neoliberals are fascists.
the end. thats the whole comment.
i find their aesthetic choices inconsequential and thus not worth inclusion in the definition.
neoliberals are fascists.
preedit edit: plus, heart emojis are cool and good :heart-sickle:
hahah no you're right, I just thought it was inline with how they project themselves being as if they were some type of global humanitarian ideology cause of how sincerely they believe the "market" is the best thing that this world has ever had
for sure, but fascists have always projected themselves as doing some sort of necessary thing, with humanitarian smokescreens thrown up to try and legitimize themselves as not really being the bad guy
Very fair point. I try not to think about them too much because it's so goddamn bothersome. I've been working on self care in this way, not kidding.
not every bad thing is fascism, but neoliberal ideology is literally fascist ideology.
there is a reason the u.s is currently a fascist state, under neoliberal rule. its because neoliberals are fascists.
The most committed WTO type neoliberal want to see the total destruction of the nation state as an institution collapse. To compare that to fascism, an ideology centered around ethnic identity is moronic.
Saying that liberals are the same as fascists is just as bad of a take as saying leftists are the same as fascists because they both support the violent overthrow of elected governments to advance their political project.
Two ideologies sharing political or economic tactics doesn't make them the same thing at all. Calling them the same thing is a big part of why the left has failed to succeed in the current political era both from Corbyn to Bernie.
noo guys my apartheid police state is totally different guys nooo see im a globalist you see i dont think all the minorities bad im super woke shoot them in the legs you guys noo dont call me fascist noo
🙄
The US can have fascist tendencies and neoliberal tendencies that are independent of each other, but the people advocating for each of these systems are never going to be the same people. You clearly just want to be angry rather than try and understand your political opponents.
The global left was orders of magnitudes more successful at fighting fascism than it has with neoliberalism (the global left embraced it ffs), so we seriously do need to think in terms that oppose this ideology specifically.
oh yeah, tell me what i want, and how i dont know what im talking about, while you apologia for neoliberals walking lockstep with facists towards right wing oblivion.
noo noo the reason you leftists cant win is because you bernie bros wont acknowledge how different and good the neoliberals are! lumping the fascists together like that is bad, you commie trotskiest syndicalist anarchist corbynites !!
fuck off.
Where did I say neoliberals were good, or better than fascists. I said they were fundimentally different and the way they need to be faught is different, alongside saying that the left has become unreasonably comfortable with aspects of the neoliberal world. If anything I think the broad idea that fascism is a rising thing in the US is nothing other than a distraction from the fact that the neoliberal world order as being the real enemy since it is actually a real threat to the future of human civilization in a way that Trump is not.
Neoliberalism is something that exists outside of the perview of the nation state. It's free trade settlement courts, it's the WTO striking down domestic laws that keep people employed, it's the IMF forcing austerity on a country in order to even exist with their own currency, it's the destruction of agriculture and resource extraction communities in the developing world and the destruction of manufacturing communities in the developed world. It's shipping things all over the world, destroying our environment, just to save a penny.
maybe youll get my point better if i add a word:
neoliberalism is globalist fascism.
all the things fascists want on a nation state level, neoliberals want on a global level. they are fascists with an international perspective.
the strict control of economic and social function under a centralized governmental structure which suppresses all opposition.
which is literally what neoliberalism is in the international stage.
Yeah we have a clear disagreement over what fascism is. What you've described is a political tactic that's used by any and all authoritarian governments regardless of left/right orientation. A big part of the ML project is suppressing opposition and strict regeneration of the economy (which I tend to think is totally justified in the name of building a classless society).
Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. I think there are parts of this that do make sense in the modern context for how the US and the world operates, but I tend to think that's largely distinct from the broader neoliberal project.
What is the use of fascism for the capitalist (and in terms of Weimar Germany) and aristocratic classes?
What is it for the petit bourgeoisie?
If it is about exclusionary nationhood into which the populace transcedence isn't it in direct conflict to the capitalists in the country seeking markets and profits outside its boundaries? As in the manifest is written that in capitalism 'everything that is solid melts into air', so shouldn't the reduced definition you used here clash with that aspect of capitalism?
To make it short, what is your theoretical framework and in addition which theoretical sources do you draw your fascism theory from?
