Fascist revolution. What would we do?

[Bitter Ashes]

First thing's first. I do not believe that this is possible, let alone likely, even in the medium term and just using it as a hypothetical example.

Now that's out of the way, lets get to the real question. Let's suppose that the fash, or any other group with ideas that we oppose (such as fundamentalism, monarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc) staged a coup or revolution against the current goverment.

I think it goes without saying that allying with the fash would be unthinkable, even if it was to bring down capitalism. So, where does that leave us? Do we sit back and let the two slug it out at each other, take sides with the capitalists, or attempt to create a 3rd faction? I can see advantages and disadvantages to all ideas there, so I thought I'd try look a little more in depth to them all.

Apathy - This would leave the fash unopposed by the left. If the fash did suceed, then we'd face not only a horrific society for all, but most likely there would be a highly commited strategy to root us out. Even if the goverment managed to supress the coup/revolt then I'm sure that the purges of the far-right would be targetted at the left too. It does however have the advantage of bieng the lowest risk to the left and no chance of bieng implicated of collaberating with the capitalists.

Collaberation - This would mean that the fash would be opposed by the left and should the revolt be put down, we'd be less likely to be targetted by the capitalist's purges. However there is a real risk that we'd be accused of bieng the same as the goverment and be willing to abandon our principles whenever it's convienant.

3rd Faction - Unless the left managed to defeat both sides the purges will hit the left very very hard. There is the oportunity there to take advantage of the weakened goverment's split priorities to push things forwards. Goverment and fascist propaganda would be rampart thought and most workers would probably feel that we should support one of those two factions instead and support for the left would probably be lower than ever as a point.

'tis a very thorny issue isnt it?

[Robocommie]

Well, when fascists come to power they very often like to hunt down and murder Leftists, so we might very well be in very serious danger.

I guess I'd vote 3rd faction. We can't ally with capitalists without losing our values, we can't let the Fascists win.

[RotStern]

Counter-Revolution! :D

[ComradeMan]

Apathy - is never good. What's the expression? When you tantamount condone something by your silence? So the answer is no.

Collaboration - then you would be guilty by collusion and would have sacrificed your own principles. So, again, the answer is no.

3rd Faction - you fight and if you die, so what? Like El Che.... he wasn't afraid to die for what he believed in? Shoot, it's only a man your killing. No, you fight and win, if you don't you lose your head but you do not lose your self-respect. So the answer is yes.

Leaving aside the moral issue, from a cynical and tactical point of view- policies of appeasement and/or my enemy's enemy is my friend nearly always backfire in the face of the people who employ them.

[gorillafuck]

Realistically if I thought I was in extreme danger of being hunted down in my home I'd probably flee. If I didn't feel like I was in extreme danger I don't know what I would do.

[ComradeMan]

Realistically if I thought I was in extreme danger of being hunted down in my home I'd probably flee.

When it gets to that point you may as well turn and fight your corner.

[Robocommie]

When it gets to that point you may as well turn and fight your corner.

There's nothing wrong with being afraid, nor with running away. Plenty of Leftists have gone into exile. There's not necessarily any benefit to just dying as a martyr.

[ComradeMan]

There's nothing wrong with being afraid, nor with running away. Plenty of Leftists have gone into exile. There's not necessarily any benefit to just dying as a martyr.

Not saying there is, but at the same time- when it comes to the point some &%/&%/ is going to push me out of my home and nothing is left, I think it would be too late anyway.

[Random Precision]

Fascists do not do "revolutions".

[Bitter Ashes]

Fascists do not do "revolutions".
Well, Hitler did try and Franco did suceed. I'm not sure about Musolini as my knowledge of Italian history is very limited, although I wouldnt be suprised if he did too.

Anyway, if that's your stance it doesnt prevent you replacing the word facist with some of the other suggestions. This situation also applies to coups too. This is only a hypothetical situation afterall.

[Random Precision]

Well, Hitler did try and Franco did suceed. I'm not sure about Musolini as my knowledge of Italian history is very limited, although I wouldnt be suprised if he did too.

I think of a revolution as an event that does away with the existing social order and replaces it with a substantially different one. France, Russia etc had revolutions.

What happened in Spain was a military coup followed by a civil war. In Germany Hitler took power through the established democratic procedures of the Weimar Republic, although he had the constitution significantly changed afterwards. Mussolini also took power through the established procedures of the Italian state- after the march on Rome Vittorio Emmanuel asked him to form a government in Parliament. None of these however made a substantial change to the social order, which was capitalist in substance before and after each event.

As for your scenarios I think we would have to see what the situation looks like. How strong the fascist state is, how strong the working class is, how strong the non-working class opposition is. I think it's appropriate in certain situations for revolutionaries to participate in a democratic reform movement, like the one that brought Pinochet down in Chile. In cases where a simultaneous social revolution emerges and the working class is strong, revolutionaries should act to defend their gains and carry out the revolution against both fascists and non-working class anti-fascists, like in Spain. These are all strategic considerations that decide what the revolutionary strategy must be.

[Psy]

As for your scenarios I think we would have to see what the situation looks like. How strong the fascist state is, how strong the working class is, how strong the non-working class opposition is. I think it's appropriate in certain situations for revolutionaries to participate in a democratic reform movement, like the one that brought Pinochet down in Chile. In cases where a simultaneous social revolution emerges and the working class is strong, revolutionaries should act to defend their gains and carry out the revolution against both fascists and non-working class anti-fascists, like in Spain. These are all strategic considerations that decide what the revolutionary strategy must be.

Yet Pinochet could have been stopped back 1973 if the left prepared for the coup by forming heavily armed militias independent of Allende in response to the earlier failed coup and unleashing a revolutionary army against Pinochet when he launched his 1973 coup.

[Random Precision]

Yet Pinochet could have been stopped back 1973 if the left prepared for the coup by forming heavily armed militias independent of Allende in response to the earlier failed coup and unleashing a revolutionary army against Pinochet when he launched his 1973 coup.

True. But by the 1980s Chile had a strong military regime and a completely decimated left, and workers had barely any rights to organize. This just shows what I was talking about.

[A.R.Amistad]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2904

[the last donut of the night]

Well, if a "fascist revolution" were to occur, I would do one thing, and one thing only: set water on fire, ascend a tree by going down, and running without moving.

The funny thing is that all those are oxymorons and unrealistic, just as a "fascist revolution" is an oxymoron.

Fascism isn't a new social and economic system. It is merely a system that wishes to go back to the most reactionary core of the bourgeoisie. It is literally a reactionary movement. Change the name of the thread to "Fascist reaction. What would we do?"

[bcbm]

why are some of y'all so pedantic?

