Sort of a meme but I do agree with the general view that socdems share one main thing with fascists: they are hardcore anti-communist, and will do everything they can to protect capitalism.
The premise here is that the interests of social democracies categorically align more with fascism than communism. You're saying -- correctly -- that the interests of social democracies in WWII aligned more with communism than fascism. I don't see how WWII (which had yet to happen at the time of Stalin's statement) isn't a major counterpoint to the original premise.
They didn't "align with communism". Look at the death tolls of other countries compared to the USSR... look at the post-war situation... They did far less than the USSR but still took over everything west of Berlin and continued imperialism in the Global South. It's more like the interests of communists aligned briefly with those of some capitalists, but its hard to say it was an equivalent exchange.
Their interests weren't perfectly aligned -- no one's claiming that -- but they were clearly more aligned with their allies than with their enemies. That's the opposite of what Stalin was saying: that when push came to shove, social democrats would side with fascists over communists.
You nail someone to the phrase "push comes to shove" but then "well obviously not perfectly_" when someone questions your wording. Just saying, that is probably how the other person feels about the harping on that one sentence
Using the exact phrase the person you're responding to used, which is a version of the phrase everyone in the thread is using, is not the same as clarifying that "more aligned" does not mean "perfectly aligned." It's the difference between responding to what the other person is actually saying vs. responding to an exaggeration of what they said.
You really have no clue how bad faith that comes off? No one wants to engage with someone who does that, I know cause I used to exactly do that. They clarified and you wouldn't stop. It is absolutely the same, and responding with the same semantic defensiveness is exactly what I am talking about. You keep calling the kettle black. People are supposed to know what you mean, but also you know what they mean better than they do
edit: what I am saying is I get why you felt Toledo was condescending, and that you come off that same way. So put yourself in their shoes. That's all I ask
I explained my thinking at length in good faith, and what I got back was some curt, snarky-ass "well I've already told you million times so I'm done here" shit that didn't address any of the many new points I raised. That was after at least two "as I've told you several times now" remarks two or three comments in.
Sweden maintained a position of neutrality during the Second World War; in spite of that, however, it acted as a major supplier of raw materials for Hitler's military, laundered the gold confiscated from Holocaust victims, and often failed to provide adequate asylum for refugees including the near-completely exterminated Norwegian Jews. Some Swedes even volunteered with the Waffen SS.[7] As in other wartime neutral European countries such as Ireland and Switzerland, the neutrality policy draws continued debate.
In 1941, Engdahl once again broke with his organization to find his own party, the Swedish Opposition (SO). Its main concern was anti-communism. Engdahl opposed all communism in the building of Swedish society, and printed 60,000 copies of an anti-communist brochure. Although Engdahl's new party expressed its admiration for Hitler and Nazi Germany on many occasions, the SO was not a Nazi or fascist party in a formal sense. Engdahl highlighted the differences between his party and National Socialism, particularly on Swedes united as a blood group rather than led by a dictatorship. As the war continued, the SO's sympathy with Hitler continued. On April 20, 1944, Engdahl wrote on the occasion of Hitler's 55th birthday, "words are too poor to express what we owe this man, who is a symbol of the best of what the world has produced. We can only celebrate him as the god-sent rescuer of Europe."[8]
When the war broke out, the former Youth League received a boost. The SNF's activities increased and membership soared. Its vogue proved short-lived, and opposition increased. Demonstrators showed up to its meetings and fighting was common. After a meeting in Uppsala on May 4, 1945, the police were unable to hold the crowds apart and rioting broke out.[9]
Lindholm's SSS had already distanced itself from Nazi Germany when the war broke out. Lindholm visited Germany during his honeymoon in July/August 1939 meeting Heinrich Himmler among others. He maintained some contact with Himmler throughout the war. From the German perspective, the SSS was the most organized National Socialist party in Sweden, even though there were those in the party who disapproved of Lindholm's personal attitude toward Germany.[10] After the German occupation of Norway and Denmark as "Jew depending western powers" Germany fell in the party's esteem.
