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?
Dutt's is most accurate I think. Dmitrov seems to underestimate the role of the petty bourgeoisie in shaping fascism. It's been a while since I read The Fascist Offensive, but iirc he essentially argues that it originates with the big bourgeoisie and is tailored to bring the petty bourgeoisie on board as footsoldiers. In reality it originates with the petty bourgeoisie and adapts itself to the big bourgeoisie in order to take and secure power, shedding its petty bourgeois ecclecticism in the process. This is also why some people argue that certain far right autocracies like those of Franco or Pinochet are not strictly speaking fascist, since they originated among the wealthiest classes in those countries and weren't as concerned with populism or an alternative, reactionary "revolution" the way the Nazis or Italian fascists were. Personally however I think the difference is academic. Any country in which there is no legal space for socialist organizing is fascist for all intents and purposes, even if it still has a multi party system, a legislature with actual power, competitive elections, etc. Russia is effectively a one party state, and yet it is objectively farther from fascism than Ukraine because legal socialist organizing is possible in the former, but not the latter.
>>2816552"Modern" falangists of both the IRL and online persuasion are so fucking funny. Sorry chuds but Franco and co. absolutely liquidated you and helped make Spain more reliant on tourism.
>>2816552>Any country in which there is no legal space for socialist organizing is fascist for all intents and purposesI think there is a meaningful difference between Weimar and Nazi Germany, even though the Weimar government also had Communists banned periodically. You can also see it with Japan in the 1930s versus in the early 1940s, Communism was banned either way but I think the anti-Communist bourgeois system of government has a clear meaningful difference: Whether bourgeois criticism of the government's policies is allowed in the press, basically, if freedom of speech exists for the part of the bourgeoisie which lost out on shaping government policy.
Fascism is when my neighbor is my enemy whom I must be careful what I say or do around
>>2816569>even though the Weimar government also had Communists banned periodicallyThose bans were fleeting and sporadic though. For the most part communists were allowed to operate legally and did so quite effectively. I'd also argue that to qualify as fascist this kind of repression should include socialists in general, not just MLs.
>Whether bourgeois criticism of the government's policies is allowed in the press, basically, if freedom of speech exists for the part of the bourgeoisie which lost out on shaping government policy.That's an interesting point to raise, but honestly I don't think that's enough to preclude a state from being fascist. Pretty much every state has a spectrum of acceptable political opinion, the range of views that it will tolerate, outside of which repression becomes the standard, official response. I think that what sets fascism and liberalism apart (insofar as they are different) is that in a liberal state this spectrum includes working class politics. In short, liberalism allows the workers a legal voice whereas fascists do not. If the workers are excluded from above ground politics then I don't really see the relevance of the bourgeoisie bickering amongst themselves. It's similar to the distinction between a feudal society with an absolute monarchy and one with a strong and relatively independent nobility. From the perspective of a peasant, the difference is pretty minor.
>>2816574>I think that what sets fascism and liberalism apart (insofar as they are different) is that in a liberal state this spectrum includes working class politicsWorking class politics was explicitly banned by the liberal Japanese bourgeois democratic system in 1925, but again, I think there's a clear difference between that system to the bourgeois system in place in 1941. Fascist states do not allow the losing bourgeois faction to make a big mess by sowing division in the press, making the bourgeoisie spend its resources fighting itself like how the US Republicans make huge culture wars for every token policy the Democrats propose.
In fascist states these disputes are to be brought up behind closed doors. This is why in Germany certain pro-Nazi capitalists like Hjalmar Schacht became disillusioned; the Nazis went along with other competing financiers and he was left without a means to push his politics.
>>2816578I get your point Anon, I just don't think that fascism ought to be defined by whether or not the bourgeoisie are allowed to bicker amongst themselves in public. In both cases communists would need to operate underground, through clandestine means, etc. From a practical perspective of organiaing and waging the struggle the difference is negligible. Surely these things should be assessed in terms of their world historical significance, and their effect on class struggle no?
>>2816581I'll second this, his analysis seemed the most grounded and the least contaminated by political imperatives the way Dmitrov was. During the Popular Front era in particular there was something of a desire to downplay the role of the petty bourgeoisie in fascism since they considered them a potential partner in a broad anti-fascist coalition that included liberals (iirc Dmitrov mentions them specifically as a class formation that could be brought into this coalition). I think this contributed to his mistakes.
Somewhere between all four.
If we look at the median of regimes that people generally agree to fascist, the underlying trend is developed capitalism with the absence of liberalism. It's a political doctrine that preserves the social relations of capitalism, while abandoning liberal democracy and civil liberties in favor of strong, blunt state control. What exactly this looks like, and how exactly we get to it, varies from place to place, but the overall combination of elements is undeniable.
>>2816620I think what this definition neglects are the mass mobilizing features of fascism. It's not simply brute-force repression it's mass games, mass rallies, mass rituals, marches and all kinds of really scary shit (which is also pretty alien to most of us, people living in the 21st century). Togliatti stressed that it has to also be understood as a party and a movement that mobilized the masses.
I suspect that this might make communists uncomfortable because communists also did these things. But I don't mean that in some horseshoe theory sort of way because the ends are very different.
Each are accurate, to the point where I don't see any reason not to synthesize them together.
>>2816582If that's your point of view you are falling into the same trap that the KPD fell into when they called Weimar fascist when they passed laws banning Communists. Genuine questions, do you really see South Korea as a fascist state? Is there really not so much distincting it from when it was under Park Chung-hee or Rhee Syng-man? All socialist activity is still banned but I think calling it a fascist country would be silly considering we have a blatantly fascist era we can compare it to.
I have not had the time to do it myself yet but I want to warn the anons in this thread from simplifying rather than complicating this thread.
The question in the OP need to be further expanded into the consequences it ends up in in regards to United Front, United Front from Below and Popular Front tactics.
>>2816631They are not.
>>2816620Lazy.
>Wobbly-flag postsWobbly-flag user is VWobbly, a mod which false-flags for no reason and is actually always perpetuating right-wing revisionist ML talking-points.
Show your literacy ITT comrades!
>>2816549Umberto Eco's definition is uniquely bad because all of these traits are present in every single modern state and they were even more present for all of human history.
It's what a liberal says when they're trying to gaslight you.
>yeah, we don't have any conspiracy theories, trusted snopes experts verified that everything bad is an asiatic plot from the russians, chinese, iranians etc>no we don't support two whole ultranationalist countries with artificial languages and identities that objectively did not exist before we forced it, they were always real since 9000 bce and the land was promised to them>yeah displaying a soviet flag at may 9th celebration is basically a crime (not even dissent)Or go tell a roman emperor that he shouldn't be so obsessed with conspiracies. Or Martin Luther that he shouldn't be so antisemitic.
It's so disconnected from reality. The normie lib definition is also shit because it basically exists to stroke liberal egos.
Dimitrov and Dutt's definitions are both good. Dutt's definition is probably the best a historian can do with the "commonly accepted idea" of fascism. Dimitrov's definition is the actually useful one but it doesn't correspond with the commonly accepted idea of what fascism is because the country that took up the mantle immediately after Hitler died has cultural hegemony.
>>2816645Eco wasn't proposing a definition, he was listing out a series of traits that fascist social movements like. And Martin Luther wasn't antisemitic, antisemitism emerges in the 19th century as a rejection of theological anti-Judaism.
>>2816634>If that's your point of view you are falling into the same trap that the KPD fell into when they called Weimar fascist when they passed laws banning CommunistsBut again, those laws weren't in place for long. Also I would concede that there can be significant differences between different types of fascistic repression, such as just banning a party vs hunting down and exterminating all of its members. I think the KPD's mistake was simply not considering the latter to be a possibility. If you really want to separate an otherwise liberal state that bans communism from a "real" fascist one that eradicates it, perhaps that could be the distinction. I suppose that's a take I could agree with since it actually separates fascists from liberals according to how their actions impact the class struggle, rather than how they impact intra-bourgeois politics. Theoretically however, such severe repression could still take place in an otherwise liberal state with a multi-party legislature, free bourgeois press, etc.
>do you really see South Korea as a fascist state?I would say so. I mean, what value are the ROK's "liberal" institutions to socialists if we can't use them as a medium of class struggle?
For a long time, during an idealist phase I went through while studying Hegel, I had thought that fascism also has to do with ancien regime Sittlichkeit trying to adapt itself with modern conditions of civil society. This is of course too abstract, has no class analysis, no political content whatsoever. But it seems to me that, since fascism arose precisely in countries that where second or later in line in industrialization and bourgeois domination, the vicinity or sediment of ancien regime relations has something to do with it, at least historically. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's the main factor like someone said in a thread a few days ago though.
>>2816716>But again, those laws weren't in place for long.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.
>I would say so. I mean, what value are the ROK's "liberal" institutions to socialists if we can't use them as a medium of class struggle?Why does a concept have to be directly related to Communist politics to be accurate? Does the distinction between a parliamentary or presidential republic not exist because they're both forms of bourgeois politics? Why is it somehow of more value to say that both contemporary RoK and the RoK under Park Chung-hee are both similarly fascist and lose the clear distinction between the two?
Is the big difference between Italy under ᴉuᴉlossnW and before really just that Gramsci was thrown in prison, and nothing else? No, there was a clear change in the bourgeois political system.
And that change is a reflection of real difference in how the bourgeoisie treats the working class, as a bourgeoisie giving up its own freedom to culture war is a bourgeoisie trying to put all hands on deck in a crisis situation. So it will be waging class war with a marked intensity. A fascist dictatorship is a more efficient means of waging class war because it works to reduce inter-bourgeois conflict, which is seen now as wasteful. Of course inter-bourgeois disputes still emerge because its capitalism, but fascism is unlike bourgeois democracy in that such disputes are demonized rather than celebrated. What would you call that distinction, between a bourgeois system where bourgeois disputes are public and those where bourgeois disputes are suppressed? Why is this not a phenomenon you would tie with Fascism? Is this not a key change brought about by historical fascist seizures of power? I think the phenomenon you notice, the overwhelming repression of proletarian politics, is downstream from this point, that the bourgeoisie even want to throw their own rights overboard because the situation is dire, and thus any policy to keep the proletariat down is acceptable.
>what value are the ROK's "liberal" institutionsWould the attempted coup by Yoon Suk-yeol really have no effect on South Korean labor just because Communists are banned either way? A non-Communist Korean has a very different relation to the state now versus back in the day, they are much more politically engaged as they may be active in non-state-backed mass movements, even if South Korea lacks class consciousness and thus socialism makes up little of their expression of class interest. This is why I think a South Korean Communist would indeed have to change his approach to appeal to Korean workers in modern RoK versus back then. Basically, empowering the bourgeois faction who wanted Yoon's fascist coup would mean empowering a bourgeois faction desperate to wage total class war. The liberals who were against it are liberals who do not see the need for escalation of class war so pressing.
Fascism is when white people exist
>>2816747
Ive said this millions of time fascism is just liberalism with all the contradictions resolved to their fullest
fascism is national syndicalism. It is sorealinism.
>>2816906he was a nationalist for a bit but then realized it was utter nonsense right after ww1, national syndicalism on the other hand is fascist but not all fascists were national syndicalists, we'd hardly call the nazi economy "national syndicalist" when it resembled dirigisme far more than most economic systems
>>2816828it isn't, not really anyways, it's more or less an illiberal, ultranationalist formation prioritizing aspects like hypermilitarism and revanchism, obviously it being "illiberal" (here meaning something that is descended from liberalism, but rejects its core tenets) means it is indeed its son, but in practice it's more or less a formation created and empowered by the failures of liberal democracy, in part this is why it doesn't really exist anymore, since instead after the second world war it was realized you could do all of that of the fascists without entirely rejecting liberal tradition
the one thing we can all DEFINITELY all agree on is that the USA today, right now, is fascist.
The USA is a fascist country. USA society is a fascist society.
