Reminds me of a joke on a Bright Eyes song.
“There’s a Communist and an Anarchist in a car who’s driving? The cop.”
It’s not a joke if it’s true
It’s not true, though. The Marxists, safely behind a wall, convinced the undecideds to give the gun to the Fascist.
No they didn’t, what a boring take divorced from reality.
If liberals ever critically analyzed reality they’d be marxists.
Marxists in America are a rounding error. This is the first time I’ve seen someone spend too much time on Lemmy.
They’re a very vocal and organized minority, and it is very clear to see their misinformation has had huge impacts on undecided voters.
That is not very clear to see at all.
6.27 Million people who voted for Biden didn’t show up to vote for Harris, giving the USA Election to Donald Trump. The Both-Sides-Bad Centrism mental disease is rampant among the left and it’s being heavily promoted and endorsed by Tankie trolls and bots, including TikTok as a whole.
If Marxists could get 6.27M people to listen to them, you think they’d waste it on an election? Kamala simply ran an out-of-touch campaign.
Pick a man’s pocket and he’ll hate you.
Convince a man that others are picking their pockets and he’ll give you his money.
Will the liberals ever grow up and take responsibility for they doing?
Liberals didn’t vote for Trump.
Kamalla was an infinitely better candidate if you value human life. Kamala wanted to tax the rich, Trump wants to cut their taxes AGAIN. How can anybody call themself a communist when they empower wealthy theocratic oligopoly?
Leftists didn’t vote for Trump as far as I imagine. Your argument is stupid. The question is why would leftist vote for Harris when Biden demonstrated he wouldn’t do anything more than what Democrats did in the last 50 years?
If they didn’t vote for Harris, as 6.27 Million former Biden votes stayed home, then they effectively did support the Trump presidency. Just like the Tankies told them to, to “reject the duopoly”. Every Democrat in the last 50 years made things better than they were before. Even Lindon B Johnson promoted more “socialism” than you ever have, 60 years ago.
And that is a lie the liberals tell to themselves. Liberals we’re in charge. They chose to gift promises to the right, expecting the left to vote for them only to fight fascism. The responsibility is to Harris and her side only. Now you deal with fascism and liberals are still trying to deflect their responsibilities, and that’s disgusting a good reason enough to consider them a part of the fascist problem itself.
“Do you know why people don’t like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn always?” - Will MacAvoy, Newsroom
Imagine having 4 years to prepare
With all the state apparatus behind them announcing day and night that Trump was “literally the worst human bean ever”
Basically all the universities and all the highly educated population by their side
With massive approval from their voter base
With huge sums of money for propaganda in the private media.
With all the considerably large powers of the current executive
Able to pass laws
Able to influence worldwide political movements to bash their opposition at any time through grants
Able to start or stop wars worldwide should the need arise
And they still lost to Trump LMAO 🤣
And then blame the Party for not providing more attractive choices.
Our choices were Fascism or Corporatism. Why wouldn’t we blame the parties?
I blame the Democratic party as much as anybody else for not being progressive enough, but nobody can blame a party for their own decision not to vote.
Are you one of the people who consider voting third party to be tantamount to not voting?
Nah, those are the far-left authoritarians AKA tankies
You don’t have to be authoritarian to think Dems shit the bed.
I mean
Consequentially saying the dems are shit resulted in authoritarianism
So yeah
But what that user was saying is that 90% of the posts on Lemmy about Dems shitting beds are made by Tankies who unapologetically support Trump and Putin.
Consequentially saying the dems are shit resulted in authoritarianism
More like, the dems being shit resulted in authoritarianism. Republicans fight hard to implement fascism, democrats fight hard to keep the status quo, even as it grows more fascist.
What’s a liberal according to Lemmy? Economically liberal and socially liberal? Social democrat? Obama or Bernie?
I’m just curious. How long would you consider a reasonably quick read expressed in hours?
Depends on how quickly you have to read. It’s not a very dense book because like half of it is restating history and context you can just skim by if you’re already familiar with the time period, and it uses very accessible language.
Yeah that’s why I’m curious. I read at about 350WPM so what I consider a fast read may be slow for some.
It also depends on the density of the text. I’ve been struggling through Imperialism by Lenin for like a month.
