don't like. I like a thing that leftists don't like. Therefore I must object to this."
Not that, you know, anybody's actually advancing a defense that they're not neoliberal or that neoliberalism isn't as bad as the leftists say. Just preemptively declaring that they don't want the label, nobody should apply the label to them, the label's not that bad anyways, oh and also what does the label mean?
Liberal = Individual liberty is the most important thing, government should not intervene in your personal or financial life. Ranges from centre left liberal (some sort of welfare state, free one from the restrictions of economic inequality etc), to Neoliberal (see below) and everywhere in between. Capitalists, generally.
Neoliberal = This is best expressed through free markets and free trade allowing entrepreneurship etc. This has been the strongest form of Liberal thought for a long while. 100% Capitalists.
Conservative = believes in traditional values and institutions, wishes to preserve traditional structures such as the family unit (wife, husband, kids etc). This is typically a value system rather than an economic strategy. The economic form of this probably some sort of European Imperialism and now conservatives are almost always economic Neoliberals.
Leftist = This starts at the left of liberalism, where the government should be intervening to free people from economic restrictions to an extent, but I think in reality it's defined as an anti-capitalistic mode of thought.
Nationalism = The nation-state, often an ethno-state, is the most important thing. This can be leftist-nationalism, or rightist-nationalism.
Fascism = nationalism which ties into an aesthetic of rebirth and a cult of personality in the leader. Capitalist and extremely, violently conservative (reactionary in fact).
Totalitarianism - the state is the nation and the nation is the state, nothing outside of the state's control is permitted.
Definitely need a Social Democrat section between Leftists and Liberal, to my mind. Because these definitions, especially if we're thinking of Leftist as anti-capitalist, have no space for say, the Democratic Party. Especially the Democratic Party of the 2016 or 2018 elections (and I would argue Obama, who regulated a massive industry but also appointed Geithner so I can see your case).
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Democratic Party is too large to fit into any one section IMO
You've got Liberals of all stripes, some leftists, some nationalists...
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Also, the reason why people object to being called neoliberal is that you have been directly saying they align with fascists. Just in case you're confused.
Also, the reason why people object to being called neoliberal is that you have been directly saying they align with fascists. Just in case you're confused.
Like I said earlier, there's a distinction between a given person and a society wide ideology as a whole. A given neoliberal might be wise to the real danger of fascism, but that's never changed historical trends.
It's sort of a downer, but I think I agree with the principle that a lot more people are fascists than are comfortable admitting to being fascists--that's where the allies come from in the large. Would-be robber barons doing anything to maintain power and drive up the score aren't a large enough demographic to explain what's happening.
The problem are all the, ya know, fascists. They call themselves 'conservatives' and whatnot, but they're nationalist authoritarians who don't particularly care about enshrined freedoms--if anyone deserves freedom, it's only people like them. They want the state to rigidly define and control society to match them, with no regard for constitutionally defined rights. Because they're fascists. They're not being tricked into supporting fascists, they want a boot on the neck of every racial and sexual and religious minority.
I hate how often in progressive and leftist (including center-left on here) we see people infantalizing the fascist base, acting like they're just too dumb and naive to get what they're doing and that they'll be won over (by populist policies, or by gutting the capitalists, or whatever) eventually. It's especially galling to see people drag out the economic anxiety shit unironically.
Leftists can be liberals. What they can't be is neoliberals (I think, though any exclusion is likely a consequent and not inherent within their definitions). Which is fine, because not all liberals are neoliberals. And not all centrists are neoliberals. And not all Democrats are neoliberals.
Now please, for the love of god, can we talk about neoliberalism and its relationship to fascism without dragging in how these other groups that are being tarred by the word neoliberal?
I am willing to throw out that the GOP and the Democrats are both US Nationalists
The intra-party conflicts would be their own insane thread.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, there is the fact the political divides, especially in America, don't adhere neatly to any sort of political boundary for some very specfiic reasons. Although they don't always adhere neatly anywhere else, either.
Leftists and rightists both hate centrist liberals but centrist liberals have traditionally almost always allied right, because to the right is an unpleasant form of power structures they approve of, and to the left is reform that they don't approve of.
Liberals do not fight fascists they enable it because they compromise with it, historically. It's nothing to do with the "power base of the left," after all, both liberals, conservatives, the far right etc all cooperate in trying to destroy the left when possible. Historically, you have seen this.