[A.R.Amistad]

RedManatee does make a very good point. Revolutions are events that fundamentally change some aspect, or most or all aspects, of a society. Fascism would appear to be a political revolution, especially if it were to take place in a bourgeois-republic, but looking at it dialectically, the fascist ascendancy to power would probably be taking advantage of already existing social orders and therefore would be a social reaction. Hitler's fascist state came to power completely within the structure of the parliamentary republic. Also, we have to be able to differentiate between truly fascist movements and generic totalitarian regimes. For example, I don't believe that Pinochet was a fascist. Now, of course I despise Pinochet, and I believe that as an individual he was a fascist and used fascist rhetoric as a basis for his actions, but he did not come to power by fascist means. What defines a fascist movement is that
1. While being inspired by the Bourgeoisie, the leaders and founders of such movements usually come from the petty bourgeois class, or the "upper middle class."
2. The movement is based on a disciplined political organ or party of some sort, almost resembling a workers' party with the exception that it promotes reaction. Fascist movements always claim to have a populist program. This is what separates dictatorships ike Pinochets from Hitler or Mousollini. He siezed power through the military, and was therefore a military dictator. He did not ascend to power on any sort of populist political program promoted by a reactionary party.
3. Of course, they place heavy emphasis on all that is reactionary: Hypernationalism, religious intolerance and religious totalitarianism of the most prevalent religion of the ruling class, racial supremacy and seperatism, etc. etc.

This is important so we know just who our enemies are. Theoretically, military dictatorships are easier to revolt against. The ruling class resorts to using its military as a state when it is too pressed for time to promote a reactionary movement to a revolution. Military dictatorships are generally ill structured politically, with generals competing over personal issues and no real political program envisioned except the preservation of capitalism and the squashing of the workers' revolution. Fascist movements, though, are reguarded by revolutionists and the most dangerous form of reaction because they are the most difficult to combat. They don't come from above like a military, but instead make pretensions to supporting the causes of the masses, even opposing aspects of capitalism at times, at least nominally. While the revolutionary vanguard seeks to educate the masses to gain their support and to educate them for an effective proletarian dictatorship, the fascist vanguard seeks to highlight and intensify the already existant prejudices and ignorance of the masses at a given point in history. The fascists have a much easier task than we do because while we have to educate people, they simply have to yell cliches. Going against a fascist organization is a rough thing when they are in power because while you are ultimatley fighting against the state and ruling class, many workers will most certainly be killed because many workers will have sided with the fascists. Its simply the tactic of reaction, and it can force the working class to fight itself and end up in deimation while the bourgouisie and the fascist elite retain their power.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fascists are incapable of 'revolution' in the marxian concept of the word.

If it came to the stage where the Fascists could take power in this country e.g. the BNP had a significant number of MPs, the only option would be to rally whatever forces we had and mount a counter-insurrection. Learn from history, comrades, and stop Fascism at any cost.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

A Fascist take-over is normally a counter-revolution, not a revolution, as Deom-Soc pointed out.

Furthermore, if you ask me what the left would do in case of a Fascist take-over, my guess is we'd pretty much do what we're doing right now...screwing around with pointless posturing.

I mean, really, every day the governments of Europe and North America are heading towards a sort of slow, creeping Fascism, made sweeter by consumerism and comfortable-sounding slogans about "democracy" and "freedom" and what not.

In the Third World, states are getting away with bloody murder, literally, and have been crushing resistance to the neo-liberal project mercilessly.

What have we on the Left done so far to counter this, apart from making our own little ideological bunkers and shooting at each other (ideologically)?

If we don't change our ways, why do you expect something new to happen if parties like the BNP start taking power?

[Rakhmetov]

A "fascist revolution" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. I've always pondered why the media cals the Iranian uprising in 1979 a "revolution." Maybe to stigmatize the very concept of revolution as being a very bad thing.

[Robocommie]

A Fascist take-over is normally a counter-revolution, not a revolution, as Deom-Soc pointed out.

Furthermore, if you ask me what the left would do in case of a Fascist take-over, my guess is we'd pretty much do what we're doing right now...screwing around with pointless posturing.

I mean, really, every day the governments of Europe and North America are heading towards a sort of slow, creeping Fascism, made sweeter by consumerism and comfortable-sounding slogans about "democracy" and "freedom" and what not.

In the Third World, states are getting away with bloody murder, literally, and have been crushing resistance to the neo-liberal project mercilessly.

What have we on the Left done so far to counter this, apart from making our own little ideological bunkers and shooting at each other (ideologically)?

If we don't change our ways, why do you expect something new to happen if parties like the BNP start taking power?

Well, what's the alternative? What's the first step to take to actually doing something?

[un_person]

A "fascist revolution" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. I've always pondered why the media cals the Iranian uprising in 1979 a "revolution." Maybe to stigmatize the very concept of revolution as being a very bad thing.


Well from what I've read, the Iranian Revolution started as a leftist rising, but was later stolen by the Kohmeni and others and turned into a religious backed "revolution."
But back to the question, I would understand the views of anyone who wanted to flee but I for one would vote 3rd faction.

[ComradeMan]

And while you lot are arguing about the semantics of the blimmin' word "revolution" the fascist coup/revolution/reaction is busy wiping out the opposition whilst the poor 3rd faction is up in the hills fighting out to the bitter end with no help...:D

[the last donut of the night]

why are some of y'all so pedantic?

Somebody has to be accurate about reality.

[ComradeMan]

Somebody has to be accurate about reality.

What is reality? What is real to you is not necessarily real to others.

The human mind can only perceive what it knows.

It reminds of the story of the natives of Tierra del Fuego who "did not see the ships" because they did not know what they were....
:)

[bcbm]

Somebody has to be accurate about reality.

it was perfectly clear what ranma meant, and random precision had already elaborated on the semantics issue involved, so i fail to see why a bunch of other people needed to mentally masturbate all over the thread.

[ComradeMan]

it was perfectly clear what ranma meant, and random precision had already elaborated on the semantics issue involved, so i fail to see why a bunch of other people needed to mentally masturbate all over the thread.

Intellectual masturbation in Italian "una sega mentale".:D

[Bitter Ashes]

Okay. Just in case anybody out there had any illusions that facism may be progressive because I may or may not have used the word revolution incorrectly then please accept my apoligies as it was not the intention and unless anyone has any objections to the word coup bieng used instead, that'll be what the question reffers to by the facist takeover.

Now, can we please answer the question about responses? *collapses*

[Guerrilla22]

I don't think we'll see any more actual fascist regimes. Corporations make plenty of money using the liberal model that the US and the rest of the west uses. Actually the liberal model requires people to do less than the corporatist model does and is more financially rewarding. The 3 states that continued to use the corporatist model after ww2 (Greece, Portugal, Spain) all ended up becoming liberal democracies, because it was more effective. Fascists these days basically amount to racists holding demos.

