- cross-posted to:
- usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
- gauchisse@jlai.lu
- cross-posted to:
- usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
- gauchisse@jlai.lu
If the Twitter/X thing teaches you one thing, let it be this: Twitter was a neoliberal place. Then Elon Musk made it into X, a fascist place. Once again, neoliberalism laid the foundations of fascism. But that’s not the (whole) lesson… Neoliberal folks are still using X, calling it Twitter to make themselves feel better, and pining for the good old days. And there’s the real lesson: When neoliberalism turns into fascism, neoliberals will adapt to life under fascism. Right, class dismissed.
(We really need a better way to crosspost from mastodon…)
You must log in or register to comment.
The conclusion is moot when the premise itself is wrong. Twitter was only “a neoliberal place” if you’re only looking at the neoliberal part of it. It’s like saying “YouTube is a site about sports highlights” because that’s all you watch.
If you used Twitter and only saw neoliberal garbage, that’s on you for following neoliberals. It completely ignores the majority of communities.
When I was active on there, if I saw a political tweet it was pro-socialist 95% of the time.
Aral is promoting the Fediverse.
He’s also saying neoliberals/centrists are largely performative, and they are fine with fascism. It’s a variation of the Nazi bar story.
There were always problems with Twitter’s moderation as it was lighter on the right than the left. The famous comment about not banning Republicans congresspeople comes to mind. It was never as right leaning as Facebook though.
There are plenty of ways one can promote the Fediverse without saying things that are factually wrong
I am a proponent of the fediverse as well but I do it without disparaging the people on X who are still there because the community they’ve been a part of for 2 decades is still there.
without disparaging the people on X who are still there because the community they’ve been a part of for 2 decades is still there
No, those weak-willed people are a big part of the problem and are therefore even more deserving of disparagement.
Abandon all your friends and family or you have a weak will
Yes. Real leftists have no loved ones.
The only love we need is our love for Marx, may peace be upon him.
Fuck that guy, we’re doing anarchy. There are dozens of us.
After the infighting we can fight the fascists, this plan is flawless.
That’s how it works in anime right? We do a tournament and the survivor will be the strongest leftist. They’ll be able to defeat all fascists by themselves. Truly a masterful plan.
My friends and family are in my life, not an app.
It’s the end of the world! (of Warcraft)
Be real now you don’t need to follow them on Twitter. They’re on your phone.
That’s like saying “you don’t have to be in the guild, you can still private message people”
There’s more to a community than just the people you’re close enough to have other forms of communication with. I don’t have the contact info for a lot of my acquaintances online outside of the specific platform I talk to them on
Well ok then. It’s not like im attacking your choice man, just joking about your hyperbole. :)
Yeah, but you don’t need them on your phone…they have a mailbox.
i think youre misunderstanding the point they’re trying to make, but then again they’re not expressly clear who they’re talking about either and “neoliberal” is a term that means different things based on how we’ve been using it etc etc.
If the Twitter/X thing teaches you one thing, let it be this: Twitter was a neoliberal place. Then Elon Musk made it into X, a fascist place. Once again, neoliberalism laid the foundations of fascism.
I suggest they’re referring to the ownership of Twitter, not twitters users here. Twitter was owned by neolibs (they assert) and sold to Elon. They’re saying Elon is making X more fascist, not speaking about the userbase.
Neoliberal folks are still using X, calling it Twitter to make themselves feel better, and pining for the good old days.
And there’s the real lesson: When neoliberalism turns into fascism, neoliberals will adapt to life under fascism. Right, class dismissed.
Now he’s moved to the userbase, which is confusing and muddles things up a bit. but his point here is the neolibs are the ones who stayed on X even after fascist users started coming in due to a fascist ownership. They complain, but they get by, because (and this may now just be my projecting my own thoughts) neoliberals have 0 morals and 0 insight.
You said you aren’t there anymore. I think this means you’re exempt.
