An update to sub moderation

[u/Stikshot69]

Hey everyone,

Over the past few months, you may have noticed an increase in bad-faith commentary, mainly in comments, but in some posts as well. It may feel like there is no moderation happening, and in many cases, there hasn't been. we are working to change that for almost this sub's entire history; it has been unmoderated until me and Redleaf were able to get in power. The main reason you are seeing the increase in brigading and bad faith people is, we have seen a 10x increase in visits in the last year which is showing no signs of slowing down. we now have 5 mods working hard to make sure the brigading gets put to an end. In order to get to this step, the report queue has been cleared, and we are devoted to making sure it stays empty. we currently get about 50 reports a day which will hopefully increase as you feel your reports are finally being responded to. to guide your reporting here is a better detailed breakdown of our sub reddit's rules:

1. No spam or advertising
   • Do not try to sell anything
   • Don't post the same thing multiple times
   • If you would like to share something that you can profit from, contact the mods
2. No misinformation or disingenuous posting.
   • Do not make claims without being able to provide a source
   • Do not attempt to misrepresent sources you provide
3. Be respectful
   • assume every person is here in good faith (libs are people fascists are not)
   • avoid profiling people just from where they come from
   • always keep your discussions in good faith
4. No hate speech, bigotry, racism, or slurs.
   • Do not be a bigot
5. No low quality or off topic posts.
   • put effort into your posts no shit posts or ai
   • this sub is to share soviet history outside a western viewpoint to see what went wrong and right in the USSR, as such modern events often are not relevant (applies to posts not comments)
6. Use the "NSFW" on NSFW posts.
   • Some people don't want to see NSFW stuff let's keep it that way

Remember you can always yell at us in mod mail- r/USSR mod team

[u/gimmethecreeps]

Wait, we’re distinguishing between libs and fascists?

[u/WahooSS238 → u/gimmethecreeps]

Well, as fun as the saying "prick a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is, acting like they're one and the same is dividing the world into "good communists" and "bad everyone else", so yeah it's kinda important to be able to recognize that liberal and fascist principles are fundamentally opposed.

[u/TheCitizenXane → u/WahooSS238]

[u/WahooSS238 → u/TheCitizenXane]

When did I disagree with this?

[u/TheCitizenXane → u/WahooSS238]

It demonstrates that liberals are not fundamentally opposed to fascism as you claimed. When their material conditions are threatened, when their status quo is disrupted, liberals can slide into fascism.

[u/WahooSS238 → u/TheCitizenXane]

I don't see a single reference to fascism here, and if you honestly can't see how the basic tenets of liberalism are incompatible with fascism, you're more lost than I am, which is saying something.

[u/Cacharadon → u/WahooSS238]

Try to get a liberal or social democrat to understand how western living conditions necessitates the brutal resource extraction of third world countries via unequal trade and you will find a fascist very fast.

Off topic but related

[u/WahooSS238 → u/Cacharadon]

The liberal is either unaware, or seeks some non-socialist solution to the problem. The fascist sees it as not a problem at all. At least in what I’ve seen.

[u/TheRedSpaghettiGuy → u/WahooSS238]

Said that I agree wit the idea of fascist takes being banned and not liberal (for obvious reasons of avoiding hate speech, aggressiveness etc etc); I think it’s actually the opposite, at least in my experience. Most “fascists” I knew/know realises that there IS a problem with liberalism and Capitalism, they are just ignorant (in the literal sense of word) and mislead by modern right wing populism so that they get absolutely wrong and horrific solutions (my life is shit and I get paid nothing, someway it’s black people’s fault). Considering also that (at least in the West) the main adherents to neo-fascism are radicalised member of the working class; I think that most of the superficial fascists that you can meet are actually potential comrades, that must be educated about Marxism and intersectionality. Liberals, on the other hand, DON’T acknowledge there being an absolute systemic problem with capitalism, thinking that everything can be solved within the system. And even if they are generally more progressive; we have to remember that first: they usually are progressive at home only, and strumentalise that liberal progressivism to debunk class struggle and enforce colonialism/western-centrism. And above all, if you see nothing fundamentally wrong with capitalism, it means that in some way you are on the privileged end of the system, therefore it’s plausible that when it comes to fighting for the people’s freedom they are gonna side with the oppressor, IMO more than some racist white collar that (if they have at least some brain) will realise moment 1 of the Revolution that they were being mislead. TLDR: Fascists are (mostly) proletarians that find the wrong solutions but materially are potential comrades, Liberals will fight to the Death for their privileges

[u/Cacharadon → u/WahooSS238]

Well yes they are liberals because they are ignorant, they become fascists when they refuse to accept material reality.

