.... A KPD resolution described the "social fascists" [social democrats] as the "main pillar of the dictatorship of Capital".[7] In 1931, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) referred to the Nazis as "working people's comrades". In Prussia, the largest state of Germany, the KPD united with the Nazis in unsuccessful attempt to bring down the state government of SPD by means of a Landtag referendum.[8] In 1931, the KPD, under the leadership of Ernst Thälmann, internally used the slogan "After Hitler, our turn!" since it strongly believed that a united front against Nazis was not needed and that the workers would change their opinion and recognize that Nazism, unlike communism, did not offer a true way out of Germany's difficulties.[9][10]
After Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party came to power in Germany, the KPD was outlawed and thousands of its members were arrested, including Thälmann. Those events made the Comintern do a complete turn on the question of alliance with social democrats and the theory of social fascism was abandoned. At the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, Georgi Dimitrov outlined the new policy of the popular front in his address "For the Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism".[11] The popular front did not stop the conclusion of the German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact.[citation needed] Theodore Draper argued that "the so-called theory of social fascism and the practice based on it constituted one of the chief factors contributing to the victory of German fascism in January 1933".[12][13]
This is a pile of historically bad takes. You're fighting on the losing side of a battle that was lost and rejected 80 years ago.
Yes, social democrats are liberals, but this strikes me as people climbing a ladder and knocking the ladder away so no one else can climb.
The Comintern abandoned the term in the interwar period essentially to beg for alliances with the Social-Democrats and calling them "Social-Fascists" was completely antagonistic to Soviet foreign policy during that period
And what happened? Did the Social-Democrats force their governments to ally with the Soviets?
No, we saw Chamberlain collude with Hitler to try and turn the Nazi army east, we saw Daladier do the exact same.
France, under so-called "Socialist" Daladier, ratfucked Czechoslovakia by not activating the defence treaty that France and the Soviet Union had signed. (France and USSR signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia to come to her defence. However due to the anticommunism of the period the Czech President said that the Soviet Union could only defend Czechoslovakia if France came first to her defence. The reason he did this was because he suspected if only the Soviets came to his defence the capitalist pigs in France/UK would ally with the fascists and display this as "Communist aggression" and wage war on the Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.) Instead France allowed Czechoslovakia to be carved up because they thought they were playing 5d chess to get Hitler to go east into the Soviet Union.
Social democratic parties all over Europe collaborated with Hitler.
Take Hungary, Hungarys Succdem party was never even banned under Hitlerite occupation so instep with fascism they were
Let's not beat about the bush - It was correct Soviet foreign policy once the Nazis had risen in 1933 to stop calling SuccDems Social-Fascists but doesn't make it any less true
This is all ironic of course on a page where we are discussing a Social-Democrat that supports fascism "over there".
“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.”
J. V. STALIN, from , “Concerning the International Situation,” 1924.
Okay, let's tell the social democrats that supporting Israel's apartheid state is extremely shitty, but I will refuse to call them social fascists or insist that they are just as bad as Hitler because objectively they weren't. That's something we can see in hindsight, just as the western states can now see that they were wrong about Hitler's ambitions in hindsight.
Lenin p worked with capitalists, liberals and the bourgeoisie. Only in the process of layer stages of 1917 (not 1905!) would he switch to taking power directly, without a liberal revolution. Which made him deviate from orthodox Marxism and implement more central power.
I mean Mao worked with the "Nationalist Bourgeoise" or whatever right?
Granted they were subordinate to the party and the circumstances in feudal china and capitalist usa are different.
In fact the exact opposite - they were a colonial country held in shackles by the imperial powers /Japan/uk/France and USA
So China was a communist revolution and a national liberation struggle against capitalist imperialism described in Lenins Right Of Nations To Self Determination
The equivalent item (if we're trying to find one) is the Communist Party of China working with Uncle Tom Chinese that collaborated with the foreigners
You're absolutely right. Stalin would never ally with capitalists like Churchill, and Mao would never consider forming a United Front with a capitalist like Chang Kai-shek. The history understander has logged on.
Having conquered political power in their own countries and made concessions against super powers in foreign policy is the same as lining up behind a succdem in the imperial core
Is there not a difference between an imperial country and the imperial core? Imperial Japan was an imperial country but not part of the core, was it not?
Actually no for this analysis Lenin and Stalin not lining up with succdems (and instead ruthlessly exposing them) is what he did within the imperialist nation he lived in and so the material circumstances are basically the same
Yeah let's call AOC a social-fascist that's reasonable
That makes a lot of sense
I'm sure all the good things she's said and done were just PR, this shows her true face, she's a fascist out to get us just like everyone else
I knew it all along, I knew nobody ever was good except for me and my 20 online friends
Leftism is calling out supposed """allies""" for their bad takes and writing them off entirely, this is how the left will win
I shall crawl further and further into my echo chamber until I will have finally achieved socialism all by myself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism
"good...bad" = do you mean bourgeois or proletarian?
