Georgi Dmitrov:
>the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialist elements of finance capital.
Umberto Eco's 14 traits:
>cult of tradition, rejection of modernism, irrationalism/action for action’s sake, fear of difference, obsession with conspiracy, nationalism, glorification of struggle, contempt for weakness, selective populism, machismo, newspeak, treating dissent as treason.
Rajani Palme Dutt:
>Monopoly capitalism in crisis creating a dictatorship at the head of a manipulated petty bourgeois mass movement, resulting in the collapse of parliamentary liberalism under capitalism,
Normie Lib Political Science Definition:
>totalitarian authoritarian anti-liberal ultranationalism bulit on a myth of national rebirth, dictatorship, mass mobilization, and political violence
criticisms? thoughts?
67 posts and 15 image replies omitted.>>2816998>shut up<go spout morehe can't do both at the same time
Im confused
are communist okay with paligenetic ultranaiontism?
>>2817000Everyone is Rojava is dead because of your aanti Assad propaganda.
>>2816759>If even non-fascist states can do what you have deemed the key defining factor of fascism so long as it fails to stick I really don't see the definition as very valuable.My point is that Weimar didn't really have that feature. If they had implemented it and stuck with it, then I'd have no problem calling it fascist. However for most of the Weimar period the KPD operated openly and legally. Also in that context, I would consider the SPD to be an expression of working class politics since they still (in theory) maintained a commitment to socialist construction via reformist means. Like I said earlier, I think to qualify as fascist a state needs ti outlaw all working class politics (which includes democratic socialists despite what some hardliners will insist), not just MLs.
>Why does a concept have to be directly related to Communist politics to be accurate? Because the minutae of intra bourgeois politics aren't very important from a world-historical perspective. In the case of the US for example, it didn't matter that the Democrats or Republicans had slightly different preferences for how to confront the USSR. What was relevant was that they were both committed to destroying it. Similarly, I just don't think it's very important for world history and human socioeconomic evolution if the bourgeoisie argue amongst themselves openly or in private. The proletariat is the agent of world history in the capitalist era, therefore how a bourgeois state relates to the workers and their political movements is of supreme importance. When the Titanic is sinking, the location if the lifeboats is much more important than the arrangement of the deck chairs.
>What would you call that distinction, between a bourgeois system where bourgeois disputes are public and those where bourgeois disputes are suppressed?I would call one a bourgeois democracy and the other a bourgeois autocracy. However I would argue that a bourgeois autocracy isn't necessarily fascist, and that a bourgeois democracy can be.
>Would the attempted coup by Yoon Suk-yeol really have no effect on South Korean labor just because Communists are banned either way?It might, but that depends more on the content of their policies rather than the strict fact of autocracy vs democracy. South Korea is an interesting example actually, since in many ways the Park dictatorship was to the left of the "democratic" era, at least in terms of state planning vs market mechanisms. It's correct of course to observe that resorting to autocracy is likely to come along with terroristic repression of socialism, but this is correlation rather than causation. The same conditions that cause the bourgeoisie to accept autocracy also cause them to seek the eradication of socialism, and so the two often go together. However this isn't always the case, and there are examples of bourgeois autocracies that allowed at least some level of above ground communist organizing. Syria and Russia are good examples.
Ultimately though you're striking at the heart of why fascism is so slippery and hard to pin down. The fact is that the difference between fascism and liberalism is quantitative rather than qualitative. Fascism is just an intensification of trends, policies, and institutions which liberalism relies on as basic tools of bourgeois rule. As such the line between the two is inherently fuzzy and porous, and this is why I'm arguing that fascism and bourgeois democracy can actually coexist within the same state. This is especially the case when you consider how an imperialist country can use liberal methods of rule at home and fascist methods in its colonies, such that fascism has been described as the application of colonial methods of rule to the metropole. Just as liberalism in an imperialist country means liberalism for the metropole but fascism for the colonies, so too can you have liberalism for the bourgeoisie and fascism for the workers.
>>2817020I was and remain pro-Assad though. I also wouldn't consider the Syrian Ba'athists fascist since they allowed communists to operate legally, at least from the 80s onward. I was referring to Saddam and the Iraqi Ba'athists in that post.
>>2816549A sudden spike at one end in the cost of propagation due to the need for skilled labor and a sudden fall in the cost of propagation for unskilled labor due to the sudden industrialization of agriculture. So the state develops a well-paid labor aristocracy caste and a worked to death labor serf caste. The state also becomes intensely misogynist due to the changes in the cost of propagation.
