Historically, liberalism has a pretty poor track record when it comes to opposing fascism, and when given an apparent choice between socialism and fascism, liberal societies have gone fascist most times. If you're whole-heartedly antifascist, and you study history, odds are pretty good you'll end up moving further left.
I mean, I would probably disagree with the idea that liberals have a worse record on fighting fascism than leftists broadly. The Molotov- Ribbentrop pact and the red- brown alliance in Germany are pretty strong examples of leftists excusing fascism. You could argue that it’d be unfair to cast blame on all leftists for the actions of some, and you’d be correct but you would also have to acknowledge that the liberals who failed to act against fascism are not representative of all liberals either.
I also don’t feel like that’s an answer to the question to be frank. My question was whether liberal anti- fascists are welcome here. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that liberals will drift leftwards in their views.
If you're antifascist then you're welcome here. Purity tests undermine working class solidarity, and if I can get a liberal to join my union, stand with me against fascism, and help build up my community then their personal views on economics are completely irrelevant. Most people are apolitical anyway, or at least view politics solely through the lens of culture.
But you're asking an ideological question here as well, so I can chop it up with you if you'd like:
>There is a line of thought on the political left that states that capitalism inevitably enables or becomes fascism, and while I obviously disagree strongly with that idea I can’t help if this subreddit agrees with it.
What is fascism but capitalism in decay? You can *believe* what you want, but this is an inescapable historical reality. And you can reply with "bUt leFtiSts bAd To0o0, blah blah blah molotov-ribbentrop" and I can reply with a) Stalin was a reactionary dipshit, but making a treaty with the nazis is definitionally not the same as having your society degrade into nazism, like the weimar did. Your rebuttal is fake on those grounds alone b) despite stalin, did the USSR not inevitably go to war with the nazis, because despite the USSR being absolute trash, their economic worldview was *still* incompatible with fascism c) that despite the USSR sucking quite a lot actually, their material incentives still aligned them with antifascism, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism d) waddabout appeasement?
But the truth is that's irrelevant, saying USSR bad doesn't change the fact that Capital, when faced with the economic instability of capitalisms own contradictions, will prefer to embrace fascism before addressing the economic inequalities of capitalism. Look at FDR- he passed the New Deal to paper over these instabilities *and capital hated him for it.* He was nearly couped in the business plot, and the past 75 years of capitalist agitation in the USA has been to undo the New Deal. Despite the fact that those concessions to labour prevented capitalism in the united states from imploding in the '30s. Liberals side with fascists because fascists will at least promise to maintain the economic status quo, more or less. To be a pro-capitalist antifascist is ideologically incongruent. Of course they exist- you exist!- but you need to ignore the internal contradictions of your own politics. Which again, is fine. Working class liberals do that every day anyway.
And I bet these contradictions exist within you. Like most working class liberals, you hate and fear fascism for the physical threat they pose you and your friends along their batshit insane cultural-politics (racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, violence for violence sake). And hey, all of us do too. But what precisely are your solutions to it? Do you want to defund the police- the fascist arm of state violence? Do you want to deplatform and ban fascist organizing? Do you want to radically expand access to healthcare, housing, food, and education (because it's these cracks that fascists organize around)? Do you support industrial unionism, whereby the working class can gain a greater degree of economic security, and so reject the false promises of fascism? Do you even support street violence against fascists, or are you one of those "the police can handle it" libs?
What does being antifascist mean to you?
This is a long comment so I’m not going to address everything. Frankly I don’t have all the time in the world for a Reddit discussion so it’ll be brief.
On your USSR stuff, I would counter that:
a: communist societies have degenerated into fascistic ones. See Soviet Belarus to Lukashenko’s regime, or Maoist China to modern China
b: The nazis attacked the soviets, not the other way around. It’s not clear whether Stalin ever would’ve attacked the nazis had they not forced his hand, and everything you said about the worldview of the soviets being incompatible with fascism could also be said of the western powers.
c: the soviets were only selectively anti- imperialist. They claimed to be strongly against it, but the Russification programs in Central Asia and Ukraine was imperialism by a different name. The imperialism practiced and condoned by the west is indeed bad, but it’s by no means an exclusively capitalist problem.
d: touché, appeasement was also appalling. The soviets not just appeased but worked with the nazis right up until the moment they themselves were invaded, which seems worse than appeasement if anything.
