Who will hurt us more?

[Lost In Translation]

This thread is pretty self-explanatory. I, still a noob at leftist affairs, have been looking around Revleft. Some threads talk of Fascists and how to deal with them. Others talk of capitalists and their corrupt way of controlling the world. My question is: Who will hurt the leftists more?

I'm sorry if this question seems juvenile, and would really appreciate an answer from fellow comrades.

[Jazzratt]

Capitalists at the minute, we aren't currently in a position where capitalism is collapsing so the fascists are a manageable threat (and we intend to keep it that way by dealing with them).

[dirtycommiebastard]

Capitalists at the minute, we aren't currently in a position where capitalism is collapsing so the fascists are a manageable threat (and we intend to keep it that way by dealing with them).

What fascists?

You mean gangs of white supremacists who 'heil' and uphold Nazism, while creating personality cults around Hitler. They aren't fascists, just social-trash who really have no understanding of the class relations in fascism or how it comes to power. Though, individually they may join a fascist movement when it arises.

Here is a link to a post I made about neo-nazis and boneheads and the difference between them and fascism. http://www.revleft.com/vb/horrible-t82553/index.html?t=82553

To answer the above question. The ruling class is our enemy. Some capitalists who are more conscious will go to greater lengths than others to defend their interests. (Fascism) We aren't at that point yet. The bourgeois-state seems to be doing just a fine job containing social resistance now. So to reiterate, the enemy is the capitalist class, and the advanced layers will be the ones who hurt us, They're methods may be various, but it is them who will be pulling the strings.

[F9]

i tend to agree with the above's especially jazzratts position,but i see the question a little bit different i think.
In what system would hurt us more between fascists have the "control" of the "system" and capitalists have it i feel what fascist-ruling would hurt us more.If thats the question meaning thats my answer, if its not i agree with jazzratt.

Fuserg9:star:

[piet11111]

the thing that is really hurting the left is the complete lack of a convincing workers party in many western country's.

most leftist party's are rightfully viewed as being state collaborators that are just as likely to screw over the people as the other party's.

the capitalists and the fash can only dream of doing the same damage to the left as the left is doing to itself.

[OI OI OI]

A fascist government will hurt us more than a bourgeois democratic government will if that is your question.
But a fascist government is the last resort of capitalists in order to save private property. So essentialy a fascist government is created by capitalism. So your question reduces itself to a chicken or egg question.

As about capitalists and fascists during bourgeois democracy lets see. The fascist movement appears in periods of intense class struggle. Fascists are armies of thugs , which are composed by the most backwards layers of the proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. Due to that reason they come to power only when workers fail to make a revolution. And only with the help of the bourgeoisie. But this is only in a revolutionary situation.
In a situation like this (in North America and Western Europe) the capitalists are more dangerous than the fascists. This is because they exploit us , they make imperialist wars, they have monopolies that control the prices of the market and that is creating world wide misery and hunger. The fascists are only social-trash as pointed out by dirtycommiebastard . They are not dangerous for the workers for now.

So to determine who is more dangerous for the workers we have to examine the objective conditions first. Now the capitalists are more harmful in a revolutionary situation it is the fascists.

[Chapter 24]

Capitalism in its current form is a much greater threat to leftism and leftists than fascism. I mean, how relevant is fascism in the modern world? Certainly neo-Nazis committing racist attacks such as in Russia are forces to be stopped. But what serious movement advocating and drawing in members for fascism is there?

[Pogue]

Capitalism in its current form is a much greater threat to leftism and leftists than fascism. I mean, how relevant is fascism in the modern world? Certainly neo-Nazis committing racist attacks such as in Russia are forces to be stopped. But what serious movement advocating and drawing in members for fascism is there?

The Front National in France, the BNP in Britain, the National Front in Britain, other groups filling the same role as them across Europe. They're growing, they're a threat, they need to be stopped.

[Pogue]

And why are people still holding the view that fascism comes out of capitalism? It arrises seperately of it, it's always been around, it needs to be fought by a socialist alternative. It gathers strength due to capitalist assaults on the poor mixed with fear and ignorance and anger. The clear way to stop it is a united socialist alternative - any other theory in regards to it seems irrelevant in this day and age.

*edit* I mean its not a stage/form of capitalism but its influenced by it, and capitalism often causes its growth

[Dean]

What fascists?

You mean gangs of white supremacists who 'heil' and uphold Nazism, while creating personality cults around Hitler. They aren't fascists, just social-trash who really have no understanding of the class relations in fascism or how it comes to power.