Sorry, I literally don’t have an answer, I have never timed how long it takes to read something. All I can say is how quick it feels to read something.
So rich people? 18th century bourgeois were probably quite liberal but I bet a lot of current bourgeois are more conservative than liberal, so it’s hard to understand.
If you see anti-liberal sentiment that means “capitalism” which means “western world power” because some parts of Lemmy is overrun with CCP trolls and bots.
The actual definition of Liberal is meaningless here, but worth noting it means “advocate of equality and personal rights and freedoms”.
The root of the word liberal is liber which means to make free. Classical liberalism is about making people free. To liberate.
Neoliberalism to the contrary is a far right ideology brought to mainstream politics in the US by Ronald Reagan and in the UK by Margaret Thatcher. Neoliberalism differs greatly from classical liberalism because its about freeing capital not people. Neoliberalism was embraced by the most right wing elements of the democratic party in the early 90’s by Bill Clinton and many others like Nancy Pelocy who restructured the party to reflect the new demand to serve capital over people.
This new desire to serve capital like the republicans who came before them was a challenge the the breadbasket the Republicans relied heavily upon. Needing to differentiate themselves the republicans created a new ideology of neoconservativism. The was led by republicans like Newt Gingrich.The republicans still needed to serve capital but also needed to differentiate themselves further from the democrat embracement of neoliberalism. This is the birth of their right moving ever right courting the never ending supply of batshit crazy.
As the right moved ever right the democrats stayed lock step behind them moving ever to the right. This was the demise of our democracy and led us directly into the fascism we face today.
While classical liberalism and neoliberalism share the root word liber, they are very different in their end goal and overall ideology. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored, overlooked or forgotten.
So I guess OP means neo-liberal rather than liberal in general.
Is it correct to say that neo-liberal is economically liberal but not socially liberal?
I see American conservatives tend to also use “liberal” to qualify their opponents, but in this case it seems to attack the social liberal specifically (typically about gender, sexuality and origin).
Overall, this single term seems to have a different meaning depending on the political section so it’s hard to understand on such an out of context statement, I wish people would use more precise periphrases.Is it correct to say that neo-liberal is economically liberal but not socially liberal?
Yes that would be fair. Neoliberalism is about freeing capital.
Overall, this single term seems to have a different meaning depending on the political section so it’s hard to understand on such an out of context statement, I wish people would use more precise periphrases.
There is a certain amount of historical ignorance involved in this, I once fell into this category. There is also people taking the root word libre in any context to lump everyone into one category as the US conservatives do and some on the left seem to do this as well.
I don’t agree with people on the left or right besmirching or confusing classical liberalism or social liberalism with neoliberalism. All three are different. I fall far more in the camp of social liberalism which is similar to classical liberalism but with more emphasis on the social contract and the thought that governance should play a role in that social contract for its citizenry. My post above left out social liberalism for brevity as I find the two to be very similar.
I would advise never taking anyone on any social platforms definitions for just about anything. Even mine. There is dictionaries and encyclopedia’s for just this purpose, words have definitions often with interesting histories. Below are some links that will give you a far better understanding of the differences and their histories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
It kind of has a double meaning. One side is someone who believes in like democracy, freedom, human rights, and the other side is someone who believes in private property. For historical reasons, the two tendencies are like joined together on most things, but there are differences.
A lot of leftists don’t like liberals because they defend private property and capitalism, but a lot of liberals see themselves as leftists because of those progressive values.
Whether or not a liberal is left wing very much depends on the liberal. Every socialist was once a liberal, whether they were political or not. Conservatives are a kind of liberal, but with the progressive parts removed so it only defends private property.
capitalism is really good at like hiding away its injustice behind contracts and laws, a socialist would see those laws as unjust and want to do radical reforms up to and including overthrow of the ruling billionaires. a liberal might not see the injustice, or if they do, tend to want to stick to courts and reforms because it does contain elements of fairness and justice. liberal justice is more fair than feudal justice, but less than what many socialists would like.
The meme is a reference to the idea that social democracy, liberalism and fascism are all different aspects of capitalism.
Yes.
