Why does everyone hate the CPUSA?

[Tyrlop]

No seriously they are revolutionary. :crying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o5GTzC-Oec
I know that many of you have tried to join, and signed up on the website, yet... NEVER got contacted. Given NO directive, or task.. Have 0 contacts, and you also have many other reasons, why you dislike the CPUSA. So TELL THEM TO ME, ALL OF IT. Leave your comments, write me letters, make responce videos, WHATEVER IT TAKES. Leave all your complaints, and reasons, make suggestions on how it could change so that it would be something that YOU would want to get behind, or become apart of. Let me know. This video and your letters, responces, comments suggestions are ALL going to be used for my, now personal, mission to change the CPUSA, its organizing, and tactics. Let me know.. I'll look forward to hearing from you. Please spread this video amongst the comrades.

[Revy]

I don't see the point in "hating" them. I don't think they're relevant right now when it comes to the socialist parties. I think it's best to ignore them, unless they attack you, then you can bring the pain.

I'm not sure the CPUSA can be changed, that is, to move it away from its obsession with supporting the Democratic Party. That's the main problem and that's why the CPUSA isn't liked on the left.

[Dermezel]

I'm not sure the CPUSA can be changed, that is, to move it away from its obsession with supporting the Democratic Party. That's the main problem and that's why the CPUSA isn't liked on the left.

A lot of that depends on whether or not you consider the Republicans fascist. I consider them fascist. Do not fall into the "social fascism" theory trap.

[cmdrdeathguts]

If you consider the party of first resort for the American bourgeoisie 'fascist', then you have no understanding of fascism. People who do not call the Republicans fascist are unlikely to consider the Democrats 'social fascist'. Indeed, they are neither fascist nor are they in any way socialist or derived from socialism, so to call them social fascist can only be the preserve of the ortho-Stalinist lunatic fringe, who often resort to third-period-ism of different types to distinguish themselves from the CPUSA and similar.

The Democrats and Republicans are both equally integrated into the state machine. They are parties of the state - that is their scientific designation. Fascist, 'ultra-right' (as I believe CPUSA official dogma has it): these are all impressionistic designations designed to support an opportunist policy which is craven before the state. I do not hate the CPUSA - I just wish they'd school up. There is also no reason for them to have a separate existence from all the other Democratic left appendages, since they all have the same strategy after all.

[NecroCommie]

My beef with cpusa is not that it has done something to upset me. Rather, it has done nothing I agree with.

[Dermezel]

If you consider the party of first resort for the American bourgeoisie 'fascist', then you have no understanding of fascism. People who do not call the Republicans fascist are unlikely to consider the Democrats 'social fascist'. Indeed, they are neither fascist nor are they in any way socialist or derived from socialism, so to call them social fascist can only be the preserve of the ortho-Stalinist lunatic fringe, who often resort to third-period-ism of different types to distinguish themselves from the CPUSA and similar.

The Democrats and Republicans are both equally integrated into the state machine. They are parties of the state - that is their scientific designation. Fascist, 'ultra-right' (as I believe CPUSA official dogma has it): these are all impressionistic designations designed to support an opportunist policy which is craven before the state. I do not hate the CPUSA - I just wish they'd school up. There is also no reason for them to have a separate existence from all the other democratic left appendages, since they all have the same strategy after all.


The Republicans are fascist and if you cannot see that you are going to wind up under a right wing dictatorship just like the Communists did when they followed Stalin's weird orders and decided not to allie with the Social Democrats when the Nazis were taking power.

The Republicans have:

-Stolen elections

-Established secret police (Homeland Security)

-Are extremely corporatist

-Allied with fundamentalist circles

-The TEA Party- obvious fascist movement

-Begun arresting political opponents towards the end of the Bush's second term. In fact one Democratic Senator was arrested during a recount in Florida and secretly shipped to 5 different prisons.

-Had their leader, Karl Rove, declare his intentions for a One-Party State i.e. a Permanent Republican Majority.

-Declared ambitions for world wide takeover via the Project for a New American Century.

Now you can argue the Democrats are fascist if you want, but the fact that the Republicans are fascist is obvious and if you doubt this you are in denial.

