Yea, they often will fund fascists abroad if it means extraction while being socdems at home, but I think it fits best to call them capitalist still. Before fascism, capitalists did imperialism and rained hell and horror upon colonized regions just as effectively. Social fascists tends to make the argument around "well domestically they aren't fascist", and allows some "left" capitalists to imply a type of non extractive non exploitative capitalism.
Social democrats are capitalists, which means they'll utilize imperialism and ally with fascists to suppress the working class abroad while defusing it at home.
In light of the typical socdem response in regards to the upcoming global mass migration as a result of climate change, it's probably a better idea to stick with the 'Social Fash' label
You can already see that playing out with ethnonationalists taking power across Norway and Sweden. Only a matter of time before the rest of the social democracies face the same contradictions.
And there aren't enough socialists in succdem Scandinavia to win that fight.
The socdem response doesn't make it fascist either is my point, capitalists are entirely capable of doing racism and whipping up racial fears themselves without becoming fascists. It makes the issue centered around "socdems are actually fascist" as if capitalists that aren't fascist aren't just as much a threat to communism and the proletariat or as capable of employing horrific policies.
Social democrats are capitalists, which means they’ll utilize imperialism and ally with fascists to suppress the working class abroad while defusing it at home.
This is why we call them social fascists. There is no distinction. The only reason communists stopped openly calling them that was because the Comintern saw the Second World War coming and desperately needed allies. At the end of this road is communism or barbarism, and the social democrats cannot decide which one they hate more.
The Comintern only called them fascists during a specific era which was right around when fascism started emerging as a phenomenon. It's extremely silly to claim there is no distinction and proven wrong in practice, especially when online American leftists don't even seem to understand how the different stuff they call "fascism" is different. People should start actually analyzing stuff instead of using old aphorisms and pretending it's actually insightful. Yeah, you CAN act like everything ever is literally the same, except then your analysis will be nonsense.
Then don't call them social fascists, call them what they are-capitalists. Capitalism is enemy of the proletariat and we should be clear about that rather than giving socdems a chance to go "well see we're personally anti-fascist in this or that way". If the end of this road is communism or barbarism, why attack them with "fascism", allowing some capitalists that would lead us to barbarity to pretend there's a middle ground? Unless you mean to extend fascism to everything, in which case you should just use capitalist because that's what those that oppose communism already are.
Yea, they often will fund fascists abroad if it means extraction while being socdems at home, but I think it fits best to call them capitalist still. Before fascism, capitalists did imperialism and rained hell and horror upon colonized regions just as effectively. Social fascists tends to make the argument around "well domestically they aren't fascist", and allows some "left" capitalists to imply a type of non extractive non exploitative capitalism.
Social democrats are capitalists, which means they'll utilize imperialism and ally with fascists to suppress the working class abroad while defusing it at home.
In light of the typical socdem response in regards to the upcoming global mass migration as a result of climate change, it's probably a better idea to stick with the 'Social Fash' label
You can already see that playing out with ethnonationalists taking power across Norway and Sweden. Only a matter of time before the rest of the social democracies face the same contradictions.
And there aren't enough socialists in succdem Scandinavia to win that fight.
The socdem response doesn't make it fascist either is my point, capitalists are entirely capable of doing racism and whipping up racial fears themselves without becoming fascists. It makes the issue centered around "socdems are actually fascist" as if capitalists that aren't fascist aren't just as much a threat to communism and the proletariat or as capable of employing horrific policies.
This is why we call them social fascists. There is no distinction. The only reason communists stopped openly calling them that was because the Comintern saw the Second World War coming and desperately needed allies. At the end of this road is communism or barbarism, and the social democrats cannot decide which one they hate more.
The Comintern only called them fascists during a specific era which was right around when fascism started emerging as a phenomenon. It's extremely silly to claim there is no distinction and proven wrong in practice, especially when online American leftists don't even seem to understand how the different stuff they call "fascism" is different. People should start actually analyzing stuff instead of using old aphorisms and pretending it's actually insightful. Yeah, you CAN act like everything ever is literally the same, except then your analysis will be nonsense.
Then don't call them social fascists, call them what they are-capitalists. Capitalism is enemy of the proletariat and we should be clear about that rather than giving socdems a chance to go "well see we're personally anti-fascist in this or that way". If the end of this road is communism or barbarism, why attack them with "fascism", allowing some capitalists that would lead us to barbarity to pretend there's a middle ground? Unless you mean to extend fascism to everything, in which case you should just use capitalist because that's what those that oppose communism already are.