Does a decaying Capitalism lead to Fascism ? (as Lenin predicted)

[John Lenin]

"Fascism is Capitalism in decay."


~ Vladimir Lenin

[BobKKKindle$]

The OP should try and make more detailed posts instead of just posting a quote by Lenin and then expecting people to formulate their own opinions. However, this is a valid and important question, especially in the current economic context. There is no such thing as an absolute historical law, as political developments will always be influenced by the unique conditions of the country in which they take place, in terms of political traditions and institutions, as well as the behavior of political actors, and so we cannot simply assert that the weakening of capitalism will always lead to the installment of a fascist regime. However, if we conceive of fascism as the response of the bourgeoisie to the threat of social revolution, and as the response of isolated workers to the threat of job losses and wage cuts when the left is unable to develop a strong presence within the ranks of the working class, then the possibility of fascism certainly exists, as the capitalist state has exhibited a historic tendency to become more intrusive and authoritarian when the facade of liberal democracy is no longer capable of maintaining the class rule of the bourgeoisie. It is even possible that fascism will experience greater electoral success in comparison to previous recessions, as many fascist organizations have succeeded in changing the way they appeal to the public by adopting a more modern image, as in the case of the BNP in the UK, such that they are no longer seen as synonymous with genocide, but as a legitimate political choice. However, at the risk of sounding cliched, time will tell, and the success of fascism depends on the duration and intensity of the crisis, and, more importantly, the ability of the left to present an effective political response, including a convincing alternative.

[Yehuda Stern]

However, if we conceive of fascism as the response of the bourgeoisie to the threat of social revolution, and as the response of isolated workers to the threat of job losses and wage cuts when the left is unable to develop a strong presence within the ranks of the working class, then the possibility of fascism certainly exists

This is a terrible, confused definition of fascism. Fascism is the response of neither the bourgeoisie nor the workers, but of the disenfranchised, desperate petty bourgeoisie, crushed between the capitalist crisis and the inability of the working class parties to overthrow the capitalist state. It's true that fascism always ends up serving the ruling class against the workers, but it's certainly not a reaction that comes from the bourgeoisie, and it is certainly not a regime it takes up unless it has a choice.

As for the OP's question, yes, capitalist decay creates a tendency towards fascism, though that tendency does not always manifest itself in the creation of a fascist regime. The stronger imperialist states can usually keep a very limited democratic veneer during times of crisis without needing fascism. For example, while the British state let the Moselyites terrorize the workers in the 1930s-1940s, it never allowed them to come to power.

[Mindtoaster]

This is a terrible, confused definition of fascism. Fascism is the response of neither the bourgeoisie nor the workers, but of the disenfranchised, desperate petty bourgeoisie, crushed between the capitalist crisis and the inability of the working class parties to overthrow the capitalist state. It's true that fascism always ends up serving the ruling class against the workers, but it's certainly not a reaction that comes from the bourgeoisie, and it is certainly not a regime it takes up unless it has a choice.


Thanks for this.

Some leftists seem to hold the illusion that fascism was a ideology held up by the bourgeoisie and sectors of the proletariat, when in fact it was, as you described a panicked reaction by the middle-class to throw themselves behind a totalitarian leader when there businesses and lifestyle became threatened.

Social psycologist (and socialist) Erich Fromm wrote extensively about the fascist ideologies and their roots in the Reformation and the rise of mercantilism in his book "Flight From Freedom", which I would strongly reccomend to anyone interested in a proper analysis of (classical) fascism.

[Qayin]

Thats a real bad quote.

It depends if the market collapsed what would people do? Be sheeple and turn to the state or look for alternatives.

If they look to the state i guess Capitalism 2.0 can ram in

[Tower of Bebel]

I think fascism needs the seemingly unsurmountable opposition between an impotent workers' movement with a revolutionary potential and a devided bourgeoisie, delegitimized by the crisis of capitalism. This was the situation Europe was heading for from the early twenties to the mid-40's.

[BobKKKindle$]

Fascism is the response of neither the bourgeoisie nor the workers, but of the disenfranchised, desperate petty bourgeoisie, crushed between the capitalist crisis and the inability of the working class parties to overthrow the capitalist state.

At no point did my post suggest that the bourgeoisie serves as the material basis of fascism - but it is true that, when confronted with the threat of social revolution, and when the liberal-democratic bourgeois state is incapable of forcing the proletariat to accept wage reductions and poorer working conditions, as a means to restore profitability, the bourgeoisie is compelled to side with fascist movements (which are actually rooted in the petty-bourgeoisie, as you point out, as this class is impoverished as a result of depression and yet lacks the experience of collective struggle associated with the proletariat) even though these movements always retain their own autonomy and political interests, and may even strike against a section of the bourgeoisie.

