...you're politically illiterate.
Red fascism came from anarchists who swallowed antiCommunist propaganda and believe communists = nazis
The problem with this is that the Soviets led by Stalin saved the world from nazi fascism and made the largest contribution to the world in the fight against racism and national liberation movements worldwide
If USSR lost world war 2 the post war period would be dominated by fascist Italy, Japan and a Nazi Germany with the resources and land of the USSR. There almost certainly would still be colonies as USSR played a pivotal role in destroying the British empire also (the Suez crisis for instance... Russian technical expertise was given to Egyptians in managing the Suez canal largely seen as the end of British empire)
Like these motherfuckers think the same people who liberated Auschwitz and hunted nazis all over europe are the same because....reasons?
I guess Anarchists will reply that the Soviets were authoritarian (as if there is another way to build and defend your revolution)
But if there problem is with authoritarianism then why are anarchists not fash with a cool drawn @ ?
Afterall anarchists, when they have come to power, have setup Dictatorships of the Proletariat in mahknos Ukraine and Catalonia where they had secret police, total monopoly on newspapers, banned newspapers that werent anarchist ones, own judiciary, summary executions for suspected counter-revolutionaries (and due to their aversion to prisons were more likely just to execute people) and labour camps ie. Gulags
Under Mahknos Ukraine they even went as far to chain gang peasants for slave labour
So if Communists should have to wear the albatross of the occasional human rights abuses (and they were occasional and much better than capitalist nations who let people freeze ito death in the streets then whine when some counter revolutionary gets a beating or thrown in prison) then why dont anarchists?
Because communists say "we are going to create a dictatorship of the proletariat where workers own, control and dictate everything"
Anarchists say they are against all hierarchy until they come to power and throw that in the trash along with their opposition to a Proletarian state and instead setup a smaller state with all the features of say USSR/Dprk/Cuba just without the centralisation of production and the military means to defend itself
Really well written post.
What's the standard reply to this?
the standard reply on chapo seems to be " "sectarianism" * deleted"
*random thread *completely uncalled for bashing of anarchists
"Why are my comments deleted for sectarianism?"
What’s the standard reply to this?
Same one for all Marxists who are suspiciously without a materialist critique: "what are the conditions of their mode of production like?"
"The conditions are as authoritarian as necessary to maintain the security of the state against a vicious imperial hegemonic order."
Under what circumstances would a modern ML revolution co-exist with and not crush/annex an anarchist territory on their borders like Free Ukraine?
Harassing and locking up and torturing people for voicing their opininon though...
I mean as I stated...Anarchists in Catalonia straight up executed suspected fascists. Instead of imprisoning them and finding out the facts Anarchists aversion to prisons led them to....
Lining up people merely suspected of being fascists.
I gotta tell you...I think shooting people merely for being suspected fascists is pretty more authoritarian than "harassing, locking up" or even "torturing" people
lol i'm mostly with you but the quotes around "torturing" give off weird dick cheney vibes
"There had been a long-running debate in anarchist circles about whether fighting capitalism as a system necessitated attacking specific individuals in power, apart from situations of self-defense. The fact that those in power, when shown mercy, turned right around and gave names to the firing squads to punish the rebels and discourage future uprisings underscored the argument that elites are not just innocently playing a role within an impersonal system, but that they specifically involve themselves in waging war against the oppressed. Thus, the killings carried out by the Spanish anarchists and peasants were not signs of an authoritarianism inherent in revolutionary struggle so much as an intentional strategy within a dangerous conflict. The contemporaneous behavior of the Stalinists, who established a secret police force to torture and execute their erstwhile comrades, demonstrates how low people can sink when they think they’re fighting for a just cause; but the contrasting example offered by anarchists and other socialists proves that such behavior is not inevitable.
