Yes, I ate all the pixels
Social fascist theory stays winning. SPD refused to strike against the Nazis when they took power. :josus-stalin:
Fucking idiots thought they could work within the Nazi system right up until they started getting purged.
That doesn't make sense. If they are social fascists why did the Nazis kill them? Because they weren't fascist
Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.
The theory being that they both act to protect the Bourgeoisie from proletarian revolution, in two different ways. The choice between the two is a false dichotomy, as shown by how the SPD spent the 20s and 30s fighting against the KPD (including refusing to act against the Nazis, and conceding to right-wing element in the country), before getting merked by the Nazis they thought they could coexist with.
So Europe is closer to fascism than Brazil? This doesn't make sense. I dont agree that making the poor starve will lead to any sort of positive revolutionary leftist thought. It still needs teaching and advocates. Of which there are virtually none in the US. Social Dems would keep the US from falling into fascism until the left gains a foothold.
Consider that the conditions of 1920s Germany and 2020s USA are very different. Also :jesse-wtf:
Then it seems that social Dems are fascist seems a bit of a an oversimplification
As I explained in my previous post: in the presence of an established and popular revolutionary party, social democrat reformists act to defend capital against them just as fascists do. Therefore, they will continually side with the fascists and can be considered, for all intents and purposes, "social fascists".
Considering what the SPD did in the 20s and 30s (which is the entire subject of this thread, and every comment I've made in it), the theory at least has merit.
I would still disagree. Social Dems don't meet any definition of fascism. It sounds like you're just declaring anyone who's not revolutionary as a fascists. But fascists are revolutionary minded as well.
But fascists are revolutionary minded as well.
Fascism occurs in order to protect the power of capital when faced with revolution. Social democracy also exists to do this. This is why Bourgeois will support both those movements, but never communism. Make of those material motivations what you will.
Fascists over throw the government. There's a significant difference between an actual revolution or a coup vs just electoralism.
I can't make any comment on if a bourgeois class ever supported a left wing revolution but only because I'm not super well read on global politics or much history.
Forget about the specific goverment, because that's largely not the important part. As materialists, we believe that the mode of production primarily shapes society.
Fascists largely maintain the current mode of production, as do social democrats. They aren't really revolutionary in any sense other than aesthetic, and that's why they will get large support from bourgeois in order to prevent revolutionary movements from gaining power.
No. Modern day fascists are actually revolutionary minded by definition. Social Democrats are not revolutionary minded. Even aestheticly. The social aspects in the states are undeniably as important as the material conditions of people. Marx ignored it and couldn't figure out why the US never mad a leftward lurch. There's a social aspect to Marxism that he completely missed which is why Marx is a fun read but is ultimately outdated
Social Democrats are not revolutionary minded. Even aestheticly.
Correct, and my implication this was the case was accidental.
Nothing about the social aspect of society disproves that the SPD acted in defense of capitalism, and thereby assisted the fascists in their rise.
which is why Marx is a fun read but is ultimately outdated
Undoubtedly, there are outdated aspects of Marxism, but with a statement like that, you're going to need to produce more evidence than nothing at all.
Fascists are not revolutionary. They have no desire to reform the system; they just want to be the ones in charge. They step into existing structures of power, and declare themselves the new leaders. If they can steal power, that proves their worthiness over the ones who lost it.
Why would Strasserites be purged and killed in the Night of Long Knives? Because they weren't fascists.
Why would Nazis attempt to assassinate Hitler via the 20 July plot? Because Hitler wasn't fascist.
Why did Italians hand Mussolini from a lamppost by the end of the war? Mussolini simply wasn't fascist.
If only they had been kinder to people who literally sided with the Nazis over them.
....I'm confused as to whether he's making the point the dumb tired nonsesnse point that the communists pushed people rightward by being alienating and calling them fascists and/or if he's trying to suggest that the forces in Germany the Communists were opposing were not actually fascist.
One way or another, he gets the wall.
Well I looked him up and he is a Blaze(dot)TV conservative. The only thing I can gleam is that calling Conservatives Fascists turns them into Fascists, but also wants to ignore that the Fascists of the 1930's where also called the Nazi's and also wants to ignore the implication that calling him a Fascist is some kind of magical incantation that will turn him into a Nazi that absolves him of any responsibility of becoming a Nazi.
I think the point he's making is that people who call out fascism today are actually communists, which is a bad thing.
"I am not a parasitic labor aristocrat, I am a friend of the proletariat" sent from my African child slave iphone
:very-intelligent: take
Nothing do do with the original post
No "PMC" though
7ish/10 :jesse-wtf:
