For the sake of the people spectating, let me explain why I'm arguing this and why it's important.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fascism's role is and how it relates to the current situation.
Fascism is not an ideology that is independent of or diametrically composed to liberalism; rather it's a mechanism of capital to be leveraged by the bourgeoisie to supplement their hegemony and serve as a bulwark against leftism. It is not a genuinely popular movement, but masquerades as one. It adopts the trappings of one and often co-opts leftist rhetoric but it is incapable of, materially or ideologically, sustaining any sort of insurrection against the bourgeoisie state because it supports the bourgeoisie state and thus cannot nor does it have any interest in popular uprising.
Fascists can only take power by grafting themselves onto — and not usurping — existing institutions, often with the support of the bourgeoisie if not directly installed by them. We see this example in Hitler's Germany, who was funded by the billion by industrialists and permitted into government as Chancellor for fear of the KDP, Italy where Mussolini came into power by coalition government and instituted the typical bourgeoisie-friendly economic policies under the auspices of a liberal financial advisor, Japan, Chile and the Chicago boys, etc.
Premature Fascist attempts at violent seizures of power would miserably fail, only for them to get remarkably lenient treatment and be gradually reintroduced to combat leftism. The SDP, that unleashed the Freikorps on the Spartakists, would ban the German Communist Party's paramilitary wing and very soon after lift Hitler's ban on public speaking. Liberals will show disgust to Fascism, but always side with them against socialism because their common interest and purpose is the preservation of the propertied classes.
This is also why you see the Proud Boys and other similar groups cooperating with police officers in protests — again, despite the occasional rhetoric effort at portraying themselves as against government overreach — because they're an auxiliary of the bourgeois state and far from being able to supplant it, cannot exist without it. It is the bourgeois media that platforms it's adherents, again feigning disgust but we know perfectly well that they're more than capable of completely blocking out anything they actually don't want people to hear about like Modi's prosecution of Muslims and the newest pink wave in South America, and lavish money upon their figureheads.
The reactionaries were called to the capitol and enabled merely to serve their utility for intimidation and the stirring of fervor and passion in the Republican base. These reactionaries acted too prematurely, were promptly disavowed and dispersed without difficulty — and again, as usual, with practically a slap on the wrist because the bourgeois still has use for them.
The issue with the narrative of a credible Fascist coup getting fended off is that it implies that they exist as an independent and opposed force to the American state and liberalism, and they do not. It implies that the American bourgeois republic is something that is a 'better' alternative to Fascism, when the reality is that these reactionary nationalists are an vital instrument that helps to guarantee the survival of the capital and the bourgeois republic. If they posed any genuine threat to the current order, if Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi truly believed these people were actually an dangerous threat to their livelihoods and safeties, then there would have been a thorough investigation and purging of all responsible parties and organs. But there wasn't, because they're not — they're useful.
I am not understating the threat of Fascism or white nationalists. They are dangerous and I know this very well — My mother's birth certificate lists her race as 'negro' and I live not very far away from places where black men were lynched and transgender black women were killed last year in response to the George Floyd protests — but they cannot be effectively combated if we cannot recognize their actual nature and how they operate as a component in capital's myriad methods of hegemony.
At the risk of being labelled a debate guy I'm gonna talk about a couple of things you said.
A coup d’etat is an seizure of power, and there was no instant where any of the participating parties came close to claiming control of any government apparatus.
That explicitly wasn't the goal. Look at what Yeltsin did to Russia, parliament was opposed to him so he got rid of the parliament. These people weren't trying to form a new government they were trying to empower Trump.
There was no subduing or defection of armed bodies; the whole farce was broken up by nightfall by riot cops.
There was though. There was deliberate actions taken by the capitol police, there was actions taken to delay response.
Considering their goal (as much as they had a goal) seems to be hostages and/or murder I think the sabotaged police response is extremely relevant and is probably the best argument for what makes this a legitimate attack vs a riot.
The narrative of ‘WE ALMOST LITERALLY HAD A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP’ is useful for liberals like you, because it permits you to frame a utterly heinous institution that is responsible for a multitude of actual fascist coups that have killed millions of people across the world as a sort of victim and imply we should have gratitude for it’s continued existence.
As much as we all shit on Amerikkka we should also acknowledge that collapse of America is likely to lead to immense amounts of suffering and death.
Acknowledging the attack for what it was cuts both ways. You can't insult people and call them libs and misrepresent their arguments while also refusing to actually do any real analysis of the situation. I don't think many (any?) are doing lib shit like claiming PTSD or demanding terrorism charges for everyone involved.
If they came through the right door and found someone like Omar, Tlaib, AOC, Bernie, etc... they probably kill them. Probably in horrific fashion with the entire country watching. I don't think it should be swept aside as lib shit, even though I think the democrats are and will handle it in awful fashion.