[GPDP]

I don't think we'll see any more actual fascist regimes. Corporations make plenty of money using the liberal model that the US and the rest of the west uses. Actually the liberal model requires people to do less than the corporatist model does and is more financially rewarding. The 3 states that continued to use the corporatist model after ww2 (Greece, Portugal, Spain) all ended up becoming liberal democracies, because it was more effective. Fascists these days basically amount to racists holding demos.

Fascism is much more than corporatist economics. I see little contradiction between fascism and liberal capitalism. Hell, look at Pinochet. He got pretty damn close to fusing the two.

[Forward Union]

First thing's first. I do not believe that this is possible, let alone likely

Then stop fantasising about it. We have innumerable real problems which need real, not philosophical solutions. And we don't have the time to wank over revolutionary fantasy scenarios.

Let's discuss how we will rebuild the trade union movement in the UK.

[RedSonRising]

Our best bet would probably be to rapidly pool resources across the nation through all-level organizations and arm every union and organized workforce possible...perhaps not to attempt an assault but at least prepare for self defense. Propaganda would have to increase tenfold, but Fascism is a much more blatant form of oppression than liberal capitalism and gives the advantage of identifying the oppressive class much more easily than in a society that makes you think your prison is a paradise of freedom. Any territorial advantage that separates these cells from accessible military routes would be a great one, and collectivist methods would have to come about in order to preserve an isolated resistance cut off from the market. So I think attempts at autonomous survival in the wake of leftist repression and militant protection of working class dissidents would be the only way to resist and eventually reclaim the country. The line between those who resist and those who do not would greatly help in our exposure as leaders of societal ideals, and the "us and them" mentality created in a fascist seizure would help the working class identify with the political left a lot easier, surmounting the media aggression. In fact, if a leftist coalition were sufficiently intact, a fascist coup would be one of the best, most easily mobilizing event we could ask for. It would be a risk and it's not something I want in terms of routes towards revolution, but the social conditions of Spain show something similarly beneficial for the proletariat going down as a real example of history.

[New Tet]

it was perfectly clear what ranma meant, and random precision had already elaborated on the semantics issue involved, so i fail to see why a bunch of other people needed to mentally masturbate all over the thread.

Man, you're way too negative!

Let everyone put in their two cents worth of sense and nonsense. Theeeeeeen you can rightfully declare "What a load of shit!"

[chegitz guevara]

If there was a fascist uprising, I suppose I'd find a way to help suppress it. If it looked like they were going to win, I'd get my wife, cats, computer, etc., steal a yacht and head for the islands. Living near the edge of the country has its advantages.

[Guerrilla22]

Fascism is much more than corporatist economics. I see little contradiction between fascism and liberal capitalism. Hell, look at Pinochet. He got pretty damn close to fusing the two.

Yeah, but ultimately liberalism won out there as it has every where else basically.

[chegitz guevara]

Fascism is much more than corporatist economics. I see little contradiction between fascism and liberal capitalism. Hell, look at Pinochet. He got pretty damn close to fusing the two.

There is a vast difference between fascism and liberal capitalism. And Pinochet wasn't a fascist. Military coups aren't fascism, no matter how vicious. Fascism is a mass movement of the middle classes and backwards workers.

There is a very simple test to determine whether or not you live in a fascist country. If you are reading this post, you don't live in a fascist country.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is a vast difference between fascism and liberal capitalism. And Pinochet wasn't a fascist. Military coups aren't fascism, no matter how vicious. Fascism is a mass movement of the middle classes and backwards workers.

There is a very simple test to determine whether or not you live in a fascist country. If you are reading this post, you don't live in a fascist country.


Oswald Mosley the infamous British Fascist wrote that military regimes such as the ones of Pinochet, Franco and the Greek generals were not Fascist. Fascism was strictly a movement that died out after the War. It was a hybrid of syndicalism and right wing nationalism. It incorporated the right wing junta element only as a way of maintaining power but was vastly different from right wing military juntas.

Think Peronism rather than Pinochet.

[cyu]

There is a vast difference between fascism and liberal capitalism. And Pinochet wasn't a fascist. Military coups aren't fascism, no matter how vicious... If you are reading this post, you don't live in a fascist country.


I'm not going to argue the semantics of fascism and "liberal" capitalism, but I'm betting if Pinochet or one of his clones were running my country, I would have been "disappeared" long ago.

[The Red Next Door]

Arms ourselves and hide in the deep forest and launch guerrilla attacks from our bases. The right to bear arms is not only for the right wing bible thumping gun nut douchebags.

[KurtFF8]

We would do what leftists have always done under those circumstances: resist. The liberation movements against Fascism in Europe were lead by leftists/Communists/Anarchists, I see no reason why we would consider any other course of action.

[New Tet]

We would do what leftists have always done under those circumstances: resist. The liberation movements against Fascism in Europe were lead by leftists/Communists/Anarchists, I see no reason why we would consider any other course of action.

"Any other course of action" being what?

Socialism never came out on top in a fight with Fascism. It was bourgeois liberalism--with the help and blind courage & sacrifice of the American, Asian and European working classes--that defeated the malingnant cancer of Nazism.

I think that Socialism was postponed in the 20th Century merely by the rise and fall of Fascism in Europe. In my mind, and as far as Socialism is concerned, any postponement of revolution means a new defeat for its cause.

[Dr Mindbender]

Socialism never came out on top in a fight with Fascism.

O Rlly?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/3128081339_279756efb5.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

Nice pic but the Stalin was an opportunist who felt betrayed by Hitler's invasion. He was saving his own ass.

Regardless, anyone else hate how the liberal regimes re-wrote the history of the Fight against Fascism and totally rubbed out the Socialist struggle? We were fighting Fascism long before the Western powers stepped in to save their necks. We fought them in the Spanish Civil War, in France with the Resistance movement, The Italian Partisans, the Chinese Communists saved Chiang Kai-shek's ass against Imperial Japan. The Greek Communist Party fought the Fascists, the Nazis AND the Greek Generals in a Civil War supported by the back stabbing Allies AFTER the war!

[Brother No. 1]

Nice pic but the Stalin was an opportunist who felt betrayed by Hitler's invasion. He was saving his own ass.

Then exlaborate on his opportunism, if you would so kindly.



Socialism never came out on top in a fight with Fascism.

Yes, for the Allies captured Berlin. Not the Soviet Union. no,no that was all a lie. :rolleyes:



It was bourgeois liberalism--with the help and blind courage & sacrifice of the American, Asian and European working classes--that defeated the malingnant cancer of Nazism.

http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0207/0207-CH-ammoney2nazi.htm

Yep, thank you American Bourgoise for aiding the Nazis through money....wait.