Human beings can be evil, ill-informed, stupid, immoral... but never trash.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Human beings can be evil, ill-informed, stupid, immoral... but never trash.
I don't buy that hippy liberalism.

They are trash, like a social refuse.

They are filth that harbour and spread social disease.

Why are you defending neo-nazis and white supremacists?

[turquino]

The fascists are a far greater threat to leftists than the capitalists. If you only look for fascism where there are swastikas and sieg heils, then you might be fooled into thinking that fascism is a fairly inconsequential movement. But i think fascism is on the upsurge, and it many areas it has replaced the left as the dominant opposition and critic of international capitalism. And it's not just a european/american thing either. Pan-islamic fascism has blossomed from the collapse of secular Arab nationalism in the Middle East, and the world's largest fascist movement today may in fact be in India.

I recommend reading the Shock of Recognition:http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/fascism/shock.html to clear up some old misconceptions about the enemy

[Dros]

Let's be clear: fascists are capitalists.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well put, drosera.

Having had a run in with neo-Nazis online multiple times, and knowing the son of Paul Fromm, a prominent Canadian White Supremacist, I can unfortunately say that they are a growing, albeit still fringe, threat. The BNP, for instance, has made a disturbing level of political gains for this day and age.

If by fascists you mean the neo-Nazis and other white supremacist fringe groups, then despite their gains I wouldn't worry too much. Even the bourgeois knows that such people are scum, although there are an unfortunate number of people who believe that "Communism has killed more".

The Capitalist ruling class is definitely a much greater threat. Although they may seem less extreme at face value since you don't turn on the news and see the bourgeois out at rallies yelling "Sieg Heil!" and waving Nazi flags, they represent an extreme threat in perhaps a less outspoken and more calculated manner.

As terrible as neo-Nazis are, they aren't the ones currently living off of the workers' labour. Neo-Nazis aren't the ones providing minimal benefits to workers for the labour that they perform for hours on end. Neo-Nazis aren't the ones in a position to deny people the basic necessities and to take so much for themselves because they happened to be born into a rich family.

I could drag this on but it would probably suffice to say that Capitalists are the major threat, despite the apparent growth of racist movements. Besides all that, neither neo-Nazis nor the ruling class want a system that truly benefits all workers.

[trivas7]

the thing that is really hurting the left is the complete lack of a convincing workers party in many western country's.

The political system is rigged in the USA by both major parties. I hold their capitalist backers responsible.

[trivas7]

The Front National in France, the BNP in Britain, the National Front in Britain, other groups filling the same role as them across Europe. They're growing, they're a threat, they need to be stopped.
Are these fascist parties that hide under cover of nationalism, anti-Islamic, anti-immigration, etc?

[trivas7]

I don't buy that hippy liberalism.

They are trash, like a social refuse.

They are filth that harbour and spread social disease.

I agree with Dean. Human beings are not vermin and ought not to be thought as such.

[dirtycommiebastard]

I agree with Dean.
Excellent.


Human beings are not vermin and ought not to be thought as such.

I never once used the word vermin.

I said 'social-refuse'. Implying they are the trash of society. And they are some of the most dangerous trash as well. They will be the ones, along with the lumpenproletariat who join ranks with fascist movements to kill workers.

You should remember that next time you decide to stick up for the neo-nazis and white supremacists.

[trivas7]

I never once used the word vermin.

No, you just compared human beings to vermin:


They are filth that harbour and spread social disease.



You should remember that next time you decide to stick up for the neo-nazis and white supremacists.
Where did I stick up for neo-nazis and white supremacists?

[dirtycommiebastard]

Where did I stick up for neo-nazis and white supremacists?

Here;


I agree with Dean. Human beings are not vermin and ought not to be thought as such.

Because I said white-supremacists and neo-nazis were social trash.

If you want to have a real debate and not swamp me in petit-bourgeois liberalism, thats fine. Otherwise, I'm not arguing over whether it is appropriate or not to call white-supremacists and neo-nazis trash.

[xAtlasx]

Currently, Fascism is a spent force in world politics. A Fascist uprising would be difficult to achieve with Fascism's history of racism and die hard corporatism.

Capitialism is the far more dangerous threat simply because they are in control of modern society. Capitalist concepts have infected the state like a virus. Nealry every nation-state in the world pays lip-ervice to capitalism or capitalist ideas, and whoever has control of the massess is really in control.:mad:

[rosa-rl]

Let's be clear: fascists are capitalists.

While fascists do support capitalism, not all - or even nearly all capitalist are fascists. The term fascist is overused on 'the left' pretty much as the term 'communist' gets overused by the far right that labels all liberals as communists.