Anyway that’s what i got from it
I stopped being active on Twitter long before the sale for unrelated reasons but I’ve popped on from time to time because I still have friends on there who don’t use other platforms.
I take issue with the “everyone who stays is complicit” argument in the same way I have issues with the “everyone in Alabama is a racist magat” because it completely ignores why people actually stay - community and connections.
Unless you can convince your entire circle to switch to a different platform all at once, the move is painful. I get it.
Those aren’t comparable situations IMO.
People can’t just pack up and leave because they disagree with their neighbors in real life, that takes money which not many people have a surplus of, especially in Alabama. That’s not a choice.
Using Twitter is completely different, it costs nothing financially to stop going go a website. Your point about the social aspect and need for community is not wrong, but also if one values their social connections with fascists and fascist-enablers… well… I think you see where I’m going with that. That is a choice.
The users on it might “do socialism” but the owners, curators, and managers just saw that as a product for them to sell ads next to. The socialism is sort of bait.
Having a show featuring socialists or with socialist themes doesn’t make your network socialist.
That’s a fine take and all but the screenshot in the post is about the users, not the owners.
Using your analogy, the hosts of a socialist show are neoliberals because the network - the only network for over a decade - is neoliberal.
Yes, Jon Stewart is a neo-liberal. I didn’t really think that was seriously disputed.
Anything approaching a socialist network was dismantled long ago. There is no left-wing establishment. They were priced out of existence intentionally and then targeted by brutal crackdowns, hostile regulation, buyouts and in some cases straight up outlawed.
I’m sorry but I’m not sure I understand how Jon Stewart and socialist networks relate to what I said.
I’m saying that if your only option for a network is neoliberal and you have a (socialist) message you want to get out, using that network to do it does not make your a neoliberal.
If you have a socialist message that network is not going to let you get it out unless it thinks it’s going to be able to sell commercials alongside it.
If at any point in time that network thinks that something you’re going to say is going to undermine its neoliberal position it will censor you and it has proven that time and time again.
Your mistake is thinking that you get to use the network to do your message when in reality the network is going to use you to get its revenue.
If one of the owner bros decides to give you a platform it’s because they are making money on it. Just like neoliberals give platforms to fascists. Neoliberals don’t really care about the ideology as long as it doesn’t threaten their revenue.
… And? If they sell ads, does that make you a neoliberal?
The analogy falls apart here because socialist message were not censored on Twitter.
It’s hard to think that you’re being serious with this kind of reasoning.
You’re drawing some pretty spurious conclusions from what I’m saying.
They don’t have to censor every socialist message just the ones they think will undermine their position.
Also the OOP’s line of logic seems to imply Elon bought Twitter because it was neoliberal?
Elon has billions of dollars he could buy half the lemmy instances if he gave the admins the right check amount.
He bought it because even though he has more money than he could ever spend, all his small mind craves is other losers thinking he’s cool. He was granted extra money when he bought it by people who hated the fact Twitter was used to support revolution in the Middle East and wanted to ensure if that ever happened again, they would control the person who could shut it down.
Wikipedia says neoliberalism is considered an insult 🤔
It says the same thing about TERF. When people find accurate, clinically boring descriptions of themselves offensive, it’s not the term that’s at fault.
I think it’s just that people use it as an insult. I think that is the case with many insults. I think retarded started as just a descriptive word.
Except “neoliberal” is insulting because it’s accurate.
It’s never changed meaning. People just began to realize that neoliberalism is awful and neoliberals are calling it an insult to be accurately described. Exactly like TERFs.
It’s not like mentally retarded can’t be accurate. But it’s the intent and repeated use as an insult that makes an insult and insult. Could just be a neutral descriptor because in itself it doesn’t mean something insulting.
It’s not like mentally retarded can’t be accurate
It literally can’t. That’s not the scientifically used word anymore because people changed it into an ableist insult meaning something else than the original descriptive term.
Nobody’s changed the meaning of the word neoliberal. That neoliberals pretend otherwise to avoid being called out for being neoliberals doesn’t change the meaning of the word or the legitimacy of its use.