[RadioRaheem84]

Then exlaborate on his opportunism, if you would so kindly.

Hilter-Stalin pact as they were dividing up the East.

[NecroCommie]

And if that divide was done by a "true socialist" it would be known as "spreading the revolution". Is that not the case?

[Brother No. 1]

Hilter-Stalin pact as they were dividing up the East.

You do know that it was a 'last resort' for the USSR? They had already tried to get a Anti-Facist alliance with the western powers to halt the Facists but the western powers delcined/had bussniess with them.


Negotiations between Britain and France, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union, on the other, began in March 1939 and continued for about four months.

The whole course of these negotiations made it perfectly manifest that whereas the Soviet Union was striving to reach a broad agreement with the Western Powers, on a basis of equality, an agreement capable of preventing Germany, even if at the eleventh hour, from starting war in Europe, the Governments of Britain and France, backed by support in the United States, set themselves entirely different aims. The ruling circles of Britain and France, who were accustomed to having others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them, on this occasion too attempted to inveigle the Soviet Union into assuming commitments under which it would have taken upon itself the brunt of the sacrifice in repulsing eventual Hitler aggression, while Britain and France would not be bound by any commitments toward the Soviet Union.

If the rulers of Britain and France had succeeded in this manoeuvre, they would have come much closer to attaining their major objective, which was to set Germany and the Soviet Union at loggerheads as quickly as possible. The Soviet Government, however, saw through the design, and at all stages of the negotiations countered the diplomatic trickery and subterfuges of the Western Powers with clear and frank proposals designed to serve but one purpose -- the safeguarding of peace in Europe.

There is no need to recount all the vicissitudes of the negotiations. We need only bring to mind a few of the more important points. Suffice it to recall the terms put forward in the negotiations by the Soviet Government: conclusion of an effective pact of mutual assistance against aggression between Britain, France and the U.S.S.R.; a guarantee by Britain, France and the U.S.S.R. to the states of Central and Eastern Europe, including all European countries bordering on the U.S.S.R. without exception; conclusion of a concrete military agreement between Britain, France and the U.S.S.R. on the forms and extent of immediate effective aid to each other and to the guaranteed states in the event of an attack by aggressors. (See Report by V.M. Molotov to the Third Session of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., May 31, 1939.)


U.S.S.R.'s Non-Aggression Pact with Germany


No counterfeiters can expunge from history or from the minds of the peoples the overriding fact that under these circumstances the Soviet Union was faced with the alternative:

Either, in its self-defence, to accept Germany's proposal for a pact of non-aggression, and thereby ensure the Soviet Union prolongation of peace for a certain period, which might be utilized to better prepare the force of the Soviet State for resistance to eventual aggression;

Or to reject Germany's proposal for a non-aggression pact, and thereby allow the provocateurs of war in the camp of the Western Powers to embroil the Soviet Union immediately in an armed conflict with Germany, at a time when the situation was utterly unfavourable to the Soviet Union, seeing that it would be completely isolated.

Under these circumstances, the Soviet Government was compelled to make its choice and conclude a non-aggression pact with Germany.

In the situation that had arisen this choice on the part of Soviet foreign policy was a wise and farsighted act. This step of the Soviet Government to a very large degree predetermined the favourable outcome of the second world war for the Soviet Union and all the freedom-loving peoples.

To assert that the conclusion of the pact with the Hitlerites formed part of the plan of Soviet foreign policy is a gross calumny. On the contrary, all the time the U.S.S.R. strove to secure an agreement with the Western non-aggressive states for the achievement of collective security, on a basis of equality, against the German and Italian aggressors. But there must be two parties to an agreement. And, whereas the U.S.S.R. insistently urged an agreement for combatting aggression, Britain and France systematically rejected it, preferring to pursue a policy of isolating the U.S.S.R., of conceding to the aggressors, of directing aggression toward the East, against the U.S.S.R. The United States of America, far from counteracting this fatal policy, backed it in every way. As to the American billionaires, they went on investing their capital in German heavy industry, helping the Germans to expand their war industries and thus supplying the arms for German aggression. It was as good as saying: "Go on, you Europeans, fight to your heart's content, and God be with you! Meanwhile we modest American billionaires will make fortunes out of your war by raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in superprofits."

http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0207/0207-Non-agres-USSR-ger.htm




By September 17, 1939, when Soviet troops crossed the border, the Polish government had ceased to function. The fact that Poland no longer had a government meant that Poland was no longer a state.
On September 17 when Molotov handed Polish Ambassador to the USSR Grzybowski the note Grzybowski told Molotov that he did not know where his government was, but had been informed that he should contact it through Bucharest. See polish_state_collapsed.html (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/polish_state_collapsed.html)
In fact the last elements of the Polish government crossed the border into Rumania and so into internment during the day of September 17, according to a United Press dispatch published on page four of the New York Times on September 18 with a dateline of Cernauti, Rumania. See polish_leaders_flee.html (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/polish_leaders_flee.html)
Without a government, Poland as a state had ceased to exist under international law. This fact is denied -- more often, simply ignored -- by anticommunists, for whom it is a bone in the throat.
We take a closer look at this issue in the next section below (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html#The Question of the State in International Law). But a moment's reflection will reveal the logic of this position. With no government -- the Polish government was interned in Rumania, remember -- there is no one to negotiate with; no body to which the police, local governments, and the military are responsible. Polish ambassadors to foreign countries no longer represent their government, because there is no government. (See the page polish_state_collapsed.html (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/polish_state_collapsed.html) , especially the NYT article of October 2, 1939 (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/polish_state_collapsed.html#Polish Government Blamed) )

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html

http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0207/0207-HB-causesofWW2.htm

and another link for the Non-Agression pact.





The Anglo-French-Soviet Negotiations

On 31 March 1939, without consulting the Soviet Union, the British government gave a unilateral guarantee to defend Poland against aggression.
The leader of the liberal Party, David Lloyd George, told the House of Commons:
"I cannot understand why, before committing ourselves to this tremendous enterprise, we did not secure beforehand the adhesion of Russia. . . . If Russia has not been brought into this matter because of certain feelings that Poles have that they do not want the Russians there, . . . unless the Poles are prepared to accept the one condition with which we can help them, the responsibility must be theirs".
(Parliamentary Debates. 5th Series, House of Commons, Volume 35; London; 1939; Col. 2,510).
The Anglo-French guarantee stimulated public pressure on the appeaser governments to at least make gestures in the direction of collective security.

