Jorge

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