>>2816965you see this is what i mean, it's not a proto-neoliberal economy simply because it happened to privatize itself, on the contrary because it likewise also nationalized industry for the purpose of its militarism
>>2817204
bordiga isn't exactly wrong in that sense, but that role simply got usurped by liberal corporatism
>>2817428I also forget–but add "Third Positionism" to that list of Fascism and its own claims for what it is.
By "Third Positionist", that means beyond Left or Right dichotomy.
>>2816968Islamic Revolution isn't really so fascistic IMHO.
>Islamic Revolution is your standard reactionary / traditionalist / integralist ultraclericalism counterrevolution against the Shah's progressive & secular policies
<Fascism (& Baathism) stresses the primacy of political & secular elements & nationalism
>Islamic Revolution developed into a multi-party/factional system as opposed to the Shah of Iran's one-party Rastakhiz Party system.
<Fascism is for one-party system & political totalitarianism (not theocracy).Doctrine of Fascism - Fascism has not taken De Maistre as its prophet>The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet.>Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry [ultra-clericalism].Arguably, the Shah of Iran was more fascistic, but ultimately neither the Islamic Revolution nor the Shah were fascists.
The Shah of Iran was advocating unitary state corporatism, the Shah of Iran was a nationalist (& concerned with those political & secular elements), the Shah of Iran formed a one-party system around the Rastakhiz Party, the Shah of Iran instituted subsidiary corporate bodies, etc…
>>2816977>In theory they were private, in practice a lot of the privatizated companies were given to nazi party members or linked to nazis.This is Nazi cope. In reality the private companies could overrule the Nazi and Hitler's own desires at will. How else would you explain companies literally refusing to expand production unless they were given gibs for free from the Nazis, and the Nazis complying with their demands? Compare this to modern China where the Dengists will literally rape you to death and disappear you for years if you dare to have your company disobey the party.
The Communists were 100% correct about Fascists being total cucks for capitalists.
>>2817489Grace-Anon, that's because the world-historical significance of a state or movement depends on the context in which it exists, and the totality of its interactions with the world. It's dialectics.
>>2816984glowie projecting and literally doing revisionist history of the site
>>2816985actual oldfag who knows what's up
anyone can go into the booru and see that non-ML memes are actually MORE common the further back in time you go. if anything the site has become more ML over the years.
>>2818180>if anything the site has become more ML over the yearsI've been here since 2015 and can definitely confirm. Stirnerposting and Bookchinposting used to be commonplace. Anarchists, Trots, and leftcoms had a strong presence. The dominance of MLs didn't take shape until the split over Rojava back in 2017-2018.
>>2817513>>2816977>>2816965>>2816910So who the fuck is right here? Proto neolib Nazi or dirigisme Nazi???
>>2817513>This is Nazi cope. In reality the private companies could overrule the Nazi and Hitler's own desires at will. How else would you explain companies literally refusing to expand production unless they were given gibs for freewhich is dirigsme, uygha. In the miti japan example, companies could directly refuse. Its just sometimes they wont get gibs in return which sometimes pressured companies to follow state plans. But even with that companies could actively refuse to follow the state
>Dengists will literally rape you to death and disappear you for years if you dare to have your company disobey the party.china isnt dirigsme. Its a socialist economy
>>2819473 (me)
also recall i said can come in different forms. The issue with dirigsme is that it has been applied to many different economies that may look simmilar in first glance but in practice they were different.
Dirigsme has been applied to economies that were mainly inductive planning:
japan
Dirigsme has been applied to economies which were more so top down:
south korea
And dirigsme has been applied to economies which were extremely command based:
china
the term is kinda loaded tbh
>>2817513> How else would you explain companies literally refusing to expand production unless they were given gibs for free from the Nazis, and the Nazis complying with their demandsNot always tho? For example, when german steel makers refused to follow the german 1937 four year plan, the state instead of conceding made a direct competitor to the private companies. This being the Reichswerke AG for Ore Mining and Iron
Meanwhile there were cases where the nazi state forciably nationalized large companies. When the Junkers Flugzeugwerke refused to follow nazi control, the state just flat out nationalized it
>>2816817The only good definition?
>>2817333>le great alibi, written by some anonymous person, desperately alleged to be written by Bordiga with no proof by simpletons >two links to his actual word, which contradicts your point if you actually demonstrated literacy / integrityDo you consider yourself sentient? I think it's debatable.
>>2819473>>2819478>>2819486Why don't you uyghas source some shit from time to time. Some books or something
https://libcom.org/article/against-anti-fascism-amadeo-bordigas-last-interviewThis is amazing. So much online yapping about Bordigism is just such strawman bullshit.