My political positions are somewhere on the left outskirts of Social Democracy, so I’ve no love for liberals. That said, when I look at the US, it was not the liberals that just gave a fascist not only a gun but an entire army.
How is that supposed to be a riddle?
The only actual threat in the room is the fascist. Anarchists aren’t actually dangerous, they’re just annoying, they never actually do anything they just talk a lot.
The Marxist won’t kill you either. They’ll just argue with you.
So, three authoritarians, and only two get to survive.
I feel like wanting to kill 3/4ths of the population is part of some ideologies, but i wouldn’t count anarchy among them.
Yes, that’s why I said three authoritarians. The Nazis, and the two groups that have historically worked with them at several points.
More like spot themselves in the foot and drop the gun at the fascist’s feet.
Anarchist has his own, and due to his knowledge of history he kills the other three before the marxist can attempt to talk him into teaming up against the fascist then turn around and stab him in the back while bickering with the liberal.
A Marxist is stuck in a room with a liberal, a fascist, and an anarchist. The Marxist has one gun and two bullets. What does the Marxist do? Shoot the liberal and the anarchist.
(Based off actual historical events.)
If anyone disagrees:
Kronstadt
Spanish Civil War
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
The War in Ukraine
Etc.
The War in Ukraine
I’m confused.
The Soviet Union did more to stop the fascists than anyone else, and 27 million people in the Soviet Union were killed in the fight.
Which the Red Army made up for by murdering untold thousands of German citizens on the way to Berlin. Let’s not pretend the Soviets weren’t huge pieces of shit, the only reason they didn’t start WW2 was because they were too busy shitting in buckets and starving to death.
The only people you idiot .ml users are fooling is yourselves, so I don’t know why you bother with this revisionist bullshit.
revisionist bullshit.
Projection, as always.
Yeah, but that’s after they made an alliance with Nazi Germany. An alliance Germany broke, not the USSR.
The USSR first sought an alliance with Britain and France which was rejected, so they signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Britain and France also signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, betraying one of their allies (Czechoslovakia) in exchange.
Should we take the fact that the US and USSR fought on the same side in WWII to say that they were always close friends and ideologically aligned, completely ignoring everything else? Because if anything that would be more reasonable to assert, because it never escalated to a hot war between the two.
It wasn’t just a pact of non-aggression. They divided Poland between themselves! France and Britain abandoned Czechoslovakia to avoid a war, USSR made an alliance with Nazi Germany to begin one.
And USSR and the US were on the same side because they were attacked by allied countries (Germany and Japan), they didn’t chose one another. Stop your historical revisionism.
I won’t defend all of the USSR’s actions, but it’s absurd to suggest they were motivated by any sort of ideological alignment with the Nazis as opposed to self-interest and circumstance, in the same way that the US and USSR were motivated by a common interest rather than ideological alignment.
At basically every other moment in history, all across the globe, Marxists and fascists have been at each other’s throats.
Nothing I’ve said is in the least bit “historical revisionism.”
Still, the USSR considered that an alliance with Nazi Germany was ideologically acceptable, even if they were not aligned. Because the only true ideology of USSR was to maintain its leaders in power, Marxism was just a facade. And that’s will always ultimately the case with authoritarian governments.
Of course self-preservation was a priority for the USSR, as it is with any nation. Failure to achieve self-preservation would have meant being ruled by the Nazis.
Not sure how that in any way indicates that “Marxism was a facade.”
The Soviet Union was not entitled to an alliance with partners they were at war with only a decade prior. Britain and France were at war with the entity that would become the Soviet Union until 1922, There was no reason to Trust an alliance from a state that was ideologically opposed to them and wanted to destroy their way of life.
But the Victim complex from the Russians is a venerable beast, it was as relevant in 1925 as it was in 2025.
I’m not sure how it’s relevant whether or not the Soviets were “entitled” to an alliance. What matters is the fact that they attempted to negotiate one there first.
I can ask for a cup of sugar from the neighbor who I wrecked the car of last month. that neighbor is still within his reasonable rights to tell me to fuck off
Again, not relevant. The point is not how Britain and France responded, the point is that the Soviets chose to go to them first.
The Telegraph, 2008: Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’ | Stalin was ‘prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border to deter Hitler’s aggression just before the Second World War’
Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.
Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history, preventing Hitler’s pact with Stalin which gave him free rein to go to war with Germany’s other neighbours.
The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.
The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin’s generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.
But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the foreign secretaries of the two countries, came on August 23 - just a week before Nazi Germany attacked Poland, thereby sparking the outbreak of the war. But it would never have happened if Stalin’s offer of a western alliance had been accepted, according to retired Russian foreign intelligence service Major General Lev Sotskov, who sorted the 700 pages of declassified documents.
“This was the final chance to slay the wolf, even after [British Conservative prime minister Neville] Chamberlain and the French had given up Czechoslovakia to German aggression the previous year in the Munich Agreement,” said Gen Sotskov, 75.
The Soviet offer - made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov - would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany’s borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show.
But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorised only to talk, not to make deals.
“Had the British, French and their European ally Poland, taken this offer seriously then together we could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time,” said Gen Sotskov, who joined the Soviet intelligence service in 1956. “This was a chance to save the world or at least stop the wolf in its tracks.”
I don’t see how the fact that France and Britain refused an alliance with the USSR makes the one with Nazi Germany more acceptable.
And do you know why France and Britain refused? It’s in your text:
Stalin was ‘prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border’
Because between the Soviet and German borders there were countries! What Stalin asked was to conquer independent countries with the benediction of Paris and London. It was not a generous offer, it was an imperialist ultimatum. “Let me invade Poland, Romania and other allies of yours, and that will calm Hitler” was in substance Stalin’s proposition.
And to put true non-aggression pacts like the ones with France and Britain in the same group as an offensive alliance which was actually the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is intellectually dishonest.
The Soviet Union. Or more accuratley, RUSSIA was one of the two aggressors that Started the second world war.
Furthermore, they were not an ally, but a co-belligerent. Why else did the free world go from a period of direct confrontation and war in the 20s, to Cold war in the 30s. to temporary truce for 4 years from 1941 to 1945. right back to Cold war with Moscow from 1945 till 1991? (and then another temporary truce from 1991 until about 2008) right back to more or less being de facto at war with each other again since 2014
And you can’t pin tens of millions of your own people, with Purges, Pogroms, Mentally handicapped suicidal orders. And general paranoid hysterical incompetnece. and blame those on the germans.
especially when large percentages of those people were colonized nations that wanted nothing to do with the Bolshevik Russian Imperial rule (Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles, Balts etc and were just used like buffers and meat shields)
to temporary truce for 4 years from 1941 to 1945.
Do nations typically put aside differences to make temporary truces with co-belligerents of the nations they’re at war with?
I dont know. you tell me. Outside of the thunderdome in the middle east. whens the last time there was a major conflict with dozens of nations and more than two major ideoligies at play.
If you’re asking in good faith. World War II’s situation was largely unprecedented.
Unlike WWI Where Imperial Russia and France were allied. Soviet Russia was not allied with France, Britain, or western Europe.The point is that the US put aside ideological differences because the USSR was fighting against the Nazis, they were not “co-belligerents.”
The Marxist was the only one who gave the anarchist guns, tanks, and planes. But no, they’re surely a bigger threat than the liberal and fascist.
Meme-maker probably didn’t vote.
Yeah, Kamala lost because of that one vote. It’s all op’s fault.
No shit, they’re a chinese propogandist.
If they do have US Citizenship they probably voted for Trump.
deleted by creator
That would never happen in a million years
Ironic
The perma stun proceeds at pace
Lemmy.world is such a weird place, man. I also like how in the propaganda version, LW is like this crazy liberal place where you will get banned for saying what based on this comment and voting is clearly the majority view.
So this story actually happened, in 1932 Germany. No one had the gun at the beginning. The liberal said to the Marxist, “Holy shit that guy is really dangerous, let’s stop him.” The Marxist said “FUCK YOU YOU’RE REALLY DANGEROUS” and started swinging his fists in every direction. The liberal was still trying to talk with the establishment conservative, to gang up on the fascist, while the Marxist was still windmilling to no particular purpose, when the fascist got the gun. The first one he shot, of course, was the Marxist. The anarchist stood in the corner, facing away from the room, and said that turning around would be giving consent to what was going on, and so he refused to do it.