A demonstration of the absence of authoritarianism among the anarchists can be seen in the fact that those same peasants who liberated themselves violently did not force individualistic peasants to collectivize their lands along with the rest of the community. In most of the villages surveyed in anarchist areas, collectives and individual holdings existed side by side. In the worst scenario, where an anti-collective peasant held territory dividing peasants who did want to join their lands, the majority sometimes asked the individualist peasant to trade his land for land elsewhere, so the other peasants could pool their efforts to form a collective. In one documented example, the collectivizing peasants offered the individual landholder land of better quality in order to ensure a consensual resolution.
In the cities and within the structures of the CNT, the anarchist labor union with over a million members, the situation was more complicated. After defense groups prepared by the CNT and FAI (the Iberian Anarchist Federation) defeated the fascist uprising in Catalunya and seized weapons from the armory, the CNT rank and file spontaneously organized factory councils, neighborhood assemblies, and other organizations capable of coordinating economic life; what’s more, they did so in a nonpartisan way, working with other workers of all political persuasions. Even though the anarchists were the strongest force in Catalunya, they demonstrated little desire to repress other groups — in stark contrast to the Communist Party, the Trotskyists, and the Catalan nationalists. The problem came from the CNT delegates. The union had failed to structure itself in a way that prevented its becoming institutionalized. Delegates to the Regional and National Committees could not be recalled if they failed to perform as desired, there was no custom to prevent the same people from maintaining constant positions on these higher committees, and negotiations or decisions made by higher committees did not always have to be ratified by the entire membership. Furthermore, principled anarchist militants consistently refused the top positions in the Confederation, while intellectuals focused on abstract theories and economic planning gravitated to these central committees. Thus, at the time of the revolution in July, 1936, the CNT had an established leadership, and this leadership was isolated from the actual movement.
Anarchists such as Stuart Christie and veterans of the libertarian youth group that went on to participate in the guerrilla struggle against the fascists during the following decades have argued that these dynamics separated the de facto leadership of the CNT from the rank and file, and brought them closer to the professional politicians. Thus, in Catalunya, when they were invited to participate in an antifascist Popular Front along with the authoritarian socialist and republican parties, they obliged. To them, this was a gesture of pluralism and solidarity, as well as a means of self-defense against the threat posed by fascism.
Their estrangement from the base prevented them from realizing that the power was no longer in the government buildings; it was already in the street and wherever workers were spontaneously taking over their factories. Ignorant of this, they actually impeded social revolution, discouraging the armed masses from pursuing the full realization of anarchist communism for fear of upsetting their new allies.[99] In any case, anarchists in this period faced extremely difficult decisions. The representatives were caught between advancing fascism and treacherous allies, while those in the streets had to choose between accepting the dubious decisions of a self-appointed leadership or splitting the movement by being overly critical.
But despite the sudden power gained by the CNT — they were the dominant organized political force in Catalunya and a major force in other provinces — both the leadership and the base acted in a cooperative rather than a power-hungry manner. For example, in the antifascist committees proposed by the Catalan government, they allowed themselves to be put on an equal footing with the comparatively weak socialist labor union and the Catalan nationalist party. One of the chief reasons the CNT leadership gave for collaborating with the authoritarian parties was that abolishing the government in Catalunya would be tantamount to imposing an anarchist dictatorship. But their assumption that getting rid of the government — or, more accurately, allowing a spontaneous popular movement to do so — meant replacing it with the CNT showed their own blinding self-importance. They failed to grasp that the working class was developing new organizational forms, such as factory councils, that might flourish best by transcending pre-existing institutions — whether the CNT or the government — rather than being absorbed into them. The CNT leadership “failed to realise how powerful the popular movement was and that their role as union spokesmen was now inimical to the course of the revolution.”[100]
Rather than painting a rosy picture of history, we should recognize that these examples show that navigating the tension between effectiveness and authoritarianism is not easy, but it is possible."
Thus, the killings carried out by the Spanish anarchists and peasants were not signs of an authoritarianism inherent in revolutionary struggle so much as an intentional strategy within a dangerous conflict.