It literally can’t. That’s not the scientifically used word anymore because people changed it into an ableist insult meaning something else than the original descriptive term.
You are describing how it was the accurate, descriptive medical term but how the use as an insult made it so that it’s an insult. Isn’t that exactly what I was saying?
Nobody’s changed the meaning of the word neoliberal. That neoliberals pretend otherwise to avoid being called out for being neoliberals doesn’t change the meaning of the word or the legitimacy of its use.
It was and sometimes still is used neutrally as a descriptor of certain type of economic policies. Those who view those economic ideas and policies negatively use it as an insult. In that respect it’s the same as “communist”, it’s not inherently negative and just means someone who believes in the idea of communism. But some, who dislike communism, use it as an insult.
You are describing how it was the accurate, descriptive medical term but how the use as an insult made it so that it’s an insult. Isn’t that exactly what I was saying?
No. You were saying that the meaning of the r-word hasn’t changed and can be accurately used to describe what it originally did. That’s not true.
It was and sometimes still is used neutrally as a descriptor of certain type of economic policies.
Because that’s what it means. Always have, always will.
Those who view those economic ideas and policies negatively use it as an insult
Because to people who know how awful neoliberalism is, it’s insulting to be labeled as an adherent of that ideology.
Insulting doesn’t automatically mean inaccurate or without use as a factual descriptor.
In that respect it’s the same as “communist”
No it isn’t.The vast majority of the people who use the word communist to insult don’t know what it actually means beyond cold war propaganda equating it with misery and deliberate evil.
People who use the word neoliberal in a disparaging way are fully aware of the actual meaning and are using that as the insult, not some Reaganesque caricature.
Neoliberals pretend to be centrist or center-left and don’t want to be called out as Neoliberals, since everyone knows that’s a center right to right wing ideology.
Just like Republicans exhibiting all 14 common characteristics of fascism don’t want to be called out on being fascists because people know that fascism is bad.
Yeah iirc it was the clinical and pepper term to replace “mongoloid”.
Well, think of it this way. Have you ever heard anybody call themselves a ‘neoliberal?’
There’s /r/neoliberal. But don’t go there. t’is a silly place
I got permanently banned from Reddit for saying that punching Nazis was a good thing.
Probably the best thing that ever happened to me on the interwebs.
Damn i feel like a chump comparitively. I still have my old reddit account tho i haven’t logged in since i left for here. I want to see if he becomes a shill if i leave him there.
I’m still banned but they sent me a stock offering. It’s a crazy world
That’s the most neoliberal thing I can imagine, auto spamming blocked emails looking for an investment
I guess it is.
The users of it don’t like it when you point it out either. Or they try to say it’s embracing the joke, as they usually do nothing but show why it’s an insult
I’ve seen people try to reclaim the word.
Any links? I’d like to see their reasoning.
Neoliberal is an accurate descriptor for most liberals, progressive or conservative. The politics they support are similar more than they are different. The strong social safety net libs are social democrats who are either confused or in denial. I can’t fault them too much, good political education is basically non-existent in most schools. That still doesn’t mend the whole “caving to fascism” thing, social democrats still advocate capitalism. See how Sweden or Finland have been doing lately for a prime example
How are social democrats confused?
They’re confused about the nature of capitalism and how power structures function for one but I think you misunderstood my initial comment. I was saying that there are a lot of people that self identify as liberal who, if you listen to their rhetoric, would be better described as social democrats. Not that self identified social democrats are confused, but there are a lot of social democrats who seem to think they’re liberal
Ah ok, I understand what you mean. Thank you for clarifying. :)
Anytime!
You’re off the rocker lol. How are most liberals neoliberal. It’s like you just regurgitate words you saw without knowing what any of them mean.
