Happy to help! :)
I mostly just meant that as a reply to KIGV2, as they'd have context for it.
It's a very common saying in this instance, and in other communist spaces online.
The underlying idea is basically that fascism and liberalism are inherently interlinked. Liberalism creates the conditions for fascism to thrive (uncritical free speech, private property), and fascism protects the basic things Liberalism does (private property etc).
"Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds", "fascism is the military wing of liberalism", and "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism" are all quotes meant to communicate that relationship.
You might find this bit ofthis piece interesting/relevant:
Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.
If that's not your speed, that's cool. Lemmygrad's not for everyone, and you should be able to block the communities that are most active here!
They're talking about that "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" saying.
I personally think habitual heavy weed use is bad. I was an incredibly heavy user for a few years.
I used to think it should be illegalized.
I think now it should be "material conditions"ed out of harmful existence, if that makes sense. If we can create a socialist society with good mental health resources, good childcare resources for developing minds, and easily available stigma-free resources for people who struggle with dependency, that would check most of the boxes for me.
I don't think we talk enough about the negative effects heavy weed use has on developing brains, or on the brains of chronic heavy users. I think more research on that side, by a socialist government, would be good.
Communists are anti-liberal.
Liberalism as a political philosophy is the underpinning of capitalism.
We can't destroy capitalism without doing away with it's political philosophy.
As an aside, from this perspective both American liberals and conservatives are liberals - they both spring from the philosophy of liberalism.
I understand that it's confusing to hear criticism of the Democrats from the left - it's relatively uncommon in the U$.
It really seems that much of us are often too aggressive and meme-y and as fun as that is it really isn't productive.
I don't agree. I like it here.
You have a 2 month old account here with 13 comments, you are manifestly not leading the charge on engaging liberals "productively and fruitfully". Why don't you engage liberals in the way you recommend?
This is the second post like this from a low activity account, and it honestly is starting to feel like wrecker shit to suck the fun out of the grad.
I like the culture here. The admins are also aggressive and meme-y sometimes. I like that too. I would not be here without that.
I made the mistake of replying in it too much, and now I have like half an hour of homework tonight.
Dunking and being an asshole is more fun.
Please consider this a free post to talk about cooking that you've done recently!
They'll ask for specific evidence, then when presented with it, find some excuse to ignore it, like tone policing or attacking a source for being "illegitimate" or "biased" without even reading it.
I've been playing with dropping non-sequitor ridiculous links as "sources" in sincere comments, and I have pretty solid proof that liberals arguing on the internet almost universally do not click the links for sources.
I've done it quite a bit, and the only people who acknowledge or comment on it are comrades from here.
"Lenin" was a pseudonym, wasn't it?
I'd vote to use the pseudonym.
I'm thinking now that one of the new Lemmy apps has a fucked up "hot" algorithm, or something. There were like 20 comments in ancient posts yesterday, and a good number of them were sincere. Very strange!
I don't have enough context to understand what you're hyped about.
Ah, sorry to be a bit brusque in that case!
Since blahaj and the 'grad are federated, our posts show up in each other's "all" feed. You can interact with me from blahaj and vice versa because of that federation, but this post is "on" our 196 spinoff.
Jerboa let's me choose to sort by "all", "subscribed", or "local". If you want to avoid us in the 'grad, you could choose to sort by local (for you to only see posts from blahaj communities) or by subscribed (to only see posts from any federated community you've subscribed to).
You can also block individual communities and sort by all, but that's sort of like playing whackamole.
Or you can choose to see the Lemmygrad stuff with the knowledge that it's mostly ML. Let me know if there's anything I can explain!
Idk if you're asking about specifically anarchist reading here, if not:
-
Principles of Communism by Engels is a good essay-length read ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm ).
-
State and Revolution by Lenin is a great first short book length read ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ ).
-
On Authority is Engel's argument essay against Anarchism and the term "Authoritarian" . That may or may not be up your alley, but you'll see a lot of that reflected in what we say here ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm ).
-
And just because Mao is rad, "Oppose Book Worship" includes the banger "no investigation, no right to speak" and I like that. ( https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm#fn5 ).
If you're looking for Anarchist theory you could try an Anarchist instance. I think they like Bookchin or something like that.
Ah, sorry to not be clearer! When Bush was the U$ president he said a lot of weird shit:
I don't know for sure. I just thought it was a silly way of mashing up the "first as tragedy then as farce" saying with Bush's "fool me twice can't get fooled again" phlub.
After years of planning, contractors finally break ground on the site of a new school in Sugar Land. But the very next day, someone shows up with a warning: Be on the lookout for bodies.
I really like the first Motorcycle Diaries. I'd love to get a hold of his work on Economics, but I haven't found a good digital copy yet.
I'm trying to go through Muad's comment history to find the link post he used to share about the CPC. He's had a couple of those that he'd pull out for specific situations, and it'd be nice to have them aggregated in one spot.
What's a source comment that you like to paste to stop specific arguments?
Do you have one of those comments that Muad would share to add here?
COMBAT LIBERALISM
September 7, 1937
We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.
But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.
Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.
To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.
Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.
To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.
To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.
To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.
To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.
To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.
To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.
To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.
We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.
They are all manifestations of liberalism.
Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.
Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.
People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.
Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.
We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.
All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.
non-diegetic screams @lemmygrad.ml [any/all]
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies