I was just thinking of how far my radicalization has come over the last year that I agree with the poster in the screenshot lol. (Except for the social democrats being fascists-lite, that's hyperbolizing just a little)
When Prophecy Fails but for socdem berniecrats, eventually they'll figure out that their obsession with an ideology that died in the 1970s is just as fringe and online as any other leftist tendency that can't get its head out of mid-twentieth century
Anyway I can't wait for AOC to start twitch streaming with these newly elected DSA members and finally rebuild the industrial welfare state
and here is a comment from @JoeySteel about other atrocities the socdems goverments of the US and UK supported
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
Since when is Jimmy Carter a socdem, wtf? Jimmy Carter was a run of the mill liberal who was I guess a little bit more progressive than most of the other ones. It is ridiculous to call the US social democratic at any point in its history except maybe for a brief time during the New Deal, and even that doesn't really count. Also look at the date of that Stalin quote, and look at the history of fascist movement. The circumstances under which that quote was produced have nothing to do with the subsequent history of fascism. And I don't understand why every wrong thing Stalin said must be taken as gospel.
Social democracy as it manifests in countries of the imperial core doesn't challenge imperialism. In periphery countries it is different. Fascism itself is not the same thing always, there is fascism as a movement before it takes power and fascism as a form of governance, which is still not the same as a "typical" imperialist liberal government (though I don't want to say that fascism is not fundamentally related to imperialism). This Stalin quote comes before the side of fascism in power was even really widely seen. The silliness of "social fascism" has been demonstrated every time communists have realized that they have to work with social democrats etc to fight the rise of fascism. The entire concept was developed in the framework of the Comintern's theory that the world was entering a new era of instability at which the social democrats (which, again, referred to particular parties in Europe, not every liberal) would be the main enemy of the communists as the entire world would try to rise up. This turned out to be extremely wrong and rejected in 1935. So I don't understand why people have to drag up mistaken concepts from 100 years ago as if we've learned nothing more about these things.
They weren't really in a position to stop it anyway. Social democrats fundamentally can't square the circle that their way of life still requires the same violence and robbery of the third world as laissez faire liberalism.
The U.S military just does the brunt of the dirty work, European and Canadian mining corporations are still extracting resources and commodities out of the countries that the U.S has by the throat.
Without warning, a dark van pulled in front of them and two armed men with rifles stepped out and opened fire. Claver was shot three times in the shoulder and once in the stomach. His wife was shot seven times in the chest. A bullet grazed their daughter’s head.
Just Right Wing Death Squads with more pragmatism and less excess.
What do you think most imperial clients state are like, in many Third World countries the state is the perfect union between the international and local corporate elites and the military, the only major historical difference between these states and the European fascist states is the defense industry is international instead of internal
It's the primary element and the one that matters the most, the only elements I didn't mention are the underlying conditions and the cult of nation, which frankly when talking about the political structures of third world states I assumed was a given lol
Those core elements of their ideology only concern the people inside their borders. Under globalization the excesses of fascism must necessarily be lanced away. Seizing territory is a 20th century phenomenon and explicitly reinforcing racial hierarchies hasn't been necessary in the United States.
The meritocratic self-justification of hierarchies and automatic self-neutralization of dissent under liberalism is materially far superior to any results that Hitler and Mussolini's old and inelegant methods could ever obtain.
I was just thinking of how far my radicalization has come over the last year that I agree with the poster in the screenshot lol. (Except for the social democrats being fascists-lite, that's hyperbolizing just a little)
When Prophecy Fails but for socdem berniecrats, eventually they'll figure out that their obsession with an ideology that died in the 1970s is just as fringe and online as any other leftist tendency that can't get its head out of mid-twentieth century
Anyway I can't wait for AOC to start twitch streaming with these newly elected DSA members and finally rebuild the industrial welfare state
It's all a part of the plan: 1.) Build socdem movement
2.) Build anti-war movement
3.) Build welfare state
4.) Make people fall in love with welfare state
5.) Use Anti-war movement to allow global south breaking out of supply chain
6.) Capitalism can't sustain welfare state
7.) Americans don't want to lose welfare state again
8.) ??????
