ACN/AKN on Fascism

 :: General :: Theory :: Education

View previous topic View next topic Go down

ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Rapaille on Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:55 am


What is Fascism?

On the 23rd of May, 1919 the former revolutionary Marxist Benito Mussolini established the “Fascio di Combattimento” (combat union) with a small group of sympathizers in Italy. Until 1920 it remained a marginal group in the extreme leftwing of the political spectrum. The opportunistic swing to the right, along with the sudden sharp frontal stance against communism and socialism, ensured that the fascist movement got an unexpected strong impulse in the period 1920-1921. After the “red tidal wave” (september 1920), when striking workers in northern Italy started with factory occupations and the establishment of worker soviets, the fascists could count on the warm sympathy and benevolent support from the Italian bourgeoisie.

Within a short period of time, thanks to the support of the liberal bourgeoisie, the state bureaucrats, parts of the army and the Catholic Church fascism got a further influx and became a mass movement in Italy.

“Nothing outside the State, nothing against the State, everything for the State” was the notorious and one hundred times repeated formula of the totalitarian fascist State. The concept of the State is the ideal that fascism persues. It is their highest value, and therefore other important values such as selfcontrol, people and culture were considered by fascism to be secundary, if they recognized it at all. From the perspective of the Italian masses the fascists always stayed the murderers of workers and agents of the hated landlords and factory lords, on which fascism indeed was depended throughout it’s lifetime.

Fascism can not be possible without a strong State, which opresses the people and considers workers to be the slaves of the State. Fascism puts the interests of the State before the welbeing of the people. Examples include the Franco-fascism in Spain (1939-1975). Also the Hitlerite variant of National Socialism was similarly constructed in a Statecapitalist way, just as the fascist ideology; it also suppressed its own people, advocated a bourgeois State nationalism and persued imperialist utopias.
However, Anti-Fascism, is defending the rights of the nation and of every human individual, the right for own life, the right for self-determination, the right for a non-polluted environment, thus the right for a humane future!

The Secretary-General of the Communist International (Komintern), G. Dimitrow, was right when he defined fascism as “the terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital with the aim of maintaining the capitalist relations of production”.


The development of Antifascism

The original Antifascism exists since the 1920′s. It arose from the need for a political organization to achieve their own goals against the opponent and to maintain themselves.
Therefore the authentic Antifa came forth from the political will; in this case on the part of the KPD, but also on the part of the SPD. They did not consider all their opponents objectives as opposed to their own worldview and in fact there were many examples of open meetings and debat assemblies between national socialists and communists. Most of the activists in the divided camps were mainly concerned with the fortunes of ordinary people and the achievement of a fair society. Also common combatmeetings were arranged against the hated Weimar system, because they all saw that the interests of the State were put above those of the people.

Ofcourse every communist knew why he was against the nazi’s, just as every nazi knew why he was against the communists. In that time Antifa-work was only a means to achieve a goal, with which they could achieve their own objective. Untill the 70′s Antifascism was driven by political motivation and formed a part of the respective socialist, communist and anarchist groups, where it fullfilled a similar function as in the twenties. In that time the Antifa did not have any kind of “controlling function” against their own people and their own scene, nor was it wanted as a gang to fight opponents. In those days publications exclusively devoted to Antifa-work did not exist at all. The emphasis in the socialist and communist publications, was shaped by particular ideological and philosophical articles, in which they were intensively and critically concerned with their own ideas and goals.
Over the years, especially in the eighties and nineties, the situation radically changed: The search for new (pseudo-)identities made sure that Antifa-work, which really was meant as means to achieve a goal, became a goal on it’s own. Anti-fascism became the actual raison d’etre for many groups.

But a group, which is exclusively engaged with the enemy, is situated on the defensive. It only responds instead of acting!

From then on the struggle against fascism degenerated into a fight solely against the “nazis” (and against all who were seen as such!). At some point this led to the fact that every advocate for the struggle for national liberation (in Germany of the ’70s) was labeled as a “neo-nazi”. Activists of the KPD/ML – one of the most nationalist ML-organizations in the BRD at that time – who explicitly advocated the right for the German people to have national self-determination (motto: Deutschland den Deutschen! Amis raus!), suddenly became “nazi’s” with all the fysical consequenses. To this day the so-called “Antifascists” (actually they’re not anymore) are stuck in an almost hysterical hatred against all things which even remotely contains the concept “national”. Everything that’s slightly more parttriotic then Chancellor Merkel should be fought if it’s up to them. Some groups draw the ultimate conclusion from their hatred against their own people and their own cultural identity and began to call themselves “Anti-German” (“Anti-Deutschers”).

We can come to the conclusion that the term “Anti-fascism” was completely distorted and abused over the years and that they are now openly collaborating with the enemy, namely imperialism.

Under the pretext to fight for “democracy” and “human rights”, the “Antifascists” are today acting as the most agressive warmongers (latest example: Libya). In each country that offers serious resistance against global imperialism they see a “new Hitler “, who should be made harmless by American bombs, because otherwise inevitably a new “Holocaust” would take place. A part of these self-appointed “Antifascists” (the “Anti-Germans”) even manage to praise the racist State Israel and its Stateterrorist politics as the true “Antifascist” stronghold against “fascism”.


The New Fascism

In recent decades a new type of fascism arose from the Western imperialist metropolises.

The political structures that were formed since the 60′s, mainly within the United States, can best be characterized as modern “fascism”. This because the large capitalist concerns, the various secret services, the armed forces, the two major political parties and organized crime became so closely intertwined and partly identical on a personal level. This fascism reinforced itself in the United States since September 11, 2001, when George W. Bush threatened; “”Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists”. The former presidential adviser John Dean commented on this subject: “I’m worried, because this constitutes a fascist behavior, a characteristic behavior of a fascist nature.”

In France (President) Nicolas Sarkozy is the head of this new fascism. In the BDR this is epitomized by the CDU politician (and prolonged Minister of Interior affairs) Wolfgang Schäuble. He is supported by the capitalist business organization (“Bund der Deutschen Industrie”), the central union apparatus of the DGB (“Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund”) and is closely intertwined with the state apparatus and the bourgeoisie, as well as the groups of reactionary conservatives (“Junge Freiheit” and “Pro NRW”) who seek alliance with Zionism (the offer of alliance with the Zionist Ralph Giordano).

