HAVANA (AP) — Four Russian warships, including a nuclear-powered submarine, will arrive in Havana next week, Cuban officials said Thursday, citing “historically friendly relations”…
I don't. Not if it necessitates an alliance with distinctly and vocally anti communist and fascist regimes. I will not "critically support comrade Hitler."
Thats so sick, Cuba should also reject all aid from Russia because they have different ruling ideologies? With comrades like these, who needs the fascists?
It’s called an analogy. Zionism is colonial imperialism, America is colonial imperialism. But sure, tap out with your moral superiority intact and your communist movements splintered and useless
What fucking communist movement are you talking about. Putin is not a communist, the current ruling party of Russia was built in the fucking forges of US neoliberalism, they are shaped directly in the image of the Chicago boys and influenced by American conservatism including adoption US culture war bullshit and American Clintonian thinktank liberalism.
Comparing them to opposition to genocide is farcical, calling them communists is downright insulting to any communist. What the hell.
I'm not saying we condemn Cuba uniliterally, I'm not calling for a fucking boycott of the Cuban state. I also think it's cringe as fuck when Chinese government spokesmen say shit like "Sweden is a model for how to build real socialism :)" as did most others here, but no one was dumb enough to interpret that as a call for opposing China.
This is the most Aubrey Graham "I won despite getting dogwalked back-to-back-to-back"-assed comment I ever saw; and I thought the PEAK of anglo smuglordery was reached when you tried to playact like you've read a book you were trying to cite. Congratulations, I'm genuinely befuddled at how the Divine allowed a defect like you off the assembly line.
No one has produced anything approaching a "Dogwalking". You have all just decided that I am bad and anything anyone says is therefore smart.
And this thing about Robert Paxton is getting funny. I presented a concise version of his definition. Even if I hadn't read his book the thing to do would be to point out how that thing was wrong. Which of course no one could do because I am right.
Anyway. I'm gonna head off for today. Then I'm gonna block all of you, and keep posting
We don't think you're bad, we think you're utterly unlettered in any way that counts; and really only worth ridicule at this point. Just... Keep digging that pit, Champ; I'm sure you'll reach a reality where no one challenges your ignorant fuckshit and you get to strut around like the peacock you are eventually. Come back when you've cut a check for a bail fund, put money on a political prisoner's commissary, or actually done anything of merit beyond carrying water for Langley.
And honestly I hope you block me, it means I get to verbally break my foot off in your ass every time I see you and it'll go unchallenged. Yay me. 'Cause I know you're the kind of whelp to go back and double-check on Incognito Mode when you see a comment counter increment and you can't see what was said.
Oh, bless your sweet, naive, corn-fed, whip-cracking, water-bearing, clearly-lost-assed heart; you're still stuck on my tone, aren't you? Here, lemme put it to you in a manner you'll understand; y'know, rap with you on your level:
"No u, reddit moment, reddit moment, maximum overreddit, narwhal narwhal, wrongo, I'm correct and you're just mad about it, no one asked + you're an incel + L + ratio + wash your ass old cac".
EDIT: And now that I'm thinking about it, I need to hear Sephiroth saying "ignorant fuckshit", "cut a check", and ESPECIALLY "break my foot off in your ass"; I never knew that was part of either NTSC, PAL, or JP releases of FF7. Learn something new every day, I guess. And hold up, weren't you JUST getting pissy about my prior tone? Pick a lane and stay in it, fuckass!
Even the USSR allied with England and the US to defeat Hitler, and the CPC allied with the KMT to defeat Japan. So what is your point here? I trust the Cuban leadership on Cuban military affairs way more than some guy with an internet connection.
This analogy doesn't work unless you believe Cuba is currently close to being invaded. This is a geopolitical alignment, not an alliance of desperation against a genocidal threat.
Cuba sees aligning with Russia as preferable to isolation, it is not gearing up for a potential war with the US.
You know what's gonna improve Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Palestine, North Korea, and all the other places liberals hate? Being pillaged by American and western European capitalists (in the case of Russia, being pillaged again). That definitely won't create the type of crisis that's perfect for promoting fascism.
You're right, if you're worried about fascism you should definitely oppose an alliance between Russia and Cuba.
Less sarcastically, I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember seeing what the west did to the people of the Soviet Union. I know what they're up to and the people of Russia, regardless of they're government, do not deserve to go through that again. This is a world the US made, not Russia. If you don't like capitalist restoration Russia you seriously need to ask if anything else is realistically possible in a world where they have to coexist with the US.
I'm learning that this place will excuse anything, including the violent suppression of communist by fascist movements and the US state department, as long as they can own the libs on the internet.
The Russian state did not have to turn out this way. This was not an inevitability. It took work and years and years of effort by the shittiest human being imaginable to make it the way it is now. It is not excusable to spend 30 years suppressing workers and building yourself into exactly what the US wants you to be because the US has a lot of power to make communism difficult. If the Cubans right now gave up on the workers movement and embraced anti communism, neoliberal capitalism and reintroduced limits on minority rights, that would be a tremendous loss, not some kind of inevitable thing we should just shrug off because "well it's easier to do that and you don't want them to face what they did when the US was more actively suppressing them do you".
If you aren't going to engage with what we're saying regarding the necessity of what the Cuban government is doing, or even reckon with the historical realities of why Russia is the way it is, perhaps you would at least like to tell us what alternatives you see. Recall again this is all in the context of a world domimated by a hegemonic hyper-militarized state with nearly-unmitigated strike capacity that has proven itself eminently hostile to both governments.
I think there's a side in this discussion not reckoning with the historical reality of what Russia is, and it isn't me. It really, really, really isn't me.
If you think the presence of Russia in a place will stop the US from interfering and trying to overthrow or remove that regime, you have not been following along. A Russian ship isn't going to stop the US from embargoing them, it's not going to stop them from trying to overthrow the country if they want to. Russian troops or deals with Russia haven't stopped the US from doing so with any other latin american countries in the last decade.
I don't presume to know or be able to accurately strategize for the perfect thing to do. I don't even necessarily oppose whatever Cuba is doing, since I don't know what Cuba is planning against. I just know that relying on Russia has proven to not work, and I don't like their government. If the Cubans find this to be the best option that's obviously their choice, but I still won't critically support comrade hitler.
See, this is what it really comes down to, every time. You by your own admission have no idea where else Cuba might procure the things it needs to survive, but partnering with the Russians is verboten because you personally find it distasteful, regardless of the fact that no other willing assistance is forthcoming.
So you don’t like this move purely because of Russia? I agree that Russia is not the nation we would want it to be right now, but it’s hard to argue they are 100% bad when they’ve been fighting nato the last two years. Not to mention objectively speaking Putin has been dealing with the Russian oligarchs his entire career that were created by the west. It’s only since the war in Ukraine that Russia has had any real hold of their economy since 1991. I think you need some historical perspective on this because you sound exactly the same as any western liberal.
So you don’t like this move purely because of Russia?
I don't know whether to support the move, I don't like the optics of speaking of your warm relations with a fascist regime, and I think it is generally a mistake to trust a fascist regime with your security.
I think you need some historical perspective on this because you sound exactly the same as any western liberal.
Hey you know who said pretty much the same about Putin dealing with the oligarchs and not being so bad and actually their government is good and cool now?
The obama state department before the Syrian civil war.
I think the ones lacking historical perpective isn't me., I think it's you guys. And given the immutable fact that I am right (always) and that I'm not the one in agreement with the US state department back when it wanted to have good Russian relations, I'm pretty confident in saying so.
Nobody's telling you not to argue for your point of view here, but this "I'm always right" bit doesn't make you sound confident, it makes you sound like a smug prick
There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't).
It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
you mean the conversation where you were wrong about robert paxton
Hey you know who said pretty much the same about Putin dealing with the oligarchs and not being so bad and actually their government is good and cool now?
I’m gonna need some proof on this because I’ve never seen or heard such a thing. Not to mention Putin was not able to fully deal with the Russian oligarchs (WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO WESTERN POWERS) until the US sanctioned them.
And given the immutable fact that I am right (always)
Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?
In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
I’m learning that this place will excuse anything, including the violent suppression of communist by fascist movements and the US state department, as long as they can own the libs on the internet.
Ask me how I know you're going to make a post that sums up to this in like two thousand words, with shittily-cited quotations and at least one outright plagiarization, to either lemm.ee, sh.itjust.works, or lemmy.world the minute you eventually catch your ban from this fed.
I'd like to hope it's just like. Some unmedicated ish, and that they'll come back copacetic on a new account, 'cause I was here to see it and don't really get how that's possible, like-- liberals aren't typically that patient about dropping a mask; and that whole bullshit could've been avoided if they'd just shut the fuck up, accepted the critique for bearing western water, and actually stopped to think about the asinine fuckshit they were saying.
This whole thread has been most garbage take I’ve ever seen a Hexbear user account of any significant vintage make. It’s like you have almost no understanding of imperialism/colonialism or of “critical support” for bourgeois nationalist movements against them. Almost everyone here disagrees with you, as do many people of the Global South, who also align with and significantly support Russia against the imperial core.
This whole thread has been most garbage take I’ve ever seen a Hexbear user account of any significant vintage make.
bud you should've seen the wild shit that's been said here in the past 4 years, this is somewhat mild in comparison. Like slightly underripe jalapeño spicy.
See, I keep most people who shill for CPUSA blocked based on having grown sick of arguments over that org's predilection for tailism and how preachy about assimilationism some of its Black cadre have been-- what the hell's been going on this time?
Oh jesus fucking christ not even ten comments down and I can tell this is gonna be some hot dogwater, thanks for keeping me in the loop tho
"I understand others might disagree, but we gained a few new members upon that speech, just by it alone."
Mf got coons, minstrels, uncle Toms, and other assorted waterbearers for cracker genocide and started two-steppin like his gang of collaborators did shit smfh 🙄 Now I think about it you right; I HAVE argued with him before and he was JUST as obstinate then
All true statements made by some sort of genius.
Half the posts here have just been calling me an idiot, and I am not going to be shamed into falling in line. Therefore, "I'm right and you're wrong".
The embrace of fascism by its ruling political party, the fascist political structure, the fact that it's built in the image of another fascist state (Namely the US), its embrace of anti-communism, anti-minority (whether those be gender and sexual minorities or religious and ethnic minorities), all the fucking nazis and fascists involved with or connected to the ruling party.
Is this place doing a bit right now?
When did it become fascist?
Somewhere around the time Yeltsin took power, did away with the soviet union and any communist project, suppressed left wing resistance to this. And I would say the fascist didn't end when he then handed power over to the guy who is still in charge being a fascist and basically doing the exact same thing more competently.
I'm not going to hide the ball. My point is that fascism is more than just "country has a long-term ruler the U.S. doesn't like."
The embrace of fascism by its ruling political party, the fascist political structure, the fact that it's built in the image of another fascist state
These are circular -- "it's fascist because it's fascist" --
and the last two are the same point. It's not the formal structure of a government that makes it fascist, either; the actions of the government matter more than the words in the constitution.
its embrace of anti-communism
Getting closer, but this doesn't fit the facts. Russia's second-largest party is the Communist Party. While Russia, as a capitalist state, is hostile to communism, it's less hostile than any Western European state, to say nothing of the U.S., and it's nowhere close to your classic examples of fascism like Nazi Germany, Pinochet's Chile, the ROC, the ROK, etc.
anti-minority (whether those be gender and sexual minorities or religious and ethnic minorities)
Painting with far too broad of brush. Every country on the planet has work to do on treating all minority populations fairly, and most have had explicitly anti-minority policies in the recent past. These are reactionary policies and bad, but there's a far cry between that and fascism. Was Cuba fascist before its new Family Code was passed? Is the U.S. not fascist if a queer woman can become a drone pilot?
all the fucking nazis and fascists involved with or connected to the ruling party
There are Nazi elements present in every capitalist country. Is every non-AES state fascist? Seems reductive.
I'm not going to argue this unless you can provide me a definition of fascism (I.e. not "Must call their ruling party "The fascist party") that is useful and doesn't include the Russian government.
Actually let me rephrase:
Come up with a definition that includes Chile, the RoC under the KMT, South Korea, et al, but does not include Russia.
Such a definition does not exist, and cannot exist. Classic definitions of fascism promulgated by people like Robert Paxton fit Russia, definitions of fascism like a decaying capitalist state run by a bourgeois lashing promulgated by people like Clara Zetkin fit Russia, definitions like Dmitrov's definition of fascism as the most reactionary forces of finance capitalism having control over the capitalist state fit Russia.
But apparently Russia isn't fascist because fascism is more than just being fascist.
The problem with most definitions of fascism is that they apply in one degree or another to virtually every capitalist country. This is especially true if one plays a little loose with the facts, or isn't careful about what governmental actions are common vs. exceptional. And reducing it to fascism = capitalism is unhelpful for a half dozen ways.
I'd define fascism by two characteristics:
The state is ran nominally on behalf of capital, but capital is ultimately subject to the whims of the state. Contrast this with socialism, where capital is similarly under state control, but the state is ran on behalf of the people, and also with capitalism, where capital is both the main beneficiary and is completely running the show. Imagine a wealthy capitalist who displeases the state. Under fascism, the state is ultimately in charge: it can arrest or even execute the capitalist on any or no charges, seize property, etc. Under capitalism, capitalists have strong protections against the state -- rich guy justice -- and unhappy capitalists can and do depose unsatisfactory state actors. A capitalist state has to please its capitalist masters; a fascist state may play nice with capitalists, but the state is the master.
State repression is at an advanced, ubiquitous stage, where it's more of an affirmative policy than a response against opponents. This is the "imperialism fully coming home to roost" part of fascism. Internal repressive institutions aren't occasionally dipping into grotesque tactics; it's now standard operating procedure. Seeking out and destroying (not merely harassing) internal enemies is an affirmative, constant mandate of these institutions, not something they kick into high gear during a crisis. The mandate to destroy (again, not merely harass) internal enemies far exceeds the legitimate police functions of the state (e.g., pursuing crimes that nearly any state would prosecute).
For 1, I think Russian capitalists still have plenty of power and control over the Russian state. For 2, I don't think internal repression in Russia is anywhere near the scale and severity of, for instance, the White Terror under the ROC or the disappearing of prisoners in the Southern Cone regimes of the Cold War.
That would be an interesting definition of fascism, but it fails the test of including regimes that were listed as fascist.
Pinochet's Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet's power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state.
I'm more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.
As for the RoK, that was fully a subject state to US capital interests.
I'm also pretty sure the US is considered fascist in this particular discussion (Or at least that was my understanding), and I think the US capitalist class is kind of uniquely powerful.
