I wasn't trying to say it's all fascism. What I mean to say is that capitalist reaction is fascism. Whether it is reaction leftwards (social fascism) or reaction rightwards (boots on neck fascism). That is the argument Stalin makes. Part of this concept is important because it gives us a question -- Does the next fascism have to look like either of them? No.
Fascism in this concept is simply put "bourgeoise reaction to communists to prevent their power from being taken" and becomes an exceptionally simple way to label the most dangerous tactics to prevent socialism that we must resist.
Fascists are reaction to communists to uphold capitalism, in all formats.
The thing is, social democrats weren't a step away from abandoning capitalism to Stalin. In fact, before they took hold in Europe socialism was spreading like fire across the continent. Then social democracy rose up to prevent its spread, did they take the one step needed? No. It must be resisted at all costs because it will literally stop what we want, the outcome will be the same. They will not cross the line and have to be opposed relentlessly in order to get that to happen.
I appreciate the discussion. I still don't think "social fascism" is a worthwhile term, but you've made it sound as plausible as anything I've heard on the subject.
Whether it is reaction leftwards (social fascism) or reaction rightwards (boots on neck fascism). That is the argument Stalin makes.
That makes a little bit of sense, but it quickly becomes "anything capitalists do is fascism," because they're always trying to pacify popular pressures in some way. What capitalist activities wouldn't be fascism under this definition? So we're back to capitalism = fascism, which makes fascism and empty, redundant term. I don't think it's theoretically sound, and that's before you consider the differences in the law, state violence, how easy it is to remove political leaders, etc.
And I still see no practical argument whatsoever for calling social democrats "social fascists." That's poison to any attempt to bring them to our side, and they very well may be the most likely people to come to our side. Most people here used to be libs.
It must be resisted at all costs because it will literally stop what we want
Also on the practical side of things, I don't see any way this is workable. I don't see any way to build a working class movement by telling the working class: "You get zero immediate relief. No Medicare for All, no job guarantee, no student debt forgiveness -- nothing. But despite giving you nothing, you need to support us in the gargantuan struggle to end capitalism, something that's never been done in the imperial core."
Didn't we just criticize Democrats for months over not offering voters anything? We have to deliver something to get support in return. We have to show proof of concept before people fully commit (especially if we're talking about anything more involved than electoralism). We have to take the boot off the neck of the working class if we're asking them to give time and energy to a long-term struggle. I don't see people rejecting something like a jobs guarantee because they're holding out for the end of capitalism, and I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the path to socialism in the imperial core doesn't run through something like a jobs guarantee. No one knows how to build socialism here, and observations from a century ago in vastly different material conditions don't necessarily have predictive power.
I think you do as much as you can for workers and then use the strengthened working class to push for even more. The reason PMC libs run so much of the Global North is that they're financially secure enough to dedicate serious attention to politics. It's a hobby to them, like golf. If you have one job that's not too taxing and it takes care of all of your material needs, you have the time and energy to organize and figure out how the levers of power work. If you have multiple jobs and are still just scraping by, that's much harder.
Socdems are just liberals that have moved left a bit. They are reformists and they uphold the status quo. Don't confuse socdems with socialists who are compromising with liberalism for the sake of the working class. The socdems want capitalism and will do whatever they can to uphold it including murdering Rosa.
The left must not fall into the same trap of thinking we can ally with them and pull them left like we did with liberals. Their intention is to uphold capitalism and suck the energy out of our movement.
Their intention is to deradicalise the left move US right and they have succeeded every single time in the past.
It is absolutely but it MUST be discussed among leftists.
When we move into the phases that involve us actually being a real threat all the liberals will become socdems. They will not be more convertable as socdems than they were as liberals. They will be just as untrustworthy, snakey and dangerous as they are as liberals. Remember how much they hate us, that will not change when they shift leftwards in the reaction.
Calling people the murderers of someone who lived a century ago and a continent away is laughable. Ascribing murderous intentions to modern-day people over that event (instead of, you know, talking to those people) is laughable. It's just wrecker shit.
I'm not calling people murderers. I'm calling an ideology very likely to do it again if it has to in order to prevent communism. It is a reaction to us, its goal is to prevent communism, they advocate for friendly capitalism but they will if they have to. It's not wrecker shit because we are anti-capitalists and they absolutely are not.
It's wrecker shit because the people who today think "man, capitalism has so many big failings that we need enormous public programs to fix them all" will be anti-capitalists tomorrow. Laying a century-old murder at their feet poisons that well.
I don't really see them as actual socdems and they rarely ever label themselves as such in my opinion. They're baby leftists. The actual socdems are all liberal slime.