>>2816915National socialism wasnt true fascism tho. The only true fascism is italian fascism
I‘d say besides the liberal bullshit all three are true. Dutt explains why it exists, Dmitrov explains whyt it is, and Eco explains how it usually expresses itself once in power.
>>2816926I wouldn't even say the liberal definition is "wrong" so much as it's kinda shallow. Like yes, authoritarianism, hostility to liberal democracy, the coopting of mass politics and endorsement of violence and war as a creative and cleansing force are all things fascist governments do. But the normie liberal definition doesn't actually explain WHY these governments do these things nor how they come to power in the first place, treating them like a spooky anomaly when in truth it's the natural progression of capitalism in crisis
>>2816572I'm reporting you to the stazi for writing this
>>2816620>developed capitalism with the absence of liberalismexactly right. capitalism can be organized into many different forms
>>2816626liberalism is inherently international which is incompatible with german national socialism which placed the lowliest german worker above the rights and privileges of the highest foreign bourgeoise. there is certainly a national movement at play there which communists also utilize
Dmitrov is the worst one, wouldt it even apply to ᴉuᴉlossnW? Are fascista who fail to acquire patronage of big finance not fascists?
Umber and polsci are good, accurately describing core components while leaving wiggle room for variations of political movement as they actually exist in real world.
Dmutt has similar issue as Dmitrov in that it only describes fascism which solidified its power, not as a political movement during its entire lifespam.
>>2816943>Dmitrov is the worst one, wouldt it even apply to ᴉuᴉlossnW? Are fascista who fail to acquire patronage of big finance not fascists?There were also a lot of minor fascist movements which i doubt all of them were under the patronage of big finance.
>>2816945Even major ones. Like how much finance capital was even there in pre-WW2 Yugoslavia, Romania or Hungary?
>>2816946yeah true. Dmitrov defintion doesnt hold up to scrutunity.
so im talking to a friend and hes telling me the islamic revolution had a lot of fascist elements to the point it could be considered a fascist one
Normie Lib Political Science Definition:
>totalitarian authoritarian anti-liberal ultranationalism bulit on a myth of national rebirth, dictatorship, mass mobilization, and political violence
is this true? Also supposedly islamic revolution had leftist elements like early fascism did
list of actually existing fascist countries:
USA
>>2816947Liberal conception of fascism omits its class dynamic, however general approach of listing common traits rather than attempting to create a rigid definition is certainly more correct one.
>>2816946>HungaryThe Horthy regime didn't have a petty bourgeois revolutionary class base though.
>>2816645>It's what a liberal says when they're trying to gaslight you.<yeah, we don't have any conspiracy theories, trusted snopes experts verified that everything bad is an asiatic plot from the russians, chinese, iranians etcI agree with your broader point that his definition is weak, but your criticism is also weak here.
umberto eco didn't say any of that. liberal accusations of "conspiracy theory" which are usually false are not the same as actual schizo rightoid conspiracy theories, which is what eco was referring to.
>>2816943>Are fascista who fail to acquire patronage of big finance not fascists?ᴉuᴉlossnW was literally supported by british intelligence, and the british were the world capital of finance at the time.
>>2816637phonekiddies, you will have to open in new tab
>>2816948>so im talking to a friend and hes telling me the islamic revolution had a lot of fascist elements to the point it could be considered a fascist oneHe's not wrong tbh (I'd say the same thing about Ba'athists as well), but the absence of an indigenous imperialist bourgeoisie in the third world alters the class dynamics at play. Fascist states in the third world can only either be national or comprador bourgeois, and thus in the former case can still take on a (limited and conditional) progressive role. Additionally, in the absence of a local monopoly-finance bourgeoisie, fascism in the third world has a tendency to retain a lot more of its petty bourgeois eclectic characteristics. A third world fascism aligned with monopoly finance capital is technically possible, but would necessarily be aligned with a foreign imperialist bourgeoisie and thus comprador. This is the real difference I think between a Pinochet and a Saddam.
