Thank you for this. The historical and current colonial exploitation of the global South and indigenous peoples around the globe is absolutely something that is overlooked far too much in these conversations. A large part of this, I suspect is due to controlling narratives allowed in education and subverting factual accounts and analyses. A good recent example being the portrayal of The Troubles in Northern Ireland as a sectarian conflict.

I agree that most people, ourselves included, have vulgarized the concept of fascism and use it as a crude synonym for capitalist tyranny. Strictly speaking, régimes such as Imperial America and the Zionist neocolony are not, nor are they turning, fascist… but even so I do not feel the need to speak up every time we characterize our oppressors as such. That we recognize our oppression and struggle against it matters more to me than our imprecise categorization of it. If we need to characterize the ongoing superexploitation of the Southern world as ‘fascism’, even if that is not the correct term for it, then so be it.

Rather than explicitly disapproving of leftists for vulgarizing fascism, we can—and maybe we should—instead take it as an opportunity to show them how the most effective way to prevent neofascism is by abolishing capitalism; we can take it as an opportunity to show them how European colonialism inspired fascism. Take, for example, this extract from German Rule in Russia, 1941–1945:

Hitler continued, ‘if we speak of new lands, we are bound to think first of Russia and her border states’.²

His favourite analogy in this connection was a comparison of the future German East with British India.³ To him, India provided an object lesson of colonial exploitation and Machiavellian virtuosity; he used it to buttress his conviction that the population of ‘Germany’s India’ — the Soviet Union — was likewise no more than ‘white slaves’ destined to serve the master race. Characteristic of his landlocked outlook, he proclaimed that Germany’s primary colonies were to be found not overseas but in Russia.⁴ Along with its manpower, the resources of the East were to assure the material well‐being of the German people.

(Emphasis added.)

We are less aware of how the status quo—with or without (neo)fascism—already superexploits the South, and that is a problem. It is frustrating how many are more concerned with the possible rise of neofascism at home than with the superexploitation already going on right now, but the two concerns need not be antagonistic at all.

We can show others, through their crude antifascism, how the superexploitation of the South was not only similar to but also inspired fascism, and how we can prevent more neofascism by ending the South’s superexploitation once and for all. Let us invite them to learn more, and dare them to upgrade their antifascism.

No, we’re not liberals, we’re communists. We talk shit about and dunk on liberals because we fundamentally disagree and take issue with the entire ideology. We take issue with being called liberals, because we’re not.

Liberals have nothing to do with the left.

You can’t be a liberal and a socialist at the same time, unless you’re talking about philistine and opportunist social democracy.

Non-digetic screams just summarized this whole thing perfectly.

We’re Marxists. We’re against liberalism. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism as another user already told you.

You’ve been taught a false binary. This is intentional to limit your ability to think critically about capitalism. All of us were. There is no binary.

There is liberalism (subset of which include conservatism, US Republicans), Marxism, and technically you could have non-liberal reactionaries like say sincere Monarchists who prefer a return to feudalism or some other older system and reject the enlightenment. However, largely speaking there are two groups as the amount of reactionaries who genuinely reject liberalism and assert a desire to return to and an embrace of a pre-liberal philosophy is shockingly small and they have no real traction anywhere among anyone, especially among Republican voters seething and crying about liberalism as to a one those people like most parts of liberalism (many of them espousing a return to “classical liberalism” or "liberalism before all these uppity women and minorities got rights and did things I didn’t like) and embrace for example the liberal idea of free enterprise, free markets, etc.

We reject the notion that we are at the end of history, that liberalism represents some final, perfect stage of humanity as opposed to previous societal stages such as the feudal, the monarchistic, the slave-society, the tribal, hunter-gatherer primativism, etc. As Marxists we say of liberalism what many liberals said of feudalism, namely that it was a historical stage, that it may have in certain ways represented advancements over previous ways of organizing society, but that it never-the-less is inferior to our proposed successor.

Just as liberalism did not represent some sort of wacko total year-zero rejection of the societies and systems that came before it but rather proposed a radical furthering of certain rights and ideas, so too Marxism while rejecting liberalism as out-modded, out-dated, and at this point backwards and bad, does not wholly reject and want to turn all of society upside down. We are a progressive force. We are for progress. We are for emancipation. But we are against capitalism. We are against privately held means of production. We are for the people, the workers being the rulers, the dictatorship over the current owning class to impose our will, our ends, our goals, our goods over their greed. With force. To create a new society, to gradually erode away the old as liberalism eroded away previous societies before it. This is our project, this is our calling. So yes we reject liberalism.

We embrace a scientific approach, we reject many things liberals take as immutable, as unchallengable, as laws unable or unwise to be challenged by humans.

No I think you misunderstood. I agree with your idealogy. But to talk shit about liberals, when we are liberals who actually lean left (unlike Democrats who are moderates in disguise), well that’s just plain dumb. It makes you sound like a Trumpanzee.

I do not consider liberals “part of the left”. The left starts at anti-capitalism.

I’m a liberal, and I’m also a proud socialist. And so are you.

That’s an insult here. I am not a liberal (who, by definition support capitalism and private property). I am a Marxist-leninist.

I do not understand how you can come to this conclusion.

You can’t be a liberal and a socialist. They are inherently opposed to one another

I suggest you read the Prolewiki article on Liberalism: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Liberalism

This is pure gold lmao

I’m not a liberal, I’m a marxist.

Liberalism is not leftism. We must fight fascism and liberalism at the same time. Fascism is the mask off form of liberalism. When the ruling class has to stabilize capitalism by inflicting colonial tactics from the liberals on to the home land, on white people.