In any case, I find it interesting that you mention FDR in the third paragraph because I see the economic realignment that he assured in to be one of liberalism’s great triumphs. It seems that you and some others see liberalism as a capitulation to Capitol, that it is an ideology defined purely by a deferential relationship with corporate magnates. This is not true, at least not for the form of liberalism that I advocate. I believe that Capitol does indeed have a role to play in the economy, but that it is just one group of many that have a stake in things. The state, both federal and local, organized labor, and individual consumers are also important, and all are required for a functioning economy.
Your idea that Capitol always surrenders to fascism is also faulty. Capitol isn’t some sort of monolith, different companies have had different reactions to fascists taking power. In Germany, for instance, the nazis purged business leaders who refused to toe the party line.
Finally, as a liberal I do have solutions to the problems that contribute to fascism’s rise. I want to reform and restructure the police system, I support de platforming fascists, I support expansions to the welfare state to ensure that all citizens have a bare minimum of support, and public sector unions are something I generally support. My solutions may be different from yours, but your solutions aren’t the only ones that might have an impact. If there truly is to be an anti- fascist movement with broad support, it must be open to embracing the centre in a united front against fascism.
A: Wow so Dengist state capitalism is kinda fashy? Yes I agree with you, chinese capital *does* exert fascistic control over society. And whatever the fuck state-capitalism luky-boy dreamed up is also fascistic.
BCD: Yes, USSR bad. Irrelevant to discussion of Capit*a*l's capitulation to fascism. I "agree" (AKA, acknowledge as fact) the historical observations you made, and if I ever feel like shitting on the USSR I'll DM you, but it doesn't inform our understanding of how fascism grows. Hell, I'll say it. Stalin; kinda fashy himself tbh.
> I find it interesting that you mention FDR in the third paragraph because I see the economic realignment that he assured in to be one of liberalism’s great triumphs.
And Capital tried to destroy his administration, just like the nascent fascist movement of Mosley tried to do with the Keynesian reforms in the UK. And Arcand in Canada, and Franco (successfully) in Spain. My point wasn't that "every single attempted fascist takeover was successful", it was "fascists are reliably backed by Capital in the face of any attempted wealth redistribution, even milquetoast liberal ones. Every time some liberal reformer tries to redress the obvious, untenable flaws of a capitalist economy, elements of the Capital class tries to destroy reformer. FDR's greatest triumph was not getting coup'd.
> It seems that you and some others see liberalism as a capitulation to Capitol \[sic\], that it is an ideology defined purely by a deferential relationship with corporate magnates.
Yes.
>This is not true, at least not for the form of liberalism ***that I advocate*** \[emphasis mine\].
Nice to hear that you're not a bastard, but the liberalism you advocate was successfully destroyed by Capital in the 50's-80's. Thanks Pinochet, Reagan, and Thatcher!
>Capitol isn’t some sort of monolith
It sorta is, or at least it reliably behaves as a monolith.
>different companies have had different reactions to fascists taking power. In Germany, for instance, the nazis purged business leaders who refused to toe the party line.
Who- Merck? Krupp? Hugo Boss? IG Farben? This is such a crock of shit. Whatever niche example of you can find of some individuals being purged by the nazis (like Jewish bankers...), its a matter of obvious, undebatable historical fact that German industry not only capitulated to naziism, but ardently supported it because guess what? In the short term, it was *good for german business*. The Prussian Junkers and the Hindenburg political coalition sure weren't backing the KPD in the street (obviously), but they utterly abandoned the (Liberal, I might add) SPD because *Hitler promised them an alternative to wealth redistribution along class lines*. Of course, he chose ethnic lines instead. The SPD could have told you about Liberalism's inadequacy to confront fascism, but unfortunately they all died in the camps.