So, on 15 April 1939 the British government made an approach to the Soviet government suggesting that it might like to issue a public declaration offering military assistance to any state bordering the Soviet Union which was subject to aggression if that state desired it.
Two days later, on 17 April the Soviet government replied that it would not consider a unilateral guarantee, which would put the Soviet Union in a position of inequality with the other Powers concerned. It proposed:
Firstly, a trilateral mutual assistance treaty by Britain, France and the Soviet Union against aggression;
Secondly, the extension of guarantees to the Baltic States (Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania), on the grounds that failure to guarantee these states was an open invitation to Germany to expand eastwards through invasion of these states;
Thirdly, that the treaty must not be vague, but must detail the extent and forms of the military assistance to be rendered by the signatory Powers.
On 27 May the British and French governments replied to the Soviet proposals with the draft of a proposed tripartite pact. The British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain commented on the British draft in a letter to his sister at this time:
"In substance it gives the Russians what they want, but in form and presentation it avoids the idea of an alliance and substitutes declaration of intention. It is really a most ingenious idea".
(Neville Chamberlain Archives, University of Birmingham, 11/1/1101).
Vyacheslav Molotov, who had just taken over the post of People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs from Maksim Litvinov, rejected the draft on the grounds that it proposed in the event of hostilities not immediate mutual assistance, but merely consultation through the League of Nations.
On 2 June the Soviet government submitted to Britain and France a counter-draft making these joints.

The British and French governments responded by saying that Finland, Estonia and Latvia refused to be guaranteed.
The Soviet government continued to insist that a military convention be signed at the same time as the political treaty, in order that there might be no possibility of any hedging about the application of the latter. On 17 July Molotov stated that there was no point in continuing discussions on the political treaty until the military convention had been concluded.
On 23 July the British and French governments finally agreed to begin military discussions before the political treaty of alliance had been finalised, and a British naval officer with the quadruple-barreled name of Admiral Reginald Plunkett-Ernie-Erle-Drax was appointed to head the British delegation. No one, apparently, had informed the British government that the aeroplane had been invented, and the delegation left Tilbury by a slow boat to Leningrad, from where they proceeded by train to Moscow. When the delegation finally arrived in Moscow on 11 August, the Soviet side discovered that it had no powers to negotiate, only to 'hold talks'. Furthermore, the British delegation was officially instructed to:
"Go very slowly with the conversations";
('Documents on British Foreign Policy;', 3rd Series, Volume 6; London; 1953; Appendix 5; p. 763).
Nevertheless, the military talks began in Moscow on 12 August.
On 15 August the leader of the Soviet delegation, People's Commissar for Defence
Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, told the delegates that unless Soviet troops were permitted to enter Polish territory it was physically impossible for the Soviet Union to assist Poland and it would be useless to continue discussions.

This point was never resolved before the Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations were negotiations were adjourned indefinitely on 21 August -- after the Soviet government had decided to sign the non-aggression pact with Germany.


http://web.archive.org/web/20020918065827/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/WBBJVSNaziPact.htm

[Muzk]

We should immediatly organize and form a militant anti-fascist force.

No weapons available? Storm a barrack using women, the soldiers have a heart and won't kill them, neither use hard violence. (I invented this tactic! XD)

[NecroCommie]

Soldiers have no hearts, least they wouldn't be soldiers. They will not hesitate to kill women if a solid order is given.

[Muzk]

Soldiers have no hearts, least they wouldn't be soldiers. They will not hesitate to kill women if a solid order is given.

General, man is very useful,
he can shoot and he can kill
but he has one defect:
he can think

srsly stop thinking the whole world is against you, thats a dogmatic overgeneralization

[NecroCommie]

Seriously, several revolutions have experienced setbacks when they expected military personnel to just put down their weapons. And as I recall, an entire crusade was established on the false assumption that soldiers would not kill children. Little has changed within the heads of soldiers, and killing women is even less of a taboo than killing children.

Rather than slaughtering unarmed women, the disarmament of garrisons should be done with the few weapons that are available. This should be the first act of the revolution as to catch the soldiers with their pants down. (if not literally so...)

[cameron222]

Let's suppose that the fash, or any other group with ideas that we oppose (such as fundamentalism, monarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc) staged a coup or revolution against the current goverment.


just out of curiosity, WOULD various posters here take up arms against an ancap revolution? as seriously worse enough compared to what we have, to actually fight rather than propagandize? I would think you would wait until monopolies become so bad that its worth it. I;'m not trolling, just curious. I wouldn't go up against it, but all the others listed I would. I wonder what a maoist thinks, do you hate monarchists more or less than ancappies? who would you take out first if you have to divide and conquer?

ancap a decade later = bosses fighting themselves and an actual (not supergrass) proletariat that hates them, 10 yrs to organize, no FBI to stop you.

[RadioRaheem84]

just out of curiosity, WOULD various posters here take up arms against an ancap revolution? as seriously worse enough compared to what we have, to actually fight rather than propagandize? I would think you would wait until monopolies become so bad that its worth it. I;'m not trolling, just curious. I wouldn't go up against it, but all the others listed I would. I wonder what a maoist thinks, do you hate monarchists more or less than ancappies? who would you take out first if you have to divide and conquer?

ancap a decade later = bosses fighting themselves and an actual (not supergrass) proletariat that hates them, 10 yrs to organize, no FBI to stop you.

The closest thing to revolution I see brewing at all is a pro-cappie right wing revolt vs. a corrupt pro-cappie government (erroneously mistaken as a socialist regime). We would actually be a third force that would eventually have to take sides. Other than that I don't see anti-capistalist revolt happening for a long time.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not going to argue the semantics of fascism and "liberal" capitalism, but I'm betting if Pinochet or one of his clones were running my country, I would have been "disappeared" long ago.

While that may be true, you live under liberal capitalism and you haven't been disappeared ... yet, anyway. This system is hardly comparable to fascism, as GDPD tried to claim.

[Pogue]

I don't think we can really answer this as I don't ever see a 'fascist revolution' happening outside of the context of a situation like Spain in 36, i.e. a coup against the rising power of the working class. I imagine we'd respond as the CNT/UGT militants did in the early days of the Spanish Civil War, i.e. fight back with arms.

[cyu]

While that may be true, you live under liberal capitalism and you haven't been disappeared ... yet, anyway. This system is hardly comparable to fascism, as GDPD tried to claim.


I wouldn't say any classifications are absolute, but you'd have to put it in terms of, say, this country is more democratic than that, or has more press freedom than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

While you could certainly argue the methodology of how those indices are compiled, it's not hard to imagine an "index of fascism" where one might say country X is much closer to fascism than country Y.