Directed by Schäuble a Secret State Police (Gestapo) is created. To name a few examples: Computer search, Rasterfahndung, Grosser hausangriff (systematic monitoring in private homes), vorratsdetenspeicherung (systematic preventive storage of all telecommunications data). Moreover Schäuble intensified with all his might his struggle to combat Islamists and other German “extremists”, who refuse to comply with the so-called “Western community of values”.

Anyone who speaks English and made the “political correctness” his own, who submits to the imperialist worldorder and thus the American consumerculture, is part of the game – everybody else has the risk to become labeled as the enemy or as an extremist. They end up on the blacklists of the Verfassungsschutz (State Security), or in extreme cases at Guantanamo Bay.

Everywhere in the West, politics put the interests of the State over the welbeing of the people. That’s called fascism! However, this new fascism has no nationalist, but rather a globalist profile.

Unfortunately, today’s Antifa is unable and unwilling to aim their Antifascism against this new form of fascism and against the extremists of the mainstream. Instead, they are determined to fight against the “neo-nazi threat”. But who stands in the tradition of the Third Reich today? Admittedly, there is indeed a colorful mix of micro-groups and individuals, acting as Hitlerites and Third Reich-nostalgics who actually believe that even today they still have to defend the Reichs-chancellery. But are these groups a serious threat? Hardly. So why this fixation on an insignificant edge and a-political group? The answer is obvious: The current “Antifascism” is degenerated into a meaningless pseudo-ideology, which has totally surrended to the mercy of the imperialist New World Order and now itself has become an essential element of the new fascism!

Source: http://acnaknnederland.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/wat-is-fascisme/

Rapaille
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 51
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Uberak on Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:29 pm

This response is overdue.

But.....

FASCISM HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED IN THE EARLY 20th CENTURY! AND, NEO-LIBERALISM IS NOT FASCISM.

You can't just change the definition of a well-defined ideology in such an Orwellian way to aid with your agenda. This sort of stuff actually drives me over the edge temper-wise.

Additionally, I have grown quite tired of your "anti-imperialist" tirades about the "New World Order" and how European centrists are somehow fascists. There is nothing more to say. You are spouting a verbose version of utter shit. Period.

Anti-fascists are sometimes really stupid, yes. But, this doesn't get in the way of the reality. The reality that the far-right is on the rise in Europe, and we or maybe I, since I prefer not to associate with you, are between a rock and a hard place.

Also, statism is not an exclusively fascist concept. Unless, you want to throw yourself and the Soviet Union, amongst a host of other things, there.

And, you have already said this in another thread in the past. You really don't have to say the same thing twice here.
avatar
Uberak
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Cantonalist
Posts : 129
Reputation : 65
Join date : 2013-02-24
Age : 20

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Rapaille on Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:16 am

Uberak wrote:This response is overdue.

But.....

FASCISM HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED IN THE EARLY 20th CENTURY! AND, NEO-LIBERALISM IS NOT FASCISM.

You can't just change the definition of a well-defined ideology in such an Orwellian way to aid with your agenda. This sort of stuff actually drives me over the edge temper-wise.

Additionally, I have grown quite tired of your "anti-imperialist" tirades about the "New World Order" and how European centrists are somehow fascists. There is nothing more to say. You are spouting a verbose version of utter shit. Period.

Anti-fascists are sometimes really stupid, yes. But, this doesn't get in the way of the reality. The reality that the far-right is on the rise in Europe, and we or maybe I, since I prefer not to associate with you, are between a rock and a hard place.

Also, statism is not an exclusively fascist concept. Unless, you want to throw yourself and the Soviet Union, amongst a host of other things, there.

And, you have already said this in another thread in the past. You really don't have to say the same thing twice here.

And what exactly is this definition of fascism according to you?

Rapaille
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 51
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by HomelessArtist on Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:14 pm

Uberak wrote:FASCISM HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED IN THE EARLY 20th CENTURY! AND, NEO-LIBERALISM IS NOT FASCISM.
"Fascist" has been used as an insult for so long we should be surprised when it is used against real fascists.

HomelessArtist
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : conservative socialist
Posts : 98
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2013-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Rapaille on Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:54 pm

Fascism was and can be defined in numerous ways. It has many times been a point of discussion within Commintern.

However, this article is in the first place a critic on the pseudo-antifascism of today. So-called 'Antifascists' who define "fascism" by liberal standards and joined the imperialist- and reformist camp with their pseudo-ideology. The "Anti-Deutschers" being merely one of it's latest outgrows, using so-called "human rights" and "democracy" retorics to support imperialist agression worldwide (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and so on). These people are not antifascists, but quite the opposite.

Uberak wrote:The reality that the far-right is on the rise in Europe, and we or maybe I, since I prefer not to associate with you, are between a rock and a hard place.

Indeed the far right is on the rise in Europe, but we need to understand that this development is only possible by the grace of the bourgeois centre and the reformist left (not so different as during the interbellum). The rightists are merely tools in a counter-revolutionary strategy of tension to protect bourgeois interests - the same interests the so-called "Antifa" consciously or unconsciously protect. "Antifascism" as a goal on it's own is utterly useless.



.

Rapaille
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 51
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Scarlet-Left on Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:55 pm

Rapaille wrote:
Indeed the far right is on the rise in Europe, but we need to understand that this development is only possible by the grace of the bourgeois centre and the reformist left (not so different as during the interbellum). The rightists are merely tools in a counter-revolutionary strategy of tension to protect bourgeois interests - the same interests the so-called "Antifa" consciously or unconsciously protect. "Antifascism" as a goal on it's own is utterly useless.

I agree whole-heartedly. Modern anti-fascist groups are, invariably, simply apologists for the establishment wearing the uniform of the radical left. They only exist as attack-dogs for austerity governments when right-wing populists gain any sort of traction.

The left should renounce them as liberals, at best, and counter-revolutionaries, at worst.

Scarlet-Left
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : Guild Socialism
Posts : 25
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2014-06-17
Location : East Midlands (GB)

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Social Corporatist on Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:59 am

Economic Fascism, Corporatism (the organisation of the entire public sector into a massive nationalist corporation—do what thou wilt with the private sector; it's up to you), is a highly useful concept. However, Fascist social policy, such as totalitarianism, is a liability to increase human suffering, and that's a major HR misstep.

