By EarthStvdio 
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
151 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14305 readers
634 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://x.com/RockChartrand/status/1993030904328208511 B R O T H E R
"Liberalism doesn’t “enable” fascism. It’s the only thing that prevents it. Fascism is a system where the state has supreme authority over the individual. It demands obedience, central planning, and the sacrifice of personal freedom to a collective ideal of nation, race, or leader. All power flows downward.
Liberalism is the opposite. Classical liberalism is built on the protection of individual rights, limits on state power, private property, free expression, and voluntary association. Fascism requires crushing these things. A society where you can speak, assemble, trade, and criticize authority is one where fascism cannot take root without first destroying the liberal framework.
Fascism only rises when liberalism weakens or collapses. The Weimar Republic didn’t “enable” Hitler. Its institutions were dismantled, censored, intimidated, and bypassed until nothing liberal was left. Fascism requires the elimination of liberal rights as step one.
Communism and fascism are not opposites. They are cousins. Both are forms of collectivist authoritarianism built on the same philosophical core.
Both demand:
• The subordination of the individual to a collective cause • State control over the economy • Suppression of dissent • One-party rule • Propaganda as truth • “Enemies of the people” to justify repression • Central planning of life, work, speech, and association
They differ not in their structure but in their branding. Fascism uses the nation or race. Communism uses the proletariat or “the people.” But both abolish individual rights and treat human beings as instruments for a collective end.
Where liberalism says “Your life is yours,” fascism and communism both say “Your life belongs to us.”
That’s why communists and fascists historically admire each other’s efficiencies and borrow each other’s methods. It’s also why communist revolutions always result in the same things fascism needs: censorship, secret police, one-party rule, centralized power, and the destruction of civil society.
If fascism appears, it’s because liberalism was abandoned, not because it was followed. And it is communism, not liberalism, that shares fascism’s DNA.
What both communists and fascists depend on is nonsensical, baseless, and emotional assertions, because envy, resentment, ignorance, and indifference are their lifeblood."
you can tell just looking at it he used ai lmfao
Despite the link at the top, i read some of that thinking you were authentically saying it and I had to spend literal seconds uncomfortable with the thought that someone like that had been on hb for two years.
Quote bars are free, here have one
He should have used quote bars, but he does use quotation marks. The main thing is he doesn't use them properly with the linebreaks.
think of all the attempted CIA plots against Cuba or wherever else, and realize that you are not aware of the full number and extent of those attacks. i think the people under that kind of siege know better than we do what's necessary to defend themselves.
It's true, "freedom of association" was used to defend a lot of segregation before it was outlawed, and classic "anti-authoritarian" luminary Arendt defended it on that basis
With such a reductive definition there would be no significant difference between liberalism and fascism. Imperial America has shown time and again that Black individuality means nothing to the bourgeois state. The Summer of 2020 should have made that abundantly clear.
Not really.
Like the U.S. military.
If by ‘individual’ you mean ‘White cishet capitalist men’s’, then yes, RockChartrand.
There has never been such a thing as ‘unlimited state power’.
Nope.
I remember hearing a statistic that only 10% of the German population registered with the NSDAP. This is another meaningless ‘distinction’.
Strange that there were still other political parties when the Italian and German bourgeois states promoted Fascism in 1922 and 1933, respectively. That being said, it is true that the prefascist states had already devastated Italian and German communism, to certain extents.
Individualism continued to exist under Fascism, and every neoliberal will tell you that the (collective) forces that direct the market are more important than what a lone customer or even a lone businessman wants, so this is yet another meaningless ‘distinction’.
No, but I can see why you would rather overlook the class character of the state, given that it would compromise your generic analysis.
See here again. ‘Freedom of speech’ only exists in fairy tales; it is nothing but an ideal.
Reminder that neoliberals will tell us with a straight face that they would rather have two identical parties ruling as opposed to only one.
Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!
So all liberal régimes that support Zionism are actually illiberal, then. Good to know.
What? What does this even mean?
This may be the bravest lie that I have read all month.
Fixed.
What a cool picture