Tbh, that entire thread was a dumpster fire. Also trots are still a thing outside of the UK and Seattle? (refering to the person calling themselves a trot here). That is the most surprising thing I've learned from this post
Trots are everywhere in the 1st world in my experience
They are the predominant trend in opportunism because under their ridiculous Permanent Revolution they end up holding contradictory views on imperialism that allows them to support NATO air strikes against Gadaffi , war in Syria and fascists in Belarus under the guise of fighting Stalinist Beaucracy.
If you go back to the Vietnam war American trots were supporting "Self determination for South Vietnam" - you couldn't make it up
Even if I were 100 percent wrong in that take: that BLM is not a predominantly liberal movement that has been increasingly, as time has gone on, been coopted by liberals (not less so)
Even if tomorrow we get 100 percent proof that I was wrong and I am humbled into self-criticism...
That's still nowhere near as bad as supporting Self determination for a US puppet state or supporting every US war since the 1970s like all the trot parties have done.
I went through your post history to see if you had any theoretical or historical clouth and could only find a thread where you shit on China (reddit moment!)
I don't agree that BLM represents social fascism considering how extremely fragmented the movement is (often times economics doesn't even figure into the conversation, especially at the street level), but I do agree that it is filled with opportunists at the higher levels. Just yesterday one of the founders wrote an open letter to the Biden/Harris admin that seemed very much like an attempt at getting some sort of employment within the administration.
But again, people seriously need to understand just how decentralized the movement is. There are BLM subsets that don't even get down with LGBT, and the founders themselves are all LGBT
Up until Reagan and Thatcher US and UK were Social Democratic. Under these Social-Democracies they (this is just off top of my head I am too lazy to research for this thread) :
3 million Bengalis by starvation (Churchill deliberately stopped US and Australian ships from docking with famine relief)
Dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Civilian cities
Setup death camps in the 1960s in Kenya to suppress Kenyans who opposed British rule. While the Soviet Union had shut down the labour camps in the 50s the British were building death camps in Kenya and whining about Iron curtains
killed 20 percent of the North Korean population and dropped chemical and biological warfare on them
Dropped more bombs on Laos than any country in the second world war (so literally blitzkreiged a country more than Nazis)
Invaded and killed millions in Vietnam
Supported a genocide in INdonesia which saw 5 million trade unionists, socialists and communists murdered to destroy the largest Communist Party in the world outside of China
Starved Iraq in the 1990s and when the secretary of State was asked about it on TV about 500,000 children starving to death responded it was "worth it"
Destroyed Yugoslavia and turned Serbia into the cancer capital of europe with depleted uranium
Killed 2.5 million people in Iraq and turned Fallujah into a place with more birth defects than Hiroshima
I could go on if I began to google. Off the sheer misery Social Democrats spread around the world I am of the firm belief that Social Democracy is a twin pillar to fascism. That it is moderate fascism pushed to the forefront with the class warfare spread "over there" not at home (to bring home imperialist exploits for the working class of imperalist nations). Social-Democatic economies (capitalism) are based on war economies and the export of fascist-imperialism manifests itself under the context of social-democrats routinely supporting war "over there".
This is why Bernie Sanders voted to destroy Yugoslavia and turn Serbia into the cancer capital of Europe. I would characterise this as social-fascism
Some people think that the bourgeoisie adopted “pacifism” and “democracy” not because it was compelled to do so, but voluntarily, of its own free choice, so to speak. And it is assumed that, having defeated the working class in decisive battles (Italy, Germany), the bourgeoisie felt that it was the victor and could now afford to adopt “democracy.” In other words, while the decisive battles were in progress, the bourgeoisie needed a fighting organisation, needed fascism; but now that the proletariat is defeated, the bourgeoisie no longer needs fascism and can afford to use “democracy” instead, as a better method of consolidating its victory. Hence, the conclusion is drawn that, the rule of the bourgeoisie has become consolidated, that the “era of pacifism” will be a prolonged one, and that the revolution in Europe has been pigeonholed.
This assumption is absolutely wrong.
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
You know, this is certainly some kind of fallacy, but after you described the United States and the United Kingdom as social democracies before Reagan and Thatcher, ignoring a few hundred years of imperialism and market liberalism slash parliamentary monarchy and attribute shit fucking Bush, Clinton, and Bush did to social Democracy, I’m just going to stop trying to debate you from here on out
Almost every politician after Reagan was a neoliberal/neoconservative. I’m not entirely sure what I’d call the UK, I’m only 16 and I haven’t read as much theory as I would like to, but it more resembles modern neoliberalism than social democracy, considering that unlike social democrats, they didn’t pretend to care for the working class, and also had very little regulations for Corporate entities
Neoliberals came to power in the 80s however it took them 30-40 years to rollback social democratic gains and they did so with the complicity of social democratic parties
Even today UK still has some social democracy (full healthcare) so i guess its how much you want to split hairs over whether they're neoliberal states with some remaining succdem policies or a social-democracy that has been heavily eroded
Whatever they are...they are where they are with the full complicity of social democrats after actually existing socialism in Eastern europe fell and the capitalist class no longer felt threatened by an alternative
Social Democrats view class compromise in the same way fascists do. They consider workers to be another special interest in comparison to the interests of capital, so they invariably govern how fascists would govern when they try to preserve capitalism without empowering workers beyond handouts.
This quote frequently gets misattributed to Lenin, and it’s also just not accurate.
Fascism is a reactionary social movement that arises under certain conditions, namely when capitalism is in such an acute crisis that the ruling class basically is forced to hand over the reins to this movement in order to keep the system going.
While capitalism is decaying, and spiraling into crisis after crisis, the conditions for mass fascist movements aren’t constant or more available now than they were in the 1930s.
The base of mass fascist movements is in the petite bourgeoisie, which as a class is actually much less influential than in the 1930s, as the process of proletarianization squeezes their ranks down into the working class.
I don't think there's a single trot in my country at the moment lol, though Trotsky apparently was in communication with South African communists 90 years ago.
i know trots were in latin america with the posadists being the most famous, i think argentina has a trot party, but here in Mexico trots arent organized as much as the MLs
Tbh, that entire thread was a dumpster fire. Also trots are still a thing outside of the UK and Seattle? (refering to the person calling themselves a trot here). That is the most surprising thing I've learned from this post
Trots are everywhere in the 1st world in my experience
They are the predominant trend in opportunism because under their ridiculous Permanent Revolution they end up holding contradictory views on imperialism that allows them to support NATO air strikes against Gadaffi , war in Syria and fascists in Belarus under the guise of fighting Stalinist Beaucracy.
If you go back to the Vietnam war American trots were supporting "Self determination for South Vietnam" - you couldn't make it up
Unlike the serious and sober perspective that “The BLM movement represents social fascism as outlined by Stalin"
Even if I were 100 percent wrong in that take: that BLM is not a predominantly liberal movement that has been increasingly, as time has gone on, been coopted by liberals (not less so)
Even if tomorrow we get 100 percent proof that I was wrong and I am humbled into self-criticism...
That's still nowhere near as bad as supporting Self determination for a US puppet state or supporting every US war since the 1970s like all the trot parties have done.
I went through your post history to see if you had any theoretical or historical clouth and could only find a thread where you shit on China (reddit moment!)
I don't agree that BLM represents social fascism considering how extremely fragmented the movement is (often times economics doesn't even figure into the conversation, especially at the street level), but I do agree that it is filled with opportunists at the higher levels. Just yesterday one of the founders wrote an open letter to the Biden/Harris admin that seemed very much like an attempt at getting some sort of employment within the administration.
But again, people seriously need to understand just how decentralized the movement is. There are BLM subsets that don't even get down with LGBT, and the founders themselves are all LGBT
Do you think that social democracy is fascism?
Up until Reagan and Thatcher US and UK were Social Democratic. Under these Social-Democracies they (this is just off top of my head I am too lazy to research for this thread) :
3 million Bengalis by starvation (Churchill deliberately stopped US and Australian ships from docking with famine relief)
Dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Civilian cities
Setup death camps in the 1960s in Kenya to suppress Kenyans who opposed British rule. While the Soviet Union had shut down the labour camps in the 50s the British were building death camps in Kenya and whining about Iron curtains
killed 20 percent of the North Korean population and dropped chemical and biological warfare on them
Dropped more bombs on Laos than any country in the second world war (so literally blitzkreiged a country more than Nazis)
Invaded and killed millions in Vietnam
Supported a genocide in INdonesia which saw 5 million trade unionists, socialists and communists murdered to destroy the largest Communist Party in the world outside of China
Starved Iraq in the 1990s and when the secretary of State was asked about it on TV about 500,000 children starving to death responded it was "worth it"
Destroyed Yugoslavia and turned Serbia into the cancer capital of europe with depleted uranium
Killed 2.5 million people in Iraq and turned Fallujah into a place with more birth defects than Hiroshima
I could go on if I began to google. Off the sheer misery Social Democrats spread around the world I am of the firm belief that Social Democracy is a twin pillar to fascism. That it is moderate fascism pushed to the forefront with the class warfare spread "over there" not at home (to bring home imperialist exploits for the working class of imperalist nations). Social-Democatic economies (capitalism) are based on war economies and the export of fascist-imperialism manifests itself under the context of social-democrats routinely supporting war "over there".
This is why Bernie Sanders voted to destroy Yugoslavia and turn Serbia into the cancer capital of Europe. I would characterise this as social-fascism
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm
You know, this is certainly some kind of fallacy, but after you described the United States and the United Kingdom as social democracies before Reagan and Thatcher, ignoring a few hundred years of imperialism and market liberalism slash parliamentary monarchy and attribute shit fucking Bush, Clinton, and Bush did to social Democracy, I’m just going to stop trying to debate you from here on out
What mode of economy would you describe them comrade?
Though i come off as a prick a lot i am always eager to learn
Almost every politician after Reagan was a neoliberal/neoconservative. I’m not entirely sure what I’d call the UK, I’m only 16 and I haven’t read as much theory as I would like to, but it more resembles modern neoliberalism than social democracy, considering that unlike social democrats, they didn’t pretend to care for the working class, and also had very little regulations for Corporate entities
Surprised you didn’t bring up the Freikorps
Neoliberals came to power in the 80s however it took them 30-40 years to rollback social democratic gains and they did so with the complicity of social democratic parties
Even today UK still has some social democracy (full healthcare) so i guess its how much you want to split hairs over whether they're neoliberal states with some remaining succdem policies or a social-democracy that has been heavily eroded
Whatever they are...they are where they are with the full complicity of social democrats after actually existing socialism in Eastern europe fell and the capitalist class no longer felt threatened by an alternative
deleted by creator
That’s not really how it works. Social Democracy is integrated with Capitalism, not Fascism. Fascism isn’t just capitalism.
deleted by creator
I agree overall. My main point is that I don’t believe that social democracy is fascism.
deleted by creator
I agree with that.
deleted by creator
I agree. My main issue primarily was with the second pillar idea
deleted by creator
I’m not fully sure either way right now. You make good points. Is there any theory on this you’d recommend?
deleted by creator
Are you telling me that 69fart69 isn’t the all mighty?
Social Democrats view class compromise in the same way fascists do. They consider workers to be another special interest in comparison to the interests of capital, so they invariably govern how fascists would govern when they try to preserve capitalism without empowering workers beyond handouts.
Alright. What about the social part of fascism?
Look at FDR's popularity in the US then.
He was popular, yes. What I meant by the social part of fascism is the reactionary nationalism
Go JAQ off on Reddit.
I’m not “just” asking questions I’m asking questions because I want to learn
Fascism is Capitalism in decay
This quote frequently gets misattributed to Lenin, and it’s also just not accurate.
Fascism is a reactionary social movement that arises under certain conditions, namely when capitalism is in such an acute crisis that the ruling class basically is forced to hand over the reins to this movement in order to keep the system going.
While capitalism is decaying, and spiraling into crisis after crisis, the conditions for mass fascist movements aren’t constant or more available now than they were in the 1930s.
The base of mass fascist movements is in the petite bourgeoisie, which as a class is actually much less influential than in the 1930s, as the process of proletarianization squeezes their ranks down into the working class.
Is it really that simple of a definition?
i seen trots here in Mexico, but pro stalin mls are still the majority
I don't think there's a single trot in my country at the moment lol, though Trotsky apparently was in communication with South African communists 90 years ago.
https://www.leftvoice.org/letters-from-leon-trotsky-on-south-africa
i know trots were in latin america with the posadists being the most famous, i think argentina has a trot party, but here in Mexico trots arent organized as much as the MLs