58
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
58 points (100.0% liked)
El Chisme
414 readers
433 users here now
Place for posting about the dumb shit public figures say.
Rules:
Rule 1: The subject of a post must be a public person.
Rule 2: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 3: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 4: No sectarianism.
Rule 5: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 6: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 7: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 8: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
It is.
The reason they embrace fascism is because the logical endpoint of liberalism in crisis is fascism. It is the same internal logic as fascism, just not taken to it's logical conclusion, which is fascism. Liberalism of the past was literally the destruction of entire civilizations under the premise of 'civilizing' them. Phil Ochs is a clever song writer, but his words are not philosophy nor are they grounded in the historical nature of liberalism and fascism. The actions of liberals are always right of center, it's just that their words will switch from one side to the other depending on whose vote they are courting. They are often just as much sophists as fascists are, it's just they already hold the power so they don't need to make any moves to grab it. It is about maintenance.
Progressives and neo-Progressives are pretty much 100% responsible for any kind of left wing policy in the U.S. and while you can argue they are liberals, ultimately their ideology stems more as a liberalizing of communist ideas, than a communizing of liberal ideas, usually cribbing from the socialist movements in the Midwest.
No. I'm sorry, you're just wrong. You're saying a thing and that thing isn't true. The phrase originates with the black panthers who used it to talk about the exact same thing Ochs is talking about, how quickly everyday liberals would embrace fascism (Manifested through supporting racist policies as soon as it in any way affected their own social milieu) the moment it became convenient to maintain the status quo even though they may have previously espoused opposition to fascism.
The lady in that picture is a "Progressive" who supported genocide and is now openly embracing a nazi. AOC could not bring herself to oppose genocide. "Progressives" are liberals, there is no actual divide. All "Left wing" policies embraced by the US have been embraced by liberals as a reaction to internal and external pressure resulting in the need for concession by capital.
My bad. I wasn't aware it came from the black panthers. I learned it as a part of an epistemology of liberalism lecture from a Marxist activist way back in like 2016. At the time I didn't actually get it, as I considered myself liberal, but I will recalibrate what it is supposed to mean, since I just thought it was a general phrase.
AOC is neo-progressive at best, with the OG progressives being the ones in the 1890s-1920s who were into eugenics and public sanitariums, but also women's sufferage and public libraries (which is why I kinda understood the want to rehabilitate the label), but she hasn't even done basic shit so she might as well be a liberal at this point, no matter what she calls herself. There are neo-progressives who do oppose the genocide, but they don't really constitute a real defined political movement or ideology. So I guess that is just liberalism too.
Thanks!