If we are to set up a very restrictive definition of fascism, that one would be a worthy one to consider. But I don't think it's a correct or useful one for this particular discussion given our previous inclusions of other regimes that do not fit within it.
It is certainly one that would fit for a lot of traditional 20th century fascist powers, and one with a very clear outlook on what is being discussed.
Pinochet's Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet's power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state.
Do you know of any examples of capitalists having a genuine conflict with Pinochet and winning? I don't, because I don't think there were many conflicts between those two parties to begin with.
I suppose you could look at Chile, the ROC, and the ROK as neocolonies instead of relatively weak fascist states, but then you could describe a colony as a weaker fascist client of the metropole, too.
I'm also pretty sure the US is considered fascist
I'd say it's capitalist (it would be a lot easier for Jeff Bezos to get rid of Joe Biden than the other way around, so it fails condition 1) but imperialist (comfortable doing fascism abroad). As bad as its internal repressive institutions are, they're still far from the scale and severity of governments most would label fascist. Would fascist police bother with body cams and similar reforms?
Looking at this the other way: what definition of fascism includes Russia, but doesn't also include almost every capitalist country?
Do you know of any examples of capitalists having a genuine conflict with Pinochet and winning? I don't, because I don't think there were many conflicts between those two parties to begin with.
I mean his attempt to stay in power? He lost enough influence that he lost his role and was not only unable to maintain the military rule, but was unable to maintain any official role within the state despite his attempt to.
Isn't that pretty explicitly him losing a conflict with his bourgeois backers?
Or would that not qualify (And if so what specifically would qualify?)
Looking at this the other way: what definition of fascism includes Russia, but doesn't also include almost every capitalist country?
I don't have a totally cogent and empirical definition, but I tend to agree with Franz Neumann (Well, the Chavismo reading of Neumann) that fascism is a conspiracy by big business and government. Where the interests of capital and the interests of the state in the face of crisis blend together and form a united front that rather than face the crisis begin to oppose their "common enemy" the proletariat and the "proletariatized", through a call to action that seeks to rally the population under a reactionary banner that still remains elitist even if the movement is supposedly a popular one.
Which is a fairly broad definition and you could include many capitalist regimes in that (If you can call a group of people "Oligarchs" without irony you're halfway there). The US would certainly qualify, as would Israel and the UK. On the other hand states like China, Venezuela, Cuba, et al obviously don't. Most states that still have vestiges of Keynesianism or developmental capitalism at least try to address their crises and so may escape, and others give no pretext to a popular movement and are essentially despotic or aristocratic without necessarily being fascist (But are certainly fascist adjacent. Like I'm not gonna complain if someone calls Saudi Arabia fascist, even if I don't think it technically qualifies)
Edit: also of course this definition imo does include the RoC with the KMT (Who at least tried to become a popular nationalist movement, and who did respond to crisis by blending together capital and state and going after anyone but the problem), Pinochet's Chile, and I'm not entirely sure about worst korea but it would at least be fascist adjacent.
pretty specifically said I think a lot of countries don't fit this definition of fascism. I also don't think I meaningfully agree with your definition of collaborator.
I think working with Russia is lamentable. Hence, cringe. I think if Cuba gets anything from it, that's their decision to make but I would be cautious and pessimistic about the affair, bearing in mind that they are cooperating with a fascist power that is only not a full collaborator with the western hegemony because the US decided to exclude them, and who has not been able to stop the US from interfering with other Latin American countries.
I don't think engaging with this makes them meaningfully supportive of fascism as an ideology. But I think forging closer connections to other powers would have been better news.
Its so strange that you can understand most basic Russia material reasons for supporting Cuba yet you somehow think the Cubans shouldn't trust in those reasons. Also what in the world is your definiton of collaborator if it somehow doesn't include things like being in BRICS? Im curious to see if it actually means something and is not just and excuse to avoid calling every AES state fascist for thinking Russia is a reliable friend.
The soviets got what they could from the Germans before the war started, and got as much industrial support as they could from western powers to set up their own manufacturing and industrial base and I view this in and BRICS in similar terms. Calling the Soviet Union under Stalin "Fascist collaborators" would be ridiculous, but arguing that the nazis were not fascists would be equally ridiculous.
Although I don't find Russia to be quite as virulent as the nazis, the point of "Get what you can and ditch the fascists as soon as you can" to be about the same, and I wish they found another way.
He lost enough influence that he lost his role and was not only unable to maintain the military rule, but was unable to maintain any official role within the state despite his attempt to.
Pinochet wasn't the sole ruler, but the leader of a junta. In 1980, the junta announced a referendum would be held in 1988. He lost, and from my understanding it was other members of the junta -- military and police officials -- who frustrated his attempts to ignore the result. I think this was a result of international pressure (the regime kept killing or disappearing foreign citizens, plus the pope condemned the government), the neutering of the socialist movement around the world (the Cold War was ending), and Pinochet getting old (the term he wanted from the '88 referendum would have had him rule well into his 80s).
Pinochet did maintain a role in government, too. He was commander in chief of the army until '98 and a senator "for life" until '02.
Which is a fairly broad definition and you could include many capitalist regimes
This makes it unworkable for me -- what capitalist regimes wouldn't fit? There is no capitalist state where the interests of capital and the interests of the state aren't closely aligned, because capitalism is characterized by the state controlling the working class on behalf of capital. There's occasional state pushback (liberalism), but it's all very gentle and inevitably rolled back.
I'm more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.
I mean the ROC during the Warlord Era functionally wasn't even a state, let along a capitalist state. Unless you want to give fascism a transhistorical character (ie you want to speak of "Carolingian fascism" or call Julius Caesar a fascist), it doesn't make sense to call ROC fascist. The understanding of Chinese academia is that the particular mode of production that China had during the Century of Humiliation, of which the Warlord Era was a latter stage of it, was semi-feudal semi-colonial. Thus, it cannot be fascist by the vast majority of Marxist definitions which explicitly specifies that the mode of production has to be capitalist. Otherwise, we can spend an eternity arguing whether Kublai Khan was fascist or whether Cyrus the Great was fascist.
Now, if you're talking about the ROC declaring martial law in Taiwan after getting kicked out of the Mainland by the PLA, eh. I think it's more Bonapartist than fascist. Taiwanese finance capitalists didn't exist at that time since Taiwan was previously a Japanese colony, and at any case, Chiang Kai-Shek wasn't going to rely on a bunch of benshengren capitalists who collaborated with the Japanese when his power base was waishengren ex-landlords who fled with him. Chiang Kai-Shek also introduced "land reform" where he expropriated land from benshengren landlord collaborators and gave the land to waishengren landlords had their land expropriated by the the CPC.
Let me tell you something about the book you haven’t read but are citing like the wanker you are.
Half of it is a description of why even Franco’s Spain shouldn’t be considered fascist.
But you, the wanker, haven’t read it and you don’t know that. You don’t know the book you’re citing is explicitly about drawing boundaries and lines to delineate fascism from other forms of bourgeois dictatorships, militarism, and other forms of authoritarianism.
You fucking wanker. You haven’t read the book. Haha and you’re being all “wrongo” smug about it.
The problem with citing works you blatantly have not read is that many people here have.
And those of us who actually have read a book think you’re an idiot.
Let me remind you that Robert Paxton has now reached a point where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism in the US and that under Trump the US was fascist in a way it wasn't before and after. So the idea that his definition and understanding of fascism is an inherently very narrow one is just pointless.