[Pogue]

I wouldn't say any classifications are absolute, but you'd have to put it in terms of, say, this country is more democratic than that, or has more press freedom than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

While you could certainly argue the methodology of how those indices are compiled, it's not hard to imagine an "index of fascism" where one might say country X is much closer to fascism than country Y.

That would totally ignore what fascism actually is. In my opinion such an index would be a ridiculous concept.

[ComradeRed22'91]

Fascists do not do "revolutions".

You know what he means. Got damn!

[chegitz guevara]

I wouldn't say any classifications are absolute

I think this is correct, but I think we need to use certain terms very carefully. There is a tendency of some to label any manifestation of authoritarianism, or even the rule of law, as fascist. I think the first test of such a discussion is whether or not you can even have the discussion. If you're able to talk about whether or not your country is fascist, it isn't.

1st, fascism is unambiguous. If you live in a fascist state, there will be no question, no matter how sheep-like some people might claim the population to be. It will be as obvious as the sun and Earth on a clear day.

2nd, we'd be rounded up and imprisoned (or in exile), possibly tortured and killed, so we would very likely be physically incapable of having the discussion.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think we can really answer this as I don't ever see a 'fascist revolution' happening outside of the context of a situation like Spain in 36, i.e. a coup against the rising power of the working class. I imagine we'd respond as the CNT/UGT militants did in the early days of the Spanish Civil War, i.e. fight back with arms.

Or like Wiemar Germany which I believe is a closer model. We would be like the Spartacus League that was against both the right wing death squads (Freikorps) and the corrupt liberal-social democratic administration.

The Spanish situation would be more applicable if the right wing went totally berserk and co-opted a faction of the military led by a strongman to take down the government.

[Chambered Word]

I'd take the opportunity to give some Nazi fuckers a mouthful of curb. :D What else can you do?

[cyu]

That would totally ignore what fascism actually is. In my opinion such an index would be a ridiculous concept.

Let's say your definition of fascism had a few characteristics. Let's say one of those characteristics was that you'd be imprisoned (or worse) for saying anything negative about the Leader. So is imprisonment one of the thresholds then? Does it make a difference between how long the imprisonment is, such as 1 night in jail versus life in solitary? What if it was less than imprisonment? Say a fine - would it make a difference if the fine were between $1 and confiscation of your bank account? Let's say it wasn't a fine, but you merely had your wage / salary lowered or fired from your job and blacklisted from every job you really wanted to do.

You don't think someone could come up with a comparison of "more fascist" or "less fascist" based on things like this?

[RadioRaheem84]

Hypothetical: If there was a right wing revolt, would you indirectly side with the liberal government or would support the rise of an opposition to the government regardless is its a tad right wing? I mean as opposed to the government as we are anyways, would it be right to even remotely support an opposition that would probably right wing? I mean in that case, I would defend the government. As corrupt and capitalist as it might be, I would rather deal with an Obama than a right wing coup.

I thought it was possible to talk some sense to the right but its pointless.

[black_tambourine]

Hypothetical: If there was a right wing revolt, would you indirectly side with the liberal government or would support the rise of an opposition to the government regardless is its a tad right wing? I mean as opposed to the government as we are anyways, would it be right to even remotely support an opposition that would probably right wing? I mean in that case, I would defend the government. As corrupt and capitalist as it might be, I would rather deal with an Obama than a right wing coup.

I thought it was possible to talk some sense to the right but its pointless.

I agree. Obama would only be better than a right-wing military dictatorship in the same way that an ulcer is better than stomach cancer, but better nonetheless.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf_SIHNT0AE

Interesting. A right winger admits to helping start an extreme right wing paramilitary group similar to the Freikorps of Wiermar Germany, in Allende's Chile.

I know Obama is no Allende, as much as the right thinks he is. I could only imagine if we did have an Allende! But still I could see something like this form in the US if things get worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_and_Liberty

[btpound]

Fascism typically arises from the middle class in a period in which neither class can successfully take control. That means the bourgeois would be weak and we could use the situation to polarize the population for revolution.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'd shit my pants most likely.

But since I'm on the internet; I'D START TEARING SHIT UP WIT MA COMRADES


Nah, in the current situation it depends on the degree which the army is supportive of the fascists or not. If it is, then we are screwed, and need to go underground asap (I say this, but have no idea about how to actually "go underground") or leave the country. If we do have a substantial amount of the armed forces on "our side" (e.g. the government that the fascists are revolting against) then we could help support them.

Since we don't have anywhere near the resources, influence, or weapons that the anarchists did in Spain (And I assume in most of our countries, our armed forces are far, far better than the Spanish one at the time, I think anyone calling for us to pull a repeat of that is totally mad.)

[RadioRaheem84]

Fascism typically arises from the middle class in a period in which neither class can successfully take control. That means the bourgeois would be weak and we could use the situation to polarize the population for revolution.


Very true. I've noticed that the right wing is largely middle class in this nation but it incorporates some of the white working class too.

But most of the time the politician they oppose is at least, at least a real socialist or social democrat. Obama is anything but. So this whole opposition movement is based entirely on the misconception that he is one. Weird.

[chegitz guevara]

Fascism typically arises from the middle class in a period in which neither class can successfully take control. That means the bourgeois would be weak and we could use the situation to polarize the population for revolution.

It's not that the worker class cannot take control. It's that the worker class can take control, but doesn't. Instead of proceeding to the revolution, the worker movement allows the bourgeoisie time to recover, and the capitalists, desperate for any means to stay in possession of their property, turn to the fascists as a means of smashing worker class power. At least, that's what happened in Italy, Germany, and Spain.

In the U.S., the capitalists are at the height of their power, and instead, one section of the ruling class (finance capital) has helped to organized the new fascist Tea Party in order to fend off a threat to their superprofits from another section of the ruling class (manufacturing capital). In the mean time, the fascists also target immigrants, workers, women, etc.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well wasn't there a fascist attempt in the US before WWII? A group of businessmen and military leaders wanted to oust FDR for his policies, minuscule as they were. They didn't even have a right wing army of citizens to back them up. The public was with the President.

I just don't think that the capitalists are that dumb as the tea party people to think that Obama is actually like FDR or even a social democrat for one. Maybe he is under neath, I don't know, but his policies are not leftist or even barely liberal in the slightest. He is an adamant centrist in the American sense.

Maybe they're just fomenting anger to get this administration to comprise his centrist policies to fit the capitalist consensus? But I doubt that they actually wish or hope to rouse the public that much as to start a rebellion. Maybe the capitalists and their media puppets have created a storm of opposition that they cannot control so much anymore. That is what the internal split within the camp maybe about. It maybe the capitalist forces trying to hold back the real dangerous opposition lining up to take force.