This is a strange read on history. It was after all the KPD who were the ones pushing "After Hitler, our turn" and the ideas of "social-fascism". Shit, they even supported the nazis is trying to bring down the Prussian regional government in 1931.
There's a whole idea being pushed here that "the only answer is the far left, all others are fascist allies in waiting" or something, but it's not accurate, historically or otherwise, and basically seems to exist as a bludgeon to attack political positions some people think aren't left-wing enough.
Lumping social fascism in with socialism as a whole is ahistorical. Even contemporary socialists thought they were full of shit. They're a weird footnote in history, nothing more.
Social fascism was an idea pushed by several people, including the KPD during the rise of fascism in Germany. This isn't ahistorical, it's literally just history. And directly pertinent to all these claims about who is enabling fascism and why. Like basically everyone honestly, the far left in Germany was enabling the rise of fascism (and sometimes making common cause with it) because they were after goals they saw as being "more important".
Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
Absolutely.
If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.
But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.
Like it matters.
The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though.
Depends what you mean by deregulation and completed.
Also, the whole Legislative bramch thing we have.
Come on man, Glass-Steagall
Dead Letter 5 years before it was repealed. But I still fail to see how "the democrats have been imperfect in creating solutions to problems because they believed in both democracy as well as the state fixing problems" is some sort of knock on them not being ideologically socialist.
Democrats voted against GLB. Clinton did sign it but goddamn it was a different age. Nixon signed the legislation that created the EPA too. That didn't make Nixon a crusader for the environment it made him a person responding to Democratic legislation.
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
\
Silly Goose, YOU called FDR a neoliberal
Right here. This is you calling FDR a neoliberal. The United States was involved in WWII by way of selling arms to the allies because of FDR. You are explicitly saying that you don't know how much credit you're going to give to "neoliberals" which would presumably be the person doing the selling in the thing you're quoting, for doing the thing that was being quoted as explictly an action of a Democratic administration. There is no other reading of it.
Also, the reason why people object to being called neoliberal is that you have been directly saying they align with fascists. Just in case you're confused.
Historically? They do
That's not all they do
Just like the USSR, PRC etc all did incredibly horrific things in times and places, and were ostensibly leftists. Certainly they had planned economies, they tried to get rid of private enterprise and ownership etc, and largely did. Sometimes, leftist groups have allied with pretty horrible groups too, sometimes fascist groups. But I do not believe in a way which has been structurally significant.
Nobody is calling anyone here a fascist or apologist for fascism. What I am saying is that historically fascism has been allowed to gain power due to the preference of Neoliberals and Centrists for proto-fascist movements that they find economically acceptable if socially, morally, ethically etc reprehensible over leftist politics.
I wouldn't paint neoliberals as a solid block like Syrofoam is. The neoliberals ok with fascist games were in the Republican party and the ones not ok with them were in the Democratic party.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
To a certain extent I understand the pushback on identifying neoliberalism as at least partially responsible for the rise of fascism, defining neoliberalism as meaningless, and accusing socialism or far-left policy as doing little in terms of standing in fascism’s way, either.
Nobody likes to be told that the one realistic avenue we have of combatting fascism in the US is also partially responsible for its presence. It’s pretty dark to think about, and very disheartening to internalize.
However, I think it’s important to examine where neoliberal policy has gotten us and learn to recognize it in the future. Not as a cudgel to be used against anybody deemed insufficiently far to the left, but as a way to unite.
Socialism is not some ideology that is the panacea to fascism, nor is it without its own flaws. I don’t think anybody in this thread is peddling it as the perfect answer to authoritarianism. Mostly what I’ve seen is actually economically-related; how much one adheres to the platonic ideal of capitalism (accumulation/acquisition of wealth being the end rather than the means) being a primary foothold for fascism to gain a legitimate presence. In that regard, American neoliberalism as defined by high regard for market-based measures of success rather than ethical or moral ones is dangerous and — partially! — responsible for the rise of fascism here.
I want to be absolutely clear: neither I, nor (I assume) anybody else with this view is claiming this to be the sole foothold by which fascism gains prominence. Racism, xenophobia, propaganda, lack of proper education (particularly with regard to history) or interest in learning, an increase in partisanship that results in tribalism über alles, and countless other factors are also of paramount importance to understanding how the modern American Republican Party has gotten to where it is. And in other parts of the world, there are other factors not mentioned here.
Leftists can be liberals. What they can't be is neoliberals (I think, though any exclusion is likely a consequent and not inherent within their definitions). Which is fine, because not all liberals are neoliberals. And not all centrists are neoliberals. And not all Democrats are neoliberals.
Now please, for the love of god, can we talk about neoliberalism and its relationship to fascism without dragging in how these other groups that are being tarred by the word neoliberal?
Or we could drop the labels entirely because they're not helpful and just obscure the arguments we're making.
Like, hey, a guy committed to ethnic cleansing does not become encouraging because you like his economic policies, you fucking inhuman jackasses.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Leftists and rightists both hate centrist liberals but centrist liberals have traditionally almost always allied right, because to the right is an unpleasant form of power structures they approve of, and to the left is reform that they don't approve of.
Liberals do not fight fascists they enable it because they compromise with it, historically. It's nothing to do with the "power base of the left," after all, both liberals, conservatives, the far right etc all cooperate in trying to destroy the left when possible. Historically, you have seen this.
This is a strange read on history. It was after all the KPD who were the ones pushing "After Hitler, our turn" and the ideas of "social-fascism". Shit, they even supported the nazis is trying to bring down the Prussian regional government in 1931.
There's a whole idea being pushed here that "the only answer is the far left, all others are fascist allies in waiting" or something, but it's not accurate, historically or otherwise, and basically seems to exist as a bludgeon to attack political positions some people think aren't left-wing enough.
Lumping social fascism in with socialism as a whole is ahistorical. Even contemporary socialists thought they were full of shit. They're a weird footnote in history, nothing more.
Social fascism was an idea pushed by several people, including the KPD during the rise of fascism in Germany. This isn't ahistorical, it's literally just history. And directly pertinent to all these claims about who is enabling fascism and why. Like basically everyone honestly, the far left in Germany was enabling the rise of fascism (and sometimes making common cause with it) because they were after goals they saw as being "more important".
I didn't say "social fascism is ahistorical", I said treating it as part of socialism as a movement is ahistorical.
The Democratic Party is too large to fit into any one section IMO
You've got Liberals of all stripes, some leftists, some nationalists...
When people refer to "the Democratic Party" as an entity all its own, they're talking about the people who are in the leadership positions of the party. Obviously some elected individuals who are registered Democrats might have more radical stances on a variety of topics, but it doesn't fucking matter if they don't ever get to influence what the party brings to the floor to legislate/vote on.
The Democratic Party is too large to fit into any one section IMO
You've got Liberals of all stripes, some leftists, some nationalists...
When people refer to "the Democratic Party" as an entity all its own, they're talking about the people who are in the leadership positions of the party. Obviously some elected individuals who are registered Democrats might have more radical stances on a variety of topics, but it doesn't fucking matter if they don't ever get to influence what the party brings to the floor to legislate/vote on.
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
\
Silly Goose, YOU called FDR a neoliberal
Right here. This is you calling FDR a neoliberal. The United States was involved in WWII by way of selling arms to the allies because of FDR. You are explicitly saying that you don't know how much credit you're going to give to "neoliberals" which would presumably be the person doing the selling in the thing you're quoting, for doing the thing that was being quoted as explictly an action of a Democratic administration. There is no other reading of it.
The Democratic Party is too large to fit into any one section IMO
You've got Liberals of all stripes, some leftists, some nationalists...
When people refer to "the Democratic Party" as an entity all its own, they're talking about the people who are in the leadership positions of the party. Obviously some elected individuals who are registered Democrats might have more radical stances on a variety of topics, but it doesn't fucking matter if they don't ever get to influence what the party brings to the floor to legislate/vote on.
"Leadership" is a woolly term. Does any elected official wearing a blue rosette count? Because if so, you've also got a very broad spectrum there. You've got people who are basically genuinely leftists, all the way to the Blue Dogs or whatever nickname you want these days. There's some extremely hawkish Democrats and some hugely anti-military democrats (who are in a minority, because the Democratic Party in the US is extremely pro-military on account of the US being culturally extremely pro-military).
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
\
Silly Goose, YOU called FDR a neoliberal
Right here. This is you calling FDR a neoliberal. The United States was involved in WWII by way of selling arms to the allies because of FDR. You are explicitly saying that you don't know how much credit you're going to give to "neoliberals" which would presumably be the person doing the selling in the thing you're quoting, for doing the thing that was being quoted as explictly an action of a Democratic administration. There is no other reading of it.
The Democratic Party is too large to fit into any one section IMO
You've got Liberals of all stripes, some leftists, some nationalists...
