Not really the post for the most in depth analyses, i think, but would like to say that I've been convinced by Cesaire, Fanon, and other global southern scholars that fascism isn't just a reaction of capitalism to internal resistance or such, but instead the contant necessity for expropriation that sometimes cannot be accomplished geographically (how it happens often at the periphery) but instead must be brought internally to expropriate from groups of peoples and leftists. This comes with whatever liberal justification possible (usually about undeserving wealth or so). Often this is easily combined with class warfare and creates hell for leftists, especially if their attacks on capitalism are what is preventing the fascism externally from working as effectively or are decreasing the profits that can be reaped internally. The destruction of capital that some use to define fascism seems just a consequence of fascism and not a defining feature to me, something that must be done to maintain a periphery constantly in need of supply from production within the industries which are prioritized for profit. That follows very easily from the material conditions when the expanding periphery stops expanding or begins to shrink. Sometimes that destruction happens by just giving shitty equipment that falls apart, sometimes by treating humans as the capital itself through enslavement and killing them, and other times by war.
It's not a full-on disagreement, I just find it something that is often talked about as if it's far away Horror Story as opposed to something that's been the basis of capitalism for a long time that is still happening. The most successful countries managed to perform fascism best and that's how they got there. The US is the ultimate success story of fascism
This is also where I think Stalin understood fascism better than Trotsky, because Stalin understood it as normal capitalism just aimed at the "Judeo-Bolsheviks" (including the slavs and USSR) at the time (and the right hand of the social democrats who are the left wing of fascism) while Trotsky considered it more of an abberation
Not really the post for the most in depth analyses, i think, but would like to say that I've been convinced by Cesaire, Fanon, and other global southern scholars that fascism isn't just a reaction of capitalism to internal resistance or such, but instead the contant necessity for expropriation that sometimes cannot be accomplished geographically (how it happens often at the periphery) but instead must be brought internally to expropriate from groups of peoples and leftists. This comes with whatever liberal justification possible (usually about undeserving wealth or so). Often this is easily combined with class warfare and creates hell for leftists, especially if their attacks on capitalism are what is preventing the fascism externally from working as effectively or are decreasing the profits that can be reaped internally. The destruction of capital that some use to define fascism seems just a consequence of fascism and not a defining feature to me, something that must be done to maintain a periphery constantly in need of supply from production within the industries which are prioritized for profit. That follows very easily from the material conditions when the expanding periphery stops expanding or begins to shrink. Sometimes that destruction happens by just giving shitty equipment that falls apart, sometimes by treating humans as the capital itself through enslavement and killing them, and other times by war.
It's not a full-on disagreement, I just find it something that is often talked about as if it's far away Horror Story as opposed to something that's been the basis of capitalism for a long time that is still happening. The most successful countries managed to perform fascism best and that's how they got there. The US is the ultimate success story of fascism
This is also where I think Stalin understood fascism better than Trotsky, because Stalin understood it as normal capitalism just aimed at the "Judeo-Bolsheviks" (including the slavs and USSR) at the time (and the right hand of the social democrats who are the left wing of fascism) while Trotsky considered it more of an abberation
Great post.
deleted by creator