>Interviewer: In August of 1922 the was a last series of great strikes before the March on Rome. In that moment, with Fascism on the verge of seizing power, was the weapon of the strike still adequate to the situation? Did you still believe in the possibility of revolution?>Bordiga: I reiterate my historical assessment that the last clash between Italian proletarian groups and the Fascist squads – with the full backing of state powers – was the great national strike of August 1922. The Communist Party of Italy, both in its internal propaganda and in lively discussions at the international congresses, had already spoken against the strategy of forming a league among different political parties. We only accepted the hotly-debated stance of creating a single trade union front, while rejecting any political fronts or blocs. The main reason for this choice is that the latter would have required a supreme hierarchical body, to which the parties would have owed their allegiance. This carried the unacceptable risk the the forces of our party be compelled to act for objectives that contrasted with those dictated by our doctrine and historical vision, and that we could never relinquish. In Italy, while the political front would have led to the already rejected alliance with the reformist and maximalist parties, the trade union front could have accommodated the great General Confederation of Labour, alongside the Italian Workers’ Union (which had opposed the war) and the robust Rail Workers’ Union. The propaganda and organisational work required by this trade union front, which we called Labour Alliance, were already advanced by 1922. The political bloc would have led to a weak parliamentary grouping working towards the other strategic objective that we fiercely opposed in Moscow: namely, the ‘workers’ government’. The Labour Alliance, on the contrary, could have accommodated the rigorously revolutionary and Marxist methods of the general strike and the armed civil struggle to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie, which was in the hands of the Fascists.This "Labour Alliance" tactic as he calls it in the early 20s is basically what the COMINTERN (incl. Stalin very explicitly) came around to in a more in the later 20s in the Third Period call "United Front from Below".
>Interviewer: As the leader of the Communist Party, you have been accused of having underestimated, in 1921, the strength of Fascism, regarding it as a bourgeois phenomenon similar to others that preceded it, and to have failed to oppose it with sufficient energy when it would have still been possible to defeat it. Why did you oppose above all socialists, maximalists and reformists, who could have been useful allies against Fascism?>Bordiga: Our faction always rejected the thesis that Fascism could be opposed by a bloc of the three parties into which the old Italian Socialist Party had fractured – communists, reformists and maximalists. This is not a position we took in 1921 – as your question wrongly implies – and I refer you to the documents we tabled in Livorno, as well as before and after that Congress. We always regarded the other parties produced by the splits of Livorno and Milan as our most dangerous enemies, because their residual influence was openly opposed to preparing for the revolution. This thesis can be found in our conclusions at the Italian Communist Congresses of Rome (1922) and Lyon (1926), but had an even earlier origin. At the Socialist Congress of Bologna, in 1919, we invoked the opinion of Lenin, who – with a telegram to the leaders of the successful Hungarian revolution – criticised their grave mistake of inviting the socialists of that country into the dictatorial government. This, according to Lenin, was the cause of the eventual failure of that revolution. It ought to have been clear to everyone, then, that the Italian communists would reject any alliance with the socialists, both during the struggle to seize power and after (should that struggle have succeeded). As for my assessment of the historical phenomenon of Fascism, I can point to as many as three speeches I gave at the congresses in Moscow of 1922, 1924 and 1926. Here, I presented Fascism as but one of the forms through which the capitalist bourgeois State asserts its dominion, to be employed as an alternative to liberal democracy according to the needs of the dominant classes (parliaments being more useful in certain historical conditions to promote the interests of the bourgeoisie). The use of force and of police repression was dramatically exemplified in Italy by Crispi, Pelloux and many others, whenever the bourgeois state could benefit from trampling over the much-vaunted rights of freedom of propaganda and organisation. The often bloody historical precedents of these means of oppression prove that the recipe was not invented or pioneered either by the Fascists or their leader, ᴉuᴉlossnW, but was much older. The text of those speeches of mine can be found in the proceedings of the world congresses, and will certainly be republished by our current in the future. Departing from the theories articulated by Gramsci and by the centrists of the Italian Party, we disputed that Fascism could be understood as a contest between the agrarian, land-owning and rentier bourgeoisie – on one hand – and the more modern, industrial and commercial bourgeoisie on the other. Undoubtedly, the agrarian bourgeoisie can be said to be connected with right-wing Italian movements, just as Catholics and clerical-moderates, while the industrial bourgeoisie was closer to the parties of the political left which used to be known as ‘the laity’. The Fascist movement was certainly not oriented against one of these two poles, but aimed to block the offensive of the revolutionary proletariat, fighting for the conservation of all social forms of the private economy. We steadfastly maintained that the real enemy and foremost danger was not Fascism, much less ᴉuᴉlossnW the man, but rather the anti-fascism that Fascism – with all of its crimes and infamies – would have created. This anti-fascism would breathe life into that great poisonous monster, a great bloc comprising every form of capitalist exploitation, along with all of its beneficiaries: from the great plutocrats down to the laughable ranks of the half-bourgeois, intellectuals and the laity.TRUE.
