Diva

that's good to hear. i actually appreciate these spaces because i would rather know what the heterodox opinions are, the us media ecosystem is extremely anticommunist, pro-murica, and shallow. i organize with anarchists in my day to day, i consider myself an anarchist. i also have many comrades that i've shared struggle with over the years who are marxists, and that always made the everpresent online animosity feel weird to me.

obviously not, i am not a fan of state violence broadly.

now please let me reverse it: is there any scenario where using 'sanctions' or other economic warfare against a civilian population is a legitimate course of action?

i made a post a while back about how a 'anti-tankie' comm in particular had a lot of talk about wanting to get rid of 'degenerate roaches' without any real moderation going on.

i find that kind of talk a lot more offputting than tankies.

i've run into a lot of people on here saying some gross ass shit and getting away with it because as long as they're targetting 'tankies' anything goes.

usually when someone's deploying the line 'tankie bar' it's because they frequent meanwhileongrad, it is hosted on the same server as the person i was replying to, they even have a post history there.

that metaphor is incoherent and doesn't really engage anything i said, so i'll pass

So my bad I guess… Or american redefining of concepts…

let's agree to blame the br*tish

my issue is that liberals aren't going to resolve fascism because they create the material conditions for fascism.

fascism doesn't appear from nowhere, it emerges from the immiseration and instability that capitalism produces, something liberals are content to 'manage' without resolving.

you simultaneously accuse me of bickering and try to get me to defend a caricature of a position... that you constructed for me

i said liberals are not credible opponents of fascism. my reasoning being they are not really opposed to fascism as much as upholding capitalism.

MLs oppose both, i can work with them on those things at least. with liberals i have to worry that they're going to turn me into the police.

i don't think bringing up the french revolution helps your point. bourgeois liberals fought for property rights against feudal authority, which was more freedom for them and less for everyone without property. calling that "more liberal" just means more freedom for property owners. the definition was always class specific.

we live in a authoritarian liberal dictatorship of capital

the orwellian accusation is really funny when you're the one insisting on a definition that makes capitalist coercion disappear by fiat.

liberalism as a historical political philosophy emerges specifically in the context of defending private property and individual rights to that. i don't see how you can just declare that liberalism is distinct from capitalism when it was the political philosophy which capitalism relies on

you just said capitalism makes societies more authoritarian over time and then concluded that has no bearing on whether a liberal,capitalist society is authoritarian. that's the contradiction at the heart of your framework, not mine.

she wasn't even the victim of gamergate, the primary targets initially were anita sarkeesian and zoe quinn.

she posted on social media and did get harassed, but her retelling always makes it sound like the whole affair was all about her only

You can’t have authoritarian liberalism, that’s an oxymoron.

Its like saying you have hot cold.

you're just definitionally asserting your own conclusion

liberal authoritarianism is what we live under now; we have unlimited choices and freedom if we're rich, evicted from our houses or arrested for being poor.

In an anarchist society the means of control are social rejection, in a (fully) capitalist one its money, in (fully) Democratic one its law, in a theocracy its faith. Most societies are mixes of those.

in a capitalist society the means of control are all of those simultaneously. money, law, social norms, and ultimately violence when the others fail. they're layered and mutually reinforcing. the state apparatus exists precisely to backstop the money-based control when it breaks down. you can't separate them.

i dont disagree with there being authority under anti-capitalist systems, the premise that i disagree with is the assumtion that liberal societies are maximally anti-authoritarian, which is ignoring the whole capitalism and state apparatus required to enforce that.

this just feels like you're trying to whitewash liberalism when its real core value is protecting private property

you really need to reflect on how your political science education is rife with smuggled-in assumptions