[KurtFF8]

I just don't think that the capitalists are that dumb as the tea party people to think that Obama is actually like FDR or even a social democrat for one. Maybe he is under neath, I don't know, but his policies are not leftist or even barely liberal in the slightest. He is an adamant centrist in the American sense.

Exactly, Obama is not a threat to capital and has actually been quite friendly to it thus far. I think talk of coming Fascism is quite unfounded in the first place.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly, Obama is not a threat to capital and has actually been quite friendly to it thus far. I think talk of coming Fascism is quite unfounded in the first place.

But I am not looking at the capitalists themselves to foment revolution, but the people themselves. As in a fully grassroots movements unrestrained by the corporate interests. One thats entirely built on decades of propaganda. One that's backed by the people themselves. That is what I am afraid of. I am afraid of a Michael Savage that is not backed by corporate interests to take over the movement. One that is not restrained by advertisers and take over a media like the internet and based entirely on donations and a grassroots campaign.

Chomsky said that we're lucky that most of these corporate backed goons on the radio and in office are just puppets with no real belief in their platforms, but that we should be afraid when we actually get someone that actually believes in the rhetoric to take stage.

[KurtFF8]

See but if a fascist movement weren't backed by some sort of corporate entity, it likely wouldn't make it very far (i.e. see how Fascism always comes to power).

A reactionary "revolution" in America would not resemble the Fascisms of Europe or even Latin America I would imagine. These popular conservative/reactionary movements are very confused and those contradictions in their movement are surfacing into fractures within the movement already.

[RadioRaheem84]

See but if a fascist movement weren't backed by some sort of corporate entity, it likely wouldn't make it very far (i.e. see how Fascism always comes to power).

A reactionary "revolution" in America would not resemble the Fascisms of Europe or even Latin America I would imagine. These popular conservative/reactionary movements are very confused and those contradictions in their movement are surfacing into fractures within the movement already.

Very true. I see your point. So then what is the purpose of letting the current reactionaries go so far? Is to foment so much anger at the administration that they seek to change it for an even more reactionary government in the next elections? Elect an uber-pro business guy?

[rararoadrunner]

Comrades, we need not confine ourselves to the hypothetical here: look at the thread on the mad Sheriff of Arizona to see what is actually happening in a textbook case!

Undocumented immigrants are being made into the objects of fascist hate there, and what's happening?

The Feds have unquestioned jurisdiction in this matter, but do you see Federal marshals taking this renegade Sheriff away? No!

The immigrant communities are unquestionably under attack, but do you see them learning from their compas in the Mexican Republic and organising clandestine self-defence militias, or even organised protests? No!

What we do see is the politics of fear leaching the blood from any resistance to this fascist Sheriff, enabling him to continue his reign of terror...

The situation is known, yet this guy just keeps on keeping on...primarily because no-one has figured out how to give him pause.

As I mention in the "fascist revolution" thread, a "salvaconducta," or safe-conduct pass, offering him safe conduct from occupied Mexican land for a limited period of time might work...

...But only if, should he choose to ignore it, some sort of Active Service Unit were in place to impose the logical consequences of his defiance upon him.

Mind you, such an ASU, or flying squad of same, would already have to have sufficient strategic and tactical intelligence on the Sheriff, and the means and will to carry the action out.

We aren't necessarily talking about the shedding of blood here: merely evincing the ability to do so in the face of defiance does wonders to quell such defiance! (Ask the Sheriff!)

One need not even offer defiance of existing law to do this: quite the contrary, his release to US Federal marshals, Mexican federales, judiciales, etc. (if he trespassed against Mexican law, and could be securely conveyed across the border) could be negotiated...but if they failed to evince good faith...well, in that event, they had their chance and squandered it!

Had the rise of fascists such as this Sheriff been prepared for...well, the outcome of his campaign of hate and terrorism could have been different, no?

Object lesson for us, comrades: prepare for the coming struggle, of which this confrontation is a bellweather harbinger!

Hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

We should give the two sides some time to slaughter eachother, then we should rally the Working Class around us, form a third faction and use the chaos of the civil war that's going on to conquer power ourselves

[Roquentin]

Many of you are fundamentally misunderstanding the character of fascism. In our culture, mainly due to the tremendous propaganda effort surrounding the second world war, the definition of fascism has just shifted to any system of government that makes you uncomfortable.

The Nazis, quite literally considered them selves a worker's party..at least early on. The acronym meant "national socialist German worker's party" and had many of the characteristics of a typical socialist party. You could make a pretty good case for that until the "Night of the Long Knives" when Rohm and other members of the SA who took the "socialism" part of the name seriously were slaughtered. After that, there could no one could seriously doubt that it was a capitalist party. I'd also argue that Marx's "On the Jewish Question" makes it pretty clear that Marxism and anti-semitism are not mutually exclusive.

I've written the preceding paragraphs because I want to make the argument that if you're willing to separate Lenin, Trotsky, and any of the other early Bolsheviks from the mass killings perpetuated by Stalin you have to at least grant a modicum of understanding to the early Nazi party. To try and place a complete exteriority between socialism/communism and fascism ignores the historical context of the ideology.

[KurtFF8]

I'd also argue that Marx's "On the Jewish Question" makes it pretty clear that Marxism and anti-semitism are not mutually exclusive.You must have a great misunderstanding of that work of Marx's. The idea that "On the Jewish Question" is anti-semitic has been long debunked.


To try and place a complete exteriority between socialism/communism and fascism ignores the historical context of the ideology.What an absurd claim. You must be quite unaware of the events of the German revolution.

[Roquentin]

You must have a great misunderstanding of that work of Marx's. The idea that "On the Jewish Question" is anti-semitic has been long debunked.

What an absurd claim. You must be quite unaware of the events of the German revolution.

"On the Jewish Question" while not being explicitly anti-semitic at least argues that they need to abandon their religious consciousness. I'm not trying to equate Marxism and National Socialism, just point out that there are some similarities. To argue that Marx had a favorable opinion of Judaism or religion in general is directly contrary to the spirit of his work.

Second, why is it such an absurd claim? Is it because you refuse to admit the possibility that liberalism often operates as a tool for the capitalist economic model, giving the mere illusion of choice? Or that the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, and the Chinese Civil War weren't drenched in violence themselves?

[KurtFF8]

"On the Jewish Question" while not being explicitly anti-semitic at least argues that they need to abandon their religious consciousness. I'm not trying to equate Marxism and National Socialism, just point out that there are some similarities. To argue that Marx had a favorable opinion of Judaism or religion in general is directly contrary to the spirit of his work.

Being opposed to religion is a different thing than anti-semitism, especially the brand of anti-semitism that the Nazis promoted.