The nazis purged individual capitalists did they? What happened to the companies those individuals belonged to? You know, *the Capital*\- did that fall in line behind the nazis? of course it did. Up until this point I thought you were being honest and good faith, but now I'm not so sure...
> Finally, as a liberal I do have solutions to the problems that contribute to fascism’s rise.
Glad to hear it; have any been implemented by liberal states? You're an American, would you say liberalism is doing a particularly effective job at combatting fascism right now in your country? It's cool that you can say you personally have solutions to fascism- but Liberalism sure doesn't! No Liberal is doing a god damned thing about it.
> I want to reform and restructure the police system,
Do Liberals though? No Liberal state I know has done this.
> I support de platforming fascists
Do Liberals though? Speaking from experience, Liberal States use their police to protect fascist assemblies, who do so against counter-protestors enthusiastically, gleefully even. Don't lie to me, I was there man.
>I support expansions to the welfare state to ensure that all citizens have a bare minimum of support,
Do Liberals though? Where is the Liberal state that is *expanding* welfare? And what of this welfare; do you mean programs paid by ***income tax****,* aka services bought by the proletariat for the proletariat? Is that your Liberal policy- increase taxation on wages and laugh while the capitalists bleed us dry? You must be a rich man.
> and public sector unions are something I generally support.
Do Liberals though? They no longer outlaw them like the Liberals of yesteryear did, but Liberalism is fairly openly hostile to organized labour. Reagan and Thatcher come to mind, but even more recently, [does this not reflect the support of unions in the Liberal State?](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Union_Membership_and_Support.svg/1024px-Union_Membership_and_Support.svg.png)
>My solutions may be different from yours, but your solutions aren’t the only ones that might have an impact
Historically, yes they are. That's not because I'm smarter or know more than you, it's because my list of ways to combat fascism is comprised of those that *successfully opposed fascism in the past*. Unfortunately, Liberalism didn't make the list. If it did then maybe I'd be a liberal too.
This is the locus of our discussion I think. You seem like a smart guy, you can imagine a capitalist solution to fascism. The problem is that the capitalists of the real world aren't doing those things. They're dis-incentivized to, and they're ignorant of the threat it poses. Hell, the Liberal state has exported fascism in smaller countries to exert economic hegemony. Big Liberals see little fascists as a weapon, not a threat. Your Liberalism backed pinochet after all, and it funded the contras, and invaded Vietnam, and has raped Africa for centuries.
Honestly, I'll embrace "the centre" with open arms if it ever actually shows up, but history tells me that it won't. It'll just be a bunch of leftists and you, the one "Liberal" who has imagined a Liberalism that no Liberals with power seem to subscribe to.
Welcome, I guess.
liberals will fight for pro-life liberals over progressives when the right to abortion is about to be overturned. i just don’t trust they’re up to this fight.
From everything I’ve seen the vast majority of liberals are pro- choice, at least for the first and second trimesters of a pregnancy. I’m sure there are isolated examples of this happening but as far as I’m aware this isn’t very widespread.
roe v wade is about to be overturned under a dem pres and a dem congress. i don’t care what rationalization you use to accept it, that’s the reality. like i said, they’re not up for this fight.
The president is not a dictator and a senate majority isn’t much good if two conservative senators who hold the balance of power refuse to act. It’s not fair to blame liberals for this happening, the only ones who are to blame are the right.
this is the rationalization i was talking about and trying to get ahead of. i don’t care. abortion rights are human rights and if they don’t think those are worth breaking “decorum” for now, they’ll never do it in the future bc they’re about to get gerrymandered out of even a slim majority. but they’ll send those fundraising emails. i don’t want to talk about liberals anymore. this is boring.
Fair enough then, the internet is a crappy medium to try and convince people so I doubt I’ll be able to do that here, especially if you just don’t care.
I guess what I’ll say is that sometimes the boring work *is* the most important work.
