Are reformists helping the fascists?

[willowtooth]

When reformist communists, social democrats or liberals in general, support programs like the minimum wage, capital gains taxes, welfare etc. are they actually supporting fascism and capitalism as a whole by making sure that the motivations for the social revolution are left obsolete? In other words, does reformist leftism guarantee that the workers just get bigger crumbs off the masters plate but never a good meal?

Would it make sense too support (atleast pay lip service in public too) the most reactionary fascist right winger that stands a chance at being elected in your country? (in america you would support the republicans but not necessarily the fascist party) in order to motivate the workers party to revolution?

Even though liberals support a lot of the values we believe in, are they in fact more harmful than the most belligerent fascist?

[Armchair Partisan]

When reformist communists, social democrats or liberals in general, support programs like the minimum wage, capital gains taxes, welfare etc. are they actually supporting fascism and capitalism as a whole by making sure that the motivations for the social revolution are left obsolete? In other words, does reformist leftism guarantee that the workers just get bigger crumbs off the masters plate but never a good meal?

Of course reformism helps capitalism (not fascism, I'd say, rather just the liberal/conservative status quo). That's the point of social democracy - to grant concessions to the working class in exchange for social peace. The last sentence is spot on.


Would it make sense too support (atleast pay lip service in public too) the most reactionary fascist right winger that stands a chance at being elected in your country? (in america you would support the republicans but not necessarily the fascist party) in order to motivate the workers party to revolution?

You mean, publicly? That'd be awkward. "Hey, I know we were all about white power last week, but we just wanted social revolution all along, I promise! That's why we fucked up things for everyone first!"

This is a very counterproductive policy even if we ignore that. The way to motivate the workers to revolution is to discredit all possible alternatives, since otherwise the workers are bound to take the path of least resistance if they think there is another sort of capitalism that will solve their problems if they'll just vote the right people in. If liberalism or social democracy sounds like a decent alternative fascism (which it understandably does to many workers, especially to the ones which have actually lived under fascism) they won't risk even more for revolution.


Even though liberals support a lot of the values we believe in, are they in fact more harmful than the most belligerent fascist?

Nah. It's not easier at all to organize under a fascist police state than a liberal democracy. Even though the latter would also revoke any and all of your rights if revolution is a real threat, it's still easier to begin organizing in a liberal regime to begin with. Even if both are in the context of a parliamentary system, fascist union-busting practices and corporativism are really harmful to the workers.

[willowtooth]

Of course reformism helps capitalism (not fascism, I'd say, rather just the liberal/conservative status quo). That's the point of social democracy - to grant concessions to the working class in exchange for social peace. The last sentence is spot on.



You mean, publicly? That'd be awkward. "Hey, I know we were all about white power last week, but we just wanted social revolution all along, I promise! That's why we fucked up things for everyone first!"

This is a very counterproductive policy even if we ignore that. The way to motivate the workers to revolution is to discredit all possible alternatives, since otherwise the workers are bound to take the path of least resistance if they think there is another sort of capitalism that will solve their problems if they'll just vote the right people in. If liberalism or social democracy sounds like a decent alternative fascism (which it understandably does to many workers, especially to the ones which have actually lived under fascism) they won't risk even more for revolution.



Nah. It's not easier at all to organize under a fascist police state than a liberal democracy. Even though the latter would also revoke any and all of your rights if revolution is a real threat, it's still easier to begin organizing in a liberal regime to begin with. Even if both are in the context of a parliamentary system, fascist union-busting practices and corporativism are really harmful to the workers.
so essentially a liberal democracy allows for revolution more so than a fascist regime? do I have that right?

[Armchair Partisan]

so essentially a liberal democracy allows for revolution more so than a fascist regime? do I have that right?

I would say that it is generally more likely to achieve a successful revolution in a liberal system, yes. Although there are always other factors at play too.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fascism is nearly nonexistent in the 21st century. It is generally limited to small groups of boneheads. The function played by fascism in the preservation of capitalism is today more effectively played by nationalism, democratic idealism, by Islamism, anti-bank populism and, of course, by social-democracy. And liberal democracies are just as capable of murdering workers when it suits them. Fascists weren't the ones who had Luxemburg and Liebknecht killed or who gunned down German workers in 1929.