Second, why is it such an absurd claim? Is it because you refuse to admit the possibility that liberalism often operates as a tool for the capitalist economic model, giving the mere illusion of choice? Or that the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, and the Chinese Civil War weren't drenched in violence themselves?

It's absurd because German Fascism was, from the very beginning, quite opposed to Marxism and to the Communists and Socialists of Germany (see: the Free Corps).

What do you mean liberalism as a tool for capitalist economics? Liberalism is itself the ideology that justifies capitalism, of course it's a tool of capitalist expansion.

And yes, socialist revolution often involves violence, I don't see what your point there is.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Nazis, quite literally considered them selves a worker's party..at least early on. The acronym meant "national socialist German worker's party" and had many of the characteristics of a typical socialist party. You could make a pretty good case for that until the "Night of the Long Knives" when Rohm and other members of the SA who took the "socialism" part of the name seriously were slaughtered. After that, there could no one could seriously doubt that it was a capitalist party. I'd also argue that Marx's "On the Jewish Question" makes it pretty clear that Marxism and anti-semitism are not mutually exclusive.

It's true that you're never going to get a accurate picture of Nazism by denying it had any socialist roots. Then again no one ever is ever going an accurate picture of it arguing it was socialist too.
It's just that those socialist roots were not Marxian and were not traditionally socialist in the slightest. The Nazis were either really deranged about what socialism meant or clearly covering their tracks. They argued for an anti-Marxian socialism, not based on class struggle but class co-operation, anti-rationalist, anti-modernist, anti-Enlightenment, just anti-everything true socialists stood for. :confused: Then they concocted a belief that older pre-Enlightenment societies were truly socialist. Hitler considered Sparta to be the first socialist state! :crying:
At least that's what I gathered from reading Mein Kampf. So that's where critics of socialism get most of their erroneous views about socialism and it being all about the state, is from mad men like Hitler who understood nothing about socialism and considered proto-fascist military feudal states like Sparta to be "socialist". The Nazis could not be trusted in any sense of the word as to what constitutes socialism. Theirs was an entirely weird and utterly incomprehensible ideology that has no claim to what we advocate.

[RadioRaheem84]

Second, why is it such an absurd claim? Is it because you refuse to admit the possibility that liberalism often operates as a tool for the capitalist economic model

Liberalism is the philosophical justification for capitalism. Although I am sure you're talking about the Keynesian revamp of classical liberalism.

[Roquentin]

It's true that you're never going to get a accurate picture of Nazism by denying it had any socialist roots. Then again no one ever is ever going an accurate picture of it arguing it was socialist too.
It's just that those socialist roots were not Marxian and were not traditionally socialist in the slightest. The Nazis were either really deranged about what socialism meant or clearly covering their tracks. They argued for an anti-Marxian socialism, not based on class struggle but class co-operation, anti-rationalist, anti-modernist, anti-Enlightenment, just anti-everything true socialists stood for. :confused: Then they concocted a belief that older pre-Enlightenment societies were truly socialist. Hitler considered Sparta to be the first socialist state! :crying:
At least that's what I gathered from reading Mein Kampf. So that's where critics of socialism get most of their erroneous views about socialism and it being all about the state, is from mad men like Hitler who understood nothing about socialism and considered proto-fascist military feudal states like Sparta to be "socialist". The Nazis could not be trusted in any sense of the word as to what constitutes socialism. Theirs was an entirely weird and utterly incomprehensible ideology that has no claim to what we advocate.

It was more the early SA than the later Nazi party that had socialist elements in it. Hitler, at least as far as I know, laid few claims to being a socialist. Sure, the SA were a militantly anti-communist socialist party, but they were anti-capitalist as well. The main focus of the "Night of the Long Knives" was to purge the anti-capitalist element from the party, so Hitler could make deals with members of the German military(which despised the Brownshirts) whose support he was courting.

Ernst Rohm, an openly homosexual man with strong socialist leanings, didn't fit the direction Hitler wanted to take the part in. So he did exactly what you'd expect...had him and all his supporters killed.

Overall, just claiming to oppose fascism, especially when removed from its historical context, is far too simplistic. It's about as controversial as saying "ice is cold."

[RadioRaheem84]

It was more the early SA than the later Nazi party that had socialist elements in it.

I can agree with this. There were Nazis that were called beefsteaks, brown on the outside, red on the inside. Most of them were in the SA, yes.

Point is, Hitler himself was no socialist, yet anyone who joined his revamped party was also not really a socialist in the sense that you and I are socialists. Rhom was a Freidkorps member and his quasi-socialist demands were really what any social democrat might have requested; nationalization of certain firms and a bit more worker control. Socialistic yes, but socialist; no. Plus, the SA believed capitalism to have been a Jewish thing, thus they believed in all the of the weird things about socialism I described above.
Read what they thought about when it came to socialism. Trust me you would think they were whacked out of their minds and just inveted a new form of socialism.


Overall, just claiming to oppose fascism, especially when removed from its historical context, is far too simplistic.

I agree that we shouldn't remove Fascism from its historical context but calling it a leftist heresy or giving it some sort similar footing with our side is like saying neo-conservatism is a leftist movement because it employs similar rhetoric with right wing ideals and some of the memeber used to be leftists.

[Robocommie]

The thing about Fascism is that it's always going to seem a little like Leftist politics because it's just as populist as Socialism, but it's a weird right wing populism. The whole rhetoric of the state being the embodiment of the strength of the people, the vision of it all being an uprising by the people to eject the undesirable elements from within the nation, all of that sounds almost like Leftist rhetoric, but it's most definitely not Left wing.

[chegitz guevara]

Very true. I see your point. So then what is the purpose of letting the current reactionaries go so far? Is to foment so much anger at the administration that they seek to change it for an even more reactionary government in the next elections? Elect an uber-pro business guy?

It's to stop the threat of re-regulation, as well as prevent any modicum of a single payer system which would cut into finance capital's super profits.

This is a change. Previously, the capitalists only relied on fascism to save them from imminent revolution or a worker class movement strong enough to make capitalism unprofitable. Now they are relying on them to prevent a threat to take a cut of their super-profits.

[Comrade Anarchist]

If fascists rose to power the priority would be to revolt against them through any means necessary. Anarcho-Capitalists are nothing more than individual anarchists so we could align with them if we could show them that capitalism does not equal individualism. The workers are probably aligned with the fascists so a proletariat revolution is out of the question unless you could spread revolutionary thought through their ranks. So that leaves the thinkers (us) and those who aren't wiped out in the purges will probably pull a Winston Smith and hide in plain sight. The only way to have a counter revolution would to have one early on before the fascists can consolidate their power because once they have the military, the workers, and foreign support then we're finished.