I hope you wouldn't be labeled a debate guy for elaborating on request, haha.
That explicitly wasn’t the goal. Look at what Yeltsin did to Russia, parliament was opposed to him so he got rid of the parliament. These people weren’t trying to form a new government they were trying to empower Trump.
Yeltsin had control of the military, state media and etc. Some of the most fierce fighting (which would result in well over a hundred dead) occurred for control over a TV media complex which would play a crucial role in broadcasting pro-Yeltsin propaganda throughout the ordeal and Yeltsin's forces would end up besieging barricading, seizing bridges to ensure lockdown and etc.
Whether it's a autogolpe or coup d'etat, any meaningful attempt at seizing power actually requires an meaningful attempt at seizing power.
There was though. There was deliberate actions taken by the capitol police, there was actions taken to delay response.
Considering their goal (as much as they had a goal) seems to be hostages and/or murder I think the sabotaged police response is extremely relevant and is probably the best argument for what makes this a legitimate attack vs a riot.
It was absolutely an legitimate attack. What I'm saying and explained in my post above is that the idea that this was an genuine, as in with any remotely coherent plan or chance at success, attempt to overthrow the state/American government by an force that is opposed to is a fundamental misunderstanding of American reactionaries and their role.
As much as we all shit on Amerikkka we should also acknowledge that collapse of America is likely to lead to immense amounts of suffering and death.
The continued existence of America leads to immense amounts of suffering and death, not only as a imperialist superpower responsible for upholding an hegemony that results in the preventable deaths of tens of millions every year but the inherent utter unsustainability of it's system both economically and geologically means that it's collapse and the consequences are also inevitable. There's no sense in subscribing to revolutionary communism if you reject the circumstances that would actually grant an opportunity for revolution.
Acknowledging the attack for what it was cuts both ways. You can’t insult people and call them libs and misrepresent their arguments while also refusing to actually do any real analysis of the situation. I don’t think many (any?) are doing lib shit like claiming PTSD or demanding terrorism charges for everyone involved.
Is this not 'real analysis?' https://hexbear.net/post/82941/comment/897804
If they came through the right door and found someone like Omar, Tlaib, AOC, Bernie, etc… they probably kill them. Probably in horrific fashion with the entire country watching. I don’t think it should be swept aside as lib shit, even though I think the democrats are and will handle it in awful fashion.
All these people will approve budget bills that fund drone strikes on weddings, hospitals and orphanages. None of the resulting massacred peasant tenant farmers or guest workers will receive remotely the same attention precisely because they don't have cameras and the eyes of an entire country upon them.
The continued existence of America leads to immense amounts of suffering and death, not only as a imperialist superpower responsible for upholding an hegemony that results in the preventable deaths of tens of millions every year but the inherent utter unsustainability of it’s system both economically and geologically means that it’s collapse and the consequences are also inevitable. There’s no sense in subscribing to revolutionary communism if you reject the circumstances that would actually grant an opportunity for revolution.
We don't have the systems in place to deal with a revolutionary situation, which means we can't possibly win.
The problem is that Americas collapse could have almost unimaginable negative consequences for humanity, and those odds go way up when the only people with a platform or a base are insane reactionaries.
I think you are attributing to white privilege when really it's just chapo style contrarianism.
For the sake of the people spectating, let me explain why I'm arguing this and why it's important.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fascism's role is and how it relates to the current situation.
Fascism is not an ideology that is independent of or diametrically composed to liberalism; rather it's a mechanism of capital to be leveraged by the bourgeoisie to supplement their hegemony and serve as a bulwark against leftism. It is not a genuinely popular movement, but masquerades as one. It adopts the trappings of one and often co-opts leftist rhetoric but it is incapable of, materially or ideologically, sustaining any sort of insurrection against the bourgeoisie state because it supports the bourgeoisie state and thus cannot nor does it have any interest in popular uprising.
Fascists can only take power by grafting themselves onto — and not usurping — existing institutions, often with the support of the bourgeoisie if not directly installed by them. We see this example in Hitler's Germany, who was funded by the billion by industrialists and permitted into government as Chancellor for fear of the KDP, Italy where Mussolini came into power by coalition government and instituted the typical bourgeoisie-friendly economic policies under the auspices of a liberal financial advisor, Japan, Chile and the Chicago boys, etc.
Premature Fascist attempts at violent seizures of power would miserably fail, only for them to get remarkably lenient treatment and be gradually reintroduced to combat leftism. The SDP, that unleashed the Freikorps on the Spartakists, would ban the German Communist Party's paramilitary wing and very soon after lift Hitler's ban on public speaking. Liberals will show disgust to Fascism, but always side with them against socialism because their common interest and purpose is the preservation of the propertied classes.