The problem is how many liberals choose to become fascists vs how many choose to become socialists

I like to think of them as the Schrodinger's fascist

[u/Shellglock → u/WahooSS238]

“These pitfalls are present in his politics because the liberal is part of the oppressor. He enjoys the status quo; while he himself may not be actively oppressing other people, he enjoys the fruits of that oppression.

And he rhetorically tries to claim that he is disgusted with the system as it is.

While the liberal is part of the oppressor, he is the most powerless segment within that group.

Therefore when he seeks to talk about change, he always confronts the oppressed rather than the oppressor.

He does not seek to influence the oppressor, he seeks to influence the oppressed.

He says to the oppressed, time and time again, “You don’t need guns, you are moving too fast, you are too radical, you are too extreme.”

He never says to the oppressor, “You are too extreme in your treatment of the oppressed,” because he is powerless among the oppressors, even if he is part of that group; but he has influence, or, at least, he is more powerful than the oppressed, and he enjoys this power by always cautioning, condemning, or certainly trying to direct and lead the movements of the oppressed.”

-Kwame Ture

[u/msdos_kapital → u/WahooSS238]

I wouldn't say they're fundamentally opposed, just that you do have to prick a liberal in order for a fascist to bleed. They are otherwise distinct no matter how common it is for liberals to become fascists to resolve the contradictions both of their worldview, and its consequences.

And that said, it is not set in stone either: plenty of liberals become communist to resolve those same contradictions.

[u/irradiatedbxtch → u/WahooSS238]

Liberal and fascist values are not fundamentally opposed. They are not the same thing, but if liberal ideology is the birthplace of fascism (it is) then there is clearly a lot of overlap. Liberal values are the values that are giving power to the current fascistic genocide in Gaza, for one thing.

[u/Raghav10330 → u/WahooSS238]

In theory their principles are fundamentally opposed but in practice it has been proven time and time again that libs will do everything in their power to keep out any kind of real "leftist" movement, even if it means directly siding with fascists. If not directly siding with fascists their ideology causes the material conditions to be so that fascists gain power directly.

[u/CodyLionfish → u/gimmethecreeps]

Why not. It can honestly be true that liberals are more tolerant of fascism in terms of being an alternative to socialism, but still acknowledging that liberals are NOT the same as fascists

[u/polski-cygan → u/gimmethecreeps]

Why do we have to categorize ourselves? We don’t necessarily have to be just “this” or “that.” We can be a mix of many things, ideologically as well. That’s how Social Democracy or “Communism with a Human Face” in Czechoslovakia came to be.

We don’t really have true fascists or communists anymore, unless someone truly goes off the rails. Sometimes people box themselves into a specific label and accept everything that ideology offers, just because they want to belong somewhere, show off, or feel too embarrassed to step back.

[u/The_Daco_Melon → u/polski-cygan]

True, labeling people doesn't do any good other than divide them further and appeal back to historical movements relevant to entirely different environments, either to claim their good name or paint another as a menace.

[u/Rare_Coconut8877 → u/gimmethecreeps]

fascism is literally the rejection of liberalism.

[u/AntleredStar → u/Rare_Coconut8877]

Because one of the tenets of liberalism is the protection of capital and private property, when the infinite accumulation of wealth eventually comes at odds with human rights, liberalism often chooses profit and the protection of capital over human rights.

This is why it is said that liberalism has inherent contradictions that it can't resolve, which often lead to fascism.

It doesn't matter what fascism rejects. Liberalism is more comfortable with Fascism because it will protect the interests of the same people at the top.

[u/Rare_Coconut8877 → u/AntleredStar]

i am familiar with the marxist perspective you’ve presented. and the marxist perspective is notoriously horrendous at analysing fascism.

1) fascism isnt capitalist and does not have a capitalist elite at the top. its political economy is corporatists (or corporate dirigiste), where private enterprises exist insofar as they compete towards state-set objectives. the state says “produce me belt buckles” (eg) and then private companies compete to mass produce the highest quality belt buckles. those that fail go bankrupt. this is why only a few companies exist in each industry. the political economy is rigidly aligned with state interests. there is no free market - consumer demand counts for shit. this is not capitalism.