I wasn't trying to say it's all fascism. What I mean to say is that capitalist reaction is fascism. Whether it is reaction leftwards (social fascism) or reaction rightwards (boots on neck fascism). That is the argument Stalin makes. Part of this concept is important because it gives us a question -- Does the next fascism have to look like either of them? No.
Fascism in this concept is simply put "bourgeoise reaction to communists to prevent their power from being taken" and becomes an exceptionally simple way to label the most dangerous tactics to prevent socialism that we must resist.
Fascists are reaction to communists to uphold capitalism, in all formats.
The thing is, social democrats weren't a step away from abandoning capitalism to Stalin. In fact, before they took hold in Europe socialism was spreading like fire across the continent. Then social democracy rose up to prevent its spread, did they take the one step needed? No. It must be resisted at all costs because it will literally stop what we want, the outcome will be the same. They will not cross the line and have to be opposed relentlessly in order to get that to happen.
I appreciate the discussion. I still don't think "social fascism" is a worthwhile term, but you've made it sound as plausible as anything I've heard on the subject.
That makes a little bit of sense, but it quickly becomes "anything capitalists do is fascism," because they're always trying to pacify popular pressures in some way. What capitalist activities wouldn't be fascism under this definition? So we're back to capitalism = fascism, which makes fascism and empty, redundant term. I don't think it's theoretically sound, and that's before you consider the differences in the law, state violence, how easy it is to remove political leaders, etc.
And I still see no practical argument whatsoever for calling social democrats "social fascists." That's poison to any attempt to bring them to our side, and they very well may be the most likely people to come to our side. Most people here used to be libs.
Also on the practical side of things, I don't see any way this is workable. I don't see any way to build a working class movement by telling the working class: "You get zero immediate relief. No Medicare for All, no job guarantee, no student debt forgiveness -- nothing. But despite giving you nothing, you need to support us in the gargantuan struggle to end capitalism, something that's never been done in the imperial core."
Didn't we just criticize Democrats for months over not offering voters anything? We have to deliver something to get support in return. We have to show proof of concept before people fully commit (especially if we're talking about anything more involved than electoralism). We have to take the boot off the neck of the working class if we're asking them to give time and energy to a long-term struggle. I don't see people rejecting something like a jobs guarantee because they're holding out for the end of capitalism, and I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the path to socialism in the imperial core doesn't run through something like a jobs guarantee. No one knows how to build socialism here, and observations from a century ago in vastly different material conditions don't necessarily have predictive power.
I think you do as much as you can for workers and then use the strengthened working class to push for even more. The reason PMC libs run so much of the Global North is that they're financially secure enough to dedicate serious attention to politics. It's a hobby to them, like golf. If you have one job that's not too taxing and it takes care of all of your material needs, you have the time and energy to organize and figure out how the levers of power work. If you have multiple jobs and are still just scraping by, that's much harder.
I think you're being too nice to socdems.
Socdems are just liberals that have moved left a bit. They are reformists and they uphold the status quo. Don't confuse socdems with socialists who are compromising with liberalism for the sake of the working class. The socdems want capitalism and will do whatever they can to uphold it including murdering Rosa.
The left must not fall into the same trap of thinking we can ally with them and pull them left like we did with liberals. Their intention is to uphold capitalism and suck the energy out of our movement.
Their intention is to deradicalise the left move US right and they have succeeded every single time in the past.
Throwing this stuff at anyone living today is beyond counterproductive.
It is absolutely but it MUST be discussed among leftists.
When we move into the phases that involve us actually being a real threat all the liberals will become socdems. They will not be more convertable as socdems than they were as liberals. They will be just as untrustworthy, snakey and dangerous as they are as liberals. Remember how much they hate us, that will not change when they shift leftwards in the reaction.
Calling people the murderers of someone who lived a century ago and a continent away is laughable. Ascribing murderous intentions to modern-day people over that event (instead of, you know, talking to those people) is laughable. It's just wrecker shit.
I'm not calling people murderers. I'm calling an ideology very likely to do it again if it has to in order to prevent communism. It is a reaction to us, its goal is to prevent communism, they advocate for friendly capitalism but they will if they have to. It's not wrecker shit because we are anti-capitalists and they absolutely are not.
It's wrecker shit because the people who today think "man, capitalism has so many big failings that we need enormous public programs to fix them all" will be anti-capitalists tomorrow. Laying a century-old murder at their feet poisons that well.
I don't really see them as actual socdems and they rarely ever label themselves as such in my opinion. They're baby leftists. The actual socdems are all liberal slime.