And when the revolution comes, don't think our enemies will call themselves fascists or nationalists. They will call themselves democrats, social-democrats, socialists, communists, revolutionaries etc.

[lutraphile]

Fascism is basically dead. Still some pockets around the world (It isn't ridiculous to call North Korea fascist, ironically) but really liberalism and social democracy are the only two political philosophies with major representation right now, outside a few pockets of reformist socialist countries- mostly in South America.

[cyu]

Would it make sense too support (atleast pay lip service in public too) the most reactionary fascist right winger that stands a chance at being elected in your country? (in america you would support the republicans but not necessarily the fascist party) in order to motivate the workers party to revolution?



Not a rhetorical question, but is this type of logic similar to the logic used to justify false flag attacks?

[Armchair Partisan]

Fascism is basically dead. Still some pockets around the world (It isn't ridiculous to call North Korea fascist, ironically) but really liberalism and social democracy are the only two political philosophies with major representation right now, outside a few pockets of reformist socialist countries- mostly in South America.

...And right-wing conservatism, more popular than either of those in many places - the old-school regressive dinosaurs of the US republicans, the populist right of the National Front, United Russia or the UKIP, as well as their numerous ideological brethren all over Europe... I've no idea how you managed to miss that one!

[G4b3n]

I will caucus with a million liberals before I see a degeneration in material living standards of my neighbors for sake of radicalization and spreading revolutionary ideology.

Does this mean that I preach social reform or stand behind those who do in real struggles? No. But sometimes short term gains need to be won, and if you are privileged enough to be blind to that, then good for you, but I wouldn't have my comrades and neighbors suffer for your ideology.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I will caucus with a million liberals before I see a degeneration in material living standards of my neighbors for sake of radicalization and spreading revolutionary ideology.

Does this mean that I preach social reform or stand behind those who do in real struggles? No. But sometimes short term gains need to be won, and if you are privileged enough to be blind to that, then good for you, but I wouldn't have my comrades and neighbors suffer for your ideology.

Fuckin Radical, bro. :laugh:

Seriously though: how do you call yourself a Revolutionary Leftist? There's no need for your petty-bourgeois fear of "degeneration of living standards"; the working class is exploited and it always will be under capitalism. The only way it can win material gains is through its own common initiative, and if it has organized there's no need to fear any fluctuation in "living standards".
If you'd rather waste your earthly time caucusing with liberals than die fighting for the marxist education, organization, self-emancipation and political power of the working class... then you're nothing but a tool of those who have tied down the working classes for millennia, a stupid errand boy for those desperate petty-bourgeois individuals hoping to maintain a "stable" society so that 'their' children won't have to endure what is the enforced norm for the majority of children who are raised in the indignant conditions of poverty.
A Rising Tide will NEVER Raise all Boats under the civil structure of class society. Get over it.

[G4b3n]

Fuckin Radical, bro. :laugh:

Seriously though: how do you call yourself a Revolutionary Leftist? There's no need for your petty-bourgeois fear of "degeneration of living standards"; the working class is exploited and it always will be under capitalism. The only way it can win material gains is through its own common initiative, and if it has organized there's no need to fear any fluctuation in "living standards".
If you'd rather waste your earthly time caucusing with liberals than die fighting for the marxist education, organization, self-emancipation and political power of the working class... then you're nothing but a tool of those who have tied down the working classes for millennia, a stupid errand boy for those desperate petty-bourgeois individuals hoping to maintain a "stable" society so that 'their' children won't have to endure what is the enforced norm for the majority of children who are raised in the indignant conditions of poverty.
A Rising Tide will NEVER Raise all Boats under the civil structure of class society. Get over it.

You can live in your ideologically pure Marxist seminar all day-long. Good for you. But out in the real world, the working class, even its most radical elements (not the intellectual ideologues that claim our interests as their own, but actual radical workers) has a history of winning short term victories through grassroots movements. And really, if you care to read Marx, you will find that he found this to be intrinsic to the development of the capitalist mode of production, bourgeois society is in a constant state of change and this change is sometimes gradual not always revolutionary, and as such, so are the victories won by the working class, just as Darwin found the same to be true in the state of development of natural phenomena in relation to change both gradual and revolutionary. Do you know what the concept of the dialectic is? Have you ever even genuinely sat down to read Marx or do you just like trying to keep your image of him pure of those who disagree with you at the risk of having your heavily ideologically bound conception of the world challenged? Something Marx found to be disgusting, I might add. You are literally part of the problem he was talking about.