When people refer to "the Democratic Party" as an entity all its own, they're talking about the people who are in the leadership positions of the party. Obviously some elected individuals who are registered Democrats might have more radical stances on a variety of topics, but it doesn't fucking matter if they don't ever get to influence what the party brings to the floor to legislate/vote on.
"Leadership" is a woolly term. Does any elected official wearing a blue rosette count? Because if so, you've also got a very broad spectrum there. You've got people who are basically genuinely leftists, all the way to the Blue Dogs or whatever nickname you want these days. There's some extremely hawkish Democrats and some hugely anti-military democrats (who are in a minority, because the Democratic Party in the US is extremely pro-military on account of the US being culturally extremely pro-military).
Leftists and rightists both hate centrist liberals but centrist liberals have traditionally almost always allied right, because to the right is an unpleasant form of power structures they approve of, and to the left is reform that they don't approve of.
Liberals do not fight fascists they enable it because they compromise with it, historically. It's nothing to do with the "power base of the left," after all, both liberals, conservatives, the far right etc all cooperate in trying to destroy the left when possible. Historically, you have seen this.
This is a strange read on history. It was after all the KPD who were the ones pushing "After Hitler, our turn" and the ideas of "social-fascism". Shit, they even supported the nazis is trying to bring down the Prussian regional government in 1931.
There's a whole idea being pushed here that "the only answer is the far left, all others are fascist allies in waiting" or something, but it's not accurate, historically or otherwise, and basically seems to exist as a bludgeon to attack political positions some people think aren't left-wing enough.
Lumping social fascism in with socialism as a whole is ahistorical. Even contemporary socialists thought they were full of shit. They're a weird footnote in history, nothing more.
Social fascism was an idea pushed by several people, including the KPD during the rise of fascism in Germany. This isn't ahistorical, it's literally just history. And directly pertinent to all these claims about who is enabling fascism and why. Like basically everyone honestly, the far left in Germany was enabling the rise of fascism (and sometimes making common cause with it) because they were after goals they saw as being "more important".
I didn't say "social fascism is ahistorical", I said treating it as part of socialism as a movement is ahistorical.
It was literally a position of socialist parties in the 1930s dude. Supported by the Communist International and everything.
Leftists can be liberals. What they can't be is neoliberals (I think, though any exclusion is likely a consequent and not inherent within their definitions). Which is fine, because not all liberals are neoliberals. And not all centrists are neoliberals. And not all Democrats are neoliberals.
Now please, for the love of god, can we talk about neoliberalism and its relationship to fascism without dragging in how these other groups that are being tarred by the word neoliberal?
Or we could drop the labels entirely because they're not helpful and just obscure the arguments we're making.
Like, hey, a guy committed to ethnic cleansing does not become encouraging because you like his economic policies, you fucking inhuman jackasses.
... by labels, you mean words?
I would seriously question how you expect us to talk about fascism without talking about, you know, fascists, since, you know, labels.
1) Creates the environment in which fascism can thrive, or more accurately is one of the things that does this
2) Of the populist responses to this environment, favours the one which reinforces the existing economic structure the most, because it is economically right-wing
And therefore fascism is more likely to receive the support of the embedded power structures of a broadly neoliberal society (or society in which a large amount of wealth and influence is in neoliberal hands, i.e. most of western society now).
Leftists and rightists both hate centrist liberals but centrist liberals have traditionally almost always allied right, because to the right is an unpleasant form of power structures they approve of, and to the left is reform that they don't approve of.
Liberals do not fight fascists they enable it because they compromise with it, historically. It's nothing to do with the "power base of the left," after all, both liberals, conservatives, the far right etc all cooperate in trying to destroy the left when possible. Historically, you have seen this.
This is a strange read on history. It was after all the KPD who were the ones pushing "After Hitler, our turn" and the ideas of "social-fascism". Shit, they even supported the nazis is trying to bring down the Prussian regional government in 1931.
There's a whole idea being pushed here that "the only answer is the far left, all others are fascist allies in waiting" or something, but it's not accurate, historically or otherwise, and basically seems to exist as a bludgeon to attack political positions some people think aren't left-wing enough.
Lumping social fascism in with socialism as a whole is ahistorical. Even contemporary socialists thought they were full of shit. They're a weird footnote in history, nothing more.
Social fascism was an idea pushed by several people, including the KPD during the rise of fascism in Germany. This isn't ahistorical, it's literally just history. And directly pertinent to all these claims about who is enabling fascism and why. Like basically everyone honestly, the far left in Germany was enabling the rise of fascism (and sometimes making common cause with it) because they were after goals they saw as being "more important".
