ACN/AKN on Fascism

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.    *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. 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.   

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.

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.

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 . Joking, obviously. I argue that the word "bourgeois" is permanently tainted and must be discarded.

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)

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.

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.

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.