The materialist application of fascism is still different than the material conception of neoliberalism.
Within fascism, elites maintain their primary allegences to their particular nation state. The success of the fascist project will benefit the elites from their own nation at the expense of elites from other nations. Although it's usually petite bourgeois that are most directly engaged in the fascist project.
Under neoliberalism, elites reject their national identity in the desire to be globally sovergn. Their point of loyalty is to the doctrine of the free market and it's ability to reach all corners of the globe. Elites are totally uninterested in nation building within a neoliberal order and see zero problem selling their country for scraps to the highest bidder.
These two ideologies are fundimentally in conflict.
lol literally calling yourself a red fascist to own the libs and you think your propagandizing is how to beat them. fucking hilarious
i literally gave you the textbook answer of what it is. you are just a moron.
Maybe you are the moron, considering cracksmoke gave you a basic polsci info and you're still trying to equate two different ideologies just because they align on some scales.
neoliberalism is globalist fascism.
Even this quote is stupid as hell(globalist fascism? This nears on being an oxymoron) but even passing the inherent contradiction between two words, you can't just add qualifiers to one thing to make it seem like another thing. I can't just call Hungary christian Syria.
you are incapable of divorcing your concept of fascism from the nation, in spite of nationalism being only one aspect, but somehow im the moron? ye okay.
you cant qualify words to make them mean different things and thus equate concepts which are otherwise very similar? and thats your analogy for it being impossible?
you are beyond stupid.
you are incapable of divorcing your concept of fascism from the nation
Because nation(and tradition) is a central aspect you dingbat, not a side concept. Neoliberals and fascists don't operate with same motives or same tactics. Just because US government has neoliberals and fascists trying to govern it together doesn't mean they are the same thing. Go outside your bubble once and see how neoliberals and fascists despise and fight each other outside US.
it is a core tenant only in the sense that if you... remove that tenant.. oh hey now you have neoliberalism, you dipstick.
much like how if you take a leftist and delineate by belief in nationstates you end up with mls and anarchists being seperate. my god. what a surprise. :shocked-pikachu:
Great analogy, that's why you call them leftists just like you would call fascists and neoliberals right wingers. And since you don't call anarchists MLs because that would be really stupid, you shouldn't call neoliberals fascists, you absolute dumbass
my god, you are a dense.
does the right wing hesitate to call anyone that isnt a fascist a commie? no, no they do not. because thats how agitprop works you dumbfuck.
the whole point is to call them fascists regardless of if its technically correct.
fucking libs on this site i swear
If you go to France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Mexico etc. and try to argue that socdems are secretly commies you'll only convice nazis, so your stupid analogy only works in anglosphere
Also that wasn't the point you were trying to argue you moron, stop calling people libs to cover up how stupid you are
you are literally arguing that we must respect neoliberals and not equate them with fascists on a post about neoliberals loving sweatshops.
youre a lib. get over it. :cope:
No you moron, i'm saying they are a different kind of evil compared to fascists and treating them like they are the same is not fruitful. They need different strategies to be beaten
You're just a child
Fascist ideology is and isn't centered about ethnic identity. To think that mistakes both the wish to destroy others and thus be a superior to others as well as the material base of fascism as its real drivers. That something is part of the core ideas doesn't mean it is a driver. For fascists it doesn't matter that everyone is ethnically the same, they will construct their scape goats anyhow. In the example of Germany they used lingering antisemitism, they used extermination to secure their power, it is about the function of that fascism rotates. It isn't about being "ethnically" unified, it is about exterminating the other.
A key characteristic behind the rise of fascism was the long held desire to make every single member of their nation into their own mini aristocrat of the petite bourgeois. Settler colonialism and fascism are often inexorability linked.
The neoliberal project is a rejection of direct intervention and flashpoint imperialism, the neoliberal version of imperialism is done entirely through legal codes and is accessable not just to the citizenry of a single nation but the entire global bourgeois.
:this:
and in the case of neoliberalism, that other is manifold, usually manifesting as some aspect of the global south, or non-western hegemonic power
This is the guy telling you horror stories about human rights abuses in socialist states
r/neoliberal and r/loveforlandlords are subreddits where I genuinely can't figure out when they're being ironic or not. They've got the 4chan-style ironyposting except it's for the most boring and ghoulish school of politics on the planet.