The SO and public sympathy influenced Sweden's response to the refugee crisis. Between 1933 and 1939, Sweden accepted only 3000 Jewish refugees and permitted 1000 more to use Sweden as a transit stop.[7] As the war broke out, Sweden only absorbed political refugees and turned away Jews from occupied Norway at the border.[11] Sweden eventually accepted 900 Jews from Norway, but border controls and immigration contributed to the murder of over 700 Norwegian Jews at Auschwitz. In 1943, the policy changed, and Sweden provided asylum to 8000 Danish Jews.[12]
Obviously social democracies leave a lot to be desired and cannot be trusted to be even reliably anti-fascist. But ignoring the contributions a bunch of social democracies made to the defeat of fascism in WWII is as absurd as modern capitalists ignoring communist contributions to the same cause.
I would at the very least expect them to not be actively pro-fascist by providing them with iron. What social democracies are you otherwise referring to?
The major Allied powers, outside of the USSR, can be reasonably described as social democracies. If they weren't social democracies, they were to the right of that, which makes Stalin's comment about social democracy's relationship to fascism (which he wrote about 15 years before the start of WWII) even more wrong.
It just doesn't hold up as a categorical claim when the biggest conflict in human history provides such significant evidence to the contrary. Even the general sentiment runs into problems if you take a wide view of the Cold War. This shouldn't be too surprising -- big, sweeping statements like that almost never hold up to close scrutiny.
I think it's kind of strange to include them as anti-fascists when they really had no choice since the fascists attacked them first, a choice which Sweden actually did have (possibly a suicidal choice, but a choice).
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think the France and UK were more Keynesian capitalists than proper social democracies sustained by mass movements.
Do you mean that the social democracies sided with communism in the cold war or what? Maybe for a short period in the 60's?
Social democracies aren't anti-fascists, at least not in the sense that they are reliably, ideologically opposed to fascism. Their foreign policy is probably best described (certainly prior to the Cold War) as conventional geopolitics. But (1) they were resistant to allying with fascists, (2) they eventually fought an incredibly bloody war against fascists, and (3) they did so while allying with communists. All of this suggests they weren't fascists themselves, and wound up seeing fascism as a bigger threat than communism.
Regarding that first point, consider that fascists attacking social democracies didn't occur in isolation; it occurred after a decade or so of trying and failing to reach some rapport. In Europe, Britain had a fascist party (and fascist sympathies among more powerful parties), but it never cooperated with Germany to the extent Italy (for example) did, so it became an enemy. The United States had a full-on Nazi party (with a significant German immigrant population, and with Nazi sympathies among major U.S. industrialists), but you had the same lack of cooperation, so it too became an enemy. You can make similar arguments to varying extents about other European countries. In Asia, there was actually a fair amount of pre-war U.S. economic antagonism towards Japan that led Japan to conclude war was inevitable. If the Allies were just moderate fascists, why did they have such a hard time getting along with other fascists, and why did they form an alliance with the big scary communist USSR?
I think the France and UK were more Keynesian capitalists than proper social democracies sustained by mass movements.
In the same document where we get "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism," Stalin identifies France and the UK as social democracies. But if they were in fact to the right of social democracy, that makes Stalin's comments look worse, not better.
I haven't seen it as anti-communist, is that maybe just a thing from the German social democrats of the 1930s? And I definitely don't see it as protecting capitalism, its goal is firm regulations and restrictions on capitalism - for some that is the end of the road and for others that's just a stage.
I'd like to believe the former would find that power and money will resist such things and ideologically oppose compromise, and so they'd hopefully come to the realisation it cant be the end point.