This is also why you see the Proud Boys and other similar groups cooperating with police officers in protests — again, despite the occasional rhetoric effort at portraying themselves as against government overreach — because they're an auxiliary of the bourgeois state and far from being able to supplant it, cannot exist without it. It is the bourgeois media that platforms it's adherents, again feigning disgust but we know perfectly well that they're more than capable of completely blocking out anything they actually don't want people to hear about like Modi's prosecution of Muslims and the newest pink wave in South America, and lavish money upon their figureheads.
The reactionaries were called to the capitol and enabled merely to serve their utility for intimidation and the stirring of fervor and passion in the Republican base. These reactionaries acted too prematurely, were promptly disavowed and dispersed without difficulty — and again, as usual, with practically a slap on the wrist because the bourgeois still has use for them.
The issue with the narrative of a credible Fascist coup getting fended off is that it implies that they exist as an independent and opposed force to the American state and liberalism, and they do not. It implies that the American bourgeois republic is something that is a 'better' alternative to Fascism, when the reality is that these reactionary nationalists are an vital instrument that helps to guarantee the survival of the capital and the bourgeois republic. If they posed any genuine threat to the current order, if Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi truly believed these people were actually an dangerous threat to their livelihoods and safeties, then there would have been a thorough investigation and purging of all responsible parties and organs. But there wasn't, because they're not — they're useful.
I am not understating the threat of Fascism or white nationalists. They are dangerous and I know this very well — My mother's birth certificate lists her race as 'negro' and I live not very far away from places where black men were lynched and transgender black women were killed last year in response to the George Floyd protests — but they cannot be effectively combated if we cannot recognize their actual nature and how they operate as a component in capital's myriad methods of hegemony.
No you're just completely ignoring what actually happened because you think it makes you a better leftist or something.
it doesn't. You have a shitty take on this.
What do you mean?
At the risk of being labelled a debate guy I'm gonna talk about a couple of things you said.
That explicitly wasn't the goal. Look at what Yeltsin did to Russia, parliament was opposed to him so he got rid of the parliament. These people weren't trying to form a new government they were trying to empower Trump.
There was though. There was deliberate actions taken by the capitol police, there was actions taken to delay response.
Considering their goal (as much as they had a goal) seems to be hostages and/or murder I think the sabotaged police response is extremely relevant and is probably the best argument for what makes this a legitimate attack vs a riot.
As much as we all shit on Amerikkka we should also acknowledge that collapse of America is likely to lead to immense amounts of suffering and death.
Acknowledging the attack for what it was cuts both ways. You can't insult people and call them libs and misrepresent their arguments while also refusing to actually do any real analysis of the situation. I don't think many (any?) are doing lib shit like claiming PTSD or demanding terrorism charges for everyone involved.
If they came through the right door and found someone like Omar, Tlaib, AOC, Bernie, etc... they probably kill them. Probably in horrific fashion with the entire country watching. I don't think it should be swept aside as lib shit, even though I think the democrats are and will handle it in awful fashion.
I hope you wouldn't be labeled a debate guy for elaborating on request, haha.
Yeltsin had control of the military, state media and etc. Some of the most fierce fighting (which would result in well over a hundred dead) occurred for control over a TV media complex which would play a crucial role in broadcasting pro-Yeltsin propaganda throughout the ordeal and Yeltsin's forces would end up besieging barricading, seizing bridges to ensure lockdown and etc.
Whether it's a autogolpe or coup d'etat, any meaningful attempt at seizing power actually requires an meaningful attempt at seizing power.
It was absolutely an legitimate attack. What I'm saying and explained in my post above is that the idea that this was an genuine, as in with any remotely coherent plan or chance at success, attempt to overthrow the state/American government by an force that is opposed to is a fundamental misunderstanding of American reactionaries and their role.
The continued existence of America leads to immense amounts of suffering and death, not only as a imperialist superpower responsible for upholding an hegemony that results in the preventable deaths of tens of millions every year but the inherent utter unsustainability of it's system both economically and geologically means that it's collapse and the consequences are also inevitable. There's no sense in subscribing to revolutionary communism if you reject the circumstances that would actually grant an opportunity for revolution.
Is this not 'real analysis?' https://hexbear.net/post/82941/comment/897804
All these people will approve budget bills that fund drone strikes on weddings, hospitals and orphanages. None of the resulting massacred peasant tenant farmers or guest workers will receive remotely the same attention precisely because they don't have cameras and the eyes of an entire country upon them.
We don't have the systems in place to deal with a revolutionary situation, which means we can't possibly win.
The problem is that Americas collapse could have almost unimaginable negative consequences for humanity, and those odds go way up when the only people with a platform or a base are insane reactionaries.
Or perhaps chapo style contrarianism is really just hipster socialist white privilege.
I urge you to read Catiline's post.
Well of course it is, but not everyone who adopts it has to be white.
fair enough. still a problem, though.