The landlord one is a bit. I posted there but I was too over the top in my sarcasm and they banned me for being too obvious
I thought the landlord subreddit was just their actual views exaggerated to the extreme for comedic effect. If you check the comment histories of the people who post there it's all chuds and neolibs that go to bat for landlords in other subs.
I'm pretty sure loveforlandlords is satire right? However, neoliberal besides a few quality shitposters is also mostly legit from everything I've seen. They have too insane of comment chains all stroking each other over woke capitalism and for the life of my can't detect actual sarcasm because the most insane posters are also commenting similar shit on r/politics or r/joebiden
Neoliberal definitely started out as a bit that then became unironic.
No it's not, I checked the whole sub, they defend child labor too 😭😭😭
I think the existence of a subreddit is a bit but they just keep goin'
Honestly the issue of free trade is obnoxious because everything free trade has done would be great for the world if we didn't live under capitalism.
The theory of free trade is that certain types of production move to where it is most effective to do so. Clothing made in parts of the world where it's easiest to grow cotton, electronics manufacturing all being centered in one region with 50 mil people to cut down on supply chain distance. These economies of scale make it so much easier to produce far more goods with less resources than ever before.
However, under our current system free trade destroys the livelihood of substance farmers in less industrialized countries forcing them away from food production into growing drugs (which the west regularly destroys their fields from), and in developed countries it totally destroyed their manufacturing bases alongside the labor movement that went along with it. And this is only scratching the surface.
But real talk, you do occasionally see people defend globalization on here, when it's by far the worst consequence that stemmed from the fall of the USSR. Communists should support economic stability above all, more rapid growth for China does in no way justify the damage free trade has done to literally every other country in the planet alongside the damage free trade did to rural China.
Growing wheat in the wheat climate and trading it with people who grow bananas in the banana climate makes a lot of sense and enriches everyone. But the profits go to the owners and, as if that wasn't already parasitic enough, for some reason they're all in wheat country.
the profits go to the owners and, as if that wasn’t already parasitic enough, for some reason they’re all in wheat country.
Isn't that just the most remarkable historical coincidence? Truly there must be an invisible hand guiding the markets.
Growing wheat in the wheat climate and trading it with people who grow bananas in the banana climate
That's still a waste of resources right now(carbon and energy, unless we can find a near-carbon free way of transport), unless your climate and soil can't feed you with necessary nutrients you shouldn't trade food in big quantities.
Capitalist free trade is all about exploration of labor, while sane/socialist free trade would be all about sustainable and simplified supply chains.
Free trade is also completely one sided and destructive without total and complete freedom of movement for workers. As in picking up and moving somewhere else isn't a problem financially or logistically. Without that, it's just exploitation.
Capitalist free trade isn't purely the first point, especially around the reason for why people like Obama or Biden support it. State department spooks that advocate for free trade are much more nationalist than liberal.
There's much more of a real politik nation building side to it that has nothing to do with making corporations richer. The US saw that other nations could maybe someday outpace them because they had a larger population, and in turn would be able to out compete because of larger economies of scale for their corporations. Transnational megacorps were seen as the only way for the US to have any sort of economic growth (but really sustained position economically in the world) in a world where China or india became developed.
Also I tend to think liberals agree on the point about free movement of people, if anything they're more supportive of that than the left is.
Lastly, capitalist free trade is absolutely a good thing for the professional middle class. It means both higher salaries and cheaper goods. The only group that suffers from this in wealthy countries are people working in factories (resource extraction like coal mining/logging and farming also benefits from free trade).
Okay so like the hilarious take is, the whole bit is that wages increase and people are doing this because subsistence farming sucks – without considering that opening up to trade usually destroyed the viability of farms in the first place.
Second, these companies pressure the state to kill union workers and keep wages low, which the state feels compelled to because they're corrupt + they can't really offer any alternative jobs because industries were destroyed.
I'm sure all the subsistence farmers had big, rational round tables about whether or not to allow neo liberals and their factories to come in and become their happy neighbor who offers them the completely optional choice to work there. Obviously, they always want dramatic transformation of their local landscapes! I'm sure, as well, that the MIC hadn't come in and brutalized any place where there now stands factories.