Also, capitalist are no longer 'at the top' and have not been in a while. Lenin talks about the predominance of banking capital over capitalism to result in imperialism (although this is a stage of capitalism).

Capitalist-imperialism, now under the name 'Globalization' is the greatest threat to humanity - wars, exploitation, displacement of peoples, damage to the environment, abusive meat farming and use of steroids in meats and on and on and on.

Pure capitalism btw has possibly never existed.

[Wanted Man]

We currently live in a capitalist society. Capitalism is currently hurting 'us' (not just people on RevLeft, but the proletariat as a whole) by means of exploitation, wage slavery, alienation, focus on short-term profit, etc. So it's not really a question of who 'will' hurt us more.

Then there are neo-nazis. In some countries, they have a strong enough presence to mount ongoing offences against minorities and political opponents. They usually spread either strasserite national "socialism" (anti-semitic, but still claiming to be anti-capitalist and pro-socialist), or more classical fascism. Anti-fascist action is important to keep them at bay, but it must work to create a broad basis against them. Some people mistakenly denounce all anti-fascist action as "white men in black clothes trying to start riots with neo-nazis who are not really a threat". This tendency should be criticised, but we should not turn a blind eye to the fact that anti-fascists do think of ways to broaden the struggle. People who think they know better, should participate in anti-fascism and lead by example, instead of making reactionary denunciations from the sidelines.

Finally, there is a 'new' fascism growing in Europe. Its backgrounds differ. The Flemish Bloc of Belgium, for example, originally glorified (and still does it somewhat half-hearted) Flemish nazi collaborators, while its events tend to be guarded by the openly fascist group Voorpost. But the Party for Freedom (Netherlands) comes from a right-wing split from the mainstream liberal/conservative VVD party. The new fascism is dressed in a neat suit and aims for parliamentary representation. Its parole is increasingly including a fanatical support for Israel, strong anti-immigration and a self-proclaimed support for freedom of speech. In practice, the latter means to support racist and anti-immigrant incitement, while also supporting a ban on the Quran, a reaffirmation of national pride*, etc.

This new type draws strength from real or imagined demonisation and persecution by 'the media', 'the muslims', 'the left', 'the so-called anti-fascists trying to shut down free speech', 'the multi-culturalists in government', etc. In the Netherlands, it receives financial support from various sectors. For example, Rita Verdonk's "Proud of the Netherlands" movement is tight with the real estate mafia, and recent squabbles within her movement have mostly been related to money (or, more specifically: fraud). This is nothing new, the exact same thing happened with Pim Fortuyn's movement.

The left-wing movement is still struggling with how to deal with this new form of fascism. Recent publications have more strongly exposed Wilders' economic plans (which basically entail welfare-destructive free-market fundamentalism), but action against it still needs to grow. For example, a few months ago, there was a demonstration that was only attended by a few hundred people. All sorts of figures spoke, not just activists, but also 'multi-cultural' establishment figures, like the liberal/conservative VVD politician Dijkstal. Antifas organised an earlier, separate demonstration because they were angry about the lack of denunciation of racist government policy** at the official demo. The new fascism also gets ammo from the lack of real disassociation from blatantly homophobic, anti-semitic and fundamentalist figures who call themselves imams and claim to represent large portions of muslims.

*Like Rita Verdonk, who, in her first speech of her new party, made claims to the extent of: "They are building slavery monuments to make us look like the bad guys."
**This does not fall under fascism, but is unfortunately very often ignored by people who do strongly oppose Wilders' racist proposals. It is a fact that thousands of 'illegal' immigrants are constantly victimised by a massive deportation machine that easily recalls associations with WWII. It is one of the most horrible phenomena of Dutch society at this very moment, but is systematically ignored or downplayed by the media.

[Decolonize The Left]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1184133#post1184133)
Human beings can be evil, ill-informed, stupid, immoral... but never trash.

I don't buy that hippy liberalism.

They are trash, like a social refuse.

They are filth that harbour and spread social disease.

Why are you defending neo-nazis and white supremacists?

If I may speak for another, it appears as though Dean was merely pointing out that your over-simplification of a group of people to refuse can be harmful to the reality of the situation. To objectify people is to deny them their humanity within your mind, and this will inevitably lead you to abuse them. And given that you are someone who supports the freedom of all peoples (I take this from your allusion to communism in your name), this would run counter to your values making you hypocritical and self-destructive.

Or perhaps Dean was just making a semantic point, I don't know.

- August

[dirtycommiebastard]

If I may speak for another, it appears as though Dean was merely pointing out that your over-simplification of a group of people to refuse can be harmful to the reality of the situation.I don't think you understand the 'reality of the situation'.