So at what point has any existing socialist state passed the era of "dangerous conflict"? Can you point to me at which year or period the USSR/Cuba/DPRK/Vietnam/China should've laid down their arms whilst US was arming for a nuclear war against Soviet Union then a cold war and supporting fascist governments all over Latin America, Indonesia, Africa etc.
At what point should those nations have passed from the "pure" and "acceptable" revolutionary violence that this anarchist writer approves of and differentiates from say DPRK who have been at war with the collaborationist dogs of South Korea and US for 70 years. Every year US and South Korea practice invading them every year in military drills but what year should they lay down the dictatorship of the proletariat and press the "classless/stateless button"?
Or the Soviet Union that was immediately invaded in 1918 by the 14 most powerful capitalist countries then blockaded for the next 2 decades during the rise of fascism and world war 2? Then cold war, Korea war, Vietnam war, fascists all over S.America then funding of Jihadis in Afghanistan in 80s.. Nicaragua?
Even though the anarchists were the strongest force in Catalunya, they demonstrated little desire to repress other groups
Lmao this guy does paint a rosey picture of Anarchists in Catalonia. Let's have another perspective
The work camps were considered an integral part of the“constructive work of the Spanish Revolution,” and many anarcho syndicalists took pride in the“progressive” character of the reforms by the CNT Minister of Justice. The CNT recruited guards for the “concentration camps,” as they were also called, from within its own ranks. Certain militants feared that the CNT’s resignation from the government after May 1937 might delay this “very important project” of labor camps.
- Michael Seidman , Workers Against Work, Labor in Paris and Barcelona During the Popular Fronts, P.76
To a great degree, the labor camps were an extreme, but logical, expression of Spanishan archosyndicalism. It was in the labor camps that the CNT’s “society of the producers” encountered Fábregas’s “exaltation of work.”
Understandable resentment against a bourgeoisie, a clergy, and a military whom workers considered unproductive and parasitic crystallized into a demand to reform these groups through productive labor. Anarcho syndicalists endowed work with great moral value; the bourgeoisie, the military, and the clergy were immoral precisely because they did not produce. Thus penal reform meant forcing these classes to labor, to rid them of their sins through work. The Spanish Revolution was, in part, a crusade to convert, by force if necessary, both enemies and friends to the values of work and development.
So if you disagreed with anarchists you were thrown into a work camp for your opinion.
And from the mouth of Garcia Oliver, Anarcho-syndaclist justice of minister
The weeds must be torn out by their roots. There cannot be and must not be pity for the enemies of the people, but . . . their rehabilitation through work and that is precisely what the new ministerial order creating “work camps” seeks. In Spain great irrigation canals, roads, and public works must be built immediately. The trains must be electrified, and all these things should be accomplished by those who conceive of work as a derisive activity or a crime, by those who have never worked. . . . The prisons and penitentiaries will be replaced by beehives of labor, and offenders against the people will have the chance to dignify themselves with tools in hand, and they will see that a pick and a shovel will be much more valuable in the future society than the placid, parasitic life of idleness that had no other aim than toperpetuate the irritating inequality of classes.
(ibid)
That shit sounds like Lenin or Stalin (and is rad). Enemies of the revolution need to be torn out by their roots and rehabilitated through work until the Proletarian State has consolidated itself strongly enough and ideologically enough to take criticism in a way that China now can and even Cuba can
in stark contrast to the Communist Party, the Trotskyists, and the Catalan nationalists.
Alright lets see if that's true
Supporters of the rising were dragged in front of these revolutionary tribunals when they were not shot out of hand. The names and addresses of those belonging to groups involved in the rising were taken from official departments or the respective party headquarters, if their records had not been destroyed in time. Evidently some victims were denounced by servants, debtors and enemies. With the intense atmosphere of suspicion and the speed of events, many mistakes were undoubtedly made. This pretence of justice happened mainly in cities and large towns where the socialists and communists were dominant. Fake Falange membership cards, said to belong to the defendant, were often produced so as to ensure that the proceedings were rapid. When declared guilty, prisoners were taken away to be shot. Their bodies were then often left in prominent positions with placards stating that the victims were fascists.6 Anarchists tended to despise this farce of legality and simply got on with the shooting. Believing in the individual’s responsibility for his actions, they rejected any form of corporate ‘statism’ for officials to hide behind. The other reason for immediate execution was their genuine horror of putting anyone in a prison, the most symbolic of all state institutions.
-Anthony Beevor, The Spanish Civil War, p.132
As to the
both the leadership and the base acted in a cooperative rather than a power-hungry manner.
Yeah screaming about tearing out the weeds of society, throwing loads of people into concentration camps and "getting on with the shooting" of people suspected of fascism because of your aversion to prisons is definitely not power hungry
So at what point has any existing socialist state passed the era of “dangerous conflict”? Can you point to me at which year or period the USSR/Cuba/DPRK/Vietnam/China should’ve laid down their arms whilst US was arming for a nuclear war against Soviet Union then a cold war and supporting fascist governments all over Latin America, Indonesia, Africa etc.
At what point should those nations have passed from the “pure” and “acceptable” revolutionary violence that this anarchist writer approves of and differentiates from say DPRK who have been at war with the collaborationist dogs of South Korea and US for 70 years. Every year US and South Korea practice invading them every year in military drills but what year should they lay down the dictatorship of the proletariat and press the “classless/stateless button”?
Or the Soviet Union that was immediately invaded in 1918 by the 14 most powerful capitalist countries then blockaded for the next 2 decades during the rise of fascism and world war 2? Then cold war, Korea war, Vietnam war, fascists all over S.America then funding of Jihadis in Afghanistan in 80s… Nicaragua?
The moment is when they are out of direct conflict of capitalist powers, but it's not about pressing the stateless button, it's about stopping hammering the "using the state to purge people over whatever real or perceived differences" button.
The USSR was in direct conflict with the whites after they got out of WWI and the whites came in twice and were beaten out with the help of absolutely no one. After that the next direct conflict was WWII, between the two there was no situation that demanded the level of repression that was used apart from of course, ideological purges that were of course going on simultaneously with the civil war too, but yeah, who cares about that.
Cuba's president is not actively tried to be murdered for a few decades, so there's no direct conflict there and there is no direct conflict between capitalists and Vietnam as well. There are embargoes that are effectively dealt with... on the ground level for example the permacultural food production in Havana. "Surprisingly" these states aren't even that criticised by anarchists (and i have nothing against them as well), which is definitely not because of the lack of ideological purges.
DPRK is in semi-direct conflict with South Korea and the US but news coming out of there are scarce and either coming from NYT or the state, so i'm not gonna form an opinion on them and i never have done so.
China is not in direct conflict with capitalist countries either but the economic warfare is hard on them. Despite that there are reports of them harrassing Marxist groups and even some MLs acknowledge that there might be better ways to handle the Uyghur situation. So they're def worse in that regard than Cuba or Vietnam, but not as bad as the USSR was at first.
Now about Catalonia
So if you disagreed with anarchists you were thrown into a work camp for your opinion.
That isn't even the conclusion of the work you cited. You're really trying hard to ignore the fact that the CNT leadership didn't have direct control over the movement, especially over it's main constituents, the rural areas. The passage i quoted was a critique of that leadership, so trying to counter that with what the leadership said is ummm.... curious.
But to have the full story, here's another quote from Seidman's book:
"Garc¡a Oliver's reforming zeal extended to the penal code and the prison system. Torture was forbidden and replaced by work: normal labor with weekly monetary bonuses and a day off per week when the prisoner's conduct merits it. If this is not enough to motivate him, his good conduct will be measured by vouchers. Fifty-two of these vouchers will mean a year of good conduct and thus a year of liberty. These years can be added up . . . and thus a sentence of thirty years can be reduced to eight, nine, or ten years"
Also Augustin Soucy wrote this about the labor camps:
"There is a concentration camp at Valmuel, in Alcaniz Township, Teruel Province. The country is a desert. There is not a single tree for many kilometres around. A number of buildings have been erected at the foot of a hill. Dormitories, inspection rooms, stables... Everything was built by the prisoners with the assistance of the guards. The FAI directs this camp. It is not a prison. It is not maintained like a garrison. There is no forced labour. Nothing is enclosed and there is no limitation of movement. The prisoners move about freely. Their guards share their life with them. They live the same as the prisoners. They sleep on similar cots in the primitive rooms. They address each other informally, as equals. Prisoners and guards are comrades. Neither wears a uniform. They cannot be distinguished by their external appearance.
A young man is standing in front of one of the dormitories. I question him without knowing whether he is a prisoner or a guard.
"I am a prisoner. My name is Benedicto Valles. I belonged to the Accion Popular (Popular Action, a fascist party). That is why I was arrested."
"How long have you been here?"
"Three months."
He was not working. He was not feeling well.
"Did the doctor give you permission not to work today?"
"There is no doctor. The comrade guard gave me permission not to work."
"Can you receive visitors?"
"Yes. My fiance comes to see me every Sunday."
"Can you speak to her alone?"
"Of course. Then we go for a walk together, in the fields.
"Without a guard?"
"Without a guard."
All the prisoners are permitted to receive visits from their families every Sunday. They are given passes for the camp and surrounding fields. There is no sexual torture that so many prisoners experience in other countries. This is an achievement not to be found anywhere else in the world. The anarchists of the FAI are the first to introduce this humane reform.
Why are there still concentration camps? Because the war against fascism is not yet over. The anarchists must protect themselves against the fascists.
There are chickens, pigs and rabbits in the barns. Cattle is to be seen in the fields. There is one scarcity: water. This vital liquid is not to be found in the entire area. It must be brought in by tank carts. Scarcity of water is a great problem here as in other parts of Spain. The soil must be irrigated. Prisoners and guards do this work. One hundred and eighty prisoners (180) work alongside one hundred and twenty-five workers (125) of the collective of Alcaniz to install irrigation. The work is the same for the free workers as for the prisoners. Fascists and antifascists work nine hours a day. They work for the fertility of the soil, to bring new life to the country. The canal must be finished in two years. The Municipal Council in Alcaniz has taken charge of the work. There is no support from the State or the provincial authorities. The work is being done without engineers. A young peasant who knows how to calculate what must be done to create a self flowing canal directs the work. The water must come from the Guadalope River. Some potato fields are already being irrigated.
This work was initiated by the CNT and the FAI in Alcaniz. Fascists and anti-fascists are working together for the cultivation of the Aragon desert.
There are concentration camps in the fascist countries, Italy and Germany. In the Hitler camp at Oranienberg, the spiritual German poet, Muehsam, was assassinated after being tortured and martyred for more than a year. Dozens of known political figures and people who love liberty languish in the concentration camps of national socialism. The democracies, faced with the alternative of choosing national socialism and fascism or anarchism, choose the first. They ought to visit the concentration camp in Germany, and then the FAI camp at Valmuel. There: barbarism; here: fighters for liberty."
Sounds just as inhumane as the bombing of Kronstadt.
People got into labor camps if they were funneling money to the fascists, if they were caught after a battle with fascists, etc. Not for their opinion and definitely not in size comparable to the USSR.
They still acted out of self defense and not out of an act of power grab.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
hot take: red fash are even rarer than fucking trots or anprims idk why some people get so worked up about them
lest ye be one of those dorks who calls any communist red fash.
Strasserists and Nazbols are red fascist. Call anything else red fascist and I am seriously going to doubt your political literacy
inb4 some guy comes in with a painfully obscure ideology that's basically fascism with leftist aesthetics and says "WHUTTAH BOUT"
I'd disagree with you on calling nazbols and strsserites "red fash". They are fascists plain and simple. In the same manner of the National Socialists, they drape themselves in the mantle of Socialism to hide their hideous ideology.
Red fascism is capitalist propaganda, and allowing any exceptions to it allows the Vermin to slide the line to wherever they wish it to end.
red fash may or may not exist, i don't know enough to say, but fascist with red aesthetics is definitely a thing. nazbols for one.
some people think that fascism is just another word for authoritarianism.
What's the overlap between "tankie" and what people have been describing as "red fash" in this thread?
twisted to mean “anyone who supports anything the USSR does”
it's a slur for revisionists
FFS The hungarian revolution wasn't fucking anticommunist, it's fucking nationalist propaganda.
✓ Pogroms of jews
✓ Killing of communists
✓ Doors of jews houses marked with a black cross an doors of communists marked for the white terror extermination squads when they thought they'd win
✓ Mi6 funding the fascist revolutionaries
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mi6-trained-rebels-to-fight-soviets-in-hungarian-revolt-1359599.html
✓ Hungarian nationalist propaganda regurgitated uncritically
Which part if propaganda?
Were there no pogroms? Did mi6 not train them for an uprising and supply weapons in gladio style weapons caches?
FFS The hungarian revolution wasn’t fucking anticommunist, it’s fucking nationalist propaganda.
TBF it was all over the spectrum: marxists, anarchists, socdems, liberals, and nazis were all involved
There were pogroms, and there were lynchings of party members... at least part of the uprising was reactionary
part of the uprising
That's the key part here, yes, there were far right elements involved, but they never got control of the movement, they weren't even allowed to take part in the workers' councils that coordinated it. They were a vigilante, independent movement.
Unfortunately it was enough so that the current government can push the narrative through lobbyists that it was indeed an anticommunist revolution even though the goals the movement had are explicitly communist,
The thing is we are talking about two and a half weeks here, and there was no truly ideologically unified movement. The only thing that unified them was that they hated the USSR.
The most famous document from the uprising is the "16 demands" - this was compiled by one faction, the college students, and even this isn't completely coherent. Like some points seem very communist, even left communist, but they are also demanding a multi party (liberal?) system, "reconsidering the planned economy" and there's also a demand about supporting "individual farmers" (Help the kulaks!)
And this is just one faction
So obviously most people grab one aspect and claim "this is what the uprising was about"
The soviet-communists obviuosly emphasized the reactionary, ultra right wing elements. And who's to say they are *completely * wrong? The Nyilas party seized power mere 11 years before
Liberals emphasize the multiparty demands
Leftcoms emphasize the workers' councils
Nationalists emphasize the anti-russian part
It was all up in the air to be honest
I mean I'm much more comfortable with talking about it as a shitstorm, because it was more akin to that. but the general opinion of 56 on this site is that it was a fundamentally right wing revolution, which is not true.
There's hardly any, because since it happened, it's constantly a field of ideological battleground and so there aren't any good accounts that were written by hungarian marxists that are available in English
This by Gáspár Miklós Tamás is basically the closest i could find and there's a passage in C.L.R. James' Facing Reality about it - which misses two pages as it seems.
politically illiterate
as opposed to politically alliterate socialists who can read about the exploitation or oppression of people under their watch, but choose not to,
Politically alliterative cool communists, super socialists, and awesome anarchists.
So beefcake nazis were never a thing in Germany in the 30s? And Goebbels was never into marxism as a youth? This is honestly lib shit (and I usually hate calling stuff lib shit) that portrays fascism and nazis etc as all being extremely obviously bad things to anyone with more than one eye, or even just one eye. Nazis (and fascists elsewhere) didn't take power because everyone hated them and thought they were evil. There's actual real draw that those ideologies can have on a lot of people. And if you ignore that, you'll be caught with your tail tucked between the legs of your pants when fascists manage to recruit a bunch of people you assumed would be diehard leftists, since you never though to address that potentianability.
care to explain Strasserites, Third-Positionists, Nazbols, etc? And I'm sure I'm not the first one to use the terms "Red-Fascism" and "Red-Brown" interchangably.
I get what you're talking about, but that's not what red fascist refers to. Red fascism as I've seen it used means communism that uses "authoritarian" means (because fascism is when people tell me what to do 😡)
lol I'm pretty sure the phrase you were looking for is "beefsteak nazi" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi
Hotter take: Fascism is a dead ideology and yous guys are pissing yourselves over something that aint never coming back because the idea of an apocalyptic war/massacre where guys into weird runes and shit kill millions is more libidinally satisfying than the autumn of neoliberalism we got
Bad take, fascism is inevitable under capitalism. Eventually masses of people won't be happy with the status quo after some crisis and will want change, liberals will of course then side with the fascists to stop socialists from taking over
"dude it happened like a hundred years ago in completely different societal, environmental, and technological circumstances so it's guaranteed to happen again have you listened to it could happen here man Robert's such a prophet wifouwhgiuwfoiwgwig"
I like the man's work too but yous aughta broaden your horizon looking at history. It doesn't start and stop in germany from 1918 to 1945 you know
Who the fuck are you talking about? Also can you give a fucking argument against what I said instead of just deciding things have changed so fascism just has to be one of them?
You have no idea what fascism is do you? Do you think the fascists that rose in Nazi Germany were the pinnacle of their society? Fascism arises in humiliated nations and appeals to the most insecure, it mythologizes their past and promises to take it back by fighting the people who took them down from the inside. There is no way the world has changed to make this impossible. It is still the end stage of capitalism. When a socialist movement arises in a capitalist country that has gone through disasters that has made the majority willing to bring down the liberal status quo, fascist movements rise too, blaming hated minorities for the state of the nation. The liberals side with the fascists because it's better for them than socialism. Can you give a reason why that's not the most logical future for America? The US is still the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world and already has wannabe fascist leaders promising a return to a better past through persecuting minorities. You actually admit to Trump being at least similar to a 'real' fascist but decide that because he's a pussy that means fascism in america can absolutely never come to power. Things are only going to get worse for America, and fascism will only gain power under those conditions.
Also I really hope you're just a kid, otherwise calling people pussies online for disagreeing with your hare-brained take is really embarrassing
Do you think the fascists that rose in Nazi Germany were the pinnacle of their society
Nah, but they could take a fucking punch though. You know hitler like personally beat KPD guys half to death during the kapfzeit? Can you see modern conservatives doing that? The fucking weeping pussy bitches that freak out when they see protests gasp block traffic!? The same guys that run like effeminate weaklings when you shoot a firecracker near their house or send em an anonymous text message of their house late at night?
They're cowards. You wanna jack off. I get it, bit you really shouldn't cum in public spaces man, it's unbecoming.
If you're trying to imply you've scared fascists with those methods you've mentioned I'm calling bullshit, you've never done praxis in your life. You once again miss the entire fucking point. Notice how I talked about fascism*gaining_*power? Fascists in America aren't willing to risk taking a punch because they're not desperate enough to put themselves at risk. But times are going to get harder for America, and people will become more willing to put themselves in harms way because what they have to lose will steadily decrease. You still haven't given a single reason why the process of capitalism decaying into fascism can't happen in the modern day, you just continue to point out the same obvious fact that it hasn't happened right at this moment, as if that means it can't happen.
You really need to drop this edgy affectation of calling people pussies and that whole weird last line you wrote. I mean this as genuine advice, it makes you look like a fucking neckbeard.
just wanna chime in to say that this is a cool way to talk in my opinion
so according to you, the AfD, grey wolves, and golden dawn don't exist and the Verfassungsschutz and the KSK aren't full of neo-nazis who have been stockpiling weapons for years
jesus fucking christ
german special forces commandos are now pussies according to someone who has probably never been in a fight in their life and thinks that using autistic as an insult is acceptable
You know what I mean. This Robert Evans fear you guys got of the nazis coming back is a masturbation fantasy because organizing is hard compared to shooting people in the streets in an apocalyptic war