Robert Paxton argued that fascism comes from a specific confluence of events in which the traditional elite relies on a radical right wing to maintain their power due to having lost legitimacy or needing power to suppress the left, forming a coalition between traditional stake holders in the state (Like capitalists, clergy, nobility, what have you. In the Russian case this would be the capitalist class who bought out the state during the shock doctrine) and right wing nationalism which tends towards a mass movement character. This movement co-opts the popularity of the movement into a suppression of "actual democracy" (Really liberal bourgeois dictatorship of course) and maintains power by balancing the powers of the coalitions.
This movement then either decays into generic "authoritarian" rule under the traditional elite, or is increasingly radicalized towards genocidal redemptive violence.
Russia of course decayed into oligarchic fascist rule by the traditional power brokers.
Robert Paxton has now reached a point where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism in the US and that under Trump the US was fascist in a way it wasn't before and after
This is an awful take. He thinks Trump was exceptionally different from prior U.S. presidents (by a way other than his rhetoric), that we voted fascism out, but that Genocide Joe is not fascist?
This is an awful take. He thinks Trump was exceptionally different from prior U.S. presidents (by a way other than his rhetoric),
Yes. He does. Which is why I think it's not useful to say that his definition of fascism is uniquely restrictive.
I have a suspicion that my interlocutor, given their focus on Francoist Spain was actually thinking of Stanley Payne who does have a very restrictive definition of fascism that specifically excludes francoism... because he is a francoist.
I'll address your other bigger point because it is actually worth addressing, I just saw this first.
Trump's incitement of the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2020 removes my objection to the fascist label. His open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line. The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary. It is made even more plausible by comparison with a milestone on Europe's road to fascism—an openly fascist demonstration in Paris during the night of February 6, 1934.
You’re lying again.
Here’s a link to the article you cited but didn’t link because you’re such a dishonest fucking hack.
Paxton hasn’t changed his opinion AT ALL you fucking liar. He didn’t magically make his definition of fascism more broad and inclusive like you are dishonestly presenting here.
He applied his exclusive definition and pointed specifically to inciting public violence to work along side his political movement. How does that apply to Putin you dishonest hack?
In what sense at all has Paxton “reached the point” of changing his definition as defined in that book you haven’t read when finally removing his resistance to calling Trump fascist in light of specifically Jan 6th?
You’re pretending Paxton has shifted to a broad and inclusive definition of fascism and he absolutely has not you liar. If you had read anatomy of fascism then you wouldn’t have claimed what you just did.
No I don't think I have pretended that Robert Paxton sat down and decided to fully rewrite his work during the Trump years, that would have been dishonest. But that his own interpretation of what is considered fascist is broad enough to include Trump but not any previous US president, and that this constitutes a lack of rigor that he has adopted in part out of his own political opinions on Trump becoming sourer through his reign. Which is evident when you compare his first article and his second article.
I think you're just mad that I have demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about.
where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism
This is a fucking lie though. Paxton explicitly argued against equating Trumpism with fascism even in the article where he calls Trump a fascist and if you had read the book you cited and then pretended to have read you would understand why he called it an anatomy of fascism.
No it isn't. He also in the same breath where he points out that Trumpism has differences to traditional fascism point out htat Trump has differences to traditional fascism, but clarifies without making a distinction that the label is not only right but necessarily applied.
It's also of course right before he makes a specific comparison and equivalence between the fascist french veterans storming the parliament and the US protestors storming the capitol on January 6th.
Insults are not a substitute for an argument.
The incitement of public violence is explicitly makes Trump a fascist, to Paxton, and that’s entirely consistent with his book that you pretended to have read and means you were a dishonest hack to present this as though Paxton’s definition of exclusions and attributes is somehow some washy “fascism is a vibe” thing.
That’s not his definition at all, he’s all about line drawing, and he likes bright lines.
And citing books you haven’t read and then pretending to have read them and then saying “I proved I know what I’m talking about” when all you’re proving is that you haven’t read the book you pretended to have read is what makes you a fucking wanker and a hack.
I don't know how to respond to this except to say you're just not arguing with anything I've said, and in the process you've said a lot of stuff that's not true and quite obviously so?
I'm not logging off explicitly out of spite. I didn't give a shit about this beyond saying "Cringe" until the pile on started.
In other words, reddit moment #2
yeah i've been down this road before, you aren't doing anything. nothing you will say will change anything. You've already labeled yourself as a subject of mockery, so just fucking leave and let them forget your name so you can just go on. Also just change this stupid opinion of yours.
comrade i am trans don't tell me shit. you're using that card specifically to try to escape your well deserved criticism.
No, I am using that card specifically because it's not actually okay to use gendered slurs about others. Even if you are a woman. I did however remove it because I realize that citing gendered language as a problem is not my place to say to a trans person, especially given that I realize that I am quick to use "Guy" about an unknown gender so it would be hypocritical. The criticism of the slur I feel is still valid. Don't use that kind of language.
Also I'm not gonna leave because you tell me. My opinion is correct, and a bunch of people being wrong at me isn't gonna change anything. If "Many people are disagreeing at me" was a thing that changed opinions, none of you would have migrated over from reddit, you would have just maintained your reddit opinions. Instead you just kept the attitude to arguing.
i don't care at all lmao you are deflecting from the fact you are taking an ultraleft position on literally something as easy as 'cuba getting supplies and sovereignty back with the help of russia' and going 'cringe dude'
lmfao you're really trying to find any solid ground and honestly its my bad for giving any, you seem to be out of it
Honestly through this whole thread you've given me nothing but the vibe of being a smug cracker sooooooooo I dunno why you're surprised you're getting called this, that, and the third by people slightly-less-principled.
I mean, she's a chick; so I don't begrudge her the right to reclaim. It might not fly here, specifically; but I'm not finna begrudge her that because be damned if I'd let some cracker police my speech. And fuck off with your pithy "reddit moment", "reddit moment", "maximum reddit" liberal-assed "flag on the play" debate-referee bullshit. Pot, kettle, rim me. Serious people address content, not tone, you fuckin yankee hack.
Minimizing the holocaust with frivolous and unwarranted comparisons to Hitler are generally frowned upon. I'm not even sure you could compare Putin to Yelstin.
I don't. Not if it necessitates an alliance with distinctly and vocally anti communist and fascist regimes. I will not "critically support comrade Hitler."
Thats so sick, Cuba should also reject all aid from Russia because they have different ruling ideologies? With comrades like these, who needs the fascists?
You forget that the ruling ideology here is "Fascist". "Oh no if we don't ally with the fascist, the fascists are gonna win"
Fuck hamas and islamic jihad, you don't ally with Palestinian fascists to beat the zionist fascists, am I understanding your argument correctly?
I think equating Russian fascism to opposition to genocide is just comical read and I'm not gonna entertain it.
It’s called an analogy. Zionism is colonial imperialism, America is colonial imperialism. But sure, tap out with your moral superiority intact and your communist movements splintered and useless
What fucking communist movement are you talking about. Putin is not a communist, the current ruling party of Russia was built in the fucking forges of US neoliberalism, they are shaped directly in the image of the Chicago boys and influenced by American conservatism including adoption US culture war bullshit and American Clintonian thinktank liberalism.
Comparing them to opposition to genocide is farcical, calling them communists is downright insulting to any communist. What the hell.
I’m talking about Cuba in this instance. You’ve got your wires crossed
I'm not saying we condemn Cuba uniliterally, I'm not calling for a fucking boycott of the Cuban state. I also think it's cringe as fuck when Chinese government spokesmen say shit like "Sweden is a model for how to build real socialism :)" as did most others here, but no one was dumb enough to interpret that as a call for opposing China.
Yeah you’ve lost the plot, you think Cuba should hamstring itself so they can stay untainted by evil Putin
No I haven't. As usual I am correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
fuck off nerd
I am still correct and you're a dweeb.
This is the most Aubrey Graham "I won despite getting dogwalked back-to-back-to-back"-assed comment I ever saw; and I thought the PEAK of anglo smuglordery was reached when you tried to playact like you've read a book you were trying to cite. Congratulations, I'm genuinely befuddled at how the Divine allowed a defect like you off the assembly line.
No one has produced anything approaching a "Dogwalking". You have all just decided that I am bad and anything anyone says is therefore smart.
And this thing about Robert Paxton is getting funny. I presented a concise version of his definition. Even if I hadn't read his book the thing to do would be to point out how that thing was wrong. Which of course no one could do because I am right. Anyway. I'm gonna head off for today. Then I'm gonna block all of you, and keep posting
We don't think you're bad, we think you're utterly unlettered in any way that counts; and really only worth ridicule at this point. Just... Keep digging that pit, Champ; I'm sure you'll reach a reality where no one challenges your ignorant fuckshit and you get to strut around like the peacock you are eventually. Come back when you've cut a check for a bail fund, put money on a political prisoner's commissary, or actually done anything of merit beyond carrying water for Langley.
And honestly I hope you block me, it means I get to verbally break my foot off in your ass every time I see you and it'll go unchallenged. Yay me. 'Cause I know you're the kind of whelp to go back and double-check on Incognito Mode when you see a comment counter increment and you can't see what was said.
Why is it that when people get told off on the Internet theh start to talk like fucking sephiroth.
Oh, bless your sweet, naive, corn-fed, whip-cracking, water-bearing, clearly-lost-assed heart; you're still stuck on my tone, aren't you? Here, lemme put it to you in a manner you'll understand; y'know, rap with you on your level:
"No u, reddit moment, reddit moment, maximum overreddit, narwhal narwhal, wrongo, I'm correct and you're just mad about it, no one asked + you're an incel + L + ratio + wash your ass old cac".
EDIT: And now that I'm thinking about it, I need to hear Sephiroth saying "ignorant fuckshit", "cut a check", and ESPECIALLY "break my foot off in your ass"; I never knew that was part of either NTSC, PAL, or JP releases of FF7. Learn something new every day, I guess. And hold up, weren't you JUST getting pissy about my prior tone? Pick a lane and stay in it, fuckass!
you're actively devolving into madness due to anger at being publicly ridiculed
You understand the Ukrainians were planning to genocide the Russian population of the Donbas right?
I don't support Ukraine and Cuba isn't taking part in that conflict. This is irrelevant.
Just admit you don’t know anything it’s fine.
The “fascists” is your own government. If you don’t oppose them first and foremost you are full of shit
Even the USSR allied with England and the US to defeat Hitler, and the CPC allied with the KMT to defeat Japan. So what is your point here? I trust the Cuban leadership on Cuban military affairs way more than some guy with an internet connection.
This analogy doesn't work unless you believe Cuba is currently close to being invaded. This is a geopolitical alignment, not an alliance of desperation against a genocidal threat. Cuba sees aligning with Russia as preferable to isolation, it is not gearing up for a potential war with the US.
Cuba is not facing an invasion but they are facing a strangling embargo, aligning with Russia is preferable than withering away in isolation.
There are connections to make that aren't purpose made for anticommunism by the American state department
Do you seriously think they went out of there way to get Russia help with not starving and no one else? What connections are you even talking about?
Cuba should’ve sent a DM to online smart communists to lecture the president about food and energy.
Your giving me flashbacks to that stunt some of the worst DSA members pulled.
Yeah, sanctioning a tiny island and threatening the whole world to follow along in a globalized economy is not akin to genocide.
What regime are we talking about now, the US it sounds like?
Are we doing that thing where we pretend the Soviet union is still around and Russia isn't a fascist oligarchy squatting on its corpse?
Are you doing the liberal thing where you pretend a state becomes fascist when you hate it enough?
Oh we are, ok.
You know what's gonna improve Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Palestine, North Korea, and all the other places liberals hate? Being pillaged by American and western European capitalists (in the case of Russia, being pillaged again). That definitely won't create the type of crisis that's perfect for promoting fascism.
You're right, if you're worried about fascism you should definitely oppose an alliance between Russia and Cuba.
Less sarcastically, I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember seeing what the west did to the people of the Soviet Union. I know what they're up to and the people of Russia, regardless of they're government, do not deserve to go through that again. This is a world the US made, not Russia. If you don't like capitalist restoration Russia you seriously need to ask if anything else is realistically possible in a world where they have to coexist with the US.
I'm learning that this place will excuse anything, including the violent suppression of communist by fascist movements and the US state department, as long as they can own the libs on the internet.
The Russian state did not have to turn out this way. This was not an inevitability. It took work and years and years of effort by the shittiest human being imaginable to make it the way it is now. It is not excusable to spend 30 years suppressing workers and building yourself into exactly what the US wants you to be because the US has a lot of power to make communism difficult. If the Cubans right now gave up on the workers movement and embraced anti communism, neoliberal capitalism and reintroduced limits on minority rights, that would be a tremendous loss, not some kind of inevitable thing we should just shrug off because "well it's easier to do that and you don't want them to face what they did when the US was more actively suppressing them do you".
Is this a gpt post where the bot is prompted to be an ultra but always reach the conclusion the CIA wants
No I'm just right and that makes you mad
If you aren't going to engage with what we're saying regarding the necessity of what the Cuban government is doing, or even reckon with the historical realities of why Russia is the way it is, perhaps you would at least like to tell us what alternatives you see. Recall again this is all in the context of a world domimated by a hegemonic hyper-militarized state with nearly-unmitigated strike capacity that has proven itself eminently hostile to both governments.
I think there's a side in this discussion not reckoning with the historical reality of what Russia is, and it isn't me. It really, really, really isn't me.
If you think the presence of Russia in a place will stop the US from interfering and trying to overthrow or remove that regime, you have not been following along. A Russian ship isn't going to stop the US from embargoing them, it's not going to stop them from trying to overthrow the country if they want to. Russian troops or deals with Russia haven't stopped the US from doing so with any other latin american countries in the last decade.
I don't presume to know or be able to accurately strategize for the perfect thing to do. I don't even necessarily oppose whatever Cuba is doing, since I don't know what Cuba is planning against. I just know that relying on Russia has proven to not work, and I don't like their government. If the Cubans find this to be the best option that's obviously their choice, but I still won't critically support comrade hitler.
See, this is what it really comes down to, every time. You by your own admission have no idea where else Cuba might procure the things it needs to survive, but partnering with the Russians is verboten because you personally find it distasteful, regardless of the fact that no other willing assistance is forthcoming.
So you don’t like this move purely because of Russia? I agree that Russia is not the nation we would want it to be right now, but it’s hard to argue they are 100% bad when they’ve been fighting nato the last two years. Not to mention objectively speaking Putin has been dealing with the Russian oligarchs his entire career that were created by the west. It’s only since the war in Ukraine that Russia has had any real hold of their economy since 1991. I think you need some historical perspective on this because you sound exactly the same as any western liberal.
I don't know whether to support the move, I don't like the optics of speaking of your warm relations with a fascist regime, and I think it is generally a mistake to trust a fascist regime with your security.
Hey you know who said pretty much the same about Putin dealing with the oligarchs and not being so bad and actually their government is good and cool now? The obama state department before the Syrian civil war. I think the ones lacking historical perpective isn't me., I think it's you guys. And given the immutable fact that I am right (always) and that I'm not the one in agreement with the US state department back when it wanted to have good Russian relations, I'm pretty confident in saying so.
Nobody's telling you not to argue for your point of view here, but this "I'm always right" bit doesn't make you sound confident, it makes you sound like a smug prick
Given that I am in the company of a bunch of smug pricks, it would seem only natural to act this way.
Explains why you're the only one acting this way
I'm not though. You just disagree with me so others being smug pricks reads as just normal behavior to you.
I wasn't aware that people having clearly stated reasons and citations for the things they believe constituted smugness now
Call me when that happens
deleted by creator
No, I'm "Correct".
deleted by creator
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't). It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.
deleted by creator
Again, no, I'm just correct and you're mad about that.
deleted by creator
No u
deleted by creator
you mean the conversation where you were wrong about robert paxton
yes we're smug asf because you're not giving yourself any credibility to challenge that
I’m gonna need some proof on this because I’ve never seen or heard such a thing. Not to mention Putin was not able to fully deal with the Russian oligarchs (WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO WESTERN POWERS) until the US sanctioned them.
Very cute.
Okay, I’ll copypasta myself again:
AMAZING THAT HOURS LATER THIS IS THE ONE COMMENT NOT REPLIED TO.
At least they admitted to never having read Paxton lmfao
Ask me how I know you're going to make a post that sums up to this in like two thousand words, with shittily-cited quotations and at least one outright plagiarization, to either lemm.ee, sh.itjust.works, or lemmy.world the minute you eventually catch your ban from this fed.
They really did go from five month squeaky-clean modlog to permaban in one thread.
What a speedrun that was.
I'd like to hope it's just like. Some unmedicated ish, and that they'll come back copacetic on a new account, 'cause I was here to see it and don't really get how that's possible, like-- liberals aren't typically that patient about dropping a mask; and that whole bullshit could've been avoided if they'd just shut the fuck up, accepted the critique for bearing western water, and actually stopped to think about the asinine fuckshit they were saying.
This whole thread has been most garbage take I’ve ever seen a Hexbear user account of any significant vintage make. It’s like you have almost no understanding of imperialism/colonialism or of “critical support” for bourgeois nationalist movements against them. Almost everyone here disagrees with you, as do many people of the Global South, who also align with and significantly support Russia against the imperial core.
bud you should've seen the wild shit that's been said here in the past 4 years, this is somewhat mild in comparison. Like slightly underripe jalapeño spicy.
Lucky for me I arrived fashionably late. Thank you for terraforming the place for me o7
deleted by creator
Holy fuck tell us how you really feel homie 🤣
My friend, this isn't even the dumbest I've seen in the last 48 hours (thanks to the CPUSA threads)
it certainly has been one of those days... or weekends
See, I keep most people who shill for CPUSA blocked based on having grown sick of arguments over that org's predilection for tailism and how preachy about assimilationism some of its Black cadre have been-- what the hell's been going on this time?
In that case you've almost certainly blocked this person, since they've been doing that for a long time, but here's the thread anyway:
https://hexbear.net/post/2730106?scrollToComments=false
Oh jesus fucking christ not even ten comments down and I can tell this is gonna be some hot dogwater, thanks for keeping me in the loop tho
Mf got coons, minstrels, uncle Toms, and other assorted waterbearers for cracker genocide and started two-steppin like his gang of collaborators did shit smfh 🙄 Now I think about it you right; I HAVE argued with him before and he was JUST as obstinate then
Impressive really considering that I am right.
Some turbolib smuglord has taken over someone’s hexbear account is what this sounds like. Really embarrassing.
I don't accept "Smug" as a point of criticism from this comment chain.
All true statements made by some sort of genius. Half the posts here have just been calling me an idiot, and I am not going to be shamed into falling in line. Therefore, "I'm right and you're wrong".
Nobody's shaming you into anything you self-righteous smuglord, we just think you're wrong.
Sadly thought it turned out that you were wrong and I was right, because I am always right.
Holy shit I thought this guy was a fellow comrade because I know literacy programs in pretty much all AES revolutions were highly valued.
I should have read more closely damn.
Is that a bit lol
No lmao.
"ur mad" is a bold stance to take given how fucking mad you guys are
What makes Russia fascist?
When did it become fascist?
The embrace of fascism by its ruling political party, the fascist political structure, the fact that it's built in the image of another fascist state (Namely the US), its embrace of anti-communism, anti-minority (whether those be gender and sexual minorities or religious and ethnic minorities), all the fucking nazis and fascists involved with or connected to the ruling party. Is this place doing a bit right now?
Somewhere around the time Yeltsin took power, did away with the soviet union and any communist project, suppressed left wing resistance to this. And I would say the fascist didn't end when he then handed power over to the guy who is still in charge being a fascist and basically doing the exact same thing more competently.
I'm not going to hide the ball. My point is that fascism is more than just "country has a long-term ruler the U.S. doesn't like."
These are circular -- "it's fascist because it's fascist" -- and the last two are the same point. It's not the formal structure of a government that makes it fascist, either; the actions of the government matter more than the words in the constitution.
Getting closer, but this doesn't fit the facts. Russia's second-largest party is the Communist Party. While Russia, as a capitalist state, is hostile to communism, it's less hostile than any Western European state, to say nothing of the U.S., and it's nowhere close to your classic examples of fascism like Nazi Germany, Pinochet's Chile, the ROC, the ROK, etc.
Painting with far too broad of brush. Every country on the planet has work to do on treating all minority populations fairly, and most have had explicitly anti-minority policies in the recent past. These are reactionary policies and bad, but there's a far cry between that and fascism. Was Cuba fascist before its new Family Code was passed? Is the U.S. not fascist if a queer woman can become a drone pilot?
There are Nazi elements present in every capitalist country. Is every non-AES state fascist? Seems reductive.
I'm not going to argue this unless you can provide me a definition of fascism (I.e. not "Must call their ruling party "The fascist party") that is useful and doesn't include the Russian government. Actually let me rephrase: Come up with a definition that includes Chile, the RoC under the KMT, South Korea, et al, but does not include Russia.
Such a definition does not exist, and cannot exist. Classic definitions of fascism promulgated by people like Robert Paxton fit Russia, definitions of fascism like a decaying capitalist state run by a bourgeois lashing promulgated by people like Clara Zetkin fit Russia, definitions like Dmitrov's definition of fascism as the most reactionary forces of finance capitalism having control over the capitalist state fit Russia. But apparently Russia isn't fascist because fascism is more than just being fascist.
The problem with most definitions of fascism is that they apply in one degree or another to virtually every capitalist country. This is especially true if one plays a little loose with the facts, or isn't careful about what governmental actions are common vs. exceptional. And reducing it to fascism = capitalism is unhelpful for a half dozen ways.
I'd define fascism by two characteristics:
For 1, I think Russian capitalists still have plenty of power and control over the Russian state. For 2, I don't think internal repression in Russia is anywhere near the scale and severity of, for instance, the White Terror under the ROC or the disappearing of prisoners in the Southern Cone regimes of the Cold War.