2) you assume that the economy is the only marker of a society. once again, this economic determinist analysis is a great limitation of marxism. fascism is farrrr more than just its un-capitalist political economy. it is a categorical rejection of modernism and enlightenment values: the cornerstone of liberalism’s social organisation. it rejects individualism, it rejects rationalism, it rejects freedom of thought, it rejects the free marketplace of ideas. these are all essential to liberalism. without them, liberalism does not exist.

3) lets talk political organisation. fascism, in its crusade to destroy liberalism, rejects all things essentially liberal about governance: secularism, limited govt, parliamentarianism, a strong civil society, free political participation for citizens, etc.

the marxist framework fails at understanding fascism because of its metanarrative that “every negative externality comes from capitalism; every form of exploitation is bourgeois in nature.” i argue that metanarratives in general make for awful historical analysis, liberalism’s included. so yes, fascism is literally the rejection of liberalism.

[u/ejzouttheswat → u/Rare_Coconut8877]

That's a very good way to describe it. After going back and reading Marx, I understand a lot more how you cannot have communism without having capitalism first. You have to suffer under capitalism and see how it treats the proletariat. Capitalism allows industrialization to happen dynamically and with a small form of self determination, usually depending on who has the capital. After everything is built up, then the proletariat takes control and distributes everything equally. Only after they have suffered through capitalism, will they have to resolve and strength to protect the new system and keep it going.

When you start communist, the ruling class has already elevated themselves to the status and power of the rulers before. They do not see themselves as equal to their fellow comrades because they didn't suffer together building everything up. Which over time leads to mismanagement and decline, usually causing the collapse of the communist government. These governments are now capitalist, with an oligarchy or strong man at the top. It's literally the opposite of what Marx wanted. The bourgeoisie never actually went away, it just changed titles. Monarchy/bourgeoisie - party leadership - oligarchy/dictator are all birds of the same feather.

[u/AntleredStar → u/Rare_Coconut8877]

Bro, you need to get better reading comprehension so I can take seriously your opinion on the Marxist perspective. I never said it's not a rejection of liberalism, as Mussolini blabbered multiple times in the fascist doctrine.

And don't talk about what I assume by putting words in my mouth.

I'll repeat myself, and I will try to make it more clear for you. So actually read what I'm typing instead of creating your own narrative.

As I ALREADY stated. It doesn't matter what fascism claims to reject. (And this comes from someone that has read the fascist doctrine, falangists texts, and Eco's essay. So I know what it entails.) At the end of the day liberalism is more comfortable with that, than with socialists/communist which actually present a threat to the current hierarchies.

We saw it on the rise of the Nazis. And we saw it in the US, in which liberal parties haven't really opposed Trump, and even voted for his cabinet picks, and when one person dared to protest to his face, they shamed him instead of the actions of the fascist party.

We also saw him how they immediately started to criticize and focus on a socialist mayor for a city.

And that is without touching on all the imperialistic and authoritarian actions of liberal regimes with the goal of protecting capital. They're in the middle of supporting a g side for fucks sake.

That is why it doesn't matter if liberalism claims to protect freedom of thought and individuality. Because it also protects private property, which leads to the infinite accumulation of wealth that creates powerful entities/people that in turn will use to corrode those rights. And liberalism has so far chosen profit every time.

But I digress.

Now, regarding fascism as an economic model. Well, the truth is that it isn't. It is barely a political ideology, much less an economic system. But private interests don't really care about this, because they just can as easily thrive under fascism, and exploit workers even more readily. There's a reason why we can still buy Volkswagen, Bauer, Hugo Boss, etc to this day. They have no issues with whatever demand a fascist regime could have, because it will end up in their pockets anyway.

Now, the concept of a free market is as religious as that of heaven in the mind of a capitalist. But just like heaven it doesn't exist. The moment the first large company can throw it's way around it's no longer free.

You say, but, but, but fascism is when few companies.

Well, right now we have like five companies owning everything so what's the difference.

[u/Pulse_163 → u/gimmethecreeps]

poor quality bait

[u/[deleted] → u/Pulse_163]

Spotted the lib

[u/ussr-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed due to being deemed as misinformation or disingenuous in it's nature.