>>2816918Keep in mind, Most of Sorel's disciples remained on the left. Including Georges Valois, who created the first French fascist party. But drifted back to the left, after he saw Fascism in action. And died as part of the resistance against the Nazi occupation.
I will leave a PDF on Valois.
"From Fascism to Libertarian Communism: George Valois Against the Third Republic" by Allen Douglas.
>>2816970It’s almost like the difference between leftism and fascism is purely aesthetic and leftism isn’t communism
>>2816971what made you come to leftypol.org
>>2816970hmm thank you for the pdf
>>2816549The USA perfectly fits all those definitions.
>>2816965I wouldnt say this is accurate. In theory they were private, in practice a lot of the privatizated companies were given to nazi party members or linked to nazis. Dirigsme also comes in many different forms, it can also mean where private but still "guided" by the state.
>>2816915Yeah all contradictions resolved. All those odd exceptions of liberalism that claim to care about humanity have been exposed for the immaterial nonsense they are. Thats fascism.
>>2816968so fascism can be progessive depending on the material conditions. And because of the material conditions it most likely will be different than the big og fascisms.
hmm
>>2816977>it can also mean where private but still "guided" by the state.it can also mean where privat capital dominates the economy but its still guided by the state. Miti japan fits this definition
>>2816915You have described the current modern contemporary USA of today.
>>2816973You’re clearly a newfag imported from Bluesky or you’d know that the term “leftypol” was always an informal tongue in cheek label for the loose collection of Marxist Leninists that found /pol/ less restrictive on free speech than Reddit or Twitter. It was never meant to be a safe space for the western left
>>2816984Uygha this site has been extremely ideologically varied since 8chan, what are you talking about
>>2816974You're welcome. 👍
>>2816979>so fascism can be progessive depending on the material conditionsYes, assuming of course you believe that the national bourgeoisie can be progressive, which plenty of people don't (and there are good reasons to think so).
>>2816968Shut up anarkiddy go spout more CIA propaganda. The Islamic Revolution and Baathism fed millions and breathed new life into the Middle East fighting imperialism the whole time.
>>2816998I'm not denying any of that, but they still engaged in terroristic repression of communists and made legal working class politics impossible. This is the most important feature of fascism from a historical materialist perspective.
>>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
>>2822700
The 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.
>>2822713
Forewarned 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
>>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
>>2816549Fascism is just a kind of Neo-Confederate phenomenon. A vassal of the imperial core exhausts its local resources and must secede and aggressively expand in order to preserve outmoded production relations such as forced labor.
The USA is fascist.
>>2822838>they'd cover The Beatles like it was a fascist music groupthey were basically the heralds of neoliberalism.
>>2823392an actually interesting definition.
>>2820029>This is amazing. So much online yapping about Bordigism is just such strawman bullshit.online bordigists have almost nothing to do with bordiga.
>>2823460>>2823392Funny thing is, if there was an American socialist revolution in the south, it would 100% claim that confederate history and frame it as revolutionary
>>2822825>Even the Soviets understood it in that context. No they didn't. Dmitrov's analysis was put forward as the official line of the Comintern.
>>2823472>national socialism is reactionary and revisionistwow, you think?
>>2824062>No they didn't. Dmitrov's analysis was put forward as the official line of the Comintern.don't expect an apology from that simpleton. his mission of spreading disinfo is complete
>>2822838timothy snyder is a crank anyway but laibach is gonna laibach, i find it funny that they're the only band in existence to perform in north and south korea
<you are all wrongFascism is a form of Revisionist SocialismFascism isn't a reactionary ideology, a right-wing ideology, or even a capitalist ideology. It is a leftist socialist ideology. Fascism is an anti-Materialist revision of Marxism combined with organic Nationalism. If you look at the class relations and mode of production in the Italian Social Republic, (Actually Existing Fascism, the Kingdom of Italy was a transition stage, similar to the New Economic Policy in the early USSR) it is clearly identical to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. (Actually Existing Syndicalism)
Watch my newest video to understand more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojcgBkEZbu0 >>2823472>Funny thing is, if there was an American socialist revolution in the south, it would 100% claim that confederate history and frame it as revolutionaryIf there was an American socialist revolution in the south, it would have a very large number of black people who would not rock with that (for the most part):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_and_Hoe >>2824397You will never ever be a real Frenchman
It's when capital goes super Saiyan to momentarily crush the working class to recuperate until the working class reorganises itself which then forces a return to liberalism as a pretense of intermediation between to two classes for the sake of longer term stability
>>2824397https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcJKjo5UC00silence uyghur, fascism is liberalism. Super liberalism as a matter of fact
>>2824435>>2824480Watch the video, then refute my argument, until then nod an argument.