And I say again, fuck your ideology if it means sacrificing gains made by the workers who have struggled for hard won victories in the past.

[Sewer Socialist]

Regarding supporting fascist in the interest of accelerationism: besides working for the most terrible living conditions for people, many of whom will meet a grim death, at a much higher rate than in capitalism, if you managed to install a fascist state, it would most likely be overthrown for a liberal state, and you'd start all over again, trying to install a fascist state. I don't think fascist states have led to leftist revolution any more than liberal ones.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

You can live in your ideologically pure Marxist seminar all day-long. Good for you. But out in the real world, the working class, even its most radical elements (not the intellectual ideologues that claim our interests as their own, but actual radical workers) has a history of winning short term victories through grassroots movements. And really, if you care to read Marx, you will find that he found this to be intrinsic to the development of the capitalist mode of production, bourgeois society is in a constant state of change and this change is sometimes gradual not always revolutionary, and as such, so are the victories won by the working class, just as Darwin found the same to be true in the state of development of natural phenomena in relation to change both gradual and revolutionary. Do you know what the concept of the dialectic is? Have you ever even genuinely sat down to read Marx or do you just like trying to keep your image of him pure of those who disagree with you at the risk of having your heavily ideologically bound conception of the world challenged? Something Marx found to be disgusting, I might add. You are literally part of the problem he was talking about.

And I say again, fuck your ideology if it means sacrificing gains made by the workers who have struggled for hard won victories in the past.

You're making a lot of inferences about me guy. I hope you're not saying that you don't consider plain old orthodox marxists like myself as parts of the radical working class, because what are you gonna consider the significant number of anarchist, insurrectionist, left-comm council communist colleagues? You're a fucking moron, or worse. Besides that though: saying fuck my "ideology" is laughable. What ideology? Are you fucking trolling? You sound like you're Bernie Sanders. I risk my physical well-being regularly to stand up for justice at work, parties, bars and wherever, and I'll gladly take a beating or go to jail to defend my own and the dignity of others. If you had your eyes open and saw how people live in this country you'd see that those hard won "Victories" of the 30-60s look like a steaming pile of shit today. Look at at America today: those that made it out of the recessions unemployment and aren't part of the 5% unemployed all came back to part-time work, minimum wage sector increased; but, oh! I heard your yellow unions and liberal friends are conceding to the New York Times' demand for 15 dollar minimum wage!. . in the next five years. "Victory". Wow. I just wasted ten minutes writing to a coward. There's no point in trying to communicate rationally with someone who has the fear of God, or rather, the communist "ideologues", instilled in them.

[G4b3n]

You're making a lot of inferences about me guy. I hope you're not saying that you don't consider plain old orthodox marxists like myself as parts of the radical working class, because what are you gonna consider the significant number of anarchist, insurrectionist, left-comm council communist colleagues? You're a fucking moron, or worse. Besides that though: saying fuck my "ideology" is laughable. What ideology? Are you fucking trolling? You sound like you're Bernie Sanders. I risk my physical well-being regularly to stand up for justice at work, parties, bars and wherever, and I'll gladly take a beating or go to jail to defend my own and the dignity of others. If you had your eyes open and saw how people live in this country you'd see that those hard won "Victories" of the 30-60s look like a steaming pile of shit today. Look at at America today fucko: those that made it out of the recessions unemployment and aren't part of the 5% unemployed all came back to part-time work, minimum wage sector increased; but, oh! I heard your yellow unions and liberal friends are conceding to the New York Times' demand for 15 dollar minimum wage!. . in the next five years. "Victory". Wow. I just wasted ten minutes writing to a little coward. There's no point in trying to communicate rationally with someone who has the fear of God, or rather, the communist "ideologues", instilled in them.

I don't know you, so I am not telling you if you are part of the working class or not. The point I was making was in defense of my position as drawn from the mode of analysis, i.e., dialectical materialism, laid out by the classical Marxist theorists, a point which you completely failed to address and only proceed in some heated name calling, but hey, at least you sound super masculine, so good for you.