The status quo in the US is neoliberalism, shifting towards fascism. Joe Biden is upholding the status quo with little in the way of real mitigation of the greatest problems in our country, doubly so for congress. Ardent supporters of the democratic party (a neoliberal party since the Clinton administration) are neoliberal. They vote for, and vocally support a neoliberal party. How aren’t they neoliberal?
I’m not talking about confused social democrats. People who call themselves liberal despite falling in line with a social democrat platform.
According to Wiktionary:
A political ideology or ideological trend based on neoclassical economics that espouses economic liberalism, favouring trade liberalisation, financial deregulation, a small government, privatisation and liberalisation of government businesses, passive antitrust enforcement, accepting greater economic inequality and disfavouring unionisation.
The Spanish polisci professor Juan Carlos Monedero explained the utility of the term this way: “Classical liberals challenged the status quo because the status quo was antidemocratic. Neoliberals challenge the status quo because they want the state to shrink.”
In US terms, both the Democrats and the Republicans have neoliberals, although both wings are shrinking in favor of progressives and ultraconservatives, respectively, in the last few years.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Xitter
Twitterix
Twix? No…please, Elon. Don’t ruin my favorite candy bar.
I don’t think it really fits, Elon Musk bought the place. If anything the lesson is that money rules the world, ideology is secondary.
I wonder if theres an ideology that is more in line with "Money Rules the world " hmmm
I meant that if it had been bought up by someone favouring socialist users and wanted to further that ideology, it would seem a bit strange to me that someone’s takeaway would be that neoliberalism laid the foundations for socialism.
It’s a website that got bought. If you meant that “money rules the world” is capitalism or neoliberalism then their point becomes a bit muddled, with capitalism laying foundation for capitalism or neoliberalism laying foundation for neoliberalism. What would that even mean?
I don’t see any sort of ideological struggle or laying foundations. It was just a purchase. My friend didn’t lay the foundations for me to drive to places when I bought his car and used it to drive places hah.
There are ideologies that believe control rights over firms belong to the workers in those firms. In these ideologies, the control rights can’t be given up or transferred even with consent from the workers in the firm i.e. are inalienable. Neoliberalism specifically endorses the alienability control rights over firms. The non-democratic nature of the firm under neoliberal capitalism creates a class used to democratically unaccountable power
deleted by creator
not a meme, please use the sister communities for content like this
(I hate to do this bc I agree with it, but my brain hates twitter posts or just generally walls of text in a meme community)Libs love fascism but Twitter could be turned into X and made fascist isn’t an argument for that. Maybe on the extremely loose way that private property allows this to happen.
In today’s episode of “you’re a fake leftist!!!”
Honestly, the left spends more time trying to distance themselves from other leftists than they do helping their cause.
Feels that way
Removed by mod
But heres the thing, yall keep having to distance yourselves, all the time. Why?
Removed by mod
Someone’s still on fascist X, aren’t they? Stop supporting blatantly fascist platforms, please.
What a weird and stupid conclusion. Always hated Twitter, barely used it, hated every second. Now it’s ten times worse. I would never consider viewing any X content by choice.
But yes the thing I said that in no way relates to Twitter means I love to suck musk dick all day long.
(not OC) I’m not on X but I will still defend Twitter because it rocked. I “curated” my timeline to be just friends, musicians, and comedians so I rarely saw politics…instead I got a steady feed of one-liners. You know, those screenshots that get spread around every other site to make us laugh?
Twitter had one of the most diverse userbases of any social media site I’ve ever used. No matter your interest, you could find a circle to run with. Science Twitter, sports Twitter, weird Twitter…take your pick. Don’t follow capitalists if you don’t want to see capitalist tweets.
140-char Twitter was amazing, 280-char Twitter was pretty good, and X sucks ass.
Bluesky is shaping up pretty good. Follow me so I’m not lonely
The mistake here is that Twitter was ever anything but bots.
Was that posted on Twitter/X?
Clearly posted on mastodon.
Never used it so don’t know the interface. But now that I take out the magnifying glass and not skip over the handle I can see it there.