Arguing that the Democrats are just as bad, because they are equally integrated mirrors Stalin's social fascism idea almost word for word:


At the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928, the end of capitalist stability and the beginning of the "Third Period" was proclaimed. The end of capitalism, accompanied with a working class revolution, was expected, and social democracy was identified as the main enemy of the Communists. This Comintern's theory had roots in Grigory Zinoviev's argument that international social democracy is a wing of fascism. This view was accepted by Joseph Stalin who described fascism and social democracy as "twin brothers", arguing that fascism depends on the active support of the social democracy and that the social democracy depends on the active support of fascism. After it was declared at the Sixth Congress, the theory of social fascism became accepted by the world Communist movement. Refusing to recognize that the Nazis were not just another form of capitalism, but presented a wholly new kind of threat is what lead to the Communists and Social Democrats fighting when they needed to form a united front thereby allowing the Nazis to take power.

Maybe you are willing to trust your civil liberties in the hands of the Neo-Cons and Karl Rove but I'm sure as hell not.

[Dermezel]

After Adolf Hitler's Nazis came to power in Germany, the KPD was outlawed and thousands of its members, including Thälmann, were arrested. Following these events, the Comintern did a complete turn on the question of alliance with social democrats, and the theory of "social fascism" was abandoned. At the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, Georgi Dimitrov outlined the new policy of the "popular front" in his address, "For the Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism."

By then they finally realized the fascists were worse then the social democrats but as everyone knows it was way too late. World War 2 began and millions of people were killed in Nazi Concentration camps and the USSR was bombed back into the stone age.


A popular front is a broad coalition of different political groupings, often made up of leftists and centrists. Being very broad, they can sometimes include centrist and liberal (or "bourgeois") forces as well as socialist and communist ("working-class") groups. Popular fronts are larger in scope than united fronts, which contain only working-class groups.

[Dimentio]

The Republicans are fascist and if you cannot see that you are going to wind up under a right wing dictatorship just like the Communists did when they followed Stalin's weird orders and decided not to allie with the Social Democrats when the Nazis were taking power.

The Republicans have:

-Stolen elections

-Established secret police (Homeland Security)

-Are extremely corporatist

-Allied with fundamentalist circles

-The TEA Party- obvious fascist movement

-Begun arresting political opponents towards the end of the Bush's second term. In fact one Democratic Senator was arrested during a recount in Florida and secretly shipped to 5 different prisons.

-Had their leader, Karl Rove, declare his intentions for a One-Party State i.e. a Permanent Republican Majority.

-Declared ambitions for world wide takeover via the Project for a New American Century.

Now you can argue the Democrats are fascist if you want, but the fact that the Republicans are fascist is obvious and if you doubt this you are in denial.

Arguing that the Democrats are just as bad, because they are equally integrated mirrors Stalin's social fascism idea almost word for word:

Refusing to recognize that the Nazis were not just another form of capitalism, but presented a wholly new kind of threat is what lead to the Communists and Social Democrats fighting when they needed to form a united front thereby allowing the Nazis to take power.

Maybe you are willing to trust your civil liberties in the hands of the Neo-Cons and Karl Rove but I'm sure as hell not.

The Republicans are not fascist, though they have put up fascist candidates in some elections (which the Democrats also have done, for example David Duke). The Tea Party movement has more characteristics of early fascism.

[Dermezel]

The Republicans are not fascist, though they have put up fascist candidates in some elections (which the Democrats also have done, for example David Duke). The Tea Party movement has more characteristics of early fascism.

Not all fascism looks like Adolf Hitler. Again, Permanent Republican Majority- what do you think that means? Project for a New American Century? What do you think that means?

When they arrest political opponents, when they steal elections, when they establish secret police, and secret prisons, and spy on labor groups, and start wars, how far off from fascism do you think they really are? What would they have to actually do at that point for you to call them fascist?

Will it take literal brown shirts goose stomping and literal concentration camps before you realize they are fascist? Do they, literally, have to announce themselves as fascist?

There is no one thing that makes a group fascist. There are a myriad of different elements. With respect to Republicans, there are so many elements already present that I consider them fascist for practical purposes. Maybe you consider them fascism light, but that is bad enough.

[Dermezel]

Okay if they are not fascists we are going to have to define them as militant corporatists with a popular right-wing following, a strong fundamentalist base, and dictatorial/anti-democratic goals that they have announced. They also arrest political opponents, built secret prisons, stole elections and started secret police agencies. Aside from that there is nothing fascist about them.