That would be an interesting definition of fascism, but it fails the test of including regimes that were listed as fascist. Pinochet's Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet's power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state. I'm more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.
As for the RoK, that was fully a subject state to US capital interests.
I'm also pretty sure the US is considered fascist in this particular discussion (Or at least that was my understanding), and I think the US capitalist class is kind of uniquely powerful.
If we are to set up a very restrictive definition of fascism, that one would be a worthy one to consider. But I don't think it's a correct or useful one for this particular discussion given our previous inclusions of other regimes that do not fit within it. It is certainly one that would fit for a lot of traditional 20th century fascist powers, and one with a very clear outlook on what is being discussed.
Do you know of any examples of capitalists having a genuine conflict with Pinochet and winning? I don't, because I don't think there were many conflicts between those two parties to begin with.
I suppose you could look at Chile, the ROC, and the ROK as neocolonies instead of relatively weak fascist states, but then you could describe a colony as a weaker fascist client of the metropole, too.
I'd say it's capitalist (it would be a lot easier for Jeff Bezos to get rid of Joe Biden than the other way around, so it fails condition 1) but imperialist (comfortable doing fascism abroad). As bad as its internal repressive institutions are, they're still far from the scale and severity of governments most would label fascist. Would fascist police bother with body cams and similar reforms?
Looking at this the other way: what definition of fascism includes Russia, but doesn't also include almost every capitalist country?
I mean his attempt to stay in power? He lost enough influence that he lost his role and was not only unable to maintain the military rule, but was unable to maintain any official role within the state despite his attempt to. Isn't that pretty explicitly him losing a conflict with his bourgeois backers?
Or would that not qualify (And if so what specifically would qualify?)
I don't have a totally cogent and empirical definition, but I tend to agree with Franz Neumann (Well, the Chavismo reading of Neumann) that fascism is a conspiracy by big business and government. Where the interests of capital and the interests of the state in the face of crisis blend together and form a united front that rather than face the crisis begin to oppose their "common enemy" the proletariat and the "proletariatized", through a call to action that seeks to rally the population under a reactionary banner that still remains elitist even if the movement is supposedly a popular one.
Which is a fairly broad definition and you could include many capitalist regimes in that (If you can call a group of people "Oligarchs" without irony you're halfway there). The US would certainly qualify, as would Israel and the UK. On the other hand states like China, Venezuela, Cuba, et al obviously don't. Most states that still have vestiges of Keynesianism or developmental capitalism at least try to address their crises and so may escape, and others give no pretext to a popular movement and are essentially despotic or aristocratic without necessarily being fascist (But are certainly fascist adjacent. Like I'm not gonna complain if someone calls Saudi Arabia fascist, even if I don't think it technically qualifies)
Edit: also of course this definition imo does include the RoC with the KMT (Who at least tried to become a popular nationalist movement, and who did respond to crisis by blending together capital and state and going after anyone but the problem), Pinochet's Chile, and I'm not entirely sure about worst korea but it would at least be fascist adjacent.
With a definition this broad the only states that currently exist are either fascist or fascist collaborators. How this useful to anyone?
pretty specifically said I think a lot of countries don't fit this definition of fascism. I also don't think I meaningfully agree with your definition of collaborator.
I think working with Russia is lamentable. Hence, cringe. I think if Cuba gets anything from it, that's their decision to make but I would be cautious and pessimistic about the affair, bearing in mind that they are cooperating with a fascist power that is only not a full collaborator with the western hegemony because the US decided to exclude them, and who has not been able to stop the US from interfering with other Latin American countries. I don't think engaging with this makes them meaningfully supportive of fascism as an ideology. But I think forging closer connections to other powers would have been better news.
Its so strange that you can understand most basic Russia material reasons for supporting Cuba yet you somehow think the Cubans shouldn't trust in those reasons. Also what in the world is your definiton of collaborator if it somehow doesn't include things like being in BRICS? Im curious to see if it actually means something and is not just and excuse to avoid calling every AES state fascist for thinking Russia is a reliable friend.
The soviets got what they could from the Germans before the war started, and got as much industrial support as they could from western powers to set up their own manufacturing and industrial base and I view this in and BRICS in similar terms. Calling the Soviet Union under Stalin "Fascist collaborators" would be ridiculous, but arguing that the nazis were not fascists would be equally ridiculous.
Although I don't find Russia to be quite as virulent as the nazis, the point of "Get what you can and ditch the fascists as soon as you can" to be about the same, and I wish they found another way.
Pinochet wasn't the sole ruler, but the leader of a junta. In 1980, the junta announced a referendum would be held in 1988. He lost, and from my understanding it was other members of the junta -- military and police officials -- who frustrated his attempts to ignore the result. I think this was a result of international pressure (the regime kept killing or disappearing foreign citizens, plus the pope condemned the government), the neutering of the socialist movement around the world (the Cold War was ending), and Pinochet getting old (the term he wanted from the '88 referendum would have had him rule well into his 80s).
Pinochet did maintain a role in government, too. He was commander in chief of the army until '98 and a senator "for life" until '02.
This makes it unworkable for me -- what capitalist regimes wouldn't fit? There is no capitalist state where the interests of capital and the interests of the state aren't closely aligned, because capitalism is characterized by the state controlling the working class on behalf of capital. There's occasional state pushback (liberalism), but it's all very gentle and inevitably rolled back.
I mean the ROC during the Warlord Era functionally wasn't even a state, let along a capitalist state. Unless you want to give fascism a transhistorical character (ie you want to speak of "Carolingian fascism" or call Julius Caesar a fascist), it doesn't make sense to call ROC fascist. The understanding of Chinese academia is that the particular mode of production that China had during the Century of Humiliation, of which the Warlord Era was a latter stage of it, was semi-feudal semi-colonial. Thus, it cannot be fascist by the vast majority of Marxist definitions which explicitly specifies that the mode of production has to be capitalist. Otherwise, we can spend an eternity arguing whether Kublai Khan was fascist or whether Cyrus the Great was fascist.
Now, if you're talking about the ROC declaring martial law in Taiwan after getting kicked out of the Mainland by the PLA, eh. I think it's more Bonapartist than fascist. Taiwanese finance capitalists didn't exist at that time since Taiwan was previously a Japanese colony, and at any case, Chiang Kai-Shek wasn't going to rely on a bunch of benshengren capitalists who collaborated with the Japanese when his power base was waishengren ex-landlords who fled with him. Chiang Kai-Shek also introduced "land reform" where he expropriated land from benshengren landlord collaborators and gave the land to waishengren landlords had their land expropriated by the the CPC.
wtf Paxton’s anatomy of fascism absolutely does not apply to Russia.
Sound off all you want but read the book before citing it you wanker.
It sure does though.
Of all the definitions of fascism, Paxton’s would fit Russia the least of them.
You haven’t read it. It’s really obvious. Fuck off.
Wrongo.
Righto.
Let me tell you something about the book you haven’t read but are citing like the wanker you are.
Half of it is a description of why even Franco’s Spain shouldn’t be considered fascist.
But you, the wanker, haven’t read it and you don’t know that. You don’t know the book you’re citing is explicitly about drawing boundaries and lines to delineate fascism from other forms of bourgeois dictatorships, militarism, and other forms of authoritarianism.
You fucking wanker. You haven’t read the book. Haha and you’re being all “wrongo” smug about it.
