I haven’t seen that phrase. How much does it appear? Is it used by nazi-types? I think I’m missing some critical info.
I’m very anti-nazi, but I haven’t seen anything approaching nazi speech in the couple of months that I’ve been here. I’ve seen right-wing apologists and occasional conspiracy support, but that gets called out and voted down. Am I experiencing a diff Lemmy because I’m not subscribed to specific channels or something?
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!
Now that ive poked around lemmygrad i can indeed see there are a lot of liberals around here recently. Annoying but if 1 in every 10 gets affected by their stay here over time, thats a huge win.
They’re talking about that “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” saying.
I haven’t seen that phrase. How much does it appear? Is it used by nazi-types? I think I’m missing some critical info.
I’m very anti-nazi, but I haven’t seen anything approaching nazi speech in the couple of months that I’ve been here. I’ve seen right-wing apologists and occasional conspiracy support, but that gets called out and voted down. Am I experiencing a diff Lemmy because I’m not subscribed to specific channels or something?
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!
Thanks for the helpful post, I didn’t have all this context
Happy to help! :)
Now that ive poked around lemmygrad i can indeed see there are a lot of liberals around here recently. Annoying but if 1 in every 10 gets affected by their stay here over time, thats a huge win.