When NAFTA first passed before the WTO really took off they actually went around mexico to convince farmers that they'd be better off, when in reality literally everyone was worse off with the minor exception of oligarchs and urbanite professionals.
No, no WTO pressure scaring countries to open up wasn't a thing at all
Yeah and now you see so called leftists act like the WTO shit is good even on this forum. "Ohhh noo, you're an evil neolib for checks notes not wanting long existing jobs to flee every country on earth only to relocate into the largest economies of China and the United States."
Globalization has been an unmitigated disaster, countries need to develop independently from each other such that they can be nominally self sufficient.
Lord help me, I know nothing of the WTO. Can you provide some info on it?
I would have thought that globalization would be a good thing under a socialist form of production. The way I see it, it would be easier to establish the most productive places to use labor to make available each resource and then move it around the world than it would be to have each place synthesize each resource. For example, if Japan is not iron rich, they could call on China to give them enough iron - not in exchange, but just because they need it. On the inverse, if China were low on products of Japanese expertise and labor - perhaps sophisticated medical devices (idk), they could call upon Japan to supply them. You wouldn't need every country to have iron or ventilator production. Therefore, you would reduce redundancy in production. And this would further the world into the endgame where you no longer need boarders or states because you have a counsel of laborers organizing world production. Also, if all the infrastructure and workflows already exist under capitalism and you seize the means, you wouldn't just burn down all the transport ships, databases, and docks, would you?
The WTO exists to create a standard set of rules various countries trade goods on and protects a set of rules around foreign direct investment and the physical and intellectual property that acquires. It aims to reduce tariffs, but doesn't eliminate them like a free trade deal does.
No, if global socialism started tomorrow you probably wouldn't destroy these supply chains, but in a capitalist system this lack of redundancy hurts a nation's ability to reach full quality employment. But because the contemporary world order maintains big parts of the broader nation state institution, nation's can't really depend on one another and the workers cannot depend on their own countries.
Absolutely. Shit like arbitrage for the cheapest labor for packaging is garbage and having three or four stops for foodstuffs is killing the environment.
Just found out about the WTO. that shit sucks
Yup, I wish I could realize as a small child living in nyc that 9/11 was really about saying fuck free trade.
Western chuds <~> the global left <~> islamist terrorist all agree on saying fuck free trade and the new world order.
If you close the sweatshops in SE Asia then where will you get all the secondhand clothes necessary to destroy the garment industry in Africa?
"Is all of our wealth stolen? Is our prosperity undergirded by exploitation? Do we have this giant globe spanning military for reasons besides ensuring economic domination? These questions and more, answered by the Money Guys. They are very sure the answer isn't Money this time. They've been working at this theory for years now."
There, I'm six IPA's into the night and I just outneoliberaled the neoliberals on
r/whitefirstworldersI mean r/neoliberalBlah blah blah average wage in that region, blah blah blah lifting out of poverty blah blah blah Stephen Pinker says things are getting better blah blah blah do they know it's christmas time at all
These freaks should be treated the same way fascists should be treated.
These freaks are fascists. Benito Mussolini himself said that Fascism would be more accurately titled "Corporatism," and the term "privatization" was coined by the Nazis to describe their economic program throughout the 1930s. Whether these conditions are imposed by an oligarchy or an autocracy, the end result is a dictatorship of economic austerity paired with brutal counterinsurgency.
Well, he wasn't referring to corporations like business corporations, but rather the whole of society acting like one body, as a way of brushing over class distinctions.
But yeah, they do in practice support fascism.
The ultranationalism found within past fascist movements is not especially similar to the post WTO neoliberal who wants to see the total destruction of the nation state as an institution.
There's a reason why it's the rising national conservative movement, rather than the left, that represents the most meaningful challenge to the anti nationalist liberal order when the opposite was true when fascism was rising as a status quo economic platform.
Callous indifference to suffering combined with stupidity combined with smugness because they believe they are smarter than other people. There is no one I hate more in the entire world than self-described neoliberals.
In a just world, these people would be working in an Indonesian shoe factory
I believe that I have broken the First Rule Of Posting: Never be red, mad or nude
You may call me edgy but I'm willing to strangle every single one of those neoliberals if I ever have the misfortune to encounter them.