This is a pile of historically bad takes. You're fighting on the losing side of a battle that was lost and rejected 80 years ago.
Yes, social democrats are liberals, but this strikes me as people climbing a ladder and knocking the ladder away so no one else can climb.
The Comintern abandoned the term in the interwar period essentially to beg for alliances with the Social-Democrats and calling them "Social-Fascists" was completely antagonistic to Soviet foreign policy during that period
And what happened? Did the Social-Democrats force their governments to ally with the Soviets?
No, we saw Chamberlain collude with Hitler to try and turn the Nazi army east, we saw Daladier do the exact same.
France, under so-called "Socialist" Daladier, ratfucked Czechoslovakia by not activating the defence treaty that France and the Soviet Union had signed. (France and USSR signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia to come to her defence. However due to the anticommunism of the period the Czech President said that the Soviet Union could only defend Czechoslovakia if France came first to her defence. The reason he did this was because he suspected if only the Soviets came to his defence the capitalist pigs in France/UK would ally with the fascists and display this as "Communist aggression" and wage war on the Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.) Instead France allowed Czechoslovakia to be carved up because they thought they were playing 5d chess to get Hitler to go east into the Soviet Union.
Social democratic parties all over Europe collaborated with Hitler.
Take Hungary, Hungarys Succdem party was never even banned under Hitlerite occupation so instep with fascism they were
Let's not beat about the bush - It was correct Soviet foreign policy once the Nazis had risen in 1933 to stop calling SuccDems Social-Fascists but doesn't make it any less true
This is all ironic of course on a page where we are discussing a Social-Democrat that supports fascism "over there".
J. V. STALIN, from , “Concerning the International Situation,” 1924.
Okay, let's tell the social democrats that supporting Israel's apartheid state is extremely shitty, but I will refuse to call them social fascists or insist that they are just as bad as Hitler because objectively they weren't. That's something we can see in hindsight, just as the western states can now see that they were wrong about Hitler's ambitions in hindsight.
Social-democracy is capitalism. Social-democrats are not socialists
Lenin/Stalin/Mao and Castro did not go "we need to work with capitalists" lol. They conquered them and in some instances shot them.
:ak47: :ak47: :ak47: :mao-aggro-shining: :stalin-shining:
Lenin p worked with capitalists, liberals and the bourgeoisie. Only in the process of layer stages of 1917 (not 1905!) would he switch to taking power directly, without a liberal revolution. Which made him deviate from orthodox Marxism and implement more central power.
Lenin started the NEP and Deng went right back to capitalism.
To build up industry did Lenin work with capitalists? Or was the communist party in control of the industry and the economy?
Dengs a revisionist so not sure what your point is
Both Mao and Stalin absolutely and concretely did advocate working with the “progressive” bourgeoisie as part of the whole two-stage theory error.
Correct. Stalin never made deals with Fascists. He historically never invaded Poland alongside Hitler in 1939
deleted by creator
I mean Mao worked with the "Nationalist Bourgeoise" or whatever right? Granted they were subordinate to the party and the circumstances in feudal china and capitalist usa are different.
China was not an imperialist country though
In fact the exact opposite - they were a colonial country held in shackles by the imperial powers /Japan/uk/France and USA
So China was a communist revolution and a national liberation struggle against capitalist imperialism described in Lenins Right Of Nations To Self Determination
The equivalent item (if we're trying to find one) is the Communist Party of China working with Uncle Tom Chinese that collaborated with the foreigners
They didn't...they shot them
I know, I am just being nitpicky. I'm not suggesting the situations are comparable.
You're absolutely right. Stalin would never ally with capitalists like Churchill, and Mao would never consider forming a United Front with a capitalist like Chang Kai-shek. The history understander has logged on.
Yes thats absolutely comparable
Having conquered political power in their own countries and made concessions against super powers in foreign policy is the same as lining up behind a succdem in the imperial core
Do you know anything about Chinese history? Like, at all?
It's almost as if Stalin and Mao didn't live in the imperial core and aren't perfect examples for operating within it.
Oh wow is Tsarist Russia not an imperial country?
history understander indeed
Is there not a difference between an imperial country and the imperial core? Imperial Japan was an imperial country but not part of the core, was it not?
It's a useless analysis as the "core" has changed over time and the "core" we now understand didn't exist prior to ww2
Tsarist Russia was an imperialist country
Japan was an imperialist country
Point being that the material conditions are different.
Actually no for this analysis Lenin and Stalin not lining up with succdems (and instead ruthlessly exposing them) is what he did within the imperialist nation he lived in and so the material circumstances are basically the same
K.
Hey, that's not fair - I have 9,010 online friends according the user count. I just don't talk to many of them very often...
She’s on the wrong side of genocide and we are on a leftist board.