this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
70 points (100.0% liked)

memes

23807 readers
231 users here now

dank memes

Rules:

  1. All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.

  2. No unedited webcomics.

  3. Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in /c/slop

  4. Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.

  5. Follow the code of conduct.

  6. Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.

  7. Recent reposts might be removed.

  8. Tagging OC with the hexbear watermark is praxis.

  9. No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SovietyWoomy@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

glasses-off Liberals doing nothing

glasses-on Liberals actively supporting nazis, zionists, and genocide

[–] AvocadoVapelung@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago
[–] Juice@midwest.social 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm starting to see liberals begin to have discussions as to whether or not Trump is actually fascist, or just sparkling authoritarianism. And yeah the left has been rightly calling them out as fascist since at least 2014, but also having so many deep internal conversations on this topic, analyzing material conditions, defining fascism in a concrete way, improving our understanding of the period between WWI and WWII in Europe in order to compare to analysis of our current conditions. We may have slight disagreements, but the broad left is mostly united in our understanding and practical opposition, save historical farces like ACP.

And seeing liberals like start to take this idea seriously, at least 10 years after the same discussions were in full swing among broad sections of the left, is so fucking fitting. The Democratic establishment is stuck back in November 2016. They produced arguably the most popular and effective moderate-left candidate since FDR, and yeah I'm not like a huge fan of Obama, but he legalized gay marriage and was the first black president, which informally if not structurally, were two meaningful progressive advancements.

But during that time the right made huge advancements as well, and has only compounded dramatically after 1.3 ish Trump terms. The Democrats, on the other hand, manufactured a political class of political consultants, sort of the dialectical reflection of the rights media class, that embedded themselves so deeply in the establishment, that it is hard to imagine how they could be dislodged. They've proven themselves as a vital part of the National power structure having engineered the failure of two extremely popular primary campaigns from Bernie Sanders; in addition to deploying solid messaging and media tactics to discredit the left in its support of Palestine, empower the campaigns of the major players in the Dem establishment, and not rocking the boat with the people who hold real power, turning the power of the Right into career security for themselves.

And through all this maneuvering, they have made no progress whatsoever. They are at least a decade behind on any policies that matter. They have no way to even conceive of how the Right has expanded so rapidly, since they are incapable of all but only the most indirect class analysis; and have no way of understanding the character or fundamental capitalist relations that take the form of fascist power; and therefore, they have no way to prevent it.

We need a mass workers party NOW!

[–] casskaydee@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you're giving credit to Obama for legalizing gay marriage then you also have to credit Biden for overturning Roe v. Wade.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Done.

Great call out, BTW. It was a Supreme Court ruling. But also, giving credit to Obama hides the 60+ year struggle for basic rights. The government got out of the way of what is inevitable and right. Giving Obama all the credit is like giving him zero credit, but also it shows how politically under developed I was in 2015 that "Obama gave us gay marriage" was the way it was classified in my head.

What a decade.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I don't think Trump is fascist. He is some new shitty thing that doesn't have a name yet.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It isn't the name that matters, it is the underlying social relations. Whether Trump as an individual is fascist is secondary, he will opportunistically side with fascists, and empower them as they suit his administration's plans.

The petite bourgeois character of these movements is the same. Expansion of ICE is an attempt to create a neo Friecorps, one of the only missing components of historical fascism: the Fuhrer's private army.

Fascism is structural. While I agree it is important to keep very close eye on the way we are defining things, the capitalist relations that create fascism are either developing or already here.

Every way of analyzing 1920s-1940s fascism cleaves closely to Trump and the new American fascist movement. Trump may not be a fascist, like Joe McCarthy wasnt a fascist he was just a psychopath drunk; but Joe McCarthy was the chosen one for the early America First movement, an expressly American, expressly pro-nazi fascist movement. Even the name of that movement reappeared to back up the president.

Trump is really a guy who is good at doing legal crime, and good at extracting every drop of value out of something that would have functioned correctly. He isn't ideologically fascist, but ideas aren't proven in the mind but in the world.

There is no need for new words. In fact the idea that "we don't have a word for it," that is in and of itself a function of hegemony and domination. Language is deeply, intrinsically connected to power and the spread of power. The ability to name the actual problem is the first step of revolutionary change. So saying that we don't, or we can't name the problem actually benefits Trump and the ascendent fascist movement. Not calling you a crypto-MAGA or anything, I've seen many good comrades who I trust make a similar argument. But what really matters are what are the fundamental relations and contradictions, and how to leverage them for better conditions for the masses. I am totally unconvinced that not naming this movement what it is, especially hesitating to name it anything, is crippling to our ability to act against it.

I will concede two major differences, since Germany and Italy had imperialist ambitions, but were not the center of the capitalist empire, although Germany was the most technologically, socially, and industrially advanced country in the world by the 1920s. Whereas, the USA is the global hegemon. But to me, that just makes our neo fascism that much more dangerous. The other is the techno-serfdom thing that the tech elite have going on, but I believe that is a nascent condition. Palantir's "Techno-Republicanism" is just straight up corporatism, so even that I'm skeptical has a different character than what we commonly refer to as fascism.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We can always just keeping adding neo to stuff

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure it is a helpful analysis. Could be useful for propaganda.

Cult leader, at the very least.

[–] Thordros@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago

liberalism Our quippy protest signs will stop the bad orange man for sure this time!