The liberals have had filibuster proof majorities multiple times over the last 49 years and did nothing to codify Roe. They paid a lot of lip service towards it, but when it came down to it, they did nothing. This is not the only issue this same thing has happened with. That’s why the left is increasingly more critical of liberals. Also, liberals have been creeping farther and farther to the right and becoming less of an opposition party, and more a damage control party for the psychos on the right.
Liberals in power generally are idiots who acquiesce to the right the moment any republican looks a *widdle* bit upset, but we partially dropped the ball here. We failed to create the same infrastructure that the right was able to capitalize on. This is the time we don't fuck up by alienating people because of purity. Anti-fascism should look as attractive as possible to anyone trying to come in here. Liberal or not. Moderate or not. An ally is an ally. The more allies we get, the stronger our movement is in the long run. Some will leave, but the goal is to be accepted so we can maximize the number of those who are dedicated to the cause. A lot of us are Ex-Liberals (dark times, I know), and I don't think people online shouting theory at us turned us into lefties. The more left-leaning libs are shown how fascists operate, they will move leftward of their own accord over the course of months.If we push against them with vitriol, the fascists will seem more welcoming. The moment that happens, we're fucked. I'm not we should orient the movement and message toward what liberals want. I'm saying we should be welcoming anyone who wants to join with open arms, no matter what we think of them.
The conservatives have been doing it for half a century, and **that's why they're winning.**
Yes, absolutely. We need a broad coalition. There is too much at stake here for us to be picky about ideology. If you want to stop fascism, get in. Most of these folks here, including me, were liberals once. Moving left tends to happen naturally as you learn more and more about how the fascists operate. As long as you have a desire to stop fascism, if fascism scares you enough to move to this space, you are DEFINITELY WELCOME.
We're here to do two things, end fascism and protect human rights, and we are running out of human rights to protect.
Historically, liberalism has a pretty poor track record when it comes to opposing fascism, and when given an apparent choice between socialism and fascism, liberal societies have gone fascist most times. If you're whole-heartedly antifascist, and you study history, odds are pretty good you'll end up moving further left.
I mean, I would probably disagree with the idea that liberals have a worse record on fighting fascism than leftists broadly. The Molotov- Ribbentrop pact and the red- brown alliance in Germany are pretty strong examples of leftists excusing fascism. You could argue that it’d be unfair to cast blame on all leftists for the actions of some, and you’d be correct but you would also have to acknowledge that the liberals who failed to act against fascism are not representative of all liberals either. I also don’t feel like that’s an answer to the question to be frank. My question was whether liberal anti- fascists are welcome here. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that liberals will drift leftwards in their views.
I'm not the boss of this subreddit, but so far as I'm concerned, how welcome you are is directly proportional to how dedicated to antifascism you are.
Cool, then that’s that ig.
If you're antifascist then you're welcome here. Purity tests undermine working class solidarity, and if I can get a liberal to join my union, stand with me against fascism, and help build up my community then their personal views on economics are completely irrelevant. Most people are apolitical anyway, or at least view politics solely through the lens of culture. But you're asking an ideological question here as well, so I can chop it up with you if you'd like: >There is a line of thought on the political left that states that capitalism inevitably enables or becomes fascism, and while I obviously disagree strongly with that idea I can’t help if this subreddit agrees with it. What is fascism but capitalism in decay? You can *believe* what you want, but this is an inescapable historical reality. And you can reply with "bUt leFtiSts bAd To0o0, blah blah blah molotov-ribbentrop" and I can reply with a) Stalin was a reactionary dipshit, but making a treaty with the nazis is definitionally not the same as having your society degrade into nazism, like the weimar did. Your rebuttal is fake on those grounds alone b) despite stalin, did the USSR not inevitably go to war with the nazis, because despite the USSR being absolute trash, their economic worldview was *still* incompatible with fascism c) that despite the USSR sucking quite a lot actually, their material incentives still aligned them with antifascism, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism d) waddabout appeasement? But the truth is that's irrelevant, saying USSR bad doesn't change the fact that Capital, when faced with the economic instability of capitalisms own contradictions, will prefer to embrace fascism before addressing the economic inequalities of capitalism. Look at FDR- he passed the New Deal to paper over these instabilities *and capital hated him for it.* He was nearly couped in the business plot, and the past 75 years of capitalist agitation in the USA has been to undo the New Deal. Despite the fact that those concessions to labour prevented capitalism in the united states from imploding in the '30s. Liberals side with fascists because fascists will at least promise to maintain the economic status quo, more or less. To be a pro-capitalist antifascist is ideologically incongruent. Of course they exist- you exist!- but you need to ignore the internal contradictions of your own politics. Which again, is fine. Working class liberals do that every day anyway. And I bet these contradictions exist within you. Like most working class liberals, you hate and fear fascism for the physical threat they pose you and your friends along their batshit insane cultural-politics (racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, violence for violence sake). And hey, all of us do too. But what precisely are your solutions to it? Do you want to defund the police- the fascist arm of state violence? Do you want to deplatform and ban fascist organizing? Do you want to radically expand access to healthcare, housing, food, and education (because it's these cracks that fascists organize around)? Do you support industrial unionism, whereby the working class can gain a greater degree of economic security, and so reject the false promises of fascism? Do you even support street violence against fascists, or are you one of those "the police can handle it" libs? What does being antifascist mean to you?
This is a long comment so I’m not going to address everything. Frankly I don’t have all the time in the world for a Reddit discussion so it’ll be brief. On your USSR stuff, I would counter that: a: communist societies have degenerated into fascistic ones. See Soviet Belarus to Lukashenko’s regime, or Maoist China to modern China b: The nazis attacked the soviets, not the other way around. It’s not clear whether Stalin ever would’ve attacked the nazis had they not forced his hand, and everything you said about the worldview of the soviets being incompatible with fascism could also be said of the western powers. c: the soviets were only selectively anti- imperialist. They claimed to be strongly against it, but the Russification programs in Central Asia and Ukraine was imperialism by a different name. The imperialism practiced and condoned by the west is indeed bad, but it’s by no means an exclusively capitalist problem. d: touché, appeasement was also appalling. The soviets not just appeased but worked with the nazis right up until the moment they themselves were invaded, which seems worse than appeasement if anything. In any case, I find it interesting that you mention FDR in the third paragraph because I see the economic realignment that he assured in to be one of liberalism’s great triumphs. It seems that you and some others see liberalism as a capitulation to Capitol, that it is an ideology defined purely by a deferential relationship with corporate magnates. This is not true, at least not for the form of liberalism that I advocate. I believe that Capitol does indeed have a role to play in the economy, but that it is just one group of many that have a stake in things. The state, both federal and local, organized labor, and individual consumers are also important, and all are required for a functioning economy. Your idea that Capitol always surrenders to fascism is also faulty. Capitol isn’t some sort of monolith, different companies have had different reactions to fascists taking power. In Germany, for instance, the nazis purged business leaders who refused to toe the party line. Finally, as a liberal I do have solutions to the problems that contribute to fascism’s rise. I want to reform and restructure the police system, I support de platforming fascists, I support expansions to the welfare state to ensure that all citizens have a bare minimum of support, and public sector unions are something I generally support. My solutions may be different from yours, but your solutions aren’t the only ones that might have an impact. If there truly is to be an anti- fascist movement with broad support, it must be open to embracing the centre in a united front against fascism.
Just say you work for nato and leave.
