It depends on how you define "liberals", "fascism", and "socialism", all of which get used in so many contradictory ways that they're simply useless as signifiers without extensive commentary and clarification.
It depends on how you define "liberals", "fascism", and "socialism", all of which get used in so many contradictory ways that they're simply useless as signifiers without extensive commentary and clarification.
People who call themselves liberals in a US context, with the exception of NYT “even the liberals,” universally hate fascism, while people who call themselves socialists are disproportionately neutral to positive
We may rephrase it as "Status-quo establishment politicians and voters-- even those ostensibly on your side will prefer ever-increasing authoritarianism over advancing the working class." I think that preserves the intent of the phrase while being a bit more specific.
(I make no claim as to the accuracy of this take.)
I feel like there are specific liberals for whom that is true and the current situation makes it pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. Starmer, for instance, is someone for whom that saying is objectively true despite leading a party that is itself ostensibly socialist.
I mean i think describing Kier Starmer as a liberal is an example of stretching terms to the point of complete uselessness
He does not pursue liberal social policy. He does not pursue liberal economic policy. He is not a member of the Liberal party. He has never afaik self-described as a liberal. His governing style is a reaction to perceived over-liberalism of his party's previous government. So how's he a liberal?
He is, as he and his aides often point out, deeply embedded in the socialist traditions of Britain. It's just that he's deeply embedded in the part labelled "be racist and useless", which makes him a Wilsonite socialist
Nobody wants to talk about Stalin libbing out and dissolving the comintern to promote united front tactics because then we can't larp like we're in Weimar Germany