I didn't say "social fascism is ahistorical", I said treating it as part of socialism as a movement is ahistorical.
It was literally a position of socialist parties in the 1930s dude. Supported by the Communist International and everything.
Like I also said in that post, contemporary socialists thought they were full of shit. Trotsky aggressively argued they were just fascists in sheep's clothing. Citing Communist International's support for social fascism as a part of socialism is silly because branches of Communist International were the primary advocates of social fascism.
Its little more than the favored historical trivia of anyone who wants to tie socialism to fascism.
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
\
Silly Goose, YOU called FDR a neoliberal
Right here. This is you calling FDR a neoliberal. The United States was involved in WWII by way of selling arms to the allies because of FDR. You are explicitly saying that you don't know how much credit you're going to give to "neoliberals" which would presumably be the person doing the selling in the thing you're quoting, for doing the thing that was being quoted as explictly an action of a Democratic administration. There is no other reading of it.
In the US case that's a kind of narrow definition of getting involved. We were in the war by March of '41 at the latest. It just wasn't declared yet.
... I dunno how much credit I'm going to extend to neoliberals for selling stuff to antifa.
... do you really think that I'm calling Churchill and Stalin antifa? :eh:
I certainly did.
I thought it was weird, but technically true.
Sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was disengaging from the ridiculous WWII argument by pointing out that regardless of whatever is demonstrated about what level of involvement the US had at what point in WWII, that doesn't change anything factual about the current world and the neoliberals within it. Being told that lend-lease is "involvement" in WWII (cough) doesn't make me go, oh shit, I guess the Economist is an ally in the fight against fascism, we probably shouldn't marginalize them by talking about how they probably shouldn't write articles lauding Bolsonaro.
Literally no one is defining their terms, which is why this discussion is not working.
Absolutely.
If we define neoliberals as anti-regulation, for example, democrats are not that.
But again, this entire discussion spun out of whether the Economist is actively supporting fascism, or is ignoring its rise to encourage the wealthy making money.
Like it matters.
The deregulation of Wall Street was completed during Clinton's term though.
Depends what you mean by deregulation and completed.
Also, the whole Legislative bramch thing we have.
Come on man, Glass-Steagall
Dead Letter 5 years before it was repealed. But I still fail to see how "the democrats have been imperfect in creating solutions to problems because they believed in both democracy as well as the state fixing problems" is some sort of knock on them not being ideologically socialist.
Democrats voted against GLB. Clinton did sign it but goddamn it was a different age. Nixon signed the legislation that created the EPA too. That didn't make Nixon a crusader for the environment it made him a person responding to Democratic legislation.
It was dead lettered by Clinton.
Also the EPA was a backdoor by Nixon, it was created with basically no political independence so someone like Trump could completely neutralize it.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
\
Silly Goose, YOU called FDR a neoliberal
Right here. This is you calling FDR a neoliberal. The United States was involved in WWII by way of selling arms to the allies because of FDR. You are explicitly saying that you don't know how much credit you're going to give to "neoliberals" which would presumably be the person doing the selling in the thing you're quoting, for doing the thing that was being quoted as explictly an action of a Democratic administration. There is no other reading of it.
In the US case that's a kind of narrow definition of getting involved. We were in the war by March of '41 at the latest. It just wasn't declared yet.
... I dunno how much credit I'm going to extend to neoliberals for selling stuff to antifa.
... do you really think that I'm calling Churchill and Stalin antifa? :eh:
Who else would you be referring to when directly quoting someone who was directly referring to them?(though you could have also been referring to Churchill which would have been more correct as that is where the majority of our arms support went. (iirc))
The Democratic Party is too large to fit into any one section IMO
You've got Liberals of all stripes, some leftists, some nationalists...
When people refer to "the Democratic Party" as an entity all its own, they're talking about the people who are in the leadership positions of the party. Obviously some elected individuals who are registered Democrats might have more radical stances on a variety of topics, but it doesn't fucking matter if they don't ever get to influence what the party brings to the floor to legislate/vote on.
"Leadership" is a woolly term. Does any elected official wearing a blue rosette count? Because if so, you've also got a very broad spectrum there. You've got people who are basically genuinely leftists, all the way to the Blue Dogs or whatever nickname you want these days. There's some extremely hawkish Democrats and some hugely anti-military democrats (who are in a minority, because the Democratic Party in the US is extremely pro-military on account of the US being culturally extremely pro-military).