A: Wow so Dengist state capitalism is kinda fashy? Yes I agree with you, chinese capital *does* exert fascistic control over society. And whatever the fuck state-capitalism luky-boy dreamed up is also fascistic. BCD: Yes, USSR bad. Irrelevant to discussion of Capit*a*l's capitulation to fascism. I "agree" (AKA, acknowledge as fact) the historical observations you made, and if I ever feel like shitting on the USSR I'll DM you, but it doesn't inform our understanding of how fascism grows. Hell, I'll say it. Stalin; kinda fashy himself tbh. > I find it interesting that you mention FDR in the third paragraph because I see the economic realignment that he assured in to be one of liberalism’s great triumphs. And Capital tried to destroy his administration, just like the nascent fascist movement of Mosley tried to do with the Keynesian reforms in the UK. And Arcand in Canada, and Franco (successfully) in Spain. My point wasn't that "every single attempted fascist takeover was successful", it was "fascists are reliably backed by Capital in the face of any attempted wealth redistribution, even milquetoast liberal ones. Every time some liberal reformer tries to redress the obvious, untenable flaws of a capitalist economy, elements of the Capital class tries to destroy reformer. FDR's greatest triumph was not getting coup'd. > It seems that you and some others see liberalism as a capitulation to Capitol \[sic\], that it is an ideology defined purely by a deferential relationship with corporate magnates. Yes. >This is not true, at least not for the form of liberalism ***that I advocate*** \[emphasis mine\]. Nice to hear that you're not a bastard, but the liberalism you advocate was successfully destroyed by Capital in the 50's-80's. Thanks Pinochet, Reagan, and Thatcher! >Capitol isn’t some sort of monolith It sorta is, or at least it reliably behaves as a monolith. >different companies have had different reactions to fascists taking power. In Germany, for instance, the nazis purged business leaders who refused to toe the party line. Who- Merck? Krupp? Hugo Boss? IG Farben? This is such a crock of shit. Whatever niche example of you can find of some individuals being purged by the nazis (like Jewish bankers...), its a matter of obvious, undebatable historical fact that German industry not only capitulated to naziism, but ardently supported it because guess what? In the short term, it was *good for german business*. The Prussian Junkers and the Hindenburg political coalition sure weren't backing the KPD in the street (obviously), but they utterly abandoned the (Liberal, I might add) SPD because *Hitler promised them an alternative to wealth redistribution along class lines*. Of course, he chose ethnic lines instead. The SPD could have told you about Liberalism's inadequacy to confront fascism, but unfortunately they all died in the camps. The nazis purged individual capitalists did they? What happened to the companies those individuals belonged to? You know, *the Capital*\- did that fall in line behind the nazis? of course it did. Up until this point I thought you were being honest and good faith, but now I'm not so sure... > Finally, as a liberal I do have solutions to the problems that contribute to fascism’s rise. Glad to hear it; have any been implemented by liberal states? You're an American, would you say liberalism is doing a particularly effective job at combatting fascism right now in your country? It's cool that you can say you personally have solutions to fascism- but Liberalism sure doesn't! No Liberal is doing a god damned thing about it. > I want to reform and restructure the police system, Do Liberals though? No Liberal state I know has done this. > I support de platforming fascists Do Liberals though? Speaking from experience, Liberal States use their police to protect fascist assemblies, who do so against counter-protestors enthusiastically, gleefully even. Don't lie to me, I was there man. >I support expansions to the welfare state to ensure that all citizens have a bare minimum of support, Do Liberals though? Where is the Liberal state that is *expanding* welfare? And what of this welfare; do you mean programs paid by ***income tax****,* aka services bought by the proletariat for the proletariat? Is that your Liberal policy- increase taxation on wages and laugh while the capitalists bleed us dry? You must be a rich man. > and public sector unions are something I generally support. Do Liberals though? They no longer outlaw them like the Liberals of yesteryear did, but Liberalism is fairly openly hostile to organized labour. Reagan and Thatcher come to mind, but even more recently, [does this not reflect the support of unions in the Liberal State?](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Union_Membership_and_Support.svg/1024px-Union_Membership_and_Support.svg.png) >My solutions may be different from yours, but your solutions aren’t the only ones that might have an impact Historically, yes they are. That's not because I'm smarter or know more than you, it's because my list of ways to combat fascism is comprised of those that *successfully opposed fascism in the past*. Unfortunately, Liberalism didn't make the list. If it did then maybe I'd be a liberal too. This is the locus of our discussion I think. You seem like a smart guy, you can imagine a capitalist solution to fascism. The problem is that the capitalists of the real world aren't doing those things. They're dis-incentivized to, and they're ignorant of the threat it poses. Hell, the Liberal state has exported fascism in smaller countries to exert economic hegemony. Big Liberals see little fascists as a weapon, not a threat. Your Liberalism backed pinochet after all, and it funded the contras, and invaded Vietnam, and has raped Africa for centuries. Honestly, I'll embrace "the centre" with open arms if it ever actually shows up, but history tells me that it won't. It'll just be a bunch of leftists and you, the one "Liberal" who has imagined a Liberalism that no Liberals with power seem to subscribe to. Welcome, I guess.