[Sinred]

For gods sake, doesnt revleft.com have any admins that can go in and slam its fist in the table when a thread goes totally offtopic?

[Dimentio]

I wonder why this thread's in Chit-Chat.

The difference between republicans and fascists is that fascists would try to overcome class differences by preaching class unity, as well as getting rid of the last traces of democracy and replace it with mass mobilisation of the population. Moreover, the republicans and the fascists are born out of different class segments.

Potential fascist leaders in the USA right now are probably Glenn Beck and Alex Jones, though one of them's pro-establishment and the other one's anti-establishment.

As for CP-USA. Their endorsement of the Democratic Party is probably hurting the Democrats more than it helps them, much like the SWP's death kiss to Labour.

[RED DAVE]

People hate the CPUSA because it's a bunch of DP asskissers with a really shitty political history.

RED DAVE

[Tyrlop]

Can any admin please move this thread to a serious place instead of chit chat. thank you

The Republicans are fascist and if you cannot see that you are going to wind up under a right wing dictatorship just like the Communists did when they followed Stalin's weird orders and decided not to allie with the Social Democrats when the Nazis were taking power.

Stalin did in fact do the opposite,he invented the popular front after he saw the fascist turn to power in Germany, you can't blame Stalin for not stopping fascism, He did alot to try to stop fascism between 1933 and 1939 he urged the western countries to form a coalition against fascism. That he fucked up in 1939 and gifted Hitler alot of resources untill he got invaded in 1941 was an exception.

NOW lets get back on topic.

[bayano]

why dont they just merge into the DSA? thats one question for you. theyre liberals who conveniently make big labor and the Dems look like communists whenever fox news or some other crazy wants to use them. they shouldnt call themselves communists, even less right to than the eurocommunists. seriously, why dont they merge with the DSA or another Democratic Party little sibling lefty group? oh yeah, the Left's tremendous history of factionalism, and the loss of the brand name.

[Dr Mindbender]

is it anything to do with Bud Struggle being a member? :lol:

[scarletghoul]

Well Trylop I think the main answer is obvious from most replies in this thread- revolutionary communists will not support a party that openly endorses the bourgeois Democrat party, instead of offering a revolutionary alternative to capitalism.

btw you kinda look like your awesome avatar. Please make a video of yourself laughing heartily for optimum comparison

[Invincible Summer]

Well Trylop I think the main answer is obvious from most replies in this thread- revolutionary communists will not support a party that openly endorses the bourgeois Democrat party, instead of offering a revolutionary alternative to capitalism.

btw you kinda look like your awesome avatar. Please make a video of yourself laughing heartily for optimum comparison


I don't believe that the video user is Tyrlop. I'm pretty sure nightcrowred (the youtube user whose video is in the OP) is another user on Revleft, albeit an infrequent one

[Tablo]

I don't believe that the video user is Tyrlop. I'm pretty sure nightcrowred (the youtube user whose video is in the OP) is another user on Revleft, albeit an infrequent one
I wonder why... xD

[Magdalen]

I think it seems likely that the CPUSA will eventually follow the path the old CPGB did in the early 1990s, and dissolve itself into a looser 'left-wing' pressure group. Rick Nagin of Ohio, a leading CPUSA member, recently suggested that the party should abandon its name. His language is very similar to that used by Nina Temple, the CPGB's final General Secretary.

[Guerrilla22]

Because they tell their members to vote for democrats every single election, believing that it will somehow enable them to make "significant gains."

[Dermezel]

I wonder why this thread's in Chit-Chat.

The difference between republicans and fascists is that fascists would try to overcome class differences by preaching class unity, as well as getting rid of the last traces of democracy and replace it with mass mobilisation of the population. Moreover, the republicans and the fascists are born out of different class segments.


Well I would consider Stormfront fascist, and it does not do much of what you say above. In any event you are in denial. If you want to trust your civil rights and what democracy we have left to the Republican's that's fine, but you are doing a disservice to the proletariat.

Also Republicans do preach class unity, or at least pretend to be friends of various classes like "small farmers" and the "average worker". They have tried to get rid of democracy, Cheney "fourth branch of government", Homeland, arresting political opponents, Rove and the Permanent Republican Majority. And mass mobilization of the population- TEA Parties.

