Look, fuck Orban, but y’all aren’t even waiting to see how Magyar pans out, before hailing a new era. Fascism and anti-fascism aren’t just like a Zeitgeist or something. They require concrete actions. Not understanding this means that elections will just keep bringing you back to fascism.
The concrete actions in question, historically, are mass worker movements, both communist and anarchist (the former more historically successful).
Protest-non-voters won’t believe this one simple trick.
truuuuuueeee!!!
The Democrat Party in the US is not anti-Fascism as their support for Zionism and plenty of other Fascist ideologie abroad as well as their unwillingness to stand fast against Trump shows.
The situation in the US is akin to a decades long one-two tactic being played by two of the same team (team Oligarch) on their way to score for them and against everybody else, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with anything in Europe, except for what’s going on in Britain.
B-b-both sides same!
No, the good cop is clearly different from the bad cop to anyone who has eyes.
PArTY A GoOd oNLy DOeS gOOd, pARty B evIL OnLY dOEs bAd.
(Switch A and B around for the other group of tribalist simpletons)
Nu uh, both sides same!
Sorry I forget genocide and mass imprisonment is okay if it might give you benefits.
Well if you don’t vote, you just get all those things (and worse) happening anyway.
Or you know organize outside of electorlism or if you must vote for someone opposed to genocide at the very least.
Organize to do what outside of electorlism?
Asking because I’m genuinely curious what you feel is more affective than voting in how we can each contribute to avoiding genocide.
Within legal means of course. Because I’m certainly in support of deposing fascists and oligarchs.
Taking Orban as evidence, this can certainly be achieved through voting in even the most rigged of elections.
Orban was replaced by another far right racist imperialist just one m ore friendly to NATO and the EU than Putin.
One small improvement like this one, made every voting cycle, will eventually lead to wherever you want to move those goal posts.
Like a ratchet!
How can you possibly believe this in 2026? Tell me, which western liberal democracy hasn’t seen living standards be destroyed, welfare hollowed out, and worker rights disintegrated over the past 20 years? Tell me one single western liberal democracy where the people are consistently making gains and are happy with their government
Do both. DO BOTH. One does not preclude the other. In fact by building the best future you can with your vote you leave space to do the other.
You did it, you saved Gaza!
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo
Here’s President Clinton establishing the Oslo accords helping Gaza exist as a recognized nation in peace with Israel. Specifically,
Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement.
Just making sure you’re aware that voting helped establish Gaza’s existence.
And voting is also is the reason it could have been saved from genocide.
Trump was supposed to save Gaza according to large portions of people here on Lemmy that told me voting for Kamala would be voting for genocide in 2024.
Now we live in a world where the actual truth is much more obvious - that Kamala would have obviously protected Gaza more than Trump. (Simply because she’s not politically compromised by Israel the same way Trump is).
So now you want to tell me voting doesn’t work to prevent genocide. Despite the current outcome being very clearly AVOIDABLE through voting. Just that option wasn’t taken - largely through the encouragement of many here on Lemmy to not vote for Kamala.
If more people didn’t vote for Trump the genocide wouldn’t have happened. Period. That is just not the outcome we have now. That doesn’t mean voting failed. It means most people failed to vote for the person who could have stopped it.
I think you meant to send this to the other guy.
I did! Apologies about that! 🙌 Completely missed the thread I was supposed to be responding to.
The Oslo accords weren’t a good thing what world do you live in, they were an entrenching of Israeli colonialism and Palestinian disfranchisement.
That’s cool and everything, but these people don’t actually care how many people die in which scenario.
It doesn’t matter if they care, it matters what they do. Because that’s what decides the outcome in each scenario. Their actions. Not their feelings.
Trump ended up encouraging the genocide, planning to build a resort on top of mass graves. Kamala just didn’t verbally attack Israel openly.
Those actions are not the same, and would have lead to a different outcome despite both candidates not caring.
By ‘these people’ I mean people who didn’t vote (because they don’t care how many die), not the politicians.
Kamala was an active participant in the genocide as VP what are you talking about?
“Whatever’s normal.”
It’s beyond me that any modern democracy would even allow someone be PM/President for 16 years in the first place, and then allow them to run again. For all that’s fucked with America rn, that one they’ve done right (for now).
Well, only for the presidency. The zombies in congress are entirely unaffected.