Know them by the fruits they bear.
Which would be socialist legislation. Democratic Leadership did not push GLB as an example. It had no Democratic co-sponsors and it was whipped against in the Senate. The "final vote" is not indicative of the push since it required significant concessions and had otherwise already passed. (I.E. the democrats were voting to get concessions not for the purpose of the bill). Similarly the democrats fought and won on language which pushed the bill away from the strong deregulation that Republicans wanted, by forcing the negotiators in conference to attempt that type of reconciliation. Now, sure today you would say that this would be terrible. But today the legislation would not have gotten off the ground, as the initial vote to send it to reconciliation was 54-46. So...
Dead Letter 5 years before it was repealed. But I still fail to see how "the democrats have been imperfect in creating solutions to problems because they believed in both democracy as well as the state fixing problems" is some sort of knock on them not being ideologically socialist.
Democrats voted against GLB. Clinton did sign it but goddamn it was a different age. Nixon signed the legislation that created the EPA too. That didn't make Nixon a crusader for the environment it made him a person responding to Democratic legislation.
It was dead lettered by Clinton.
Also the EPA was a backdoor by Nixon, it was created with basically no political independence so someone like Trump could completely neutralize it.
It was not dead lettered by Clinton. It was dead lettered by Reagan and Bush Judges. Clinton had not had enough time to do anything by the time it was dead.
The EPA being a backdoor by Nixon is well...the point.
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
\
Silly Goose, YOU called FDR a neoliberal
Right here. This is you calling FDR a neoliberal. The United States was involved in WWII by way of selling arms to the allies because of FDR. You are explicitly saying that you don't know how much credit you're going to give to "neoliberals" which would presumably be the person doing the selling in the thing you're quoting, for doing the thing that was being quoted as explictly an action of a Democratic administration. There is no other reading of it.
In the US case that's a kind of narrow definition of getting involved. We were in the war by March of '41 at the latest. It just wasn't declared yet.
... I dunno how much credit I'm going to extend to neoliberals for selling stuff to antifa.
... do you really think that I'm calling Churchill and Stalin antifa? :eh:
Who else would you be referring to when directly quoting someone who was directly referring to them?(though you could have also been referring to Churchill which would have been more correct as that is where the majority of our arms support went. (iirc))
Antifa. I was referring to antifa when I used the word antifa.
Posts
Someone just posted on the last page, "How dare you call all Democrats neoliberals?" after I made a whole post pointing out that nobody was calling Democrats neoliberals, citing a post in which people were saying that the Democrats had thoroughly swung away from neoliberalism based on their putative 2020 presidential candidates.
Extra irony that they said they didn't repeat a discussion that had occurred in the past four pages.
Edit: cuz I got topped.
Because they weren't neoliberal before that either.
The big problem is that it feels like someone wants to have another fucking stealth discussion of 2016.
Was anybody saying that or are people just having a grand ol' time taking offense to imaginary insults right now?
Who here has said that all Democrats were neoliberals or that the Democratic Party is neoliberal?! Quote them!
Edit: Which isn't even an insult! Being neoliberal isn't an insult! It's just what you are! It's only offensive if you don't want to be neoliberal, in which case... I dunno, don't be neoliberal!
It was the culmination of two decades of deregulation under a bipartisan Republican and Democratic effort. You're really dismissing this out of hand.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
We're talking about two different levels of belief here. For instance I don't disagree if we say right wingers believe some pretty racist stuff about immigrants. But that's a very surface level evaluation of belief. Pressed further you might hear something about learned racism or what have you, but a leftist argument would be that you're often seeing anti-immigrant fervor from people who are under other stressors that right wing leaders take advantage of and make scape goats out of people.
Either way this isn't strictly on target.
I keep wondering if this is partly because of the Tirado commentary where she and Paxton use "liberal" frequently in those passages and commentary on Anatomy of Fascism, refering to classical liberalism and everything just goes into this blender as everyone is reading the thread and somehow that turns into a thing where people think they're getting attacked as we're all caught in the maelstrom of a moving thread.
Oh come on man. Democrats were hand in hand on cutting regulation that led to a massive economic collapse. Trying to paint it as a pro-regulation party is silly.
Lumping social fascism in with socialism as a whole is ahistorical. Even contemporary socialists thought they were full of shit. They're a weird footnote in history, nothing more.