In any case, I think you are determining fascism by axillary means instead of a general pattern. You may as well argue that they are not fascist simply because they don't use swastikas or wear brown shirts.

[nightcrowred]

Mainly becuase I dont see the point of revleft. EVERY topic never stays on track.

[Tablo]

Mainly becuase I dont see the point of revleft. EVERY topic never stays on track.
Yep, every single thread turns into a sectarian conflict. That's half the fun of RevLeft. :)

[The Red Next Door]

They love to kiss the ass's ass, that why.

[Red Commissar]

Sam Webb turned the party into a joke. Maybe once they throw him out...

[Raúl Duke]

Because they tell their members to vote for democrats every single election, believing that it will somehow enable them to make "significant gains."

I wonder if they still think that way even now when even progressives left-liberals complain about the shitty health care reform (that is basically just a mandate forcing people to buy insurance from the same HMO/etc bandits of today).


Also Republicans do preach class unity, or at least pretend to be friends of various classes like "small farmers" and the "average worker". They have tried to get rid of democracy, Cheney "fourth branch of government", Homeland, arresting political opponents, Rove and the Permanent Republican Majority. And mass mobilization of the population- TEA Parties.

In any case, I think you are determining fascism by axillary means instead of a general pattern.

Hmm...you may be on to something here. But I think we have to take note that the party is divided into factions. The "neo-cons" usually represent the more "fascistic" (or totalitarian) elements such as the reduction of privacy/civil liberty, targeting of political opponents, Homeland security department, etc but the only way they can get elected is by pandering to another faction/sub-faction with electoral base. On their own, I don't think anyone would support an out-right (i.e. no omission and window-dressing) neo-con platform so they cloak it with the rhetoric of the other factions (religious rhetoric, etc; as were the case previously).

The tea-party movement initially started off independent of the GOP but one member has received sponsorship from GOP and/or conservative think-tanks (This is where the allegation of astro-turf comes from; yet to my knowledge this member was given the boot) and recently has become more and more co-opted into one could say an "auxiliary" of the GOP to the dismay of the libertarian-leaning members of that group. Although there's been rumors of running their own candidates and such.

[Sendo]

Sam Webb turned the party into a joke. Maybe once they throw him out...

He lost a debate to Glenn Beck. He's a fucking moron.

[Dermezel]

I wonder if they still think that way even now when even progressives left-liberals complain about the shitty health care reform (that is basically just a mandate forcing people to buy insurance from the same HMO/etc bandits of today).



Hmm...you may be on to something here. But I think we have to take note that the party is divided into factions. The "neo-cons" usually represent the more "fascistic" (or totalitarian) elements such as the reduction of privacy/civil liberty, targeting of political opponents, Homeland security department, etc but the only way they can get elected is by pandering to another faction/sub-faction with electoral base. On their own, I don't think anyone would support an out-right (i.e. no omission and window-dressing) neo-con platform so they cloak it with the rhetoric of the other factions (religious rhetoric, etc; as were the case previously).

The tea-party movement initially started off independent of the GOP but one member has received sponsorship from GOP and/or conservative think-tanks (This is where the allegation of astro-turf comes from; yet to my knowledge this member was given the boot) and recently has become more and more co-opted into one could say an "auxiliary" of the GOP to the dismay of the libertarian-leaning members of that group. Although there's been rumors of running their own candidates and such.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q289/Dermezel/republicanbase.jpg

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[cmdrdeathguts]

The Republicans are fascist and if you cannot see that you are going to wind up under a right wing dictatorship just like the Communists did when they followed Stalin's weird orders and decided not to allie with the Social Democrats when the Nazis were taking power.

The Republicans have:

-Stolen elections

-Established secret police (Homeland Security)

-Are extremely corporatist

-Allied with fundamentalist circles

-The TEA Party- obvious fascist movement

-Begun arresting political opponents towards the end of the Bush's second term. In fact one Democratic Senator was arrested during a recount in Florida and secretly shipped to 5 different prisons.

-Had their leader, Karl Rove, declare his intentions for a One-Party State i.e. a Permanent Republican Majority.

-Declared ambitions for world wide takeover via the Project for a New American Century.