The problem with citing works you blatantly have not read is that many people here have.
And those of us who actually have read a book think you’re an idiot.
Let me remind you that Robert Paxton has now reached a point where he argues that trumpism constitutes a form of fascism in the US and that under Trump the US was fascist in a way it wasn't before and after. So the idea that his definition and understanding of fascism is an inherently very narrow one is just pointless.
Robert Paxton argued that fascism comes from a specific confluence of events in which the traditional elite relies on a radical right wing to maintain their power due to having lost legitimacy or needing power to suppress the left, forming a coalition between traditional stake holders in the state (Like capitalists, clergy, nobility, what have you. In the Russian case this would be the capitalist class who bought out the state during the shock doctrine) and right wing nationalism which tends towards a mass movement character. This movement co-opts the popularity of the movement into a suppression of "actual democracy" (Really liberal bourgeois dictatorship of course) and maintains power by balancing the powers of the coalitions. This movement then either decays into generic "authoritarian" rule under the traditional elite, or is increasingly radicalized towards genocidal redemptive violence.
Russia of course decayed into oligarchic fascist rule by the traditional power brokers.
This is an awful take. He thinks Trump was exceptionally different from prior U.S. presidents (by a way other than his rhetoric), that we voted fascism out, but that Genocide Joe is not fascist?
Yes. He does. Which is why I think it's not useful to say that his definition of fascism is uniquely restrictive. I have a suspicion that my interlocutor, given their focus on Francoist Spain was actually thinking of Stanley Payne who does have a very restrictive definition of fascism that specifically excludes francoism... because he is a francoist. I'll address your other bigger point because it is actually worth addressing, I just saw this first.
You’re lying again.
Here’s a link to the article you cited but didn’t link because you’re such a dishonest fucking hack.
https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652
Paxton hasn’t changed his opinion AT ALL you fucking liar. He didn’t magically make his definition of fascism more broad and inclusive like you are dishonestly presenting here.
He applied his exclusive definition and pointed specifically to inciting public violence to work along side his political movement. How does that apply to Putin you dishonest hack?
In what sense at all has Paxton “reached the point” of changing his definition as defined in that book you haven’t read when finally removing his resistance to calling Trump fascist in light of specifically Jan 6th?
You’re pretending Paxton has shifted to a broad and inclusive definition of fascism and he absolutely has not you liar. If you had read anatomy of fascism then you wouldn’t have claimed what you just did.
You’re such a fucking hack, man.
Read the article you’re citing.
Read the book you’re citing.
You fucking wanker.
No I don't think I have pretended that Robert Paxton sat down and decided to fully rewrite his work during the Trump years, that would have been dishonest. But that his own interpretation of what is considered fascist is broad enough to include Trump but not any previous US president, and that this constitutes a lack of rigor that he has adopted in part out of his own political opinions on Trump becoming sourer through his reign. Which is evident when you compare his first article and his second article.
I think you're just mad that I have demonstrated that I know what I'm talking about.
This is a fucking lie though. Paxton explicitly argued against equating Trumpism with fascism even in the article where he calls Trump a fascist and if you had read the book you cited and then pretended to have read you would understand why he called it an anatomy of fascism.
You are a hack.
No it isn't. He also in the same breath where he points out that Trumpism has differences to traditional fascism point out htat Trump has differences to traditional fascism, but clarifies without making a distinction that the label is not only right but necessarily applied. It's also of course right before he makes a specific comparison and equivalence between the fascist french veterans storming the parliament and the US protestors storming the capitol on January 6th.
Insults are not a substitute for an argument.
The incitement of public violence is explicitly makes Trump a fascist, to Paxton, and that’s entirely consistent with his book that you pretended to have read and means you were a dishonest hack to present this as though Paxton’s definition of exclusions and attributes is somehow some washy “fascism is a vibe” thing.
That’s not his definition at all, he’s all about line drawing, and he likes bright lines.
And citing books you haven’t read and then pretending to have read them and then saying “I proved I know what I’m talking about” when all you’re proving is that you haven’t read the book you pretended to have read is what makes you a fucking wanker and a hack.
I don't know how to respond to this except to say you're just not arguing with anything I've said, and in the process you've said a lot of stuff that's not true and quite obviously so?
In other words, turned out I fucking knew what I was talking about and you didn't. Which of course I already knew
Removed by mod
Reddit moment
dude just log the fuck off
I'm not logging off explicitly out of spite. I didn't give a shit about this beyond saying "Cringe" until the pile on started. In other words, reddit moment #2
Keep posting through it, definitely the better coping strategy
deleted by creator
about as mad as you are, yes.
deleted by creator
I don't know, I think it's pretty fair to say "Reddit moment" to a gendered slur. But you obviously seem to think those are fine and good
deleted by creator
yeah i've been down this road before, you aren't doing anything. nothing you will say will change anything. You've already labeled yourself as a subject of mockery, so just fucking leave and let them forget your name so you can just go on. Also just change this stupid opinion of yours.
comrade i am trans don't tell me shit. you're using that card specifically to try to escape your well deserved criticism.
No, I am using that card specifically because it's not actually okay to use gendered slurs about others. Even if you are a woman. I did however remove it because I realize that citing gendered language as a problem is not my place to say to a trans person, especially given that I realize that I am quick to use "Guy" about an unknown gender so it would be hypocritical. The criticism of the slur I feel is still valid. Don't use that kind of language.
Also I'm not gonna leave because you tell me. My opinion is correct, and a bunch of people being wrong at me isn't gonna change anything. If "Many people are disagreeing at me" was a thing that changed opinions, none of you would have migrated over from reddit, you would have just maintained your reddit opinions. Instead you just kept the attitude to arguing.
okay okay okay i did not use a slur camillepagliacci i called you the british name for a pussy
you can be correct somewhere else and just not sit here exposing how much of a damn annoying 'right' person you are
you ain't helping yourself in any way, just go
in other words, you used a gendered slur. Please don't be cute about this.
You don't get to call me a slur and then act like you're doing me a favor.
i don't care at all lmao you are deflecting from the fact you are taking an ultraleft position on literally something as easy as 'cuba getting supplies and sovereignty back with the help of russia' and going 'cringe dude'
lmfao you're really trying to find any solid ground and honestly its my bad for giving any, you seem to be out of it
Honestly through this whole thread you've given me nothing but the vibe of being a smug cracker sooooooooo I dunno why you're surprised you're getting called this, that, and the third by people slightly-less-principled.
"You shouldn't be surprised people use gendered slurs about you"
Maximum reddit.
I mean, she's a chick; so I don't begrudge her the right to reclaim. It might not fly here, specifically; but I'm not finna begrudge her that because be damned if I'd let some cracker police my speech. And fuck off with your pithy "reddit moment", "reddit moment", "maximum reddit" liberal-assed "flag on the play" debate-referee bullshit. Pot, kettle, rim me. Serious people address content, not tone, you fuckin yankee hack.
Reddit moment
Says the person with an account named after a pedophile.
No you're gonna leave because you're being a debate pervert and your username is sus as fuck.
What slur did you post
deleted by creator
i said the b word
Minimizing the holocaust with frivolous and unwarranted comparisons to Hitler are generally frowned upon. I'm not even sure you could compare Putin to Yelstin.
so you hate anti-imperialism got it
Horseshoes go on a horse's feet, not in your head.
Then you are a disgrace to socialism and have failed your revolutionary duty.