9.) Chairperson Hirsi of the USSA denounces hexbear.su for liberal revisionism and has us put to the sword
The more likely scenario 1.) Attempt to build socdem movement
2.) Capitalism can’t sustain welfare state
3.) Attempt to build socdem movement...again
4.) Capitalism still can’t sustain the welfare state
5.) Attempt to build socdem movement one more time just for the heck of it
6.) Global South gets tired of waiting and decides to revolt against the global supply chain on its own
7.) America goes full fascist and triggers World War III
8.) Ten years after the post-atomic horror the Vulcans land
9.) ???
10.) FULL COMMUNISM
documenting this post for chairperson hirsi
:zefram-cochrane::bloomer: :geordi-yes:
deleted by creator
SocDems are historically fascist in regards to the Third World, not in relation to their own domestic politics
deleted by creator
Imperialism in the Third World manifests as fascism
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Socdem Jimmy carter supported the purges of communists in indonesia that saw 1 million communist killed
and here is a comment from @JoeySteel about other atrocities the socdems goverments of the US and UK supported
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
Since when is Jimmy Carter a socdem, wtf? Jimmy Carter was a run of the mill liberal who was I guess a little bit more progressive than most of the other ones. It is ridiculous to call the US social democratic at any point in its history except maybe for a brief time during the New Deal, and even that doesn't really count. Also look at the date of that Stalin quote, and look at the history of fascist movement. The circumstances under which that quote was produced have nothing to do with the subsequent history of fascism. And I don't understand why every wrong thing Stalin said must be taken as gospel.
Social democracy as it manifests in countries of the imperial core doesn't challenge imperialism. In periphery countries it is different. Fascism itself is not the same thing always, there is fascism as a movement before it takes power and fascism as a form of governance, which is still not the same as a "typical" imperialist liberal government (though I don't want to say that fascism is not fundamentally related to imperialism). This Stalin quote comes before the side of fascism in power was even really widely seen. The silliness of "social fascism" has been demonstrated every time communists have realized that they have to work with social democrats etc to fight the rise of fascism. The entire concept was developed in the framework of the Comintern's theory that the world was entering a new era of instability at which the social democrats (which, again, referred to particular parties in Europe, not every liberal) would be the main enemy of the communists as the entire world would try to rise up. This turned out to be extremely wrong and rejected in 1935. So I don't understand why people have to drag up mistaken concepts from 100 years ago as if we've learned nothing more about these things.
They weren't really in a position to stop it anyway. Social democrats fundamentally can't square the circle that their way of life still requires the same violence and robbery of the third world as laissez faire liberalism.
The U.S military just does the brunt of the dirty work, European and Canadian mining corporations are still extracting resources and commodities out of the countries that the U.S has by the throat.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4743/land-defenders-are-killed-in-the-philippines-for-protesting-canadian-mining
Just Right Wing Death Squads with more pragmatism and less excess.
deleted by creator
What do you think most imperial clients state are like, in many Third World countries the state is the perfect union between the international and local corporate elites and the military, the only major historical difference between these states and the European fascist states is the defense industry is international instead of internal
deleted by creator
It's the primary element and the one that matters the most, the only elements I didn't mention are the underlying conditions and the cult of nation, which frankly when talking about the political structures of third world states I assumed was a given lol
Those core elements of their ideology only concern the people inside their borders. Under globalization the excesses of fascism must necessarily be lanced away. Seizing territory is a 20th century phenomenon and explicitly reinforcing racial hierarchies hasn't been necessary in the United States.
The meritocratic self-justification of hierarchies and automatic self-neutralization of dissent under liberalism is materially far superior to any results that Hitler and Mussolini's old and inelegant methods could ever obtain.