That is protecting capitalism. Social Democracy shields it from the effects of crisis. Look at FDR and his correct view that he saved capitalism in America. You tether a strengthened trade unionist aristocracy to your capitalist system and create enough of a safety net that it cannot be challenged. The ones exploited most or given no say are kept on the periphery and have no means of getting support from the other workers as they now have something to lose.
Good piece from Germany right after the real shift in terminology occurred
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1927/sdc.htm
During its best days, social democracy established as its principle the class struggle against the bourgeoisie, and as its goal, the realization of socialism as soon as it could conquer political power. Now that social democracy has abandoned that principle and that goal, both of them have been taken up again by communism.
When the war broke out, social democracy abandoned the fight against the bourgeoisie. Kautsky asserted that the class struggle was only applicable to peacetime, while during wartime class solidarity against the enemy nation must take its place. In support of this assertion he pulled from out of his sleeve the lie of the "defensive war", with which the masses were deceived at the start of hostilities. The leaders of the SPD majority and the Independents differed on this point only because the former collaborated enthusiastically with the war policy of the bourgeoisie while the latter patiently endured it, because they did not dare to lead the struggle themselves. After the defeat of German militarism in November 1918, the same pattern was repeated. The social democratic leaders joined the government alongside the bourgeois parties and tried to persuade the workers that this constituted the political power of the proletariat. But they did not use their power over the Councils and government ministries to realize socialism, but to reestablish capitalism. Besides this, one must add that the colossal power of Capital, which is the principle enemy and exploiter of the proletariat, is now embodied in Entente Capital, which now rules the world. The German bourgeoisie, reduced to impotence, can only exist as a peon and agent of Entente imperialism and is responsible for crushing the German workers and exploiting them on behalf of Entente Capital. The social democrats, as the political representatives of this bourgeoisie, and who now form the German government, have the task of carrying out the orders of the Entente and requesting its aid and support......
.....The social democracy has said that, in the current circumstances, after the terrible economic collapse, it is no longer by any means possible to realize socialism. And here we find an important distinction between the positions of communism and social democracy. The social democrats say that socialism is only possible in a society of abundance, of increasing prosperity. The communists say that in such periods capitalism is most secure, because then the masses do not think about revolution. The social democrats say: first, production must be reestablished, to avoid a total catastrophe and to keep the masses from dying of hunger. The communists say: now, when the economy has hit rock bottom, is the perfect time to reestablish it upon socialist foundations. The social democrats say that even the most basic recovery of production requires the continuation of the old capitalist mode of production, in conformance with which all institutions are structured and thanks to which a devastating class struggle against the bourgeoisie will be avoided. The communists say: a recovery of the capitalist economic foundations is completely impossible; the world is sinking ever deeper into bankruptcy before our eyes, into a degree of poverty which makes a break with the bourgeoisie necessary, as the bourgeoisie is blocking the only possible road to reconstruction ** So the social democrats want to first reestablish capitalism, avoiding the class struggle; the communists want to build socialism from scratch right now, with the class struggle as their guide.**
The social democrats of both tendencies, then, maintain the exploitation of the workers by capital; one policy leaves capitalism to its own development, the other stimulates and regulates this exploitation through the intermediary of the State. Both, for the worker, have just this one solution: Work, work, work hard, with all your strength! Because the reconstruction of the capitalist economy is only possible if the proletariat exerts itself to satisfy the demands of the most extreme degree of exploitation.
That is one persons view of the purpose of their reforms. As I said in another post some see it as a step and some see it as an end. They'd have to eventually see and acknowledge power no longer tolerates reform.
Now that social democracy has abandoned that principle and that goal,
Is that the philosophy as a whole or a specific political party in Germany from the 1930s? A lot of this debate might simply be due to being bogged down in confusing arguments between political parties in Germany in the 1930s and applying that to the whole concept today.
They didn't see it as a step. Look at the history there, late 20s Germany, what would the SPD soon do? Ban the Roter Front, crush unions, prop up Hindenburg and create the environment for Hitler. Sure you can say "well that's one guy's opinion" but it is a more informed opinion than your own, no offensive, if you are asking the initial question, and frankly more informed than any of us here aside from hindsight.
The SPD DID choose capital reconstruction over the workers, heck part of the stuff the paper is talking about is the literal murder of Rosa and the creation of the Freikorps. You asked a question but seem to have already decided an answer for yourself. Yes of course historical examples exist in the context of history, but they are foundational to socdem theory, and are the split that caused the creation and codification of social democracy as its own strange of political theory.
There is no non-materialistic application of ideology, and beyond that the party dynamics are not confusing. They are pretty simple and well documented and translated all over the left. It seems like you want affirmation, not actual political theory and historical materialism.
For a modern description here is Parenti
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2125595571100509
Sort of a meme but I do agree with the general view that socdems share one main thing with fascists: they are hardcore anti-communist, and will do everything they can to protect capitalism.
Well, except for that one time a bunch of social democracies allied with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany.
To protect their own interests obviously. When fascists get in power in their own countries they're fine with it.
The premise here is that the interests of social democracies categorically align more with fascism than communism. You're saying -- correctly -- that the interests of social democracies in WWII aligned more with communism than fascism. I don't see how WWII (which had yet to happen at the time of Stalin's statement) isn't a major counterpoint to the original premise.
They didn't "align with communism". Look at the death tolls of other countries compared to the USSR... look at the post-war situation... They did far less than the USSR but still took over everything west of Berlin and continued imperialism in the Global South. It's more like the interests of communists aligned briefly with those of some capitalists, but its hard to say it was an equivalent exchange.
Their interests weren't perfectly aligned -- no one's claiming that -- but they were clearly more aligned with their allies than with their enemies. That's the opposite of what Stalin was saying: that when push came to shove, social democrats would side with fascists over communists.
You nail someone to the phrase "push comes to shove" but then "well obviously not perfectly_" when someone questions your wording. Just saying, that is probably how the other person feels about the harping on that one sentence
Using the exact phrase the person you're responding to used, which is a version of the phrase everyone in the thread is using, is not the same as clarifying that "more aligned" does not mean "perfectly aligned." It's the difference between responding to what the other person is actually saying vs. responding to an exaggeration of what they said.
You really have no clue how bad faith that comes off? No one wants to engage with someone who does that, I know cause I used to exactly do that. They clarified and you wouldn't stop. It is absolutely the same, and responding with the same semantic defensiveness is exactly what I am talking about. You keep calling the kettle black. People are supposed to know what you mean, but also you know what they mean better than they do
edit: what I am saying is I get why you felt Toledo was condescending, and that you come off that same way. So put yourself in their shoes. That's all I ask
I explained my thinking at length in good faith, and what I got back was some curt, snarky-ass "well I've already told you million times so I'm done here" shit that didn't address any of the many new points I raised. That was after at least two "as I've told you several times now" remarks two or three comments in.
You know how you felt about what you said, no shit. That does not mean its what came across to everyone else
wikipedia
"A bunch" =/= "all."
Obviously social democracies leave a lot to be desired and cannot be trusted to be even reliably anti-fascist. But ignoring the contributions a bunch of social democracies made to the defeat of fascism in WWII is as absurd as modern capitalists ignoring communist contributions to the same cause.
I would at the very least expect them to not be actively pro-fascist by providing them with iron. What social democracies are you otherwise referring to?
The major Allied powers, outside of the USSR, can be reasonably described as social democracies. If they weren't social democracies, they were to the right of that, which makes Stalin's comment about social democracy's relationship to fascism (which he wrote about 15 years before the start of WWII) even more wrong.
It just doesn't hold up as a categorical claim when the biggest conflict in human history provides such significant evidence to the contrary. Even the general sentiment runs into problems if you take a wide view of the Cold War. This shouldn't be too surprising -- big, sweeping statements like that almost never hold up to close scrutiny.
I think it's kind of strange to include them as anti-fascists when they really had no choice since the fascists attacked them first, a choice which Sweden actually did have (possibly a suicidal choice, but a choice).
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think the France and UK were more Keynesian capitalists than proper social democracies sustained by mass movements.
Do you mean that the social democracies sided with communism in the cold war or what? Maybe for a short period in the 60's?
Social democracies aren't anti-fascists, at least not in the sense that they are reliably, ideologically opposed to fascism. Their foreign policy is probably best described (certainly prior to the Cold War) as conventional geopolitics. But (1) they were resistant to allying with fascists, (2) they eventually fought an incredibly bloody war against fascists, and (3) they did so while allying with communists. All of this suggests they weren't fascists themselves, and wound up seeing fascism as a bigger threat than communism.
Regarding that first point, consider that fascists attacking social democracies didn't occur in isolation; it occurred after a decade or so of trying and failing to reach some rapport. In Europe, Britain had a fascist party (and fascist sympathies among more powerful parties), but it never cooperated with Germany to the extent Italy (for example) did, so it became an enemy. The United States had a full-on Nazi party (with a significant German immigrant population, and with Nazi sympathies among major U.S. industrialists), but you had the same lack of cooperation, so it too became an enemy. You can make similar arguments to varying extents about other European countries. In Asia, there was actually a fair amount of pre-war U.S. economic antagonism towards Japan that led Japan to conclude war was inevitable. If the Allies were just moderate fascists, why did they have such a hard time getting along with other fascists, and why did they form an alliance with the big scary communist USSR?
In the same document where we get "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism," Stalin identifies France and the UK as social democracies. But if they were in fact to the right of social democracy, that makes Stalin's comments look worse, not better.
I haven't seen it as anti-communist, is that maybe just a thing from the German social democrats of the 1930s? And I definitely don't see it as protecting capitalism, its goal is firm regulations and restrictions on capitalism - for some that is the end of the road and for others that's just a stage.
I'd like to believe the former would find that power and money will resist such things and ideologically oppose compromise, and so they'd hopefully come to the realisation it cant be the end point.
That is protecting capitalism. Social Democracy shields it from the effects of crisis. Look at FDR and his correct view that he saved capitalism in America. You tether a strengthened trade unionist aristocracy to your capitalist system and create enough of a safety net that it cannot be challenged. The ones exploited most or given no say are kept on the periphery and have no means of getting support from the other workers as they now have something to lose.
Good piece from Germany right after the real shift in terminology occurred https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1927/sdc.htm
That is one persons view of the purpose of their reforms. As I said in another post some see it as a step and some see it as an end. They'd have to eventually see and acknowledge power no longer tolerates reform.
Is that the philosophy as a whole or a specific political party in Germany from the 1930s? A lot of this debate might simply be due to being bogged down in confusing arguments between political parties in Germany in the 1930s and applying that to the whole concept today.
They didn't see it as a step. Look at the history there, late 20s Germany, what would the SPD soon do? Ban the Roter Front, crush unions, prop up Hindenburg and create the environment for Hitler. Sure you can say "well that's one guy's opinion" but it is a more informed opinion than your own, no offensive, if you are asking the initial question, and frankly more informed than any of us here aside from hindsight.
The SPD DID choose capital reconstruction over the workers, heck part of the stuff the paper is talking about is the literal murder of Rosa and the creation of the Freikorps. You asked a question but seem to have already decided an answer for yourself. Yes of course historical examples exist in the context of history, but they are foundational to socdem theory, and are the split that caused the creation and codification of social democracy as its own strange of political theory.
There is no non-materialistic application of ideology, and beyond that the party dynamics are not confusing. They are pretty simple and well documented and translated all over the left. It seems like you want affirmation, not actual political theory and historical materialism.
For a modern description here is Parenti https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2125595571100509