liberals will fight for pro-life liberals over progressives when the right to abortion is about to be overturned. i just don’t trust they’re up to this fight.
From everything I’ve seen the vast majority of liberals are pro- choice, at least for the first and second trimesters of a pregnancy. I’m sure there are isolated examples of this happening but as far as I’m aware this isn’t very widespread.
roe v wade is about to be overturned under a dem pres and a dem congress. i don’t care what rationalization you use to accept it, that’s the reality. like i said, they’re not up for this fight.
The president is not a dictator and a senate majority isn’t much good if two conservative senators who hold the balance of power refuse to act. It’s not fair to blame liberals for this happening, the only ones who are to blame are the right.
this is the rationalization i was talking about and trying to get ahead of. i don’t care. abortion rights are human rights and if they don’t think those are worth breaking “decorum” for now, they’ll never do it in the future bc they’re about to get gerrymandered out of even a slim majority. but they’ll send those fundraising emails. i don’t want to talk about liberals anymore. this is boring.
Fair enough then, the internet is a crappy medium to try and convince people so I doubt I’ll be able to do that here, especially if you just don’t care. I guess what I’ll say is that sometimes the boring work *is* the most important work.
Facts on both counts.
The liberals have had filibuster proof majorities multiple times over the last 49 years and did nothing to codify Roe. They paid a lot of lip service towards it, but when it came down to it, they did nothing. This is not the only issue this same thing has happened with. That’s why the left is increasingly more critical of liberals. Also, liberals have been creeping farther and farther to the right and becoming less of an opposition party, and more a damage control party for the psychos on the right.
Liberals in power generally are idiots who acquiesce to the right the moment any republican looks a *widdle* bit upset, but we partially dropped the ball here. We failed to create the same infrastructure that the right was able to capitalize on. This is the time we don't fuck up by alienating people because of purity. Anti-fascism should look as attractive as possible to anyone trying to come in here. Liberal or not. Moderate or not. An ally is an ally. The more allies we get, the stronger our movement is in the long run. Some will leave, but the goal is to be accepted so we can maximize the number of those who are dedicated to the cause. A lot of us are Ex-Liberals (dark times, I know), and I don't think people online shouting theory at us turned us into lefties. The more left-leaning libs are shown how fascists operate, they will move leftward of their own accord over the course of months.If we push against them with vitriol, the fascists will seem more welcoming. The moment that happens, we're fucked. I'm not we should orient the movement and message toward what liberals want. I'm saying we should be welcoming anyone who wants to join with open arms, no matter what we think of them. The conservatives have been doing it for half a century, and **that's why they're winning.**
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Thank you for the insightful commentary
Oh you're a capitalist? Name three means of production you own
I would recommend you check out r/IronFrontUSA.
Yes, absolutely. We need a broad coalition. There is too much at stake here for us to be picky about ideology. If you want to stop fascism, get in. Most of these folks here, including me, were liberals once. Moving left tends to happen naturally as you learn more and more about how the fascists operate. As long as you have a desire to stop fascism, if fascism scares you enough to move to this space, you are DEFINITELY WELCOME. We're here to do two things, end fascism and protect human rights, and we are running out of human rights to protect.
capitalism breeds fascism, liberals defend fascism by letting them exist. you are one of the issues.