There’s a source in the post text and their handle is in a mastodon instance :P
Sigh. Why would I go to the source when it’s posted. And handle is what I said. (Clearly what I posted.)
Because perhaps you were curious about whether it was posted on Twitter… The thing you asked about…
And just like whitepeopletwitter, people can take from one place (Twitter) and post on another (mastodon). JFC. Ciao.
This seems like pretty blatant deflection when you had multiple opportunities to find out your exact question by clicking one link or reading a little closer. Both things faster than making a comment.
You assumed wrong twice, made an inciting comment, and now you’re upset about it. Interesting.
Also why bring up whitepeopletwitter? This isn’t reddit…
About ten years ago Twitter was actually a place for Canadian politicians and journalists and average folks with interest in politics of all views to converse and joke around together. It actually was very fun and despite the fact we didn’t agree, stuff like the Tell Vic Everything hashtag ended up being a very organic movement of sorts where a conservative idea for dissolved into humour. It really was rather non-partisan and enjoyable and I’m always sorry it changed.
I’ll agree that Twitter is a mess right now, but fascist? I think y’all throw the word around too much, and risk making it lose its meaning.
Fascism is not everything evil. Fascism is a specific flavor of evil. It’s only fascism if it:
- Has a dictator with absolute power
- Is militaristic
- Suppresses opposition with force
- Has a social hierarchy
- Prioritizes the nation over its members
- Has strict rules for society and the economy
Otherwise, it’s just sparkling authoritarianism. Don’t get me wrong, that can still be just as evil or worse depending on how it’s done, but spreading misinformation is not automatically fascism.
Frankly, I don’t have a real issue with calling it fascism if it only meets some of the points above, but if it doesn’t even meet half, I think you’re stretching.
They’re using the adjective to describe it as platform used by fascists and that promotes fascist content. Obviously Twitter is not a fascist government any more than a fascist bar or fascist newspaper is.
Hmm, I see what you mean. Glimse’s comment thread is about that topic.
Fascism is a political strategy that seeks to preserve, create, and entrench structures and relationships of power imbalance by means of promoting and facilitating mass, broad-spectrum chauvinism in ways that are likely to encourage widespread individual and systemic violence.
“Chauvinism” here-in refers to an irrational belief that one’s own identity makes them superior. Note that this definition essentially covers the 14 characteristics of fascism as detailed by Umberto Eco, and generalizes them. It is not, as you imply, a type of governance nor is it a coherent political philosophy as so many seem to think. Under this definition, the conduct and statements of Elon Musk in general and his management of Twitter in particular certainly qualify.
Thanks for mentioninng Umberto Eco’s 14 traits of fascism. I hadn’t seen them before, but the summary was a good read. I’ll list them out here, with a few tweaks to the phrasing because I’m like that:
- Tradition has all the answers.
- Rejection of modern culture.
- Action for action’s sake.
- Disagreement is treason.
- Fear of difference - and different people.
- Middle class vs lower class.
- The enemy is always scheming something.
- The enemy is both dangerous and weak.
- If you’re not fighting, you’re with the enemy.
- Chauvinism.
- Everyone must be a hero of the cause.
- Machismo.
- The common will, as interpreted by the leader, subsumes individual opinions.
- Control of language to control thought.
I can accept this definition. It’s notably not meant to say “it’s only fascism if it covers all 14 points.” Eco states that fascism might coagulate around only one of these points, but I don’t think that should be taken to mean “if it meets one point, it’s fascism,” just that it could be. Otherwise, an order of knights is a fascist regime for meeting point 11.
I think it’s also valuable to take these points and do a little introspection to make sure you’re not being fascist (or fascist-like) yourself. I know my beliefs can be construed to hit around 2-5 of the points partially.
All that said… What you defined is violent systemic chauvinism (I’ll call it VSC for short.) There’s definitely major overlap between that and fascism, but I don’t think it covers all of fascism, and I think it covers things that are fascist-adjacent without technically being fascist (even though they’re still very evil.) For example, you could have a more communist flavor of VSC where the majority demographic of the middle class actually rules themselves and gets violent against anyone else, but it’s not fascism because there isn’t a placable dictator or even oligarchy. Or you could theoretically have a fascist regime without chauvinism, which doesn’t meet VSC.
I don’t think it covers all of fascism, and I think it covers things that are fascist-adjacent without technically being fascist
Can you provide some examples of each? That is, things that are useful to think of as “fascism”, but are not covered by my definition and things that are convered by my definition but considering them “fascism” is utility-negative? Having those to work off of would help me further refine my definition. The purpose of the definition is having a foundation to make inferences about the nature of fascism that are useful when discussing (among other things) strategies to counteract it, and so examples of the former are more valuable than examples of the latter.
Sure. Be warned that my arguments aren’t rock-solid here. I’m not a professional debater, I’m a casual who prefers to portray my thoughts more honestly rather than filtering out the inconvenient.
Fascism that isn’t covered by VSC
See 1984. Even though they don’t directly target minorities (or maybe I missed that part, either way it’s not prominent,) they still check all the other boxes of fascism and are very evil. If you think chauvinism is a necessary component of fascism, you might delude yourself into thinking a movement is okay because they’re not fascist (especially if they portray their enemies as fascists, making them the lesser of two evils,) and unknowingly become a fascist yourself.
VSC that isn’t fascism
The definition you gave includes a systemic combination of power imbalance, chauvinism, and violence. Totalitarianism is not necessary there. You could take an otherwise normal country, and if anyone with the authority to do so tells them “anyone who’s not a straight white person is lesser and not protected by the law,” it immediately fits the bill of VSC (if I interpreted it correctly.)
Don’t get me wrong, this is dangerously close to fascism, but the key difference is that straight white people are allowed to disagree and perhaps even campaign for equal treatment. They’re not being coerced into violence, just encouraged by the statements and lack of punishment for doing so.
I don’t have a problem with condemning this just as much as you’d condemn fascism, and it’s definitely fascist-adjacent. But I don’t want fascism redefined to include fascist-adjacentism, because then there’s a new ring of fascist-adjacentism ready to get redefined in as well, and no clear stopping point.
I know this is a bit of a slippery slope, but if you’re able to frame an ideology such that everything evil to you is fascist, then it becomes convenient to think that only fascism is evil, and miss non-fascist evil. I don’t expect you to fall into that pitfall, but I expect that if this trend continues, some people will. That’s where it’s utility-negative.
you might delude yourself into thinking a movement is okay because they’re not fascist
I’d like to point out that it’s fallacious to think that not fascist implies not bad, and I recommend not trying to incorporate the assumption that someone else will commit that fallacy into your argument.
With that said I would say that Oceania qualifies as fascist under my definition since they are depicted as strategically using deliberately cultivated chauvinism to maintain their power. It’s been a while, so I don’t recall all of the details, but the most obvious instance is how the main character is treated worse by children because they are aware he is a “thought criminal”. The children have been subjected to propaganda that cultivates a sense of superiority in identifying with the regime; they belive that “thought criminals” are, in essence, sub-human. I don’t recall any instances of explicit interpersonal violence being depicted in the story, but it’s probable that true believers attacking known thought-criminals would be a common occurrence given the rhetoric we are exposed to. The key component here is that this is used to deliberately maintain power; no one will rebel if everyone who even doubts is The Enemy.
Totalitarianism is not necessarily there.
The key component you’re missing is that fascism deliberately uses VSC to accumulate and maintain political power.
I know this is a bit of a slippery slope, but if you’re able to frame an ideology such that everything evil to you is fascist, then it becomes convenient to think that only fascism is evil, and miss non-fascist evil.
I agree. However, I don’t currently seek to address this particular issue.
Huh, I hadn’t considered that chauvinism doesn’t have to be demographic-based. Yeah, that makes a difference.
Definition of fascist: that which we say is fascist.