[lutraphile]

...And right-wing conservatism, more popular than either of those in many places - the old-school regressive dinosaurs of the US republicans, the populist right of the National Front, United Russia or the UKIP, as well as their numerous ideological brethren all over Europe... I've no idea how you managed to miss that one!
FN might qualify as fascist, but they aren't in power. I should have clarified I meant a party in power. I wouldn't call UKIP fascist, just populist in all the wrong ways and socially conservative. As for Russia, if there is a fascist party there it's the LDPR.

[willowtooth]

I will caucus with a million liberals before I see a degeneration in material living standards of my neighbors for sake of radicalization and spreading revolutionary ideology.

Does this mean that I preach social reform or stand behind those who do in real struggles? No. But sometimes short term gains need to be won, and if you are privileged enough to be blind to that, then good for you, but I wouldn't have my comrades and neighbors suffer for your ideology.

There are no short term gains.

Do you think the proletariat is better off now than in the 18th century? Liberal reformists, have done nothing but help preserve the capitalist state, by demanding slaves only get 10 lashings instead of 100, but in doing so, you are still promoting lashings. My question was not whether liberal reformists do a good job preventing the extra superfluous 90 lashings to the slave, but whether your actions as liberals prevent the slave from righteously rising up and beheading the slave master?

[JayBro47]

"...And right-wing conservatism, more popular than either of those in many places - the old-school regressive dinosaurs of the US republicans, the populist right of the National Front, United Russia or the UKIP, as well as their numerous ideological brethren all over Europe... I've no idea how you managed to miss that one!"

They're not really established though. They're so-called "anti-establishment" Euroscepticism. You have Protectionist-Types and Libertarian-Types in America against Corporate-Oligarchs, the Free-Traders, Globalists, NAFTA, Military-Industrial Complex etc.

The Establishment isn't Fascist. It's Neo-Liberalism, Social Democracy and Neo-Conservatism.

Alan Moore even said this, right or wrong.

"There are several fundamental differences between the film and the original source material. For example, the comic is set in the 1990s, while the film is set sometime between 2028 and 2038: Alan Moore's original story was created as a response to British Thatcherism in the early '80s and was set as a conflict between a fascist state and anarchism, while the film's story has been changed by the Wachowski Brothers to fit a modern political context. Alan Moore, however, charged that in doing so, the story has turned into an American-centric conflict between liberalism and neo-conservatism, and abandons the original anarchist-fascist themes. Moore states, "There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see. The fascism had been completely defanged. I mean, I think that any references to racial purity had been excised, whereas actually, fascists are quite big on racial purity."

Now of course we have the V for Vendetta Anonymous/Occupy Wall Street Types.

But the Neocons/Neo-Liberals in the USA are not in the same boat as Radical Neo-Nazis like Golden Dawn let's say.

[G4b3n]

There are no short term gains.

Do you think the proletariat is better off now than in the 18th century? Liberal reformists, have done nothing but help preserve the capitalist state, by demanding slaves only get 10 lashings instead of 100, but in doing so, you are still promoting lashings. My question was not whether liberal reformists do a good job preventing the extra superfluous 90 lashings to the slave, but whether your actions as liberals prevent the slave from righteously rising up and beheading the slave master?

I absolutely know the proletariat is better off now than it was in the 18th century, such is the nature of capitalist development. Can you remember the last time you worked a 14 hour work day in a damp factory as a child? No? Then thank the international labor movement.

When reform is one's ultimate goal, then sure, that argument from analogy of the slave and slave master is a decent one (but I personally detest the rhetoric because I don't like being called a slave so I don't call other people slaves). But you are disregarding labor history in its entirety if you are not seeing the progression and sometimes regression in gains, and yes they absolutely are gains, made by workers.

[Luís Henrique]

When reformist communists, social democrats or liberals in general, support programs like the minimum wage, capital gains taxes, welfare etc. are they actually supporting fascism and capitalism as a whole by making sure that the motivations for the social revolution are left obsolete? In other words, does reformist leftism guarantee that the workers just get bigger crumbs off the masters plate but never a good meal?

Would it make sense too support (atleast pay lip service in public too) the most reactionary fascist right winger that stands a chance at being elected in your country? (in america you would support the republicans but not necessarily the fascist party) in order to motivate the workers party to revolution?

Even though liberals support a lot of the values we believe in, are they in fact more harmful than the most belligerent fascist?