>>2824397You're back to making shitposts ? Epic
>>2824397>torthis can't be the real pierre
>click linkwtf happened to you bro
only an angloboxtard obsesses over definishans
>>2824397garbage pierre trudank is tongued by the """""lefty"""""pol mods while real communists are hounded and bullied
>>2825359You bumped this thread to say absolutely nothing but try to start another round of useless bickering.
Your bullies are doing the peoples work.
>>2824937Oh someone should tell him and Empanada to link up!
who is right jay lino or tru-dank?
>>2824676I'm not gonna watch that shit and feed your algo
>>2825359he's on tor node. maybe when the mods wake up in 11 hours they'll remove his posts. but until then you have 11 hours to complain about how unfair the website is to real communists
>>2824397>>2824937downloaded your video so i wouldn't give it a view.
watched it to understand its arguments
basically this shit sucks:
>you quote ᴉuᴉlossnW at length>you take his arguments at face value, do not regard them as deceptive in any way>you make no mention of nazism, and the haavara agreement, which colonized palestine with german jews deported by hitler, ᴉuᴉlossnW's ally>you call Tito a fascist>you say the left should ally with fascists and give up anti-fascism, in the name of solidarity with palestine>you say there are no significant Israeli fascists, ignoring the Kahanists, stern gang, lehi, revisionist zionists, etc. >You say Josip Broz Tito was a fascist despite leading the Yugoslav resistance against the fascists>You confuse fascism with syndicalism, merely because syndicalism influenced fascism>"i basically agree with duh left except for muh globohomo" inserted for no reason towards the endthis is either a really elaborate shitpost or just stupidity
>>2827460there was another fascist youtuber named cultured thug or something who used to insist, laughably, that thomas sankara was a fascist. I think there will be a lot of nat booj fascists trying to reclaim every anti-colonial marxist as one of their own guys.
>>2829740These people are fascist true believers, essentially like Strasserites. They remain committed to the petty bourgeois pseudo-radical origins of fascism but refuse to acknowledge how it is transformed and implemented in practice.
>>2820029He's cuckrdiga, if he allied he could have won against fascism but he lost
However, of course, we all understand that the USA today is fascist. Both the government and the population are fascist.
>>2824397Fascism indeed emerged an anti-materialist revision of Marxism but it i still right-wing. Left and right are not defined by economics but by the belief in social hierarchy
>>2827460Ideologies are defined by those who create them
>>282277414 tenet are utter shit
>>281742
Largely correct, but there's no such thing as "Third Positionism". Left and right are not defined by economics but by the belief in social hierarchy. Ancaps, feudal reactionaries, and fascists are all far-right as they all vigorously believe that hierarchy is natural, just , and should be defended; they merely disagree about who should be the elite caste.
The "third-position" quality of fascism is its abstract philosophical anti-materialism. It sees Marxism and capitalism as two sides of the same materialist coin and itself as having transcended this with the higher ideal of devotion to the nation
>>2827390Both are rightists but neither are correct
>>2830033Within the context of this thread (Marxism) those are not "rightists" (US lib definition) but simply fascists.
Trotsky's definition is best.
>>2832525Of course the Catalanarchosyndicalist eternal dupe of class collaboration and capitulation (since he's a crypto-liberal he learned nothing from the historical experience) would have this fucking opinion. Get betrayed in United Front From Above for all eternity, why dont you.
>>2829997even if they're on MI5 payroll?
Definitions 🤡
Unique IPs: 76