To objectify people is to deny them their humanity within your mind, and this will inevitably lead you to abuse them.Did I mention they are neo-nazis!?




And given that you are someone who supports the freedom of all peoples (I take this from your allusion to communism in your name), this would run counter to your values making you hypocritical and self-destructive. I support the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the liberties of white-supremacists. This makes me a Marxist, and not a liberal who believes in 'people power'.

Has anyone considered changing the name of this site to LiberalLeft.com?:lol:

It seems revolutionary has lost its meaning...

[Dicktator]

the thing that is really hurting the left is the complete lack of a convincing workers party in many western country's...

Yep, that!

I like the phrase "convincing workers party", it can cover all of the sects and cults and three-men and a dog orgs floating around out there. :)

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't think you understand the 'reality of the situation'.

Belittling me with your patronizing tone is not very becoming.


Did I mention they are neo-nazis!?

You did, this changes nothing - they are human beings like yourself.


I support the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the liberties of white-supremacists. This makes me a Marxist, and not a liberal who believes in 'people power'.

Has anyone considered changing the name of this site to LiberalLeft.com?:lol:

It seems revolutionary has lost its meaning...

Hardy har har... just because others do not completely share your views (while we may share a great many) doesn't give you the right to degrade them with your slander. Grow up.

Since you are so keen on the 'reality of the situation,' and quite to declare yourself a revolutionary and a Marxist - consider the following:
1) Following any sort of revolution, and the dissolving of the classes, there can be no "proletariat" as that class would no longer exist. Hence there can be no "dictatorship of the proletariat" as this is meaningless within the context of a post-revolutionary territory.
2) You say you're a revolutionary who fights against oppression, and yet you want to oppress a group of people... I'm sure at this point you will argue how different these people are (capitalists and proletarians), I understand this argument but oppression is oppression... it doesn't matter who's doing the beating and who's under the whip.
3) You may not support the liberties of white-supremacists, but these are the very same liberties you use all the time. Last I checked, freedom was just that - freedom. Not freedom for you because you like and agree with yourself more than others.

- August

[dirtycommiebastard]

Belittling me with your patronizing tone is not very becoming. I never tried to imply that I was becoming.


You did, this changes nothing - they are human beings like yourself. It changes plenty. You're just stuck in a world of idealism where everyone should be treated fairly. There is no fair. Fortunately, the proletariat will be on the better end of this deal, and not the counter-revolutionary reactionaries and murderes.


Hardy har har... just because others do not completely share your views (while we may share a great many) doesn't give you the right to degrade them with your slander.It's not slander, its my opinion. And my opinion happens to correspond with revolutionary Marxism and not petit-bourgeois liberalism. By the way, what are your views?


Grow up. If anyone needs to grow up, its the idealist in you.


1) Following any sort of revolution, and the dissolving of the classes, there can be no "proletariat" as that class would no longer exist. Hence there can be no "dictatorship of the proletariat" as this is meaningless within the context of a post-revolutionary territory.I wasn't talking about post revolution. Dictatorship of the proletariat is when the working class is in power and slowly expropriating the capitalists.


2) You say you're a revolutionary who fights against oppression, and yet you want to oppress a group of people...You're putting words in my mouth buddy.
I never said I wanted to fight 'opression' in general. I'm a Marxist so my aim is to the liberation of the working class from capitalist exploitation by means of 'violent seizure of power' from the ruling class. Even if that means suppression of capitalists during revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


I'm sure at this point you will argue how different these people are (capitalists and proletarians), I understand this argument but oppression is oppression... it doesn't matter who's doing the beating and who's under the whip. And this is why I think you're a PB Liberal. And I wasn't even talking about capitalists specifically, I was spaking about white-supremacists and neo-nazis, and of course eventually fascists if it ever got to that point.


3) You may not support the liberties of white-supremacists, but these are the very same liberties you use all the time. Last I checked, freedom was just that - freedom. Not freedom for you because you like and agree with yourself more than others. Last time I checked, I wasn't violently assaulting people of other ethnic background, either physically and verbally, and calling for their elimination. Nor was I defending capitalist exploitation of the working class. So to clarify, you think these people should have their liberties while they clearly infringe on those of others?

By the way, what are your views on the lumpen-proletariat, from your 'Marxist' perspective, and their role in revolution. Marx refers to them as 'the refuse of all classes', because that is what they are. Whether you think its 'politically' incorrect to say that, is up to your own liberal discretion, but objectively speaking, that is the truth. This is a group of people most susceptible to side with the fascists, because of their economic condition, they are the most vulnerable to be bought off.