I suggest you read this post. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2578981&postcount=23)


Bourgeois democracy, of course, is the strongest and purest form of bourgeois power. And it is precisely by that - because it is the strongest and purest form of bourgeois power - it is the political form we must surpass and defeat, if there is any hope for overthrowing capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[Fire]

I hope I don't sound like a fool but I guess its tempting to me because revolution seems so far away and so hard to see revolution happening any time soon. So many people around me buy into anti-poor attitudes, let alone rejecting revolutionary sentiment. Information is so well controlled by the media.

There has got to be a way to do both, get some relief while working towards short term objectives. At least I hope there is. I am no politician though.

[Fire]

Regarding supporting fascist in the interest of accelerationism: besides working for the most terrible living conditions for people, many of whom will meet a grim death, at a much higher rate than in capitalism, if you managed to install a fascist state, it would most likely be overthrown for a liberal state, and you'd start all over again, trying to install a fascist state. I don't think fascist states have led to leftist revolution any more than liberal ones.

Yeah that's my other worry, if we let things get to bad, we might get a revolution, but it might be the wrong kind of revolution as people are manipulated into blaming immigrants, queer people, and people of color for what capitalism does.

[cyu]

it might be the wrong kind of revolution as people are manipulated
As long as "your side" has enough firepower to control the mass media, it will be "your side" doing the manipulating.

As mentioned earlier, I assume future historians will probably look back on the era of one-directional broadcast media (TV, radio, newspaper) as a new dark age of authoritarianism, perhaps eventually swept away by the multi-directional nature of the internet.

[Fire]

I guess maybe the answer for revolutionaries is to have the short term goal of getting a strong platform and taking back the narrative, stage events the media will have trouble ignoring, and be disruptive. That is still going to be heroically difficult as even the media already likes to derail discussions about bullshit like when the NSA leaks happened they talked about the hunt for Snowden rather than the substance of the revelations, same with Chelsea Manning. Or when occupy happened, the substance of the complaints were hardly examined, but at the very least they were looked at.

[willowtooth]

I absolutely know the proletariat is better off now than it was in the 18th century, such is the nature of capitalist development.not to put too fine of a point on it, but wouldn't the amish be considered barbaric communist? many people lived great lives before the 1600's many people living lives stretching well into their 100's, centuries before industrialization came along, what exactly do you claim is so great aout living in 2015 dont these same factories still exist?
Can you remember the last time you worked a 14 hour work day in a damp factory as a child? No? Then thank the international labor movement. the labor movement is reactionary, you only defend the policies of the capitalist by making life agreeable for the slave, min wage, pensions, safety standards, maternity leave etc


When reform is one's ultimate goal, then sure, that argument from analogy of the slave and slave master is a decent one thank you!!!!
(but I personally detest the rhetoric because I don't like being called a slave so I don't call other people slaves). you are a slave your ancestors were slaves your parents were slaves deal with it
But you are disregarding labor history in its entirety if you are not seeing the progression and sometimes regression in gains, and yes they absolutely are gains, made by workers.I'm not saying the efforts, and blood lost over the labor movement, was a bad thing im asking the question are they supporting the slave master by demanding that the slave master eats the same food we do? And basically forces him too lift the quality of our meals?

also to be more blunt are the reformists even worse than the fascists?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I guess maybe the answer for revolutionaries is to have the short term goal of getting a strong platform and taking back the narrative, stage events the media will have trouble ignoring, and be disruptive. That is still going to be heroically difficult as even the media already likes to derail discussions about bullshit like when the NSA leaks happened they talked about the hunt for Snowden rather than the substance of the revelations, same with Chelsea Manning. Or when occupy happened, the substance of the complaints were hardly examined, but at the very least they were looked at.

What makes you think that Revolutionary workers cannot get their own media?

[Carlos-Marcos]

When reformist communists, social democrats or liberals in general, support programs like the minimum wage

so you'd prefer for there not to be a minimum wage:confused:, sure , let me know how that works out for you......

[Comrade Jacob]

Not fascism. It helps capitalism but fascism is capitalism in decay and reforms are put in place in order so it doesn't decay.

[cyu]

fascism is capitalism in decay and reforms are put in place in order so it doesn't decay

Come to think of it, a lot of the things done by the ruling class do seem to have a Plan A and Plan B nature to them...