[Yehuda Stern]

At no point did my post suggest that the bourgeoisie serves as the material basis of fascismIt suggested that fascism is a reaction conceived by the bourgeoisie and working class:


However, if we conceive of fascism as the response of the bourgeoisie to the threat of social revolution, and as the response of isolated workers to the threat of job losses and wage cuts when the left is unable to develop a strong presence within the ranks of the working class, then the possibility of fascism certainly existsIf you didn't meant to suggest that, OK, but the petty-bourgeoisie is never even mentioned in this characterization of facsism.

EDIT: Another problem with the quoted passage - the problem was never that 'the left' couldn't establish a presence in the working class. The problem was that it was a certain part of it - the reformist left, that is - that established a presence, at the expense of the Marxists (Trotskyists), and used it to prevent any real anti-fascist struggle. That the SWP school of thought teaches to think of all the left as one big family is a problem for a different thread.

[bretty]

I think that this concept still applies and has applied in the past. However now we see it in a different context with global markets opening and the free market 'fascism'.

Just look at some of the repressive tactics used against the working class in developing countries. It is a new form of fascism.

[Matty_UK]

This is a terrible, confused definition of fascism. Fascism is the response of neither the bourgeoisie nor the workers, but of the disenfranchised, desperate petty bourgeoisie, crushed between the capitalist crisis and the inability of the working class parties to overthrow the capitalist state. It's true that fascism always ends up serving the ruling class against the workers, but it's certainly not a reaction that comes from the bourgeoisie, and it is certainly not a regime it takes up unless it has a choice.

It's more a mixture of both, I think; fascism is primarily a response of the bourgeoisie to a revolutionary proletariat, but because in such a situation the bourgeoisie is inherently weak it needs to offer it's support to other reactionary sectors of society such as the petty bourgeoisie who formed in part the ideological basis of fascism, but if this ideological basis couldn't co-exist with the bourgeoisie's desire to repress the working class then such an alliance would never exist. This is why fascism takes on a different form in every country, depending on the ideology of whoever forms the strongest anti-socialist demographic; if the recession leads to a revolutionary situation in the US, an alliance between the bourgeoisie and "libertarians," constitutionalists and those sort of petty bourgeois types looks most likely. The result would probably look very different to what we think fascism is in form, but in substance it would be the same; violent repression of the working class, rollback of all their gains and fiercely pro-business economic policy.

[Dimentio]

I am interested in the differences between fascism today and in the 1930;s. In the 1930;s, fascism was overtly expansionist, but today, my impression is that it is defensive and isolationist.

Most nazis whom I encountered on the web wants to preserve diversity by opposing "race mixture". In the 1930;s, they just wanted to wipe out other peoples and ethnicities. Now its more like "stay out from our neighbourhood".

[Invader Zim]

Fascism is the response of neither the bourgeoisie nor the workers, but of the disenfranchised, desperate petty bourgeoisie...

Then how do you account for the support for fascist parties which emminated from individuals of every class?

[ComradeOm]

Most nazis whom I encountered on the web wants to preserve diversity by opposing "race mixture". In the 1930;s, they just wanted to wipe out other peoples and ethnicities. Now its more like "stay out from our neighbourhood".I suspect these different impressions are the result of comparing national and local organisations. Obviously a few isolated skinheads are first and foremost concerned with 'protecting' their neighbourhood but take this sentiment to a national level and the logic becomes 'protecting' their country. Segregation and genocide naturally follow on from this line of argument

[Yehuda Stern]

Matty: What you are saying may be right, but all it signifies is that the petty-bourgeoisie which forms the social basis of fascism cannot bring it to power without the support of the bourgeoisie. That is always spelled out clearly in Trotsky's analysis. I was just countering what seemed to me to be an insinuation that fascism originates in the bourgeoisie.


Then how do you account for the support for fascist parties which emminated from individuals of every class?

Same way I account for support for any party by classes other than its own social base - at different times, different classes exert their influence on others and win their allegiance due to this. Working class parties can find support at the right times among intellectuals and peasants. Bourgeois parties in many cases have working class support when proletarian consciousness is at a low (like today). There's no real mystery here. The class nature of a party is decided by its core and by the class interests it serves, not by whatever momentary electoral or even organizational support it enjoys from members of other classes.

[Invader Zim]

Same way I account for support for any party by classes other than its own social base

But the claim that fascism has one main social base flies in the face of recorded fact.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, I hope you're not expecting me to take your word for it.

[benhur]

Without the bulk of working class people serving as (willing) soldiers, fascism would never succeed. Petit bourgeois may lead them, but workers are also part of it. Disgruntled workers often become fascists because it has an emotional appeal (race, blood, country and all that) that's missing in a very rational communism.

[Yehuda Stern]

I certainly hope you don't expect me to just take your word for it.

[benhur]

I certainly hope you don't expect me to just take your word for it.

Nazi Germany ring a bell? Most members of fascist parties often come from working class backgrounds. You'd be blind to deny this. Without their support, fascism would never succeed.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Nazi Germany ring a bell? Most members of fascist parties often come from working class backgrounds. You'd be blind to deny this. Without their support, fascism would never succeed.

As my history teacher would say, "In extreme situations, people look for extreme solutions". In that case it would have been either the Nazis or us(yay Communism!). The Nazis just happened to get ahead because Hitler had amazing skills at giving speeches and such. It was easy for him to get people on his side.

[Yehuda Stern]

Nazi Germany ring a bell? Most members of fascist parties often come from working class backgrounds.

Actually, in Nazi Germany, most working class people continued to support the working class parties, primarily the SPD and KPD. The Nazis found most of their members among the disenfranchised middle class and lumpenproletariat. So you see, the problem is not that I am blind; it's your knee jerk, condescending, middle-class liberal attitude towards the working class.


The Nazis just happened to get ahead because Hitler had amazing skills at giving speeches and such. It was easy for him to get people on his side.

This is an incredibly simplistic and false way of presenting the matter. The Nazis won because they were able to get the social layers between the workers and bourgeoisie on their side, due to the lack of leadership by the proletarian parties. If the KPD was still a revolutionary party in the early 30s, the Nazis would have never come to power.

[benhur]

Actually, in Nazi Germany, most working class people continued to support the working class parties, primarily the SPD and KPD. The Nazis found most of their members among the disenfranchised middle class and lumpenproletariat.

There's no evidence for this. If the working class, which formed the major bulk of the population, had supported SPD and KPD, Nazism wouldn't have succeeded. You can't deny the obvious. The workers failed us in Germany, no excuses. They surrendered to the nazis, all in the name of country, blood, race, and all that crap.


This is an incredibly simplistic and false way of presenting the matter.

Actually, it is true. Hitler was clever enough to incorporate the socialist movement into his own (hence the socialist tag in his party name), thereby swaying workers to his side. Workers felt the nazis, rather than socialists, would save them from the capitalist crisis.

[Yehuda Stern]

There's no evidence for this.

Actually, there is evidence for it - the Nazis received less than the votes of the SPD and KPD combined, showing that most German workers remained loyal to their organizations, but this loyalty was one-way - the SPD and KPD refused to create a working class front to stop the rise of fascism. Your conviction that the workers failed "us" is typical of the same condescending middle class outlook which I talked about in my latest post. It's not that the workers failed you, benhur - it's that your kind, centrists and reformists, betrayad them, all in the name of loyalty to bourgeois democracy. And all that crap.

[benhur]

Actually, there is evidence for it - the Nazis received less than the votes of the SPD and KPD combined, showing that most German workers remained loyal to their organizations, but this loyalty was one-way - the SPD and KPD refused to create a working class front to stop the rise of fascism. Your conviction that the workers failed "us" is typical of the same condescending middle class outlook which I talked about in my latest post. It's not that the workers failed you, benhur - it's that your kind, centrists and reformists, betrayad them, all in the name of loyalty to bourgeois democracy. And all that crap.

Let's dispense with the personal attacks. We don't get to choose where we take birth, so if some of us come from what you call 'bourgeois' or middle class backgrounds, it isn't our fault. We may not be proletarian in the strict sense, but we're committed to liberating the workers just the same.

Anyway, I don't agree with your vague answers, but what about the current situation? BNP and many other neo-Nazis are from the working class. Maybe not the leadership, but the workers are cannon fodder for them. The same goes for other non-western fascist groups as well, such as Islam. Most of them are workers who're easily mislead by the leadership (which is actually bourgeois/petit borugeois).

But of course, you're going to deny this, because you misconstrue this as an attack on the working class. It's not. It's just an honest view on the matter. Workers all over the world are easily manipulated by patriotism, religion, and all the rest, which is why they serve the bourgeois faithfully, even at the risk of sacrificing their lives.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's not that easy. If a person comes from a middle class background and adopts the outlook of the working class, or at the very least attempt to, that's one thing. If a middle class person adopts an outlook hostile and condescending towards the working class, and dares to do this under a Marxist or Trotskyist veneer, he remains a middle class liberal who may consider himself committed to the workers, but in reality is committed to using them as a political battering ram to serve his own political interests.

My answers were never vague - I used concrete historical examples while you used abstract liberal sentimentality to try and prove that the workers are easily manipulated by great leaders (a classical petty-bourgeois conception). As for the fact that some of the base of the fascist parties today is among the working class, that is exactly the fault of the reformist and centrist left, which you are part of as well, which stays aloof from the working class and refuses to intervene in it and offer a way forward. As for your slander against Muslims, I will simply take it as a sign that your anti-Muslim racism compliments other qualities that you have shown elsewhere, like your contempt for the workers and your male chauvinism.

[ComradeOm]

The classic theory that Nazism was a fundamentally petite-bourgeoisie ideology (one of the early proponents of which was Trotsky, which may explain Yehuda's attachment to it) has come under sustained assault from historians in recent decades. Part of this is undoubtedly due to the diminishing role Marxist class analysis in the writing of history but also you get factors such as the definition of petit-bourgeoisie (or various Weberian classes); the vast amounts of raw data that have become available since the 70s; and the simple need for historians in this congested field to produce something new

Based on what I've seen, in general the largest single class represented amongst the Nazi party was the petit-bourgeoisie at somewhere in the region of 40-50% of the membership. The next largest grouping was urban workers at 30-40%, with the remainder being comprised of peasantry and nobility (both of which came out very strong for Hitler - on average 75% of voters in East Prussia were voting for the NSDAP in the late 20s). This did not affect the KPD vote and was only marginal in the SPD decline but outside of the major cities, which both parties considered their strongholds, the Nazis had considerable success, often amongst the working class, in smaller towns

In short, the NSDAP did contain an undoubted core of middle class support but also significantly augmented this with members drawn from the working class. It was never a workers' party, and thus did not draw significant numbers from the KPD or SPD, but it did have some appeal to the German working class, particularly those in small towns and living beside Polish communities

I'm no expert of course but for those interested in delving deeper, the below look like good reads:
Mühlberger, (1991), Hitler's Followers
Lee, (1998), Hitler and Nazi Germany
Mühlberger, (2003), The Social Bases of Nazism

If anyone has access to JSTOR then this article (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2068924) might be worth checking out. The claim of 75% for East Prussia comes from Clark, (2006), Iron Kingdom. Frankly any decent bookstore will probably have an entire bookcase devoted to the Third Reich and its origins


BNP and many other neo-Nazis are from the working class. Maybe not the leadership, but the workers are cannon fodder for them. The same goes for other non-western fascist groups as well, such as Islam. Most of them are workers who're easily mislead by the leadership (which is actually bourgeois/petit borugeois).A very recent phenomenon. As in late 70s or early 80s. This spread of fascism from its traditional far-right strongholds can, IMO, be largely ascribed to the failure of traditional worker parties. In France, for example, the rise of Le Pen's Front National almost directly mirrors the PCF's electoral decline and both it and the SFIO's move to the centre of the political spectrum

The workers know that capitalism is failing them but in the absence of real workers parties (and the various issue based gauchistes of young Trots and Maoists have singularly failed to step into the void) they are naturally more susceptible to far-right influence. Instead of joining a party that blames society's ills on the capitalism they join one that blames them on immigrants. Why? Because no viable alternative is available

Incidentally its rarely a good idea to project backwards through history. Just because the fascists of today occasionally make inroads into working class communities does not mean that the fascists of the 1920s did the same

[Yehuda Stern]

Which is basically what I said, only with better sourcing, and for that you deserve credit. At any rate, my "attachment" to Trotsky's theory stems from the fact that it is true, not simply that it is Trotsky's (of course, there's a high degree of correlation between the two things). As you yourself justified it, it seems foolish to insinuate otherwise.

Also, you are forgetting the most important reason for bourgeois historians to put the blame for Nazism on the working class - to discredit Marxism and socialism and to give the impression that people like benhur buy into easily that workers are "easily manipulated by patriotism, religion, and all the rest, which is why they serve the bourgeois faithfully, even at the risk of sacrificing their lives."

As that reason seems to be quite obvious, blaming this really scandalous rewriting of history in the service of capital on obscure reasons like "the need to produce something new" doesn't make much sense.

[benhur]

Are you saying that workers the world over are all class conscious, and that they think of themselves as workers (rather than as people belonging to nations/religions/race), that they know they're being exploited etc. etc.? If so, the revolution would've succeeded a long time ago.

[Yehuda Stern]

I've never said that, in fact I've often argued against such a simplistic view. However, I never used that in any of my arguments, so as far as I'm concerned, that's just a cheap shot that once more shows that you can't seriously defend your positions.

[benhur]

I've never said that, in fact I've often argued against such a simplistic view. However, I never used that in any of my arguments, so as far as I'm concerned, that's just a cheap shot that once more shows that you can't seriously defend your positions.

You agree with me, and yet you accuse me?:confused: Fascist couldn't have succeeded without support from the majority of disillusioned workers. Do you or do you not agree? Stop dodging the issue, please.

[Yehuda Stern]

I never agreed with you about anything, and I doubt that such a situation will arise anytime soon. You claimed that I used the argument that "workers the world over are all class conscious, and that they think of themselves as workers," when I clearly didn't. So I am not really dodging any issues, I have answered all your arguments and all you are capable of doing now is to repeat them. As I said before, this just exposes the fact that you have no real idea what you're talking about, and that even you don't take your own arguments seriously.

[Led Zeppelin]

Also, you are forgetting the most important reason for bourgeois historians to put the blame for Nazism on the working class - to discredit Marxism and socialism and to give the impression that people like benhur buy into easily that workers are "easily manipulated by patriotism, religion, and all the rest, which is why they serve the bourgeois faithfully, even at the risk of sacrificing their lives."

Well, benhur was attacking workers in another thread not too long ago, the reason being; they're not class-conscious.

Of course with that very helpful and solidarity-ridden attitude we - the priviliged class-conscious ones - can help them remedy their unfortunate disease of being imbued with bourgeois consciousness at their inception due to the fact that the ruling ideas of society are always those of the ruling class (in times of stability and equilibrium of capitalism).

I remember a while back I made a thread about the need to not lower ourselves to the level of consciousness of workers who are not class-conscious, because that would reduce our existence as a vanguard element to irrelevance. I should've added that we should also not consider ourselves to be "above" the workers and ridicule, slander and humiliate them for their "backward ways", and blame them for things such as the Nazi rise to power. I thought something as elementary as that didn't have to be said on this forum.

By the way, the reformism of the Second International, that is, the petty-bourgeois tendency, was more responsible for the rise of Hitler than any worker who voted for him was.

[acc]

I have been on this Earth many years, and during those years I have found that the left has never really understood the true basis of Fascism, despite knowing plenty about the ideological base of Nazism. To equate the two is stupid, as while Nazism was certainly first and foremost a system to preserve the petit-bourgeoisie position against a hostile working class, and a hostile capitalist aristocracy, Fascism has its roots in the syndicalist movement, above all else.

As a syndicalist, I am in a unique position. There are few of us who are neither anarcho-syndicalists nor national-syndicalists. These two distinctions are very important. The former is familiar to many here, I presume. The latter forms the true ideological base of fascism, the base used by Marienetti, Maurras, and Preto, among others. It was this component of the radical right that ultimately grew into Mussolini's Fascism.

In order to properly defend against fascism, one needs to understand what it is. If you have never done so, I recommend reading "The Charter of Carnaro", one of the first constitutions ever designed by the national syndicalists that created Fascism.


4. The province recognizes and confirms the sovereignty of all citizens without distinction of sex, race, language, class, or religion.
But above and beyond every other right she maintains the right of the producer; abolishes or reduces excessive centralization and coinstitutional powers, and subdivides offices and powers: so that by their harmonic, interplay communal life may grow more vigorous and abundant.


9. The State does not recognize the ownership of property as an absolute and personal right, but regards it as one of the most useful and responsible of social functions.
No property can be reserved to anyone in unrestricted ownership; nor can it be permitted that an indolent owner should leave his property unused or should dispose of it badly, to the exclusion of anyone else.
The only legitimate title to the possession of the means of production and exchange is labour. Labour alone is the custodian of that which is by far the most fruitful and profitable to the general well-being.


18. The State represents the aspiration and effort of the people, as a community, towards material and spiritual advancement.
Those only are full citizens who give their best endeavour to add to the wealth and strength of the State; these truly are one with her in her growth and development.
Whatever be the kind of work a man does, whether of hand or brain, art or industry, design or execution, he must he a member of one of the ten Corporations who receive from the commune a general direction as to the scope of their activities, hut are free to develop them in their own way and to decide among themselves as to their mutual duties and responsibilities.

9. The first Corporation comprises the wage-earners of industry, agriculture and commerce, small artisans, and small landholders who work their own farms, employing little other labour and that only occasionally.
The second Corporation includes all members of the technical or managerial staff in any private business, industrial or rural, with the exception of the proprietors or partners in the business.
In the third, are united all persons employed in commercial undertakings who are not actually operatives. Here again proprietors are excluded.
In the fourth, are associated together all employers engaged in industrial, agricultural, or commercial undertakings, so long as they are not merely owners of the business but — according to the spirit of the new constitution —prudent and sagacious masters of industry.
The fifth comprises all public servants, State and Communal employees of every rank. In the sixth are to be found the intellectual section of the people; studious youth and its leaders; teachers in the public schools and students in colleges and polytechnics; sculptors, painters, decorators, architects, musicians, all those who practise the Arts, scenic or ornamental.
The seventh includes all persons belonging to the liberal professions who are not included in the former categories.
The eighth is made up of the Co-operative Societies of production and consumption, industrial and agricultural, and can only he represented by the self-chosen administrators of the Societies.
The ninth comprises all workers on the sea.
The tenth has no special trade or register or title. It is reserved for the mysterious forces of progress and adventure. It is a sort of votive offering to the genius of the unknown, to the man of the future, to the hoped-for idealization of daily work, to the liberation of the spirit of man beyond the panting effort and bloody sweat of to-day.


22. The ancient ‘potere normativo’ will be re-established for all communes —the right of making laws subject to the Common Law.
They exercise all powers not specially assigned by the Constitution to the judicial, legislative and executive departments of the province.

23. Each commune has full sanction to draw up its own code of municipal laws, derived from its own special customs, character, and inherited energy and from its new national life.
But each commune must apply to the province for ratification of its statutes which the commune will give.
When these statutes have been approved, accepted, and voted on by the people they can be amended only by the will of a real majority of the citizens.

As can be seen, there are many similarities, in theory with what would be a syndicalist or leftist state (not Marxist, due to the position of ownership of the means of production, and certainly not capitalist for the same reason). What many Marxists fail to realize, or deny, is that many proleterians are not attracted to Marxism, pure and simple. At its core, the working class is nothing more than the peasantry, and the peasantry, we should remember, is very resistant to change, and clings to tradition.

The danger of fascism comes from the fact that it wraps up what is revolutionary change, in a traditional coat. It offers improvement to the status of the peasant, without total restructuring of the social order. It offers unity between the classes, rather than irradication. It offers equality.

What we, as leftists, need to understand: this appeals to many. If we continue to assume that the only problem with our movement is education, we will go nowhere. Education about Marxism is not always enough. Sometimes it takes convincing, and sometimes it takes the realization that those whom we want to help do not always want to be helped - and must be forced, for better or worse.

[Hoxhaist]

In the decaying capitalism in the US, we see the seeds of fascism in people like Rush Limbaugh and Alan Keyes whose intense anti-proletarian policies would go down the road to fascism

[Hoxhaist]

The failure of bourgeois democracy and capitalism in Weimar Germany that brought crippling inflation and stagnation was the nest for Nazism. Decaying capitalism proved to be the nest of fascism

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

It does because the bourgeoise want to make people feal ''free'' but at the dawn of the world revolution and the people are fed up with capitalism they will resort to fascism

[MilitantAnarchist]

Yeah of course it does, its at times like this where fascists will get support.
They can scapegoat minorities for the recession and promise fairytales to the retaded every man. I work in a pub, and through talking to people, i know that 90% of the people I know are BNP supporters, i have even had one guy say 'Hitler did alot of good, people just focus on the bad, we need a nationalist party to help us out the recession' and the general nazi bollocks, even though he claims he isnt racist.
In the UK the BNP will claim all their usual lies, but this time i do fear they will get in. People dont see them as racist or dangerous to our already dwindling freedom. We as Revolutionaries must not underestimate the dangerous of this recession, and we can no longer just talk about it. The time to act is now before it's to late... Fascism is just round the corner, so sorry for the 'get up stand up' speech, but it is the truth.

[ComradeOm]

The fact that capitalism has not led to fascism, but in fact has led to the strengthening and growing number of liberal bourgeois democracies flies in the face of some Marxists' predictions of capitalist decay. Perhaps the theories must be revised to fit the facts?Hence the emphasis on decaying capitalism