Do you just disagree with trying to govern and giving people shit they want? Like, imagine you actually have to convince someone normal, "give you health care? that would be mere opportunism I'd rather give you revolution!", that's not what people are looking for right now and more important than that you can't give them revolution they're not even on your side yet, you said it yourself the revolutionary fervor isn't there (or anywhere really) so trying to will it into existence without showing the working class that YOU can give them shit YOU, is just going to make people hate you and, maybe correctly, regard you as unserious. So why support you, the real communist with no mass support, and not the, blegh, "social fascists" communists with at least some remaining connection to the labour movement?
The USSR stopped using it because of an alliance with social democracy that is impossible in its present form.
Yeah said alliance which proved that the whole "social fascist" formulation was, for the most part, silly, and a bad management on part of the comintern. It was silly to apply it everywhere during third periodism and it generally, outside of america where the CPUSA broke with the democrats for the first time and China where mao just ignored it to ally with the kmt, had terrible results.
Even though I AM generally against too broad fronts right now, it's still a silly formulation to bring back and especially to apply it to the remaining parliamentarian communist parties. I mean if they are "social fascists" what are liberals, just fascists? Then what are the organizations to the right of them "mega fascists"?. Silly.
Do you just disagree with trying to govern and giving people shit they want? Like, imagine you actually have to convince someone normal, "give you health care? that would be mere opportunism I'd rather give you revolution!", that's not what people are looking for right now
But what do you do when the concession literally is not possible without either revolution or the threat of it? Conversely, what do you do with people who want to be given a ladder so they can pull it up after themselves?
Are you this committed to tailist bullshit in the name of the "Masses" that you're laundering your positions through?
Yeah said alliance which proved that the whole "social fascist" formulation was, for the most part, silly
This is historical revision. Fascist projects can and do and did come into political conflict with their liberal former-allies, as the Nazis did when they invaded countries that had literally been financing them prior to that point. Allying with them to oppose their political enemies does not prove that it wasn't their shitty ideology that enabled the fascists to snowball in the first place.
I don't like the wording of that quote because I find it awkward, but the text it is pulled from is essentially correct and kind of stunning relative to the year it was produced.
But what do you do when the concession literally is not possible without either revolution or the threat of it?
I don't think that's the case right now, I think there's a lot you can do if you were willing to govern.
Conversely, what do you do with people who want to be given a ladder so they can pull it up after themselves?
I don't know what people you are talking about but if it's "the people" in first world countries generally I also don't think that's the case, much less so if we're talking about the parlamentarian communist parties.
Are you this committed to tailist bullshit in the name of the "Masses" that you're laundering your positions through?
Meaningless statement, I want to improve people's lives as best as I can that's my position. You tell them you don't want that and see how the look of disdain they give you.
Allying with them to oppose their political enemies does not prove that it wasn't their shitty ideology that enabled the fascists to snowball in the first place.
I don't disagree but that isn't my understanding of what calling someone, especially someone on the far-left today, a "social fascist" means
Do you just disagree with trying to govern and giving people shit they want? Like, imagine you actually have to convince someone normal, "give you health care? that would be mere opportunism I'd rather give you revolution!", that's not what people are looking for right now and more important than that you can't give them revolution they're not even on your side yet, you said it yourself the revolutionary fervor isn't there (or anywhere really) so trying to will it into existence without showing the working class that YOU can give them shit YOU, is just going to make people hate you and, maybe correctly, regard you as unserious. So why support you, the real communist with no mass support, and not the, blegh, "social fascists" communists with at least some remaining connection to the labour movement?
Yeah said alliance which proved that the whole "social fascist" formulation was, for the most part, silly, and a bad management on part of the comintern. It was silly to apply it everywhere during third periodism and it generally, outside of america where the CPUSA broke with the democrats for the first time and China where mao just ignored it to ally with the kmt, had terrible results.
Even though I AM generally against too broad fronts right now, it's still a silly formulation to bring back and especially to apply it to the remaining parliamentarian communist parties. I mean if they are "social fascists" what are liberals, just fascists? Then what are the organizations to the right of them "mega fascists"?. Silly.
But what do you do when the concession literally is not possible without either revolution or the threat of it? Conversely, what do you do with people who want to be given a ladder so they can pull it up after themselves?
Are you this committed to tailist bullshit in the name of the "Masses" that you're laundering your positions through?
This is historical revision. Fascist projects can and do and did come into political conflict with their liberal former-allies, as the Nazis did when they invaded countries that had literally been financing them prior to that point. Allying with them to oppose their political enemies does not prove that it wasn't their shitty ideology that enabled the fascists to snowball in the first place.
I don't like the wording of that quote because I find it awkward, but the text it is pulled from is essentially correct and kind of stunning relative to the year it was produced.
I don't think that's the case right now, I think there's a lot you can do if you were willing to govern.
I don't know what people you are talking about but if it's "the people" in first world countries generally I also don't think that's the case, much less so if we're talking about the parlamentarian communist parties.
Meaningless statement, I want to improve people's lives as best as I can that's my position. You tell them you don't want that and see how the look of disdain they give you.
I don't disagree but that isn't my understanding of what calling someone, especially someone on the far-left today, a "social fascist" means