Firstly, housekeeping - the Republicans are not corporatist. Corporatism in the fascist sense is not being pro-corporation, it means the state sets itself up as an arbiter between capital and labour. This is more similar to social democratic governments - indeed, official political science considers Harold Wilson, the old Labour PM, to be the corporatist par excellence. The republicans' 'arbitrations' between capital and labour amount to...smashing labour. Also, the PNAC is disbanded; the neo-cons were steadily replaced by 'realos' in the latter years of the Bush administration, many of which latter still serve under Obama. Fascist sleeper agents, no doubt.

Secondly, according to your criteria, some famous "fascists":

Napoleon Bonaparte
Benjamin Disraeli
Winston Churchill
Louis Bonaparte III
Peron
Pinochet
Bismarck

In the Marxist movement, we like to make theoretical distinctions between these people and fascists, and also the Churchills from the Pinochets and Bismarcks. This stuff does matter. The specific relationship between different groups and the capitalist state should inform and illuminate our attacks on that state. You do not understand the Republicans' relationship to the state - or the Democrats'.

Thirdly: Homeland Security still exists. Guess who runs it now? OBAMA = HILTER!!!!!!111




Now you can argue the Democrats are fascist if you want, but the fact that the Republicans are fascist is obvious and if you doubt this you are in denial.

You do know I said that the Democrats weren't fascist, and definitely weren't social fascist, right? And no - it's the CPUSA that's in denial. America's Jews must consider themselves very lucky - they dodged a new Holocaust, despite a 'fascist' party being voted in and out of office for more than a half-century!

You might want to think about this - even now, a large part of the Republican base is anti-Semitic. In the past, that would have been even more pronounced. Hitler mobilised his base to - you know - kill the Jews. Not only has the Republican party failed to have any pogroms, however, it even saw a dominant faction composed overwhelmingly of Jews become the faction closest to the White House.

If the republicans are an ordinary - if certainly far-right - party of the state, this is to be expected. They don't need maurauding mobs - they have the police and army. For a fascist organisation to use its enormous base for nothing more than canvassing is most curious, in contrast...let alone for it to sit idly by while their party falls foul of ZOG.


Arguing that the Democrats are just as bad, because they are equally integrated mirrors Stalin's social fascism idea almost word for word:

apart from the 'social' and the 'fascism', of course. And...uh...everything else. Did you even read what I wrote? DEMS NOT FASCIST - REPUBLICANS NOT FASCIST. BOTH PARTIES OF THE STATE. 'Twin brothers' perhaps, but non-identical twins - they have different uses for the bourgeoisie.


Refusing to recognize that the Nazis were not just another form of capitalism, but presented a wholly new kind of threat is what lead to the Communists and Social Democrats fighting when they needed to form a united front thereby allowing the Nazis to take power.

Maybe you are willing to trust your civil liberties in the hands of the Neo-Cons and Karl Rove but I'm sure as hell not.

I get to trust my 'civil liberties' to David Cameron, Gordon Brown or god only knows who else in a couple of months. Meanwhile, in the USA: the neo-cons are not half as powerful as they once were (and are no bigger a threat to civil liberties than paleo-cons and all the rest). Stop being so worked up over them - they failed. Everything they touched turned to shit, and now the Republican heirarchy doesn't want to touch them.

And I certainly don't trust the likes of rove - my only point is that you shouldn't trust Obama or Biden.

[Die Neue Zeit]

so to call them social fascist can only be the preserve of the ortho-Stalinist lunatic fringe

How is the term "social fascist," as well as the more contemporary and accurate term "social corporatist," lunatic?


Firstly, housekeeping - the Republicans are not corporatist. Corporatism in the fascist sense is not being pro-corporation

Corporatism in the modern sense and the theory of social corporatism (and its application to New Labour and modern "social democracy") conveniently applies both to class reconciliation ("We like progressive reforms now to avoid class struggle!") and psychopathic fiefdoms associated with multinational corporations.

Corporatism has three wings: the fascist wing (because Hitler got rid of the Junkers once and for all and not the Weimar "social-democrats"), the politically correct liberal-conservative wing, and the "social" wing (by accommodating to what classical political economy calls "rentiers"). So Mussolini was wrong in grabbing all of corporatism for the Fascist cause.


it means the state sets itself up as an arbiter between capital and labour. This is more similar to social democratic governments - indeed, official political science considers Harold Wilson, the old Labour PM, to be the corporatist par excellence.