>Interviewer: In the early years of the Communist Party, there was a significant degree of political convergence between you and Gramsci. However, after 1922 a rift started to form, culminating in your expulsion from the Party, in 1930. What was the reasons for this rift? And what were the reasons for your expulsion?>Bordiga: […] In 1922, I thought that this split should be followed by a phase of open struggle, even war, between the party that aimed to foment a cataclysmic revolution in order to destroy the capitalist social order and the others, which believed it possible to use the legal means the bourgeois regime gave to its own enemies in order to correct it through a slow evolution and transformation of its internal structures, without recourse to violent or adversarial means. Gramsci’s thought, instead, went through an evolution (or perhaps an involution) concerning the dynamics that led to the birth of new class parties from the ashes of the traditional ones. Since it was clear that each of the parties that emerged from the split could count, quantitatively, on a smaller support than before, he began to accept the idea that it would be best to for the two structurally detached wings to form a common front or bloc, using both legal and illegal means. This historical formula, which I have always regarded as arrant nonsense, was articulated in this rather inelegant phrase: ‘March apart, strike together.’ Gramsci believed that our party would have been much stronger had we accepted to form an alliance with the Socialist Party or even just with its robust left-wing, as suggested by Moscow. This, in my opinion, only goes to prove that Moscow was already deviating from the right revolutionary path dictated by Marx and Lenin. In the historical sequence of the episodes that provide the context for these questions and answers, we have already touched upon many of the issues on which Gramsci’s opinion and mine diverged. However, all our disagreements originated from a single dispute on the ideological and – I’m tempted to say – philosophical basis for the breaking out of class revolution. This is what I told Gramsci at the Congress in Lyon during my seven-hour speech (he had spoken before me, for nearly as long). Both of us described in great detail the solutions we advocated to the problems facing Italian communists in their various fields of activity. At the end of this exchange, I turned to Antonio and told him that one has no right to call oneself a Marxist, nor a historical materialist, just for accepting certain thesis as the baggage of one’s party – whether they concern trade union or economic action, parliamentary tactics, or questions relating to race, religion, culture. Rather, marching together under that political flag requires sharing the same fundamental ideas about the universe, history and the role of humanity within it. It was many years ago, but I recall with certainty that Antonio said he agreed with my formulation of that fundamental conclusion, and admitted in fact to have only just glimpsed that important truth. I do not offer this objective account of the relationship between Gramsci and me as a way to explain my expulsion from the party, therefore from the Communist International, to which your question refers. This was to take place in 1930. At the time, I had been freed from the police confinement ordered by the Fascists. The only news I received of the expulsion came from the mainstream press, which stated as the reason my refusal to travel to Moscow for a new congress. I had no medium with which to defend myself from that accusation. At any rate, I said then and reiterate now that neither the Committee in Moscow nor the Italian party ever extended me that invitation. Had the invitation reached me together with the practical means of accepting it, just as in Lyon – in agreement with all my comrades of the left current – I had refused to be included in the leadership of the Italian Party (as testified by a very harsh final statement that was read out at the Congress), so too I would have rejected the invitation to go to Moscow. The Sixth Worldwide Communist Congress was held in Moscow in 1928, and I didn’t take part in it. I later learned that, at the behest of Stalin, a new political tactic was adopted, concerning what came to be known as ‘social-fascism’. It was decided that all Fascist and social-democratic parties should be considered enemies of Moscow and of Communism. This was an abandonment of the tactic of the united socialist front. Later, in the official communist press (and after the well-known expulsion of the three Italian dissenters Leonetti, Tresso and Ravazzoli), came the admission that the tactic had been advocated ahead of time by left Italian communists. I wrote it in an article as early as 1921: ‘Fascists and social-democrats are but two aspects of tomorrow’s single enemy.’IMMORTAL SCIENCE. HIS SLANDER IN THE PRESENT ERA COINCIDES WITH OUR INABILITY TO COMPLETE THE HISTORICAL TASK. WHO AMONGST YOU CANNOT DISPENSE WITH YOUR RADICAL LIBERALISM? IT PERMEATES EVERY COMMUNIST MILIEU. YOU DO NOT ATTACK WITH MORE FORCE BY DONATING HALF OF YOUR BODY TO A FACTION OF THE BOURGEOISIE AS THE REMAINING FACTION STRIKES YOU IN FEAR.
>>2820029 (me)
<This "Labour Alliance" tactic as Bordiga calls it in the early 20s is basically what the COMINTERN (incl. Stalin himself, very explicitly) came around to in the late 20s in a very belated fashion. COMINTERN then called this tactic the "United Front from Below"*. >>2817333auschwitz or the great alibi, wasn't written by bordiga, it was almost certainly written by an associate of his, it also makes a great point about the holocaust and the appal at obvious atrocities like it, but not the mundane, typical abuses, you see people hand-wringing about the cambodian genocide or the rwandan genocide, but have nothing to say about these countries and their economic exploitation of their workers, also his point on fascism is from 1922! hardly a good source in the era where they obviously fell apart
>>2819904they might be sentient, but sapient is barely met, but you can't expect anything else from anti-leftcommunist liar who doesn't even read the text in question when attempting to deliever slander, instead just posting it and going "ha, he's so wrong" without even highlighting a sentence in the text in question
>>2816549Fascism is defined by the works of fascists just as Marxism is defined by the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin etc
>>2817513“The decree of February 28, 1933, nullified article 153 of the Weimar Constitution which guaranteed private property and restricted interference with private property in accordance with certain legally defined conditions… The conception of property has experienced a fundamental change. The individualistic conception of the State—a result of the liberal spirit—must give way to the concept that communal welfare precedes individual welfare.”
— Günter Reimann, The Vampire Economy
“The destruction of the labour movement in the following months convinced many businessmen that they were right to back the new regime. But as time went on, businessmen found that the regime had its own objectives that increasingly diverged from their own. Chief of these was the ever more frenetic drive to rearm and prepare for war. Initially, business was happy to accommodate itself to this objective, which brought it renewed and then increased orders. Even consumer goods producers benefited from the armaments-driven economic recovery. But within a few years, as the regime’s demands began to outstrip German industry’s capacity to fulfil them, industrialists’ doubts began to grow. Few industrialists’ reactions to this process were as sharp as those of the steel boss Fritz Thyssen, whose support of the Nazi Party before 1933 was as extreme as the extent of his disillusion with the movement six years later. In 1939 Thyssen bitterly condemned the state’s direction of the economy and prophesied that the Nazis would soon start shooting industrialists who did not fulfill the conditions prescribed by the Four-Year Plan, just as their equivalents were shot in Soviet Russia. He fled abroad after the outbreak of the war, his property was confiscated by the Gestapo, and he was subsequently arrested in France and put into a concentration camp.”
— Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich In Power
Bump
I am this fucking close to making an autistic chart tracking line changes in the Comintern, historically situated, and as basis for subsequent political lines for different tendencies in Marxism
>>2816549Authoritarian capitalism
day 6 million of the left psyopping itself about fascism to avoid talking about relevant things going on today
>>2822700The bourgeoisie clearly want to switch to fascism though. Trump wanting to be a king and empowering paramilitary units, the EU Commission overriding regional governments, increased military spending in all countries, constant promotion of ethnic hatreds. It's all going to lead to fascism even if no Westoid country has crossed the Rubicon over to implementing an actual fascist dictatorship. And unlike the 20th century the left is not organized and has no response.
>>2822706>And unlike the 20th century the left is not organized and has no response.so why keep going on about it
>>2822713Forewarned is forearmed.
>>2816549I like the 14 tenets but it's almost impossible to memorize and explain to someone who doesn't want to hear a bunch of theory
>>2822728You have no response thoughbeit
>>2816825>>2816631>>2816620>>2816552>>2816943>>2816975>>2822706Literally all of them are wrong. It’s an evolution of syndicalism mixed with Bonapartism. Even the Soviets understood it in that context. Only post 1960s Western leftists tried linking it to liberal capitalism because they wanted to frame themselves(university intellectuals)as resisting fascist tyranny.
If anyone tries to argue that the US or some illiberal third-world country (like mine) is Fascist, they’ve already shown themselves to be retarded and not worth taking seriously
>>2822706No, they don’t. The current system already works perfectly for them. Western leftists need to move away from this “anti-Christ” ideological mindset, because they project every negative trait they dislike onto Fascism. you are chasing windmills
>>2822828ML states and Fascists evolved similar Governmental and nationalist system
>>2822838>The Beatles like it was a fascist music group. Like we get Eurovision fascism.This is it, this is all western leftist theory
Unique IPs: 28