The Marxist, wounded, left the room, what was left of him, and found the communist room. When he got there, the communists shot him, and killed him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany and search for “KPD leaders purged by Stalin”
The liberal said to the Marxist, “Holy shit that guy is really dangerous, let’s stop him.”
The liberal in question had spent the last decade handing military equipment to the freikorps to massacre communists before staffing the cabinet with fascists and making Hitler chancellor.
The liberal in question had spent the last decade handing military equipment to the brownshirts to massacre communists
Citation?
They also hadn’t been massacring, that I know of, it was street fighting, almost all non-fatal. You can show me if I’m wrong, though, that’s just my impression.
before staffing the cabinet with fascists
and making Hitler chancellor
Incorrect. The conservatives did both of those things. The liberals had gotten castrated by the refusal of the KDP to work with them in any respect, and so they couldn’t really do anything against either the KDP or the fascists, and so the left went down as did the liberals as did the rest of the establishment, without any unified front against the fascists. But the liberals had tried very explicitly to ally with the KDP against the fascists, and the KDP refused, calling the social democrats “the main enemy.”
I am sure there is some portion of blame to go to the SDP as well. Pointing fingers after a catastrophe is a time-honored tradition and maybe not a useful one. My point was that in the one real-world example of this that I know of, the Marxists absolutely refused to form a coalition against the fascists, if it meant they would have to work with the liberals, and the fascists were able to win amongst all the leftist infighting. So the particular brand of finger-pointing that exists in OP’s meme definitely has a real-world counterexample.
I actually don’t think there is a strong enough left in the US for this to be a useful model of what just happened in the recent election here. But it wasn’t for lack of trying, by the portion of the supposed far-left that is on Lemmy.
citation
https://annas-archive.org/md5/c483c46aa433ad04d44312e860111d6f
It references descriptions from 1919 where the bodies overwhelmed the city’s capacity to store them, and were rotting in the streets, and egbert’s use of the freikorps and other right-wing paramilitaries to kill communists (including Rosa)
There was also a massacre of sailors with one survivor I can’t seem to find any reference to.
The conservatives did both of those things
Egbert is the one who nominated Hindenburg, who made the actual handover.
the liberals had tried very explicitly to ally with the KDP against the fascists
They held a rally calling for unity, in which they called for everyone to vote for Hindenburg in the name of unity. That is not an attempt at unity, that is an attempt to make themselves seem like reasonable moderates.
Naturally the KDP ran on the slogan “A vote for Hindenburg is a vote for Hitler is a vote for war”
Wait: So after the KDP tried to do a violent revolution against the fragile post-first-revolution government of 1919, including explicitly rejecting the idea of holding elections because they might not go the KDP’s way, they were still so butthurt about the fashion in which the rest of the government had defended itself against getting shot and overthrown, that a generation later they still couldn’t stomach the idea of getting together with the SDP even to ally against literal Hitler. Even though the SDP by that point didn’t give a shit about their own attempted overthrow anymore, and just didn’t want the Nazis. And in your mind, that’s all the SDP’s fault for not just getting shot or exiled, like the KDP had in mind in 1919.
Like I said: The real life example is very different than the meme. The Marxist tried to shoot the liberal 13 years before, and was still so upset about the shooting-back that they got, and so, the windmilling and FUCK YOU. Great. Sounds like a fun bunch to interact with. Oh, and also, when they finally DID get in charge of things in the East, after the war, it was a fucking nightmare that lasted for decades. Which was part of the SDP’s objection to it in the first place. Great stuff.
Most people on LW that are from the US do not know what liberals are. They are often referring to “US libs” which, in most cases, say and do things that are anti-liberal or anti-libertarian. While this is apparent to most, to these Lemmings it is not due to the saturation of US media, social or otherwise.
In truth, a liberal supporting a fascist is as “classic lib move” as the anarchist fighting for an absolute monarchy. By definition, these things are impossible. So the joke is being told wrong due to being misinformed or to spread more of it.
The poster isn’t from world, but yeah theres a constant external pressure from tankies. Its even worse on instances that didnt defederate from Hexbear.
