this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1337 points (97.8% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

1347 readers
820 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

❻ Don't be a dick.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Not really, it's more that liberalism contains contradictions between various freedoms it supports, and even contradictions between how the same "freedom" is practiced by different groups, and when those contradictions become unsustainable, the right to property by the dominant group always takes precedence.

It's important to understand any political philosophy as not an idea floating in a vacuum but as a social tool used by a group in society; liberalism is the philosophy the bourgeoisie use to justify their power.

I mean kinda since fascism is a tool used to buttress capitalism when it's own contradictions become unsustainable, but that's not really in the book.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

chatgpt's summary didn't compare liberalism to fascism, I made that comparison myself based on what I read.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I wouldn't say that's entirely wrong, fascism being a failure mode of liberalism. The phrase "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" or Trotsky's "Not every exasperated petite bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petite bourgeois" come to mind.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I may have to stop calling myself a liberal. This does not align with my opinions.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you don't support capitalism, you aren't a liberal.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am of the opinion that any economic model / government will decay into fascism if not appropriately maintained and protected from bad actors. Capitalism is not inherently good nor inherently bad, it's what we've got. The disaster that is the current state (and foreseeable future) of the US is a failure to maintain and protect its government and economy from bad actors. I would be willing to try another economic model if the opportunity arose.

What does this make me?

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Practical.

jk though, most people are in that position; in Cuba, Vietnam, China, Russia, etc before the revolution, the masses didn't read a bunch of books, decide communism sounded like the best way to run things, then overthrow their oppressors.

Though it's important to understand the effects capitalism has had on society though are inherent to capitalism, not bad individuals doing capitalism wrong. That is the framing fascists use, since they've been privileged by the system, they need to invent reasons for its failing that don't change it structurally. So you get wild conspiracies, foreigners, or whatever else is easy to believe.