Interesting fact: Orthodox Fascism, especially National Syndicalism, had many Jews in its ranks. They were unfortunately expelled due to growing influence from new financiers (the Nazis and the Vatican).
avatar
Social Corporatist
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : Social Corporatism
Posts : 19
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-05-16
Location : Kiev, Ukraine

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Rapaille on Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:19 am

Social Corporatist wrote:Economic Fascism, Corporatism (the organisation of the entire public sector into a massive nationalist corporation—do what thou wilt with the private sector; it's up to you), is a highly useful concept. However, Fascist social policy, such as totalitarianism, is a liability to increase human suffering, and that's a major HR misstep.

Interesting fact: Orthodox Fascism, especially National Syndicalism, had many Jews in its ranks. They were unfortunately expelled due to growing influence from new financiers (the Nazis and the Vatican).

However, from a revolutionary Marxist point of view the main problem of fascism is not so much its totalitarian character (because capitalism is by definition opressive), but rather its corporatist character. Corporatism is the bourgeois deception of the workers who, despite individual improvements, will remain wage-slaves. It fulfills a counter-revolutionary role in order to prevent class struggle, thus keeping the capitalist class firmly in power.

Rapaille
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 51
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Social Corporatist on Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:22 am

Rapaille wrote:However, from a revolutionary Marxist point of view the main problem of fascism is not so much its totalitarian character (because capitalism is by definition opressive), but rather its corporatist character. Corporatism is the bourgeois deception of the workers who, despite individual improvements, will remain wage-slaves. It fulfills a counter-revolutionary role in order to keep the capitalist class in power.

I disagree that Corporatism does what you describe.

It's no different than Syndicalism, except it's state-based, class collaborationist, meritocratic, and nationalist.

Its implementation in Nordic and Rhine economic models has helped pull weakened countries into economic prosperity.
avatar
Social Corporatist
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : Social Corporatism
Posts : 19
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-05-16
Location : Kiev, Ukraine

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Rapaille on Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:59 am

Social Corporatist wrote:I disagree that Corporatism does what you describe.

It's no different than Syndicalism, except it's state-based, class collaborationist, meritocratic, and nationalist.

Ofcourse you do, because as a corporatist you clearly support class collaboration, while socialists are on the foundation of the class struggle.

However, the problem with corporatism is that it doesn't end the capitalist modus of production, the means of production remain in private hands, which is the source of the exploitation and opression of the working class. In other words corporatism does grant the workers some improvements, just enough to keep them happy, but in reality the capitalist system remains in tact and the workers remain wage-slaves.

That's also the reason why many revolutionaires, like Grigory Zinoviev during the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928 for instance, (justly) referred to social-democrats who also adhere to corporatism, be it in a bourgeois democratic context, as "social-fascists". Stalin even went further claiming that fascism depends on the active support of the social-democracy and that the social-democracy depends on the active support of fascism. A theory which is quite convincing as a matter of fact and which is quite well formulated by Jean Barrot (Gilles Dauvé) in his booklet "Fascism/Antifascism".

Rapaille
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 51
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Social Corporatist on Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:23 am

Rapaille wrote:Ofcourse you do, because as a corporatist you clearly support class collaboration, while socialists are on the foundation of the class struggle.

However, the problem with corporatism is that it doesn't end the capitalist modus of production, the means of production remain in private hands, which is the source of the exploitation and opression of the working class. In other words corporatism does grant the workers some improvements, just enough to keep them happy, but in reality the capitalist system remains in tact and the workers remain wage-slaves.

That's also the reason why many revolutionaires, like Grigory Zinoviev during the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928 for instance, (justly) referred to social-democrats who also adhere to corporatism, be it in a bourgeois democratic context, as "social-fascists". Stalin even went further claiming that fascism depends on the active support of the social-democracy and that the social-democracy depends on the active support of fascism. A theory which is quite convincing as a matter of fact and which is quite well formulated by Jean Barrot (Gilles Dauvé) in his booklet "Fascism/Antifascism".

First off, I don't believe in what you describe as the "bourgeois". That, to me, is no different than a Nazi talking about "the Jews".
Then, Social Democracy works towards the establishment of Socialism, and Social Corporatism is a much stronger variant for the job, because it's a humane and Socialist-oriented style of economic Fascism.

I argue that the Socialist mode of production cannot exist until the Capitalist mode of production is rendered as obsolete as any other item that we no longer use today, due to technological advancement.
If we create machines that by-pass the necessity to extract raw material, ship it to a manufacturing plant, and so-on, and so-forth, we no longer need capitalism, and we will no longer have wealth-hoarding, because by then we'll decentralise the billionaire lifestyle to every individual; I'm talking about a Post-Scarcity Economy, which is the best version of Socialism, in my opinion.

After all of that, in the distant future, when we'll evolve past the point of requiring government of any sort, probably due to some means of inheriting information from generation to generation, we can then achieve true Anarchist Communism.
avatar
Social Corporatist
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : Social Corporatism
Posts : 19
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-05-16
Location : Kiev, Ukraine

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Uberak on Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:41 am

Social Corporatist wrote:
Rapaille wrote:Ofcourse you do, because as a corporatist you clearly support class collaboration, while socialists are on the foundation of the class struggle.

However, the problem with corporatism is that it doesn't end the capitalist modus of production, the means of production remain in private hands, which is the source of the exploitation and opression of the working class. In other words corporatism does grant the workers some improvements, just enough to keep them happy, but in reality the capitalist system remains in tact and the workers remain wage-slaves.

That's also the reason why many revolutionaires, like Grigory Zinoviev during the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928 for instance, (justly) referred to social-democrats who also adhere to corporatism, be it in a bourgeois democratic context, as "social-fascists". Stalin even went further claiming that fascism depends on the active support of the social-democracy and that the social-democracy depends on the active support of fascism. A theory which is quite convincing as a matter of fact and which is quite well formulated by Jean Barrot (Gilles Dauvé) in his booklet "Fascism/Antifascism".

First off, I don't believe in what you describe as the "bourgeois". That, to me, is no different than a Nazi talking about "the Jews".
Then, Social Democracy works towards the establishment of Socialism, and Social Corporatism is a much stronger variant for the job, because it's a humane and Socialist-oriented style of economic Fascism.