I honestly don't think people are even reading posts right now. It just seems like there's this vague process of, "The leftists (of this forum) are saying things are neoliberal. Leftists don't like neoliberals. Therefore neoliberalism is being used as a slander against everything that leftists don't like. I like a thing that leftists don't like. Therefore I must object to this."
Not that, you know, anybody's actually advancing a defense that they're not neoliberal or that neoliberalism isn't as bad as the leftists say. Just preemptively declaring that they don't want the label, nobody should apply the label to them, the label's not that bad anyways, oh and also what does the label mean?
Definitely need a Social Democrat section between Leftists and Liberal, to my mind. Because these definitions, especially if we're thinking of Leftist as anti-capitalist, have no space for say, the Democratic Party. Especially the Democratic Party of the 2016 or 2018 elections (and I would argue Obama, who regulated a massive industry but also appointed Geithner so I can see your case).
You've got Liberals of all stripes, some leftists, some nationalists...
Like I said earlier, there's a distinction between a given person and a society wide ideology as a whole. A given neoliberal might be wise to the real danger of fascism, but that's never changed historical trends.
The problem are all the, ya know, fascists. They call themselves 'conservatives' and whatnot, but they're nationalist authoritarians who don't particularly care about enshrined freedoms--if anyone deserves freedom, it's only people like them. They want the state to rigidly define and control society to match them, with no regard for constitutionally defined rights. Because they're fascists. They're not being tricked into supporting fascists, they want a boot on the neck of every racial and sexual and religious minority.
I hate how often in progressive and leftist (including center-left on here) we see people infantalizing the fascist base, acting like they're just too dumb and naive to get what they're doing and that they'll be won over (by populist policies, or by gutting the capitalists, or whatever) eventually. It's especially galling to see people drag out the economic anxiety shit unironically.
Now please, for the love of god, can we talk about neoliberalism and its relationship to fascism without dragging in how these other groups that are being tarred by the word neoliberal?
The intra-party conflicts would be their own insane thread.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Social fascism was an idea pushed by several people, including the KPD during the rise of fascism in Germany. This isn't ahistorical, it's literally just history. And directly pertinent to all these claims about who is enabling fascism and why. Like basically everyone honestly, the far left in Germany was enabling the rise of fascism (and sometimes making common cause with it) because they were after goals they saw as being "more important".
Dead Letter 5 years before it was repealed. But I still fail to see how "the democrats have been imperfect in creating solutions to problems because they believed in both democracy as well as the state fixing problems" is some sort of knock on them not being ideologically socialist.
Democrats voted against GLB. Clinton did sign it but goddamn it was a different age. Nixon signed the legislation that created the EPA too. That didn't make Nixon a crusader for the environment it made him a person responding to Democratic legislation.
It really, really, doesn't.
\
Silly Goose, YOU called FDR a neoliberal
Right here. This is you calling FDR a neoliberal. The United States was involved in WWII by way of selling arms to the allies because of FDR. You are explicitly saying that you don't know how much credit you're going to give to "neoliberals" which would presumably be the person doing the selling in the thing you're quoting, for doing the thing that was being quoted as explictly an action of a Democratic administration. There is no other reading of it.
Historically? They do
That's not all they do
Just like the USSR, PRC etc all did incredibly horrific things in times and places, and were ostensibly leftists. Certainly they had planned economies, they tried to get rid of private enterprise and ownership etc, and largely did. Sometimes, leftist groups have allied with pretty horrible groups too, sometimes fascist groups. But I do not believe in a way which has been structurally significant.
Nobody is calling anyone here a fascist or apologist for fascism. What I am saying is that historically fascism has been allowed to gain power due to the preference of Neoliberals and Centrists for proto-fascist movements that they find economically acceptable if socially, morally, ethically etc reprehensible over leftist politics.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Nobody likes to be told that the one realistic avenue we have of combatting fascism in the US is also partially responsible for its presence. It’s pretty dark to think about, and very disheartening to internalize.
However, I think it’s important to examine where neoliberal policy has gotten us and learn to recognize it in the future. Not as a cudgel to be used against anybody deemed insufficiently far to the left, but as a way to unite.
Socialism is not some ideology that is the panacea to fascism, nor is it without its own flaws. I don’t think anybody in this thread is peddling it as the perfect answer to authoritarianism. Mostly what I’ve seen is actually economically-related; how much one adheres to the platonic ideal of capitalism (accumulation/acquisition of wealth being the end rather than the means) being a primary foothold for fascism to gain a legitimate presence. In that regard, American neoliberalism as defined by high regard for market-based measures of success rather than ethical or moral ones is dangerous and — partially! — responsible for the rise of fascism here.
I want to be absolutely clear: neither I, nor (I assume) anybody else with this view is claiming this to be the sole foothold by which fascism gains prominence. Racism, xenophobia, propaganda, lack of proper education (particularly with regard to history) or interest in learning, an increase in partisanship that results in tribalism über alles, and countless other factors are also of paramount importance to understanding how the modern American Republican Party has gotten to where it is. And in other parts of the world, there are other factors not mentioned here.
Or we could drop the labels entirely because they're not helpful and just obscure the arguments we're making.
Like, hey, a guy committed to ethnic cleansing does not become encouraging because you like his economic policies, you fucking inhuman jackasses.
I didn't say "social fascism is ahistorical", I said treating it as part of socialism as a movement is ahistorical.
When people refer to "the Democratic Party" as an entity all its own, they're talking about the people who are in the leadership positions of the party. Obviously some elected individuals who are registered Democrats might have more radical stances on a variety of topics, but it doesn't fucking matter if they don't ever get to influence what the party brings to the floor to legislate/vote on.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
oh god yes
... do you really think that I'm calling Churchill and Stalin antifa? :eh:
"Leadership" is a woolly term. Does any elected official wearing a blue rosette count? Because if so, you've also got a very broad spectrum there. You've got people who are basically genuinely leftists, all the way to the Blue Dogs or whatever nickname you want these days. There's some extremely hawkish Democrats and some hugely anti-military democrats (who are in a minority, because the Democratic Party in the US is extremely pro-military on account of the US being culturally extremely pro-military).
I certainly did.
I thought it was weird, but technically true.
Know them by the fruits they bear.
It was literally a position of socialist parties in the 1930s dude. Supported by the Communist International and everything.
... by labels, you mean words?
I would seriously question how you expect us to talk about fascism without talking about, you know, fascists, since, you know, labels.
1) Creates the environment in which fascism can thrive, or more accurately is one of the things that does this
2) Of the populist responses to this environment, favours the one which reinforces the existing economic structure the most, because it is economically right-wing
And therefore fascism is more likely to receive the support of the embedded power structures of a broadly neoliberal society (or society in which a large amount of wealth and influence is in neoliberal hands, i.e. most of western society now).
Like I also said in that post, contemporary socialists thought they were full of shit. Trotsky aggressively argued they were just fascists in sheep's clothing. Citing Communist International's support for social fascism as a part of socialism is silly because branches of Communist International were the primary advocates of social fascism.
Its little more than the favored historical trivia of anyone who wants to tie socialism to fascism.
Sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was disengaging from the ridiculous WWII argument by pointing out that regardless of whatever is demonstrated about what level of involvement the US had at what point in WWII, that doesn't change anything factual about the current world and the neoliberals within it. Being told that lend-lease is "involvement" in WWII (cough) doesn't make me go, oh shit, I guess the Economist is an ally in the fight against fascism, we probably shouldn't marginalize them by talking about how they probably shouldn't write articles lauding Bolsonaro.
EDIT: This whole argument started as a debate about why The Economist would support Bolsonaro. Not if they did or didn't.
It was dead lettered by Clinton.
Also the EPA was a backdoor by Nixon, it was created with basically no political independence so someone like Trump could completely neutralize it.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Who else would you be referring to when directly quoting someone who was directly referring to them?(though you could have also been referring to Churchill which would have been more correct as that is where the majority of our arms support went. (iirc))
Which would be socialist legislation. Democratic Leadership did not push GLB as an example. It had no Democratic co-sponsors and it was whipped against in the Senate. The "final vote" is not indicative of the push since it required significant concessions and had otherwise already passed. (I.E. the democrats were voting to get concessions not for the purpose of the bill). Similarly the democrats fought and won on language which pushed the bill away from the strong deregulation that Republicans wanted, by forcing the negotiators in conference to attempt that type of reconciliation. Now, sure today you would say that this would be terrible. But today the legislation would not have gotten off the ground, as the initial vote to send it to reconciliation was 54-46. So...
It was not dead lettered by Clinton. It was dead lettered by Reagan and Bush Judges. Clinton had not had enough time to do anything by the time it was dead.
The EPA being a backdoor by Nixon is well...the point.
Antifa. I was referring to antifa when I used the word antifa.
See: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/40616966/#Comment_40616966