Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

moonlune wrote

This is a pretty privileged stance: if you instead base yourself on how the two ideologies effect minorities the difference becomes quite notable.

8

subrosa wrote

I'm not sure it has to be a privileged stance, but I was trying to formulate something similar. Active resistance and opposition demands we recognize differences in how these -isms function and structure themselves.

This can be done in a variety of ways, I'm not suggesting there is one fascism and one neo-liberalism. And perhaps not everyone needs to oppose and battle the various -isms with the same thoroughness in analysis. The laundry list of things anarchists oppose is overwhelming, so I can understand bundling some of it together in a more radical opposition (of archy, of authority, or something like that).

6

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

is it tho, like neoliberalism has no problem putting racial minorities into concentration camps (japaneese internment camps, hispanic migrants captured at the US border), constant war in countries for territorial conquest, not to mention how frequent it is for the US neoliberal regime to install fascist dictatorships in south america so in many cases fascists killing minorities is part of neoliberal policy to begin with, nor all the slaves in nonwhite countries causes by continual neoliberal colonialist policy. Or in the literal holocaust noeliberal companies where allowed to more manufacturing to said death camps.

So I just guess I gotta wonder what minorities your talking about. Like nonwhite people get similar treatment, people in other countries get similar treatment, and in the other minorities such as jews or gay people while neoliberal countries don't have much of a history of subjugating them but they do enable and causes fascists to do that so the neoliberal countries are just as cop able if not more bc without their policies the fascist dictatorships wouldn't happen in the first place. Heck thats not even true, it wasn't that long ago that the US would send gay people to be legal slaves in prisons for being gay or just send cops to beat them. So the only real benefit I see to minorities is the ones in the said neoliberal country. But not in other countries as modern day neoliberal countries have no problem killing and indirectly or directly getting a bunch of nonwhite people to be their slaves through conquest.

Not really criticizing just trying to gauge why your viewpoint is different than mine.

4

moonlune wrote

I was going to say women's autonomy, but it's a bit of a wrong timing 😶.

Yeah I had a similar argument with myself while writing my response, and I came to the conclusion that while neolibs do all these things, fascists do it too and more.

Then again neolibs are fine with giving their power to fascists so it means they're ok with it up to a extent...

Fascists are still worse though.

4

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Fascists are still worse though.

Yeah if the differences make are worse that's a valid way to feel that I have no desire to argue. I think we are on the same page and don't really disagree on anything

5

adsorption wrote (edited )

Then again neolibs are fine with giving their power to fascists so it means they're ok with it up to a extent...

This I think is maybe the most important point.

Fascism & neoliberalism arent the same but fascists & neoliberals can & do directly coordinate and cooperate.

And in some (not all) contexts, I think framing the question as "who is better?" misses that point, and can be like asking "Who is better? The fascist prison guard or the doctor who works for a neoliberal agency & was contracted by the prison to perform non-consensual surgeries?"

2

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

like neoliberalism has no problem putting racial minorities into concentration camps (japaneese internment camps, hispanic migrants captured at the US border),

You're mixing a bunch of unrelated things here.

First, the US was not yet "neoliberal" during WW2 (for the Japanese prisoners reference). It was a Keynesian war state which is an ocean away from neoliberalism, predating it by decades. Furthermore it's a nearly universal trend among warring states to be taking war prisoners, regardless of their ideology.

Then hispanic migrants are being held due to "unlawful border crossings". Not saying I agree with this position, but within the republican view, Law and the constitution has priority, unless there's clear human rights policies in effect in any of these states protecting people from these treatments, which doesn't appear to be the case. This is why migrants are being held into cages and abused, not due to neoliberalism, which would rather be seeking to include migrants for using them in the economy, either legally or under the rug.

3

adsorption wrote (edited )

not due to neoliberalism, which would rather be seeking to include migrants for using them in the economy, either legally or under the rug.

Like private businesses & non-profits opportunistically working with the carceral state to facilitate cultural genocide; using child trafficking schemes (adoption services) that funnel kids into white Christian families & communities.

1

AnarchoDoom wrote

Yes. Neolib and fascism are pretty close, but there's at least two elements that make them irreconciliable, like this one. Neolib is also not nationalist at least on the surface.

1