It’s beyond me that any modern democracy would even allow someone be PM/President for 16 years
I actually see it backwards. The proof that bourgeois western democracy is utter shit is that every 4, at most 8 years, the party in government gets hate-voted out of there. If people were actually content with the parties elected, I’d expect to see long periods of dominance by one or two similar parties, followed by some tumbling until the correct one is found again, etc. Having constantly changing parties and candidates kinda proves that everyone fucking hates anything that touches the government, not very democratic IMO.
It’s because you were given the illusion of democracy. It has not been that for a long time. Society can’t move forward till there’s an admission of that.
The gov is owned. The Representatives are owned. They always were, but a piece of paper, the constitution, gave an illusion of governance.
Recent events have just stopped holding up the illusion.
Germany has had several chancellors in office for 16 years.
He’s not actually very liberal from what I’m reading. He’s pro EU and not a Putin puppet but other than that his policies aren’t all that different from Orban’s. He was even in Fidesz until a few years ago.
I wonder if there will be much improvement for the LGBTQ community there.
But at least the Ukrainian payments stalemate is broken.
hes CENTER right at most i believe.
It’s probably part of why he succeeded though. Right enough to pull those voters, but not too right (pro eu etc.) so he could pull the centrists and left-leaners as well. Since as far as I understand there aren’t really leftist parties going strong in Hungary right now
If I were to Americanize it: This is essentially if Ted Cruz, or better yet Chris Christie, beat Donald Trump in the general election. Undeniably a good thing as it’d mean no more Trump and it’s kinda humilating for him.
But it means… yeah. One of them at the helm.
Someone on Bluesky said it was like if the Dems had lost to Trump 4 times and then ran Mit Romney and won by a historic landslide
That’s a better comparison, actually. Mitt very publicly doesn’t like Trump, but voted with him like 80% of the time.
then ran Mit Romney
Dems wouldn’t go that far left.
Undeniably a good thing
Actually it’s quite easy to deny that Ted Cruz or Chris Christie would be a good thing.
This is like some real Dem thinking.
That’s why there was a whole rest of the sentence.
Oh boy does that headline have nothing to do with the article. The article does a good job of explaining all the hard work Magyar did, but it is a bit silly to suggest that it is a temple for what could be done in Russia. For example, it does not lay out how a candidate can avoid all the tripping hazard windowsills that litter the Russian halls of power.
Why the reluctance to call a fascist a fascist?
Because the whole world is fascist and the leaders of fascism don’t like to be called it, so no mainstream media or news will call it such.
Also it can be confusing for some people. For instance, in WWII the fascist USA helped Russia defeat the fascist Nazi doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Most operate like Fascism = Bad instead of Fascism = Corporatism.
Does he mean fascism?
Wouldn’t that require actual elections? Russia does not have that.
For some of the people here who are going to yell out “but liberalism is bad and should die anyway!”
I’ve posted several comments in this thread, but I’ll do one top level comment now, not directed at anyone in particular.
Liberal in this instance means socially progressive. Illiberalism as Orban called it, was about stopping the “liberal gay agenda”. This is from American politics, where conservatives have started calling all progressives liberals. It has caught on in at least some Eastern European countries because our far-right leaders love mimicking the American far right Republican party. Putin is also spreading this shit, I’ve got a link somewhere to one of his quotes about liberalism destroying nations through “multiculturalism” or whatever. Essentially “liberals import the blacks and they destroy everything”.
Illiberalism in this instance doesn’t mean getting rid of the market economy or electoral system (necessarily). It means being bigoted.
funny is orban has funded at least the last CPAC, as intermediary from putin.
Liberal in this instance means socially progressive.
Incorrect. The Atlantic is a zionist publication. Socially it’s very regressive.
https://hrnews1.substack.com/p/the-atlantic-editor-in-chief-jeffrey
More importantly there’s nothing to be gained by conflating liberalism with social progress. That’s probably why they used the term “illiberal” in the first place - to muddy the waters. They don’t want to talk about fascism because The Atlantic literally supports fascism.
like dominos
Fortunately liberalism isn’t inevitable either.
Fuck the Epstein Atlantic.
Liberalism is inherently allied to fascism. Both ideologies worship profit and property ownership so have a vested interest in opposing socialism and class struggle.
Is Liberalism good?
is freedom bad?
Which liberalism?
Liberalism in the classic sense I’ll leave to you to decide.
Liberalism in this instance almost certainly has little to do with the market economy and is instead the catch-all term conservatives use for being socially progressive.
Orban himself claimed he was building an “illliberal regime” and that was almost entirely about the “gay agenda” and the liberal “attack on Christian values”. Putin also more or less said liberalism means letting in black people who destroy your country. So this is likely what the article is referring to.
No.
Read: State and Revolution by Vladmir Ilyich Lenin
Thanks for the recommendation; I’ve opened the audiobook in my YT window, so I’ll eventually give it a listen (~4-5 hours is quite a chunk of time, and I don’t want to run it as background noise - give it an actually fair shake, you know).
There’s certainly good things about it
Sure, but is it overall a positive-outcome kind of ideology? Or are there parts that undermine the whole, swinging the counter into the negatives?
liberalism must be defeated, international proletariat must rise up against this sick ideology.
Yes, death to LGBT folks and other minorities. Here, have a white cloak.
death to LGBT
One of the best LGBT rights in the world is in cuba (a communist country) and that happened democratically without any electoralism bullshit so keep your bs to yourself, I guess.
Cuba is on the other side of the world. Liberalism in Eastern Europe generally means tolerance for others. Not being a bigot.
The word “liberalism” in Europe is generally used to refer to economic liberalism, not social progressivism.
Yeah exactly. Liberals here are right wing capitalists. And often conservative.
They are kinda the same as the liberals in the US but that’s because US doesn’t really know any real left wing. So it’s right wing democrats or extreme-right republicans.
That makes liberalism seem somehow progressive but it isn’t really.
Haven’t heard it used for economic liberalism in over a decade, but I’m also not from western Europe.
and liberalism in other parts of world means western imperialism, capitalist enforcement, pro rich anti evironmentalism.
Sure, if you collapse capitalism, neoliberalism, and western foreign policy into just ‘liberalism’
I mean thats what the west present as its collective ideology
Sure, but this article isn’t talking about other parts of the world?
It’s about Orban, Putin and not just Trump but MAGA in general. That’s 3 countries where if you say you hate liberals, you’ll get high fives from neonazis, skinheads and so on.
Here’s Putin bashing ‘liberalism’ - he’s talking about multiculturalism and LGBT
Here’s Orban saying liberals are aiming for hegemony of opinion, stigmatizing conservatives and Christians - this almost always means “We’re not allowed to hate people for being different”.
Closer to home for me, former head of our very own mini-nazi party:
Mart Helme saying that liberals are establishing homototalitarianism
Relevant bit:
Helme said the extensively discussed interview with Deutsche Welle turned into an attack. “Attempts are made in Estonia to establish homototalitarianism, where, by appealing to the Constitution, attempts are made to make it clear to us that we must not speak or have an opinion on certain issues. That there are certain subjects and groups of people that have been declared untouchable by liberals and that cannot be criticized. By the way, the list of topics is expanding quickly,” he said.
Last one is not too relevant for Hungary in particular, but his son, the new leader of the party, cried about Orban losing, as he’s a wannabe member of the same Trump-Orban-Putin alliance. Basically a useful idiot for them. I brought this one up purely to show that this usage of the word “liberal” is now common.
Contemporary communists are feminists and pro-LGBTQ. Source: I’m one of them.
Which means in modern political parlance you’re not just a communist, but also a liberal. Especially in Eastern Europe.
No, you don’t get to choose the words I describe myself with. Socially progressive is not synonymous with liberal, it’s kinda the opposite actually.
Okay, but that’s what the word means now. Socially progressive and liberal are almost synonyms for years now, and the amount of people this has spread to is increasing.
Outside of your own narrow circle, you say you’re against liberalism, and people will think you’re going to be joining the KKK or something. So you can go on and say that you’re anti-liberal, but to an increasingly big amount of people that means you’re a bigot.
Something something dictionaries should be descriptive, not prescriptive.
I’ll link another comment I just made, which highlights this. There’s articles quoting three bigoted Eastern-European politicians (including the one this article is about) talking about how liberals and their gay agenda are ruining the world.
The usage of the word liberal has thus shifted. As the likes of Putin, Orban, Trump, etc, use the word liberal to describe someone they perceive as “woke”, “SJW”, whatever, basically just non-bigoted people, the people being described as such have largely adopted that label as their own. Largely, the word “liberal” where I live now means you’re accepting of other people, and your economic stance usually may be anywhere from center to left - as liberalism now carries the connotation of being a progressive, empathetic person, usually most people who call themselves liberals are pro taxation, social safety nets, etc.
This is why, and I’ve said this in a few other comments now, I propose that the original word “liberalism” for the most part should be replaced with “neoliberalism”, “capitalism”, or “marketism” to reduce confusion. Not a single one of those could in any way be confused for progressivism at least.
I can’t see shit oudda this thing!
