Three wolves and six goats are discussing what to have for dinner. One courageous goat makes an impassioned case: “We should put it to a vote!” The other goats fear for his life, but surprisingly, the wolves acquiesce. But when everyone is preparing to vote, the wolves take three of the goats aside. “Vote with us to make the other three goats dinner,” they threaten. “Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.” The other three goats are shocked by the outcome of the election: a majority, including their comrades, has voted for them to be killed and eaten. They protest in outrage and terror, but the goat who first suggested the vote rebukes them: “Just be thankful this is a democracy! At least we got to have a say!”
-Crimethinc
Because liberal democracy enables fascism. Capitalism condes nationalism as legitimization. When the people emiserate, they look for a reason outside of the nation as culprits instead of focusing on class.
You’re not enacting power, you accept that the only input you have on a system can be conveyed with a simple X.
You can do multiple things, you know. Voting doesn’t bar you from burning down a missile factory or something.
It conveys the message that you actually had a say in politics.
Neither does drilling a hole into your knee and pouring warm milk through it.
Vote if you want. But don’t act as if it actually solves anything.
It does, you’ll have a hard time walking.
Do you genuinely think all politicians are the same and that it doesn’t matter if you vote?
Way to go taking a joke literally.
No. But their degrees of freedom are limited by the way the system is set up.
Yes. Btw: remember rule 6 and 7.
Oh, I see. I know what anarchism is. As for the 7th rule, alright then.
Liberal democracy doesn’t enable fascism. It’s when liberal principals are abandoned that fascism rises. America hasn’t had a liberal party since FDR. The Democrats (and, to a large extent, Republicans) use the vocabulary of liberalism, but it’s just a facade.
Even now though, it’s the lingering scraps of liberal democracy that keep tripping up the fascists.
POSIVID
Fascists and repression are on the rise in all of europe, including the “socialist” northern countries. Stop looking at the world purely in an American way.
Aside from the specific parties, the story is very similar in Europe. When a country gets apathetic about liberal principles, that’s when fascism rises.
Liberalism is generally positive, but it isn’t sufficient. Liberal principals are a good starting place, not an endgame for Utopia.
Even if I’ll humor you and accept that: That would still be correlation, not causation.
Right from the moment liberalism was conceived, there were already voices that wanted a more egalitarian world. You make it sound like liberalism is a necessary requisite for a more egalitarian world. I disagree. It’s a local minimum which humanity is yet to escape.
As if you have demonstrated evidence of any sort?
Yes, we have established that you disagree. Not that you have provided any evidence whatsoever that a lower minimum can be reached by another path. And yeah, the totalitarian path to a better minimum has been tried multiple times. It didn’t work out so well.
That’s literally what you said, my homie: “Those two things happeded at the same time” means it’s a correlation. Scientifically it’s your burden to proof that it’s actually a causal relation afterwards.
Yes. Better living standards have been reached outside the framework of liberal democracy. In fact: All significant improvements in living standards have been fought for outside the system. Examples are: Any successful, liberatory revolution. (Like the french one, or the German one.
I agree. That’s why I’m not an authoritarian, but an anarchist.
Anarchy is authoritarian, anarchists just don’t know it. Leadership is hard and most people don’t actually want to do it, even for themselves or their families. That’s the entire reason so many people are attracted to fascism. Leaders will emerge in your anarchist paradise, and people will follow. Without liberalism as a check on their power, the very first crisis that comes along will turn anarchy directly into fascism.
For reference, I point to all the people in HOAs. People can’t even live without some authority to tell them how high the hedges can get. LOL
Even to get to anarchy in the first place is going to require authoritarianism. You don’t make massive societal transformations without forcing it on people. If I don’t want to live in anarchy, how are you going to force me?
I’m sorry, but you prove you have no idea about anarchism. The whole philosophical field of anarchism is based on power analysis, so it’s quite the feat for you to prove such a wild claim.
Yes, some people have natural talents in In general, the thing you call “leadership”: coordination or persuation of others. Or they have a talent in tactics and strategy. (Although people do like to have a say in the things your leaders decide - they just dislike the burden of responsibility)
But anarchists don’t deny that fact. Quite the opposite: they aim for social structures where people with these talents can’t accumulate structural hierarchies and monopolize decision making power.
Hate to be that guy, but you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Umm…no. People are drawn to fascism, because they have a nationalistic worldview, where their nation is constructed for their benefit and their natiod is superior to other nations. That belief contradicts with a real-life lowering of living standard: “If the nation is there for my benefit and it should be at the top, why is my life still so miserable? Must be the weak people which sleazily spoil the true glory of our nation: the queers/transes/foreigners/Sinti/Roma/jews.” Additionally, there’s the belief that democracy wwakens the glory of the nation, so it needs a supreme leader which brings it back on track.
So, no: People not wanting to take “leadership” (or rather: responsibility) is **definetly not “the entire reason” why people are attracted to fascism. That makes historically absolutely no sense at all.
I’m not talking about a utopia, but of strategies to achieve a more liberatory world. And these strategies prevent such monopolization of power.
What exactly do you mean by these words? I don’t believe that you have a coherent definition of any of the terms “liberalism”, “anarchy” and “fascism”. And if yes: how is “liberalism” supposed to keep power in check. Last time I checked, liberalism guarantees the power of the powerful by guaranteeing private property and the continued accumulation of wealth.
I’m not really too familiar with that concept, since I don’t live in the US. But aren’t these things more or less only liked by people who want to maintain/improve their property value and universally hated? Or at least universally hated if they’re not democratically managed?
sigh Please define what you mean with “authoritarianism”, because we definetly don’t agree on terms here. Authoritarianism (by my definition) is a social structure that tends to monopolize decision making power. That is contradictory to anarchism.
You don’t keep the current societal order upright without forcing it on people. You’re not talking about authoritarianism, you’re talking about violence, i.e. the imposition of one’s will over another. But violence will always exist. You’re just morally justifying a cop’s violence in favour of the status quo. Liberalism doesn’t have a problem with people starving because they don’t have any bread.
You can always chose to subjugate yourself. But if you want to enact nonconsensual subjugation on others, they have the right to self-defence.