You confuse corporatism with Bonapartism. By your definition, Bismarck was somehow a corporatist.

[Revy]

wow their website looks way nicer now.....didn't expect to see that.

sad when the only compliment I can muster is aesthetics...still waiting for the CPUSA to jettison the Obaminions in the leadership, or for the Obaminions to change their views, without that nonsense they'd actually look pretty decent.

[Tablo]

wow their website looks way nicer now.....didn't expect to see that.

sad when the only compliment I can muster is aesthetics...still waiting for the CPUSA to jettison the Obaminions in the leadership, or for the Obaminions to change their views, without that nonsense they'd actually look pretty decent.
I have to agree. They have definitely improved their website since I last visited. Now if they could just fix their ideological standpoint....

[cmdrdeathguts]

How is the term "social fascist," as well as the more contemporary and accurate term "social corporatist," lunatic?


Well, firstly, I argued that the application of the term social fascist to the democrats is absurd, since it is neither social(ist) nor fascist, and never has been either. The only way you would get that characterisation is to take Stalin's third period stuff, and lift it off the European workers parties and onto an American bourgeois party. It is even an insult to Stalin - and, I repeat, the property only of the lunatic fringe.

Apart from certain far-right sects (third positionism and such), I'm struggling to think of any possible use for social fascist. Find me something to rehabilitate it for, and I will.


Corporatism in the modern sense and the theory of social corporatism (and its application to New Labour and modern "social democracy") conveniently applies both to class reconciliation ("We like progressive reforms now to avoid class struggle!") and psychopathic fiefdoms associated with multinational corporations.

Corporatism has three wings: the fascist wing (because Hitler got rid of the Junkers once and for all and not the Weimar "social-democrats"), the politically correct liberal-conservative wing, and the "social" wing (by accommodating to what classical political economy calls "rentiers"). So Mussolini was wrong in grabbing all of corporatism for the Fascist cause.
Surely you must agree that there's a distinction to be drawn between the near-as-dammit direct rule of a section of capital (in the case of the multinational 'fiefdom') and the subordination of capital, labour and the rest to the organic corporate whole? If there is, then the designation of the Republicans as corporatist makes no sense - why have a political category that can include Wilson, Blair, Thatcher, Bush, Hitler and Bevan?

The distinction is important. The whole appeal of Fascism is that it can accomplish with an iron State the subordination of capital's sectional interests to the interests of capitalism. This requires a quasi-Bonapartist state - the original version of which accomplished the same trick in France.



You confuse corporatism with Bonapartism. By your definition, Bismarck was somehow a corporatist.Well, by the same token, that would mean you consider Wilson a Bonapartist?

And really, Bonapartism is precisely an openly dictatorial form of corporatism, and the character of Bonapartist and Fascist regimes is in many respects very similar (the Fascist scale of mass mobilisation remains felt after the Fascist seizure of power, however). It's not a 'confusion', but a certain overlap. Bismarck i would want to read up on more, but it's worth noting that there was a powerful trend in German Social-Democracy, descending from Lassalle, that openly courted an alliance with Bismarck - but he didn't bite, and in fact enacted the anti-socialist laws. That is not 'corporatist' - inasmuch as sections of the SPD were 'captured' by the bourgeois/Junker state, the Kaiser regime could be considered proto-corporatist.

The first volume of Draper's Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, IIRC, makes some links between Marx's analyses of classical bonapartism and those of the Prussian state.

[Sarah Palin]

cpusa is a buncha wanker ****

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, firstly, I argued that the application of the term social fascist to the democrats is absurd, since it is neither social(ist) nor fascist, and never has been either. The only way you would get that characterisation is to take Stalin's third period stuff, and lift it off the European workers parties and onto an American bourgeois party. It is even an insult to Stalin - and, I repeat, the property only of the lunatic fringe.

Actually, my interpretation of "social" in "social corporatist" refers to "social justice" and not "socialism." Just like all the talk of "social liberalism" in formerly bourgeois workers parties.

As for the Democratic "party" (not a real party at all), it is in the center of the corporatist spectrum.


Apart from certain far-right sects (third positionism and such), I'm struggling to think of any possible use for social fascist. Find me something to rehabilitate it for, and I will.