I argue that the Socialist mode of production cannot exist until the Capitalist mode of production is rendered as obsolete as any other item that we no longer use today, due to technological advancement.
If we create machines that by-pass the necessity to extract raw material, ship it to a manufacturing plant, and so-on, and so-forth, we no longer need capitalism, and we will no longer have wealth-hoarding, because by then we'll decentralise the billionaire lifestyle to every individual; I'm talking about a Post-Scarcity Economy, which is the best version of Socialism, in my opinion.

After all of that, in the distant future, when we'll evolve past the point of requiring government of any sort, probably due to some means of inheriting information from generation to generation, we can then achieve true Anarchist Communism.

Or, you can just go for mutualism. You know, an economic system that doesn't rely on post-scarcity or futuristic technology to form an impossible utopia. Of course, we can trend away from the anarchist aspects in favor a roughly cantonalist system of governance, but the economic aspect is very solid. To be honest, anarchist communism did work somewhat in Makhno's Free Territory, but I've heard from a source that often the system becomes de-facto mutualist or at least some sort of arket system. But, I can't be too sure of that.

The problem with corporatism is that it perpetuates an hierarchical system and doesn't resolve the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system. The working class is not liberated, and it violates the one-person per vote rule that is essential for a truly democratic system. Corporatism is no more a path to socialism than social democracy. The only actual path to a socialist economic system is ownership and management of the means of production by the workers, for the workers, and of the workers.

Additionally, the bourgeoisie, in the modern context, refers to the owners of the means of production, the bosses essentially. It does not refer to any sort of conspiracy to blame for everything. Instead, it merely refers to a role within capitalism's structure.

So, you just need to expand your horizons and read on more possibilities. In fact, the history of Ukraine could have the answers within it.  Laughing  *I then proceed to stroke my wizardly beard.* Or, just look up on mutualism or market socialism. Or, both.

Slightly Off-Topic Stuff: Also, corporatism is restrictable. Not threatening you, but left-wing nationalism requires the support of bona-fide socialism, not corporatism. This forum is NOT a nicer version of Ironmarch. Of course, our recent membership seems to be leaning more towards the statist-side and emphasize nationalism more, but I think users coming here should take a better look at the fundamentals of this forum. In fact, I think this is more due to the adminstratorship being inactive, primarily due to real-life reasons. The forum has no government.  Laughing 

To Rapaille: Firstly, don't look to Stalin for inspiration. Secondly, Social-Fascism is idiotic, because Fascism also has the ultra-nationalist and chauvinist aspect. Additionally, the idea is essentially straw-manning others' political beliefs. Social Democrats support corporatism, and Fascists do so too. However, that doesn't mean that they're the same, but rather that they share ONE thing in common. In fact, you finger-pointing at supposed "Fascism" in all things seems to be more you trying to escape the accusation yourself. And, the worst part of Social-Fascism is that it ruined any attempt to form an opposition to the rise of fascist and Nazi parties during the 30's. The "official" Communists occasionally marched with the Nazis against the Social-Democratic government primarily due to the hare-brained theory. Basically, I'm saying that the idea is stupid.
avatar
Uberak
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Cantonalist
Posts : 129
Reputation : 65
Join date : 2013-02-24
Age : 20

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Social Corporatist on Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:44 pm

Uberak wrote:Or, you can just go for mutualism. You know, an economic system that doesn't rely on post-scarcity or futuristic technology to form 1) an impossible utopia. Of course, we can trend away from the anarchist aspects in favor 2) a roughly cantonalist system of governance, but the economic aspect is very solid. To be honest, anarchist communism did work somewhat in Makhno's Free Territory, but I've heard from a source that often the system becomes de-facto mutualist or at least some sort of arket system. But, I can't be too sure of that.

The problem with corporatism is that it perpetuates an hierarchical system and doesn't resolve 3) the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system. The working class is not liberated, and it violates the one-person per vote rule that is 4) essential for a truly democratic system. Corporatism is no more a path to socialism 5) than social democracy. The 6) only actual path to a socialist economic system is ownership and management of the means of production by the workers, for the workers, and of the workers.

Additionally, the bourgeoisie, in the modern context, refers to the owners of the means of production, the bosses essentially. It does not refer to any sort of conspiracy to blame for everything. Instead, it merely 7) refers to a role within capitalism's structure.

So, you just need to expand your horizons and read on more possibilities. In fact, the history of Ukraine could have the answers within it.  Laughing  *I then proceed to stroke my wizardly beard.* Or, just look up on mutualism or market socialism. Or, both.

Slightly Off-Topic Stuff: Also, Cool corporatism is restrictable. Not threatening you, but left-wing nationalism requires the support of bona-fide socialism, not corporatism. 9) This forum is NOT a nicer version of Ironmarch. Of course, our recent membership seems to be leaning more towards the statist-side and emphasize nationalism more, but I think users coming here should take a better look at the fundamentals of this forum. In fact, I think this is more due to the adminstratorship being inactive, primarily due to real-life reasons. The forum has no government.  Laughing 

1) I'm not claiming this is a utopian system. It's also certainly not impossible.

2) Cantonalism: The insurrectionary anarchist - federalist hybrid that seeks to divide a nation state into self-governing cantons? I don't see why it's better and more efficient than what I propose. Exploitation of the working class by itself and other classes is inevitable in any economy containing resource scarcity. Always a risk of Shared Poverty; nobody wants that.

3) What are "the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system"? Explain that mathematically, if possible. I'm a business administration student, and the math for the capitalist mode of production checks out perfectly.

4) What is essential for a truly democratic system is to pass through the necessary socioeconomic prerequisites that create a population that's capable of voting democratically on an equal playing field. That is, making sure that every voter is informed, otherwise, you have people voting based on misguided positions, driven by pseudoscience and general ignorance. This would, of course, be one of the issues tackled during the transitional Social Corporatist stage.

5) Social Democracy is a much weaker, though a genuine / valid means of transitioning to Democratic Socialism.

6) That isn't the only path towards socialism. Also, it's worth noting that the cult of Agrarianism / Lowest-Common Denominator must always be avoided, when championing the proletariat, because today's world prefers the first-world middle-class-and-higher lifestyle.

7) Only in Marxist theory. The word I like to use is Entrepreneur Wink. Joking, obviously. I argue that the word "bourgeois" is permanently tainted and must be discarded.

Cool How? All types of Corporatism? or my type?

9) Right, because this forum is for Nationalist Socialists, while that forum is for National Socialists. The distinction is clear and heavy. (No sarcasm or condescension implied)
avatar
Social Corporatist
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : Social Corporatism
Posts : 19
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-05-16
Location : Kiev, Ukraine

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Rapaille on Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:12 pm

Uberak wrote:To Rapaille: Firstly, don't look to Stalin for inspiration. Secondly, Social-Fascism is idiotic, because Fascism also has the ultra-nationalist and chauvinist aspect. Additionally, the idea is essentially straw-manning others' political beliefs. Social Democrats support corporatism, and Fascists do so too. However, that doesn't mean that they're the same, but rather that they share ONE thing in common. In fact, you finger-pointing at supposed "Fascism" in all things seems to be more you trying to escape the accusation yourself. And, the worst part of Social-Fascism is that it ruined any attempt to form an opposition to the rise of fascist and Nazi parties during the 30's. The "official" Communists occasionally marched with the Nazis against the Social-Democratic government primarily due to the hare-brained theory. Basically, I'm saying that the idea is stupid.

I really urge you to read Barrot his work Fascism/Antifascism, it can be found online here: http://www.spunk.org/texts/antifasc/sp000833.htm

He perfectly describes the fallacy which can be found in your reasoning here.

Fascism simply wouldn't be possible, if it was not first the social-democrats and their liberal allies who supressed the class struggle in the first place. Fascism was the result of the failure of the social-democrats and their liberal allies to manage capital effectively. Barrot illustrates this by a clear analysis of the preceding class struggle in fascist countries.

Furthermore, no matter what you might think of Stalin, he has published some very interesting works of socialist analysis. We don't need to support his policy in order to acknowledge that.  

TOTALITARIANISM & FASCISM



The horrors of fascism were not the first of their kind, nor were they the last. Nor were they the worst, no matter what anyone says. These horrors were no worse than "normal" massacres due to wars, famines, etc. For the proletarians, it was a more systematic version of the terrors experienced in 1832, 1848, 1871, 1919 .... However, fascism occupies a special place in the spectacle of horrors. This time around, indeed, some capitalists and a good part of the political class were repressed, along with the leadership and even the rank-and-file of the official working class organizations. For the bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie, fascism was an abnormal phenomenon, a degradation of democratic values explicable only by recourse to psychological explanations. Liberal anti-fascism treated fascism as a perversion of Western civilization, thereby generating an obverse effect: the sado-masochistic fascination with fascism as manifested by the collection of Nazi bric-a-brac. Western humanism never understood that the swastikas worn by the Hell's Angels reflected the inverted image of its own vision of fascism. The logic of this attitude can be summed up: if fascism is the ultimate Evil, then let's choose evil, let's invert all the values. This phenomenon is typical of a disoriented age.

The usual Marxist analysis certainly doesn't get bogged down in psychology. The interpretation of fascism as an instrument of big business has been classic since Daniel Guerin (2). But the seriousness of his analysis conceals a central error. Most of the "marxist" studies maintain the idea that, in spite of everything, fascism was avoidable in 1922 or 1933. Fascism is reduced to a weapon used by capitalism at a certain moment. According to these studies capitalism would not have turned to fascism if the workers' movement had exercised sufficient pressure rather than displaying its sectarianism. Of course we wouldn't have had a "revolution," but at least Europe would have been spared Nazism, the camps, etc. Despite some very accurate observations on social classes, the State, and the connection between fascism and big business, this perspective succeeds in missing the point that fascism was the product of a double failure; the defeat of the revolutionaries who were crushed by the social democrats and their liberal allies; followed by the failure of the liberals and social democrats to manage Capital effectively. The nature of fascism and its rise to power remain incomprehensible without studying the class struggles of the preceding period and their limitations. One cannot be understood without the other. It's not by accident that Guerin is mistaken not only about the significance of fascism, but also about the French Popular Front, which he regards as a "missed revolution."



Paradoxically, the essence of antifascist mystification is that the democrats conceal the nature of fascism as much as possible while they display an apparent radicalism in denouncing it here, there, and everywhere. This has been going on for fifty years now.



Boris Souvarine wrote in 1925 (3): "Fascism here, fascism there. Action Frangaise - that's fascism. The National Bloc - that's fascism.... Every day for the last six months, Humaniti serves up a new fascist surprise. One day an enormous headline six columns wide trumpets: SENATE FASCIST TO THE CORE. Another time, a publisher refusing to print a communist newspaper is denounced: FASCIST BLOW.... There exists today in France neither Bolshevism nor fascism, any more than Kerenskyism. Liberti and Humaniti are blowing hot air: the Fascism they conjure up for us is not viable, the objective conditions for its existence are not yet realized.... One cannot leave the field free to reaction. But It is unnecessary to baptise this reaction as fascism in order to fight it. "



In a time of verbal inflation, "fascism" is just a buzz word used by leftists to demonstrate their radicalism. But its use indicates both a confusion and a theoretical concession to the State and to Capital. The essence of antifascism consists of struggling against fascism while supporting democracy; in other words, of struggling not for the destruction of capitalism, but to force capitalism to renounce its totalitarian form. Socialism being identified with total democracy, and capitalism with the growth of fascism, the opposition proletariat/Capital, communism/wage labour, proletariat/State, is shunted aside in favour Of the opposition "democracy"/"Fascism", presented as the quintessence of the revolutionary perspective. Antifascism succeeds only in mixing two phenomena: "Fascism" properly so-called, and the evolution of Capital and the State towards totalitarianism. In confusing these two phenomena, in substituting the part for the whole, the cause of Fascism and totalitarianism is mystified and one ends up reinforcing what one seeks to combat.



We cannot come to grips with the evolution Of capital and its totalitarian forms by denouncing "latent Fascism", Fascism was a particular episode in the evolution of Capital towards totalitarianism, an evolution in which democracy has played and still plays a role as counter-revolutionary as that of fascism, It is a misuse of language to speak today of a non-violent, "friendly" fascism which would leave intact the traditional organs of the workers' movement. Fascism was a movement limited in tithe and space. The situation in Euro after 1918 gave it its original characteristics which will never recur.



Basically, fascism was associated with the economic and political unification of Capital, a tendency which has become general since 1914. Fascism was a particular way of realizing this goal in certain countries - Italy and Germany - where the State proved itself incapable of establishing order (as it is understood by the bourgeoisie), even though the revolution had been crushed. Fascism has the following characteristics: 1) it is born in the street; 2) it stirs up disorder while preaching order; 3) it is a movement of obsolete middle classes ending in their more or less violent destruction; and 4) it regenerates from outside the traditional State which is incapable of resolving the capitalist crisis.



Fascism was a solution to a crisis of the State during the transition to the total domination of Capital over society. Workers' organizations of a certain type were necessary in order to subdue the revolution; next fascism was required in order to put an end to the subsequent disorder. The crisis was never really overcome by fascism: the fascist State was effective only in a superficial way, because it rested on the systematic exclusion of the working class from social life . This crisis has been more successfully overcome by the State in our own times. The democratic State uses all the tools of fascism, in fact, more, because it integrates the workers' organizations without annihilating them. Social unification goes beyond that brought about by fascism, but fascism as a specific movement has disappeared. It corresponded to the forced discipline of the bourgeoisie under the pressure of the State in a truly unique situation.



The bourgeoisie actually borrowed the name "fascism" from workers' organizations in Italy which often called themselves "fasces". It's significant that fascism defined itself first as a form of organisation and not as a program. Its only program was to unite everyone into fasces, to force together all the elements making up society:



"Fascism steals from the proletariat its secret: organization. ... Liberalism is all ideology with no organization; fascism is all organization with no ideology." (Bordiga)



Dictatorship is not a weapon of Capital, but rather a tendency of Capital which materializes whenever necessary. To return to parliamentary democracy after a period of dictatorship, as in Germany after 1945, signifies only that dictatorship is useless (until the next time) for integrating the masses into the State. We are not denying that democracy assures a gentler exploitation than dictatorship: anyone would rather be exploited like a Swede than like a Brazilian. But do we have a CHOICE? Democracy will transform itself into dictatorship as soon as it is necessary. The State can have only one function which it can fulfil either democratically or dictatorially. One might prefer the first mode to the second, but one cannot bend the State to force it to remain democratic. The political forms which Capital gives itself do not depend on the action of the working class any more than they depend on the intentions of the bourgeoisie. The Weimar Republic capitulated before Hitler, in fact it welcomed him with open arms. And the Popular Front in France did not "prevent fascism" because France in 1936 did not need to unify its Capital or reduce its middle classes. Such transformations do not require any political choice on the part of the proletariat.



Hitler is disparaged for retaining from the Viennese social democracy of his youth only its methods of propaganda. So what? The "essence" of socialism was more to be found in these methods than In the distinguished writings of Austro-Marxism. The common problem of social democracy and Naziism was how to organise the masses and, if necessary, repress them. It was the socialists and not the Nazis who crushed the proletarian insurrections. (This does not inhibit the current SPD, in power again as in 1919, from publishing a postage stamp in honour of Rosa Luxemburg whom it had murdered in 1919.) The dictatorship always comes after the proletarians have been defeated by democracy with the help of the unions and the parties of the Left. On the other hand, both socialism and Nazism have contributed to an improvement (temporary) in the standard of living. Like the SPD, Hitler became the instrument of a social movement the content of which escaped him. Like the SPD, he fought for power, for the right to mediate between the workers and Capital. And both Hitler and the SPD became the tools of Capital and were discarded once their respective tasks had been accomplished.





ANTIFASCISM - THE WORST PRODUCT OF FASCISM



Since the fascism of the inter-war period, the term "fascism" has remained in vogue. What political group has not accused its adversaries of using "fascist methods"? The Left never stops denouncing resurgent fascism, the Right does not refrain him labelling the PCF as the "fascistic party." Signifying everything and anything, the word has lost its meaning since international liberal opinion describes any strong State as "fascist." Thus the illusions of the fascists of the thirties are resurrected and presented as contemporary reality. Franco claimed to be a fascist like his mentors, Hitler and Mussolini, but there was never any fascist International.



If today the Greek colonels and Chilean generals ore called fascists by the dominant ideology, they nevertheless represent variants of the capitalist STATE. Applying the fascist label to the State is equivalent to denouncing the parties at the head of that State. Thus one avoids the critique of the State by denouncing those who direct it. The leftists seek to authenticate their extremism with their hue and cry about Fascism, while neglecting the critique of the State. In practice they are proposing another form of the State (democratic or popular) in place of the existing form.



The term "fascism " is still more irrelevant in the advanced capitalist countries, where the Communist and Socialist parties will play a central role in any future "fascist " State which is erected against a revolutionary movement. In this case it is much more exact to speak of the State pure and simple, and leave fascism out of it. Fascism triumphed because its principles were generalized: the unification of Capital and the efficient State. But in our times fascism has disappeared as such, both as a political movement and as a form of the State. In spite of some resemblances, the parties considered as fascist since 1945 (in Fiance, for example, the RPF, poujadism, to some extent today the RPR) have not aimed at conquering an impotent State from the outside (4).



To insist on the recurring menace of fascism is to ignore the fact that the real fascism was poorly suited to the task it took on and failed: rather than strengthening German national Capital, Nazism ended by dividing it in two. Today other forms of the State have come into being, far removed from Fascism and from that democracy we hear constantly eulogized.



With World War II, the mythology of Fascism was enriched by a new element. This conflict was the necessary solution to problems both economic (crash of 1929) and social (unruly working class which, although non-revolutionary, had to be disciplined). World War II could be depicted as a war against totalitarianism in the form of fascism. This interpretation has endured, and the constant recall by the victors of 1945 of the Nazi atrocities serves to justify the war by giving it the character of a humanitarian crusade. Everything, even the atomic bomb, could be justified against such a barbarous enemy. This justification is, however, no more credible than the demagogy of the Nazis, who claimed to struggle against capitalism and Western plutocracy. The "democratic" forces included in their ranks a State as totalitarian and bloody as Hitler's Germany: Stalin's Soviet Union, with its penal code prescribing the death penalty from the age of twelve. Everyone knows as well that the Allies resorted to similar methods of terror and extermination whenever they saw the need (strategic bombing etc.). The West waited until the Cold War to denounce the Soviet camps. But each capitalist country has had to deal with its own specific problems, Great Britain had no Algerian war to cope with, but the partition of India claimed millions of victims. The USA never had to organize concentration camps in order to silence its workers and dispose of surplus petits bourgeois, but it found its own colonial war in Vietnam. As for the Soviet Union, with its Gulag which is today denounced the world over, it was content to concentrate into a few decades the horrors spread out over several centuries in the older capitalist countries, also resulting in millions of victims just in the treatment of the Blacks alone. The development of Capital carries with it certain consequences, of which the main ones are: 1) domination over the working class, involving the destruction, gentle or otherwise, of the revolutionary movement; 2) competition with other national Capitals, resulting in war. When power is held by the "workers'" parties, only one thing is altered: workerist demagogy will be more conspicuous, but the workers will not be spared the most severe repression when this becomes necessary. The triumph of Capital is never as total as when the workers mobilize themselves on its behalf in search of a "better life".



In order to protect us from the excesses of Capital, antifascism as a matter of course invokes the intervention of the State. Paradoxically, antifascism becomes the champion of a strong State; For example, the PCF asks us: "What kind of State is necessary in France today?... Is our State stable and strong, as the President of the Republic claims? No, it is weak, it is impotent to pull the country out of the social and political crisis in which it is mired. In fact it is encouraging disorder." (6)



Both dictatorship and democracy propose to strengthen the State the former as a matter of principle, the latter in order to protect us - ending up in the same result. Both are working towards the same goal - totalitarianism. In both cases it is a matter of making everyone participate in society: "from the top down" For the dictators, "from the bottom up" for the democrats.



As regards dictatorship and democracy, can we speak of a struggle between two sociologically differentiated fractions of Capital? Rather we are dealing with two different methods of regimenting the proletariat, either by integrating it forcibly, or by bringing it together through the mediation of its "own" organizations. Capital opts for one or the other of these solutions according to the needs of the moment. In Germany after 1918, social democracy and the unions were indispensable for controlling the workers and isolating the revolutionaries. On the other hand, after 1929, Germany had to concentrate its industry, eliminate a section of the middle classes, and discipline the bourgeoisie. The same traditional workers' movement, defending political pluralism and the immediate interests of the workers, had become an impediment to further development. The "workers' organizations" supported capitalism faithfully, but had kept their autonomy; as organizations they sought above all to perpetuate themselves. This made them play an effective counter-revolutionary role in 1918-1921, as the failure of the German revolution shows. In 1920 the social democratic organizations provided the first example of anti-revolutionary antifascism (before fascism existed in name).(7) Subsequently the weight acquired by these organizations, both in society and in the State itself, mode them play a role of social conservatism, of economic Malthusianism. They had to be eliminated. They fulfilled an anti-communist function in 1918-1921 because they were the expression of the defense of wage labour as such; but this same rationale required them to continue to represent the immediate interests of wage earners, to the detriment of the re-organization of Capital as a whole.



One understands why Nazism had as its goal the violent destruction of the workers' movement, contrary to the so-called fascist parties of today. This is the crucial difference. Social democracy had done its job of domesticating the workers well, too well. Social democracy had occupied an important position in the State but was incapable of unifying the whole of Germany behind it. This was the task of Nazism, which knew how to appeal to all classes, from the unemployed to the monopoly capitalists.



Similarly, the Unidad Popular in Chile was able to control the workers, but without gathering the whole of the nation around it. Thus it became necessary to overthrow it by force. On the contrary, there has not (yet?) been any massive repression in Portugal since November 1975, and if the current regime claims to be continuing the "revolution of the officers," it is not because the power of the working class and democratic organizations prevent a coup d'itat from the Right. Left wing parties and unions have never prevented any such thing, except when the coup d'itat was premature, e.g. the Kapp putsch in 1920. There is no White terror in Portugal because it is unnecessary, the Socialist Party up to the present time unifying the whole of society behind it.



Whether it admits it or not, antifascism has become the necessary form of both working class and capitalist reformism. Antifascism unites the two by claiming to represent the true ideal of the bourgeois revolution betrayed by Capital. Democracy is conceived as an element of socialism, an element already present in our society. Socialism is envisaged as total democracy. The struggle for socialism would consist of winning more and more democratic rights within the framework of capitalism. With the help of the fascist scapegoat, democratic gradualism is revitalized. Fascism and antifascism have the same origin and the same program, but the former claimed to go beyond Capital and classes, while the latter tries to attain the "true" bourgeois democracy which is endlessly perfectible through the addition of stronger and stronger doses of democracy. In reality, bourgeois democracy is a stage in the taking of power by Capital, and its extension into the 20th century has resulted in the increasing isolation of individuals. Born as the illusory solution to the problem of the separation of human activity and society, democracy will never be able to resolve the problem of the most separated society in the whole of history. Antifascism will always end in increasing totalitarianism; its fight for a "democratic" State will end in strengthening the State.



For various reasons, the revolutionary analyses of fascism and antifascism, and in particular the analysis of the Spanish Civil War which is a more complex example, are ignored, misunderstood, or regularly distorted. At best, they are considered as an idealist perspective; at worst, as an indirect support of fascism. Note, they say how the PCI helped Mussolini by refusing to take fascism seriously , and especially by not allying itself with the democratic forces; or how the KPD allowed Hitler to come to power while treating the SPD as the principal enemy. In Spain, on the contrary, one has an example of resolute antifascist struggle, which might have succeeded if it hadn't been for the deficiencies of the Stalinists - socialists - anarchists (cross out the appropriate names). These statements are based on a distortion of the facts.

Rapaille
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 51
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Uberak on Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:21 pm

Social Corporatist wrote:

1) I'm not claiming this is a utopian system. It's also certainly not impossible.

2) Cantonalism: The insurrectionary anarchist - federalist hybrid that seeks to divide a nation state into self-governing cantons? I don't see why it's better and more efficient than what I propose. Exploitation of the working class by itself and other classes is inevitable in any economy containing resource scarcity. Always a risk of Shared Poverty; nobody wants that.

3) What are "the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system"? Explain that mathematically, if possible. I'm a business administration student, and the math for the capitalist mode of production checks out perfectly.

4) What is essential for a truly democratic system is to pass through the necessary socioeconomic prerequisites that create a population that's capable of voting democratically on an equal playing field. That is, making sure that every voter is informed, otherwise, you have people voting based on misguided positions, driven by pseudoscience and general ignorance. This would, of course, be one of the issues tackled during the transitional Social Corporatist stage.

5) Social Democracy is a much weaker, though a genuine / valid means of transitioning to Democratic Socialism.

6) That isn't the only path towards socialism. Also, it's worth noting that the cult of Agrarianism / Lowest-Common Denominator must always be avoided, when championing the proletariat, because today's world prefers the first-world middle-class-and-higher lifestyle.

7) Only in Marxist theory. The word I like to use is Entrepreneur Wink. Joking, obviously. I argue that the word "bourgeois" is permanently tainted and must be discarded.

Cool How? All types of Corporatism? or my type?

9) Right, because this forum is for Nationalist Socialists, while that forum is for National Socialists. The distinction is clear and heavy. (No sarcasm or condescension implied)

1)I was referring to Anarcho-Communism, and the idea of having planned "transitional" stages.

2A)I was referring to it in comparison with Anarcho-Communism. Additionally, the nation-state would not be divided but rather federated from the bottom-up starting from the grassroots. "E Pluribus Unum", "Out of Many, One", best describes the idea behind this.

2B)The whole "Workers' Self-Exploitation" idea just reeks of Revleft. Seriously, they said roughly the same thing. Also, I have no issues with workers having income differences, so long as they own and control the means of production.

3)I think I was referring more to the conflict between the interests of workers and capitalists, which I think corporatism would only institutionalize. I mean, what if the workers vote for one thing, whilst the capitalists vote for another option? Such a system would be gridlocks galore. I apologize for using the wrong jargon to describe my point.

4)I agree with that. Education is important to Democracy's survival.

5)Because, our social-democratic parties have done a great job of establishing socialism.  Rolling Eyes 

6)It is the only revolutionary path. And honestly, gradualism isn't really working out considering the fact that Neo-Liberalism has arisen. Also, class is not based on life-style or wealth, but instead on one's relation to the means of production. Workers, having control and ownership, would probably increase the quality of their life. Additionally, I am not a proponent of agrarianism, and worker's self-management actually works in industrial contexts just as much as agrarian contexts.

7)Honestly, the word petite-bourgeois is the more tainted word. Anyways, I can just use the word "capitalist" instead.

8 )
Socialist Phalanx FAQ wrote:
*What is 'revolutionary socialism'?

For purposes of this forum, revolutionary socialism is defined as a socialist tendency based upon a fundamental commitment to the complete abolition of capitalism — this being contrasted to conventional Social Democratic and corporativist models, based upon the partial or complete maintenance of the capitalist mode of production — and the construction of a workers' state.

9)
Socialist Phalanx FAQ wrote:

*Is this a fascist website?

No. None of the ideologies found within the heterogeneous construct referred to as 'fascism' objectively meet the standards of revolutionary socialism or left-wing nationalism.


*Is this a racist website?

No. This forum does not tolerate animus towards individuals based upon their race or ethnicity. Moreover, it does not tolerate hostility towards individuals based upon their sex, religious affiliation, etc.


*What is 'left-wing nationalism'?

Left-wing nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — e.g. ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism.

Not trying to be unwelcoming or such, but I'm just stating what lies within the forum's range of viewpoints in contrast to Iron March's.


To Rapaille:Firstly, I apologize for my irritable nature. Now, I agree with your source. However, the source was by a left communist (who opposed Stalin's Soviet Union even in the article itself) and doesn't represent the Stalinist opinion on "Social Fascism" at all. In fact, it points out the problem with your analysis in calling any strong state fascist. The Neo-Liberal establishment of today is a whole different beast from Fascism, period. And, the equally Stalinist idea of a popular front is also very much flawed. What we need is a revolutionary movement that focuses on the emancipation of the working class from the capitalist system of ownership. A radical democratic movement that marches against those who oppose it.

As for this "totalitarianism", I honestly think the term "inverted totalitarianism" describes the current system better.
avatar
Uberak
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Cantonalist
Posts : 129
Reputation : 65
Join date : 2013-02-24
Age : 20

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Rapaille on Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:36 am

Uberak wrote:To Rapaille:Firstly, I apologize for my irritable nature. Now, I agree with your source. However, the source was by a left communist (who opposed Stalin's Soviet Union even in the article itself) and doesn't represent the Stalinist opinion on "Social Fascism" at all. In fact, it points out the problem with your analysis in calling any strong state fascist. The Neo-Liberal establishment of today is a whole different beast from Fascism, period. And, the equally Stalinist idea of a popular front is also very much flawed. What we need is a revolutionary movement that focuses on the emancipation of the working class from the capitalist system of ownership. A radical democratic movement that marches against those who oppose it.

As for this "totalitarianism", I honestly think the term "inverted totalitarianism" describes the current system better.

I fully agree, I merely wanted to point out that there are numerous definitions of "fascism". And today the term "fascism" is perverted to the point that it has become no longer usefull for political analysis of any sort. Furthermore I already pointed out the fact that I indeed read Stalin his works, but this ofcourse does not automatically mean I support the entire Stalinist policy.    

However, the propagandist article of the ACN/AKN is in the first place a just critique on the perversion of modern "antifascism", which in general has nothing much to do with socialism anymore. It points out that while most self-proclaimed "antifascists" are on a wrong track chasing ghosts from the past and harassing meaningless fascist fringe groups, they at the same time knowing or unknowing join the ranks of the true class enemies in the "democratic" political centre! Antifascism was once a mean to achieve socialism, but by making it a goal on it's own it has become an apologism for the bourgeois regime.  

Today it is again the "democratic" political centre - liberals and social-democrats alike - who pave the way for totalitarian politics. It are the social-democrats and liberals who impose the repressive laws, who wage the imperialist wars, who engage in severe austerity politics, who detain and deport refugees and who abolish all social rights of the workers. The upcoming radical "fascist" groups you refer to - in Greece, in Ukraine and so on - only exist by the grace of this political centre, who use these usefull idiots in a strategy of tension untill they become obsolete and become discarded. Indeed conservative and far right populism is on the rise in France, the Netherlands and other European countries, but these parties and groups have little in common with the fascist manifestations of the past.     

So as true antifascists we must be very weary and acknowledge who the true class enemies of today are.

That also means a clear break with those self-proclaimed "antifascist" clowns, who think anything remotely nationalist will by definition end in Auswitch and who see a new fascist dictator in any regime that does not embrace the bourgeois parliamentary democracy or other liberal values.


Rapaille
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 51
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: ACN/AKN on Fascism

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 :: General :: Theory :: Education

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum