• Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    You’ve sent me a link to a dictionary entry for “Anarchism” that mentions the word “liberal”. Something tells me you aren’t able to define the word on your own.

    You might be a more effective communicator if you stick with perjoratives you understand instead.

    Did you mean “neoliberal”? If you meant “neoliberal”, then I agree. Neoliberals are conservatives who facilitate fascism.

    If by “liberal” you meant “progressive”, then let’s start a new thread so we don’t get your blood all over this one.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Here’s some more reading for you. Excellent writing, if you can be bothered to apply yourself. If you do, you’ll discover that you (currently) have no clue what a liberal is, or why they’re very fucking bad.

      Ur-Fascism

      Italian fascism was the first right-wing dictatorship that took over a European country, and all similar movements later found a sort of archetype in Mussolini’s regime. Italian fascism was the first to establish a military liturgy, a folklore, even a way of dressing — far more influential, with its black shirts, than Armani, Benetton, or Versace would ever be. It was only in the Thirties that fascist movements appeared, with Mosley, in Great Britain, and in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia, Spain, Portugal, Norway, and even in South America. It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        While Umberto Eco is great reading, this passage does not offer your definition of “liberal” or why you think it is bad. We may agree on this, but you seem to be unable to articulate your definition for “liberal” or why you think it is bad. I am sincerely not trying to trick you. People have different definitions for the word, so I can neither agree with nor debate you on this without first knowing your preferred definition. But maybe debate is not necessary here.

        In response to my question, you’ve cited passages of essays that offer no definitions or value assignments. For example, you referred me to a book of essays written almost 50 years ago by a talented Welsh author. I have read the page you cited (and several other pages), and found the essayist to make great points about various political connotations of the word “liberal” for that year (1975). The author is very clear in his refusal to define the word or even point to the connotation with which he agrees. Instead, he describes the various connotations of the word from different political perspectives. The most negative ones seemed to describe what most people in the U.S. now call “neoliberalism”. Again, great author. I really enjoyed what I’ve read so far and plan to read more. Thank you for that.

        Being from the U.S. and very much alive in the 1970’s, I will give you my observations from that perspective. Until the 1980’s (after the essay you referenced), most political discourse in the U.S. used the word “liberal” as a term to describe a fiscal policy that could be applied to anyone in the right circumstances. During the Reagan administration, U.S. conservatives began using the word exclusively as a pejorative to mean “progressive” or even “socialist”. As you know, neither of those words are synonyms for “liberal” in any respect. This use of the word was a scare tactic intended to drive uneducated voters into conservative arms. This narrow use of “liberal” became the new label for progressives here, unfortunately. Today, that damage is slowly beginning to become undone as socialists, Marxists, communists and progressives begin to communicate more effectively with the rest of the world on forums such as Lemmy.

        I’m not sure why you chose such a demeaning and insulting tone in your interactions here, but I don’t think it’s because the people you are communicating with truly disagree with your politics. The author you cited seems great to me and I agree with his observations. So, I suspect our politics may be more aligned than you realize. But, I find the way you communicated with the other person in this thread to be unreasonably hostile. I then stepped in to let you vent on me, thinking you might be a conservative. I love making conservatives look like the dumb-fucks they are. But, you don’t seem to be a conservative. So, I guess I’ll be nice to you despite your inexplicably condescending and angry tone. In any case, please feel free to respond or share more great authors. Or not. Either way, I wish you well.

        • JoBo@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          While Umberto Eco is great reading, this passage does not offer your definition of “liberal” o

          I never said it did. Which is why I’m not reading the rest of your post because it is unlikely to be a good use of my time.

          I referred the poster to Raymond Williams for a better understanding of what liberalism is. As you would know if you were paying attention.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I said page 181. You will need to look at page 181.

      And no, I am not going to pretend to have the skills of Raymond Williams, nor the time to rewrite his perfect words just for you. Sorry 'bout that but, do some reading, yeah?