this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
479 points (95.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35779 readers
985 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Both movements broadly point to the material conditions created, perpetuated and encouraged by liberalism as their impetus. Scholars within both movements have written extensively cataloguing the precise ways different conditions came to pass and how it’s the fault of liberalism.

Generally speaking your communist will say liberalism sprang from the class relation under capitalism and the bourgeoise, while your fascist will say it was “‘da joos”.

E: I tried to click preview but replied instead but it’s fine because I don’t want to summarize two centuries of political thought anyway.

If you have a specific example you want clarification on I’d be happy to give it but if you truly feel befuddled that a person could say that liberalism creates the conditions (perhaps, contradictions 🤔) for communism or fascism I can point you at a bigass pile of books instead.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You keep saying “because liberalism” but you don’t specify why. You repeating yourself and using bigger words isn’t answering the question other than pointing the finger at liberalism.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You didn’t ask why, you asked how. It’s really broad question so I was gearing up to answer how by starting with what the two (overly broadly classified) schools of thought called the why.

Then I pushed reply instead of preview and realized while editing my post that I don’t want to reply to you the way I started because it would be long winded and you probably aren’t interested in reading that and I’m certainly not interested in writing it.

Liberalism creates the conditions for revolt and reaction in a lot of different ways but primarily it’s through a combination of pursuit of profit leading to unaccounted for externalities buttressed by primacy of the powerful disguised as freedom in the marketplace and in word and deed.

If you want specific examples or you want examples related to a time, place or event you’re already familiar with just let me know.

It’s hard to summarize hundreds of years of history and philosophy in just a few sentences while on break so please do me the courtesy of not nitpicking my overly broad statements.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Liberalism creates the conditions for revolt and reaction in a lot of different ways but primarily it’s through a combination of pursuit of profit leading to unaccounted for externalities buttressed by primacy of the powerful disguised as freedom in the marketplace and in word and deed.

The only place I can find such an association with pursuit of profit and liberalism is specifically in the capitalist-liberal perspective, and that is conjoined with neo-liberalism, basically “free market” that isn’t really free.

I can find no connection with liberalism, as a philosophy or a socioeconomic choice in governance, where the pursuit of profit (other than oligarchy or other authoritarian regimes that pay only lip service to liberal concepts, but that’s the end result, not the philosophical precursor) is the focus or result of liberalism.

If all you care to do is mic drop and gesture aimlessly in the direction of history, I’m afraid your point is lost.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you think the philosophy of liberalism can be separated from the atomized individual acting in a market?

Those ideas underpin all philosophical liberalism that I’m aware of. We can’t have liberal social relations or philosophy without a market to act as a replacement for the often feudal social relations and theocratic philosophy that existed before liberalism.

Consider Protestantism if you want a great example. It was only possible because the market allowed a class of people access to a new social relation and they needed a new system of beliefs that fit it.

You can’t separate any part of liberalism from the elevated position of the market.

I’m really not trying to be aggressive or only make pithy, in your words mic drop replies. The question you asked is very broad and I’m not able to summarize it without glossing over lots of stuff. I also don’t have the time to type, source, check, proofread and edit a reply that covers the last 800 years.

Like I said, if you want something more specific or that you’re familiar with just name it and we can talk in those terms.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Ok. You continue to make connections between liberalism to religion, markets, personal economics, and more…clouded by words like atomize, feudal, and “elevated position of the market”.

Frankly, you don’t make sense. If you are incapable of reducing the connection between the philosophy of liberalism and the direct path to fascism due to plain text tenets of that philosophy it very much sounds like you don’t understand it yourself. Or you’re just making shit up.

You have expended extraordinary paragraphs waving your hands at every point of the compass while claiming you can’t be bothered to expend effort to type an explanation. I spent a good 20 minutes searching for papers, academic, historic, or otherwise, that could connect your claims - in effect I was attempting to prove you right. There are none.

I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation, you make lots of claims using fun words, but nothing to substantiate them.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’m so sorry you’re not understanding. I’m trying my best to choose words carefully so that it’s clear what I’m saying. If something’s not clear feel free to ask for more information and, as I’ve said before, please tell me if tying my replies to a particular line of study, time, place, person or event would help!

If you don’t think it’s worthwhile to have this conversation you’re free not to. It would be pretty illiberal of me to force you to interact in the marketplace of ideals, that would be a violation of your basic liberties!

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

Is there something I can help you understand?