Try this (also in my programmatic work):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-economic-rent-t103273/index.html

It also gives the real, long-lost definition of a "free market."


Surely you must agree that there's a distinction to be drawn between the near-as-dammit direct rule of a section of capital (in the case of the multinational 'fiefdom') and the subordination of capital, labour and the rest to the organic corporate whole?

There's also a distinction between fascist rhetoric and fascist practice. I recall a caricature of Hitler doing his salute and receiving in his open palm money from German industrialists.

Fascist practice entails the subordination of society to the blatantly monopolist section of bourgeois capital (today being merely but blatantly oligopolic), wherein anti-trust laws would probably be thrown by the wayside.

Those intellectuals who dreamed of the subordination of capital, labour, et al to the "organic corporate whole" were utopians harking back to a Bonapartist past.

[I'm sure you have my programmatic commentary section on "sovereign socioeconomic governments," so my advocacy of such differs in their composition.]


It's not a 'confusion', but a certain overlap.

Full-blown Bonapartism and modern-day "social democracy" are twins within the subset of social corporatism. One is authoritarian, the other isn't.


there was a powerful trend in German Social-Democracy, descending from Lassalle, that openly courted an alliance with Bismarck - but he didn't bite, and in fact enacted the anti-socialist laws

Bismarck did eventually bite. He enacted various reforms in a failed bid to stop the momentum of the German workers movement (I mentioned these reforms in my "sovereign socioeconomic governments" commentary).

I have sent you something *big* on the hypothesis of Communitarian Populist Fronts.

[Elfcat]

OK, I will say this, and granted, it is based on one limited exchange, but if the performance of Sam Webb on Glenn Beck's show as I saw on YouTube is any indication of the capacity of the CPUSA, then they are the truly deserving of Rahm Emmanuel's "retarded" quip.

Webb struck me as a sheepish wimp who asserted nothing and let Beck walk all over him for no good reason whatsoever.

What really has me incensed at this man who calls himself a communist party chair is his complete non-response to Beck's Stalin Question.

"Name one problem Stalin solved for the Russian people."

Now I am not even a member of a communist group yet - though I am considering the RCP - but even I would have said, "Well, there was one little problem the Russian people had. I believe it was called THE INVASION OF RUSSIA BY THE NAZI MILITARY, the siege of Stalingrad, etc. The repulsion of this invasion is called, by a commentator on the Military Channel on another YouTube video, 'one of the most significant counterattacks in military history'. And had it failed, if Moscow had fallen, it is likely the Wehrmacht would have rolled their Panzers all the way to Vladivostok, thus completing a land line between themselves and the Japanese which no one would be available to break, other than perhaps Mao's PLA. So yes, that is certainly one problem Stalin solved for not only the Russian people, but the world's people... unless of course you wanted the Nazis to win."

Oh yes, that was the other thing, Webb waited dumbly for Beck to have his assistant look up the full name of the NSDAP, and never ventured the notion that "nationalist" and "socialist" are mutually exclusive, and that once the NSDAP embraced nationalism, the appearance of "socialist" in their name was about as valid as the appearance of "democratic" in North Korea's name.

I would never join a party, particularly a vanguardist party, the leader of which could not even competently stand up to the rodeo clown of the capitalist media.

[ZeroNowhere]

So yes, that is certainly one problem Stalin solved for not only the Russian peopleYou mean, that's one problem the Russian people solved for the Russian people.

[Elfcat]

You mean, that's one problem the Russian people solved for the Russian people.

Was the Soviet military acting autonomously from the political leadership when they repelled the German military?

[Kléber]

The Leningrad organization had to act autonomously from their cowardly boss Zhdanov to hold the city. Also, the Red Army suffered an immense drop in efficiency after the officers were purged in 1937-38. It only again became an invincible fighting force when, in response to all the failures of outdated Civil War static front and cavalry tactics and French-style dispersed armor against the Wehrmacht, surviving officers who still adhered to ideas like mobile operations and armored warfare (which had been developed to counter similar German blitzkrieg tactics, but were eventually dismissed as wrecking policies of the Tukhachevsky clique), were brought out of the gulag, and still-commissioned ones like Zhukov were shipped over from Eastern Siberia where they had luckily made it through the purges.