jorge

Hi. What's "ERA"?

Please see the new and improved EDIT section of my original comment. I messed up in many ways. I hope I have not burned all bridges with you hexbearites.

I messed up in many ways. Please see the new and improved EDIT section of my original comment. I hope I have not burned all bridges with you hexbearites.

I messed up. Please see the new and improved EDIT section of my original comment. I hope I did not burn all bridges with you hexbearites.

Now with hindsight, you have a point -- the part about me being new to the ideology and writing what I wrote. Please read the "EDIT" section part of the original comment. I admit I messed up in many ways.

To begin with, would you please read my edit at the end of the original comment? I admit I messed up.

Regarding shutting up, is it an exaggeration for effect? Like when some ML say on the Internet "Mao did nothing wrong", when actually he was probably 70% good, 30% bad? Honest question.

Fascism is liberalism's plan B, as confirmed by History and by liberal theory itself.

Historically, look at Latin America (I am Brazilian). All over Latin America, when people elected leftist (not even communist) governments within the institutions of liberal democracy, the elite (with US support) staged a coup and installed a military dictatorship, effectively saying: no, the people are not allowed to choose socialism. So we hereby abolish democracy.

And Jacobin covers the justification for this under liberal theory itself:

So, important liberal thinkers insisted as early as John Locke, you can’t tax the rich without their consent. If you do so, you give the victims of these policies a good reason to rebel and use violence against the usurpers. Liberal politics thus had a dictatorial option inscribed in it from the very beginning. And so it became a dogma to assume that the main task of politics is to protect property, and its principal sin to inveigh against it. But of course, that is a very narrow definition of what politics can or should do. And we suffer from that confinement to this day. In a typical Western democracy, you can do many things — as long as you refrain from infringing on private property. [1]

In short: liberal theory itself gives absolute priority to private property (over the means of production). If it conflicts with democracy, democracy is tossed out the window.

I always clarify "over the means of production" when attacking private property. There is this widespread confusion that communist thugs are going to invade your house and confiscate your bike. AFAIK, communists don't do that.

Fun fact: in 1989 Brazilian elections, neoliberal Collor terrorized the people saying that Lula would confiscate everyone's savings. With infamous support from Rede Globo (massive right-wing biased media corporation), Collor won, then quickly moved to confiscate everyone's savings. Lula was elected in 2002, 2006 and 2022, and did nothing of the sort. Sadly, Lula is not communist, but social democrat.

1: https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-germany-national-socialism-hypercaptialism-social-darwinism-liberalism

Context. If you look at the terrible Allied violence in WWII, without context, you easily conclude the Allies were the villains.

Also, of course, there is widespread capitalist propaganda.

Would you say that communists should not concentrate our energies attempting to prevent liberal democracy from turning into fascism? Like supporting social-democratic parties to keep fascists away. My understanding is that liberal "democracy" has some temporary advantages over fascism, but is not worth much energy.

Fascism is more acutely violent, but also temporary. Hitler initiated a war against much of the World, which he could not win. He was also incompetent. Out of insane hubris, he bypassed his generals and military strategists, because he was the chosen genius. Allegedly he didn't have a real strategy to defeat the British Empire. He wanted to win the war by winning battle after battle. Thus he was defeated (largely by the Red Army), and "only" some 80 million lives were lost.

Liberal "democracy", on the other hand, kills ten million people every few years, for centuries.

Fascism is brutal, crass, and visibly hateful. Liberal "democracy" is sophisticated, less acutely violent, and is falsely compassionate, but is also more competent at preserving itself and making victims.

Hi comrade! I am new here. Anyway, what you said is confirmed by History and by liberal theory itself.

Historically, look at Latin America (I am Brazilian). All over Latin America, when people elected leftist (not even communist) governments within the institutions of liberal democracy, the elite (with US support) staged a coup and installed a military dictatorship, effectively saying: no, the people are not allowed to choose socialism. They chose socialism, so we hereby abolish democracy.

And Jacobin covers the justification for this under liberal theory itself:

So, important liberal thinkers insisted as early as John Locke, you can’t tax the rich without their consent. If you do so, you give the victims of these policies a good reason to rebel and use violence against the usurpers. Liberal politics thus had a dictatorial option inscribed in it from the very beginning. And so it became a dogma to assume that the main task of politics is to protect property, and its principal sin to inveigh against it. But of course, that is a very narrow definition of what politics can or should do. And we suffer from that confinement to this day. In a typical Western democracy, you can do many things — as long as you refrain from infringing on private property. [1]

In short: liberal theory itself gives absolute priority to private property (over the means of production). If it conflicts with democracy, then democracy is tossed out the window. Fascism is liberalism's plan B.

I always clarify "over the means of production" when attacking private property. There is this widespread confusion that communist thugs are going to invade your house and confiscate your bike. AFAIK, communists don't do that.

Fun fact: in 1989 Brazilian elections, neoliberal Collor terrorized the people saying that Lula would confiscate everyone's savings. With infamous support from Rede Globo (massive right-wing biased media corporation), Collor won, then quickly moved to confiscate everyone's savings. Lula was elected in 2002, 2006 and 2022, and did nothing of the sort. Sadly, Lula is not communist, but social democrat.

1: https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-germany-national-socialism-hypercaptialism-social-darwinism-liberalism

You are welcome. It seems Lemmy lacks a reaction feature, so I upvoted your reply, and wrote this.

Is this about my comment, or am I being egocentric? In case it is about my comment, I post here some clarifications I made there:

I messed up. I misunderstood Hexbear, wrote a confusing comment, unintentionally offended you, then reacted badly to your angry replies, many of which misrepresented what I wanted to say. Now with hindsight, I ask you to read this:

1. I did not mean to accuse hexbearites of being bad like New Atheists. I wanted to use the antisocial behavior of New Atheists (fruitless anti-religious intolerance) as an anti-example. In my experience, leftists discern between “theocrat” and “religious comrade". I felt this thread was an outlier. But then I worded my comment in an confusing way, appearing to conflate you with New Atheists.

2. The accusation of loving war crimes in the Middle East is for foaming lunatic New Atheists like Sam Harris, not Hexbearites.

3. I meant that anti-religious bashing is easily misrepresented by right wing propaganda. I explicitly said that the “atheist elites” narrative is disinformation. Cubans practice their religions in peace, just not theocracy.

4. I did not mean all “true” Christians are Catholics or whatever.

I am a newbie and autistic (actual diagnosis). I care a lot for detail and took offense with misrepresentations. And I am still getting up to speed with the LGBT movement.

Today I realized this analogy. When Rede Globo (massive right-wing media corporation) sheds tears for “democracy”, I wish them go pound sand. They supported the military dictatorship for decades, and still distort reality in favor of capitalism, NATO, and Israel. Becoming softer is not enough. I would forgive them if they actually switched sides.

So I can relate to trans people who look at the historical crimes of organized religion (such as the Catholic Church), and who suffer religious hate even today, saying they will only respect the Catholic Church if she actually switches sides. Malcom X said: stop sweet talking!