Fascism in the UK and Liberalism’s False Equivalency

The fascist, right-wing, neo-nazi asshole who murdered a British politician a few days ago shouted “Britain First” before killing the mother of two. He killed her because she was an advocate for immigrants and opposed Britain leaving the European Union.

“Britain First!” is the UK equivalent of “Make America Great Again!”, reflecting the same right-wing elements of the respective countries: Anti-immigrant, nativist/nationalist, and white supremacist in nature.

The murder came almost exactly a year after the White Supremacist, and Confederate-Flag waving racist, Dylann Roof, walked into a black church in Charleston and slaughtered innocent black people because of the color of their skin.

These are examples of right-wing terrorism. This is what happens when fascism and racism go unchecked. You NEVER see Socialists or Communists or Anarchists doing this shit. We don’t shoot up abortion clinics, or churches, or gay clubs. We don’t slaughter innocent human beings to get our points across. **Ever**. The ONLY people we want to be violent with are the fascists and racists who have proven to be violent against innocent people, ethnic/racial/religious minorities, LGBTQ people, and vulnerable communities.

Anyone (often liberals and conservatives) who draw a false equivalency between the violence of fascists and the violent self-defense of anti-fascists are morally and intellectually bankrupt, and actually support and perpetuate fascism indirectly via their unprincipled pacifism and refusal to take action against an obvious, proven threat.


Obama, Hillary, and the Liberal Version of Liberation

Obama (the first black president) and Hillary (the possible first woman president) are representative of *liberal notions* of equality and advancement for oppressed groups.

Liberalism, with its focus on individualism and its radically impoverished class analysis, insists that the way to equality is by simply having *representatives of certain oppressed groups* in the ranks of the ruling class. Even if those representatives have policies that are directly detrimental to the group from which they came.

It is individualist because it conflates the success of an *individual* person from a group (a woman, a black person, a LGBTQ person, etc.), with the success of their entire group.

It lacks class analysis precisely because it insists on an individualist approach to equality; and to examine class is to examine the power relations between economic groups of people.

A socialist approach to equality is an approach which rejects this individualism. It analyzes the liberation of oppressed groups in terms of the entire group. It recognizes the humanity of poor women (and of women in countries who are often at the receiving end of bombs sent by other women in power), and doesn’t pretend that their situation is made better by Hillary Clinton being president (just as their position was certainly not made better by Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State).

Any feminism, for instance, that doesn’t take into account the women who have died from Hillary’s hawkish foreign policy isn’t a genuine feminism.

Any feminism, in addition, that doesn’t take into account the women’s lives who have been ruined by neoliberal economic policies and “free trade” agreements like NAFTA, or by recessions created by the recklessness of the Big Banks, isn’t a genuine feminism.

Nobody is free until we are all free.